• Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 29/01/2009 - 08:09

The letters attached to the above affidavit are so similar in wording that it seems they are based on a draft possibly suggested by Cains. They are all dated 22 January 2009 yet several are stamped "Received 21 January 2008" This is a serious slip-up for a sworn affidavit! The Court should question this, irrespective of the merits of the SoA and the DCS options that need to be considered.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not Cains, at least I am

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:33

Not Cains, at least I am pretty sure not - possibly Cains have an ex-met police evidence officer on the team, thus the slip up with dates.

clucas affidavit and attached letters

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 29/01/2009 - 12:27

As I have said elsewhere every depositor has the right to take whatever action he wishes to protect his interests. The letters as such do not therefore worry me.
I am concerned however that they make two statements that are not correct.
First of all and describing the SoA they all use the following or similar words "potentially achieving sufficient monies to meet all depositor and creditor sums due".
Now come on fellows where do you get that from ? ALL the information we have tells us that the outcome from the SoA and the liquidation will in total be the same and is forecast to be well below a 100% return.
Some of you who wrote this letter worked damned hard in the initial stages of our action and did good work. Elsewhere on the site depositors are trying to come to a reasoned view about the relative merits of the SoA and liquidation. If you can rationally support the SoA and demonstrate its merits and advantages don't you think we would all support that ? So come on, if you know this is a better route for us tell us why. Demonstrate it. You have not done so to date.
The second point that concerns me is the assertion without any evidence that the letter represents the view of the majority of the depositors. Maybe it does. But I'd like to see the evidence. And until evidence is forthcoming I hope the Court does not accept it.

Re: clucas affidavit and attached letters

  • Offshore_Victim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 30/01/2009 - 00:39

I don't post very often as I feel obliged to remain relativity passive due to certain professional constraints which I will not expand on. I do however feel that in respect to the letters attached to the Clucas affidavit that a posting of my personal opinion is as valid and appropriate as anyone else who finds themselves being a parted from their life savings big or small!

I agree with Banna in so far as every depositor DOES have the right to take any action which they feel protect his or hers interest.

But I wish to strongly state that I have great reservations in this regard where persons who have been promoted as champions for the cause suddenly and without consultation take coordinated action which they state will be supported by the majority without any evidence that such support has been received. Come on guys I know that you have performed a sterling job on our behalf to date but statements of this kind are totally inappropriate unless you have evidence to back it up. I believe that this not only weakens your personal position but undermines the group as a whole, which given the current vibe of the forum appears fractured and fragile enough!