Jump to content


frank galler - kubic investments ltd


princess5
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4949 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 772
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems as if Frank was in bother in Spain in July 2006 too, my Spanish is non existent but by what I can gather it's something financial.

 

http://www.carm.es/borm/documento?obj=bol&id=30064

 

Consejería de Economía y Hacienda

Agencia Regional de Recaudación

 

9703 Notificación a obligados tributarios.

 

De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el art.º 112 de la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria y habiéndose intentado la notificación al interesado o su representante, sin que haya sido posible practicada por causas no imputables a la Administración Tributaria, se pone de manifiesto, mediante el presente anuncio, que se encuentran pendiente de notificar los actos cuyo interesado y procedimiento se especifican a continuación:

 

Página 21946

 

Jueves, 20 de julio de 2006

 

Número 166

 

GALLER FERENCZ LASZLO X3292463J 2005 257444 Providencia de Apremio

GALLER FERENCZ LASZLO X3292463J 2005 4704300 Providencia de Apremio

 

Rough Translation;

 

In accordance with the provisions of Art. No. 112 of Law 58/2003 of 17 December, General Taxation and having tried notifying the person concerned or his representative as possible without being practiced by no fault of the Tax Administration , is evident,by this notice, which are yet to notify interested acts and proceedings which are specified below:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems as if Frank was in bother in Spain in July 2006 too, my Spanish is non existent but by what I can gather it's something financial.

 

http://www.carm.es/borm/documento?obj=bol&id=30064

 

 

 

Rough Translation;

 

In accordance with the provisions of Art. No. 112 of Law 58/2003 of 17 December, General Taxation and having tried notifying the person concerned or his representative as possible without being practiced by no fault of the Tax Administration , is evident,by this notice, which are yet to notify interested acts and proceedings which are specified below:

 

Surprise surprise.

 

Is this why he did not use reputable law firms to conduct his activities? They would perhaps have checked him out.

This has gone round and round in my head for months and this is the explanation surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinkers did have my paperwork, i just want to know what dealings they had with FG, and why they pulled out so suddenly, they are as im told a good law firm , was FG about to pull them in to, when we suddenly got the police involved. Any good law firm would at a glance see that these Affidavits are a crock of s**t, but they dident, why , easy its a good earner. What route was tinker going to take, there was no route only 1 in 50 will make it. IF THAT, this i was told at court. MONEY..................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinkers - come on and explain. I think Rush thinks you are a law firm. Have I missed a post on here which states Tinkers is.

Rush, Natasha did the Bill Of Exchange Act system. Frank passed the work to her.

 

Yes, after referring the whole process to a lawyer, and after a certain precedent by a judge, the whole process is exactly as you so eloquently put it.

 

I kept telling Natasha it is not working, where did you get this system from, etc etc.

 

She just was blase about the whole matter and said the banks would walk away. She was insistent it would come off the credit files etc etc.

 

The problem is she takes no responsibility. Initially, she blamed Geoff Lloyd and now Frank. She ran with this system and ignored concerns raised that it was problematic.

 

I guess it is a learning experience, not to trust anyone.

 

Natasha was part of City Legal Services, now you tell me does that or does not sound like a law firm? This firm of Natasha and Geoff also had letterheads stating New York, London, Paris.

 

Has anyone else out there been in receipt of this early last year?

 

What a joke!!!! The problem is if you are used to dealing in a professional environment, you do not expect to encounter this kind of deception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Natasha was part of City Legal Services, now you tell me does that or does not sound like a law firm? This firm of Natasha and Geoff also had letterheads stating New York, London, Paris.
Surely not a subsidiary of 'Trotters Independent Trading Co.) :rolleyes:

 

It is a criminal offence under s.21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to impersonate a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not a subsidiary of 'Trotters Independent Trading Co.) :rolleyes:

 

It is a criminal offence under s.21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to impersonate a solicitor.

 

I don't think Del boy will be too pleased at having his reputation tarnished either :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not a subsidiary of 'Trotters Independent Trading Co.) :rolleyes:

 

It is a criminal offence under s.21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to impersonate a solicitor.

 

 

Yes, I like you. I think we have the same sense of humour!!

 

You really could not make this all up if you tried, really.

Except that, it is so serious. My credit file is wrecked, my clients have had their's wrecked and I am having to refund. Natasha never offered to refund her fees.

 

Surely with Frank's clients she should at least refund her fees as they paid for something that did not work. The same for mine.

 

With regard to the balance, well I understand that he is employed part time as an air pilot. Well he was, not sure if he is.

 

If he is then could some of his earnings be attached to refund. I wonder if there is a legal way to do this. Legal advice is required here. I don't think it is enough just leaving it to the fraud squad, no offence but a legal brain is required here, no not you Natasha, a real legal brain.

 

The problem is our government departments are somewhat laidback. If anyone knows a lawyer who would take this on. I think there has to be a way to get his earnings deducted regularly.

 

See, all may not be lost.

 

Now anyone know a good lawyer in this field?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Can i ask tinkers, what were you doing with my paper work, had you to had meetings wiyh FG. You had had these papers for 2 or 3 weeks, You returned them to natasha with nothing done, why... My wife and i rang the police and the officer came to my home , this was around the same time you had my paper work. We gave him the lot, he returned and in writing said nothing could be done, go down the route of the moj..

 

I don't have any paperwork, I never said anything of the sort, why would I when I am in the same boat as you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

me too what with trotters and fg in a golden micra i know im laughing!!:D

 

 

What? Trotters and FG in a golden micra on their way to see City Legal/Tate Lloyd/Natasha Tate based in London, Paris, New York and what is that other big city? Oh yes, Swansea!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BOE,my home is safe thankyou, all my creditors are happy. FG has serious money probs here in england, else where dont know yet but i will soon . He has just let a property and i am told has 11. i know of 5 and i am checking them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...