Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony@Pacific & TRUTHSEEKER Expose Crims & Scammers!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nova222 who wrote (5200)	2/10/2008 2:49:48 PM
From: ravenseye	Respond to of 5673

i was actually questioning thetruthseekers posted words about a letter. let's see what he offers to support his claim, even though there is a deposition that disagrees with what he posted.

To: nova222 who wrote (5200)	2/10/2008 5:04:17 PM
From: ravenseye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5673

i question the validity of tonys words for various reasons, not just because he wrongfully claimed the donations were tax deductible in the US and he can thank himself for me questioning the validity of his words after reading a certain deposition that he linked here on silicon investor @ Message 16657821 of which i made a copy of the depo before the link was blocked. reference was made in that deposition to an email from memetaj about money not being turned over yet tonys words here on silicon investor made claim "The receipt is very real and was signed by Mr. Memetaj". a copy of the email was noted as being supplied at the deposition, but has the receipt tony made claim to being real ever produced? the depo involved sword testimony under oath, tonys post on silicon investor wasn't. if the receipt is as real as tony claimed, he should be able to produce it, like the email was produced during the deposition stating the money wasn't turned over.