Question about bankrupcy

[Douglas MacDonald]

A friend of my son has considerable personal debt (credit cards, loans,
HP, car) which he financed the payments of for several years from his
more than generous salary. He was told last week that he will not have a
job in 2005. He has no assets or income support insurance.

His wife has a profitable business. Her business was started and
developed over the last 3 years with the aid of his credit cards. He
originally was a director of the company.

Of course now it is a stand alone business in it's own right but there
is the twist. His wife says there is no written agreement about loans.
She said they are gifts and she will not be responsible for his debts
even though he went into debt to get her company started.

If he doesn't find alternative income next year and can't meet his
commitments to the debts, he might consider bankruptcy as the only
alternative. Earlier this year (June) he resigned from directorship of
his wife's company on his accountant's advice. He had no former
knowledge of his employer moving out of Australia.

The question is:
Without now being a director of his wife's company or any partnership
documents existing, can his creditors make claim on his wife's assets?
Indeed, can he make claim on them to avoid bankruptcy?

Could he also choose a moratorium on his debts?. Something like chapter
11 protection if he just needed time to get going again?

Douglas

[Lionheart]

"Douglas MacDonald" <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vsj4oF2p62blU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> The question is:
> Without now being a director of his wife's company or any partnership
> documents existing, can his creditors make claim on his wife's assets?
> Indeed, can he make claim on them to avoid bankruptcy?
>


> Could he also choose a moratorium on his debts?. Something like chapter 11
> protection if he just needed time to get going again?
>
> Douglas

Creditors may attempt to make claim against his wife's company but with the
lack of supporting documentation would probably fail.as would his claim
against her assests to avoid bankruptcy.

No such moratorium by the applicant exists on debts in Australia though he
could put forth a proposal to his creditors but he would have to offer them
something of substance that he would be able to repay in the
future........if he couldnt do this then the best he could do is apply for
bankruptcy himself...........contact www.fredappleton.com he is pretty good
at this stuff.

[Seppo Renfors]

Douglas MacDonald wrote:
>
> A friend of my son has considerable personal debt (credit cards, loans,
> HP, car) which he financed the payments of for several years from his
> more than generous salary. He was told last week that he will not have a
> job in 2005. He has no assets or income support insurance.
>
> His wife has a profitable business. Her business was started and
> developed over the last 3 years with the aid of his credit cards. He
> originally was a director of the company.
>
> Of course now it is a stand alone business in it's own right but there
> is the twist. His wife says there is no written agreement about loans.
> She said they are gifts and she will not be responsible for his debts
> even though he went into debt to get her company started.
>
> If he doesn't find alternative income next year and can't meet his
> commitments to the debts, he might consider bankruptcy as the only
> alternative. Earlier this year (June) he resigned from directorship of
> his wife's company on his accountant's advice. He had no former
> knowledge of his employer moving out of Australia.

Now, isn't that just a bit too "convenient" to be a coincident and not
having had prior knowledge - just managing to squeak past the 6 month
limit! But it may well not be long enough even then - some things
require 2 years now!!

> The question is:
> Without now being a director of his wife's company or any partnership
> documents existing, can his creditors make claim on his wife's assets?
> Indeed, can he make claim on them to avoid bankruptcy?

Something smell bad here. If the wife has basically told him "Up
yours, you aint getting nothing", then is he still even married? Of
course, if he is, the alternative is that it is a contrived
arrangement with the intent to cheat the creditors!

Further more - as a "director" the business cannot be a "partnership"
- it must be a Company and he may well be a shareholder in the Co - in
which case the Co is up for grabs! A receiver may well elect to sue
for the "loans made" to the business as well (hubby gets no say). It
also includes any house/property he may be a joint owner of with his
wife. It will include the car (above a certain value) and the like.

> Could he also choose a moratorium on his debts?. Something like chapter
> 11 protection if he just needed time to get going again?

Not here - other than by express agreement with creditors IIRC. The
law also takes a dim view of deliberately attempting to stiff
creditors! Much has been done to prevent this in the last few years.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Douglas MacDonald]

Seppo Renfors wrote:
>

>
> Something smell bad here. If the wife has basically told him "Up
> yours, you aint getting nothing", then is he still even married? Of
> course, if he is, the alternative is that it is a contrived
> arrangement with the intent to cheat the creditors!
Much has been done to prevent this in the last few years.
>

At this point Seppo, there is no intention to defraud anyone or for that
matter, not pay anyone. So if something does smell bad here, it is your
suspicious mind at work. perhaps if you judged people less by your own
standards and more by community standards, you would not see criminality
in every message.

So far all you have done is attempt to add an air of mystery and
intrigue and create a flavour of potential illegality that does not now
and probably never will exist.

Do you by any chance have any information you can share or are you just
getting amusement from the group for your idle mind?

Douglas

[Rod Speed]

Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:2vsj4oF2p62blU1@uni-berlin.de...

>A friend of my son has considerable personal debt (credit cards, loans, HP,
>car) which he financed the payments of for several years from his more than
>generous salary. He was told last week that he will not have a job in 2005. He
>has no assets or income support insurance.

He may well be able to get another job tho.

> His wife has a profitable business. Her business was started and developed
> over the last 3 years with the aid of his credit cards. He originally was a
> director of the company.

> Of course now it is a stand alone business in it's own right but there is the
> twist. His wife says there is no written agreement about loans. She said they
> are gifts and she will not be responsible for his debts even though he went
> into debt to get her company started.

Charming. Presumably a divorce is imminent etc.

> If he doesn't find alternative income next year and can't meet his commitments
> to the debts, he might consider bankruptcy as the only alternative. Earlier
> this year (June) he resigned from directorship of his wife's company on his
> accountant's advice. He had no former knowledge of his employer moving out of
> Australia.

> The question is:
> Without now being a director of his wife's company or any partnership
> documents existing, can his creditors make claim on his wife's assets?

Maybe.

Certainly if he does choose the bankruptcy route.

> Indeed, can he make claim on them to avoid bankruptcy?

Maybe. Gets tricky tho if there is no evidence that they
werent gifts. Pretty implausible tho, it might well fly.

> Could he also choose a moratorium on his debts?.

Nope. He might be able to get the lenders to accept a scheme
of repayment, particularly if he does get another job.

> Something like chapter 11 protection

Thats the US system.

> if he just needed time to get going again?

You'd need to say something about his employment
prospects and whether he is likely to keep paying
off those loans now even if he does get another job.

And they would likely be asking why he isnt actively
seeking another job already when he has that notice.

[Rod Speed]

Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:2vtbslF2pqc74U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Seppo Renfors wrote:

>> Something smell bad here. If the wife has basically told him "Up yours, you
>> aint getting nothing", then is he still even married? Of course, if he is,
>> the alternative is that it is a contrived
>> arrangement with the intent to cheat the creditors!

> Much has been done to prevent this in the last few years.

> At this point Seppo, there is no intention to defraud anyone or for that
> matter, not pay anyone.

Dunno, it does smell bad. And more detail on this bit would be handy.

>>> Earlier this year (June) he resigned from directorship of his wife's company
>>> on his accountant's advice.

Why ?

> So if something does smell bad here, it is your suspicious mind at work.

Or its not uncommon for some to try to slither out from under
their debts when some excuse like the loss of a job shows up.

> perhaps if you judged people less by your own standards and more by community
> standards,

Plenty of attempts to slither away form debts in the community.

> you would not see criminality in every message.

> So far all you have done is attempt to add an air of mystery and intrigue and
> create a flavour of potential illegality that does not now and probably never
> will exist.

You dont actually know that if it does
actually involve 'a friend of my son'

> Do you by any chance have any information you can share

Dont need any, quite a bit that smells a tad in your original.

> or are you just getting amusement from the group for your idle mind?

Or maybe he is pointing out that obvious problems with your original.

He's right, it looks damned sus that his wife purportedly claims
that the debts were gifts, but he doesnt give her the bums rush.

Also more than a tad sus that he isnt just considering getting
another job and continuing to pay what he owes, too.

Particularly with the unemployment rate at historic lows now.

[Douglas MacDonald]

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>

One of the problems associated with posting to a public forum is that
anybody reads the messages. Would it be good policy then to add fuel to
a fire by suggesting a split between man and wife when none has been
announced?

Would it be proper too, to suggest getting another job is in order when
he may already be a long way down that path?

Somewhat unique is it, that a woman gets her husband to spend his life's
savings on her and then refuses to help when it becomes known he
actually borrowed the money instead of already had it?

I guess you are right in many ways. It does smell a bit suspicious to
someone not close to the situation. It's not unique any more than debt
avoidance is. This fellow is not a scoundrel, just a victim.

I guess the best advise is to send him to a lawyer for advise. I though
I'd save him a few hundred bucks by asking here... Wrong again! No one
here actually lets much advise out anyway, from the quality of the posts
I've read, mostly here say and conjecture when it's not for amusement.

Douglas

[Rod Speed]

Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:2vtol6F2o3hb3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Rod Speed wrote:

> One of the problems associated with posting to a public forum is that anybody
> reads the messages.

Thats life. If you dont like that, dont post.

> Would it be good policy then to add fuel to a fire by suggesting a split
> between man and wife when none has been announced?

It would certainly be useful to cover the obvious possibilitys that
might occur to anyone with a clue reading your post in a public forum.

Particularly when it looks very likely that those two are
attempting to slither out from under the debts they have
signed up for when they consider than there might be
something silly they can claim like loss of a job by one
of them when the obvious question that arises is why
that individual cant just get another job and keep
paying off the debts he clearly incurred.

> Would it be proper too, to suggest getting another job is in order when he may
> already be a long way down that path?

It would likely be handy to provide some details about why
he's even considering defaulting on the debts he has run up
when its a tad unlikely that he cant actually get another job.

Yes, its theoretically possible that there is some reason
why he wont be able to get another job, but if that is so
with the unemployment rate at historic lows, then you
had better spell that out if you want any useful comments.

> Somewhat unique is it, that a woman gets her husband to spend his life's
> savings on her and then refuses to help when it becomes known he actually
> borrowed the money instead of already had it?

Are you seriously trying to claim that he lied about running up those debts ?

If that is in fact the case, that is vital info because she may well
have had good grounds to have believed that the money was a gift.

> I guess you are right in many ways. It does smell a bit suspicious to someone
> not close to the situation. It's not unique any more than debt avoidance is.
> This fellow is not a scoundrel, just a victim.

You'll have to pardon us if you find it a tad hard to
believe that you are likely to actually know given that
you claimed that that individual is 'a friend of my son'

Yes, its certainly possible that that isnt a lie, and that
he did spell out all the detail to you, but you'll have to
pardon us if we find that claim implausible given the
obvious holes in your original statement of the situation.

> I guess the best advise is to send him to a lawyer for advise.

You previously claimed he had already had professional
advice and that that is why he is no longer a director.

> I though I'd save him a few hundred bucks by asking here... Wrong again!

Yes, if you are selective about the detail you provide,
you arent likely to get much useful in the way of comments.

> No one here actually lets much advise out anyway, from the quality of the
> posts I've read, mostly here say and conjecture when it's not for amusement.

There is certainly a lot of shit slinging, but you
also do see useful comments made when enough
information is provided in the original question.

And some of us do tend to put the boot in when
it looks rather like someone is attempting to slither
out from under debts that have been incurred.

The short story is that if he ran up those debts and lied to
his wife about where the money came from, she has very
real grounds for claiming that she thought the money was
a gift, and if for some reason he cant continue to pay off
those debts he incurred because of his job prospects,
he has a considerable problem that those he owes the
money to are unlikely to let him off on any time soon.

Its distinctly arguable if even bankruptcy is going to
save his bacon any time soon. Those he owes the
money to may well go after his wife's business assets
and claiming he is no longer a director may well not
save his bacon too, particularly now that it looks like
that was done to avoid his personal liability.

[David]

Gee Douglas, you must just read the idiot posts. Over time I have been
able to get some very valuable help from posters here, both for myself and
some of my clients.

David

Douglas MacDonald wrote:

> .. Wrong again! No one
> here actually lets much advise out anyway, from the quality of the posts
> I've read, mostly here say and conjecture when it's not for amusement.
>
> Douglas

[Seppo Renfors]

Douglas MacDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Something smell bad here. If the wife has basically told him "Up
> > yours, you aint getting nothing", then is he still even married? Of
> > course, if he is, the alternative is that it is a contrived
> > arrangement with the intent to cheat the creditors!
> Much has been done to prevent this in the last few years.
> >
>
> At this point Seppo, there is no intention to defraud anyone or for that
> matter, not pay anyone.

I note the terminology "at this point" which also means "possibly
later there will be...". But as I'm certain you would argue, let me
point out, there is no "Ying" without the "Yang", there is no face to
a coin without the back of the coin.... for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction.... you get the picture?

> So if something does smell bad here, it is your suspicious mind at work.

It is the limited facts/claims of facts you have presented that
smells. The circumstances you have presented have classic components
of an attempt to evade payment of debts.

> perhaps if you judged people less by your own
> standards and more by community standards, you would not see criminality
> in every message.

If you come here and ask for a view, and you get one, the appropriate
response is "Thank you". THEN perhaps you may seek further
clarification on a point or provide further and better information.
Remember a very important point - a JUDGE will not know the situation
any better than anyone here from the information you have provided. A
smell of trickery and deliberate shafting of creditors will NOT assist
the bloke. So if nothing else, you have already learned that much from
the info you provided - in itself a valuable lesson, even if you don't
like it.

> So far all you have done is attempt to add an air of mystery and
> intrigue and create a flavour of potential illegality that does not now
> and probably never will exist.

*I* didn't do that - YOU did by not providing better information.

> Do you by any chance have any information you can share or are you just
> getting amusement from the group for your idle mind?

What you received is as good as it gets without further and better
particulars - something I note from another of your posts you are
unwilling to provide.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Douglas MacDonald]

Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
>
> *I* didn't do that - YOU did by not providing better information.
>
>
>>Do you by any chance have any information you can share or are you just
>>getting amusement from the group for your idle mind?
>
>
> What you received is as good as it gets without further and better
> particulars - something I note from another of your posts you are
> unwilling to provide.
>

Sadly, when using a fact of time. I.E. "at this time" you see this not
as an absolute statement that no action is intended but instead choose
to assume that at some time in the future something will be/could be/may
be contemplated based on whatever information is gained in the time
space between now and then.

Well of course it will Seppo. That is how the community evolves. Seek
knowledge and then act on it. It's how laws are devised and how you
learnt to walk and talk. I can only guess at who (if anyone) accepts
responsibility for giving you compassion. Certainly whoever it was seems
to have forgotten about the power of reasoning. I won't go into
innocence without proof here.

Right now this fellow has no idea of what to do. All he knows is he is
faced with fear of the unknown, an uncooperative spouse and a lawyer
demanding money up front for advise. Why then would he not ask for
advise elsewhere?

The information I posted is as complete as I care to make it having due
regard for the potential for identification of the person and action
which may follow based on flawed information.

You really are quite a character Seppo. I thought you were just fishing
a while back but now I realise you really have no regard whatsoever for
anyone, do you? Just the sort of lawyer we see on TV, eh?

Douglas

[Tony Smith]

Douglas MacDonald wrote:

> You really are quite a character Seppo. I thought you were just
> fishing a while back but now I realise you really have no regard
> whatsoever for anyone, do you? Just the sort of lawyer we see on TV,
> eh?

Except of course that Seppo has no formal legal qualifications whatever.

Such "informal" legal "knowledge" as he has is more in the nature of
the scars left on his ample arse following the application of Law to it
an a manner analogous to a good birching.

See:-

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html

For a measure of how much reliance should be placed on legal advice
proferred by Seppo (the clown TM).

For more fun and frivolity, use the Google search function for just
about any two week period in the last 6 or so years and you can find
numerous instances of the good Feldwebel being spanked, frequently for
getting simple legal concepts utterly wrong (his one true skill).




Tony Smith

[Douglas MacDonald]

Tony Smith wrote:
> See:-
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
>
> For a measure of how much reliance should be placed on legal advice
> proferred by Seppo (the clown TM).
>
> For more fun and frivolity, use the Google search function for just
> about any two week period in the last 6 or so years and you can find
> numerous instances of the good Feldwebel being spanked, frequently for
> getting simple legal concepts utterly wrong (his one true skill).
> Tony Smith

I had the idea after his first post when he talked of slithering and
debt avoidance that perhaps he had been bitten by one or two clients
choosing bankrupcy in the past. That's his business of course but it
doesn't help this fellow who asked me for advise.

I suppose when I think about it... the peanuts and monkeys thing is
appropriate.

Douglas

[Rod Speed]

"Douglas MacDonald" <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30066bF2ohl3rU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Tony Smith wrote:
>> See:-
>>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
>>
>> For a measure of how much reliance should be placed on legal advice
>> proferred by Seppo (the clown TM).
>>
>> For more fun and frivolity, use the Google search function for just
>> about any two week period in the last 6 or so years and you can find
>> numerous instances of the good Feldwebel being spanked, frequently for
>> getting simple legal concepts utterly wrong (his one true skill). Tony Smith

> I had the idea after his first post when he talked of slithering

He didnt, I did.

> and debt avoidance that perhaps he had been bitten by one or two clients
> choosing bankrupcy in the past. That's his business of course but it doesn't
> help this fellow who asked me for advise.

Neither does your waffle either.

> I suppose when I think about it... the peanuts and monkeys thing is
> appropriate.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

[Vaughan Williams]

"Douglas MacDonald" <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vtol6F2o3hb3U1@uni-berlin.de...

> I guess the best advise is to send him to a lawyer for advise. I though
> I'd save him a few hundred bucks by asking here... Wrong again! No one
> here actually lets much advise out anyway, from the quality of the posts
> I've read, mostly here say and conjecture when it's not for amusement.

A lot of advice isn't much better than conjecture. Of course anything anyone
posts here comes with the usual caveats that we haven't taken detailed
instructions, looked at any paperwork, etc. It's not a substitute for proper
advice or indeed a phone call to the credit helpline or similar body in your
state.

To address the original question, I think it's unlikely the creditors can
access the wife's assets (although not out of the question), although if
he's transferred assets to her relatively recently, particularly if it was
for less than real value, there might be an issue.

The husband probably does have some call on those assets as part of a
property settlement but it wouldn't be wise if he has considerable debt.

I'd always suggest seeing a financial counsellor before considering
bankruptcy - and there is something vaguely similar to chapter 11 in the
form of a part 9 debt agreement. It depends a lot on the detail (how much is
owed, assets if any, income, prospects for re-employment, etc etc).

If he's likely to be employed again it's usually possible to restructure
things via various methods.

Vaughan

[Seppo Renfors]

Tony Smith wrote:
>
The stalking engaged in by Tony Smith is a Criminal Act emanating from
raw malice, as a result of losing an debate long time ago. You may see
him resort to copyright breaches, defamation, racism and deliberately
and knowingly breach a number of Australian and some international
laws. He attacks other people for no valid reason in forums where his
sole interest is STALKING me. Variously the mentally disturbed person
will accuse others of being me.

The EFFECT, if not the aim, is to destroy groups with its STALKING.
Note the ever increasing volume of the stalker Tony Smith! Do not
respond to the madman - notify the following of his criminal
activities of stalking - the breach of AUP's and group charters:

To him personally at:
22 Beaver St
Clifton Beach 4879
Phone (07) 4059 1470
Mobile 0418 988 437

or

FEMALE TECHNOLOGIES
Level 2/50 Appel Street
Surfers Paradise Qld 4217
PO BOX 728
NERANG QLD 4211
ABN: 98510913241
Phone: 0755267767

or:

Julie Ann Johnson
Transgendered Productions
Unit 1 / 14 Oshea Drive
Nerang
QLD 4211

and:

Samantha Scafe
SS681-AP
samantha@femtech.com.au
Po Box 728
Nerang
Qld 4211

Email is:
samantha@femtech.com.au
samantha@aussiewide.com
rebecca@cairns.net.au


abuse@connect.com.au

abuse@usa.net
abuse@yahoo.com
tony@tonsyl.org
tony@yahoo.com
tonysmith47@netscape.net
anthony.smith@jcu.edu.au
abuse@netscape.net
abuse@netscape.com

Message posted via Berlin Uni:
news@Uni-Berlin.DE



--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Seppo Renfors]

Douglas MacDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> >
> > *I* didn't do that - YOU did by not providing better information.
> >
> >
> >>Do you by any chance have any information you can share or are you just
> >>getting amusement from the group for your idle mind?
> >
> >
> > What you received is as good as it gets without further and better
> > particulars - something I note from another of your posts you are
> > unwilling to provide.
> >
>
> Sadly, when using a fact of time. I.E. "at this time" you see this not
> as an absolute statement that no action is intended but instead choose
> to assume that at some time in the future something will be/could be/may
> be contemplated based on whatever information is gained in the time
> space between now and then.

I take it you deleted my text before reading it. The use of that "at
this time" terminology with the remainder of the info leaves it open
to interpret as I said. *I* don't choose your words, you do.

> Well of course it will Seppo. That is how the community evolves. Seek
> knowledge and then act on it. It's how laws are devised and how you
> learnt to walk and talk. I can only guess at who (if anyone) accepts
> responsibility for giving you compassion. Certainly whoever it was seems
> to have forgotten about the power of reasoning. I won't go into
> innocence without proof here.

Well, if you already know it all - why come here and bother to even
ask questions for, when you don't want to hear?

Tell you what, you tell me what you WANT to hear, and I'll type it out
in reply for you - of course it will be totally worthless but will
THAT make you happy? Is THAT what you are after?

> Right now this fellow has no idea of what to do. All he knows is he is
> faced with fear of the unknown, an uncooperative spouse and a lawyer
> demanding money up front for advise. Why then would he not ask for
> advise elsewhere?

"HE" didn't, you did, but of course that may very well be one and the
same person! So here it is again, what's the point in asking - you
don't want to hear anyway. Further more, any advice you get here is
worth exactly the amount you paid for it! You have the option of
reading a variety of views and make your own mind up accordingly - why
bitch to ME for? Just remember nobody OWES you anything here.

> The information I posted is as complete as I care to make it having due
> regard for the potential for identification of the person and action
> which may follow based on flawed information.

Well, there you go - and that's why I said it is as good as it gets.
How do you expect anyone to assist you when you only tell a small
portion of the whole? Go shake the moths out of your pocket and see a
LAWYER with the FULL story!

> You really are quite a character Seppo. I thought you were just fishing
> a while back but now I realise you really have no regard whatsoever for
> anyone, do you? Just the sort of lawyer we see on TV, eh?

You know, you don't HAVE to post anything here, nobody is forcing you.
Nor are you forced to read my or anyone else's replies - something
that costs you nothing. You are free to leave any time you want, you
know.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Fred Flintstone]

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.on.com.au>
sednews:419B512D.D655CE12@not.on.com.au:

>
>
>
> You know, you don't HAVE to post anything here, nobody is forcing you.

I might


Bertie

[Tony Smith]

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote: Just his usual drivel, now mercifully deleted.


Feldwebel Renfors, do piss off and die, preferably in a slow, painful
and disfiguring way, you stupid stalking piece of shit.


Everytime you get spanked for saying something patently idiotic you
start your nonsense again.


Get it through your thick skull Renfors, no one takes the slightest
notice of you, or your sock puppets. Other than to have a good laugh at
you and to idly wonder how something as pathetic as you dares show it's
face at all.


The process currently is, and will remain.


Seppotic donkey brays forth with some legal gobbledy gook or other
nonsense, in any conference I choose to participate in.


The Donkey will get spanked (as it justly deserves).


And you have been told before, what will be the natural and inevitable
result of posting my personal details, or those of whom you decide in
your own bizarre and logic devoid way are associated with me.


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html


And:


Email for complaints of abuse, off-topic posts and general idiocy:

srenfors@bigpond.net.au

Abuse contact
abuse@bigpond.net.au

Business Address (per Yellow Pages) And also the hovel out the back
where the creature lives:-

Cottage Upholstery
3 Swale Street Strathablyn
(08) 853 62948

(Remember country code 61 if you want to give Renfors a ring to tell
him to stick his head up a dead bear's arse.)

Per registrar of business names
ABN 23 180 512 138

ICQ public profile:

ICQ Number: 2041303
Name: Renfors Seppo
NickName: Minder
Address: SA, Australia
Gender: Male
Birth Date: 04/16/1946

REMEMBER FELDWEBEL.....EVERY TIME!





Tony Smith


Rational posters beware, followups set to alt.usenet.kooks, which in
the absence of alt.sofa.stuffing, or alt.floridly.insane, is the most
appropriate group for Seppo's nonsense.

[Douglas MacDonald]

Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
>
>
Lets see now...
Are you the same Rod Speed who got his account removed a few years back
for inappropriate posts?

Maybe you are the same Rod Speed who's (totally wrong) advise about my
consumer rights and the fair trading act. Cost me many hundreds of
dollars for having taken it. Time does not erase your chequered history.

I know absolutely that you are the idiot who suggested my business
partner should forego their right to a refund on a $10,000 printer which
the makers agreed to take back and cop the costs. Where ever did you get
your information from?

Basically I'm saying to you and Seppo that you are a pair of fools, only
too happy to provide your foolish notions to anyone who will listen.
Never offering any usable advise because you don't have any to offer.

Since you stopped posting your ridiculous statements to computer groups,
the readers of them have been spared your ranting and no doubt, gotten
along a lot better with their suppliers. I guess this group is more
liberal in putting up with your posts, eh?

Douglas