Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 2356170, member: 22331&quot;]Well Stated!! I can accept your perspective in believing something, but not in stating that your beliefs are reality.</p><p><br /></p><p>Having been intimately involved with clients of Hannes, and the individual himself, I understand the premise for charges against him, and believe that an objective investigation as I suggested to be read would disclose possible selective embellishment by prosecutors who had to establish a conviction, regardless of facts.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe you&#039;ll find that the prosecutors knew their failings, as outlined by the independent &quot;investigator&quot;, ultimately accepting a lesser plea from Hannes. There wasn&#039;t a trial of full disclosure, but a believed agreement/plea that the &quot;Tulving&quot; site document had stipulations/statements that were occasionally misconstrued. Here again it isn&#039;t a surety that an objective trial would have resulted in a conviction of the initial charges if the independent investigator findings were allowed.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve no opinion of the value/assessment for assets proposed to be returned to those damaged, but know it would be greater than any I&#039;ve ever received in a similar incident, as reported in the 14 year Paypal delay of &quot;damages&quot; for their intentional thievery which needs to be currently proven by the victims. No charges, no apology, no complaints from observers other than Paypalsucks.com.</p><p><br /></p><p>Regardless, I do agree with your past summation that Hannes Tulving was a less than perfect businessman.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in