ACCforum: hollis v ird in high court - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

hollis v ird in high court tax law

#81 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 15 February 2016 - 05:04 AM

 RedFox, on 14 February 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

May I refresh your memory Mr Butler, you have removed hundreds of your abusive, threatening and defamatory posts from this forum.

Mr Alan Thomas has even stated in his personal story thread that you have removed posts.


Only an anomaly that you want to create from long long ago That is correct along with four other members at that time 2008 . Hardwired forum member removed posts from ONLY the Thomas Thread many years ago and they were not abusive as you accuse of.
removed simply to tidy up a mess in here back then in a hope of a better forum.
most of the troubles which was created by you Fran and Hollis..
whilst after naming members in your blackmailing threats to get your own way -it is a pity that you never carried out similar process since 2008 ,and this place would have been far better for that

The current issue i as David Butler have posted on re posts not removed as to do with the many legal threats by Hollis and Fran Van Helmond and you are advised that I HAVE NO LEGAL CONCERNS AT ALL RE MY CONTENT response's to Hollis and Fran Van Helmond to do with my current 2008 onwards content re bomb plot / lauda issues being debated IN THIS THREAD and to do with accusations made by Claire hollis and yourself re posts removed is current re the issues raised by Mini so piss off Fran and stop stirring.
You would be far better off going into the Thomas thread and instead of telling lies-explaining why you wont admit that you were in cahoots /clearly as the documents show to be assisting to pervert the course of justice with Douglas Weal re the Bomb Plot, being Fran something that you have never admitted.
for the record Fran it is only you that considers my content threatening so why is that ? >shows you up and nearer the truth eh Fran.
If you continue to try and have go at me in tandem with HOLLIS YOULL HAVE TO DO FAR BETTER THAN YOUVE DONE TO DATE Frannyboy.Posted Image

David
1

#82 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:02 AM

 whetu, on 23 September 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Campy, trying some of Bludger Blurb the losers tactics eh!!!

Whetu and other Aka's

Why do you bother to come to Jaffa the Spamma's rescue? Does that make it official, that you are a member of the Wench pack?

Take care your wheelchair doesn't spin out of control when you hit a patch of slimy orange ooze deposited by Jaffa.


Who made up the list of the Wench Pack eh?? And who else used it as part of a concerted backing of those at LF who had named all of us, to get Alan Thomas information to allow him to take civil action against us, for 'conspiracy' and/or harassment?

I will name these others in the future, so you may all have the names of the culprits and their many aka's.

Mini
0

#83 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:19 AM

 David Butler, on 16 January 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

Unfortunately for you refukhed it dosent piss me off at all.
It is good that Claire was not bright enough to figure out she was entitled to acc erc compensation otherwise she would never have had to go thru thru the long costly process of doing what she has.
It is good that she has done that to sort out her own ineptness and assist others along the way ,and become publicly known as the Tax lady and enabled others to benefit and know the ins and outs of that issue
As for me I had no need to figure it out ,i was bright enough to know what i was entitled to and receive them without any hassle thus the NO cause in motion to ever fight acc ,as Claire has to for entitlements ,that were always rightfully hers, and i have never said otherwise re her taxation procedures against the acc as being something of a bad issue.
Dave
pp
Claire does not get knocked re the tax issues -Thru her own fault and many postings ,far away from any acc issues at all ,at others of a personal nature of nastyness the thread was bumped to show Claire -contrary to her accusations-HAS publicly made herself known and NOT as she accuses others of doing-something you do not understand or are seemingly bright enough yourself to comprehendo redfuk.
And i doubt that Claire has the necessary ability's in hand to understand thats what shes done either due to her continuing rants of accusations of bollocks.


The cases with IRD were not costly, they didn't cost me anything as I did them myself. Too coy to mention that fact are we David Butler.

AND Flowers posted the first Ird case, and it was not done to give you information, it was for spite to name me!!

There was nothing in that case that any of you could understand, so why other would he post it, than to name and defame Mini as the case actually looks like a loss but it is of course not, as it allowed me to go further, to prove what was needed.

If I could do that, so well, then there had to be something very wrong mentally for me to trust ACC enough to believe them when they said I had no right to w/c. And of course this has all been agreed by ACC a long time ago, so it is irrelevant what David Butler thinks.

All that matters is what ACC think when I challenge them. And of course IRD as in this instance.

Whereas David Butler should be happy for others in my position, who have reaped the benefit of challenging ACC on this point of overtaxing, he is calling us all fools and idoits because we ended up in this mess in the first place.

There are a lot of claimants in this situation the law library shows that to be so. Netcoachnz has been in that situation. Alan Thomas would like to be in that situation ie receiving backdated e/r/c or w/c. and many others. David Butler has no sympathy at all for their blight and is calling them names. (harassment-criminal?? or civil??)

Let you all answer that.


Mini
0

#84 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 15 February 2016 - 03:11 PM

 MINI, on 15 February 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

The cases with IRD were not costly, they didn't cost me anything as I did them myself. Too coy to mention that fact are we David Butler.

AND Flowers posted the first Ird case, and it was not done to give you information, it was for spite to name me!!

There was nothing in that case that any of you could understand, so why other would he post it, than to name and defame Mini as the case actually looks like a loss but it is of course not, as it allowed me to go further, to prove what was needed.

If I could do that, so well, then there had to be something very wrong mentally for me to trust ACC enough to believe them when they said I had no right to w/c. And of course this has all been agreed by ACC a long time ago, so it is irrelevant what David Butler thinks.

All that matters is what ACC think when I challenge them. And of course IRD as in this instance.

Whereas David Butler should be happy for others in my position, who have reaped the benefit of challenging ACC on this point of overtaxing, he is calling us all fools and idoits because we ended up in this mess in the first place.

There are a lot of claimants in this situation the law library shows that to be so. Netcoachnz has been in that situation. Alan Thomas would like to be in that situation ie receiving backdated e/r/c or w/c. and many others. David Butler has no sympathy at all for their blight and is calling them names. (harassment-criminal?? or civil??)

Let you all answer that.


Mini


Your costs and time are your problem you seem to be quite happy to show all you have an ability to carry out legal works So why you need erc for GO DO SOME WORK if you can do legal works Bludger
Flowers im afraid pm'd me and others /and published the same ,saying that data was there and if it concerned me or others i knew then it should be read
Your summation is a load of crap altho flowers was pissed at you the way you behaved in here as like most of us so Not the wonder the ABUSE you dished out to him
so now your saying your a mental case because you were not clever bright enough to work out our legal entitlements and blame acc YET you say you are clever enough to carry out legal cases in a court of law
Something very wrong there Claire with that what you state.
Ive never said im unhappy re you legal case works Quite the contrary ive published that it has helped others so stop ya nastiness and bully tactics Claire Hollis
Where have i published what yo say re sympathy issues and called others names re tax issues Claire
You yes- You are a fool as ive said above you claiming as a mental nut because you were dumb ,then you claim your very clever-Alter ego -twin personality Paranoia syndrome that would be WHEN IT SUITS YOU
So names re tax issues =yes Only re you -As are a nasty one as your post above clearly shows.
Waste a time attacking me to cover your own inadequacies re acc matters AND STUPIDITY re attacking me and others Claire -ill just show you up some more re how you act in here.
3

#85 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 21 February 2016 - 09:35 PM

 MINI, on 15 February 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Who made up the list of the Wench Pack eh?? And who else used it as part of a concerted backing of those at LF who had named all of us, to get Alan Thomas information to allow him to take civil action against us, for 'conspiracy' and/or harassment?

I will name these others in the future, so you may all have the names of the culprits and their many aka's.

Mini


***Reported***

Naming people who are members of this forum is not wise/legal nor conforming to the rules of this forum.

You deserve to be banned for admitting publicly you are going to name members
1

#86 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 21 February 2016 - 09:50 PM

***REPORT***

Hi admin
Mini cannot help herself from being nasty and has stated she is going to name members.
I suggest a life time banning would be in order for this sort of complete defiance of the accforum edicate.
She has many times tried naming me and although never once even close, its other members I'm concerned for, as knowing well the acc can make things hard for "differcult cases"... Thats NOT what this forums members need. She will cost them money in which most don't have.

Kind regards
Rex / you know who
1

#87 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 February 2016 - 03:51 PM

 REX, on 21 February 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

***Reported***

Naming people who are members of this forum is not wise/legal nor conforming to the rules of this forum.

You deserve to be banned for admitting publicly you are going to name members


I certainly will name whom ever was involved in naming the Wench pack on here. As by then they would have been summoned to Court.

Perfectly legal.

Mini
0

#88 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 February 2016 - 04:08 PM

 REX, on 21 February 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

***REPORT***

Hi admin
Mini cannot help herself from being nasty and has stated she is going to name members.
I suggest a life time banning would be in order for this sort of complete defiance of the accforum edicate.
She has many times tried naming me and although never once even close, its other members I'm concerned for, as knowing well the acc can make things hard for "differcult cases"... Thats NOT what this forums members need. She will cost them money in which most don't have.

Kind regards
Rex / you know who


Admin

If admin is looking and reading then he should take this into consideration. These aka's who have named Mini and her family cannot legally hide behind the law now. They broke the law in the first place and need to be held up to show people that they cannot be trusted, no matter what cloak they are wearing.

Admin would not have anything against LF bloggers being named and neither should he/she have any problem with these people being named. They will be all one of the same few, all intertwined. And very distructive in their manner, to the extent that they may be criminals.

wonder what the likes of Netcoachnz and David Butler have to say about me being banned for life. They will have no one to play with their heads then and that would make them lonely. Even whetu calls me back to 'play' when I go on vacation.

Mini
-1

#89 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 February 2016 - 04:12 PM

 REX, on 21 February 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

***REPORT***

Hi admin
Mini cannot help herself from being nasty and has stated she is going to name members.
I suggest a life time banning would be in order for this sort of complete defiance of the accforum edicate.
She has many times tried naming me and although never once even close, its other members I'm concerned for, as knowing well the acc can make things hard for "differcult cases"... Thats NOT what this forums members need. She will cost them money in which most don't have.

Kind regards
Rex / you know who


Rex

What about the other members that name you, should they not be named and banned as well for life. Keep it clean and fair Rex or you will be seen by admin as being vexatious against Mini.

Please take into consideration Admin Rex is biased against Mini and I have enough paperwork to put him where he belongs.

Mini
0

#90 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 February 2016 - 04:26 PM

 David Butler, on 15 February 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

Your costs and time are your problem you seem to be quite happy to show all you have an ability to carry out legal works So why you need erc for GO DO SOME WORK if you can do legal works Bludger
Flowers im afraid pm'd me and others /and published the same ,saying that data was there and if it concerned me or others i knew then it should be read
Your summation is a load of crap altho flowers was pissed at you the way you behaved in here as like most of us so Not the wonder the ABUSE you dished out to him
so now your saying your a mental case because you were not clever bright enough to work out our legal entitlements and blame acc YET you say you are clever enough to carry out legal cases in a court of law
Something very wrong there Claire with that what you state.
Ive never said im unhappy re you legal case works Quite the contrary ive published that it has helped others so stop ya nastiness and bully tactics Claire Hollis
Where have i published what yo say re sympathy issues and called others names re tax issues Claire
You yes- You are a fool as ive said above you claiming as a mental nut because you were dumb ,then you claim your very clever-Alter ego -twin personality Paranoia syndrome that would be WHEN IT SUITS YOU
So names re tax issues =yes Only re you -As are a nasty one as your post above clearly shows.
Waste a time attacking me to cover your own inadequacies re acc matters AND STUPIDITY re attacking me and others Claire -ill just show you up some more re how you act in here.


David Butler

"Something very wrong there Claire"

yes David, Indeed David, I five year gap between time of needing to have seen a discrepancy, and be looking for it in the first place of course.

Five years is a long time for a person to mend mental issues when they have a real will to do so. In fact it didn't even take that long. But it is an ongoing issue that ACC are in agreement with me about so how come it is anything at all to do with you?

You just running out of garbage to throw at me so you using shit. Do you honestly expect ACC to believe a word you say David Butler. I think not. Especially since they have seen the stuff down to Minister and listened to the tape of you and Nottingham. No that is highly unlikely that you will have any credibility with ACC.

Wear it like the putrid cloak you cover yourself with.

Mini
1

#91 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 22 February 2016 - 05:56 PM

 MINI, on 22 February 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

David Butler

"Something very wrong there Claire"

yes David, Indeed David, I five year gap between time of needing to have seen a discrepancy, and be looking for it in the first place of course.

Five years is a long time for a person to mend mental issues when they have a real will to do so. In fact it didn't even take that long. But it is an ongoing issue that ACC are in agreement with me about so how come it is anything at all to do with you?

You just running out of garbage to throw at me so you using shit. Do you honestly expect ACC to believe a word you say David Butler. I think not.
You think wrongly Hollis ,something youll have to prove soon enough along with all your other false accusations.

Especially since they have seen the stuff down to Minister and listened to the tape of you and Nottingham.
Only two people know what IS IN the tapes Hollis
and your definitely not one of the two so again you have some proving to do to the Courts ,as opposed to what your running round with,Some of it they will not be surprised on ,having some already from me,but that balance They will be as you HAVE CONNED THEM and believe they will run with you against me,

No that is highly unlikely that you will have any credibility with ACC.
Something you will be unable to substantiate as the Official records show much different than your FALSE accusations .


Wear it like the putrid cloak you cover yourself with.
you just have to end with the usual NASTYS eh Claire.
Mini

something wrong well if you can work at complex tax cases in courts then of course it would be .
Nothing wrong with an opinion on that as it does seem odd.


David.
1

#92 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 22 February 2016 - 06:49 PM

 MINI, on 22 February 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

Rex

What about the other members that name you, should they not be named and banned as well for life. Keep it clean and fair Rex or you will be seen by admin as being vexatious against Mini.

Please take into consideration Admin Rex is biased against Mini and I have enough paperwork to put him where he belongs.

Mini


Miningococcal

I report the other trash as well and its up to the admin to sanction how the admin sees fitting.

If jack tumbles down the hill do you simply go tumbling after. :wacko:

 MINI, on 22 February 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

Rex

<CATNIP>

Please take into consideration Admin Rex is biased against Mini and I have enough paperwork to put him where he belongs.

Mini


You have NOTHING,(.) ;) You and your tagteam have been threatening this site, the admin and numerous members who DON"T take your crap and stand up to you as a BULLY.

 MINI, on 22 February 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:

<SNIP>

They will have no one to play with their heads then and that would make them lonely. <SNIP>
Mini

We're not here to keep you company...

No one is scared Mini, as you passed the "best before" date long ago, and all we see now is Rotten really.

You're FULL of shite. :)
Naming members has to stop !

If you have any consideration for injured people stop your intent on naming or get Banned.

REX / You have NO idea
1

#93 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:07 AM

 flowers, on 05 October 2008 - 08:13 PM, said:

high court Hollis vs ird civ 2004 485 883

Hollis__...omm._IRD.pdf
d

as I said I did not name myself.

Mini
0

#94 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:16 AM

 REX, on 27 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

Mini I have never bothered myself to read any of your cases and never will... I sit back and laugh my tits off at you attacking, abusing, attempting to intimidate, Manipulate the facts, change every topic you see and I just feel SORRY for you.

My opinion has not altered at all as to you being a TAX CHEAT. B)/>


Rex calling Mini a tax cheat!! No proof, just others say so!!

Alan Thomas does the same in his Non Declamation site, using his own and lauda finem posts.

The others are labled and noted.

You will be all called out to answer to this and many other lies, like child basher, etc.

Mini
0

#95 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:23 AM

 David Butler, on 27 February 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

You said Mini
That i found / said you were a fraudster and passed that info to laudafinem
thats what you have to prove
AND YOU CAN NOT DO THAT.

So bugger off. as far as your name and me if you slag me defame libel then you will be a name-you continue to this day with abuse


You sent a e-mail to LF telling them you are sending them more information re ACC forum members. You agree with DT Not that you have to 'get' all the others to allow Thomas to take a case. Failed miserably, but you did it none the less. Not impossible to tie up the ends.

While you did that others were tracing mail and got lots.

The key is ??

You will not know what I know until I release it.

Mini
0

#96 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:49 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 06 March 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

mini why have you persistently blamed me for what others have done to you.
I have no knowledge nor interest in regards to your tax liabilities.

Why do you constantly associate me with David Butler who you called Doc as if he is my pet dog under my control. I'm quite sure that Mr David Butler will be the first to tell everybody that he is not under my control. I would entirely agree with him if he was to provide you with that reassurance.


Mr Thomas trying to make himself clear of using LF posts in his own post which says I am a tax fraudster. Too late I got it before you took it down Mr Thomas. You did have LF so colled knowledge of my tax obligations and like a stupid person who thought he was covered by Investigator (so-called) Mr Dermot Nottingham and LF, Mr Thomas used the post as though it was kosha, adding his own lies to it as well.

Mr Thomas attempt to distance himself here tripped him up a good one.

He also tripped himself up by saying that he had an Investigator named Mr Dermot Nottingham and I should do what Mr Nottingham asks of me....................So Mr Thomas knows in Oct 2013 around the same time that a lot of these posts were entered into the forum by you all know who, that Mr Nottingham is acting on his behalf to gather information from David Butler and others, supposedly against us forum members to prove tax evasion, conspirator to TBP, therefore I should assist Mr Nottingham, to harm me, by agreeing with lies on LF and ACCforum and 'take threatening of my life' via LF and ACC forum as though it is AOK for these sleaze balls to do it, to me. As though there were no laws against it.

It all makes for pretty daming reading and no amount of skirming or trying to analyse my Case law as Netcoachnz has tried to do in here. And has no clue of what he is talking. As he cannot see it is a win.

However he must be able to see it has no costs held against me, so therefore it is not a loss and it allowed me to go to the Hight Court.

Analyse that one Mr Netcoachnz, you may get the extra tax you had taken off you back if you truly understand it.

Nay!! You just a bully boy (aka ?? ?? ??) who likes to scare little old ladies eh?? You don't worry about the truth of anything. Just so long as it stabs in the back, that's what you like. You and your playful little boys!!

Mini
0

#97 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 April 2016 - 09:19 AM

 REX, on 21 February 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

***REPORT***

Hi admin
Mini cannot help herself from being nasty and has stated she is going to name members.
I suggest a life time banning would be in order for this sort of complete defiance of the accforum edicate.
She has many times tried naming me and although never once even close, its other members I'm concerned for, as knowing well the acc can make things hard for "differcult cases"... Thats NOT what this forums members need. She will cost them money in which most don't have.

Kind regards
Rex / you know who


Thanks for that!! Obviously Admin doesn't give a rats about Rex as he doesn't do what you intend. ie life time banning. But it is good to know also that he is aware of who you truly are, that means that the AlKA's will all have their names spewed when needed. Bye Bye Whetu, Bye Bye H8ACC_2013 & H8ACC and Researchcyberbullynz etc. And Rex you know who.
Mini
0

#98 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 April 2016 - 09:31 AM

 David Butler, on 22 February 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

something wrong well if you can work at complex tax cases in courts then of course it would be .
Nothing wrong with an opinion on that as it does seem odd.


David.


Only two people know what is in the tapes.

You reacon Mr Butler? You think no one grabbed the other one when it was put up here many moons ago Butler?

Think again.

also have a think how reliable you second in command of the tapes is Mr Butler!!! You can rely on them?? You sure?? Or will they need to spew all to save themselves?? Would that be a possibility??

When you think about what you are called on other threads, do you still feel comfortable?

With the back stabbing and lies that has been going on since 2012, I wouldn't trust any of them. But that is probably because I and my house have been threatened by the very same people eh?? They are criminals and that isn't a lie!!

Mini
0

#99 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 03 April 2016 - 09:48 AM

 MINI, on 03 April 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

You sent a e-mail to LF telling them you are sending them more information re ACC forum members. You agree with DT Not that you have to 'get' all the others to allow Thomas to take a case. Failed miserably, but you did it none the less. Not impossible to tie up the ends.

While you did that others were tracing mail and got lots.

The key is ??

You will not know what I know until I release it.

Mini


Claire Hollis
You publish this morning and do definitely appear to want to provoke a response to create more disharmony in here ,to which whilst the disharmony is on the leave in here again you appear to promote more bollocks ensuing So as you publish false information again ,Then of course there will be one when you publish falsey made up accusations as you have.
As the rules of engagement of such type of debate with me are known by you -and as such shall apply here -you are not hiding as mini here as again you publish LIES

There be No email from me to laudafinem as you accuse of as above using the pen name of mini - but in fact are one CLAIRE RAE AVON HOLLIS accusing of information re accforum members being offered to be sent to laudafinem
Perhaps you could show members and the public that you can actually justify this accusation with some facts and provide the email in here NOW that you appear to be relying apon to make more false accusations .?
Should you provide such evidence as factual and showing what you accuse of then i shall promptly withdraw the wordings containing your name
Until then you are NOT BEING ALLOWED to bully in public with defamatory publications against other members of this forum
You know the rules as well as anyone else re this issue Claire.


OR DO YOU RUN AWAYPosted Image UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY FACTS ''AT ALL'' OF TRUTHFULLNESS, AS YOU HAVE IN THE RECENT REQUEST -in the last few days -MADE OF YOU TO PROVIDE FATUAL DATA TO BACK UP OTHER DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS /PUBLISHED IN HERE THAT YOU HAVE MADE.

Regards.


David
1

#100 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 03 April 2016 - 10:49 AM

 MINI, on 03 April 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

d

as I said I did not name myself.

Mini

The documentations in here and your communications re taxation issues to many others clearly showed you as whom you were and thus a public figurehead
if you decided to deal to others in the manner yo did have then not the wonder you had your name out here re those issues as well
so the documents say otherwise to you saying you did not name yourself, which you did many times and also led others to easily sight as to whom you were by your own stupidity of choice of prose.


You proceeded with a case in a public court
Your documents/NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER DOCS RE ACC MATTERS OF INTEREST for use by others - were placed in here as they should have be re the taxation's issues many were concerned about
Many confirmed along with yourself =you as the person involved in those cases etc -Clear as that is.
You entered into this and MANY OTHER THREADS WHERE YOU CONFIRMED that you were the one involved in those cases
Your case issues were here long long ago and debated from that time should you not have wished to be a public person re those the position was at that time long ago to disappear and say nothing
But YOU CHOSE to be YOU
Far to late now to come in and claim you only had issues re others since 2013.
what a loser of a accusation that is the manner of you behavior at others since your entry as a member in here Long long ago
the first page of this thread shows you at your best in 2008 .Your friends clairely showing as outing whom you were you outing whom you were ,and you were well at all that before then
David
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users