PeanutGallery wrote:While it's easy to look on this with the benefit of hindsight and say at the time it seemed far too good to be true, is entirely reliant on the fact that we have hindsight to benefit us.
If the same fraud crossed your path now would you need personal hindsight to tell you it was obviously a scam?
There's a reason why the expression "If it looks too good to be true it probably is" has become so well known and that's the fact that these scams have been going on since three days before the beginning of whenever.
I can have sympathy for people who lose a few quid to con-artists but actually borrowing huge sums of money to invest in a get-rich-quick scheme is stupidity of Darwinian proportions and is a whole different issue. This does sort of include mostly rich people by default because rich people are far more likely to be able to raise large sums than poor people.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
The answer is, it would depend, this was a proposed scheme that involved investing in the entertainments industry. Investments in that sector can be very lucrative (look at the return Star Wars as made on the initial investment, or the recent Marvel movies), of course it comes with the risk that you can also lose your investment, it depends entirely on the strength of the project, but I do know of some investment funds that invest in a wide range of productions as all they need is one big hit from a range of possibilities.
In this scam they made use of very well known figures to give credibility to the scam. It wasn't a simple little amateur hour con but a well thought out professional enterprise. Liz Watson wasn't the only customer, they also managed to hook the person at the bank who arranged her loan and he also invested. So it wasn't something that we can say looked completely dodgy at the outset. Certainly to the bank staff, who also invested it didn't seem like an obvious scam.
Is it her fault that someone approached her with ill intent and offered her a deal that seemed very good and later would obviously turn out to be good to be true? No. It was wrongdoing on the part of the scammer. It was a crime. I have some sympathy for her as being a victim of a crime. That is all. I don't think people should be conned.
Now should she have taken the loan and risked her house for this. I don't think she should have. It would be putting all of her eggs in one basket and financially that carries a great deal of risk. That was a mistake that she made. I'm not sympathetic that she made that mistake. It was hers to make and she should have been aware of the risks.
Is it then wrong that she is losing her house? Well to some extent it's a grey area, certainly we cannot say it was 100% her fault. But I don't think that absolves her, as she is also at fault for taking a loan she had no means to repay other than through the investment. She shouldn't have done that. So is she at fault to some extent and I feel it would be fair to say her current situation is mostly her fault, but not entirely her fault (which is different to Tom Crawford as his situation is entirely his and his wifes fault).
But fault also isn't the real key issue here. It's about responsibility. She was irresponsible when she took the loan. It wasn't a wise decision to rely on one investment for an income. That is the problem she is facing. I'm not saying that being the victim of crime creates a situation that allows a person to no longer be responsible for their actions, but that I am sorry she was conned, although she shouldn't have placed herself in such a financially precarious position and has to be responsible for her mistakes.
Some seem to think that because she was rich she deserved to be taken advantage of. This is something I take very real issue with, nobody deserves to be a victim of crime. To suggest that she deserved to be taken for a substantial sum by a conman is to say that the conman deserved to take a substantial sum from his victim.
PeanutGallery wrote:The answer is, it would depend, this was a proposed scheme that involved investing in the entertainments industry. Investments in that sector can be very lucrative (look at the return Star Wars as made on the initial investment, or the recent Marvel movies), of course it comes with the risk that you can also lose your investment, it depends entirely on the strength of the project, but I do know of some investment funds that invest in a wide range of productions as all they need is one big hit from a range of possibilities.
Right, let me get this straight. Someone of apparent means borrows heavily to invest in what must be one of the most highly speculative businesses there is. Even if it wasn't an outright fraud then the chances of getting a return would not be good and anyone with more than one brain cell should know that. Even the most cursory due dilligence would quickly reveal it's a business where no one with any sense invests more than they can afford to lose. Anyone who allows themselves to be blinded by the glitz and deluded to the point where they borrow money to put into a showbiz based venture is going to find themselves in trouble. Might as well blow the money on lottery tickets to be honest.
Anyway, you can feel as sorry as you like for EW, it's a free world. I just don't see any reason to waste the slightest shred of sympathy on the woman and her behaviour in recent years indicates that scorn is not misplaced.
PeanutGallery wrote:The answer is, it would depend, this was a proposed scheme that involved investing in the entertainments industry. Investments in that sector can be very lucrative (look at the return Star Wars as made on the initial investment, or the recent Marvel movies), of course it comes with the risk that you can also lose your investment, it depends entirely on the strength of the project, but I do know of some investment funds that invest in a wide range of productions as all they need is one big hit from a range of possibilities.
Right, let me get this straight. Someone of apparent means borrows heavily to invest in what must be one of the most highly speculative businesses there is. Even if it wasn't an outright fraud then the chances of getting a return would not be good and anyone with more than one brain cell should know that. Even the most cursory due dilligence would quickly reveal it's a business where no one with any sense invests more than they can afford to lose. Anyone who allows themselves to be blinded by the glitz and deluded to the point where they borrow money to put into a showbiz based venture is going to find themselves in trouble. Might as well blow the money on lottery tickets to be honest.
Anyway, you can feel as sorry as you like for EW, it's a free world. I just don't see any reason to waste the slightest shred of sympathy on the woman and her behaviour in recent years indicates that scorn is not misplaced.
I'm not sure you read all of my post, or rather you seem to be looking for areas to disagree and ignoring areas where we would seem to be in agreement. Such as:
Now should she have taken the loan and risked her house for this. I don't think she should have. It would be putting all of her eggs in one basket and financially that carries a great deal of risk. That was a mistake that she made. I'm not sympathetic that she made that mistake. It was hers to make and she should have been aware of the risks.
Equally my position is that it was unfortunate that she was scammed. She shouldn't have been and if she hadn't have been scammed would she have lost any money? However I have never said that this justifies her taking the Sovrun path or her behaviour after being scammed.
I'm just pointing out that unlike the family Crawford who made the choices that brought them to where they are, her case involves a small sliver of grey.
That wasn't my intent at all. If anything we are both correct that she's gone off the deep end and her current behaviour is reprehensible. We both agree on that and it is not an issue. Equally we both agree that she shouldn't have invested more than she could afford to lose in the scheme. The only point of contention seems to be that I take the view she isn't at fault for having been convinced by a scam to invest in it.
To that end I can't say that all her troubles are 100% hers and I am sorry she was scammed, but that doesn't mean she isn't responsible for her actions or her choices and it doesn't justify her descent into freemanism.
PeanutGallery wrote:That wasn't my intent at all. If anything we are both correct that she's gone off the deep end and her current behaviour is reprehensible. We both agree on that and it is not an issue. Equally we both agree that she shouldn't have invested more than she could afford to lose in the scheme. The only point of contention seems to be that I take the view she isn't at fault for having been convinced by a scam to invest in it.
To that end I can't say that all her troubles are 100% hers and I am sorry she was scammed, but that doesn't mean she isn't responsible for her actions or her choices and it doesn't justify her descent into freemanism.
I'm happy to agree to disagree on that one. Not worth falling out over in my book and I'm sure you agree.
PeanutGallery wrote:That wasn't my intent at all. If anything we are both correct that she's gone off the deep end and her current behaviour is reprehensible. We both agree on that and it is not an issue. Equally we both agree that she shouldn't have invested more than she could afford to lose in the scheme. The only point of contention seems to be that I take the view she isn't at fault for having been convinced by a scam to invest in it.
To that end I can't say that all her troubles are 100% hers and I am sorry she was scammed, but that doesn't mean she isn't responsible for her actions or her choices and it doesn't justify her descent into freemanism.
I'm happy to agree to disagree on that one. Not worth falling out over in my book and I'm sure you agree.
Of course, world would be a bloody dull place if everyone agreed with me. For one I'd have nobody to debate pointless semantics with and also we would be bereft of the comedy of GOODF.
“It was not curiosity that killed the goose who laid the golden egg, but an insatiable greed that devoured common sense.”
― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly"
" 7 - Her tendency to allege that anyone who does not immediately agree with her is corrupt and "in on the conspiracy" to steal her home may possibly alienate some tribunals and may result in court staff refusing to deal with her. She certainly alleges that she has had communication problems with courts in the past. I felt that her sense of grievance was genuine, by which I mean that she genuinely feels that she has been wronged. I do not mean to say that I have decided she is right. I am not able to determine the merits of the original dispute about the debt on which this possession order is based. There has been a very long procedural history in this case and I accept that her health has been affected from time to time. A great deal of what she says is patent nonsense and it is very difficult for a Judge in circumstances of this kind to identify any merit there may be in anything she says. It does not follow that because a lot of what she says is nonsense that it all is. She is a litigant who is very vulnerable because she is quite unable to refrain from making grandiose and groundless allegations of dishonesty against everyone who does not immediately side with her. This is a very good way of hiding any meritorious point she may have."
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Loonie Lizzie sounds an awful lot like the crazy woman in Canada who took her pension and threw it away in some scam investment and then got taxed on the money she took out and lost, she was trying to avoid taxes and ended up getting hit with them in double measure I think. Unhinged her a bit as well, or maybe she was just that way to start with, but they sound so much alike. Greed however was the underlying cause.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote:Loonie Lizzie sounds an awful lot like the crazy woman in Canada who took her pension and threw it away in some scam investment and then got taxed on the money she took out and lost, she was trying to avoid taxes and ended up getting hit with them in double measure I think. Unhinged her a bit as well, or maybe she was just that way to start with, but they sound so much alike. Greed however was the underlying cause.
You are of course referring to Alicija Jastrebske;
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Got it in one, they sound like sisters separated at birth, imagine, or I'd really rather not, bi-national crazies.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
vampireLOREN wrote:Wasn't this annoying woman facing eviction at the end of July? any news? anybody?.
17.I now turn to the revised application which was made orally which was, as I have said, really for an extension of time in which to appeal. I have sympathy with this in principle. Ms. Watson strikes me as a person who is struggling with this litigation, despite her obvious commitment to her cause. I have seen some medical evidence about her daughter who was admitted to hospital on the evening of the first day of the two day trial which resulted in the order of the 1st July 2015. The order requires her to give vacant possession on 29th July 2015, a day after her time for appealing expires. It appears to me that she has a right to issue a notice of appeal against that order and to have the issue of permission determined by the County Court. I have referred above to the difficulties involved in dealing with Ms. Watson who is very free with her allegations of corruption. I trust that if she presents a notice of appeal and an application for an extension of time pending its determination in a form which can properly be issued within the time limit it will be issued and referred for consideration by the Circuit Judge. She told me that she had been refused permission to appeal because it would be a second appeal. I do not know what she was referring to, and any observations I make are expressed on the limited basis of what I know.
She posted the following this morning to advertise her new business venture. God forbid anyone who is tempted to take up her offer.
Elizabeth Watson Eviction the fraud of the bank
5 hrs ·
QUICK CHECK LIST TO VERIFY IF A POSSESSION CLAIM IS VALID OR NOT If you get a Possession order, first check these things and do your due diligence before you react to the claim and file any defence:
1. Does the claimant have the RIGHT of claim? If it is a third party intermediary or broker and not the source lender, they have no RIGHT of claim! Because they did not incur any debt, the alleged lender did, not them - IF the lender can prove they have not securitised the loan.
2. Does the Claim have supporting evidence of a Contract and a compliant DEED, and a proof of debt?
3. Is the claim bought lawfully through the Salford Central Court in Manchester? If not, its invalid. Unless it is a legitimate PCOL or MCOL which has strict rules - check these out carefully.
4. Is the Claimant duly authorised and legitimate, licensed, insured and registered with the Authorities? Ditto any solicitor acting on their behalf? Check the companies house listing for the Claimant, and see if it matches the one on the Claim form. Ditto, has the contract displayed the FCA or FSA licence number for the alleged claimant / debtor? Check it with the FCA: you may get some nasty surprises!
5. Check the HMLR Register - is the claim registered on your property with a compliant charge deed, granted by you and with 2 independent witness signatures? If not, it must be removed using a B-142 form.
6. Have you received a bank account in connection with the loan interest costs and or do you have proof of the loan being received - check the bank account / financial instrument, either to show a credit or a debit. Scrutinise the detail. Then check with the issuing bank's Application Fraud department and see if it is a legitimate account number and sort code! you might get a nasty surprise!
7. Any mortgage must have embedded within it a RIGHT OF REDEMPTION. Have you duly had this right? Check the devil in the detail! Check the Terms & Conditions of the loan or mortgage which MUST be contained within the contract from the said lender! 8. Ask for the APPLICATION for the said loan or mortgage, from the lending source - was it signed by you? filled in by you? Many claims are being won on the basis of proving INAPPROPRIATE LENDING, which covers fraud, forgery, mis-selling (very important), non-compliant paperwork, inadequately set up, errors and omissions etc. etc.
Note: From about mid September 2015, through Discoveries Int'l Ltd, I will be considering accepting some cases that fulfil certain criteria, on a Consultancy basis to assist with checking any possession claims for a flat fee (pls enquire for details if interested) for up to 25 hours of investigative work together with providing an ACTION REPORT to implement, in order to secure your defence and position, and hopefully get the claim thrown out. Please send me a private message if interested.
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.
Jimmy likes mortgages and even tried to organise a mortgage strike, which crashed and burned, so do not be surprised if he starts banging on about how good this is and it works. The fact Jimmy almost certainly has not got a mortgage won't stop him.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
