Anyone got an archive copy of this article?
http://www.jenman.com.au/news_item.php?id=153
also referenced here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=228205
or this one from 2004
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3551109
.
I think it is extremely apparent that Daniel Kertcher is a very successful, long time con artist.
...
You just need a disclaimer that the ASF is not responisible for any of the 'opinions' posted on the thread and if you recieve a genuine legal request to remove what may be defamatory, then at that point ASF becomes responsible for doing that within a reasonable amount of time!This just goes to show the lengths people go to and what ASF constantly faces and Joe has to deal with. Obviously it is important to remember this when posting to ensure that what you say is legit.
Recently I recieved a message from Joe indicating that the below comment and specifically my statement at the end has been flagged by Daniel Kertchers lawyers as "it is a highly prejudicial statement and is plainly false, misleading, deceptive and/or inaccurate and is devoid of any attempt to substantiate it by reference to objective facts."
For the purpose of clarification (since Joe informs me he can't edit my original post - and neither can I), I would like to note that the statement is only my opinion, formed after reading the quoted and linked articles provided by ConsumerOrgNZ and the NZ Herald. I am not sure why those posts do not constitute "any attempt to substantiate it by reference to objective facts" but I am not a lawyer.
I will be heading to the US next week for work with a major client, when I return I promise a significant attempt to substantiate my "highly prejudicial statement" with reference to objective facts. It appears Daniel Kertcher reads this thread, so I'd just like to let Daniel know that he should definitely keep watching this space
Recently I recieved a message from Joe indicating that the below comment and specifically my statement at the end has been flagged by Daniel Kertchers lawyers as "it is a highly prejudicial statement and is plainly false, misleading, deceptive and/or inaccurate and is devoid of any attempt to substantiate it by reference to objective facts."
I think it is extremely apparent that Daniel Kertcher is a very successful, long time con artist. I am almost tempted to post a link to this thread on 4chan just to see what Anonymous would do about it. Mr Kertcher, I suggest you take your sock puppets and leave this forum for good, lest my temptation grow further.
I recently completed the Platinum Pursuits Tradeability Income course presented by Daniel Kertcher...
It is always distressing when lawyers threaten, and particularly so, when one has not got the assets to defend oneself, particularly when a search for the truth is undertaken.
It is important to note that letters from solicitors can be written for as cheap as $300, which is chickenfeed for many professionals who feel their reputation is being damaged.
This $300 in the past has been money well spent in shutting down a conversation or quest for the truth. Nowadays though it rarely is. It often causes media with deeper pockets to take note and investigate the profligate spender of the $300.
It is important to state where there is no proof , that the statement or action is "alleged ", if it has been.
If a decision of a court or tribunal has been made about a person's business, a link should be provided.
This is not legal advice, just my opinion.
gg
Lol. If Daniel's lawyers believe that the NZ Herald or NZ Consumer Institue are not "objective facts", then go write those companies a solicitor letter and see what happens. What are they trying to achieve by writing a letter to someone who link to them?!
It's difficult to know which part of the statement they think is false, misleading, deceptive and/or inaccurate. May be the lawyers are referring to the term "successful" or "artist". Or may be Daniel doesn't have any sock puppets. Hard to know...
Hi, I am Magda.
I have just joined ASF and have so far made only one comment.
I find this forum fascinating but I first want to read all the posts on most of the various threads before I make another comment.
From what I have seen so far there appear to be some people here who make absolute fools of themselves.
I don't want to be one of them and that is why I first want to read previous comments before I say another word.
Recently I recieved a message from Joe indicating that the below comment and specifically my statement at the end has been flagged by Daniel Kertchers lawyers as "it is a highly prejudicial statement and is plainly false, misleading, deceptive and/or inaccurate and is devoid of any attempt to substantiate it by reference to objective facts."
For the purpose of clarification (since Joe informs me he can't edit my original post - and neither can I), I would like to note that the statement is only my opinion, formed after reading the quoted and linked articles provided by ConsumerOrgNZ and the NZ Herald. I am not sure why those posts do not constitute "any attempt to substantiate it by reference to objective facts" but I am not a lawyer.
I will be heading to the US next week for work with a major client, when I return I promise a significant attempt to substantiate my "highly prejudicial statement" with reference to objective facts. It appears Daniel Kertcher reads this thread, so I'd just like to let Daniel know that he should definitely keep watching this space
Hi, I am Magda.
I have just joined ASF and have so far made only one comment.
I find this forum fascinating but I first want to read all the posts on most of the various threads before I make another comment.
From what I have seen so far there appear to be some people here who make absolute fools of themselves.
I don't want to be one of them and that is why I first want to read previous comments before I say another word.
Why don't you and Magda start a new topic rather than posting comments that are not relevant to this topic? Or is this an attempt to side track the discussion away from the revealing posts about the suspect worth of DK's Platinum Pursuits course? Please if you have something relevant to add to this topic post it but otherwise start a new topic and post your comments there. This will help people like yourself get valid info about the topic rather than having to read rants.I understand what you mean, I joined hoping to get some valid info's but really have no time reading someones rant. I notice reading comments here that there are plenty of angry people around specially the active posters but I keep a very low profile just in case they turn against me...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?