Quote from: dogie on May 13, 2016, 11:44:03 PM

Quote from: RoadStress on May 13, 2016, 09:26:55 PM

Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!

1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one.
2. No one else is required to believe me or not.
3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided.
4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously?
5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies?

RoadStress raised an interesting point.
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"

Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."

disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.

One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).

Guy

Dogie's original post:

Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):

The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:

Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance: