• 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

    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    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.
    Last edited by eek; 19 February 2021, 21:25.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      Originally posted by eek View Post
      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.

      Comment


        Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
        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.
        merely at clientco for the entertainment

        Comment


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

          Comment


            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.....

            Comment


              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.
              merely at clientco for the entertainment

              Comment


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

                Comment


                  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?

                  Comment


                    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?
                    merely at clientco for the entertainment

                    Comment


                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X