Speak Asia Online : Genuine or Scam (Fraud)? Read Here! - Page 70

Originally posted by: jutamaro

Vijay, Pl refer to this post at http://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/the-9th-dec-speak-asia-mumbai-high-court-hearings/ where a Sameer has stated on December 10 that Speak Asia management tried to shut up posts on Speak Asia at your forum. Is it true?

"...The management to pacify the panelist sent a notice to India Forums and threatened to sue them if they dont remove the post of SpeakAsia.

Vijay the owner of India Forum presented all the proof to his lawyer who replied every proof of their scam to them and after taking that reply, Anju's SpeakAsia took a nipple in their mouth and never again sent a notice to them."

I refer to your notice dated 27th May 2011 addressed to me (Vijay Bhatter) and my company Cyberax Media Pvt. Ltd.

Your notice is curiously silent on what was defamatory in the said article; thats possibly because there is nothing defamatory in the notice, its a mere opinion on certain circumstances and events.

One of the articles quoted by me is my opinion, my personal view, expressed by me on my portal, India-Forums; this opinion is formed / based on my understanding, after research into the Speak Asia business module, the manner in which it has been perceived by the normal Speak Asia panelists and how it is being sold to them. Based on my interaction with the Speak Asia panelists and Distributors I also tried to understand on how many would really buy that e-Zine without the option of "earning money" and answer was none. So thats how I derived the notional value "nothing".

In so far as the articles put up by other members are concerned, the views are that of the author and not the website. Please read our Portal's Terms of Use (http://www.india-forums.com/terms_of_use.asp) which clearly states all the limitations of the website and terms of service. I would like to draw your attention to the 1(a) which clearly states that authors posting on the site are solely responsible for the content they post on the site. Content is not necessarily reviewed by India-forums prior to posting and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of India-forums. India-forums make no warranties, express or implied, as to the Content or to the accuracy and reliability of the Content or any material or information that you transmit to other Members.

I would also like to bring to your kind attention that I am not the only person / site / company to publish similar articles questioning about the company. There are eminent business journalists, newspapers too including Sucheta Dalal, Economic Times, Times of India and many more suggesting their readers to be cautious and not to fall for "get quick rich" schemes.

• http://blog.investraction.com/2011/04/speak-asia-scam-or-for-real.html
• http://www.suchetadalal.com/?id=90890ade-4fcf-f284-4da58466269d&base=sections&f
• http://www.aboutindiatoday.gen.in/2011_02_01_archive.html
• http://www.moneylife.in/article/speakasia-still-cant-show-valid-legal-documents/15551.html
• http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-09/news/29522950_1_survey-easy-money-unemployed-youth
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Another-co-goes-to-town-with-easy-money-scheme/articleshow/7523895.cms
• and several more
  

The mentioned article in your legal notice posted by me is my opinion on the way in which the organisation functions based on the information available; and its clear that the roots of the organisation are not very clear and the company structure itself being hazy and the notice while waxing eloquently on the Company is silent on the issues put forth in my article.

Truth is not defamatory and therefore you must forthwith withdraw the notice, failing which I would have no option but to invite the attention of the public to this notice and if required would also forward a copy of the sent notice to the Investigating Authorities/ EOW, for their further investigation.

Regards,

Vijay Bhatter, CEO
Cyberax Media Pvt. Ltd.

"request the learned mediator to ascertain how much amount in fact is due and payable to the petitioners and other authorities."

This implies that the SC is going into the case only for the benefit of the 115 petitioners (panelists) who had filed the case under Solomon James & Others. It is also for the benefit of the governmental authorities who are claiming their dues. This amount Ashok has computed on his own tantamounts to Rs50 crore which has to be deposited with the Secretary General of the Supreme Court within two weeks of the order of the mediator, Retd. Chief Justice Lahoti. The print out of these dues are to be submitted to the mediator by Feb 11, 2011 by the EoW who has the same in its possession derived from the SAOL website being under its control. EoW had earlier stated via Aaj Tak TV that the list that it had showed dues of over Rs36,000 crores to all panelists (1.2 million), but now the list to be submitted to the mediator will only cover 115 stated panelists. This implies that other panelists will not even get their membership fees of 11k each (about Rs1300 crores in total). Their only hope is if and only if the mediator looks beyond the 115 panelists (petitioners). That is a big IF. The EXIT OPTION for new panelists who had not made any income whatsoever remains on paper only. The judgement makes no mention of any restarting of SAOL as being purely for the benefit of the 115 panelists who wanted their monies back from SAOL for which the Union of India and others were asked to do the needful. The "needful" in no way means getting ponzi scheme of SAOL restarted as had been interpreted by expert brainwasher, Mr. Ashok Bharwani.

This also implies that the herd of cattle that Ashok Bharwani has got at the website of AISPA are in for a deadly shock that their leader Ashok had been bluffing them all the while! I am sure they are going to turn onto him. This Ashok Bharwani had been thrown out of speakindiaonline.com for trying to promote his business in the initial stages where he had met a lot of opposition then from a Manas Robin who too like Jonathan James had wanted to form an association to file a case against SAOL in the SC.