|
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 05, 2014, 03:41:20 PM Please contact Wood Law if you have lost money due to Ken's negligent and/or deceptive tactics (lies). (http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation)
'Secretary of State Jason Kander has halted a Springfield resident's Bitcoin-based investment activity, saying in a news release today that Kenneth Slaughter used "deceptive tactics" to convince online investors to pay for the development of Bitcoin mining equipment.' (http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/06/02/secretary-state-halts-springfield-bitcoin-business/9871263/) Wood Law phone#: 1-816-256-3582 Wood Law Alt. Phone: 1-888-237-0999 Website: http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation (http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation) EDIT (May 08): Several days after creating this thread, Ken started to transfer shares over to CT. Shareholders can now exit (albeit at a significant loss). Shareholder complaints (last updated on May 29, 2014)
Refunds (last updated on July 2, 2014)
Related threads Index of Active Mining Threads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=639243.0) Scam accusation thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=504424.0) Hardware - Magzy thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491609.0) Hardware - RoadStress thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=253282.0) Securities - Crumbs thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297530.0) Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #HJvMfKhNoqgubE9y Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #cpV32TYYfucoB7H7 Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Shareholder Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 05, 2014, 05:38:13 PM This keeps getting deleted from the official thread. I hope shareholders deliver on this deadline. Investors have given Ken plenty of chances:
Ken I've had more than enough of this silence and enough of being deleted from this thread. At this point with the website remaining unchanged I don't believe your aim is to make a success of this company. So i'll be joining the shareholders side of the Wood Law case against ACtM if you don't come clean and answer to what everyone is asking you about: verification of shares situation with msd accounts staff pay profits from mining and sales ACtM chip ACtM savings 3 month plan None of this will be forth coming - so i'll be contacting Woods in 48 hours. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Shareholder Discussion Post by: bitlind on May 05, 2014, 06:08:40 PM The censor queens are out in full affect. I have probably posted seven times in that thread, all but two have been deleted, and not one was trolling, all pertained to the many issues at hand.
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Quote Mod - what do you think gives you the right to ban me from this thread? This thread was created to allow shareholders to delete Trolls. So why have you banned me? And what gives you that right because when I supported this thread and asked Ken to support it that was to keep Trolls out - not legitimate shareholders. The Advisory Board, minerpart, and many others like him... notice how they all eventually abandoned ship (enough is enough) or were forcefully removed from the discussion (censored, banned)? That would and should speak volumes. Everyone backs Ken up until they don't or can't anymore, by either choice or force. Its kind of sad to see all the supporters and faithful members be pushed around, cut out, and treated like they are nothing. Old Man River will certainly rue the day Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: ActM Thread on May 05, 2014, 07:29:01 PM Minepart was put on probation in that thread. (Read Banned until further notice)
All of his posts will be removed regardless of what is written in them. Any posts quoting those posts will be removed regardless of what is written in them. This is a very simple system, one that we have used since the thread opened. Some posts are well written and are completely against Ken and Activemining which we have no issue with but include an attack or "troll" on another user for a small portion of the post and the entire post has to then be deleted. If you would like to post something please do so without quoting banned users, attacking other users, or trolling in general and your post will not be deleted. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 05, 2014, 08:20:16 PM Simon aka zumzero you have removed my Mod abilities and banned me from the thread because I called you a dickhead and a cock in pm.
That is NOT a justifiable reason to ban me from the thread and remove my Mod rights. Yesterday you were calling notlambchop all sorts of obscenities on the thread over multiple posts and got into a debate with him. THAT is the sort of behaviour that SHOULD get someone a warning - yet it was carried out by YOU. None of the mods have agreed to banning someone and deleting all their posts for sending some pms. You have taken it upon yourself to ban someone because the power has simply gone to your head. The damage you are doing to this company right now is staggering. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 05, 2014, 08:30:02 PM lobbes - agree 100% with everything you say there. Ken has lost my confidence, I don't trust him anymore and his actions or lack of actions are not that of what you would expect of a CEO in his position.
If we leave him to it over the next few months I'm sure we will log in one day to see he has said 'sorry its over we ran out of funds'. Well that's no surprise when the website is a joke, customer services are literally disgusting and our reputation has been shattered by the delays and amateurish behaviour of all parts of ACtM. If we go down the Woods Law class-action route we could at least get 10% of our money back. That will be a lot better than 0% which is what we are facing right now as Ken continues to slowly run this company into the ground. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: bitlind on May 05, 2014, 08:30:47 PM Simon aka zumzero you have removed my Mod abilities and banned me from the thread because I called you a dickhead and a cock in pm. That is NOT a justifiable reason to ban me from the thread and remove my Mod rights. Yesterday you were calling notlambchop all sorts of obscenities on the thread over multiple posts and got into a debate with him. THAT is the sort of behaviour that SHOULD get someone a warning - yet it was carried out by YOU. None of the mods have agreed to banning someone and deleting all their posts for sending some pms. You have taken it upon yourself to ban someone because the power has simply gone to your head. The damage you are doing to this company right now is staggering. Ken has him beat, but I side with you miner... no reason to be giving you, one of the biggest supporters of all time the boot simply because you question things now. The hypocrisy of those who control Actm Thread is the staggering part... someone should delete his worthless post here since it doesn't add anything to the lawsuit discussion. Way to troll lobbes' thread Actm, hypocrite Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 05, 2014, 08:32:18 PM Personal drama aside, the damage to this company lies squarely on Ken's shoulders.
We can fight all we want about the censorship issue, or trolling, or FUD, but that is just a red herring. Always has been. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Crumbs was actually Ken at this point. Zum has a point that we shouldn't be wasting our time attacking each other, however I would say we need to be rallying against the true cause of this (Mr. Slaughter) If we weren't living in a vacuum of information, Trolls wouldn't have too much to troll about. EDIT: If we go down the Woods Law class-action route we could at least get 10% of our money back. That will be a lot better than 0% which is what we are facing right now as Ken continues to slowly run this company into the ground. +1 My point, exactly Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 05, 2014, 08:37:31 PM Zum has a point that we shouldn't be wasting our time attacking each other If it wasn't him who banned me and is doing all the deleting I could see the sense in that, as it is I think he just wants us to back Ken till the bitter end. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: ActM Thread on May 05, 2014, 08:40:24 PM Zum has a point that we shouldn't be wasting our time attacking each other If it wasn't him who banned me and is doing all the deleting I could see the sense in that, as it is I think he just wants us to back Ken till the bitter end. I guess you should see some sense then. You are not getting moderated by "Zum". Sorry about off topic Lobbes, continue on. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: bitlind on May 05, 2014, 08:46:19 PM Personal drama aside, the damage to this company lies squarely on Ken's shoulders. We can fight all we want about the censorship issue, or trolling, or FUD, but that is just a red herring. Always has been. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Crumbs was actually Ken at this point. Zum has a point that we shouldn't be wasting our time attacking each other, however I would say we need to be rallying against the true cause of this (Mr. Slaughter) If we weren't living in a vacuum of information, Trolls wouldn't have too much to troll about. EDIT: If we go down the Woods Law class-action route we could at least get 10% of our money back. That will be a lot better than 0% which is what we are facing right now as Ken continues to slowly run this company into the ground. +1 My point, exactly Agreed 100% and I can speak only for myself, I do not attack others in that thread. The rallying cry "Ken needs to act now" has been beating for the better part of a year now. He clearly doesn't give a shit about anyone of us, he even says he is 100% honest with us. He bold face lies to everyone then comes on here to say he is honest with us, that right there is a slap in the face. The man is an old, washed up, has been, who displays this image of being an engineer... people ate that up, I know I did early on. Only until I talked to him several times over the course of 3-4 months did I start to feel odd, but so many behind him and an Advisory Board, I thought he couldn't screw it up with all the help he was thought to be receiving. Then shares stop trading, board disappears, each supporter turns a 180 but is replaced by a new supporter. FUD turns into certainty and we are left here. The guy cant code, he can't even manage his own Exchange server, he can't even communicate verbally let alone communicate in a proper sentence structure on this site. He can't remember lies told two weeks ago and has to lie more to cover it up currently. The guy is a sad excuse for what is bitcoin and what has become of those inside of bitcoin who work with him. He will just be a lesson learned for many years down the line, and I will look back at this and laugh at the legacy he leaves behind. If my last name was Slaughter I would be looking to change it. If I was married to this man, I would be signing with my maiden name. If I were Micah, I would delete every single front facing social media account immediately and hide from the shame his father has put on his name. Like I have said in the past, it is with great surprise that someone hasn't shown up on his doorstep and taken matters into their own hands. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 05, 2014, 08:47:20 PM How many shareholders do we need for the class action lobbes? Count me in I know Ken won't be getting back on any of these points - if he even got a chance to read them before they were deleted by his really smart Mod team.
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: bitlind on May 05, 2014, 08:52:53 PM I have my own lawyer but am going to be speaking with them regarding this class action suit and due course. If it makes more sense from here, and joining together to bring some sort of balance to this inept individual, I will be all for it.
Comedy abound, the reality is probably this: Ken is just so bumblingly inept, compounded by his Asperger's and social anxiety, he failed and failed time and time again in his dreams of hitting it big as an entrepreneur. Bitcoin just gave him an avenue to affect even more people with his stupidity, he crowd funded it. That should be a new trademark for him Crowd Funding my ineptitude since 2013! Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 05, 2014, 09:16:08 PM How many shareholders do we need for the class action lobbes? Count me in I know Ken won't be getting back on any of these points - if he even got a chance to read them before they were deleted by his really smart Mod team. Great question, but I am certainly no lawyer. My main purpose of this thread is to get the ball rolling. This source (http://www.millslawfirm.com/classaction.html) says 'Although it sometimes helps if several people are named as plaintiffs in the suit, a single person is generally enough to file a lawsuit so long as the attorney for the class has a good faith belief that a number of other people were injured in a similar way. It generally takes at least 30-50 people with similar claims, and sometimes many more, to qualify as a class action.' I would love it if someone who is a little more versed in the law could weigh-in. Either way, if you are in, it wouldn't hurt to contact Wood Law Firm: http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation (http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation) @bitlind - let us know any info you can once you speak with your lawyer. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 05, 2014, 09:26:53 PM Good info lobbes. I guess they are talking about losses of a few k per claimant - so 30 x 2k is around 60k total losses. We will have a lot more than that he took what a million dollars? And obviously everyone is in the same boat so everyone has incurred a loss.
So the claim is a good one, i'll be contacting them via their form submission tomorrow. If they want to call me back international rates ill let them pay the call fee. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: bitlind on May 05, 2014, 09:46:17 PM I posted this in the "official" thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462370.msg6267625#msg6267625
One of many points was to say that I was holding off on taking legal action. When Ken was to release his financial reports I knew it wasn't going to happen. Part of the problem is how his business is defined and the functions it performs. In speaking with my lawyer, he even told me to be surprised if we ever see those reports. He being a manufacturer and distributor of bitcoin machines, a miner, a security operator and how he incorporated two companies rather than just one make tax and financial implications not only complicated but massive. The least of Kens worries will be his shareholders when the government decides to slam the book on his 75 year old head, and that is probably his mentality now even if the SEC, FinCEN or IRS have not begun to investigate. Simply put, Ken jumped into an ocean 30 miles from land without a raft, life jacket or the ability to swim. He really didn't think about the long term catastrophe he was setting in motion. If he isn't looking at the world in a uniform and behind bars in 1-2 years time I would be incredibly surprised. I am out of town this week, but I have emailed with my council, if I get any more important information regarding what we have here I will gladly pass them along. Regardless of the short term prospect of a return, I don't see anything happening soon. A return, any kind of return, would be nice, poetic justice would be the cell. What is one thing Danny Brewster and Kenneth Slaughter do not have in common? It is only one thing... Danny knew to run and hide... Ken is slower mentally and physically, his exit will take much longer. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 06, 2014, 03:12:16 PM Quote from: Bitcoin Forum A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Quote We know they are real Vince. The problem is selling just 5 of these a week for the next few months that they remain profitable to mine with is not going to make us any money whatsoever. And mining 80th/s is likewise not going to make us any money whatsoever. So where are we making our money right now? Not in sales or mining. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: bitlind on May 06, 2014, 04:49:59 PM Yep miner, I was just censored for pointing out he had a free site already created for him and shot it down in favor of his with mtgox addon and to lose our money excuse. I wonder if the hardcore actm thread people who manage that account can be considered part of actm or liable alongside Ken for the lies told to shareholders and misuse of company funds. Probably not unfortunately
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 06, 2014, 09:09:46 PM It's this unreasonable censorship that has made me take a step back and ask what exactly is going on here. They are not conspirators just ignorant, morally superior die hards with a diminished sense of reality. They are also arrogant fascists unwilling to let others have their fair say.
This is so over, it never really had a chance with Ken solely in charge. These brown shirts will have faith in their leader till the end though. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: bigdude on May 08, 2014, 11:11:55 PM I'm a very large shareholder, and I would be strongly against any legal action at this moment.
We are finally seeing some movement by Ken, and I think it is best to give him time to keep the momentum going. We now have our shares, mining is happening, there is improvement. We still need to know more, and for more to happen, but now is the time to allow that to happen. If it doesnt, then we can revisit thoughts of legal action. Taking action now would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and a sure way of killing any hope of return of wealth. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: Ask Ken About Love on May 08, 2014, 11:30:37 PM ... We are finally seeing some movement by Ken... What is a bowel movement? http://www.pagecovers.com/user-covers/08-23-2012/jeopardy__logo_grid.jpg Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 09, 2014, 02:35:54 AM I'm a very large shareholder, and I would be strongly against any legal action at this moment. We are finally seeing some movement by Ken, and I think it is best to give him time to keep the momentum going. We now have our shares, mining is happening, there is improvement. We still need to know more, and for more to happen, but now is the time to allow that to happen. If it doesnt, then we can revisit thoughts of legal action. Taking action now would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and a sure way of killing any hope of return of wealth. I would agree. Since shareholders can now exit, it would not make sense to take legal action, from a financial standpoint. As soon as my shares are listed, I'm out. I simply don't see this venture succeeding. He has made improvements, but the communication issues alone are too much. Customer service is a mess, and who knows where the financials are? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: gogxmagog on May 09, 2014, 04:26:24 AM I'm a very large shareholder, and I would be strongly against any legal action at this moment. We are finally seeing some movement by Ken, and I think it is best to give him time to keep the momentum going. We now have our shares, mining is happening, there is improvement. We still need to know more, and for more to happen, but now is the time to allow that to happen. If it doesnt, then we can revisit thoughts of legal action. Taking action now would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and a sure way of killing any hope of return of wealth. I would agree. Since shareholders can now exit, it would not make sense to take legal action, from a financial standpoint. As soon as my shares are listed, I'm out. I simply don't see this venture succeeding. He has made improvements, but the communication issues alone are too much. Customer service is a mess, and who knows where the financials are? +1 agreed this company could use a little improvement in public perception right now if you want the share price to rise at all. I know Ken is Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: Anotheranonlol on May 09, 2014, 02:28:35 PM Why are there so many Full/Sr members who chose to invest in Activemining is what I'm intrigued about.
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: theMiracle on May 09, 2014, 02:59:01 PM И нa cтapyxy бывaeт пpopyxa :(
To their defence, Bitcoin securities being ~95% fail/scam, investing in one is pretty much guaranteed if you "invest" in bitcoin securities. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: Anotheranonlol on May 09, 2014, 03:07:41 PM И нa cтapyxy бывaeт пpopyxa :( To their defence, Bitcoin securities being ~95% fail/scam, investing in one is pretty much guaranteed if you "invest" in bitcoin securities. it's 2014 blind dart championship) Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: gogxmagog on May 09, 2014, 09:28:47 PM these are the same as penny stocks. most fail, some don't, but they all cost only pennies a share, so one is able to invest small amounts to see what happens. at IPO there were mixed reports on Ken, but some trusted members had said they had worked with him in the past and saw a determined capable programmer and engineer, if somewhat unconventional and difficult to communicate with. My experience holding a small stake in actm has proven that these statements are mostly fair. However Ken's timing and management is terrible enough to tank this company, and he is often too stubborn to realize he his headed down a dead end. He is also one of the very worst communicators I have ever encountered, he over-promises and under-delivers consistently, and continually shifts blame for all failures to some vaguely identified "project managers" and "PR teams" which seem to be outright fabricated persons. As far as I can tell actm entire staff is ken and 2 teenagers (possibly family members) Regarding his fiscal trustworthiness... the jury is still out on that one... but the odds are not in his favor.
I threw some pennies at actm in the beginning and now it looks like those pennies were wasted, but...pennies. Unless you have solid insider information, you have very little to go on in terms of viability of any given offering. Due diligence will only get you so far when there is so little known about the principals involved, and only greedy fools throw large amounts at untried entities hoping they will win the lotto, they have no right to bitch, its their own damn fault they are losing their shirts. I really believe most of these supposed lawsuits that get discussed in this sub are empty threats made by butthurt gamblers hoping to light a fire under the operators' arses. Do any of them believe they will get even one satoshi after they get lawyers involved? If they have that large a stake in any of these "securities" then they are obviously not smart enough to know how things work. All the same, I would love to see actm pull itself together and make my pennies shine...I'm saving up for a piece of dubble bubble ;-) Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: NotLambchop on May 09, 2014, 09:44:58 PM ^Some people just don't like being scammed, and are willing to punish the scammer. Those people are good for
Consider not supporting scams/idiotic businesses, no matter how cheap the shares are. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 09, 2014, 10:34:58 PM Taking action now would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and a sure way of killing any hope of return of wealth. It's simply too late for your appeal. Ken has had so many chances to open the books and get the logistics sorted. HE IS INCAPABLE OF MAKING A SUCCESS OF THIS COMPANY. He just can't do it. So the only chance of getting any money back is this class action. We desperately need to sell miners and increase the data centre - HE CAN'T DO IT. Fact. Two more months of this and we are dead. Court action and freezing company funds is the only chance for shareholders - leave it to Ken and we have total loss. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: kslaughter on May 10, 2014, 12:28:58 AM Taking action now would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and a sure way of killing any hope of return of wealth. It's simply too late for your appeal. Ken has had so many chances to open the books and get the logistics sorted. HE IS INCAPABLE OF MAKING A SUCCESS OF THIS COMPANY. He just can't do it. So the only chance of getting any money back is this class action. We desperately need to sell miners and increase the data centre - HE CAN'T DO IT. Fact. Two more months of this and we are dead. Court action and freezing company funds is the only chance for shareholders - leave it to Ken and we have total loss. @minerpart Sounds like a good plan, let see how it works out. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: kslaughter on May 10, 2014, 12:34:01 AM these are the same as penny stocks. most fail, some don't, but they all cost only pennies a share, so one is able to invest small amounts to see what happens. at IPO there were mixed reports on Ken, but some trusted members had said they had worked with him in the past and saw a determined capable programmer and engineer, if somewhat unconventional and difficult to communicate with. My experience holding a small stake in actm has proven that these statements are mostly fair. However Ken's timing and management is terrible enough to tank this company, and he is often too stubborn to realize he his headed down a dead end. He is also one of the very worst communicators I have ever encountered, he over-promises and under-delivers consistently, and continually shifts blame for all failures to some vaguely identified "project managers" and "PR teams" which seem to be outright fabricated persons. As far as I can tell actm entire staff is ken and 2 teenagers (possibly family members) Regarding his fiscal trustworthiness... the jury is still out on that one... but the odds are not in his favor. I threw some pennies at actm in the beginning and now it looks like those pennies were wasted, but...pennies. Unless you have solid insider information, you have very little to go on in terms of viability of any given offering. Due diligence will only get you so far when there is so little known about the principals involved, and only greedy fools throw large amounts at untried entities hoping they will win the lotto, they have no right to bitch, its their own damn fault they are losing their shirts. I really believe most of these supposed lawsuits that get discussed in this sub are empty threats made by butthurt gamblers hoping to light a fire under the operators' arses. Do any of them believe they will get even one satoshi after they get lawyers involved? If they have that large a stake in any of these "securities" then they are obviously not smart enough to know how things work. All the same, I would love to see actm pull itself together and make my pennies shine...I'm saving up for a piece of dubble bubble ;-) @gogxmagog Nice post. I would love to make your pennies shine. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: RoadStress on May 10, 2014, 01:03:54 AM these are the same as penny stocks. most fail, some don't, but they all cost only pennies a share, so one is able to invest small amounts to see what happens. at IPO there were mixed reports on Ken, but some trusted members had said they had worked with him in the past and saw a determined capable programmer and engineer, if somewhat unconventional and difficult to communicate with. My experience holding a small stake in actm has proven that these statements are mostly fair. However Ken's timing and management is terrible enough to tank this company, and he is often too stubborn to realize he his headed down a dead end. He is also one of the very worst communicators I have ever encountered, he over-promises and under-delivers consistently, and continually shifts blame for all failures to some vaguely identified "project managers" and "PR teams" which seem to be outright fabricated persons. As far as I can tell actm entire staff is ken and 2 teenagers (possibly family members) Regarding his fiscal trustworthiness... the jury is still out on that one... but the odds are not in his favor. I threw some pennies at actm in the beginning and now it looks like those pennies were wasted, but...pennies. Unless you have solid insider information, you have very little to go on in terms of viability of any given offering. Due diligence will only get you so far when there is so little known about the principals involved, and only greedy fools throw large amounts at untried entities hoping they will win the lotto, they have no right to bitch, its their own damn fault they are losing their shirts. I really believe most of these supposed lawsuits that get discussed in this sub are empty threats made by butthurt gamblers hoping to light a fire under the operators' arses. Do any of them believe they will get even one satoshi after they get lawyers involved? If they have that large a stake in any of these "securities" then they are obviously not smart enough to know how things work. All the same, I would love to see actm pull itself together and make my pennies shine...I'm saving up for a piece of dubble bubble ;-) @gogxmagog Nice post. I would love to make your pennies shine. Too bad you will never do it. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 10, 2014, 05:26:10 PM I would agree. Since shareholders can now exit, it would not make sense to take legal action, from a financial standpoint. I'm not sure I get your point.As soon as my shares are listed, I'm out. I simply don't see this venture succeeding. He has made improvements, but the communication issues alone are too much. Customer service is a mess, and who knows where the financials are? You were a victim for the duration you held your shares, selling them does not make a difference from a legal standpoint. You can be "out" and still try to get back what kslaugther stole. You raise a good point. My knowledge of law is limited, but it would seem like a class action could recoup some coin for victims. It also seems like lawyer fees, etc. could eat up most of what is gained. Quote from: Wikipedia link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions. Examples cited for this include large fees for the attorneys, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value... That being said, I don't think class members would have to pay any fees, would they? So, in a worst-case scenario they would receive nothing (compared to a solo action suit they might have to pay more than they originally bought into ActM). Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm just going off of what I've researched. If that is the case, I feel like the primary motivation here would be the ethical argument, which is that Ken should be brought to justice. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit - Shareholder Discussion Post by: minerpart on May 10, 2014, 10:58:50 PM Taking action now would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and a sure way of killing any hope of return of wealth. It's simply too late for your appeal. Ken has had so many chances to open the books and get the logistics sorted. HE IS INCAPABLE OF MAKING A SUCCESS OF THIS COMPANY. He just can't do it. So the only chance of getting any money back is this class action. We desperately need to sell miners and increase the data centre - HE CAN'T DO IT. Fact. Two more months of this and we are dead. Court action and freezing company funds is the only chance for shareholders - leave it to Ken and we have total loss. @minerpart Sounds like a good plan, let see how it works out. It's not a plan Ken it's actually happening. Your shareholders are taking you to court because of your ineptitude. In soliciting for monies and being negligent with the use of that money you have let your shareholders down and a judge will accept that. Give me a reason as to why giving you more time is a better bet than this class action? It clearly isn't, you have drained away thousands of bitcoin in 10 months with very little to show for it. A few more months and it will all be gone. So I'll roll my dice with Wood Law. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: NotLambchop on May 11, 2014, 02:23:00 PM Ken doesn't even bother refunding hardware reviewers:
( http://www.coindesk.com/46k-spent-mining-hardware-happened-next/ ) Quote VMC minerVendor: Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) Product: Fast-Hash One Platinum Edition (1 TH/s) Price including shipping: $6,479 Order date: 24th Nov, 2013 Anticipated shipping date: January 2014 Expected delay: 8 months Status: Refund requested on 10th January In the meantime I am still waiting for the third refund cheque from VMC to arrive, and hopefully this time it will be signed and properly filled in. The fact that the previous two cheques weren’t, may be no coincidence after all. Allegedly, the company put a great deal of customers’ pre-order money in Mt. Gox and consequently lost it when the exchange collapsed. If true, this could have caused the delay in refunds. In April, VMC’s custom-built mining data centre went live – populated with rigs made up of ASIC chips bought from HashFast and boards manufactured by VMC itself using HashFast’s reference design. The Fast-Hash One Prospector card (512 GH/s), which they have in stock at the moment, is constructed with the same components. Using the data centre’s income, supposedly they have started to send out refunds in bulk as of mid-April. Just recently, Wood Law Firm opened a case against VMC and its subsidiary AMC about the delay in delivery and refunds. Affected VMC customers as well as disgruntled shareholders of AMC can contact the firm about this investigation using the online form provided. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 19, 2014, 01:00:59 AM Quoting for posterity.
Don't worry guys, Ken is 100% working on the core business (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4262711#msg4262711)tm Ken this needs adressing. We are working on something else more important.... ... Why has the website still not been updated? You said it was a top priority more than 10 days ago and still nothing. It is a 4-6 hour job to re-do that site not a 10 day job. Why has the extra hash power not been added to the DC yet? You said once the AC was fixed (which you have since said it has been) it would just be a case of flicking the on switch as everything was set up already, was this just another lie? Do you have any comment on the equipment that is just sat idle depreciating in value by the day? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 19, 2014, 02:51:25 AM Update to front-page:
Quote Shareholder complaints (last updated on May 18th 2014)
Refunds/Customer complaints (last updated on May 18th 2014)
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: Ask Ken About Love on May 19, 2014, 01:55:32 PM bump
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: Stuartuk on May 19, 2014, 10:35:07 PM Still waiting to find out what is more important to a business than selling in-stock products that are devaluing by the day.
Maybe helping out kids at the local Cancer ward, but apart from that....? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: gogxmagog on May 19, 2014, 10:58:56 PM always a mystery with ken.
lets hope he's at least getting a second, bigger data center online. that would be the least he could be doing that would qualify as "more important" than sales (considering he would need to fill DC with unsold boards) but who knows? more insane waiting for us, i suppose... Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: Stuartuk on May 19, 2014, 11:20:05 PM Quote from: Bitcoin Forum A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Quote Why am I getting deleted? Three posts all deleted? I thought the idea of this thread was to keep the Trolls out and let shareholders have their say? Why can't we have our say? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 22, 2014, 05:34:08 AM Latest update; row added for 'Release accumulated dividends.'
As with most Bitcoin (in)securities, invest with caution. Quote Shareholder complaints (last updated on May 22nd 2014)
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 26, 2014, 05:08:38 AM Update to refunds list
Quote Refunds (last updated on May 26th 2014)
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: jasonring on May 26, 2014, 06:17:01 AM Update to refunds list Quote Refunds (last updated on May 26th 2014)
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 29, 2014, 02:58:05 AM Added 'CT migration'
Quote Shareholder complaints (last updated on May 28, 2014)
jasonring added to Refunds list Quote Refunds (last updated on May 28, 2014)
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: metalchain on May 29, 2014, 11:48:53 PM Here is my info :
Order Reference WNJRGEIAX -- placed on 2013-11-25 2013-11-25 00:33:19 Pre-Ordered 2013-11-25 00:33:19 Awaiting bank wire payment 2013-12-02 16:37:30 Payment accepted 2014-01-27 08:24:47 Refund and now? Nothing happened... Still waiting Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on May 30, 2014, 12:37:18 AM Shareholder Complaints change based on Ken's last update:
Shareholder complaints (last updated on May 29, 2014)
'Order Reference' column added to Refunds table: Refunds (last updated on May 29, 2014)
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on June 04, 2014, 03:32:08 AM Is it possible to take legal action against Ken on the condition he is a scammer? In that case can we sue to get everything he owns? All of his other assets? His home? You need a lawyer. This. Even if there is nothing recouped, it is worth it simply to bring Ken to justice. I have come to believe that we cannot just accept the mantra of, 'Oh, it is the Wild West of Bitcoin!' There is a difference between a high-risk investment and someone deliberately deceiving investors and customers. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: slavix on June 30, 2014, 05:53:05 PM VMC owes me $9,239.60. I am trying to get the promised refund since March! Can someone help me please.
2013-11-29 $9,239.60 Order Reference IHHOAKLGE -- placed on 2013-11-29 2014-03-27 15:48:43 Refund 2013-12-03 10:43:54 Payment accepted 2013-11-29 14:09:55 Awaiting bank wire payment 2013-11-29 14:09:54 Pre-Ordered Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: Bargraphics on June 30, 2014, 06:24:17 PM VMC owes me $9,239.60. I am trying to get the promised refund since March! Can someone help me please. 2013-11-29 $9,239.60 Order Reference IHHOAKLGE -- placed on 2013-11-29 2014-03-27 15:48:43 Refund 2013-12-03 10:43:54 Payment accepted 2013-11-29 14:09:55 Awaiting bank wire payment 2013-11-29 14:09:54 Pre-Ordered _____________________________________________________________________________ If you pre ordered and never received a product, fill out the following form and you may receive a refund: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462370.msg7474652#msg7474652 _____________________________________________________________________________ If you pre ordered and never received a product, filled out the above paper, and still haven't received anything or simply want to seek legal action against Ken/ActiveMining: Wood Law Info: http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation (http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation) 888-237-0999 1100 Main Street, Suite 1800, Kansas City, Missouri 64105 1736 E. Sunshine Street, Suite 209, Springfield, Missouri 65804 _____________________________________________________________________________ If you are an shareholder/investor and feel that you were conned/mislead by Ken Slaughter & ActiveMining: MSD Info: Shawn Hagerty Investigator Missouri Secretary of State, Securities Division 600 W. Main St., Box 1276 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-526-3901 573-526-3124 (fax) shawn.hagerty@sos.mo.gov (http://shawn.hagerty@sos.mo.gov) Scott Johnson Investigator Missouri Secretary of State, Securities Division 600 W. Main St., Box 1276 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-4704 scott.johnson@sos.mo.gov (http://scott.johnson@sos.mo.gov) Missouri Securities Contact Information Page (http://www.sos.mo.gov/securities/contact.asp) _____________________________________________________________________________ If you do not want to give the government your information for whatever reason, sell your shares on Crypto-Trade: https://crypto-trade.com/ (The price is extremely low) _____________________________________________________________________________ Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: slavix on June 30, 2014, 06:36:55 PM I tried calling Wood Law Info:888-237-0999, but no one picked up the phone.
Has anyone received refund using the form from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462370.msg7474652#msg7474652 ? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: NotLambchop on June 30, 2014, 06:46:37 PM @slavix: At least one guy, HardwareReviewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=289082), did. I don't think anyone else has reported getting one. Sorry.
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: Bargraphics on June 30, 2014, 07:12:28 PM I tried calling Wood Law Info:888-237-0999, but no one picked up the phone. Has anyone received refund using the form from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462370.msg7474652#msg7474652 ? I sent them an email before and it took ~2 days for them to get back to me. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: meccaflare0 on July 02, 2014, 01:56:25 PM Quote Refunds (last updated on May 28, 2014)
For the record I requested my refund Jan 2014 and the order reference is SXWTSYTQH Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: lobbes on July 02, 2014, 02:40:58 PM Update made to the front page:
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: meccaflare0 on July 04, 2014, 07:01:38 PM Is anyone else closely watching kens wallet address?
https://blockchain.info/address/1DJpsvnM7xTnQbWEhLYyCyfxQyxwupEzCa Is this addresses the only one known? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: meccaflare0 on July 11, 2014, 07:24:32 PM It looks like court is the only thing that will solve this some what.
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: slavix on July 11, 2014, 07:32:24 PM I sent refund form on June 30th, as requested on VMC website. I am yet to hear back or get refund.
Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: meccaflare0 on July 12, 2014, 02:34:24 PM I sent refund form on June 30th, as requested on VMC website. I am yet to hear back or get refund. Refunds aren't happening, I suggest you contact Wood Law or your own personal Lawyer.Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: slavix on August 06, 2014, 11:26:58 PM I sent refund form on June 30th, as requested on VMC website. I am yet to hear back or get refund. Refunds aren't happening, I suggest you contact Wood Law or your own personal Lawyer.I emailed Wood Law with all my case details. They seem unresponsive. They do not pick up their phone or answer repeated emails. Has anyone had luck working with Wood Law on refunds? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: meccaflare0 on September 26, 2014, 09:03:43 PM I sent refund form on June 30th, as requested on VMC website. I am yet to hear back or get refund. Refunds aren't happening, I suggest you contact Wood Law or your own personal Lawyer.I emailed Wood Law with all my case details. They seem unresponsive. They do not pick up their phone or answer repeated emails. Has anyone had luck working with Wood Law on refunds? Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: slavix on September 26, 2014, 09:09:36 PM I sent refund form on June 30th, as requested on VMC website. I am yet to hear back or get refund. Refunds aren't happening, I suggest you contact Wood Law or your own personal Lawyer.I emailed Wood Law with all my case details. They seem unresponsive. They do not pick up their phone or answer repeated emails. Has anyone had luck working with Wood Law on refunds? Unless they are stalling on purpose. Title: Re: [ActiveMining] Lawsuit Discussion Post by: sparky999 on September 27, 2014, 09:09:27 AM MSD hearing is next week. Might finally get a statement from Ken after that.
|
