InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 181
Posts 50479
Boards Moderated 10
Alias Born 12/20/2004

Re: BeverlyH post# 366330

Tuesday, 08/22/2017 12:29:04 PM

Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:29:04 PM

Post# of 380509
The way gulosh explained I think was that gulosh was to open an account that the principal then would deposit said promised amounts to cover whatever story the principal and gulosh were conniving about at the time.
Whether there was money deposited at the time back then is unknown as the bank said as of the time of this recent writ there was no property of the defendant.

It's not clear in the filing whether there was anything in the account in the beginning. And read part 4 where the bank states they have not done any other checking except for the present question and only for the writ demands. They did not produce the whole history of the gulosh account from the beginning from the looks of it.

It is common practice with a court writ to product exactly and only what the stated demand is and not volunteer any other data at all. I'm not sure long sides writ was written to demand a complete record from inception on the account. It can not be assumed the respondent would volunteer anything not explicitly asked for in the writ. Writs are used as fishing devices quite a bit.

For all we know, something might have been deposited and instantly removed by gulosh.

I think that gulosh should produce all the bank statements from the beginning to show if any activity was going on.

The legalize of forto, forthwith hereto crap makes it confusing to get an actual handle on dates the bank is referring to.