From the manifesto by Evans that NCC posted:
"Yesterday when I took Jessica for her haircut so that she can start her first day at school tomorrow with a fresh style I did so using money that is the bank's - not mine - which would not have been the case if not for you."
Please notice that though Evans writes that he used 'the bank's money - not his own', to pay for his daughter's haircut, he does not state that he HAD to use the bank's money because he could not otherwise pay for her haircut. There could be an accountant somewhere looking at Evans' transactions,... scratching his head and thinking, "I wonder why he put that kiddie haircut on his bank credit card when he'd just gotten through pulling out a fistful of cash from the ATM." Oh! I get it! He had to do that [...use the bank's money] in order to imply he has financial hardship caused by KIM SILVIO. He says he used the bank's money to pay for the haircut "which would not have been the case if not for you." (referring to Kim Silvio).
Yes, indeed, to keep up the charade of being Kim's victim, Evans had to pay for that haircut with a bank credit card*, rather than pulling out cash in bills or coins. [*Did Evans use a bank credit card? Or, did he actually go to the bank, talk to a loan officer, and arrange financing of "one child's haircut"?] He says, "I am now in debt because of the financial impact of your [Kim's] defamation,...". Can someone pinpoint the day (or days) of when Evans claims to have been in debt? Surely he plans to make public all of his financial information to the court. Surely he will be able to prove in court that he isn't unjustly blaming Kim Silvio publicly, online for causing a debt that he doesn't even have?