Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:17 am  

For the avoidance of doubt, Moore told me and others personally some months ago that Khan had instigated a legal action against him and Whitcu*t over failure to proceed with the share purchase.

But he clearly must have been lying, since LiarDweeb assures us - categorically and unequivocally - that no such action was ever initiated.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:22 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So, when a deal was signed to buy OK's shares, how was it negotiated and agreed? Accidentally? It is an odd thing, that. To agree to buy someone's shares for £300K when you have no intention of doing so. Perhaps you could explain how that one works?

One of us is a perpetual liar, and as I have said, it isn't me. This particular mistake of yours, which you keep repeating, PROVES you to be a liar. Why? Because you don't say you simply "don't know of" any case, or that you've not heard of the case. You bluster that "THERE IS AND NEVER WAS" a case. And accuse me of perpetuating "a lie". No room for doubt, then. You are telling the forum that YOU KNOW, and therefore you know I "am lying".

So let me tell you the case details. It is - and has for very many weeks - been proceeding in the High Court at Leeds under case number A30LS219. In fact, oddly enough, OK started these legal proceedings at the time that he publicly announced in the local press that he had started these proceedings.

You have been a busted flush for a while, but your gamble on your wild guess that there was no case has failed, and you are a now proven LIAR. Well done you!


The remainder of your lies, like the above, can therefore be safely ignored as the invented product of your febrile imagination.

The deal was agreed based on false information supplied via Whitcut who was still working for Khan.. Once the deception was rumbled, the buyers back ed out & reverted to their original plan.. BB2014 was set up to take over once OK Bulls failed, which it did.

You have said previously there were no details of cases publicly available. Now you are quoting case numbers and courts. Curiously you aren't linking to any court sites where these details can be verified.

YOU are the perpetual liar and troll.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:28 am  

LiarDweeb wrote:

You have said previously there were no details of cases publicly available. Now you are quoting case numbers and courts. Curiously you aren't linking to any court sites where these details can be verified.

Wait ... what are you rambling about now ... I have previously said that there are no public lists of such civil cases available on t'internet, but you think it's "curious" that I'm not linking to any court sites despite me having explained there aren't any such sites? That is pretty amazingly dense, even for you!

LiarDweeb wrote:

YOU are the perpetual liar and troll.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:29 am  

Adeybull wrote:

For the avoidance of doubt, Moore told me and others personally some months ago that Khan had instigated a legal action against him and Whitcu*t over failure to proceed with the share purchase.

But he clearly must have been lying, since LiarDweeb assures us - categorically and unequivocally - that no such action was ever initiated.

You didn't get sight of any documents? Which solicitor was apparently acting for Khan?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:34 am  

He can't take any more, LiarDweeb has left the building!

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:40 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:

Wait ... what are you rambling about now ... I have previously said that there are no public lists of such civil cases available on t'internet, but you think it's "curious" that I'm not linking to any court sites despite me having explained there aren't any such sites? That is pretty amazingly dense, even for you!

So there are no public lists, which begs the question what the number you have offered as a case number actually is? Leeds high court?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:43 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

He can't take any more, LiarDweeb has left the building!

£1m? Any proof yet?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:43 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

You didn't get sight of any documents? Which solicitor was apparently acting for Khan?

Oh grow up. Can you prove that NO action is taking place?

I presume you DO know that FA is a Lawyer? And has been for many years? You?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:45 am  

LiarDweeb wrote:

So there are no public lists, which begs the question what the number you have offered as a case number actually is? Leeds high court?

There are public lists, they pin them up each day on the court notice board.

Tell me though, which bit of

in the High Court at Leeds under case number A30LS219

is it that you are struggling with?

Why are you suddenly not so cocksure that there is no case?

And are you going to apologise to me for calling me a liar, and to the forum for spouting bollox claiming it to be fact?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:57 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

£1m? Any proof yet?

be careful. Are you again accusing me of lying? You want more humiliation?

Here is an excerpt from the T&A report

Following the creditors’ meeting, Mr Khan released a statement, which read: “Firstly, the administrator’s proposals refer to a figure of £375,658 in respect of my claim.
“This was patently incorrect, but the administrator never consulted me regarding my claim prior to sending out the proposals with his Statement of Affairs.
“Following the receipt of the proposals and the submission of substantial paperwork to support my claim, and also discussions at Wednesday’s meeting, the administrator allowed me to vote my claim at approximately £998,000.
“This is still substantially below my figure and a formal objection was made.”

This has been confirmed to me by someone who was present at the meeting. That would be an odd thing to confirm if it had never happened.

So far as I am aware, nowhere has it ever been denied.

Whereas all you have is your own assertions, and as you are a proven liar, they aren't worth a great deal.