Thread: A Humble Request (Merged)

Originally Posted by SoulSurfer

Merci, Arcturus.

It is not SO important whether he is or isn't, but in response to your comment about how could he get the Lotto going, EASY: having a laptop, which the membership got to him, and using the internet connection of the place where he is staying (any friend of Bryan's is bound to have access) and working, as he said, on a "deferred payment" basis with the programmers, he could easily get the Lotto going (well almost).

So, I don't find this argument compelling, but as I said, it is no Biggy. (What about "house arrest" does not fit right?)

Personally, I just find it Plausible because A) there were several reports from private persons, including staff, to this affect (and why does everyone assume first off that several different people were all lying-I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt) and B) I find it compellingly plausible that authorities in such a country as Malaysia would take such a precaution (i.e. confiscating the passport) in such an investigation, especially when company assets are seized (accounts PLUS the computers) And no, I never saw any evidence that Bryan traveled, just conjecture.

So as I said, I find it entirely plausible, and think, if true, it is "not a good sign as to the overall situation" so to speak, that is my only point.

That brings me to your next point and another (last) question I wanted to ask before: again regarding (sorry) the begging bowl status: If the authorities froze "company" accounts, why didn't BM not have personal resources in a private account? Wasn't he making a modest salary from PI? Or, was he in the practice of living out of the company funds, and when these were frozen he was left penniless? OR, option 3, did they also freeze personal account(s) and if so why?

Do you see my point? A rather closing-loop logic, I know, that can't be proved either way, but what do you THINK? Leaving such questions unanswered or ignored is rather risky IMHO.

SoulSurfer

(re banal, I was referring to the poup-on comments)

If his company funds were frozen, they would also freeze his personal account as well. Just think about it.

Interesting,

Where did the house arrest statement come from, I don't recall it being credible from anyone known to have this information, so in my opinion, it does not exist. And if it came from disgruntled employees who were not being paid, I would take this with a grain of salt as well, so who made this statement I hear some talking about?

As to house arrest, this makes no sense as one has to be either charged, then arrested, then offered bail, tried, then convicted or set free, yet there is nothing public which can verify any of the above. So without a record of arrest, there was none, so before all this gets slapped about, just put forth the proof first or your words mean nothing.

I will admit there are some very strange aspects of this whole ordeal which do not add up, but anytime you have the authorities involved, it is a public issue, and it must be recorded, even in the most a*s*s backwords countries, you cannot hide an arrest record, or witness to it, so all we can do is wait for the truth to come out, and to this point, it hasn't.

Peace, Mike

Originally Posted by SoulSurfer

Merci, Arcturus.

It is not SO important whether he is or isn't, but in response to your comment about how could he get the Lotto going, EASY: having a laptop, which the membership got to him, and using the internet connection of the place where he is staying (any friend of Bryan's is bound to have access) and working, as he said, on a "deferred payment" basis with the programmers, he could easily get the Lotto going (well almost).

So, I don't find this argument compelling, but as I said, it is no Biggy. (What about "house arrest" does not fit right?)

Personally, I just find it Plausible because A) there were several reports from private persons, including staff, to this affect (and why does everyone assume first off that several different people were all lying-I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt) and B) I find it compellingly plausible that authorities in such a country as Malaysia would take such a precaution (i.e. confiscating the passport) in such an investigation, especially when company assets are seized (accounts PLUS the computers) And no, I never saw any evidence that Bryan traveled, just conjecture.

So as I said, I find it entirely plausible, and think, if true, it is "not a good sign as to the overall situation" so to speak, that is my only point.

That brings me to your next point and another (last) question I wanted to ask before: again regarding (sorry) the begging bowl status: If the authorities froze "company" accounts, why didn't BM not have personal resources in a private account? Wasn't he making a modest salary from PI? Or, was he in the practice of living out of the company funds, and when these were frozen he was left penniless? OR, option 3, did they also freeze personal account(s) and if so why?

Do you see my point? A rather closing-loop logic, I know, that can't be proved either way, but what do you THINK? Leaving such questions unanswered or ignored is rather risky IMHO.

SoulSurfer

(re banal, I was referring to the poup-on comments)

A company with frozen accounts is not in a position to pay a salary, you know....

Originally Posted by Offshore-Wealth.com

Interesting,

As to house arrest, this makes no sense as one has to be either charged, then arrested, then offered bail, tried, then convicted or set free, yet there is nothing public which can verify any of the above. So without a record of arrest, there was none, so before all this gets slapped about, just put forth the proof first or your words mean nothing.

Peace, Mike

What you are describing is a typical American style arrest; in other countries (I live in one) things are not so clear cut -- the absence of habeas corpus is the norm in most places. In a lot of countries one has no "ineliable rights" except what the state gives you.

FYI, a "house arrest" need not even require a trip "downtown," or bail, or charges within a certain time, and certainly no "public notice." Just the taking of the passport on the spot and advice to stay put is enough. Detention, at "home" or in jail, in many countries can continue indefinitely while an investigation proceeds. My understanding is that BM is not allowed to leave Malaysia.

So to just say, "there was no public arrest like we have in in the USA proves it didn't happen" is not much of an argument if you look at the situation objectively.

Grains of salt are good. Why are they not applied to what BM says? Peace to you also.


Leftyken, I am thinking about it. Perhaps you are right, but WHY would they freeze his personal account if they are investigating "PIPS and PureInvestor" only. Do they suspect BM of malfeasance? Is it just routine?
So, are you saying you think they DID freeze his personal account?

Originally Posted by rolbuddy

A company with frozen accounts is not in a position to pay a salary, you know....

Well, then either he had nothing saved for a rainy day, which seems rather irresponsible, or perhaps as Leftyken thinks, his personal accounts were frozen, too.

Whatever, just think these questions were unanswered (and to maybe just me, troubling) and not proved one way or the other...

Peace to you, too.

Interesting,

So you are saying Malaysia law is not based on English law? Having read through dozens of Malaysian laws, I find it very similar to English, or as you say, American law. I agree, some other countries may be able to get away with detaining a suspect forever, with no charges, but I don't think Malaysia is one of them.

Peace, Mike

Originally Posted by SoulSurfer

Well, then either he had nothing saved for a rainy day, which seems rather irresponsible, or perhaps as Leftyken thinks, his personal accounts were frozen, too.

Whatever, just think these questions were unanswered (and to maybe just me, troubling) and not proved one way or the other...

Peace to you, too.

Yes, either he had nothing saved for a rainy day (like me and most of the people I know), or they froze his personal accounts too.

Peace :)

Even if they didn't freeze his personal account and he did have 'something left for a rainy day' - he had his lawyers to pay - for some time before he asked for help.

Lawyers are not cheap and don't work for promises.

It has been stated on numerous occasions that Bryan pays (paid) himself a "modest" salary for his work within the organization. One meaning of modest is: "Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious." Using this definition any salary he was drawing would be sized to meet his living requirements and little more. That being the case, there wouldn't be a lot of "extra" funds to accumulate individual personal wealth. As such, when the company's assets and accounts were frozen and his salary with them, he would run out of resources very quickly. Just like those of us living paycheck to paycheck, we lose a job and we're destitute in a very short span of time...

But the nature of the argument is intriquing, Mike.........

I understand your point fully, SS, but that does not change the underlying fact. As was presented by those who made the house arrest claim, your argument cannot support the conclusion, as (supposedly) his EVERY move was being closely monitored (per the "revelation"). Mike, however, is correct. The info came out of TG initially........reliability is an issue. We have been challenged to present our facts with written proof. IMHO, it is because they are sorely lacking in them. The spirit of this thread is to present an argument with as many facts as possible, that argument being "innocent until proven guilty", regardless of the final outcome. Have I steered this? Yes. Do I desire a specific outcome? Yes. Am I disallowing any other alternative? No. Beneficial dialogue, point and counterpoint, WILL shed light on both fact and fiction, and will make those ultimate conclusions that much easier to understand (even if they are unwelcome.)

BM has stated that he took a "modest" salary from Pips. That is undefined. Malaysian law appears to follow the British Commonwealth system of jurisprudence, but it is also a Muslim nation; and Muslim law is very much a part of their system. Everything I have learned about Muslim law is not kind to the offender - hence I do not lend much credibility to the house arrest rumor. Frozen funds are another matter.

Are we done (with this part) or do we need (as was pointed out earlier) a synopsis of where we are so far?

Arcturus