FIGGIN So about that being Homeless Phil.... (new info). - Yea you're going to want to read this.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I was only right because I knew from the start that anything ADF claims isn't right.

Including the claim that he is funny.
 
So, Phil wasn't homeless after all, yet he still took advantage of free services. That's on par with raiding a drop-off bin of food donated for the hungry. I doubt even Chris would stoop that low.

I wonder if any Portland agents are putting the word out that Phil isn't legit homeless so that shelters and other agencies will know that he's a fraud.
 
Totem Sanic said:
So, Phil wasn't homeless after all, yet he still took advantage of free services. That's on par with raiding a drop-off bin of food donated for the hungry. I doubt even Chris would stoop that low.

I wonder if any Portland agents are putting the word out that Phil isn't legit homeless so that shelters and other agencies will know that he's a fraud.
Click to expand...
Phil already has been the subject of warnings so no worries. He was on their radars anyway because of the Skarlett incident

That is the"social embargo" he loves to whine about. He mistreated a trans couple who gives him shelter and blamed them for being angry about it.

The entire incident is just pure weapons grade cringe
 
It's not often that I wish the Phil subforum was public again, but I would dearly love to see him reacting to this discovery.
 
4Macie said:
So Phil wasn't homeless and still got an actual woman kicked out of a homeless shelter?

Or can we claim that's false too?
Click to expand...

Phil was homeless at some point that's a fact
But kicking a woman out of a shelter was bullshit because we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the shelter was closed
 
4Macie said:
So Phil wasn't homeless and still got an actual woman kicked out of a homeless shelter?

Or can we claim that's false too?
Click to expand...
That was summer/fall of 2016 so he would have been out of the other apartment by then. It could still be a lie that got him the wrong kind of attention.
 
Totem Sanic said:
So, Phil wasn't homeless after all, yet he still took advantage of free services. That's on par with raiding a drop-off bin of food donated for the hungry. I doubt even Chris would stoop that low.

I wonder if any Portland agents are putting the word out that Phil isn't legit homeless so that shelters and other agencies will know that he's a fraud.
Click to expand...

He's gonna be legit homeless before too long, though.
 
Totem Sanic said:
So, Phil wasn't homeless after all, yet he still took advantage of free services. That's on par with raiding a drop-off bin of food donated for the hungry. I doubt even Chris would stoop that low.

I wonder if any Portland agents are putting the word out that Phil isn't legit homeless so that shelters and other agencies will know that he's a fraud.
Click to expand...

Phil is only 31 and has made quite a name for himself within (I dare say) the national LTBTQlmnop community.

At the rate he's going, he'll exhaust non-government entitled support methods simply by just word of mouth about his behavior and lies. Unless he quits being such a fucking worthless, lying and shit-tier manipulative cunt, he's going to find all his ass patter resources drying up in the next couple of years.

Sooner or later, someone he's fucked over in the social community will expose him to the government for lying and defrauding taxpayers.
 
I'll be the 500th person to say this, this has to become public info: his asspatters need to know this especially, nothing will dry those donations up and burn those bridges quicker than discovering this shit.
 
Ray Streip said:
I'll be the 500th person to say this, this has to become public info: his asspatters need to know this especially, nothing will dry those donations up and burn those bridges quicker than discovering this shit.
Click to expand...

Know what ?
At best we can't prove anything yet
Any evidence linked to us is easily dismissed because we are basically considered an internet hate mob and could have photo shopped the pictures in the first place.
Even if we prove this was legit then Phil could just say it was an address a friend allowed him to use for a mail drop.
Without a link to utilities or voters register or even 3rd party validation we don't have much.

Then you have to remember that most of Phil's homeless buddies aren't actually homeless to begin with and that some of them may already know. The ratkings many lies are tolerated by the rats because calling out a liar leaves everyone else open to a call out.
Until we have something solid its best not to play our cards.
Remember Phil's asspatters managed to spin him getting caught in his lie about getting a woman kicked out of a woman's shelter as a positive.
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
He's gonna be legit homeless before too long, though.
Click to expand...

If/when that happens, he's sure to find out that BDSM leather clothes are an actual liability in freezing weather due to the way they trap moisture, which is more of the cause for getting hypothermia than just the cold itself. That bondage walrus costume he wears is going to make for some lulzy coroner photos when they chisel him off the park bench.
 
Ray Streip said:
I'll be the 500th person to say this, this has to become public info: his asspatters need to know this especially, nothing will dry those donations up and burn those bridges quicker than discovering this shit.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Anyone who still donate to Phil at this point are the dumbest of the dumb and this info will not sway them.
 
it's worth noting that this may have been during the time period he was talking about getting a handgun. if so, then it stands to reason he would be aware that CA requires proof of residency to purchase one. i somewhat doubt he was completely unaware of this requirement as he was unsurprised when i explained the DROS process and the paperwork involved. i specifically emphasize residency requirements during the speech.

proof of residency for handgun purchasers in CA is: a utility bill within the last 3 months tied to a physical address (phone, television, water, gas, et c); residential lease; property deed or title; government issued license/permit/registration other than a CADL or CAID.

one of the above is required in addition to a photo ID (CAC, CADL, CAID, et c).
 
Club Sandwich said:
it's worth noting that this may have been during the time period he was talking about getting a handgun. if so, then it stands to reason he would be aware that CA requires proof of residency to purchase one. i somewhat doubt he was completely unaware of this requirement as he was unsurprised when i explained the DROS process and the paperwork involved. i specifically emphasize residency requirements during the speech.

proof of residency for handgun purchasers in CA is: a utility bill within the last 3 months tied to a physical address (phone, television, water, gas, et c); residential lease; property deed or title; government issued license/permit/registration other than a CADL or CAID.

one of the above is required in addition to a photo ID (CAC, CADL, CAID, et c).
Click to expand...

I'm completely unfamiliar with CA gun laws, but are there restrictions on private sales between private individuals like there are on buying one from a business?
 
YankeeTrader said:
I'm completely unfamiliar with CA gun laws, but are there restrictions on private sales between private individuals like there are on buying one from a business?
Click to expand...
in CA, unless a longarm is both older than 50 years and not otherwise a CA-defined assault weapon, all firearm transfers must be done through a CA firearms dealer. it is usually multiple felonies to violate this process (possession, purchase/intent to purchase, sale/make available for sale, et c), sometimes more if the gun has various features, if the buyer/seller is a prohibited person, or the gun is on one of the banned lists.

there are precious few exceptions to the above.
 
Club Sandwich said:
in CA, unless a longarm is both older than 50 years and not otherwise a CA-defined assault weapon, all firearm transfers must be done through a CA firearms dealer. it is usually multiple felonies to violate this process (possession, purchase/intent to purchase, sale/make available for sale, et c), sometimes more if the gun has various features, if the buyer/seller is a prohibited person, or the gun is on one of the banned lists.

there are precious few exceptions to the above.
Click to expand...


Good to know. I live somewhere that me selling you a pistol or rifle (not class 3)to you for cash with a handshake is perfectly legal. I sometimes take it for granted.
 
YankeeTrader said:
I'm completely unfamiliar with CA gun laws, but are there restrictions on private sales between private individuals like there are on buying one from a business?
Click to expand...
Haha we have over 9000 threads with speculation on Phil and firearms. I'm so glad he finally got his airsoft AK so he can act out his brute male power fantasies without us having to sperg about gun laws and what gun he would buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom