No problem Melg. I was a banker as was he - I guess we have much the same outlook. But I remember some wondering why BM did not call upon the Royal Family for help. My remarks were no innuendo but based upon fact. The "King" of Negeri Sembilan is notorious for his acceptance of backhanders. A Malaysian newspaper ran a long article upon him last year as being the most corrupt of all the rulers of the states.
As for the insurance policy, as I was acting to attempt recovery of funds for some investors, it was one of the first things I tried to establish as existing. There was no trace or record of any such policy.
And of course Pips was not licensed to do business in the US in spite of the oft repeated statements. The fact that no attempt was made to contest the C & D Orders is clear evidence of that.
My only interest in Pips is now academic - I have already informed my clients that in my opinion they will not be recouping their investment.
But the only ones with all the answers now are the Central Bank of Malaysia.
Please visit our sponsors
Results 41 to 45 of 45
Thread: BNM's relationship with Bryan
-
18-07-2006, 11:37 AM #41
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Buxton, Derbyshire, UK
- Posts
- 49
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
-
18-07-2006, 01:27 PM #42
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 148
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Carlton Lewis
-
18-07-2006, 02:00 PM #43
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 26
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Carlton Lewis
Whilst I can't really be bothered with arguing over PIPS especially as NONE of us know the answers I do feel the need to correct you somewhat.
Your statement about the corrupt King of Negeri Sembilan WAS innuendo. Fo read your previous post where you first mention him. I did not doubt whether he was corrupt or not but you fashioned your post such that it linked BM to him and, as such, made BM "corrupt by association" - that CAN be construed as innuendo.
Re the insurance policy... because you couldn't trace or find record of it does not mean it does not exist - I have personal insurance policies which could fall under the same category, but I know they exist. Can you tell me did you subpoena the insurance policies or "supposed" providers of insurance ? Because without those I doubt an insurance company would release documents that do not pertain to you in any way, shape or form.
Re the C&D's I don't believe that the lack of contesting such orders is "clear evidence". It could be supposed or assumed (and validly so) but it does NOT constitute evidence - again, sorry but your play on words is not accurate (I am NOT saying that PIPS WAS licenced - merely pointing out the erroneous nature of your "evidence").
Time will tell if people get any of their investment back from PIPS - the longer it goes the less encouraging are the signs - and it has been a LONG time already.
I don't agree that the only ones with all the answers are the BNM (Malaysian Central Bank) either - Carlton, if they DID have all the answers then charges would have been brought by now or all files, servers etc returned to the company and said company cleared of wrong-doing. If BNM had all the answers they would not be calling Malaysian investors back in for further interviews.
IMO, the ONLY person with ALL the answers is BM.
Carlton, personally I don't like to see PIPS continue in the limelight - it is time for people to get on with their lives no matter how difficult that may be. Might I suggest that if you would like to continue this debate that you PM me and we can do so in that form of media ?
-
18-07-2006, 06:49 PM #44
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 90
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by melgLast edited by sopranos; 18-07-2006 at 06:51 PM.
-
18-07-2006, 07:54 PM #45
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 26
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sopranos
Go read my previous posts and tell me where I was implying that I had any facts. I didn't but Carlton did. Carlton was making various suppositions and not pointing them out as being that - I corrected him, get over it.
Carlton made it appear that he could back up his supposition with fact, I did not - there is a difference and all I was doing was pointing out that these were not facts so that all people, positive or negative towards PIPS could see both sides and, hopefully, make their own decision.
Or would you rather people just accept what Carlton has to say as fact without someone else suggesting it might not be all it seems ?
As for your snidey little emoticon at the end of your post I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.
Again, feel free to PM me if you have a problem with anything I say - people need to be getting on with life post-PIPS so much better to let the topic die a death so people can set about with that post-pips life we all need to see.
-
Sponsored Links
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
24 Hour Gold
Advertising
- Over 20.000 UNIQUE Daily!
- Get Maximum Exposure For Your Site!
- Get QUALITY Converting Traffic!
- Advertise Here Today!
Out Of Billions Of Website's Online.
Members Are Online From.
- Get Maximum Exposure For Your Site!
- Get QUALITY Converting Traffic!
- Advertise Here Today!
Out Of Billions Of Website's Online.
Members Are Online From.