Surtie Inheritance Scam

Eti1 said:
So there is a "secret" particulars of claim that contains convincing evidence?

And this was not submitted to the court?

But you have seen it and on this basis you think a settlement or victory is possible?
Click to expand...
Erm...no!

BusyNobody said:
I use the term 'original' to indicate an unabridged, unaltered version,
Click to expand...
unabridged = not cut short or edited; complete
unaltered = remaining the same; unchanged

The one I saw was a copy of the one submitted to court, and worded exactly the same.

BusyNobody said:
NOT the original document as submitted to the court
Click to expand...
original document = the blanket term used to describe the master copy of legal papers

Is there a need for me to define master copy? Or do you not possess a desire to concoct any further conspiracy theory-esque notions?

Is there any other person who needs an English lesson this morning?
 
BusyNobody said:
Erm...no!


unabridged = not cut short or edited; complete
unaltered = remaining the same; unchanged

The one I saw was a copy of the one submitted to court, and worded exactly the same.


original document = the blanket term used to describe the master copy of legal papers

Is there a need for me to define master copy? Or do you not possess a desire to concoct any further conspiracy theory-esque notions?

Is there any other person who needs an English lesson this morning?
Click to expand...
Wow, you are so smart with your English teaching. Excuse me as it's not my first language. Anyway...

Is this the "unabridged" particulars of claim?

If so, please tell us what are the "details in these particulars of claim that create quite a decent argument for this claim to be upheld"?
 

Attachments

  • Particulars of Claim - Surtie.pdf
    5.2 MB · Views: 143
I have no doubt there is *a* claim to be made. You'd be amazed how often there are redistributions of "lost" money in the retirement fund space as an example
I have 100% doubts that there is a *valid* trillion-rand claim and massive-crowdsourced-winnings for thousands of people
 
Don’t complicate this whole thing.

There is 3 parties A B and C.

A gave C R1000000.00 20 years ago.

To get the money to C, party B must handle the money.

So B decides to keep the R 1000000.00 and not give it to C.

20 Years later A asks the family of C it he got the money. The don’t know. So they get Magnum PI to look for the answers.

In short Magnum PI finds the money and all the proof that the money was taken by B and not given to C.

So now the family of C wants the money that was given to them by A.

Simple, the money was not the property of B in the first place and must now B must return the money with interest to C

So now who is wrong and who is right.

Will not be so nice if you are person C WOULD IT.
 
Francois5141 said:
Don’t complicate this whole thing.

There is 3 parties A B and C.

A gave C R1000000.00 20 years ago.

To get the money to C, party B must handle the money.

So B decides to keep the R 1000000.00 and not give it to C.

20 Years later A asks the family of C it he got the money. The don’t know. So they get Magnum PI to look for the answers.

In short Magnum PI finds the money and all the proof that the money was taken by B and not given to C.

So now the family of C wants the money that was given to them by A.

Simple, the money was not the property of B in the first place and must now B must return the money with interest to C

So now who is wrong and who is right.

Will not be so nice if you are person C WOULD IT.
Click to expand...

You aren't C,you aren't related to C
And 1 trillion does not equal 1000000

So now we've already confirmed your "simplified" version is woefully inaccurate

 
You clearly missed the fist line.
Don’t complicate this whole thing.
And I

Definitly don't want to be part of your ( Who's pee pee is the bigest competition on here ).
Either you understand or you don't, clearly you don't.
 
Francois5141 said:
You clearly missed the fist line.
Don’t complicate this whole thing.
And I

Definitly don't want to be part of your ( Who's pee pee is the bigest competition on here ).
Either you understand or you don't, clearly you don't.
Click to expand...
Nothing complicated though.

You are woefully incorrect.
4 words
 
Eti1 said:
Wow, you are so smart with your English teaching.
Click to expand...
Thank you

Eti1 said:
Excuse me as it's not my first language. Anyway...
Click to expand...
You are quite excused. But first language or not, your reply to my post was aggressive, aloof and condescending (not sure if I should revert to my Englishteachering here), so I couldn't give a flying fish if your little ego took a knock. Anyway...

...to answer your question (which yet again was posed in a condescending tone), no this is not it. Your first clue should have been that these particulars of claim are for a case that was meant to be heard in the Western Cape High Court. You're the one who started this thread, so surely you must have known that the case was never actually heard in the WC High Court, but that a new claim had to be instituted in the Gauteng North High Court. This is also why the case number differs from the one currently pending.

And even if it was, the document you attached is merely a basic outline of the claim. This document needs to be read in conjunction with the addenda which supplement it. These addenda provide the details of the claim. This is why I specifically used the term complete particulars of claim

BusyNobody said:
Yes, I've seen the original, complete particulars of claim. But no, I am not prepared to disclose information that is not mine to share...
Click to expand...


For the record, if you should ever by any chance happen to stumble across the document in its entirety, the answer is a resounding NO! I will NOT translate it for you, and neither will I explain it to you.

But I'll grant you a round of applause if you can prove to yourself that your condescension bears merit...
 
Francois5141 said:
Don’t complicate this whole thing.

There is 3 parties A B and C.

A gave C R1000000.00 20 years ago.

To get the money to C, party B must handle the money.

So B decides to keep the R 1000000.00 and not give it to C.

20 Years later A asks the family of C it he got the money. The don’t know. So they get Magnum PI to look for the answers.

In short Magnum PI finds the money and all the proof that the money was taken by B and not given to C.

So now the family of C wants the money that was given to them by A.

Simple, the money was not the property of B in the first place and must now B must return the money with interest to C

So now who is wrong and who is right.

Will not be so nice if you are person C WOULD IT.
Click to expand...
Simplified as it may be, I count parties A to at least H involved in this thing...:laugh:
 
What that i thought you the Cleva one, or have i made i spelling mistake.
Just not that....
 
BusyNobody said:
I deleted that post. I thought I was replying to someone else... :laugh:
Click to expand...
No prob buddy, i just had to...
Actually read all your posts, not to say i agree.
You actually go and do your homework before talking, wish everybody would do the same..
 
Well, if you don't understand how electricity works, it's much easier to tell people that it doesn't exist rather than trying to explain to them why you have such bright light in your living room. Don't you think?
 
BusyNobody said:
Well, if you don't understand how electricity works, it's much easier to tell people that it doesn't exist rather than trying to Lol explain to them why you have such bright light in your living room. Don't you think?
Click to expand...
Lol. You have a point, But we will definitly see the light going even brighter after this mornings fiasco on SABC.
Everything is fine until your name is used on SABC in the bigest claim in SA history.
So my point is that it does not happen if everything is a scam.
This thread was initially started to help the people not to be scammed. What some people don't know is the claim is very real if you are on the right team.
They will know if they are on the right team, if they don't, then ish they have a problem.
And it is as easy as money were given, money were taken and money must now be given back to rightful people.
Really that simple if you know the whole story..
 
Francois5141 said:
So my point is that it does not happen if everything is a scam.
Click to expand...
This here is what so many people don't get. It's one thing pointing out that people who contributed to legal fees might have been scammed, but to blow the entire court case off as a hoax despite evidence to the contrary just makes no sense at all

Francois5141 said:
This thread was initially started to help the people not to be scammed. What some people don't know is the claim is very real if you are on the right team.
They will know if they are on the right team, if they don't, then ish they have a problem.
Click to expand...
I know what you're referring to, but let me just blow this fallacy wide open. There are no teams. Either you've given your money to someone legitimately linked to the estate, or you were scammed. How's that for simplifying things?

At the time when I was approached, I opted not to contribute based on a story told to me by someone else - no matter how much esteem I may have held him in. The possibility always exists that the other person might himself have been duped in some way.

If you want me to part with money I worked for, then you'll have to provide real evidence based in fact, and not just flights of fancy. But that's just who I am.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people who handed money over on the basis of a sob story revolving around people they have no connection to whatsoever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter