Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SteveUK » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:02 pm

Simon is back!!1!! With the fizzing out of the DD Clawback mayhem, he's been busy, very busy.

He presents for us all his new "mainstream" website, You and Your Cash. Found here:
http://youandyourcash.com/

And my lord, he has created LOTS of bonkers content. In fact, I had to zoom the browser out to fit it all in.

Image

Considering it's fairly new, and not yet even complete, I'm surprised at the amount of gushing testimonials on there.

“Hola Si, Success! Within a day, by phone calling da Banksters to claw-back DDG’s , we have had a COMPLETE AND UTTER SUCCESS in that all DDG’s, incl all back-dated charges, have been deposited back into our account in full! The Banksters are Nat-West, phone call around 4pm Tues, Weds funds in!
A very good result indeed, this stuff really works, we are really impressed, delirious and thank you so much Si. Muchas Gracias!
Steve M.


“Cheers for now mate. I’ve shared that video and everyone who’s watched it is says they are amazed that this is how mortgages are and all of them want to know how we get on with it. I reckon they want to try it themselves!! Sent it to my son in Cayman and he said ‘f**k me, what a super smart guy’!!”
Paul T.



They say you cant keep a good guru down, and so it is with our old friend.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

hucknallred
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby hucknallred » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:40 pm

This channel has a comment deleting fairy.

Here they are telling you how to get car insurance for free

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw-NURJefG8&t=3s

Quite a funny line from his mate as they're sat in a living room:

With me in the studio


It seems someone tried the method & decided to write in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F49gUurRtI

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SteveUK » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:45 pm

hucknallred wrote:This channel has a comment deleting fairy.

Here they are telling you how to get car insurance for free

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw-NURJefG8&t=3s

Quite a funny line from his mate as they're sat in a living room:

With me in the studio


It seems someone tried the method & decided to write in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F49gUurRtI


Studio eh? All I know is, his taste in decor is absolutely shit.

I wonder how Simon will get this mug off the hook:
gav o (Newport City Channel)2 days ago
A while back, I had missed some insurance payments ( 3 months I think), I was then pulled over by police, after stopping me they asked if I was insured, I said yes, I am insured. But they had already checked their database and seen that I was not covered. So, The insurance company had indeed cancelled my insurance and wiped me from the data base. Do you think I have a claim here? Because I was fined for not having insurance plus points added to my licence, my vehicle was towed away and ransomed for £120, plus I had to re insure myself to get vehicle back.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

hucknallred
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby hucknallred » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:01 pm

SteveUK wrote:I wonder how Simon will get this mug off the hook:
gav o (Newport City Channel)2 days ago
A while back, I had missed some insurance payments ( 3 months I think), I was then pulled over by police, after stopping me they asked if I was insured, I said yes, I am insured. But they had already checked their database and seen that I was not covered. So, The insurance company had indeed cancelled my insurance and wiped me from the data base. Do you think I have a claim here? Because I was fined for not having insurance plus points added to my licence, my vehicle was towed away and ransomed for £120, plus I had to re insure myself to get vehicle back.


He's the mug featured in the second video.

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby mufc1959 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:57 pm

Cor! Look at all the courses and products he's offering! I wonder if he takes WeRe cheques ...

https://insiders.youandyourcash.com/pro ... p-you-win/

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SteveUK » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:07 pm

mufc1959 wrote:Cor! Look at all the courses and products he's offering! I wonder if he takes WeRe cheques ...

https://insiders.youandyourcash.com/pro ... p-you-win/


It’s amazing- like a FMOTL Amazon.com.

I particularly like this one:
Image

I think we should have a whip round, buy it , then use our new found knowledge to claim our £20 back.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby JimUk1 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:09 pm

Isn't there a regulatory body that governs financial advisors? Essentially what he is offer?

Wonder if I should report this fraud to the FCA?

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SteveUK » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:07 am

JimUk1 wrote:Isn't there a regulatory body that governs financial advisors? Essentially what he is offer?

Wonder if I should report this fraud to the FCA?


They were as useful as a chocolate teacup when it can to PoE. In twisted logic, as PoE was a clearly fake bank, he wasn’t conducting actual banking business. Therefore not falling under their remit.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

SoLongCeylon
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:25 am

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SoLongCeylon » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:22 am

Goldberg is a sensitive chap and doesn't like any kind of critisism of his backward ways of thinking. If you email him to let him know what you think of his crackpot ideas you get treated to replies like this:

kindly refrain from contacting Mark, Simon or the Show.

We are not interested in receiving your opinions and or abusive emails.

Neither Simon nor Mark will provide you with the attention you appear to desire.

Any further contact from you, or your friends, via any medium, including but not limited to social media platform, will be construed as a deliberate attempt to cause alarm and or distress.

Your previous emails have been placed on record and reported to the police: crime reference number: 42/xxxxxx/17 (Essex Police)

Your location has already been tracked, and the Police are aware of the location, and device(s), from which your emails have been sent.

Kindly take notice of the warning.

Your behaviour will not be tolerated.

Which reminds us, we must hire that wedding car for the reception at the Manor Barn.

regards


(YAYC support team)

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby mufc1959 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:01 am

JimUk1 wrote:Isn't there a regulatory body that governs financial advisors? Essentially what he is offer?

Wonder if I should report this fraud to the FCA?


There's a disclaimer saying that the content is purely 'educational' and doesn't constitute advice. It also says that you must assume that if they're recommending a product or service, it's because they've been paid to do so.

https://insiders.youandyourcash.com/disclaimer/

I wonder if he'll provide a link to his own 'win' at the FOS. From past discussions, I think the consensus here was that this anonymised decision is about our friend Simon and his missus.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... leID=58823

Following this, he decided to start paying his mortgage again, and conveniently didn't tell anyone. Inconveniently for him, he let the cat out of the bag because of his huge ego. He loves to post videos of himself as he attempts to humiliate call centre staff (whereas, in fact, the only one coming off like an arse is him). In one of these videos, it turned out he was phoning to make his mortgage payment - at which point some of his 'followers' realised that they'd lost their homes by doing DD clawbacks, challenging mortgage validity, etc., when he wasn't prepared to do the same.

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby mufc1959 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:04 am

Interestingly, You and Your Cash is affiliated with something purporting to call itself LegalQuest. The website looks strikingly similar to You and Your Cash.

https://www.legalquest.org/affiliate-yayc.php

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby longdog » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:05 am

Any further contact from you, or your friends, via any medium, including but not limited to social media platform, will be construed as a deliberate attempt to cause alarm and or distress.


They could construe it as a deliberate attempt to bake a Christmas cake but it doesn't make it true.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby JimUk1 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:17 am

Legal Quest may not be telling the whole truth-

https://www.roebuckslaw.co.uk/people/martin-block

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/off ... st-limited

Legal quest have also appeared on MSE-

Interestingly over a year ago!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... p=72296782

And an exert from "ThisMoney" on why home owners need not worry if thier mortgage was bundled and sold as a security-

What does it mean for mortgage borrowers?

You will probably not even notice if your home loan has been securitised. You still make your repayments to the original lender. There have been no scandals affecting borrowers linked to securitisation in this country.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:43 pm

I wonder just how effective such disclaimers of responsibilty are in practice. They do seem a very easy way to wriggle out of regulatory authority, which leads me to think that there may be case law concerning them.
Does anyone have any information, opinions or citations concerning disclaimers?

They are also common on US based You Tube posts where they claim not to be dispensing legal advice, then do just that, even if it is completely fantasy legal advice.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11070
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:30 pm

Siegfried Shrink wrote:I wonder just how effective such disclaimers of responsibilty are in practice. They do seem a very easy way to wriggle out of regulatory authority, which leads me to think that there may be case law concerning them.
Does anyone have any information, opinions or citations concerning disclaimers?

They are also common on US based You Tube posts where they claim not to be dispensing legal advice, then do just that, even if it is completely fantasy legal advice.

They have EGGSZACTICALY ZERO value when it comes to breaking the law by pretending you are not, anymore than walking in to a bank and demanding all their money all the while declaiming you are not really robbing the bank. A VERY old canard that simply doesn't work, any more than saying that if you're law enforcement you aren't allowed to look at a crokked offering. YAWN.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby Penny Wise » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:36 pm

JimUk1 wrote:http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... p=72296782

And an exert from "ThisMoney" on why home owners need not worry if thier mortgage was bundled and sold as a security-

What does it mean for mortgage borrowers?

You will probably not even notice if your home loan has been securitised. You still make your repayments to the original lender. There have been no scandals affecting borrowers linked to securitisation in this country.


It has been a long established point of law that securitisation of a mortgage, in the UK by itself has no impact upon it unenforceable

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

CONCLUSIONS

The title to sue issue

109. In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV.

110. It follows, in my judgment, that Paragon, so long as it remains the registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, is a necessary party to any claim to possession of the Property in right of the Legal Charge.

111. The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

112. In my judgment, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the SPV should have been joined as an additional claimant in the proceedings. Nor, in my judgment, can the fact that Paragon has failed to describe itself as suing in its capacity as trustee affect the validity of the proceedings or of the orders made in the proceedings (in particular, the possession order). In any event, even if that failure could be said to amount to a formal defect in the proceedings (and I do not regard it as such) the court has ample powers under the CPR to correct such defects (e.g. under CPR Pt 17).

113. In my judgment Mr Page's reliance on section 114 of the Law of the Property Act 1925 is wholly misplaced, for the reason which the judge gave: viz. that section 114 is concerned with transfers of mortgages of unregistered land (transfers of mortgages of registered land being dealt with by section 33 of the Land Registration Act 1925). To interpret section 114 as applying also to transfers of mortgages of registered land would produce a fundamental and wholly illogical conflict between the two regimes in relation to transfers of mortgages. Bearing in mind what Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said in Flegg (quoted in paragraph 85 above), I can see no conceivable basis for interpreting section 114 in a way which produces that result and every reason for not doing so. Accordingly I respectfully agree with the observations of this court in Marks with reference to the instant case (see paragraph 95 above).

114. Nor, in my judgment, can Mr Page find any support for his submission in the Land Registration Act 2002, or in the Law Commission Report which preceded it. In my judgment it is verging on the absurd to seek to interpret a provision in a statute by reference to a provision in a different statute enacted some eighty years later.

115. In any event, I agree with the judge that the administration agreements demonstrate a clear contrary intention, sufficient to disapply section 114 if (contrary to the conclusion which I have just expressed) the section would otherwise apply.

116. As to Mr Page's reliance on section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, that too is in my judgment misplaced. He fails to distinguish between the right to sue at law for the mortgage debt and the proprietary interest created as security for its repayment. Section 136 applies only to the former.

117. Accordingly in respectful agreement with the judge I reject Mr Page's submissions on the title to sue issue.


Freeman/Sov Cit's latched onto securitisation, after Carmel Butler, a US trained lawyer, living in England got into arrears with her mortgage and a layman with no known legal qualifications in the UK, submitted as part of a public review of mortgages by parliament a memo.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 44w273.htm

At the time, Freeman thought the memo had been submitted in some form of 'expert' or qualified capacity rather than just as a homeowner that was defending repossession, using the argument that when a mortgage has been securitisied, the lender has no loci standi

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... e-law.html

However, as with most of the freeman guru's, things did not go well for Ms Butler

20 July 2009 at 14:54
Anonymous said...

Case Reference: B5/2009/1187

Title: Basinghall Finance PLC v Butler

Type:Permission to Appeal

Appeal/Application: for permission to appeal and a stay of execution

Hearing Status: Fixed on 27-Oct-09
Venue: London

Constitution: THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

Case Result: Refused on 27-Oct-09

Tracking Information:
27-Oct-09: Case given a final judgment
06-Aug-09: Case renewed to oral hearing
31-Jul-09: Case passed to Associate for Order to be drawn
30-Jul-09: Permission to Appeal referred to Lord/Lady Justice
15-Jul-09: Bundle(s) approved
08-Jun-09: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents
Wanna balloon?

SoLongCeylon
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:25 am

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SoLongCeylon » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:22 am

Simple Simon posted a video on the You and Your Cash YT a few weeks ago all about BITCOIN and investing in cryptocurrency.

His dull mate ( Mark ) was wetting himself about investing in BitConnect and claimed he was making 1% a day return. BitConnect had a referral programme and S&M were pushing their ( mainly skint ) viewers into investing as it would earn them a commission. It is ironic that for a tosser like Goldberg who has spent years telling people how to get out of paying their debts, " the bank never lent you nothing so don;t repay your mortgage" that he is know asking people to invest in something for his benefit.

Anyhoo, BitConnect has collapsed. Seemingly a Ponzi scheme. Simmy has had to issue this grovelling email a few days ago:
[i]
[i][color=#4000FF]As you may be aware, a few months back we made a show about cryptocurrency, and for those who were interested to learn more, we featured a lending platform called BitConnect.

BitConnect is not a cryptocurrency, moreover it is a platform which utilises volatility software to buy and sell into crypto currencies (mainly Bitcoin), and in turn, the daily profits are shared with people like you and us (the customer), at an average rate of about 1% per day.

Volatility-software is trading-software which makes hundreds of micro-trades each day, and even teaches itself to read trends in a given market. It can be programmed to look for certain trends, and or buy/sell under certain conditions. In short, it means you don't have to watch screens 24/7, you merely set up the software, and let it work for you! We'll come back to this shortly.

Back to BitConnect...

The platform had received negative commentary online, however, the negative commentary was incorrect at its foundation, but that didn't stop some people jumping on the bandwagon and alleging the whole thing was a scam.

Some of the most common reasons offered were:

1. "There are typos on the website therefore it must be a scam"

Now if that were true, then most people out there, given their poor spelling and or use of grammar must be scammers?! This is the most ridiculous comment i think I've ever seen.

2. "It's impossible to earn 1% daily from volatility software therefore it must be a scam, but if you want to earn 3% daily join my network here..."

A false claim - as we know first hand and as we reveal (read on)

3. "The company BitConnect Ltd has failed to file and is now owned by the Crown"

A false claim. BitConnect Ltd did not own the platform. There are videos already online which explain this, albeit those jumping on the bandwagon didn't have time to consider the facts.


Perhaps these negative attacks were offered by competition, the banks or government? Who knows. What we do know is that too many people were beginning to benefit from that which the bankers have benefited. Coincidence? Judge for yourselves>>>

With BitConnect, you loaned "money" to the company which traded the funds - basically engaging in foreign-currency-exchanges.

Note the similarity: when you place "money" into your bank (whether it be a current account or savings account), you are effectively loaning the bank "money": the "money" becomes the property of the bank the moment you hand it over, and the relationship between bank and customer is that of debtor and creditor.

Mainstream banking is a massive lending platform! You are the lender, they are the borrower!

With BitConnect you got a fair return. Not so with the Banks.

The truth is, the Banks make a mint from using your money to trade, but they pay you next to nothing for doing so!

How do we know this to be true?

We have bought our own volatility software and use it to trade, and without really knowing what we're doing, we have succeeded in achieving returns of 2-3% per day. That's how we know! We haven't jumped on bandwagons, or pointed fingers, or made accusations based on zero research. We have tested it for ourselves.

So, back to BitConnect.

Was it possible to earn an average of 1% per day on your money - yes! Absolutely yes!

In fact, we suspect that BitConnect must have been making a fortune, perhaps 2-5% daily on the money we/you loaned them; especially if they had perfected the use of the volatility software.

So it wasn't necessary for this to be a scam. Why risk everything when you can make loads of "digits" without the need to be dodge-city?


So why did it all go wrong?

During the weekend of 12th Jan 2018 - 15th Jan 2018, the BitConnect platform was attacked. Anyone trying to use the platform would have noticed this.

Those who attacked the platform had/have made it clear, to the company, they are going to continue to attack the platform. Bitconnect were thus unable to guarantee the future stability of, and accessibility to, the platform. That coupled with increasingly negative press (online) - propagated by people not doing their research - brought the platform operators to a conclusion.

They concluded to cease trading and refund everyone's money.

This morning (17th Jan 2018) they did just that.

It's a real shame, and it's not the end of cryptocurrency, although it will be a massive blow to "confidence" in the market place.
The funny thing is, there are other platforms currently offering higher returns to customers - does that mean they are scams too? In effect, these other-platforms are doing the exact same thing BitConnect were doing.

So why was BitConnect singled out?

Well, it seems to us that BitConnect were leading the way. They were highliy successful in what they did, but they attracted some incorrect-negative-speculation from one or two people attempting to promote and or sell their own networks, and the negative press releases were then jumped on by others who didn't do their homework.

The result> a self fulfilling prophecy.

People jumping on the band wagon wanted their predictions of doom and gloom to come true, and in effect, they helped make it come true.


Note the similarity:

Ever since I got into the law and banking stuff, people have said to me, "we need a team of people that can offer alternative assistance", and "we need a team of people that can help others".

A few years back, some friends of mine set up a company and attempted to offer real assistance to people. They were seeking to use property development as a means to raise funds in order to hire friendy/sympathetic barristers and fight court cases for people.

They had some very well publicized success (we're talking front page newpapers), and I went to work with them.

The problem is, I made the mistake of announcing that we could offer help. What happened? A few people started attacking the company - they claimed it was a "scam".

Quite how paying people's court fees for them can be a scam, I don't know, but hey ho - that's how ignorance works right?! Ignore the facts. Ignore the truth!

Anyhow, the company received so much abuse that after 4 months I was forced to leave, and the guys eventually closed the company.

Success for those attacking those who tried to help out!


Be careful what you wish for.

This is directed to those few people who "think" they have "money" in the bank and gleefully jumped on the bandwagon, putting the boot in to BitConnect - consider this.

Some people called the BitConnect lending platform a ponzi scheme:

A ponzi scheme is a scheme in which new investors fund old investors; ie, new money invested, pays those extracting their money now.

With that in mind.....



FACT: 3% of all bank deposits is held in the form of bank notes (cash)

Thus: people making deposits today, are in effect, funding the withdrawals of those who deposited in the past.

New depositors fund old depositors.

Sounds like a ponzi scheme right?


Like anything - the maintsream banking system only continues because of the confidence, faith and belief of those using it, and in our opinion, it's a ponzi scheme!

We'll be filming a show about this whole debacle tomorrow, and we'll get that up on the site ASAP.

Until then - all the best, and remember: we're in the same boat as those of you who took the plunge.

We'll release more news as we get it.

Big Love,



Simon and Mark
& the YAYC Team



If any links don't work on your email program - please copy and paste the links into your browser address bar.







Now just a quick note to say that you can unsubscribe any time by clicking this link Unsubscribe here. But remember, you won't get any of the latest information or updates and won't find out about any discounts for seminars and so on.

The easiest way to contact us is via the website http://youandyourcash.com/contact-us/
Snail Mail: Simon and Mark. YAYC PoBox77 1391 London Road, Leigh on Sea, Essex SS9 2SA
[/i][/i][/color]


I rather like his reference to being "attacked " in the past for things he has been involved in. I remember one thing where he was offering " mortgage review reports " for £150. Bradley Knight published some YT stuff on this and dear old Simple Simon's little offering all fell apart. Most of what Goldberg does now is actually about charging people for his information, which, I am reliably informed keeps him in a lifestyle of a beaten up old car and in a crappy house near Southend owned by a friend who bought it off Goldberg just before Santander repossessed it. Keep at it oh Master Jedi Goldberg
Last edited by SoLongCeylon on Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

SoLongCeylon
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:25 am

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby SoLongCeylon » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:36 am


Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:43 am

Any chance of editing your post to remove the blue as a type colour? I find it almost impossible to read with my failing eyesight.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am

Re: Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

Postby grixit » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:43 am

Have to admire someone willing to jump into this particular demographic with that name.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests