I didn't read any posts in this thread since my last one. They wouldn't affect my decision (which comes from a discussion I had in private).

I've decided to drop it and apologize, and lock the thead.

I'm sorry TECSHARE. What would you like me to do?

You can send me a PM about it.

Both of you are appear unfamiliar with the common law of Assignment. I've already demonstrated that there was an assignment agreement between TECSHARE and Matthew for the payment. This does not mean that they have a right to assign my right to the performance (work).

Further, Matthew's instructions were clear: the work is to be given to me. I am making this primarily because TECSHARE said I did not have a right to ask. I do, in fact.

BadBear I urge you to review assignment law, it is a part of common law (the law of the land). A quote if I may; "Specifically, the effect of a valid assignment is to extinguish privity (in other words, contractual relationship, including right to sue) ..."

Yet you appear to be saying even though TECSHARE is on the record stating he has accepted payment from Matthew for the sole purpose of fufulling the contract, I am still liable for the payment.

Can you please explain why you believe TECSHARE has a right to ask for a scammer tag despite the fact he's on record accepting the payment from matthew in fufillment of my obligation? And why somehow, down the line, TECSHARE doesn't have to keep his end of the bargain? I'll go with your ruling either way, but I want an explanation. It doesn't seem logical.

This is generally accepted to be illegal. Bitcoin is bitcoin and may be at worst a grey area but never mix bitcoin and the US stock market. You have been warned.

Edit: This will end up bringing heat on the forums and the community. You have been warned.

This is a non sequitur. You said quoted above "You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract." From this you state I am claiming that the transfer of debt requires me to accept the transfer of performance, which I denied. In other words, when it is convenient for you to make an argument that the transfer of debt alone requires the agreement of the obligee you make it; when it was shown this was accepted by TECSHARE you not only shifted your argument to state that the transfer of debt requires the transfer of performance, but you stated that it was myself who was claiming so (above, emphasis mine).

If this was so, then you would not have been able to claim that the transfer of debt requires the permission of the obligee as was your original contention. And I would have no need to correct you.

In short, you've been caught lying.

Then stop trying to claim it. It's a very weak defense and I've already satisfied your request for proof. This made you appear extremely biased.


I don't care. I outlaid three acceptable responses. One of them is returning the money to Matthew, as you seem to suggest. Fine, whatever.


Don't waste my time with "probably". Wanna hear something? Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me. That is a fact. Based on that, you probably were asked to come here and troll me. Now I say --> That probably makes you guilty of fraud.

But does it? No. It's mere speculation. Please do not spam the forums with useless speculation.

What TECSHARE, Matthew and myself have said is very clear. Stop posting here. Your input of speculation is not required and you have already voiced your opinion. Thank you for that.

You are an idiot, but FWIW your claim has now been conclusively proven false here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1433678#msg1433678

TECSHARE admitted he transferred my debt to Matthew, and Matthew is on record instructing him to finish the work and give it to me.

TECSHARE has not competed his end of the contract and it's been several months.

As it's time to close down my companies this has now become an issue so I am raising it as it is my duty -- and my right -- to do so.

If this is not resolved I will be assigning this debt as value to a random CPA investor in lieu of Matthew N. Wright debt -- At the very least it is worth more than MNW debt since MNW paid for it, and it represents a monetary claim that has a clear title to exercise.

Close this stupid thread and be the change you want to see in the world, deeplink.

Above you said the flaw in my argument was that TECSHARE did not contract Matthew as the assignee.

I then proved that he did in fact agree to such a transfer on multiple occasions.

Now, you state:


You seem to be under the impression that I must transfer all rights and obligations together but there is no requirement for me to do so, and you understand this as shown by the first quote above.

Furthermore;


I now demand that the work be finished and given to me, and/or the money be returned, either to me or to Matthew. Any one of these three options is an acceptable settlement for me. It is my duty and my right as issuer to speak for all CPA investors in this matter as they would become the sole beneficiaries of this claim.

Actually no. As I stated I refuse to transfer my right to the work I've been promised under contract. Matthew paid for it and TECSHARE agreed he paid for it. I want the work or the money returned. The money can be returned to me or to Matthew.

You're right but TECSHARE has stated that Matthew was the one that paid him. So he accepted that the transfer took place:


and


This is just in this thread (he's stated the same in a few other threads, I will spare you the details). It is clear that he understands he has been paid in order to satisfy my obligation.


And while not material to his acceptance of the transfer, it's worth pointing out the spirit in which Matthew made the payment:

Stop hijacking my threads. I've already responded to you in PM over this. Go read your PMs.

BCB, this contract was for advertising banners paid for by CPA.

It is my fiduciary duty to shareholders to chase down TECSHARE and recover the money as he has clearly lied about work he did and broke his contract. Then I must pay that money to shareholders.

Go away. You're embarrassing yourself.


Thank you. I was about to install skype again. I hate skype


NOTE: An acceptable remedy here is for TECSHARE to return the money to Matthew. However:

An assignment does not relieve the assignor of any obligation under the contract. An assignor continues to be bound by the obligations of the original contract unless the other party to the contract releases him. For example, the fact that a buyer assigns the right to goods under a contract does not terminate the buyer’s liability to make payment to the seller. (ibid)

I explicitly do not transfer to Matthew the right to state that the work has been completed. TECSHARE has promised me at least one more revision. So it is TECSHARE's choice of remedy; return the money to me, or to Matthew, or finish the work and then give it to me, or to Matthew. If he just gives me a psd file with what I already have, then he has broken his contract and lied about it, since he said he had worked on the art for a further period of more than a week, and I have not seen that work and given a revision order yet.

So you are saying I had no right to assign the debt to Matthew N. Wright, and therefore, you have not been paid?

http://contracts.uslegal.com/third-parties-and-assignments/

An assignment is a transfer of rights that a party has under a contract to another person, called an assignee.  The assigning party is called the assignor.  An assignee of a contract may generally sue directly on the contract rather than suing in the name of the assignor.  The other party to the original contract is called the obligor.  For example, suppose I sell my car to Larry for $10,000.00.  He does not have $10,000.00 in cash, but executes an agreement stating that he agrees to pay me $500.00 a month for 20 months.  I then assign this contract to Peggy.  Larry is the obligor, I am the assignor, and Peggy is the assignee.

Unless there is a statute that requires that certain language be used in an assignment or that the assignment be in writing, there are really no formal requirements for an assignment.  Any words which show the intent to transfer rights under a contract are sufficient to constitute an assignment.

I think Matthew's intention is pretty clear. What is it that you don't understand about this?

You're right, I will win this battle. But as to the future;

actions speak louder than words

...I say this because explaining what I will do to solve this would be seen as fillabusting by you.


It is precisely because you did not treat me fairly that I do not deal with you. Among other infractions, how dare you suggest I do not have the right to ask for what I have been promised under contract, and which was paid for?

For all the crap I feel people have thrown at me in the end I am forced to admit they were being fair. It's one of my failsafes. When I am in an argument with someone, I ask myself -- have they treated me fairly?

If they have treated me fairly despite them not liking me (or me not liking them) or having evidence against me, then I try to reconsider my position. This is why I apologized to many people recently as you pointed out. It is also why although I am loathe to admit it, puppet is probably not a.... puppet. He has, on two occasions, admitted he was wrong. It is precisely this capability to admit you are wrong, which is a key in evaluating whether or not you are fair.

When this is all over, I would probably try to apologize personally to someone like puppet.

Please reconsider what is going on here. This is a new situation -- an experiment. No policy which has been tested is in place on what to do in this situation.

1. I propose that there be a 90 day (THREE MONTH) period where any asset which drops below five votes can still trade and operate before halting.
2. Remedy for scams: if it drops below zero then it should be halted/frozen.

You asked, "what right do I have to ask..." simple. I have a right to ask because we had a contract, you were paid, and I did not get what was promised to me under contract. So, I have a right to ask. That will be all.

I have a right to ask for the work which was paid for. That is the point.

Second, please stop spamming the forums. This is the fourth post you've made with the same message:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134477.msg1432522#msg1432522
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1432607#msg1432607
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1432608#msg1432608
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1432610#msg1432610 (quoted above)

I doubt the mods will do anything if I report you, but if you continue to make yourself as annoying as possible maybe someone else might?

Where can I read a summary of proposed solutions? I had an idea where a special block is created that contains the balance of all accounts and the next block in the chain (for old clients to maintain compatability) and that together forms the genesis of a new blockchain. It wouldn't affect old clients because old clients could choose to begin with either data source or people could just upgrade. I can't see how that idea is faulty (it probably is) but I wanted to read a summary of it and other ideas.. since it's surely been proposed before.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1]

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. -wikipedia (emphasis mine)

Dear BCB;
I will make a response to the evidence you have presented in your locked thread when I have time. I'm busy with other things right now, like closing down my companies and making payments to shareholders. First payments go out tomorrow (friday) actually, as we've gotten paid by a number of companies. Hardware payments will go up soon too, since we were refunded from BFL for 2 jalapenos and a SC single so far.

There are outstanding issues here, and TECSHARE seems to consider my right to a fair process as a "threat". He's tormenting me over it so I thought I would unlock the thread and provide an update.

Note: this is 4 or 5 months old.

The basic issue here is that TECSHARE has been paid in full for work he did not deliver. In my view his refusal to complete first revision (he promised two revisions and could not complete the first one) was unacceptable -- he said it was 'too difficult' and/or 'didn't look good'. So I fired him and he immediately opened a scam accusation against me.

Matthew N. Wright then stepped up and paid him off for me before I was even able to log on and read what happened. This all happened while I was at work IIRC.

Fast forward to today. I still do not have the hi res art files TECSHARE claimed he completed and has been fully paid for. Frankly I didn't care until he started asking me what my right was to claim the work he was paid for. Then again, how could he have completed it when he did not complete second revision, let alone first? Choosing from a bunch of samples is not a revision.

All I am asking is for TECSHARE to give me the work he says he already completed and has been paid for. If he can't do this and refuses to STFU about it, why not tag him as a scammer? I mean the remedy here is so easy -- either give me the art I paid for and allow me one more revision as was agreed, or give me the money back. It's really that simple.

The lending forum?

Where I got a loan and then paid it back?

Not sure what you're talking about BTW.