You talk so much nonsense, your original post about fin cen IRS bullshit was wrong then and is wrong now. You were not ignored when you first wrote it. At least two or three people replied and pointed out why you were wrong. Stop spreading lies written as truth. You are not an investor in this company by your own admission and your opinion is not welcome or valued. You have made every one in this thread slightly dumber for having listened to your mindless rambling guessing, feel free to stop posting here.

Perhaps for your final post in this thread you can fully disclose your actual purpose for being here because for you to come across as having no ulterior motive here is disingenuous.  

I emailed you a dozen follow up questions from the AMA you hv not responded to any of them as of yet. If that is your preferred method of communication that is fine with me but please actually do it.

so give us 25 100Mh bonds for each of our original bonds and then switch to the bonus system as a sign of good faith?

Seems like a fairly reasonable suggestion to me.

@Zach

1. Why was the original contract not posted at the same time as this new contract? You had plenty of time to ensure a copy of the file was on the appropriate computer.

2. Why when you changed the first contract to 100Mh/s fixed contracts from share of mining revenue contracts were we not given a new contract but when you change for a second time we are given a new contract?

3. Is it correct to assume that there was never a new contract for that change and that you decided at your own discretion to interpret the original contract as only needing to meet 100Mh/s to full fill your obligations? If so why should bondholders have any faith that you will act in a way commensurate with the original 'share of hashrate' contract manner going forward.

4. If you were in our position how would you feel about this change you are effectively forcing on people?

5. DO you believe that bondholders have a legitimate grievance?

6. Do you feel that you are currently acting in a manner consistent with the original goals of LRM as set out under the original 'share of hashrate' bonds?

7. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issue surrounding this change is wise given that you only leave shareholders one line of recourse to find out the truth (legal discovery process)?

8. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issues surrounding this change is wise considering that you told us you would disclose the legal issue as soon as you could?

9. Why should bondholders trust that you are going to act in good faith going forward and provide the bonus payments in line with the original 'share of hashrate' bonds that you sold us?

10. What date and time will you meet major shareholders for a conference call?

11. Why was it ok to split bonds from 300Mh/s to 3 x 100Mh/s but it would not be ok to do this again in the future? i.e. why can't the new 100Mh/s bonds increase to 300Mh/s and then be split again back to 100Mh/s and so on and so forth. I fit was legal to do this once surely the process is repeatable?

12. Can you see hwy it appears to most bondholders that you are trying to worm your way out of your obligations? What assurances can you give that this is not the case?

1.) Why haven't you been able to tell us anything?
2.) What law restricted you from telling us?
3.) Why has it taken so long for your lawyer to give you any information if this issue has been known about for 4+ months?
4.) What happen to the ASIC Project? How much was spent, and from what pot of money?
5.) Will you be firing your lawyer once this legal issue is resolved? If not, why?
6.) Which ASIC manufacturers have you spoken to/signed deals with and are moving forward with? What are your plans for future hardware purchases?
7.) What have you been doing with the new hardware you've had for months? When can we expect to receive those dividends?
8.) What's going to happen with the old/new bonds (or shares, or contracts, or whatever they are called now?)
9.) How much work have you put into the trading platform which was your number one priority? How far are you done, and when can we expect it to be finished?
10.)Can you please provide a full list of bitcoin mining address'
11.)What percentage of the 25% is allotted as a management fee? Since it's all the same for LR's pocket, can we replace the management fee with an issuance of "bonds" to LR that equate to the avg fee% instead - say 5-7% of total bonds - this would provide transparency of your FIXED % fee's and give you an increased incentive to produce
12.) Can you please provide photographic evidence of all equipment currently in service for LRM bondholders.
13.) Why has the new contract not been provided in a timely manner?
14.) how do you expect us to rationally evaluate our investments with out you providing clear and transparent details as issues arise?

Yeah that's what I figure as well now. Zach will turn up say sorry lawyer couldn't make it and then proceed to preface every answer with 'I will hv to check with the lawyer and get back to you . . . '. I think we will get the contract 5 mins before the AMA though so at least every 25th missed deadline has a silver lining lol.

Lol even I didn't think the contract wouldn't be posted by now, guess we all know what kind of news is coming now.

AMA about how I destroyed the value of your bonds and refused to tell you why even though my lawyer has already given me the go ahead to post it.

Embarrassing doesn't seem a strong enough word any more think I am going to have to upgrade to abhorrent.

If you have been given the go ahead as you stated then post the contract. People need time to read it before they know what questions they want to ask you.

Please fire your lawyer as soon as this is over, he is embarrassing you.

That valuation though . . . lol

With the frequency BTCquick was selling out of bitcoins at, there is a strong implication all the bitcoins are gone. Where they went is anyone's guess.

Depends how many BTC you think BTCquick has

1700BTC = 0.000034/share
1000BTC = 0.00002/share
100BTC = 0.000002/share

Also depends how many shares it is being divided by but I am assuming the full 50million.

Keep it in this thread wouldn't want any bond holders who don't check forum often to miss out on seeing the info. We will hv one person asking questions for the majority of shareholders to reduce clutter.

Wow ,I was unaware that was the situation. I assumed funds were tied up, that is quite a bombshell.

That would be a bizarre way to ship multiple products that were all in stock to a country as far away as India. Which I believe is where emkay is located. I think is assumption that there was a screw up is entirely reasonable.

For those of us who do qualify as an accredited investor can we please have our shares registered and put on CT now?

Jeez where do I start . . .

In this particular instance you said update by Tuesday, you did not appear till Thursday.

The real slip up was dishing out only good news whilst trying to sell more and more LRM bonds all the whilst knowing there was a legal issue which would/could result in bonds being capped at 300Mh/s. I could get past the total lack of clarity with regard to the financial dealings of LRM, the fact that you mislead people as to the pre-mining for two weeks when in fact for some equipment it was more like 5. Co-mining with equipment you supposedly bought with your own money that was to be transferred to LRM was a massive conflict of interest even if it does not fully qualify a slip-up, although to some it does. Extended silence and hiring a clearly incompetent or over worked lawyer( I hope it's the second but fear it's the first) etc etc etc

It's not even worth the energy to type any more to be honest, you think you've acted in a perfectly natural and understandable way - >50% of the bondholders disagree. It is what it is.

What is most amazing is that Ken doesn't even bother checking his previous posts to ascertain what lie he has already told and build on that lie in a believable way, he just contradicts himself in such a blindingly obvious way time and time again it's like it isn't even the same person posting each time.

Legally speaking what if any is the difference between trading on a centralised exchange and a de-centralised exchange? If one is illegal then so is the other one. Just because a de-centralised exchange can't be shut down by the SEC/FEDs doesn't make it any more legal from what I can tell.

Thoughts?

I have been saying this for a long time, if there is an issue with trading then all share trading should be halted, allowing trades to continue on cryptostocks and cryptotrade whilst the majority of people are not allowed to trade or even claim ownership of their shares is beyond ridiculous and just further highlights Ken's bizarre logic. Either it is ok to trade or it isn't, nobody with a sane and logical mind can think that it is ok for some shareholders to trade but not others.

Surely it's pretty obvious? U.S. govt doesn't go after the smallest fish first, it goes after the biggest - which is currently Havelock. Crypto-trade is primarily a crypto-currency exchange not a securities trading platform.