Few Burning questions !!!

1. How many of you still believe that SAOL will come back ?

2. Why are we waiting for SAOL to come back ?

3. What will happen to networking Industry once SAOL stages a come back ?

4. Will court cases and SAOL restart happen simultaneously ?

5. How much have we learnt from the SAOL setback ?


These are few burning questions I want a reply from our dedicated SAOL family.

My Answers are :

1. Yes, it is bound to come back.

2. SAOL has brought up a Business Model which will empower consumer and create a Customer to Business Integration and will make the concept of  Business to Customer (B2C) Obsolete

3. SAOL will be rewriting the rules on how networking is done in INDIA and it would help in industry gaining a respectable and legal status

4. In my opinion , once the charges are framed against SAOL by EOW and no specific injuction is provided by the courts on business restart, SAOL can restart its operations and keep on replying the charges levied against it .

5. I have become a lot more patient and have understood that the theorem "risk and reward are directly proportionate ratio " is true and real.


Awaiting your individual feedbacks...

SPEAKASIANS DEMAND JUSTICE

1. Appeal to All Speakasians to continue your support and sign the online petition by clicking the link below.
   
   SPEAKASIANS DEMAND JUSTICE
   

   
   This is an online petition. As you sign it , this will automatically reach the concerned person and departments. This link is to reach every Speakasian so paste this link to all websites and facebook Groups . Email this link to maximum number of speakasians. If possible then meet all those who do not come online and explain the importance to them. Patience along with huge numbers is very essential for this movement. More number of person involved will ease our journey to success. It is a request that as soon as you log on to facebook please post the link of this petition to more and more different places. Changes will be effected in this petition as and when required.

   every panelist should be a part of this protest. Don’t know who’s destiny would click and would also brighten the luck of all 12.5 lacs Speakasians. We have to do our Karma and leave the rest in the hands of the Supreme Force which favours those who are doing their Karma.

   Keep going

When an online petition is made then all the emails with the name and post of the concerned persons and departments are submitted. But at present we can view their names and posts. This done to by the host website to safeguard the personal rights of the recipients. Just as an online signature is made it reaches the recipients. If the recipients so desire they can use the facility of not receiving further emails. For this it is essential that all signatures and reasons given are downloaded and a file prepared which is given to them by hand and inform them that they can check the status online. The petitioner also informs the concerned person and departments on phone to check the petition and take necessary action on the same at the earliest. Point is that now work is easy specially when it involves a huge purpose. You are requested to keep signing the petition and when the numbers reach in thousands then we will select a small representative batch and meet The Hon'ble President.

Court Order on ABA of Ashok Bahirwani - My Views

The current order of the courts in the case of ABA of Ashok Bahirwani speaks volumes of the bias put in the minds of court by the EOW. The court has not given any importance to the statements of applicant and company and Order looks more like an EOW report with so many ambiguities. Some of the examples are :  

Extract from the Order : “The principal company Speak Asia Ltd. is a

private limited company. It is registered at

Singapore.”

My View :

The above statement is contradictory in itself , how can a company with name Limited can be called a Private Limited.

Further company’s registered name in Singapore is Speak Asia Online Pte Limited. IF the court can’t even take care in spelling the name of the company, how we can believe the hearings are going to be un-biased.

Extract from the Order : “Notwithstanding the applicant's plea that he

too has got same background like the complainant,

the applicant has failed to explain as to how he has

continued to advocate cause of Speak Asia.”

My View :

If a panelist is supporting the company like Speakasia , it is only because he wants that his source of earnings becomes legitimate going forwards. After facing so many losses from the fly-by-night companies , here came a  company which has bravely stood its ground to explain its business model and make the future of many Indians secure which otherwise does not seem possible.

Extract from the Order : “The analysis of modus operandi as it is disclosed in

the affidavit filed on behalf of Speakasia Online Pvt Ltd.

through Tarak Bajpai S/o Vimalendu Bajpai”

My View :

Here also the court is giving a different name of the company , and has sweetly ignored to mention the capacity in which Mr. Tarak Bajpai has presented the affidavit on behalf of the company.

Extract from the Order : “For the panelist who commences to conduct

survey which means enrolls more panelists, keeps on

getting money and reward points against new

enrollment.”

My View :

How in the earth can you decipher such a meaning of the current business model. Where was it mentioned in the Website and Terms and conditions that Conducting Survey means enrolling more panelists.

Extract from the Order : “A panelist or investor who fails to enroll new

panelist thereby stands eliminated from the guild of

investors benefited by the scheme, having became

panelist, such person than turns out to be persons

who is cheated.”

“Those at the bottom keep on paying to those at the top.

Prima facie it turns out to be case of money circulation

prohibited under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prize, Chits and Money

Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1979 and as well offence under

section 406, 420, 120-B of IPC”

My View : Seems like courts are taking a biased view without understanding the  business model . There appears no reason that company would have explained the meaning like this in the affidavit submitted.