Surtie Inheritance Scam

[Speedster]

Moenie my se jammer nie.
Vra asb vir King Chop omverskoning.
Niemand op die aarde is 'DOM' nie.
Elkeen het sy eie ding waarin hy geseen is.
So party mense kan spel, party kan houtwerk doen, party ......, jy verstaan.
Maar nooit is iemand dom nie.
Jy het ook nou gese jy is nie deel van die snert nie, maar jy is elke dag hier om n comment te lewer.
Se weer, as daar nie n way foward is nie, sal ek eerste vir die mense se dat ons nou in ons mo..r is.
En glo my ek sal weet.
So ek gee niemand vals hoop nie, daar is nog baie water om in die dam te loop voor ons moet opgee.
Ek verstaan almal is gatvol, ek ook.
MAAR niemand het n tyd gegee wanneer die gaan verby wees nie.
Dis hoekom ek ook nie n tyd gee nie.
Ek gee hoop want ek is ingelig, jy saai negetiewe comments met geen inligting.
So asb kom ons hou die ding aan die gang om mense in te lig as daar nog hoop is.
Se weer as alles bottoms up gaan sal ek almal inlig.
Dit is n belofte.
Lekker dag vir jou ook

Moenie my se jammer nie.
Vra asb vir King Chop omverskoning.
Niemand op die aarde is 'DOM' nie.
Elkeen het sy eie ding waarin hy geseen is.
So party mense kan spel, party kan houtwerk doen, party ......, jy verstaan.
Maar nooit is iemand dom nie.
Jy het ook nou gese jy is nie deel van die snert nie, maar jy is elke dag hier om n comment te lewer.
Se weer, as daar nie n way foward is nie, sal ek eerste vir die mense se dat ons nou in ons mo..r is.
En glo my ek sal weet.
So ek gee niemand vals hoop nie, daar is nog baie water om in die dam te loop voor ons moet opgee.
Ek verstaan almal is gatvol, ek ook.
MAAR niemand het n tyd gegee wanneer die gaan verby wees nie.
Dis hoekom ek ook nie n tyd gee nie.
Ek gee hoop want ek is ingelig, jy saai negetiewe comments met geen inligting.
So asb kom ons hou die ding aan die gang om mense in te lig as daar nog hoop is.
Se weer as alles bottoms up gaan sal ek almal inlig.
Dit is n belofte.
Lekker dag vir jou ook

Nee wat tjom, ek stem glad nie saam nie. Enige iemand wat geld in hierdie tipe skemas in sit is ongelukkig dom. En die wat hul aanraai om dit te doen is jakkalse.

Dan ook, jy noem "glo my ek sal weet" - deel bietjie hoe jy spesifiek sal weet. Wat maak jou so belangrik dat jy beter inligting as die res het. Verder, wat sal vir jou genoegsame bewys wees dat hierdie n bedrogspul is? By voorbeeld, daar's mense wat steeds glo MTI het eerlike besigheid gedoen en word deur die owerhede ingedoen selfs met al die inkriminerende bewyse op die tafel. So, wat sal vir jou die teken wees dat hierdie storie n pot snert is?

 

[king_chop]

Moenie my se jammer nie.
Vra asb vir King Chop omverskoning.
Niemand op die aarde is 'DOM' nie.
Elkeen het sy eie ding waarin hy geseen is.
So party mense kan spel, party kan houtwerk doen, party ......, jy verstaan.
Maar nooit is iemand dom nie.
Jy het ook nou gese jy is nie deel van die snert nie, maar jy is elke dag hier om n comment te lewer.
Se weer, as daar nie n way foward is nie, sal ek eerste vir die mense se dat ons nou in ons mo..r is.
En glo my ek sal weet.
So ek gee niemand vals hoop nie, daar is nog baie water om in die dam te loop voor ons moet opgee.
Ek verstaan almal is gatvol, ek ook.
MAAR niemand het n tyd gegee wanneer die gaan verby wees nie.
Dis hoekom ek ook nie n tyd gee nie.
Ek gee hoop want ek is ingelig, jy saai negetiewe comments met geen inligting.
So asb kom ons hou die ding aan die gang om mense in te lig as daar nog hoop is.
Se weer as alles bottoms up gaan sal ek almal inlig.
Dit is n belofte.
Lekker dag vir jou ook

nee dis fine da is niks nodig om vir my te verdedig teen hierdie keybored warrior nie

dis ouens soos dit wat nie mans genoeg is om die regte wereld aan te durf nie nou stiek hulle weg agter n computer skerm ek is seker as ek hom in die straat moet raakloep dan hardloep hy weg soos die bang hond wat hy is

 

[Bewlen]

Moenie my se jammer nie.
Vra asb vir King Chop omverskoning.
Niemand op die aarde is 'DOM' nie.
Elkeen het sy eie ding waarin hy geseen is.
So party mense kan spel, party kan houtwerk doen, party ......, jy verstaan.
Maar nooit is iemand dom nie.
Jy het ook nou gese jy is nie deel van die snert nie, maar jy is elke dag hier om n comment te lewer.
Se weer, as daar nie n way foward is nie, sal ek eerste vir die mense se dat ons nou in ons mo..r is.
En glo my ek sal weet.
So ek gee niemand vals hoop nie, daar is nog baie water om in die dam te loop voor ons moet opgee.
Ek verstaan almal is gatvol, ek ook.
MAAR niemand het n tyd gegee wanneer die gaan verby wees nie.
Dis hoekom ek ook nie n tyd gee nie.
Ek gee hoop want ek is ingelig, jy saai negetiewe comments met geen inligting.
So asb kom ons hou die ding aan die gang om mense in te lig as daar nog hoop is.
Se weer as alles bottoms up gaan sal ek almal inlig.
Dit is n belofte.
Lekker dag vir jou ook

nee dis fine da is niks nodig om vir my te verdedig teen hierdie keybored warrior nie

dis ouens soos dit wat nie mans genoeg is om die regte wereld aan te durf nie nou stiek hulle weg agter n computer skerm ek is seker as ek hom in die straat moet raakloep dan hardloep hy weg soos die bang hond wat hy is

No.

You and your type perpetuate the scam, trying to maintain legitimacy where there is absolutely zero. That leads to more people getting suckered into it, and more people losing what little money they have. There is no hope, only more scamming.

I suspect you are one of the "organizers" that actually received "donations/investments", this slice of the internet is hurting you, your "donors" are starting to ask questions, and you are using this to try and get people off your back by holding this up as an argument.

Why don't you name your "upline"? Let's get some names out into the open, if this is such a legitimate scheme and all? Name the person that you gave money to? Come on, "it's legit"!

 

[Francois5141]

No.

You and your type perpetuate the scam, trying to maintain legitimacy where there is absolutely zero. That leads to more people getting suckered into it, and more people losing what little money they have. There is no hope, only more scamming.

I suspect you are one of the "organizers" that actually received "donations/investments", this slice of the internet is hurting you, your "donors" are starting to ask questions, and you are using this to try and get people off your back by holding this up as an argument.

Why don't you name your "upline"? Let's get some names out into the open, if this is such a legitimate scheme and all? Name the person that you gave money to? Come on, "it's legit"!

Ok smart guy.
You explain the scam to us.
In detail please, seeing you making the claim its a scam, you must have lots of facts to back it up.
Then are you part of the claim or are you just seeing an opportunity to say something so people can se you on the bigest thread ever in South Africa.
Do you really think people are stupid enough to put names here of people that stand between them and there money.
You did not think that through did you.

 

[Bewlen]

Ok smart guy.
You explain the scam to us.
In detail please, seeing you making the claim its a scam, you must have lots of facts to back it up.
Then are you part of the claim or are you just seeing an opportunity to say something so people can se you on the bigest thread ever in South Africa.
Do you really think people are stupid enough to put names here of people that stand between them and there money.
You did not think that through did you.

The scam is easy. People say that they are mandated to take donations to assist with legal fees towards the case, worth "treeeeeeliiioooons". They actually have no mandate and cannot prove their mandate, but that doesn't bother donors because the numbers are essentially a Lotto win, so they don't ask questions and blindly believe. To keep the scam going, they simply use excuses to "delay" the "payout". In perpetuity.

It really is that simple.

 

[PsyWulf]

Ok smart guy.
You explain the scam to us.
In detail please, seeing you making the claim its a scam, you must have lots of facts to back it up.
Then are you part of the claim or are you just seeing an opportunity to say something so people can se you on the bigest thread ever in South Africa.
Do you really think people are stupid enough to put names here of people that stand between them and there money.
You did not think that through did you.

Ah see,we have another simpleton who doesn't understand the burden of proof.

Your argument is: Prove to me that the moon isn't made of cheese. With actual evidence,not photos. A piece of moon in your hands that you collected yourself will suffice. That should be easy right?

Now in the real world,the burden the one claiming the most unlikely claim has the higher burden of proof. So your burden is to prove that:
There are trillions available in the "account"
There was fundraising for the case
This fundraising was approved by the actual estate
There is a collective group for fundraising
You yourself are in this group
You yourself participated in this fundraising
You received a contract confirming as such
For donations of a few thousand you are eligible to receive millions

Since you are "participating" all of this should be easy to prove the legitimacy

If you cannot provide all of this information verifiably your claims can be written off as nonsense as it is the most unlikely claim

So you a scared baby? Or gonna put up proof
Won't hold my breath

 

[Francois5141]

The scam is easy. People say that they are mandated to take donations to assist with legal fees towards the case, worth "treeeeeeliiioooons". They actually have no mandate and cannot prove their mandate, but that doesn't bother donors because the numbers are essentially a Lotto win, so they don't ask questions and blindly believe. To keep the scam going, they simply use excuses to "delay" the "payout". In perpetuity.

It really is that simple.

Everything sort of true and agreeable BUT, proof to me that the money of these people are stolen and that there is no chance of them getting anything, then yes it was a scam BUT
the case is still ongoing and the people are working daily on getting a solution to this.
So where is the scam...
Money was given( donated ) to help in this huge case.
Now the case are still ongoing and everybody screams scam.
What are you trying to accomplish by making people negative.

 

[BusyNobody]

The scam is easy. People say that they are mandated to take donations to assist with legal fees towards the case, worth "treeeeeeliiioooons". They actually have no mandate and cannot prove their mandate, but that doesn't bother donors because the numbers are essentially a Lotto win, so they don't ask questions and blindly believe. To keep the scam going, they simply use excuses to "delay" the "payout". In perpetuity.

It really is that simple.

Silly question...but I'm sure that you'll be able to clear up my confusion.

In the documents supporting the particulars of claim, there was a document authorising a specific person to investigate the whereabouts of the money in exchange for 20% of whatever is successfully recouped. A link to this document is to be found somewhere in this thread. Now here's where my confusion comes in - this sounds an awful lot to me like it meets most of (if not all) the criteria of what constitutes the definition of a mandate.

This specific person was also named as the Second Plaintiff in the High Court case. This person needed a means to fund his investigation, as well as any legal proceedings that may ensue, since the estate is/was not in the position to do so. Now there are known links between this person and several churches across the Western Cape that I'm personally aware of. He's made appearances at Sunday morning gatherings at some of these churches that was attended by people I'm in regular contact with. Discussions were held after these Sunday morning services where the Surtie investigation/court case were discussed on several occasions.

I cannot confirm any agreements between the person named as the Second Plaintiff and congregants of these churches - because I have not seen them myself, but I choose not to assume anything despite my ignorance of the facts. Yet you seem confident that it is not plausible that such a second agreement exists.

Please clarify why you feel this way

 

[BusyNobody]

Ah see,we have another simpleton who doesn't understand the burden of proof.

Your argument is: Prove to me that the moon isn't made of cheese. With actual evidence,not photos. A piece of moon in your hands that you collected yourself will suffice. That should be easy right?

Now in the real world,the burden the one claiming the most unlikely claim has the higher burden of proof. So your burden is to prove that:
There are trillions available in the "account"
There was fundraising for the case
This fundraising was approved by the actual estate
There is a collective group for fundraising
You yourself are in this group
You yourself participated in this fundraising
You received a contract confirming as such

Since you are "participating" all of this should be easy to provr the legitimacy

If you cannot provide all of this information verifiably your claims can be written off as nonsense as it is the most unlikely claim

So you a scared baby? Or gonna put up proof
Won't hold my breath

We've agreed on most things in the past, but I feel I have to respond to this. However, I'm just stepping into a meeting with a rather big (not physically...but maybe his pockets) client and will only be able to dissect this post later

 

[Bewlen]

Silly question...but I'm sure that you'll be able to clear up my confusion.

In the documents supporting the particulars of claim, there was a document authorising a specific person to investigate the whereabouts of the money in exchange for 20% of whatever is successfully recouped. A link to this document is to be found somewhere in this thread. Now here's where my confusion comes in - this sounds an awful lot to me like it meets most of (if not all) the criteria of what constitutes the definition of a mandate.

This specific person was also named as the Second Plaintiff in the High Court case. This person needed a means to fund his investigation, as well as any legal proceedings that may ensue, since the estate is/was not in the position to do so. Now there are known links between this person and several churches across the Western Cape that I'm personally aware of. He's made appearances at Sunday morning gatherings at some of these churches that was attended by people I'm in regular contact with. Discussions were held after these Sunday morning services where the Surtie investigation/court case were discussed on several occasions.

I cannot confirm any agreements between the person named as the Second Plaintiff and congregants of these churches - because I have not seen them myself, but I choose not to assume anything despite my ignorance of the facts. Yet you seem confident that it is not plausible that such a second agreement exists.

Please clarify why you feel this way

Name the names. Provide the docs. There are multiple "documents" throughout this thread.

MANY OF THEM DEBUNKED AS FAKES.

 

[Bewlen]

Everything sort of true and agreeable BUT, proof to me that the money of these people are stolen and that there is no chance of them getting anything, then yes it was a scam BUT
the case is still ongoing and the people are working daily on getting a solution to this.
So where is the scam...
Money was given( donated ) to help in this huge case.
Now the case are still ongoing and everybody screams scam.
What are you trying to accomplish by making people negative.

You actually just confirmed the entire scam. You confirmed everything I said. But your counter-argument is "don't be negative"...

 

[PsyWulf]

We've agreed on most things in the past, but I feel I have to respond to this. However, I'm just stepping into a meeting with a rather big (not physically...but maybe his pockets) client and will only be able to dissect this post later

"There is a remote possibility of some truth therefor not a scam"
Nope, that's not how it works. We're aware of everything up to where you confirmed you don't know the particulars of the churches. So you are in no position to suppose it's not a scam - there is a greater likelihood each whatsapp group claiming payouts soon is a scam evidenced by their continued claims. As you yourself have confirmed in previous postings

Again,there are bits of truth to all cons.

 

[LandyMan]

Silly question...but I'm sure that you'll be able to clear up my confusion.

In the documents supporting the particulars of claim, there was a document authorising a specific person to investigate the whereabouts of the money in exchange for 20% of whatever is successfully recouped. A link to this document is to be found somewhere in this thread. Now here's where my confusion comes in - this sounds an awful lot to me like it meets most of (if not all) the criteria of what constitutes the definition of a mandate.

This specific person was also named as the Second Plaintiff in the High Court case. This person needed a means to fund his investigation, as well as any legal proceedings that may ensue, since the estate is/was not in the position to do so. Now there are known links between this person and several churches across the Western Cape that I'm personally aware of. He's made appearances at Sunday morning gatherings at some of these churches that was attended by people I'm in regular contact with. Discussions were held after these Sunday morning services where the Surtie investigation/court case were discussed on several occasions.

I cannot confirm any agreements between the person named as the Second Plaintiff and congregants of these churches - because I have not seen them myself, but I choose not to assume anything despite my ignorance of the facts. Yet you seem confident that it is not plausible that such a second agreement exists.

Please clarify why you feel this way

Let's ask @king_chop and @Francois5141 ... esteemed "investors", are these kind of secondary agreements in place, are the two of you (as confirmed "investors") in possession of anything like this?

 

[PsyWulf]

Let's just get to the core of the issue
The original original original claim of this thread was: for a donation of a few thousands,anyone donating was set to receive millions to hundreds of millions

Disregarding any and all subsequent halftruths and vagaries,@BusyNobody we have not received any proof of this,and it's also unfuckinglikely.

Thus. This original claim the thread is based on,is a scam

 

[BusyNobody]

That was a shorter meeting than I anticipated:

Him - Do you want more of my money?
Me - Yes. Of course
Him - Okay. Draw up the documents for the next project, and I'll have a look at it

Nevertheless, I opted not to reply to the earlier post, however:

Disregarding any and all subsequent halftruths and vagaries,@BusyNobody we have not received any proof of this,and it's also unfuckinglikely.

You are correct. It is unlikely. The documentation that you and everybody else on your side of the argument have been calling for since this thread was started has been submitted to the High Court as part of an ongoing matter. Your assertion is that this documentation does not exist. The fact that it was submitted to the High Court to substantiate a claim opposes that theory (because in essence, that's what it is - a theory) vehemently. Look at any other High Court matter that has not yet been finalised...the details are not made known to the public. Admittedly, a press release is issued, but this information is extremely limited at best.

Thus. This original claim the thread is based on,is a scam

It's your prerogative to claim this as whatever you choose to. But that does not mean that your deduction is necessarily accurate. Just as you have not been provided proof that this is not a scam, you've also made very strong claims that it is a scam. Therefore, the burden of proof for your assertion, also lies with you (albeit to a lesser degree).

Now let me get cracking on these documents so that my weekend isn't wasted

 

[Francois5141]

Let's ask @king_chop and @Francois5141 ... esteemed "investors", are these kind of secondary agreements in place, are the two of you (as confirmed "investors") in possession of anything like this?

Let me reply this way.
No im not aware of anything.
The point is that person will get x amount of money.
He is just like you and me, when there is money available. He will get his share, when he gets his money we will get out money.
SO THEY will make sure they do what they can, because they also want there money.
At this stage nobody has money, and im not talking about M................, AS FAR AS IT CONCERNS ME THEY ARE THE SCAMMERS HERE.
Anybody that gave them money can kiss it bey bey.......

 

[Speedster]

Everything sort of true and agreeable BUT, proof to me that the money of these people are stolen and that there is no chance of them getting anything, then yes it was a scam BUT
the case is still ongoing and the people are working daily on getting a solution to this.
So where is the scam...
Money was given( donated ) to help in this huge case.
Now the case are still ongoing and everybody screams scam.
What are you trying to accomplish by making people negative.

Explain this bit to me: Even if by some miraculous state of affairs these funds are released to the claimants, why on earth would they share it with anybody?

 

[Francois5141]

Explain this bit to me: Even if by some miraculous state of affairs these funds are released to the claimants, why on earth would they share it with anybody?

Because is they don't i will make sure everybody knows it.
BUT these people are honest and wile everybody is talking shite about them they are working their behinds of to get it sorted.

 

[Speedster]

The documentation that you and everybody else on your side of the argument have been calling for since this thread was started has been submitted to the High Court as part of an ongoing matter. Your assertion is that this documentation does not exist. The fact that it was submitted to the High Court to substantiate a claim opposes that theory (because in essence, that's what it is - a theory) vehemently. Look at any other High Court matter that has not yet been finalised...the details are not made known to the public. Admittedly, a press release is issued, but this information is extremely limited at best.

This is patently untrue. Any document submitted in court becomes part of the public record and is available to any member of the public.

 

[Speedster]

Because is they don't i will make sure everybody knows it.
BUT these people are honest and wile everybody is talking shite about them they are working their behinds of to get it sorted.

People said Cheri Marks/Ward was honest too.
People said Johann Steynberg was honest too.
People said Jerome and LibeRebil were honest too.
People said Charles Ponzi was honest too.