• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    • Originally posted by eek View Post

      But as we've also continually stated that depends on how far the judge wishes to look into the case. Your 4th paragraph (and the second half of the 3rd) could be completely irrelevant to the court (it is in the UK if say it's a bankruptcy /liquidation).

      And if you have disputed the debt the only place to go to court is the IoM and I don't want to second guess how an IoM court will view things.
      If a lawyer representing Mr Bloggs claims (a) the money was remuneration rather than a loan and (b) the loan agreement was sham, then a judge would have to consider that. A judge is not going to enforce a debt order if they're not satisfied that it was a bonafide loan.

      The judge can't just take Mr Trump's word for it because Mr Trump acquired the loan from someone else.
    • -
      At the end of the day, the court isn't going to care if Mr Trump acquired fake loans.
    Last edited by NotAllThere; 4 March 2021, 08:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
    Suppose a Mr Jones lends money to a Mr Bloggs.

    There's a written loan agreement. It's unsecured, interest free, and there's no repayment schedule. Mr Jones gives Mr Bloggs a verbal undertaking that it will never have to be repaid but there's nothing in writing. (Mr Jones says the loan agreement is just to make it look like a loan on his books )

    10 years later Mr Bloggs receives a letter from a Mr Trump who says he's acquired the loan from Mr Jones. In the letter, Mr Trump says he's calling in the loan but bizarely will accept a small % to forget about it.

    Mr Bloggs has evidence that Mr Jones only obtained the money in the first place due to work that Mr Bloggs carried out for someone else.

    Now you might say a court will only look at the loan agreement and disregard everything else but I wouldn't want to be in Mr Trump's shoes in front of a judge.
    But as we've also continually stated that depends on how far the judge wishes to look into the case. Your 4th paragraph (and the second half of the 3rd) could be completely irrelevant to the court (it is in the UK if say it's a bankruptcy /liquidation).

    And if you have disputed the debt the only place to go to court is the IoM and I don't want to second guess how an IoM court will view things.
    Last edited by eek; 4 March 2021, 06:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Suppose a Mr Jones lends money to a Mr Bloggs.

    There's a written loan agreement. It's unsecured, interest free, and there's no repayment schedule. Mr Jones gives Mr Bloggs a verbal undertaking that it will never have to be repaid but there's nothing in writing. (Mr Jones says the loan agreement is just to make it look like a loan on his books )

    10 years later Mr Bloggs receives a letter from a Mr Trump who says he's acquired the loan from Mr Jones. In the letter, Mr Trump says he's calling in the loan but bizarely will accept a small % to forget about it.

    Mr Bloggs has evidence that Mr Jones only obtained the money in the first place due to work that Mr Bloggs carried out for someone else.

    Now you might say a court will only look at the loan agreement and disregard everything else but I wouldn't want to be in Mr Trump's shoes in front of a judge.

    Leave a comment:


  • WJK
    replied
    Understand eek, Iv not long found the site and not trawled through all the pages and comments. Like those possibly affected you feel the need to reach out.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by WJK View Post
    Not via Felicitas, my point is any monies received came from another source so surely court would want Felicitas to prove they loaned monies? I'm no legal guru just asking.
    If you look at the posts over the past 9 months you will see a continual theme that Felicitas need to prove that they have the documented papertrail showing that Felicitas own / manage the trust and the debt.

    But that really only becomes an issue if an when Felicitas takes someone to court outside of a undisputed statutory demand

    Leave a comment:


  • WJK
    replied
    Not via Felicitas, my point is any monies received came from another source so surely court would want Felicitas to prove they loaned monies? I'm no legal guru just asking.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by WJK View Post

    But we no Felicitas never lent any money, so surely court would want to no?
    So how else did you receive the money without paying tax on it there and then?

    Leave a comment:


  • WJK
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    The flow of money is irrelevant.

    As I've highlighted here multiple times the risk is that the flow could be deemed by a court as completely irrelevant - the thing that matters could just be Felicitas lent you money and you who recelved the money.

    The fact the money was earnt by you could be deemed completely irrelevant were a court to decide not to investigate how the money arrived Felicitas's account in the first place.

    * I'm using Felicitas to cover the entire scheme history of organisers / trust companies.
    But we no Felicitas never lent any money, so surely court would want to no?

    Leave a comment:


  • WJK
    replied
    You were 1 of many who may have received an email today.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by GotScrewed View Post
    Surely a good forensic accountant would be able to easily prove the flow of funds to a court? But i guess the "other" side would never provide the necessaries, given their shoddy "evidence" attempts thus far.....

    ...follow the money.....
    The flow of money is irrelevant.

    As I've highlighted here multiple times the risk is that the flow could be deemed by a court as completely irrelevant - the thing that matters could just be Felicitas lent you money and you who recelved the money.

    The fact the money was earnt by you could be deemed completely irrelevant were a court to decide not to investigate how the money arrived Felicitas's account in the first place.

    * I'm using Felicitas to cover the entire scheme history of organisers / trust companies.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X