# David Tweed warning!!



## Profitseeker (23 February 2006)

Tweed targeting AMP shareholders
February 23, 2006 - 12:44PM

Market opportunist David Tweed is now targeting AMP shareholders, using his technique of offering to buy shares at well below market value.

AMP has warned its shareholders to be aware of any approach by Mr Tweed's companies, in particular Direct Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd (DSPC).

AMP shareholders have already been approached by another of his companies, National Exchange Proprietary Ltd.

In the latest attempt, DSPC is offering $5.00 per share for AMP shares, a significant discount to the recent trading range of AMP.

AMP chief executive Andrew Mohl said shareholders should be very cautious of any offers from any of Mr Tweed's companies.

"It would be of great concern to me if any AMP shareholder accepted an offer to sell their shares for less than their market value," Mr Mohl said.

"We strongly urge shareholders not to accept this offer as it is significantly below the market value of their shares."

Mr Tweed's companies have targeted AMP shareholders before.

Mr Tweed has made his name trawling through the share registers of major companies such as Insurance Australia Group, retirement living group Aevum and gaming operation Tattersall's, offering shareholders below market prices for their shares, sometimes with payments in small instalments made over decades.

Most recently he has been involved in a long-running dispute with boutique investment firm Clime Capital.

Earlier this month, he requested a extraordinary meeting of Clime - the fifth he has requested in less than a year - as he attempts to frustrate Clime into buying his 19.9 per cent stake in the company.

At 11.46am (AEDT) on Thursday, AMP was trading $8.46, up 15 cents.


----------



## dutchie (23 February 2006)

*Re: Warning!!*

He is also targeting IAG

Paying about half market value ($3.00). 
EOD  IAG $5.49

Cheers

Dutchie


----------



## ghotib (23 February 2006)

And he's still greenmailing Clime Capital. 

Oh sorry... just saw that the article says that. Well it doesn't say greenmailing, but that's what it means. 

Wouldn't it be nice if he could be force to fund research into conscience transplant. 

Grrrrrr

Ghoti


----------



## robots (25 February 2006)

hello,

come on, 

whats the problem with tweed, 

what about when your down the local brick supplier offering them 5,000.00 for a 6,000.00 load of bricks or at the car dealer offering the salesperson 5,000.00 less than the advertised price?

there is buyers and sellers for everything, when you sell or buy your shares on comsec or etrade you set the price, if someone likes the price the transaction occurs.

asic has forced the disclosure changes on tweed, plenty of other corporate raiders out there that dont get the unjust attention

thankyou
robots


----------



## ghotib (28 February 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> come on,
> 
> ...



The problem with tweed is a bit like the problem with athletes and performance enhancing drugs. From one point of view, the athletes are intelligently using all available resources in order to win. From another, they're going against an unwritten (originally) assumption that the competition is about each athlete's talents and sustained effort. By that view, the drug users were cheating, even before the written rules were changed. 



> there is buyers and sellers for everything, when you sell or buy your shares on comsec or etrade you set the price, if someone likes the price the transaction occurs.



Sure, but there's a fundamental assumption that the parties are making their buy or sell decision on a fair basis, which includes information and ability to decide if the price is fair. In your example, the brick supplier can be expected to know the value of the bricks, the state of his business, and how much wiggle-room was in the list price. You can be expected to know what other suppliers are offering, whether you're willing to use different bricks, and how desperate you are to get the bricks on site two days ago. 

Tweed makes unreasonably lowball offers in a form that is likely to mislead a targetted group of shareholders. It's true that no one forces them to accept the offer. It's also true that the companies Tweed targets are mostly demutualised, where many of the "investors" never wanted to own shares in the first place and don't have knowledge or resources to assess their value. 

From one point of view Tweed is intelligently using his resources to win. From another, he's taking unfair advantage of vulnerable people - cheating you might say. 



> asic has forced the disclosure changes on tweed, plenty of other corporate raiders out there that dont get the unjust attention



ASIC didn't act alone. The High Court was scathing about Tweed in a case that he himself took to court, and the "disclosure changes" were by Act of Parliament. Since then his offers have disclosed a current share price, but there's more than one way to confuse and mislead - ask any advertiser. I haven't seen the most recent AMP offers. I have seen others - some are available on the Web if people want to see for themselves what the argument is about.

Not sure what you mean by "corporate raiders"; Tweed usually gets called things like buttom-feeder and scavenger. But whatever you call him, I think it's entirely appropriate to warn people about his record. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Stan 101 (8 March 2006)

He is a scoundrel without a doubt, and how he lives with himself is beyond my comprehension. It doies remind me of the old adage "fools and their money...."

Tell me, would these same people who fall for this scam sell me their house or car if I walked up to them and offered an undervalued figure? I think they'd get a second opinion, don't you?

If people were responsible for their own actions, Tweed and his ilk would be destitute. Too often, the catchcry is " they are old / reasoning impaired / illiterate etc. I say that if you fit to hold such parcels of shares, you should be fit to make judgement on sales. If you are fooled by someone like Tweed, you obviously lack the competancy to own them directly.


let's hear people's opinions on my views...


Cheers,


----------



## bullmarket (8 March 2006)

Hi Stan 101



			
				Stan 101 said:
			
		

> He is a scoundrel without a doubt, and how he lives with himself is beyond my comprehension. It doies remind me of the old adage "fools and their money...."
> 
> Tell me, would these same people who fall for this scam sell me their house or car if I walked up to them and offered an undervalued figure? I think they'd get a second opinion, don't you?
> 
> ...




:iagree: in general with you as I believe he has no scruples or concience but I think you're being a bit harsh on some of the people who are sucked in by his low-ball offers.

Sure there are some who should know better and still get sucked in and they have only themselves to blame.  But there is also a small minority of elderly or whatever else people who have never ever had any experience in the stock market and so would have very little if any idea on who to go to for help who have been left a parcel of shares in an inheritance or whatever.  Many of them see Tweed's offers as an easy and quick way to liquify their holdings and so blindly accept the low-ball offers.  It's unfortunate that Tweed preys on these type of shareholders 

A few days ago I received a letter from the DRT share registry saying that they were obliged under the Corporations Act to supply DRT shareholder information to a request from a law firm on behalf of the law firm's client.

So now I'm waiting on possible correspondence from Mr Tweed   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Happy (8 March 2006)

As stated above - on one hand we say that too low offer is unfair on the other hand many people love to buy bargain priced items.

Hard one as there is aspect of uneducated people being offered sophisticated kind of con proposal and probably here where it hurts most intelligent people.

As it somehow feels different when we make low offer on bankruptcy auction and get something for fraction of the price. 
We don’t think then, that higher offer could mean that more unsecured creditors could recover some of their funds or that everybody affected could recover higher percentage.

I don’t even want to talk about Pub dealings with stolen property for fraction of the price.

If anybody wants to be tweedy, can load prepaid envelope with weekly collection of pamphlets or some other rather heavier bits and pieces and make him pay the postage and probably extra charges due to higher than standard letter weight.

But as responsible citizens we should not allow paper to be wasted this way we, should recycle it and it is not the best way to do it.


----------



## Profitseeker (8 March 2006)

I believe that what Tweed does is wrong but on the other hand buyer beware. If you don't know what you are doing find out about it before you do anything!


----------



## Bloveld (8 March 2006)

I think Tweed is no better than the lowlifes that grab old ladies hand bags. Same thing, preying on the weak.
And anybody who has any sympathy or support for Tweed is just showing their true lowlife nature.


----------



## Milk Man (8 March 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> If anybody wants to be tweedy, can load prepaid envelope with weekly collection of pamphlets or some other rather heavier bits and pieces and make him pay the postage and probably extra charges due to higher than standard letter weight.





Get some .45 calibre slugs from your local gun shop and whack em in there too.  If youre not that game then sinkers will do fine.


----------



## Nicks (9 March 2006)

Profitseeker said:
			
		

> I believe that what Tweed does is wrong but on the other hand buyer beware. If you don't know what you are doing find out about it before you do anything!




.... but thats the point, the weak dont know. The strong have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the weak. Wouldnt be much fun being weak otherwise would it....


----------



## Ann (9 March 2006)

David Tweed is a shmuck!

Probably not my last word on this subject!  :


----------



## robots (9 March 2006)

hello,

Clime Capital: no difference from Tweed to other corporate raiders, all buying major stakes in companies and wanting to then introduce there own "tactics/management style" whether they me right or wrong in someone's view

we wouldnt have a clue who has accepted his offers, 

all I understand is people have a choice to accept or not accept his offer, 

people may be happy with his offer, as most know, plenty of people lose money with shares 

the majority of people and media are highly jealous of him,

whats the big deal, if today, you want to sell CBA for $50/share and someone accepts, then are you a bad person?, if you buy CBA for $30.00/share have you ripped somebody off? 

no you got a good deal, 

thankyou
robots


----------



## bullmarket (9 March 2006)

Hi robots

my   are in red



			
				robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> Clime Capital: no difference from Tweed to other corporate raiders, all buying major stakes in companies and wanting to then introduce there own "tactics/management style" whether they me right or wrong in someone's view
> 
> ...




I see Tweed and people like him as the same low lifes who snatch handbags from elderly ladies who are not in a postion to defend themselves.

At least legislation has been passed that forces people like Tweed to disclose the true market value at the time on their offers - but I hear the print is very small.

cheers and good luck in your endeavours.

bullmarket


----------



## Profitseeker (10 March 2006)

Nicks said:
			
		

> .... but thats the point, the weak dont know. The strong have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the weak. Wouldnt be much fun being weak otherwise would it....




True.


----------



## Profitseeker (10 March 2006)

Bloveld said:
			
		

> I think Tweed is no better than the lowlifes that grab old ladies hand bags. Same thing, preying on the weak.
> And anybody who has any sympathy or support for Tweed is just showing their true lowlife nature.




I was  not trying to defend Tweed; I think he is a low life. What I was saying is that people should take responsability for their actions.


----------



## robots (10 March 2006)

hello,

"we wouldnt have a clue who has accepted his offers"

has anybody's vulnerable frail grandma/pa accepted one of his offers?

people can live how they like, I personally believe he is wak  

wasnt the recent lady who tried to get out of her contract with Tweed described as a "sophisticated investor" 

thankyou
robots


----------



## crackaton (10 March 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> come on,
> 
> ...





Where exactly does he get the information to approach these people? Why does he target the elderly and mentally disabled?
Perhaps you should have a good look at yourself.


----------



## crackaton (10 March 2006)

Profitseeker said:
			
		

> I believe that what Tweed does is wrong but on the other hand buyer beware. If you don't know what you are doing find out about it before you do anything!




He has been sponging of people who recieved free AMP shares when it floated.

A lot of these people would not know what a share is let alone a market. He is a fArker.


----------



## bullmarket (11 March 2006)

Hi robots



			
				robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> "we wouldnt have a clue who has accepted his offers"
> 
> ...




There are plenty of documented cases where disadvantaged and vulnerable people, both elderly and not so elderly, have been taken advantage of by Tweed......if you want verifiable proof maybe try contacting sources like Today Tonight (ch7) and/or ACA (ch9)......there are obviously other sources as well but as I am not into spoon feeding so I'll let you source those for yourself if you are genuinely interested. 

_As I said in my earlier post to you I see people like Tweed who prey on vulnerable disadvatnged people as stealing by stealth and imo he and the likes of him are in the same group of low lifes who snatch handbags from elderly defenceless ladies.   

If he is happy doing what he does (and I suppose he is within himself) then fine.........but I certainly couldn't live the way he does as I described in my earlier post._

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## laurie (11 March 2006)

Laughed my head off and many applauded IAG at the last AGM where Tweed complained that IAG charged him $40000 for the cd with sharesholders holding that's the part that got my back up our information on the share registry is there for all to see yes I'm aware it's lawful to obtain the share registry so much for privacy!

cheers laurie


----------



## bullmarket (11 March 2006)

Hi laurie



			
				laurie said:
			
		

> Laughed my head off and many applauded IAG at the last AGM where Tweed complained that IAG charged him $40000 for the cd with sharesholders holding that's the part that got my back up our information on the share registry is there for all to see yes I'm aware it's lawful to obtain the share registry so much for privacy!
> 
> cheers laurie




Shareholder privacy is still protected to some extent as you need a '_legitimate_' reason to support your request for shareholder information from a share registry.  Joe Public can't just ask for personal details of shareholders from a share registry.

But having said that, a week or so ago I received a letter from DRT informing me that they have recently provided, as obliged to under the Corporations Act , their shareholder information to a request from a law firm on behalf of its client.

Obviously I have no idea who the law firm's client is but mrs bullmarket has been rushing out to the mailbox everyday since after the postie had gone past in anticipation of receiving correspondence from Mr Tweed   

Have a good weekend 

bullmarket.


----------



## robots (12 March 2006)

hello,

found plenty of "media" articles, ACA/ch9 had a couple of people who provided shares to Tweed. These individuals commented how silly they were to accept not having checked the latest "market" share price.

surprisingly there wasnt this in your face evidence of frail vulnerable grandma/pa's who the media/people have heavily promoted as being victims.

found interesting opinion on Xstrata's offer for WMC and the similarities to Tweed, in essence buying shares at a certain price.

what about Paul Little and current bid for Patrick?

i think Toll's offer for Patrick is around 6.30 whilist Patrick is trading at around 6.98, was around 7.40.

no Paul Little warning, no cries of vulture, no ACA or Today Tonight vision, people received documentation from Toll to accept their offer.

Paul Little wants to make money and buy patrick as cheap as possible, like most people out there.

thankyou
robots


----------



## bullmarket (12 March 2006)

Hi robots 

no problem........if you look back at my earlier posts you will see that I acknowledged that some of those that got sucked in should have known better and so have only got themselves to blame.

But there are also vulnerable people that have been sucked in as well and for obvious reasons their details cannot be posted in a forum like this, and I mentioned to you that there are other sources (both media and non-media) you can check if you are genuinely interested.

At the end of the day I haven't seen any verifiable proof that shows my perception of Tweed and people like him is wrong in any way whatsoever so I will continue to maintain it.

You seem to  be supporting Tweed targetting vulnerable and disadvantaged people and you are entitled to that view........all I have done is said what I think of people like him and their methods....I can't be any fairer than that 

If we disagree then so be it..

Good luck in your endeavours 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## robots (12 March 2006)

hello,

good luck as well

thankyou
robots


----------



## Julia (12 March 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> found plenty of "media" articles, ACA/ch9 had a couple of people who provided shares to Tweed. These individuals commented how silly they were to accept not having checked the latest "market" share price.
> 
> ...




Robots:

You make a good point.  One essential difference is the amount of publicity which has been accorded to the Toll/Patrick situation.  Most people, even those without shares in either company, would be aware of the current state of play.  It will be interesting to watch the outcome in his battle.  Chris Corrigan will not be sitting back and doing nothing.

Julia


----------



## ghotib (13 March 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> surprisingly there wasnt this in your face evidence of frail vulnerable grandma/pa's who the media/people have heavily promoted as being victims.
> robots



Try Aevum Ltd case. 

Aevum Ltd is an aged care company that was formed from the Hibernian Friendly Society.  Tweed sent out an unsolicited offer of 35c after the prospectus was issued but before the IPO. The issue price was 90c, the opening price was $1.52. He backed down on his court attempt to enforce the deal when some shareholders who had accepted his offer wanted to change their minds. 

Then have a look at the High Court judgement that found his offer to OneSteel shareholders was "misleading and deceptive" as defined in the Trade Practices Act. That's the one where the offer was around market price but payable over 15 years. 

Look at the details and look at the record, including examples of the actual offer documents where you can find them. Google is your friend.

Ghoti


----------



## Nicks (14 March 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Robots:
> 
> You make a good point.  One essential difference is the amount of publicity which has been accorded to the Toll/Patrick situation.  Most people, even those without shares in either company, would be aware of the current state of play.  It will be interesting to watch the outcome in his battle.  Chris Corrigan will not be sitting back and doing nothing.
> 
> Julia





Robots / Julia
I think you will find that it it the TOL offer itself that has pushed upward the PRK price. The TOL offer was good considering what the market valued PRK at prior. Much of the current share price value in PRK at the moment is on the intangible value placed in the TOL bid. Once gone, PRK goes way South, unless of course the next offer is accepted, which I believe it will be, as most smart onvestors know that this is the only thing that has propped the PRK price up (look at all the other fundamentals of PRK, it should be going down).


----------



## bullmarket (16 March 2006)

I see DRT have made an anouncement today warning that David Tweed has sent out a letter to *some DRT unitholders * offering to buy their units at $1.00,

Current unit price is $1.40+

hmmmmmmmmm......_some DRT unitholders _ .....I wonder if he'll be sending out low-ball offers to fund managers holding DRT units or just to those he thinks might be vulnerable and so be sucked in by his way below market value offer   

Can't wait for the postie to arrive tomorrow   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (23 March 2006)

Still no correspondence from Mr Tweed today re his offer to buy DRT units for $1...  .....I guess ours is lost in the mail   

Somehow I doubt he's sending his low-ball offers to fund managers as well  and just targeting unit holders he thinks he might suck into accepting his low-ball offer.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## mista200 (23 March 2006)

I read somewhere that he hates cars and houses. Hes a bit of a weirdo. Yeah although what hes doing is immoral its not against the law so leave him alone.


----------



## bullmarket (1 April 2006)

Hi mista200



			
				mista200 said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that he hates cars and houses. Hes a bit of a weirdo. Yeah although what hes doing is immoral its not against the law so leave him alone.




You seem to support Mr Tweed's tactics and that's fine if you do as you're entitled to your view just like everyone else.

*But people warning potentially vulnerable shareholders of his methods is not illegal either so I, for one, will continue to warn others as and wherever I see fit.*

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## robots (1 April 2006)

hello,


Interesting the Liberman group taking a 19.5% in a takeover target energy company in Queensland, and have since come out saying they want "x" price based on their "valuation" process. 

isnt that what Tweed is playing with on Clime Capital, he is placing his own "valuation" on a company and wants "x" price.

but low and behold, no tv crews harassing Liberman group, no ACA, or today tonight story amazing.

many corporate raiders playing the same game, 

seems every other corporate raider without the Tweed surname has a golden halo over their head

thankyou
robots


----------



## bullmarket (1 April 2006)

Hi again robots 

I think you and others supporting Mr Tweed might be under the wrong impression that I or others are saying what he does is illegal.

It isn't, but just as he is placing his own 'valuation' ,as you put it, on a stock there is absolutely nothing wrong let alone illegal with other people also highlighting to potentially vulnerable shareholders that other buyers in the market are most likely placing *much higher valuations * on the same stock at the same time via much higher bids on the ASX   

I see DRT made an announcement saying that Mr Twedd's company has sent out offers of $1.00 to *selected * DRT unitholders when the market price is $1.40+. I haven't received an offer from Mr Tweed and I doubt very much any fund managers holding DRT units will have either 

So all I am doing is informing fellow unit holders that if they are considering selling for whatever reason they can get much more for their units on the market than the $1.00 Mr Tweed is apparently offering. 

see you in the swamp 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## $unny (9 April 2006)

very smart man, if he can do that and get away with it, can i join him? people who sell it to him at the price he is offering are stupid idiots!


----------



## bullmarket (4 May 2006)

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm   

I have received an unsolicited offer from:

Direct Shares Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd
ABN 47 114 693 168
26 Francis Street
Melbourne
Vic 3000

to buy my DRT units for $1.00ea when they are currently at ~$1.47

Sounds suss to me as I have no idea who DSPC are and although they sent me a self addressed return envelope, they are too stingy to pay for the postage   oh dear....since they are offering to buy at a 47c discount the stamp would have been the profit on 1 single solitary unit only   

Anyway, I think I might scrape up some of the possum pooh on the driveway below where they must nest and send that back to DSPC in their envelope.

I'd hate to be the person opening up the enevelope at their end..............PEEEEEEEEEEEEYOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo...............  

The letter said I should seek my own financial and taxation advice before accepting the offer so I thought I better post the offer details here and elsewhere for guidance.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## dutchie (4 May 2006)

Bull

I suggest you don't sell!!  LOL

Cheers

Dutchie

PS Is this advice ? - if it is ignore it!


----------



## noirua (4 May 2006)

From this information, companies may face a fine of $110,000, and individuals a fine of $22,000 and 2 years in jail:

http://www.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.ns...pected+offers+to+buy+your+shares?openDocument


----------



## visual (4 May 2006)

7Anyway said:
			
		

> Bullmarket,dont do that ,YOU might get in trouble for breaking some health regulation.Instead wrap a brick or phone book and send that.


----------



## GreatPig (4 May 2006)

I can help you there, Bullmarket. Sell them to me for $1.05 instead and make an instant 5 cent/unit profit! 

Now there's an offer you can't refuse...

GP


----------



## bullmarket (4 May 2006)

Thanks for the advice everyone 

I think I'll hang onto mine - sorry GP 

*hi visual *  - they were too stingy to stick a 50c stamp on their self addressed envelope or give a 'reply paid' address   so if I did that I would have to pay the excess postage.

I think with possum pooh I can still get away with a 50c stamp - as long as I don't over fill the envelope   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (4 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> *hi visual *  - they were too stingy to stick a 50c stamp on their self addressed envelope or give a 'reply paid' address   so if I did that I would have to pay the excess postage.
> 
> I think with possum pooh I can still get away with a 50c stamp - as long as I don't over fill the envelope
> 
> ...



Hey Bull, 
the Possum pooh idea is good, but as long as there is no return address to the letter you send them then you can mail their return letter to them without a stamp and it is the receiver who pays not you.  They cant afford not to pay it, because they will assume some Dummy has fallen for their offer.

I never get any of these offers - I wonder how they select candidates


----------



## visual (4 May 2006)

Bullmarket,
Prospector is right you can even provide your own envelope,sticky tape it on the wrapped brick and they`ll have to pay at the other end
I`m thinking that if enough people did that either he`  d have to come up with a method to cull his mail,thereby leaving the big parcels behind or Australia post would force him to do something about all the big parcels that he would have to leave behind.


----------



## Happy (4 May 2006)

But envelope is much too small for brick


----------



## bullmarket (4 May 2006)

ok, thanks for the tip visual, prospector and happy   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## phoenixrising (2 November 2006)

Finally ASIC has shown some b...s and banned the pr..k

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=158148

Unfotunately he can still mail unsolisitedly though.

Least it's a start


----------



## shinobi346 (14 November 2006)

I wrote 'dont be crazy' on the sheet before sending it off.

On the article: thats a step in the right direction. but they need to do more. Just because I hold shares in a company doesnt mean I want I mail from people not associated with the company.

Unsolicited snail mail should be classed the same as unwanted email ads - spam


----------



## pacer (14 November 2006)

I finaly got one!.......wrapped a big runny poo in it, and sent it as...for your eyes only!...private and confidential......lol.......


----------



## Out Too Soon (16 November 2006)

BHP has sent me a warning letter about him. Croesus hasn't though, why cant he target Croesus holders? Come on Tweed make me an offer, Croesus Gold goin' cheap! Pleeease!  

Hey Pacer! talking about things in the mail, I'm gonna send Netwealth a weetbix in an envelope so they know what I had for breakfast. They've mucked me around so much on my appl' I've given up. They're on your side of the world too. (maybe they don't like easteners)


----------



## professor_frink (17 November 2006)

My mum got a letter yesterday from this punk offering to buy her IAG shares for $3 each.

She's currently o/s, so I'm paying bills, etc for her while she is away, so it's all up to me to do something  

I'm thinking of scanning the form, changing the details so it shows a phony name, then mailing it back to them, to waste their time a bit.

Another option is to do that, then put some white powder in it(harmless of course!) to really freak these ******* out. Or could that be taking it too far?


----------



## noirua (17 November 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> My mum got a letter yesterday from this punk offering to buy her IAG shares for $3 each.
> 
> She's currently o/s, so I'm paying bills, etc for her while she is away, so it's all up to me to do something
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, David Tweed has as little feeling for other people as a brick wall. We know all brick walls crumble and fall eventually and it is up to everyone, in their own way, to chip away at the mortar and bring him crashing down. Grind all the bricks into dust and distribute them into the Pacific ocean. 

The best way to attack him is from another country than Australia, he does not send his letters to anyone holding stock, who is, or has, moved abroad. He is very savvy on Aussie Law.

There is a way of messing him up from any domain, however, and that is to get someone else to fill in and sign the forms he sends out. Then challenge him in court.  Just because he sent a letter to your address does not mean it arrived at your address, therefore, anyone in theory could fill in the forms and send them back. If enough people give up their time to do it he could find himself, David Tweed, in one hell of a mess.


----------



## professor_frink (17 November 2006)

noirua said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, David Tweed has as little feeling for other people as a brick wall. We know all brick walls crumble and fall eventually and it is up to everyone, in their own way, to chip away at the mortar and bring him crashing down. Grind all the bricks into dust and distribute them into the Pacific ocean.
> 
> The best way to attack him is from another country than Australia, he does not send his letters to anyone holding stock, who is, or has, moved abroad. He is very savvy on Aussie Law.
> 
> There is a way of messing him up from any domain, however, and that is to get someone else to fill in and sign the forms he sends out. Then challenge him in court.  Just because he sent a letter to your address does not mean it arrived at your address, therefore, anyone in theory could fill in the forms and send them back. If enough people give up their time to do it he could find himself, David Tweed, in one hell of a mess.





Interesting thoughts Noiura, will look into that


----------



## matti_pacman (25 November 2006)

I got offered from Mr Tweed for my AXA and CML shares. There must be someway to make this XXXX pay for his scams...


----------



## BankRoller (3 June 2007)

*Re: AVE - Aevum*

With the focus primarily on the commodities market, the ageing population issue within Australia is a "sleeper". Wondering if there has been much of a focus from investors into PLF (now BNB run), AVE and the like?


----------

