Meet the Man

Good Moaning

On previous posts we have seen how Their Nemesis has been making extravagant claims with regards to his experience as a debt advisor. In fact, he’s been known to have said he has over 45 years experience. There is no way to know whether this is true or not, or is there? Prior to his glitzy debut on Legal Beagles, he was quite well known on another forum, the Consumer Action Group or CAG. He may well have told the Beagles that he was there as their resident debt advisor but his early posts paint a totally different picture.

There is nothing wrong with asking for advice  and nor does anyone know all there is to know about a subject. It is also possible to learn quite a lot in five or six years, in fact, your average degree takes just half that time. However, when someone claims to have over 40 years experience as debt advisors, you wonder WHY they would be posting on forums asking for advice on rather basic points. If he was helping people deal with their debts all these years, WHY would he need to go and post on CAG asking for advice dealing with his own family’s debt issues?

Clueless

Here is one of his early CAG posts, asking about a Welcome credit agreement. It also shows that, as a debt advisor, he did a rather poor job with his own nearest and dearest.

Briggy Welcome Advice

 Was he licensed?

Nearly a month earlier, he had posted the following.

Briggy debt advisor

Note the reference to contacting creditors on behalf of people he was trying to help. This raises the question of whether he held a Consumer Credit License with the OFT at the time, to provide debt counselling services. One thing is to post up on forums, or to informally advice your own family and friends, another is to contact creditors on other people’s behalf. In fact, that’s likely to go beyond just debt counselling and into debt adjusting territory.

Call the police!

As for reporting them to the police, since when is doing credit searches a criminal offence? Picture this old Army Dog walking into his local police station, saying he’s there to report a crime, then going on to say that Lowell and McKenzie Hall have been harassing him. The police would probable send him over to the CAB to get advice with his debts before he can even say all they’ve done is search his credit files.

That goes to show how much he knew about not just dealing with debt but the law in general. For a start, the difference between civil and criminal matters seems totally lost on him. There have been cases where the debtor has won in court on the basis of having been subjected to harassment from creditors, but this was a civil action and the remedy was damages, not a criminal prosecution involving the police. The debtors in question received 100s of phone calls, which intrude into your daily life.

Defamation, libel and county courts

His extensive legal knowledge becomes obvious on his next post, where he has a senior moment:

Briggy defamation

First it’s harassment and a matter for the police, then it’s defamation and libel with the county court. His argument is that they did a search for certain keywords. So if someone googles “child porn”, does that mean Google can take action for defamation and libel, because they can be seen to be involved in an illegal activity as a result of this search? Get real!

What is defamation?

Here we have a rather simple definition. The article was updated in 2008 and would have been relevant at the time the post above was made in 2010.

Any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or “published,” may well be a defamatory statement and can give rise to an action for either libel or slander in English law.

out-law.com

Note the words “communicated or published”. Clearly a credit search is not communicated or published.

The same web page goes on to provide a definition of publication:

Publication, for the purposes of defamation, requires communication to a third person. That third person must actually become aware of the defamatory material.

out-law.com

If no third person knew that Briggy was being suspected of having outstanding debts, then there was no publication, therefore no defamation.

It should be noted that the above article pre-dates the Defamation Act 2013 but we are dealing with posts made back in 2010.

Which court?

For someone who claims to be very clued up on legal issues, he wasn’t aware that defamation claims cannot be brought in the county court.

The County Courts Act 1984 says the following:

(2)A county court shall not, except as in this Act provided, have jurisdiction to hear and determine—

(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b)any action in which the title to any toll, fair, market or franchise is in question; or

(c)any action for libel of slander.

County Courts Act 1984

As can be seen, this would also have been the case back in 2010.

Whose advice is it anyway?

He then goes on to write his own “threatogram” saying he’s “taken advice”. What sort of advice was that, where they told him to ask for £5k and neglected to mention the lack of jurisdiction of the County Court? What financial loss?

Briggy threatogram

What about the protocols?

If he had any legal knowledge himself or had really sought advice, he would have been told that he would have to write a proper letter of claim in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation. The actual wording of the protocol may have changed since 2010 but the protocol itself has been in force since 2000.

What has been uncovered so far

So far, we’ve seen that:

  1. He claimed to have been contacting creditors on behalf of other people, yet he didn’t appear to be licensed by the OFT. Surely if he was, he would have bragged about it, and it wasn’t that hard to obtain a CCL from the OFT, another poster on CAG and a number of other forums had one, despite having CCJs of his own as well as mental health issues.
  2. Despite his claims of helping people with their debts, he didn’t seem to have a clue about dealing with his own family’s debts and was posting for advice on CAG.
  3. He lacked a basic understanding of the law, starting with the difference between civil and criminal issues.
  4. He lacked a basic understanding of the court system and procedural law.

Let’s not forget that, back then, he would already have had nearly 40 years’ worth of debt advice under his belt, if his claims are to be believed.

Briggy bragging

Later on he starts to brag about having been “paid”, although he doesn’t say how much. We all know if he’d had as much as £1,000, let alone £5,000, he’d have posted about it, so we can only assume he may have got $50 or thereabouts to shut him up. Later on, he puts up the post below:

Briggy Bragging

Note he says he’s got “expert contacts to draw on”. If so, WHY was he posting on CAG, asking for help? WHY didn’t he go and approach his expert contacts to start with? He could have done so and then just posted up a summary of the results on CAG.

The final paragraph says he had what could be called a combined net gain of £31,000 since joining CAG. This was as at July 20th 2010, he joined CAG on May 30th 2010. This must be one for the Guinness Book of Records! In less than two months, he manged to get that much money written off or reclaimed! Anyone who’s attempted a reclaim will know the process takes much longer and, even when you succeed in having a debt written off, it doesn’t happen overnight either.

Briggy1Profile

Extravagant claims

On his CAG profile, he claimed to have a PhD and a law degree! How are we to believe such claims when even a first year law student would know the following:

  1. That credit searches are not harassment nor a matter for the police.
  2. That defamation requires defamatory statements to be communicated.
  3. That County Courts have no jurisdiction over defamation claims.
  4. That there is a pre-action protocol for defamation claims.

Born again Brig

At some point during the course of that thread, Brigadier 1JCS “died” (shot down in flames perhaps?) and Brigadier2JCS was born, his date of birth being the 15th of August 2010. This is rather odd, since there isn’t any significant change in usernames and anyone would recognise him as the same poster. What’s interesting is that the new profile doesn’t make any of the claims he made during Briggy’s first and rather short, life on CAG.

Spot the difference

Below is the profile of the New Brig born in August 2010 seen against the Old Brig.

Briggy2Profile

Briggy1Profile

Note how he’s lost all his lustre. He is now only semi-retired and busier than ever, he no longer mentions the MoD or his PhD and LLB. Most interesting, isn’t it?

 

18 Comments

  1. Jon says:

    I have been saying this for a very very long time and was probably the main reason I was banned from LB –

    Just a few other points that I have picked up
    he claims to be 71 having had his 70th Birthday last year and was all over LB

    He claims to be a veteran of the 6 days war which would have made him 22 then so maybe he had time to get a degree however I imagine he must have been living in Israel at the time and maybe doing his National Service? I mean, the war lasted so long I can see him having plenty of time to get a flight , enlist, be trained and take part in action.

    The whole part of him starting off in 2009 under a slightly different name asking for help for his daughter I believe , I have the post somewhere yet soon having lots of experience and contacts ( could they have been the likes of his buddy DX?) .

    Another really strange thing is how he regularly posted saying that it was impossible to wriggle out of debt by looking for paperwork errors in his cag days – remember he was an expert – and now, what is he doing? Trying to defeat court claims with perfectly legitimate demands to see paperwork . I remember him saying that as long as they could prove you used the card/loan etc that was enough, maybe almost enough for post 2007 but nothing like enough for pre 2007 even if your name was Alison F

    I rest my case m’lud

  2. Agent 99 says:

    He claims to be a veteran of the 6 days war which would have made him 22 then so maybe he had time to get a degree

    Did he also have time to get a PhD as claimed on his Brigadier1JCS profile? He may have got a degree, but even *if* he had a law degree, it would be pretty useless if that was in the ’60s and he didn’t keep up with the changes. There’s a good deal of ancient case law still kicking around but most of today’s legislation was made after the ’60s. The CPRs only date back to the late ’90s. If he studied law in Israel, he wouldn’t have learned much about English law.

    The whole part of him starting off in 2009 under a slightly different name asking for help for his daughter I believe , I have the post somewhere

    You are probably referring to this post here: http://www.legalallsorts.co.uk/a-tale-of-two-dangers/#comment-1806

    he regularly posted saying that it was impossible to wriggle out of debt by looking for paperwork errors in his cag days – remember he was an expert – and now, what is he doing? Trying to defeat court claims with perfectly legitimate demands to see paperwork . I remember him saying that as long as they could prove you used the card/loan etc that was enough,

    He went through that stage in 2011/2012, when he joined DX in the anti debt avoidance rally on CAG. LB is full of people defending claims on the basis that these days most claims for CCA regulated debts are issued by debt purchasers who haven’t got any paperwork, unlike the days when the banks themselves issued claims. That means he had to jump on the unenforceability bandwagon to find his niche there. Being banned from CAG would have left him so desperate for a new home in the foral world, he’d probably had joined the FMOTL if they were willing to have him, and he’d be telling everyone to send three letters instead of two.

    maybe almost enough for post 2007 but nothing like enough for pre 2007

    ss77/79 of the CCA are still very much alive and well as is CPR 27.4(3)(a)(i). They still shouldn’t be able to obtain judgment without producing the documents, yet they did, on this occasion, thanks to the lack of suitable guidance from Nemesis himself: OP loses in court and gets CCJ.

  3. jon says:

    Hi
    The profile in question is brigjacj .Join date 12th Nov 2009, last post 29th May 2010

    Then we get Brigadier 1jcs join date 30th may 2010

    Nothing wrong in signing up under different names, its easy to delete history and maybe forget your password and not be able to access your email address

  4. Jon says:

    The original name was Brigjacj started Nov 2009 last post 29th May 2010. Brigadier 1cjs first post 30th May 2010

  5. Jon says:

    Interesting little snippet gleaned today that shows Nemesis up as a liar one way or another

    On a thread he claims to have qualified in pharmacy in 1966 and went on to do a PhD. Now the inference is that the PhD was in pharmacy or related subject so not in military law as suggested on a cag profile.

    He must have been a very busy boy to have done a degree in pharmacy by age 21, a PhD and a LLB as well as living in Israel and doing military service in the 6 days war . How the hell he had time to get married, father children and have 40 years experience in debt advice is beyond me

  6. BillK says:

    Jon – has he mentioned that he was married with kids ? I ask this, as I have my doubts that he was capable of such relationships.

    • Agent 99 says:

      Jon will probably fill you in tomorrow but, if you look at his CAG posts made under his four AEs, you’ll find he mentions a son and a daughter, both of whom were in debt. This is one of them posts where he talks about his son:

      Here he mentions his daughter:

      Then there is this LB thread started by his grandson to tell the site that his grandad had been a little unwell: Nem. There’s a reference to it here: http://www.legalallsorts.co.uk/a-tale-of-two-dangers/#comment-1814

  7. Jon says:

    Bill
    I am aware that he has at least a son and daughter and grandchildren. I believe he also has a great grandson , these are based on various posts he has made? One of his grandchildren is ‘exceptionally bright’ of course don’t all grandparents think that?

    I know he has a grandson because when I accused him of being homophobic he said how could he be when one of his grandsons was gay. It sound a bit like I can’t be racist as I have black friends , he’ll I know gay people who are homophobic

    He has also mentioned his wife has some serious health problems, I assume one of them is being married to him.

    • Agent 99 says:

      It is often said that people’s CVs should only contain information that’s relevant to the role, and that it should exclude anything to do with religion, race or sexual orientation because none of that is relevant to any role (except, perhaps if you want to be a Vicar or a Rabbi). Somehow, he always finds reasons to bring up the subject of his religion and military career, none of which are of any relevance to the subjects dealt with on LB. No doubt he expects respect and admiration, something he can’t expect to get from the remaining 99.99% of his posts.

      Having a gay grandson doesn’t mean anything, he has no control over his grandson’s sexuality. It would be the same as if said grandson married a Muslim, he’d have no say in the matter and it doesn’t mean he’s over the moon about it, only you can’t “divorce” your own family.

  8. BillK says:

    Thanks for those ‘affirmations’, guys. However, considering his proven ‘Walter Mitty’ tendencies, I must take all that he says about himself with a large pinch of salt. As Agent99 pointed out – he could just be a juvenile twerp running amok in the forums and posing as a 70-year old senile twerp !!!
    But of course that notion would clash with the Barely Legal Beagles’ murderous attitude toward anyone who even dares to fart in his esteemed presence. So unless the LB crew really are as thick as they are successfully making out to be these days – there is something else about him that needs protecting at all costs !

    I find it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming him to be the perfectly faultless, tolerant and loving grandparent he goes to great lengths to insist that he is by using the various talents, faults and problems of his entire extended family to demonstrate this. His forum behaviour seems to belie all of this, and “Methinks he protesteth too much.”

    • Agent 99 says:

      Nemesis is not the first Walter Mitty to roam the kennels. The previous one lived in the kennels for five years, under a few different usernames, and caused endless trouble and strife on the forum. As with Nemesis, they thought he was the bee’s knees and banned everyone who questioned his advice, presence and influence. Learning lessons is clearly not what the Beagles do best, and they are too stubborn to admit they were wrong, so just carry on making the same mistakes.

      The robotic stock responses he gave here: Unbelievably useless response this morning could well be down to his teenage grandson jumping on granpa’s PC which is probably always logged in (he’s not got a life elsewhere), and copying from his previous posts or the Word document he must keep open in the background at all times, with his preset, stock responses. In a way, that would be best case scenario, because it that was actually posted up by Nemesis, then the Beagles really are in more trouble than we all thought they were, with him on board.

      It’s also very likely they will keep him on his high pedestal for as long as he is being discussed on here, just so as not to give in. Isn’t it ironic that our presence here should also be his life assurance policy on Legal Beagles?

  9. Jon says:

    I actually feel I should sign up just to show him up and save a poor poster from false hope. The case of the ccj seems to me that they are going back to court to enforce every 6 years just to keep it live. Maybe the op changes jobs frequently I don’t know.

    On a recent post he claimed he had an argument with his GP after a receptionist stopped one of his prescriptions because he has two different doses of the same drug for two different conditions. I find it hard to believe a receptionist should think they had that power. I do know that the drug amitriptyline can be used as both an anti depressant and for nerve pain . It is also used for bed wetting. As you say though, there are so very many lies told it is hard to tell the difference

    Something that I find odd, he and his wife use separate surgeries for their GP. Quite possible if this is maybe a 2nd marriage but when I was married we would never have had separate surgeries, after all you lifestyle is important in treating your health.

    • Agent 99 says:

      actually feel I should sign up just to show him up and save a poor poster from false hope.

      Don’t bother, posts that showed him wrong on the thread in question, were removed overnight, only those posted by legal pros were allowed to stay, the Beagles could hardly go as far as to remove posts made by the pros or they may just leave the kennels. No doubt you would also get instant membership of the growing Ban Club if you did.

      The case of the ccj seems to me that they are going back to court to enforce every 6 years just to keep it live. Maybe the op changes jobs frequently I don’t know.

      There is no need to keep CCJs alive, the six years are only significant when the judgment creditor has not made an attempt to enforce the judgment in the first six years, then the courts are not likely to allow them to enforce. An AoE order is a means of enforcement and it looks like one was obtained in 2009. There’s a lot more to AoE orders and the posts that got removed referred to those issues. For example, it’s mandatory to return the N56 you receive from the court when a creditor applies for the AoE order, and so is informing the court of any changes in circumstances such as losing your job or changing jobs. There is also a limit to how much money can be deducted, etc. All that was addressed on posts that the Beagles saw fit to remove. If that doesn’t show that they put their egos and their Nemesis above everything else, what does?

      On a recent post he claimed he had an argument with his GP after a receptionist stopped one of his prescriptions because he has two different doses of the same drug for two different conditions. I find it hard to believe a receptionist should think they had that power. I do know that the drug amitriptyline can be used as both an anti depressant and for nerve pain . It is also used for bed wetting. As you say though, there are so very many lies told it is hard to tell the difference

      It’s quite obvious that he makes them up as he goes along. If anyone had the time to trawl through his thousands on posts on CAG and LB, they would, no doubt, uncover lots of inconsistencies in the stories he’s told. As they say, a good liar should have a very good memory and, sadly, that’s not the case here.

  10. BillK says:

    Well, that is a strong possibility, isn’t it Agent99 ? Knowing the Beagles as we have come to know them over the years, their inability to take advice themselves, or to learn from their own history would indeed dictate that they cannot bear to admit that Nem is destroying their forum. Cutting off their own noses to spite their faces in this way by keeping him on then compounds his own demolition job – because they are giving him full backing and free rein to ruin other people who come to Legal Beagles for what they believe is good advice.

    They choose to let the ship sink, rather than admit that they are incapable of steering it after it has already hit an iceberg.

    http://www.nullrefer.com/?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCEfqj9pDAI

    • Agent 99 says:

      Knowing the Beagles as we have come to know them over the years, their inability to take advice themselves, or to learn from their own history would indeed dictate that they cannot bear to admit that Nem is destroying their forum. Cutting off their own noses to spite their faces in this way by keeping him on then compounds his own demolition job – because they are giving him full backing and free rein –

      As posted above, they have now resorted to removing posts that showed him wrong, even when they provided a wealth of useful and relevant info for the OP. It’s either stubbornness taken to the extreme or else there’s a hidden agenda. He may have something on them or he may be a not-so-silent partner in their little bu$ine$$ venture. It’s hard to find any other logical explanation for that behaviour, but then they did the same thing with Mr Beagle the Mad Dog.

  11. BillK says:

    Well, that is a strong possibility, isn’t it Agent99 ? Knowing the Beagles as we have come to know them over the years, their inability to take advice themselves, or to learn from their own history would indeed dictate that they cannot bear to admit that Nem is destroying their forum. Cutting off their own noses to spite their faces in this way by keeping him on then compounds his own demolition job – because they are giving him full backing and free rein to ruin other people who come to Legal Beagles for what they believe is good advice.

    They choose to let the ship sink, rather than admit that they are incapable of steering it – even after it has already hit an iceberg.

    http://www.nullrefer.com/?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCEfqj9pDAI

  12. Jon says:

    Well I should think we will see now more of him on that thread, two experienced people have now swooped in, one being a lawyer, the other quite rightfully picking up the point that if this is the debt that a ccj has already been obtained for, a s77 request is about as much use as a chocolate teapot or a Ham sandwich chez Nemesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *