 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
|
I don't think there was anything misrepresentative about that story.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand this thread. We were going to do a dump into pastebin, but the treasure trove we found is just too overwhelming.
The info was passed onto folks at Anonymous and a couple Ex members of Lulzsec. If all goes according to plan, people can expect Operation Freemason to overtake Operation Facebook on Nov. 5.
It's going to such a blast when the Freemasons wake up to find out the majority of their servers online have been compromised.
Hey guyz I totally {have a copy of Leisure Suit Larry 4 / revived Aeris / know the Lara Croft Nude code / unlocked Shen Long / found Mew} (or whatever you kids' modern equivalent is) ...no, I can't show you. But trust me it's real!!!! |
|
|
|
|
But they had 74 regional offices! They'd been helping homeowners year after year since 1992!
|
|
|
|
Judgement here I think means a decision against the defendant (Bold Funding) and permanent injunction just means ban from doing that specific type of business, permanently. Injunction is basically "stop what you're doing right now." By the way, notice that document says "Default Judgement." That means that the suit brought against them was uncontested, and they lost by default (like sports teams who don't show up to compete). Not sure why it went that way You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that your client shouldn't try to defend himself in an unwinnable case. If you bother to read all the court filings, Bruce tried but it was stricken from the record for some reason. His first legal team also withdrew. If you look at the judgement, the fine for his unethical business practices was double the amount he had to pay back to his victims. Undoubtedly this would have been lower had some of the charges been defended. It would not be hard to argue against the charge that Bold Funding "had no intention of providing services" if there was any merit to Bruce's side of the story. |
|
|
|
It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement. What a load of BS. The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding would locate and secure private funding, for a fee, for homeowners in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not intend to provide such services and did not provide such services.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had failed to secure private funding for homeowners on only one (1) or two (2) previous occasions; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding had not secured private funding for most, if not all, of its customers.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding was a private real estate investors' group; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not invest, directly or indirectly, in real
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had been a member of the Better Business Bureau for twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding joined the Better Business Bureau for the first time in 2004.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had staff attorneys who assisted homeowners in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not have any attomeys on staff who assisted homeowners in foreclosure.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had helped homeowners save their homes for the past twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not save homes from foreclosure and Defendant Bold Funding had only existed since 2004.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had seventy-four (74) regional offices; when in f,act, Defendant Bold Funding maintained and staffed only one (1) office. Yes, that sounds like a legitimate business simply "gone awry". It's perfectly normal to lie about who you are, how long you've been in operation, how many staff you have, what qualifications they have, and how many offices you have. It's perfectly normal to not provide evidence of a *single* customer receiving help.    On the flip side, what single piece of evidence is there that the scam story *doesn't* match up, besides Bruce "Child sex doesn't happen in Pattaya" Wagner's continuous web of lies? |
|
|
|
Why can't people display the truth in a more sincere manner? Why must the truth always be portrayed in a deamining and inflammatory way meant to intimidate the entire community? The SA trolling has been going on for MONTHS long before ANY of this Bruce stuff started to happen.
Should all the abuse that you guys have inflicted on this community be forgiven because you brought us a few "good" facts? I say "good" because these facts were not brought out to protect the community from people like Bruce, but instead were brought to light to cause damage and pain to anyone who is part of the Bitcoin movement.
You want proof? You guys have 481 pages of it. I am absolutely amazed by this post. Essentially, what you're saying is, yeah, Bruce Wagner is damaging to the community. Yeah, the Bitcoin movement should be protected by people like him. But because these evidence-backed accusations were apparently done to intimidate the 'entire' community, they should be ignored. So that Bruce can continue to damage the community? What's the endgame here? First off, not every Anti-Bruce poster is anti-Bitcoin. But let's pretend they were. Who cares? I can defend my own, but regardless, I don't care about their motives. What I care about is Bruce Wagner, continually lying and misleading. *This* man doesn't have the best interests of BitCoin at heart, either. Or he wouldn't have continually insisted that Pattaya was a good spot for the conference. That it was chosen first and foremost as a business centre. Or insisted that underage sex doesn't happen there, despite writing a diatribe on a thai sex website about how, if there was any karma, the low tippers would be the ones getting painfully devirginized over a period of 4 hours. Are there many 38 year old virgins in Pattaya? He wouldn't have lied about what he did and didn't write on those message boards. He wouldn't disrespect the Bitcoin community by lying about what (at the time) were unfounded allegations that were easily defendable. He wouldn't have continued to promote MyBitCoin, despite assurances to the contrary, for months after it was deemed suspicious. He wouldn't have (allegedly) lied about contacting the FBI. He wouldn't have lied to the Bitcoin Community about Bold Funding, claiming that they took on too many staff and were simply overworked, despite the fact that court documents showed he couldn't identify a single customer. He wouldn't have, while conducting his business with Bold Funding, lied about its startup date, claiming it began in 1992 and not 2004. He wouldn't have lied about it having 74 regional offices and not 1. ...He wouldn't immediately brush all of this off with a "Don't you see, these people hate the Bitcoin community!" defense that seems to be working so well on a number of you. That's not a defense against the allegations against himself. That's misdirection, the work of a conman. And it IS working well. Yesterday on IRC he refused to provide a BitCoin address to show evidence of his MyBitcoin refund he's claimed. Despite this, he is still defended and 'trusted'. And the continued defense of Bruce doesn't just damage the community, it continues to feed the trolls. [Citation Needed] I know you're trolling, but to which statement(s) would you like citations for? |
|
|
|
Why can't people display the truth in a more sincere manner? Why must the truth always be portrayed in a deamining and inflammatory way meant to intimidate the entire community? The SA trolling has been going on for MONTHS long before ANY of this Bruce stuff started to happen.
Should all the abuse that you guys have inflicted on this community be forgiven because you brought us a few "good" facts? I say "good" because these facts were not brought out to protect the community from people like Bruce, but instead were brought to light to cause damage and pain to anyone who is part of the Bitcoin movement.
You want proof? You guys have 481 pages of it. I am absolutely amazed by this post. Essentially, what you're saying is, yeah, Bruce Wagner is damaging to the community. Yeah, the Bitcoin movement should be protected by people like him. But because these evidence-backed accusations were apparently done to intimidate the 'entire' community, they should be ignored. So that Bruce can continue to damage the community? What's the endgame here? First off, not every Anti-Bruce poster is anti-Bitcoin. But let's pretend they were. Who cares? I can defend my own, but regardless, I don't care about their motives. What I care about is Bruce Wagner, continually lying and misleading. *This* man doesn't have the best interests of BitCoin at heart, either. Or he wouldn't have continually insisted that Pattaya was a good spot for the conference. That it was chosen first and foremost as a business centre. Or insisted that underage sex doesn't happen there, despite writing a diatribe on a thai sex website about how, if there was any karma, the low tippers would be the ones getting painfully devirginized over a period of 4 hours. Are there many 38 year old virgins in Pattaya? He wouldn't have lied about what he did and didn't write on those message boards. He wouldn't disrespect the Bitcoin community by lying about what (at the time) were unfounded allegations that were easily defendable. He wouldn't have continued to promote MyBitCoin, despite assurances to the contrary, for months after it was deemed suspicious. He wouldn't have (allegedly) lied about contacting the FBI. He wouldn't have lied to the Bitcoin Community about Bold Funding, claiming that they took on too many staff and were simply overworked, despite the fact that court documents showed he couldn't identify a single customer. He wouldn't have, while conducting his business with Bold Funding, lied about its startup date, claiming it began in 1992 and not 2004. He wouldn't have lied about it having 74 regional offices and not 1. ...He wouldn't immediately brush all of this off with a "Don't you see, these people hate the Bitcoin community!" defense that seems to be working so well on a number of you. That's not a defense against the allegations against himself. That's misdirection, the work of a conman. And it IS working well. Yesterday on IRC he refused to provide a BitCoin address to show evidence of his MyBitcoin refund he's claimed. Despite this, he is still defended and 'trusted'. And the continued defense of Bruce doesn't just damage the community, it continues to feed the trolls. |
|
|
|
Didn't any of you wonder how Bruce and Ed were able to afford their Manhattan penthouse and 10k/month office despite not having jobs? I don't really want to bring up the whole sex thing when we've got serious mortgage fraud on the table, but Bruce and Ed are (or at least were) male escorts. Bruce has a prostitution conviction, punlman advertised their services in both Florida and New York, Bruce admits to being a sex worker in the "500 baht virgin" thread on two separate occasions (one of which was recently deleted but exists in Google's cache) and seemed very knowledgeable on how much to pay them, and Bruce even reviewed his own services through his bred33480 account. I don't think it's particularly fair to imply that Bruce and Ed afford their penthouse solely through scamming based on no evidence, when there's a lot of evidence of another 'revenue stream'. |
|
|
|
|
I thought the pedo stuff was extremely out of line, but I'm not entirely sure the people behind it would have discovered the link to Bold Funding without it. In that regard, I suppose it was a good thing? Most people could see the allegations were sketchy at best. And then Bruce damaged his credibility simply in response to the allegation which was full of misleading (and in at least one case, untrue) statements.
As far as Bold Funding goes, I think there's enough evidence of deceit and fraud on Bruce's part (both at the time, and yesterday's mischaracterization of Bold Funding as a failing business rather than the scam it was proved in court to be) to bother talking about the stuff without any real basis or evidence. Hopefully that goes for any possible future allegations as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently unless you post daily and bbit knows of you personally, you're a troll from somethingawful.com.
Although I dont trust Bruce at all having seen his recent posts, I think the Tod/Tom Williams thing is quite a stretch, as was the pedo stuff. Even if he was Tod, a similar name in use 6 years later is hardly a smoking gun.
|
|
|
|
It was actually a brilliant idea... which had barely ever been done before. And it helped many people save their homes.
...
But all in all, we were only able save a small percentage of the homes we were tasked with. That's odd, because according to the court proceedings: Bold Funding and Bruce Wagner could not identify anyone who actually received any funding through the efforts of the Defendants. Not. One. Is "it helped many people save their homes" the new "Underage prostitution does not happen in Pattaya" or "I did not write about the three-pronged attack"? Bruce Wagner, you are a habitual liar, no matter how easy your comments are to disprove. |
|
|
|
It's only 4 hours / 5 posts. Nothing you have to post can really be that important  |
|
|
|
And defamation/libel is only defamation/libel if it is untrue. Even untrue statements are not libellous/defamatory unless, in addition to being proved false, can be demonstrated to have caused harm AND made without reasonable research into its truthfulness. |
|
|
|
It's definitely the junk power supply that's the problem. The older p4 systems did draw a lot of power compared to today's systems but for it to ask for 275 seems a bit high. Most p4 systems are in the 150 range over clocked and that's pushing it. 150? Yeah...if it's idling! If it's a Prescott P4 then I would say undoubtedly 275 is about right:  That's with a OCZ PowerStream PSU. An inefficient $20 PSU powering a 5830 running at 100%? 275 sounds right. |
|
|
|
|
I thought a lot of the child sex allegations were pretty out of line, tenuous at best, but for the most part completely unfounded. I created this account to throw in my 2c in defense before I realized I wouldn't be able to post outside of this forum.
Then I read his statements on the issue. Still continuing to deny Pattaya's massive problem with child prostitution. Trying to characterize New York City as being more lenient on child sex, and even the failure to acknowledge that prostitution is illegal. Flat-out lying and saying that the 'three-pronged attack' words were not his. Talking about "38 year olds" being called 'boy' and being "older than he is", when he's 50 years old himself and writing in a thread about virgins and newbies.
No, these in no way prove or hint anything to discredit his claims that he is not a pedophile. I will not state or even imply that he has any desire for underage men. But they reflect a kind of dishonesty and spin that I don't feel comfortable with. What would be wrong with making a statement like "Child sex is a problem in Pattaya, but I have never done such a thing"? Not to mention continuing to claim Pattaya was chosen first for its suitability for a Bitcoin Expo first, rather than recreation.
Then the fraud stuff came up. Bruce Wagner of OnlyOneTV is, without a doubt, undeniably, the Bruce Wagner of Bold Funding, the company that scammed and defrauded many families out of their homes and stole at least $125,000.
This is not a man that should be the face of Bitcoin. And it makes me very suspicious about his unwavering support of mybitcoin, something that was discussed and deemed suspicious by certain posters several months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
