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

[jxtractor]

Did the monies actually go from the contractors bank to the trust, or did it go directly from the agency to the trust?

If the former, do you have any paperwork to back up the thinking that the monies going from the contractor to the trust was a loan?

This seems to be the same thinking Felicitas has - in that 'we don't have the signed agreement of repayment plan agreed to' but that these were 'bare loans'. So what difference does this make? Their claims or preponderance of evidence let's say, is some emails and self made statements and unverified claims never before heard or seen by contractors. Unless they've got a cat in the bag, this will not hold up. Felicitas has not yet made statutory demands, as far as I know. If or when it does, it implies they have already committed to the legal pursuit of the debt and the implications it has on them as well as whatever consequence it has on you.

I understand Eek's point that the court is often blind to unverifiable facts and will go by stare decisis - but courts are not dumb either. Questions to ask: what was the purpose of the supposed loan? Where did the money come from? What legitimacy did the trusts have to sell these alleged loans to a private limited company and was this in the interest of the t̶r̶u̶s̶t̶e̶e̶s̶ beneficiaries? If the claims are legitimate, was there sufficient evidences provided to the supposed borrower to verify their claims? Where is the signed agreement? How many hands have changed in the process? The taxable status of these loans by HM Revenue and Customs as income.

I'm not suggesting lower your guard on this one, but on the face of it, this is anything but a straightforward civil case.

[Fred Bloggs]

This seems to be the same thinking Felicitas has - in that 'we don't have the signed agreement of repayment plan agreed to' but that these were 'bare loans'. So what difference does this make? Their claims or preponderance of evidence let's say, is some emails and self made statements and unverified claims never before heard or seen by contractors. Unless they've got a cat in the bag, this will not hold up. Felicitas has not yet made statutory demands, as far as I know. If or when it does, it implies they have already committed to the legal pursuit of the debt and the implications it has on them as well as whatever consequence it has on you.

I understand Eek's point that the court is often blind to unverifiable facts and will go by stare decisis - but courts are not dumb either. Questions to ask: what was the purpose of the supposed loan? Where did the money come from? What legitimacy did the trusts have to sell these alleged loans to a private limited company and was this in the interest of the trustees? If the claims are legitimate, was there sufficient evidences provided to the supposed borrower to verify their claims? Where is the signed agreement? How many hands have changed in the process? The taxable status of these loans by HM Revenue and Customs as income.

I'm not suggesting lower your guard on this one, but on the face of it, this is anything but a straightforward civil case.

My emphasis. I think you mean "did the trustees act in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries?" They are legally bound by trust law to do so. For me, it remains an elephant in the room. Why did the trustees agree to sell the loans to a 3rd party, when it seems very unlikely it is in the interest of the trust beneficiaries? Webberg did respond sometime ago, but he didn't really give a straight answer to this conundrum.

[eek]

My emphasis. I think you mean "did the trustees act in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries?" They are legally bound by trust law to do so. For me, it remains an elephant in the room. Why did the trustees agree to sell the loans to a 3rd party, when it seems very unlikely it is in the interest of the trust beneficiaries? Webberg did respond sometime ago, but he didn't really give a straight answer to this conundrum.

See my question from a long time ago

Are the current trust beneficiaries identical to the previous ones or have they changed?

Oh and Felicitas have made Statutory Demands - what they haven't done yet is enforce them by trying to secure payment or bankruptcy petitions.

[Paralytic]

See my question from a long time ago

Are the current trust beneficiaries identical to the previous ones or have they changed?

Let's assume the answer is no. There's still the (somewhat philosophical, I imagine) question on whether the original trust was acting in the interest of its beneficiaries if/when it changed beneficiaries/sold the loans.

[Fred Bloggs]

See my question from a long time ago

Are the current trust beneficiaries identical to the previous ones or have they changed?

The person who borrowed the money from the trust is the trust beneficiary. How has that changed? I still cannot understand how selling loans to a 3rd party benefits the person who had a loan paid into their bank account.

[eek]

The person who borrowed the money from the trust is the trust beneficiary. How has that changed? I still cannot understand how selling loans to a 3rd party benefits the person who had a loan paid into their bank account.

Beneficiaries can be changed especially when the original trust was designed to allow beneficiaries to be rapidly added (and removed)

[Fred Bloggs]

Beneficiaries can be changed especially when the original trust was designed to allow beneficiaries to be rapidly added (and removed)

Indeed. But how does that alter the fact someone has a loan from a trust and the same person then finds out the loan has been bought by a 3rd party? How do the trustees get away with acting against the interest of that beneficiary? Being able to add or remove beneficiaries at will has nothing to do with it. That has to be the case as people join/leave the scheme. If you have an outstanding loan you're still a trust beneficiary. So the trustees are bound by law to act in your best interest at all times. But it seems they aren't doing so. Why? How can this happen? This a large elephant in the room.

[JD1905]

Did they ever state that the loans were not re-payable on their website or elsewhere? You can always look back at old archived websites and dig out this information. I had a look through my personal e-mails but i've lost alot of records in the years that have passed.

[Fred Bloggs]

Did they ever state that the loans were not re-payable on their website or elsewhere? You can always look back at old archived websites and dig out this information. I had a look through my personal e-mails but i've lost alot of records in the years that have passed.

I would be very surprised if that was written down anywhere. It was a cornerstone of the sales pitch. But of course, that means nothing really. They told lies in the sales pitch.

[piebaps]

Indeed. But how does that alter the fact someone has a loan from a trust and the same person then finds out the loan has been bought by a 3rd party? How do the trustees get away with acting against the interest of that beneficiary? Being able to add or remove beneficiaries at will has nothing to do with it. That has to be the case as people join/leave the scheme. If you have an outstanding loan you're still a trust beneficiary. So the trustees are bound by law to act in your best interest at all times. But it seems they aren't doing so. Why? How can this happen? This a large elephant in the room.

The Trustees in Trust Law have a duty to the beneficiaries. The Trustees are also bound by the rules of the Trust.
To determine how that applies here, we really need to see;

1. The original Trust deed together with any amendments made to it.
2. The contract between the victim and the parasites (using victim for scheme user and parasite for scheme operator).
3. The loan agreement
4. the sale/assignment agreement(s) between the original Trustees and whoever claims to own the loans now.

If the matter comes before an IOM Court (assuming an IOM loan of course) the judge (known as a Deemster over here) is likely to make an Order for those documents to be disclosed, were someone to apply for one. Felictas know this and are simply playing a bluff hand. <modsnip>