Ah okay, now I understand, this case seems to be a class action against BFL if I recall correctly. This may be funded by multiple members.

Part 2:

Part 1:


Please note: this is not the FTC vs BFL case. This is a side case started by another member against BFL. I will henceforth be posting prior to having read them, so I do not know what they contain. This disclaimer applies to all documents going forward.

Links to public documents are available upon request.

[All of this is my opinion/ pure speculation]

What a ton of bullshit.

There are so many different ways to know exactly how many miners were released into the wild at any given point. (within a reasonable error rate).

From the time it left the dock, it has tracking, that tracking has a transaction number, they used flat rate most of the time, so they can quickly figure out just how many units left the dock.

They are just playing hard to get. As Bruno would say, spare not the microscope.

==================

This is the same across all fronts, they keep playing the dumb blonde. Except they don't have the blonde hair and aren't dirty nor that dumb.

What their end goal seems to be is to "avoid knowing anything", therefore "there are no statistics", and therefore no case can be devised nor any single truth known.

Sonny must be a good at sitting in a corner in deep prayer, but I fear his luck is gradually running out at each turn (and across each case). The Plaintiffs will get him despite his efforts to stall for as long as possible. Lawyers do not stop consuming other peoples cash.

LOL, what a coincidence.

Time to phone it in to the IRS/FBI?

Oh, wait, isn't there already a case open by ______ M. ___________?

 

Actually, if you read 291, VERY CAREFULLY you can actually see that BFL's legal team made tons of really obvious mistakes.

In all honesty, I think BFL is mandating the course of actions and their legal team probably have to comply. I don't honestly believe their legal team could make this many mistakes (as cited by the FTC). I know sometimes attorneys wish to "appease" their clients as long as they are getting paid....but 291 shows just how many obvious mistakes are being made and how the fight is seemingly nonsense on one front.

The attorneys used the improper naming scheme to sue a federal entity. A pretty darn obvious mistake if you are an attorney. <EPIC face palm>

Who the fook is in charge over there?! I will pay them on the side to keep doing exactly what they are doing! LMAO!

THE FURRIEST GAME EVER? | Cards Against Humanity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZkG5vDrgRg

@Dabitcoinguy

I have taken your criticism to heart. I am attempting to figure out a way to make the docket readable like one of those Star Wars intros.

I also ask Josh a personal favor, por favor, do not harm our companion if you lose this case as well.
I plead with you.
He is a gentle and fragile man (physically speaking) a gentle giant.


Or put another way,

Please, do not punch our gentle Bruno if you ever feel upset. He is like our very own BitcoinTalk's Gandalf (the sketchy).
Sometimes he mumbles, other times he pulls out wonderful things from his aging hat and shows us the mystery behind the puzzle that are BFL.
Would you punch our Gandalf?
No, we know you wouldn't. (we hope  )
So please, protect him when he is with you. You used to be really good friends.
So cherish him and his hat full of facts and strange (but often true) stories when he is with you.

May our adventurer find his way back.

Can anyone tell me what is Bruno's vs Josh court case number?

The one on the documents (perhaps I am reading it wrong) can't be found on http://www.jococourts.org/

I noticed that while looking it up with Josh's name (tried Bruno's but no results that I could see) he has been suing people. Often looks like Josh ends up losing the cases apparently and having to pay as the Plaintiff who started the case.

I also noticed in prior cases he defended himself without a lawyer. I suppose that might have something to do with it?

Anyway, if someone could link all of us to the current case, let us know.

Bruno, you just brought the hammer down...so hard....that Thor wondered if you broke his tool.

[strongly worded speculation]
Fook me, this is incredibly strong evidence that Josh is likely to be a part owner of BFL and was in fact probably around as one of the principles behind the scenes. (Yes, likely before even his employment?)

You will be force fed dockets. At least until you understand A) that BFL is crippled in legalease speak, and B) that they are struggling in all this to stay above the incoming waves.

Edited for brevity, originals available upon request.

Thank you KelticFox, if only we had more members like you.

Sometimes it feels like you have to push people to do something this beneficial to their own good.

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
http://www.hse.gov.uk/
http://www.ftc.gov
http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm
http://www.tsa.gov/

I am unsure if that is true or not. I do recall Psychotic Boy banned a member. I don't recall any Admin being involved in that episode. He wasn't even the Mod of that board that he used his moderators powers over.

I do sense your inner clown (that is a good thing) so I know you are a good mod.

One last question, Inaba and BFL_Josh have deprived individuals of millions in their delayed refunds. Documented fact. (non-disputable)

Question: Has anything been done against either of these two accounts: BFL_Josh and Inaba?
Have they been suspended? Banned? Anything?

You have people committing far lessor offenses against Bitcointalk and it's population and somehow they result in a Ban very quickly. What the deal with this?

=====================

Another fact, these incidents with BFL and their refund (or their reasonable fulfillment issues) have happened no less than 3 times with the same events repeating themselves year after year. Still, they somehow continue as if the Admins above are completely blind to the obvious facts of how these people impact Bitcoin or it's Bitcointalk members.

If BFL were to open a new exciting thread in the hardware section to announce the sale of some new hardware with the same premise (pre-order, OR a request for customer funds with a wait time greater than 7 days before 100% fulfillment); would the Admins and Mods allow this to happen for the 4th or 5th time AGAIN?

Only serious question with serious responses PLEASE.

On the topic of Bruno, it would be interesting if he fainted in court and has to request medical intervention. Hopefully screwing the date of the appearance by a few months and a few expensive lawyer payments between then and later.

Whoa, I think I dozed off a bit there while writing on my keyboard.

Edit: Hmm, interesting delirious episode I had. It brings up an interesting point. Will there be a well funded BFL with cash to spend between now and June? Who knows?

Edit2: I suppose that whole receivership payment stalemate will probably turn side ways by the end of April at the longest. You know, recieverships do not like to work for free and get upset when they don't get their bonanza payments on time. Hopefully, they are retaining enough refunds to pull them through to see the end of the FTC case. One can only hope for the best.

I would also avoid using labels like "facts" as BFL would contest any facts with their own made up "bullshit". And by bullshit, I mean whatever it is they legitimately believe to be based on truth.

(in theory, or in a hypothesis, in otherwords I am not entirely sure if that is the case or not, purely speculation,  )

You might want to use a Google word document. You can collaborate online and restrict editing privledges to certain individuals. Everyone else could only read it. I have seen people use it for independent korean news. It works effectively from what I can remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh3r95r2JWs

Silicon is typically used in solar cells and computer chips. Gallium arsenide is an alternative material with many advantages. But it costs too much. A new process would reduce its various manufacturing costs.

More info: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2401351/breakthrough-chip-research-brings-faster-and-cheaper-semiconductors