"In-the-knows" have painted themselves into a corner

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I believe you meant none of you CAN produce.....you are incorrect. But you, sir, are a perfect example of why nobody should.

peace

(watch the response I get, should be entertaining)

lj

You're really going to stoop down to picking out typos in a forum without an edit function? In that case I think you meant 'many companies that DO top secrety....'

On a more substantive note, I don't doubt that you may be told things by someone, I question the veracity of the information on the basis of accuracy to date, lack of consistency in story, and relative to fact.

Regarding Sam Colins, I'm saying that as presented as the primary person responsible for SI, a preimminent individual in the international banking community, and as often cited by those 'in the know' to be looking out for their 'assets,' does not exist. Is that sufficently clear? Not hard to pull a person's information when you have a name, birth date, and passport number. If you don't have access to do it directly, then there are many sites where you can pay a nominal fee to have a full search done and obtain information regarding background, occupation, employers, income, and other particulars. As a legitimate debtor you certainly have a valid reason to do so. Also probably basis to ask the UK's IPS to verify the passport. Any of which is vastly more reliable than any anonymous sources on Internet forums myself included. Pocket change for you soon-to-be SI high rolla's.

My point regarding the default judgement, which is for the estimated total of all invested funds with the $500,000 being only the amount actually recovered to date from the seized e-gold accounts, is that a legitimate investment company does not concede a default ruling that they know in advance will award all of the funds invested and declare it to be a fraud. In addition, the full award remains as a claim against SI funds and likely would be recognized where any associated funds are identified, probably even in Germany or the UK, and it would have priority above that of any shareholders and investors. Obviously with investor settlements, German judges, 5+5 banks, 250 people working 24/7, the IRS and everyone else involved, along with a bunch of idiots talking about it on Internet forums, this 'secret' isn't much of one. Surely the attorneys here know of it as would their associates in Germany who would stand to make a handsome sum with an assist and are more than capable of tracking down something that significant. There almost certainly would be some legal actions at least attempted and detectable along those lines. There are none.

The only place where a web site openly presenting terms of an investment and returns, directly accepting 'investments' via anonymous payment brokers, with over 100,000 members is considered a 'private' investment is on the pages of HYIP sites. In the real investment world there are very specific limits to the numbers of investors in what are considered legitimate private investments, on the order of 100, they require prequalification of such investors prior to acceptance, they do not permit open public access to relevant information, and they certainly are not open to casual investment directly by anyone accessing the site.

Also, your assessment of registration requirements for offshore investments is factually incorrect. At least with respect to registration requirements for US investors who make up a significant number of SI's members. Regardless where the investment is based, if a company offers investments to US investors, public or private, offshore or not, then they and each investment must be registered appropriately. The alternative is to prohibit US investors and display a disclaimer to that effect, neither of which was the case for SI. Both private and offshore investments are in fact regulated by the SEC. They're simply regulated under different provisions than are public offerings. I can cite chapter and verse if you'd like but if you do a little 'research' you'll find that this is indeed the case.

Also, IBCs in Belize are general business forms that are specifically prohibited from operating 'collective investments' as SI would be considered whether in name as Solid Investment or as Jungle Ventures. This includes acting in an intermediary capacity. Also licensing for investments always bears the name of the dba company. And, no, SI did not provide a good explanation for the related warnings by the IFSC. They gave an inadequate excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is supported directly by conversations with IFSC staff. They issued fraud warnings as just that. They do not issue such warnings for administrative variances. It's late to address SI specifically, but you can verify the above generally by contacting them directly. They have phones and e-mail and everything down there.

We're not talking about a Grand Jury for a criminal matter, minor children, or a matter of state secrets here. It's a civil action between a group of investors and a company and jurisdiction isn't much of a mystery. Given the magnitude of the settlement as it's been represented you can assume federal or equivalent of district court. Germany has had electronic court filings since the mid-90s and it appears to have the same requirements as others with respect to public notice for such matters. Even in the event that the specific terms of such a settlement were not released there would be other substantiating evidence surrounding it. Nothing is found. And as an aside, where are all of these German investors? They also appear to have been somehow 'stealthed.'

Witness protection isn't particularly on point but in any event while you may be able to make a new future for someone, other than maybe in Sandra Bullock movies, you can't make a person's past completely disappear without a trace. Where's Sammy's past?

Likewise, the DOD comments. I'm not sure what that has to do with a settlement with a very public investment company, but in fact most companies doing "top secret' work are very easily found. Through contracting awards, the want ads where they advertise for personnel with clearances every week, as well as through other public disclosures. Once again, you may not find the details, but the mere existence of the company and the fact that they are working on a particular project isn't hard to find in most cases and in fact isn't even attempted to be hidden. 'Black budget' is the exception not the rule, but again I fail to see how that relates to a settlement for investors.

Your estimate for the availability of details on a settlement, while probably high, might be true for settlements done by private parties through arbitration, that's clearly not the case when you have German judges and courts multiple international government agencies, and 100,000 directly affected individuals involved. And once again you'd expect some evidence of existence even if not the details.

So unless you're claiming something along the lines of Sam Colins being an international double-nought spy whose backgound has been totally erased and who's permitted to travel on fake passports to facilitate a secret wealth transfer to the masses lead by a consortium of a phantom German judge, the Bank of England, the IRS, and maybe the Trilateral Commission thrown in for good measure, in advance of the 7th coming of Buddah, I'm not sure how this not very secret secret plan works out. If so, then all I can suggest is to double up on the tinfoil and watch out for the black helicopters. Given your past posts elsewhere I tend to give you more credit than that.

I trust that this was sufficiently 'entertaining.' If you want to try to have intelligent discussion, then I'm all for it. If not, then we can just go back to insulting the flying pig guy.

While you all are posturing and throwing barbs and typos at one another, the pig guy is getting more attention of the real kind than you, check it out. Think I'll opt out on the side of the pig, to tell the truth, looks more fun.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You're really going to stoop down to picking out typos in a forum without an edit function? In that case I think you meant 'many companies that DO top secrety....'

On a more substantive note, I don't doubt that you may be told things by someone, I question the veracity of the information on the basis of accuracy to date, lack of consistency in story, and relative to fact.

Regarding Sam Colins, I'm saying that as presented as the primary person responsible for SI, a preimminent individual in the international banking community, and as often cited by those 'in the know' to be looking out for their 'assets,' does not exist. Is that sufficently clear? Not hard to pull a person's information when you have a name, birth date, and passport number. If you don't have access to do it directly, then there are many sites where you can pay a nominal fee to have a full search done and obtain information regarding background, occupation, employers, income, and other particulars. As a legitimate debtor you certainly have a valid reason to do so. Also probably basis to ask the UK's IPS to verify the passport. Any of which is vastly more reliable than any anonymous sources on Internet forums myself included. Pocket change for you soon-to-be SI high rolla's.

My point regarding the default judgement, which is for the estimated total of all invested funds with the $500,000 being only the amount actually recovered to date from the seized e-gold accounts, is that a legitimate investment company does not concede a default ruling that they know in advance will award all of the funds invested and declare it to be a fraud. In addition, the full award remains as a claim against SI funds and likely would be recognized where any associated funds are identified, probably even in Germany or the UK, and it would have priority above that of any shareholders and investors. Obviously with investor settlements, German judges, 5+5 banks, 250 people working 24/7, the IRS and everyone else involved, along with a bunch of idiots talking about it on Internet forums, this 'secret' isn't much of one. Surely the attorneys here know of it as would their associates in Germany who would stand to make a handsome sum with an assist and are more than capable of tracking down something that significant. There almost certainly would be some legal actions at least attempted and detectable along those lines. There are none.

The only place where a web site openly presenting terms of an investment and returns, directly accepting 'investments' via anonymous payment brokers, with over 100,000 members is considered a 'private' investment is on the pages of HYIP sites. In the real investment world there are very specific limits to the numbers of investors in what are considered legitimate private investments, on the order of 100, they require prequalification of such investors prior to acceptance, they do not permit open public access to relevant information, and they certainly are not open to casual investment directly by anyone accessing the site.

Also, your assessment of registration requirements for offshore investments is factually incorrect. At least with respect to registration requirements for US investors who make up a significant number of SI's members. Regardless where the investment is based, if a company offers investments to US investors, public or private, offshore or not, then they and each investment must be registered appropriately. The alternative is to prohibit US investors and display a disclaimer to that effect, neither of which was the case for SI. Both private and offshore investments are in fact regulated by the SEC. They're simply regulated under different provisions than are public offerings. I can cite chapter and verse if you'd like but if you do a little 'research' you'll find that this is indeed the case.

Also, IBCs in Belize are general business forms that are specifically prohibited from operating 'collective investments' as SI would be considered whether in name as Solid Investment or as Jungle Ventures. This includes acting in an intermediary capacity. Also licensing for investments always bears the name of the dba company. And, no, SI did not provide a good explanation for the related warnings by the IFSC. They gave an inadequate excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is supported directly by conversations with IFSC staff. They issued fraud warnings as just that. They do not issue such warnings for administrative variances. It's late to address SI specifically, but you can verify the above generally by contacting them directly. They have phones and e-mail and everything down there.

We're not talking about a Grand Jury for a criminal matter, minor children, or a matter of state secrets here. It's a civil action between a group of investors and a company and jurisdiction isn't much of a mystery. Given the magnitude of the settlement as it's been represented you can assume federal or equivalent of district court. Germany has had electronic court filings since the mid-90s and it appears to have the same requirements as others with respect to public notice for such matters. Even in the event that the specific terms of such a settlement were not released there would be other substantiating evidence surrounding it. Nothing is found. And as an aside, where are all of these German investors? They also appear to have been somehow 'stealthed.'

Witness protection isn't particularly on point but in any event while you may be able to make a new future for someone, other than maybe in Sandra Bullock movies, you can't make a person's past completely disappear without a trace. Where's Sammy's past?

Likewise, the DOD comments. I'm not sure what that has to do with a settlement with a very public investment company, but in fact most companies doing "top secret' work are very easily found. Through contracting awards, the want ads where they advertise for personnel with clearances every week, as well as through other public disclosures. Once again, you may not find the details, but the mere existence of the company and the fact that they are working on a particular project isn't hard to find in most cases and in fact isn't even attempted to be hidden. 'Black budget' is the exception not the rule, but again I fail to see how that relates to a settlement for investors.

Your estimate for the availability of details on a settlement, while probably high, might be true for settlements done by private parties through arbitration, that's clearly not the case when you have German judges and courts multiple international government agencies, and 100,000 directly affected individuals involved. And once again you'd expect some evidence of existence even if not the details.

So unless you're claiming something along the lines of Sam Colins being an international double-nought spy whose backgound has been totally erased and who's permitted to travel on fake passports to facilitate a secret wealth transfer to the masses lead by a consortium of a phantom German judge, the Bank of England, the IRS, and maybe the Trilateral Commission thrown in for good measure, in advance of the 7th coming of Buddah, I'm not sure how this not very secret secret plan works out. If so, then all I can suggest is to double up on the tinfoil and watch out for the black helicopters. Given your past posts elsewhere I tend to give you more credit than that.

I trust that this was sufficiently 'entertaining.' If you want to try to have intelligent discussion, then I'm all for it. If not, then we can just go back to insulting the flying pig guy.

Dear Madam. This toipc is under "Money Frauds and Scams".

What I don't understand is.

1. The German Courts have, supposedly taken some kind of action against Sam Collins or Solidinvestment or Junglebunnysomething, but then there isn't anything in the German Courts. If the German Courts were moving against SI, wouldn't there be a judge over this?

2. How is it that e-gold now determines who of their customers are frauds when e-gold is/was facing fraud charges by the feds?

Just because e-gold, the protector of kiddie porn and Russian scammers says it's so sure as hell means zilch to me.

is there any government action against SI other than something by the German courts?

by the way, some of the things lj says makes sense. i don't agree with her (him?) but who knows

Solid investment was just a pure scam.

Frankly it seems pretty simple to me.

Hope the feds can force e-gold to cough up what was there at the time the feds took the assets. And arrest a few more people. That is your best bet!!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You're really going to stoop down to picking out typos in a forum without an edit function? In that case I think you meant 'many companies that DO top secrety....'

On a more substantive note, I don't doubt that you may be told things by someone, I question the veracity of the information on the basis of accuracy to date, lack of consistency in story, and relative to fact.

Regarding Sam Colins, I'm saying that as presented as the primary person responsible for SI, a preimminent individual in the international banking community, and as often cited by those 'in the know' to be looking out for their 'assets,' does not exist. Is that sufficently clear? Not hard to pull a person's information when you have a name, birth date, and passport number. If you don't have access to do it directly, then there are many sites where you can pay a nominal fee to have a full search done and obtain information regarding background, occupation, employers, income, and other particulars. As a legitimate debtor you certainly have a valid reason to do so. Also probably basis to ask the UK's IPS to verify the passport. Any of which is vastly more reliable than any anonymous sources on Internet forums myself included. Pocket change for you soon-to-be SI high rolla's.

My point regarding the default judgement, which is for the estimated total of all invested funds with the $500,000 being only the amount actually recovered to date from the seized e-gold accounts, is that a legitimate investment company does not concede a default ruling that they know in advance will award all of the funds invested and declare it to be a fraud. In addition, the full award remains as a claim against SI funds and likely would be recognized where any associated funds are identified, probably even in Germany or the UK, and it would have priority above that of any shareholders and investors. Obviously with investor settlements, German judges, 5+5 banks, 250 people working 24/7, the IRS and everyone else involved, along with a bunch of idiots talking about it on Internet forums, this 'secret' isn't much of one. Surely the attorneys here know of it as would their associates in Germany who would stand to make a handsome sum with an assist and are more than capable of tracking down something that significant. There almost certainly would be some legal actions at least attempted and detectable along those lines. There are none.

The only place where a web site openly presenting terms of an investment and returns, directly accepting 'investments' via anonymous payment brokers, with over 100,000 members is considered a 'private' investment is on the pages of HYIP sites. In the real investment world there are very specific limits to the numbers of investors in what are considered legitimate private investments, on the order of 100, they require prequalification of such investors prior to acceptance, they do not permit open public access to relevant information, and they certainly are not open to casual investment directly by anyone accessing the site.

Also, your assessment of registration requirements for offshore investments is factually incorrect. At least with respect to registration requirements for US investors who make up a significant number of SI's members. Regardless where the investment is based, if a company offers investments to US investors, public or private, offshore or not, then they and each investment must be registered appropriately. The alternative is to prohibit US investors and display a disclaimer to that effect, neither of which was the case for SI. Both private and offshore investments are in fact regulated by the SEC. They're simply regulated under different provisions than are public offerings. I can cite chapter and verse if you'd like but if you do a little 'research' you'll find that this is indeed the case.

Also, IBCs in Belize are general business forms that are specifically prohibited from operating 'collective investments' as SI would be considered whether in name as Solid Investment or as Jungle Ventures. This includes acting in an intermediary capacity. Also licensing for investments always bears the name of the dba company. And, no, SI did not provide a good explanation for the related warnings by the IFSC. They gave an inadequate excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is supported directly by conversations with IFSC staff. They issued fraud warnings as just that. They do not issue such warnings for administrative variances. It's late to address SI specifically, but you can verify the above generally by contacting them directly. They have phones and e-mail and everything down there.

We're not talking about a Grand Jury for a criminal matter, minor children, or a matter of state secrets here. It's a civil action between a group of investors and a company and jurisdiction isn't much of a mystery. Given the magnitude of the settlement as it's been represented you can assume federal or equivalent of district court. Germany has had electronic court filings since the mid-90s and it appears to have the same requirements as others with respect to public notice for such matters. Even in the event that the specific terms of such a settlement were not released there would be other substantiating evidence surrounding it. Nothing is found. And as an aside, where are all of these German investors? They also appear to have been somehow 'stealthed.'

Witness protection isn't particularly on point but in any event while you may be able to make a new future for someone, other than maybe in Sandra Bullock movies, you can't make a person's past completely disappear without a trace. Where's Sammy's past?

Likewise, the DOD comments. I'm not sure what that has to do with a settlement with a very public investment company, but in fact most companies doing "top secret' work are very easily found. Through contracting awards, the want ads where they advertise for personnel with clearances every week, as well as through other public disclosures. Once again, you may not find the details, but the mere existence of the company and the fact that they are working on a particular project isn't hard to find in most cases and in fact isn't even attempted to be hidden. 'Black budget' is the exception not the rule, but again I fail to see how that relates to a settlement for investors.

Your estimate for the availability of details on a settlement, while probably high, might be true for settlements done by private parties through arbitration, that's clearly not the case when you have German judges and courts multiple international government agencies, and 100,000 directly affected individuals involved. And once again you'd expect some evidence of existence even if not the details.

So unless you're claiming something along the lines of Sam Colins being an international double-nought spy whose backgound has been totally erased and who's permitted to travel on fake passports to facilitate a secret wealth transfer to the masses lead by a consortium of a phantom German judge, the Bank of England, the IRS, and maybe the Trilateral Commission thrown in for good measure, in advance of the 7th coming of Buddah, I'm not sure how this not very secret secret plan works out. If so, then all I can suggest is to double up on the tinfoil and watch out for the black helicopters. Given your past posts elsewhere I tend to give you more credit than that.

I trust that this was sufficiently 'entertaining.' If you want to try to have intelligent discussion, then I'm all for it. If not, then we can just go back to insulting the flying pig guy.

How do you have an intelligent discussion about whether a program is going to pay when at the same time the process is actually underway and closer to being completed than from being started? Are you someone who would tell me it's not raining on me while I'm in Hawaii getting drenched every half hour just because you are lost, blind and drudging down a dead end trial in Death Valley?

To those who have been paid your desire for "discussion" is entirely immaterial. To those who personally know others, including family members, who have already been paid your attempt at saying it won't happen is simply screwball and although we are anonymous here on this forum it's embarrassing to witness someone being so dense.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How do you have an intelligent discussion about whether a program is going to pay when at the same time the process is actually underway and closer to being completed than from being started? Are you someone who would tell me it's not raining on me while I'm in Hawaii getting drenched every half hour just because you are lost, blind and drudging down a dead end trial in Death Valley?

To those who have been paid your desire for "discussion" is entirely immaterial. To those who personally know others, including family members, who have already been paid your attempt at saying it won't happen is simply screwball and although we are anonymous here on this forum it's embarrassing to witness someone being so dense.

A HYIP scam that was a complete fraud from the start doesn't somehow miraculously turn into a 'real' investment paying billions or trillions as some claim. And there is ample objective, independently verifiable evidence to that end. There is nothing at all verifiable to support that anything ever has happened or is happening with SI other than they cut and ran like all other HYIP scams. Nobody's been paid and nobody will be paid.

That's not rain, it's just some guys peeing on your head.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How do you have an intelligent discussion about whether a program is going to pay when at the same time the process is actually underway and closer to being completed than from being started? Are you someone who would tell me it's not raining on me while I'm in Hawaii getting drenched every half hour just because you are lost, blind and drudging down a dead end trial in Death Valley?

To those who have been paid your desire for "discussion" is entirely immaterial. To those who personally know others, including family members, who have already been paid your attempt at saying it won't happen is simply screwball and although we are anonymous here on this forum it's embarrassing to witness someone being so dense.

More unconfirmed nonsense. Plenty of those I know in SI and especially those with big downlines know of nobody paid.

Pull the other one.You have been repeating this BS for two years and expect to be taken seriously?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Pull the other one.You have been repeating this BS for two years and expect to be taken seriously?

I "PERSONALLY" know of someone who got their "NOTICE". I'm going to get MINE shortly because I'm due to receive slightly less than my friend. Proof you ask for??? Well, tough titties...I'm not giving any....so there.

SI WILL PAY US!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Proof you ask for??? Well, tough titties...I'm not giving any....so there.

Fine with me, I know it's bullsh*t. The burden of proof isn't on us at this point, it's on you. And since you can't produce anything *at all* that says otherwise, everyone else knows that it's bullsh*t too.