So it's not even a Bitcoin scam?

If I write a post saying I've had some financial disaster and I can't afford to keep a roof over my head/pay my bills/etc, will you all send me money? 

Take your fucking meds.  You're delusional if you think you have anything approaching a defamation case, let lone that you would be able to sue his parents.  The police have nothing whatsoever to do with defamation, by the way.  I almost wish you would ring them and complain that someone said something you don't like on the internet - I'm sure it would make some bored police officer's day.

Stop trying to be an internet tough guy and go get some legal advice if you think you have a case.  You'll be wasting your money but at least the person putting up with your delusional sense of entitlement will get paid for it.

Your posts are destroying any possibility of people from this community wanting to do business with you.  They're doing far more damage to your "reputation" than anything posted by Kelticfox ever could.

Are you 12?

Asking for information is not something for which the scammer tag is given around here.  The scammer tag doesn't get given out just because people are idiots or assholes.

By the way, the masculine pronoun in English is "he", not "hi".

Because the manner in which a statutory demand must be responded to is defined by law.  The statute requires it to be responded to in very specific ways within 21 days.  You can pay the debt or make an agreement to pay the debt.  You can put the company into voluntary administration/liquidation (this has not happened - notice of all liquidations/administrations is published on the ASIC website within a couple of days at most and often on the same day).  You can apply to the court to have the statutory demand set aside.  You can ignore the statutory demand and a legal presumption of insolvency will arise allowing a creditor to seek appointment of a liquidator.  

Those are literally the only options available to a company which has been served with a statutory demand and no lawyer would advise their client to "wait and see" for many months when the amount involved is over $100,000.  Nor would any lawyer advise a company to ignore a statutory demand (even solvent companies have been forcibly wound up in the past for ignoring statutory demands).

If WME's lawyers had issued a statutory demand which had not been complied with and were seeking to have the company wound up, they would make him aware of that.  Instead, he just keeps complaining about them not acknowledging receipt of his ID documents.  Statutory demands are used all the time here and for much smaller amounts than WME claims to be owed.  It should have been one of the first strategies his lawyers proposed - unless they knew damned well that the validity of the debt is questionable and that the statutory demand would be set aside by a court.  Also note that the purported letter of demand talks about the release of USD not BTC, so the usual "courts won't acknowledge BTC as a debt" bullshit can't be claimed in this case as a reason for not taking the further legal action they were threatening back in July.

This thread is a really bad idea.  Someone doing something you don't like or failing to do something you want them to do doesn't make them a scammer.

They're supposed to take the next step in the process and issue a statutory demand.  A company literally has to respond to a statutory demand within 21 days or it is legally presumed to be insolvent and can be forced into liquidation on the basis of not responding to the demand (they must respond in one of a few very specific ways which are restricted by statute).  For the amount WME claims to be owed, there's simply no way that a competent lawyer would not have issued a statutory demand by now if they believed they could prove that WME's debt is legitimate.  I've even given this information to WME so that he can discuss with why no statutory demand has been issued but I suspect that he already knows the answer.

What do you mean by your "original claim"?  Are you talking about the claim you lodged with Bitcoinica itself earlier in the year?

Only marginally more profitable, though, as the gap between shipping the first and second batches will be much smaller.  A lot of people made their (overly optimistic) projections based on the assumption that ASICs would ship before the block reward halving, that BFL would ship well in advance of other ASIC vendors and that there'd be a substantial gap between the first batch of shipments and subsequent batches.

I hope you've refused to pay your lawyers.  They sound beyond incompetent.

The problem is that some people were silly enough to count on being to earn BTC with ASICs before the block reward halved and borrowed BTC on that basis.  Some were probably even silly enough to count on ASIC mining funding their Christmas spending, too.


They maintain that they have sufficient funds on hand to refund pre-orders.  A more interesting question is whether people will continuing ordering ASICs - from anyone - now that they know BFL alone is going to be throwing 100,000 chips at the network.  Is so much power going to be thrown at the network by the ASIC vendors combined that people will give up mining rather than keep spending large sums to earn no more than they're earning now?

Wait until the next report when the amounts are added.  It will be linked within 30 seconds of the first person receiving it. 

Can you leave it here so we can mock the OP?  Pretty please?

It's not your fault.  It just might be easier for us to understand what's going on and how we can help if you post in the Russian forum and get someone from there to give us an English summary. 

Okaaaaaay.

Meta's obviously not the right forum for this topic, but can one of our Russian speakers find out WTF because it might as well be written in Elvish for all the sense Google translate has made of it.

There've been plenty of those around here lately.   

They also contacted me last night.  I am pleased that they've provided a timeline for repayment and I'm assuming that they've taken into account the Christmas/New Year shut-down in making that estimate.  For those who aren't aware of it, a lot of businesses here will be totally closed from the end of business on 21 December until at least 2 January.  Some businesses and government departments are closed for longer or have only skeleton staff on deck on days which are not public holidays - so anything they need to do which involves other businesses or government can be affected by that.

Realistically speaking, even if people wanted to take recovery action right now instead of giving Crypto X Change the benefit of the doubt for the next 6 weeks, there is almost zero chance it would progress in any way until after the new year.  Nobody's going to have less options in 6 weeks than they have right now.

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall.

Hang on, didn't usagi claim that the reason he was going to use the mining equipment to satisfy a debt he'd personally guaranteed was because he directly and indirectly owned the majority of shares and that if/when other assets became available he'd reduce the amount of his/CPA's claim by the amount already received from the sale of the mining equipment and it would all be a wash (which is still technically the wrong way to do it because if no other assets are realised then he's personally benefited while other shareholders have received nothing).

Is he now claiming that he - personally - holds a secured interest over that equipment and is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of them?  If he actually held a secured interest over the equipment, then the extent of his shareholdings would be irrelevant, so why did he prattle on about his shareholdings being the reason he was entitled to sell the equipment?  He makes this shit up as he goes along.

You forgot Nefario.