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

[GotScrewed]

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.....

[JD1905]

Anyone else get an e-mail from them this morning? Cautious about saying what it contains as don't want to jeopardise my position.

[eek]

First Felicitas have to prove SD received. But then if people are stupid enough to post on CUK how FElicitas are getting to them then they are stupid enough to own up they received an SD. They don't even realize how stupid they are and get an adviser.

Regarding private server. Of course NTRT/WTT/LCAG private groups are full of people who have no paperwork.

I wish I had no moral fibre. I could have been a millionaire.

Felicitas don't need to prove receipt, just that they sent it to the last known address.

But private servers aren't any use when the issue at the moment is telling people who don't know what to do at least where to start off.

[BrilloPad]

Sorry but in the case of Statutory Demands the options are quickly dispute the debt or see it magically become valid.

And beyond that we do emphasis not to display details - but a private server isn't possible as there would be no chance of stopping Felicitas getting on it - the data you used to validate whether a person was a member or not is the exact data Fecilitas has access to.

First Felicitas have to prove SD received. But then if people are stupid enough to post on CUK how FElicitas are getting to them then they are stupid enough to own up they received an SD. They don't even realize how stupid they are and get an adviser.

Regarding private server. Of course NTRT/WTT/LCAG private groups are full of people who have no paperwork.

I wish I had no moral fibre. I could have been a millionaire.

[eek]

Thus alerting them to the way round and enabling them to come up with something else.

Sorry but in the case of Statutory Demands the options are quickly dispute the debt or see it magically become valid.

And beyond that we do emphasis not to display details - but a private server isn't possible as there would be no chance of stopping Felicitas getting on it - the data you used to validate whether a person was a member or not is the exact data Fecilitas has access to.

[BrilloPad]

In the case here we know Felicitas do read this forum as we know I've annoyed them by telling people how to escape their Statutory Demand scam...

Thus alerting them to the way round and enabling them to come up with something else.

If those affected by Felicitas got a private forum(like NTRT, WTT, LCAG etcetc.) and those affected kept their thoughts private then Felicitas would go away. They can only get the lowest hanging fruit. As they are just scam artists. Seeing people post about Doncaster crown court having 20 phone calls from worried people means they think that is some who will pay up(which will then fund action against others).

Oh well. Does not affect me. I spent years posting on CUK warning people about schemes. Does anyone bother checking out how they are paid? Nope - they just go and habd their hard earned money to scamsters then come to CUK looking for sympathy. Can't even be bothered to get a private forum. Wish I had their contact details as I have a magic bean company based in the Dutch Antilles. QC approved!

[Fred Bloggs]

In the case here we know Felicitas do read this forum as we know I've annoyed them by telling people how to escape their Statutory Demand scam...

Long may it continue, too.

[eek]

Anyone would have thought CUK was a public forum and that HMRC read the posts.

Remember Huitson where CUK posts where presented in court? These days anyone with any sense uses a closed forum.

In the case here we know Felicitas do read this forum as we know I've annoyed them by telling people how to escape their Statutory Demand scam...

[Fred Bloggs]

Anyone would have thought CUK was a public forum and that HMRC read the posts.

Remember Huitson where CUK posts where presented in court? These days anyone with any sense uses a closed forum.

Fair point, BP.

[BrilloPad]

Everything you say is right. But that's why I pointed to the various groups. Some (one?) of which have been running several years and paying into a pot to defend their case, sharing the cost. Nobody has come forward to say why the actions of trustees in these cases has apparently not been explored. (It might have been, and ruled out, but nobody is saying so).

Anyone would have thought CUK was a public forum and that HMRC read the posts.

Remember Huitson where CUK posts where presented in court? These days anyone with any sense uses a closed forum.