Surtie Inheritance Scam

Surtie Millionaire said:
You do care! No one takes the time nor has the commitment you have shown to respond and post on this thread! I must commend you at least for that!
Click to expand...
Struggling with English? I said I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. I do care however that people are being scammed
 
Well, technically, this was a scam until the court case. With the court case, the Surtees were no longer a thread heading but also an Applicant in a court case. That technically means this is not a scam, but a crowdsource funding scheme. Hence, this is not a legitimate scam on any bank's radar. I've checked, and it's not. Crowdsourcing is different, and thus, the outcome of this funding scheme must be discussed. So, can people get millions? The PIC did not deny the money or that the specific account existed during the court case. So, again, it aligns well with the original intent of the "scheme". There are many funding schemes that are scams. Theranos is a good case in point with Elizabeth Holmes behind bars. Will monies be paid out - I do not think so. Not by a long shot. To go the the constitutional court to overrule that Article 4c was not constitutional is going to be impossible (or at least extremely expensive). A lot during apartheid was uncostitutional. Apartheid was unconstitutional. So I can see why the PIC and ABSA aint stressed.
 
FlashOnly said:
Well, technically, this was a scam until the court case. With the court case, the Surtees were no longer a thread heading but also an Applicant in a court case. That technically means this is not a scam, but a crowdsource funding scheme. Hence, this is not a legitimate scam on any bank's radar. I've checked, and it's not. Crowdsourcing is different, and thus, the outcome of this funding scheme must be discussed. So, can people get millions? The PIC did not deny the money or that the specific account existed during the court case. So, again, it aligns well with the original intent of the "scheme". There are many funding schemes that are scams. Theranos is a good case in point with Elizabeth Holmes behind bars. Will monies be paid out - I do not think so. Not by a long shot. To go the the constitutional court to overrule that Article 4c was not constitutional is going to be impossible (or at least extremely expensive). A lot during apartheid was uncostitutional. Apartheid was unconstitutional. So I can see why the PIC and ABSA aint stressed.
Click to expand...
Its like talking to a brick wall.
 
FlashOnly said:
Well, technically,
Click to expand...
Nope,not even remotely technically

Without a basis in truth (stretched as it is) that there are case(s) there would be nothing for the Con to be built on
This thread is about the crowdfunding scam,stop dancing around trying to legitimize it. The mental gymnastics are tiring
 
I dont support this, but it cannot be called a scam. If people are told they can share in the outcome of a court case that potentially has a large payout, then the onus is not on us to claim it a scam until such a time where no payouts take place and we can then claim that false premise was provided. Crowdfunding is donations, and not purchases. So I dont see people get shares being issued on future earnings from this court case. If people want to donate, them let them. So again, I was also a non-believer in this story until I actually saw the court papers, and I checked up on the advocates. All four of them are real. Ive been to court twice with two people helping me pay part of my court fees. I didnt scam them, they "donated" towards my cause. This is the same. This is no sunken treasure chest off Camps Bay story. We cannot claim something is a scam until it meets the requirements of such. If people are told that they are contributing towards a court case, then it is not scam. And my understanding is that is the message people have been told. I have not seen anyone discussing the legitimacy of the background story. Just lots of back and forth bantering. The cat is out of the bag and the Surties are on the news. People can now follow the story for themselves and see what is happening. What I am concerned with now is that people should be informed of the probability of winning the case. That is not discussed, simply slammed as a scam with comments like "talking to a brick wall".
 
FlashOnly said:
I dont support this, but it cannot be called a scam. If people are told they can share in the outcome of a court case that potentially has a large payout, then the onus is not on us to claim it a scam until such a time where no payouts take place and we can then claim that false premise was provided. Crowdfunding is donations, and not purchases. So I dont see people get shares being issued on future earnings from this court case. If people want to donate, them let them. So again, I was also a non-believer in this story until I actually saw the court papers, and I checked up on the advocates. All four of them are real. Ive been to court twice with two people helping me pay part of my court fees. I didnt scam them, they "donated" towards my cause. This is the same. This is no sunken treasure chest off Camps Bay story. We cannot claim something is a scam until it meets the requirements of such. If people are told that they are contributing towards a court case, then it is not scam. And my understanding is that is the message people have been told. I have not seen anyone discussing the legitimacy of the background story. Just lots of back and forth bantering. The cat is out of the bag and the Surties are on the news. People can now follow the story for themselves and see what is happening. What I am concerned with now is that people should be informed of the probability of winning the case. That is not discussed, simply slammed as a scam with comments like "talking to a brick wall".
Click to expand...
Here's an idea: go and read all 3492 posts. You are talking in circles, like 90% of the shills in this thread. The "crowdfunding" of this case is a scam, that is it ... you even said so during one of your posts.

This has got **** ALL to do with the possibly winning a court case ...
 
FlashOnly said:
I dont support this, but it cannot be called a scam.
Click to expand...
Your opinion doesn't matter
FlashOnly said:
If people are told they can share in the outcome of a court case that potentially has a large payout, then the onus is not on us to claim it a scam
Click to expand...
Koorbanally himself said there is no crowdfunding,so whoever you think you're funding - you're not
FlashOnly said:
until such a time where no payouts take place and we can then claim that false premise was provided.
Click to expand...
I don't need to get shot to know it sucks
FlashOnly said:
Crowdfunding is donations, and not purchases.
Click to expand...
Crowdfunding is not for the promise of profit. Donation is not for the promise of profit
FlashOnly said:
So I dont see people get shares being issued on future earnings from this court case.
Click to expand...
Howey test disagrees with your assessment,and howey test says this is a Securitized Investment

Let's review:
  1. An investment of money - you paid money check
  2. In a common enterprise - "Surtie Crowdfunding" check
  3. With the expectation of profit - check
  4. To be derived from the efforts of others - check
Right,so now that we've worked out it's an investment,not crowdfunding or donations can you shut up about it?

FlashOnly said:
If people want to donate, them let them.
Click to expand...
People are investing seeking a return,this is not a donation except to scammers
FlashOnly said:
So again, I was also a non-believer in this story until I actually saw the court papers,
Click to expand...
The case was never in doubt
FlashOnly said:
and I checked up on the advocates.
Click to expand...
Yeah nah the "advocates" are not awe inspiring
FlashOnly said:
All four of them are real.
Click to expand...
Most conmen are
FlashOnly said:
Ive been to court twice with two people helping me pay part of my court fees.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant
FlashOnly said:
I didnt scam them, they "donated" towards my cause.
Click to expand...
If they expect more than they paid,they invested. You're illegally collecting deposits for an investment according to the reserve bank act
FlashOnly said:
This is the same.
Click to expand...
Layer of scams
FlashOnly said:
This is no sunken treasure chest off Camps Bay story.
Click to expand...
Probably more likely to be real
FlashOnly said:
We cannot claim something is a scam until it meets the requirements of such.
Click to expand...
Nope,the onus is on the collector to prove it's not.
No proof provided = scam.
FlashOnly said:
If people are told that they are contributing towards a court case, then it is not scam.
Click to expand...
Would you like to contribute to my lamborghinicourt case? It really is not a lamborghini
FlashOnly said:
And my understanding is that is the message people have been told.
Click to expand...
Nope,put money in,get 100x out = investment. Whatever fanciful story you tell yourself has no bearing on the legality or accuracy
FlashOnly said:
I have not seen anyone discussing the legitimacy of the background story.
Click to expand...
Because it's irrelevant how a scam does a background story. Be they selling Meteors,plots on Mars,or 100x your investment in a ridiculous court case. The story is of no relevance
FlashOnly said:
Just lots of back and forth bantering.
Click to expand...
Yawn
FlashOnly said:
The cat is out of the bag and the Surties are on the news.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant
FlashOnly said:
People can now follow the story for themselves and see what is happening.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant
FlashOnly said:
What I am concerned with now is that people should be informed of the probability of winning the case.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant
FlashOnly said:
That is not discussed, simply slammed as a scam
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant,because the crowdfunding is a scam
FlashOnly said:
with comments like "talking to a brick wall".
Click to expand...
Because you are acting like a brick wall
 
Last edited:
FlashOnly said:
I dont support this, but it cannot be called a scam. If people are told they can share in the outcome of a court case that potentially has a large payout, then the onus is not on us to claim it a scam until such a time where no payouts take place and we can then claim that false premise was provided. Crowdfunding is donations, and not purchases. So I dont see people get shares being issued on future earnings from this court case.
Click to expand...

I have said this a few times now, but will repeat here: ONLY the plaintiffs in the court case are legitimate recipients of any monies recovered. None of the people taking "donations" has any claim to the money unless they have legally binding agreements with the plaintiffs. Requests to provide evidence of such agreements are simply ignored by shills. In fact, we haven't even seen any credible evidence that any donors to the Pastoor Johan types has any verifiable agreement with whom they invested.

FlashOnly said:
If people want to donate, them let them. So again, I was also a non-believer in this story until I actually saw the court papers, and I checked up on the advocates. All four of them are real. Ive been to court twice with two people helping me pay part of my court fees. I didnt scam them, they "donated" towards my cause. This is the same. This is no sunken treasure chest off Camps Bay story. We cannot claim something is a scam until it meets the requirements of such. If people are told that they are contributing towards a court case, then it is not scam. And my understanding is that is the message people have been told.
Click to expand...

See the post by PsyWulf on application of the Howey Test. All of the promotions for "donations" have promised returns - sometimes unbelievable returns. The donors are not in the same category of your donors who, presumably, had no profit motive when they assisted you. The "donors" are making investments in a collective scheme. SARS will show any of the scammers who do profit that they were expecting a return on investment in this world, not the hereafter.

FlashOnly said:
I have not seen anyone discussing the legitimacy of the background story.
Click to expand...

The whole intention of this thread is to counter the scamming by outsiders who have no legal claim to the inheritance.

FlashOnly said:
Just lots of back and forth bantering. The cat is out of the bag and the Surties are on the news. People can now follow the story for themselves and see what is happening. What I am concerned with now is that people should be informed of the probability of winning the case. That is not discussed, simply slammed as a scam with comments like "talking to a brick wall".
Click to expand...

You show your true colours in the penultimate sentence. If you genuinely want to separate scammers from the real benefactors, find out who has legal call on the plaintiffs in the case. Tell this to donors so they know for what they are giving their money. Using the probability of winning the case is just another trick to misdirect "donors" into thinking that the case and the reasons for their donations are the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X