Ian Bakewell

[usagi]

Summary:
I made a scam accusation against EskimoBob, in which I posted IRC logs and several witnesses came forward to confirm what I said was true. Maged allowed EskimoBob to derail the thread, and said that I had made dishonest statements. Ian Bakewell read those comments and decided to back out of a contract with a no cancellation clause. In order to do this, Ian Bakewell threatened me, lied to me, defrauded CPA and attempted to defraud his own investors.

Detail:
Ian Bakewell broke a signed contract with CPA. We had a public contract which he signed in his asset thread. Ian was spotty with payments but managed to pay 4 btc. One day he sent me a letter stating quite clearly that his company had financial trouble and could no longer afford to make payments. He himself offered to make half payments or reduced payments until such time as he could afford to pay the full amount. I agreed. A few days later he sent another e-mail stating he could no longer keep his contract and would be forced to break it. I told him I understood his position but that due to the structure of the contract I could not return the bitcoins to him. He immediately blew up and threatened that if I did not return the bitcoins to him, he would "drag my name through the mud". After some back and forth I informed him I would require a shareholder motion before returning the funds as a dividend. He refused and begain issuing malicious libel against me; for example he stated I was attempting to clawback the funds. he stated I was breaking the contract (I was keeping the contract!) He stated that when I said I would return the money I meant "to him" (I did not, please see the contract). He also began attacking me in other theads. He took potshots against me in many other threads and was a contributing factor in the troll campaign against me. To this day he continues to mock me and take potshots against me. I feel the time has come this must stop, and I have a little free time tonight, so I am finally typing this up.

I request that Ian Bakewell be given the scammer tag for:
1. Defrauding CPA and CPA's investors by backing out of a contract in a hostile manner;
2. For lying about me, threatening me (in short-- for blackmailing me into acquiescing to his demands)
3. For attempting to defraud his investors, by reclaiming funds under which contract stated would be returned to his invetsors
4. For issuing libel and slander against me, which has caused the value of my companies to decline and has harmed my shareholders.

Proof:
1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1235273#msg1235273 (* quoted in post #2 below)
Ian lied to me about his financial position in BAKEWELL and asked me to reduce his payment. A few days later he said he had to break the contract.
He then tried to drag my name thru the mud. Read the above link. it's quite clear I stuck to my contract and he was a total asshole to me. here are some of the other lies he told about me:

---"I would then like to restart this with a larger initial contribution and a payment plan based on dividend income once half of my ipo is cleared out."
This is clearly a lie based on his later stated reasons for breaking the contract. He was trying to trick me.

---"Wants the shareholders to be paid in an attempt to claw back, as they hold some BAKEWELL shares that would get the divvy."
The contract clearly stated the money would be returned to shareholders. Read the thread, people were agreeing with me.

2. (ibid)
"I do want the money back, my shareholders do agree, please pay:  1Q1k2uTUZ1ZSSufH2w9xnCnPPzC1QmreEa"
No shateholder motion was issued or voted on at that time. He lied.

3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343386#msg1343386
"Long live those trolls."
Announces his recognition and supports the idea that he was just trolling against me to damage my reputation and crash my business.

4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343639#msg1343639
No unresolved issues.

5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1226222#msg1226222
"I make all my financials available in the third post of my thread & I try to stay as current as possible."
Ian did not disclose for several weeks that he could not get his 7970's to work, thereby defrauding investors in his company who were lied to in order that Ian could get more BTC from sale of shares.

6. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1231746#msg1231746 (** quoted in post #2 below)
In this post Ian presents himself as a scammer by his own words. Read the post.
A rough summary is as follows:

a. Ian says:
"In the time between founding BAKEWELL and creating the shareholder insurance fund with you, and now, the plan for BAKEWELL has dramatically changed.
BAKEWELL is a much smaller company than I initially thought I would launch with. We will continue to grow, but on a slow roll out basis.
At this time, the dividends from BAKEWELL will not cover the funds fee. As such I am not able to continue with it at this time.
I will be utilizing the small dividend I receive to aggressively grow BAKEWELL until the first half of the ipo is sold out.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.

The fund currently has 4 BTC in it.
I would like to work out a refund of this from you, less a small management fee.
I would then like to restart this with a larger initial contribution and a payment plan based on dividend income once half of my ipo is cleared out."

b. I immediately respond:
"Working out a refund is not possible because this is an agreement designed to protect your shareholders in case of a default on your end."

c. Ian responds he is aware he CAN NOT cancel the contract in this way:
"I am aware of the contract clauses, particularly A4 and section D."

d. He gets caught in the lie here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1232050#msg1232050

e. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1236180#msg1236180
In this post Ian once again states that the "single largest factor" in losing his business was the troll threads. This is in sharp contrast to his statement in a).

7. Ian bakewell tries to blackmail me by threatening to "drag my name through the mud" if I did not do what he said:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1236142#msg1236142
Please note above (point 6c) that Ian was fully aware of the no cancellation clause when he lied to me and threatened me in this way.

8. Ian Bakewell voted NO on one of my securities on BTCT.CO and left nasty, damaging comments which surely affected other investors. As a result I have been forced to list with restrictions -- My companies can not trade. Therefore I am unable to establish market value and this will severely and adversely affect the value I am able to return to shareholders.

9. Ian Bakewell has not returned the 423 shares of BAKEWELL to me nor acknowledged any e-mails requesting the return of those shares.

In short, Ian has committed fraud on multiple fronts; he defrauded CPA, he lied in order to cancel his contract in full knowledge he could not do this and he attempted to slander me on the forums in order to get out of his contract. Secondly he is ripping off BMF for about 60 bitcoins (423 shares of BAKEWELL).

As is required by common law and intelligent people, I offer Ian Bakewell a remedy; if he issues a RETRACTION and an APOLOGY (these are two separate things) and returns the 423 shares of BAKEWELL, then I will consider the matter settled. If he does not then I want him to get a scammer tag until such time as he issues a retraction and an apology and returns the shares, The bitcoins (from the CPA contract) were returned to BAKEWELL shareholders so that is not an issue; this is about the likely irreparable damage he has done to my reputation and my businesses.

I only ask that this case be treated fairly. Thank you for your time.

[usagi]

Quoted Posts:
(*):

Usagi: Refusal of payment after result of this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1231746#msg1231746

My position is clear.

Our communication prior to the motion makes it easy to see that we were speaking in regard to Section A4 and the acceleration of your obligation (Bringing us to expiry)

Section D 1-2 Gives the option to release the trust account to the business

Shareholders have voted unanimously (all but you anyhow) to close our account, under the assumption that:

Although if you do want the money back that's fine, I just want to see that your shareholders agree (motion).

Anyhow, to keep this thread clean, I will take this over to the Scammers Accusations thread. This is obviously more Usagi doublespeak in action.
  Wants the shareholders to be paid in an attempt to claw back, as they hold some BAKEWELL shares that would get the divvy.
Having a whole refund to use as working capital makes much more sense for us as a company.

Dear shareholders of BAKEWELL.

As you have recently voted to end the Shareholder Protection contract with CPA, I will agree to accelerate CPA's obligation. A motion was therefore held, and as the shareholders agree the contract should be canceled, the money will be returned to the shareholders. This decision is final, if I break my end of the contract I will lose trust.

I am not trying to screw anyone here, I am just following the contract. The contract which states there is a no-cancellation clause. The contract says:

C.
1. If the business breaks the terms of their contract without
   reparation, CPA will pay the value of the trust account to
   the shareholders of the business on behalf of the business.
2. A period of 30 days will be allowed for the business to
   respond and make reparations before paying out on any
   default event.


As Ian wanted to cancel the contact, BAKEWELL is in technical default. However I agree to accelerate my obligation here and work with Ian to return the money to the shareholders. tl; dr:

A.
2. CPA will insure shareholders by paying out on behalf of
   the business should the business become unable or unwilling
   to fufill the terms of it's contract (see section C).
4. No party may cancel this contract although any party may
   choose to accelerate their obligation at any time.

The full contract may be viewed online here.

I now suspect Ian will become angry at me because he took my words in PM to mean I would return the money to him personally (as an agent of BAKEWELL). I obviously cannot do this.

As soon as Ian pays a dividend of 4 BTC on Bakewell, I will send 4 BTC to the address listed below. This isn't up for appeal; Yes, CPA is in a bad situation and the last thing I need is MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet or some other jackass turning this on me saying I broke my own contract. Sorry Ian, that things had to turn out this way, again, in 6 months when this blows over and I am still around you should probably apologize for breaking your contract. Your reasoning here was exceedingly faulty, unfortunately you are bound to be angry over this, but time will tell, won't it?

Please don't expect a discussion, this decision is final. You signed a contract.

-----

Ok, at this point there's two options. Please pay a dividend of 4 BTC to your shareholders and I will transfer the money to your account on GLBSE (or to the address you have provided). Second option I can ask Nefario to take the 4 BTC out of CPA's account and have it distributed that way (if you don't trust me :p)

Anyway, sorry to see so many people voting to return it, six months later when I'm still around I might suggest you apologize. This hurt CPA and we're already in a bad situation now. When the going gets tough for BAKEWELL I can only hope your customers don't treat you as badly.

Usagi,

The understanding was that this would be a refund. You were to give the coin back to me.
Otherwise, why would my shareholders have needed to agree to have it paid to them as a dividend?

Although if you do want the money back that's fine, I just want to see that your shareholders agree (motion).

I do want the money back, my shareholders do agree, please pay:  1Q1k2uTUZ1ZSSufH2w9xnCnPPzC1QmreEa

Ian

No, you signed a contract. The disbursement options are specific. It can be paid as a dividend. This was a shareholder protection agreement, you cancelled the contract via a motion, and the money will be returned immediately -- to your shareholders. As you were told before this money was held in trust on behalf of your shareholders. It isn't BAKEWELL's money anymore.

The option to have it paid as a dividend through Nefario was offered to me prior to saying I could have the money back but you wanted to see a motion.
The motion was asked for when you said "if you (me) want the money back that's fine"
Please send the 4 BTC to:  1Q1k2uTUZ1ZSSufH2w9xnCnPPzC1QmreEa

Ok, if you don't want to pay it as a dividend, I'll send a letter to Nefario asking him to do it. Are you going to pay the dividend or not, yes or no?

[edit: If you agree to pay the dividend soon after (say within a day) I'll take you at your word and send you the 4 BTC first. But be advised if you don't pay the dividend, you will lose trust with your shareholders.]

(**):

Those of you following along will remember that not to long ago CPA had started talking about potential problems.
I have had my doubts about their ability to honour our agreements from that time on,
CPA has openly admitted to being in a liquidity crunch, and other community members have pointed out the held assets will not cover current liabilities.

[CLOSED] [CPA] [BMF] [NYAN] Liquidity Loan Request
[GLBSE] CPA - No Dividends for the month of August, 2012

In the last little bit, much drama has surrounded Usagi and CPA, cumulating in a scammers accusations thread:

Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.

I am not the type of person to walk away from a commitment, however at this time I think it would be best to stop payment on the CPA account until this is resolved.

I have raised a motion this afternoon asking the shareholders to approve the closure of the Shareholder Protection Fund held in trust with CPA.

A few days ago I reached out to Usagi about options on closing the account.
I will add that conversation bellow. Mods are welcome to confirm the messages are in my pms and appear here unedited (personal conversation removed, BAKEWELL stuff posted):

Hello Usagi,

In the time between founding BAKEWELL and creating the shareholder insurance fund with you, and now, the plan for BAKEWELL has dramatically changed.
BAKEWELL is a much smaller company than I initially thought I would launch with. We will continue to grow, but on a slow roll out basis.
At this time, the dividends from BAKEWELL will not cover the funds fee. As such I am not able to continue with it at this time.
I will be utilizing the small dividend I receive to aggressively grow BAKEWELL until the first half of the ipo is sold out.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.

The fund currently has 4 BTC in it.
I would like to work out a refund of this from you, less a small management fee.
I would then like to restart this with a larger initial contribution and a payment plan based on dividend income once half of my ipo is cleared out.

Thank you,

Ian

Hi. Working out a refund is not possible because this is an agreement designed to protect your shareholders in case of a default on your end. These funds are held in trust on behalf of your shareholders. Second point (the obvious one) but bears bringing up, there is a non-cancellation clause.

The first problem here, on my end, is that whether or not you are experiencing financial difficulties, this is precisely what a scammer would try to do before he defaulted on his contract. He would try to get money such as this returned to him. That is precisely the reason why I cannot return it; this is a shareholder protection agreement.

The second problem is on your end. If you fail to pay your premium your contract will be voided and I must announce this publicly since your shareholders would no longer be covered.

If you feel the financial difficulties you are experiencing are temporary, I will agree to postponing payments for up to four weeks.

Yes, I know I could "just take back" what we signed and it would be easy for me to just absolve you of any liability and return the money. However if I did that I would not be doing my job. If your company is unable to meet the obligations in it's contract as a direct result of having to pay 1 btc per week, you have a problem.

Anyways, if you really really feel sour about this I suggest we discuss it openly with your shareholders. The best I can offer you is to have Nefario pay the money as a special dividend, as you wouldn't have met the trust concerns of no default over a 1 year period.

Good luck!

Usagi,

BAKEWELL is fine and sitting cash heavy right now. 110btc and $4k CAN. I will be purchasing the rigs this week. I can expect around 650mhash per 7970, looking at 4-6 of these cards to start, I can estimate my dividends. We are not big enough yet that my portion of earnings would cover the fund contribution.
We are equitable, with a small return and utilizing the 7970's as a stop gap until asic tech is available for delivery.

I am 737 shares into my second funding round. I will need to sell another 1763 shares before my contract allows for another equipment purchase anyhow.

I am aware of the contract clauses, particularly A4 and section D. A4 allowing you to accelerate your portion, and section D pertaining to the expiry date & offering repayment to myself or as a dividend to shareholders.

I understand this is a "scammer" move, asking for the refund. But in all reality, the 4btc against the 500+ I have raised to date, is les than 1%.
In the event I defaulted right now, I doubt many are going to care about their share of the 4btc.

If we are not able to move forward on this privately (and I understand the commitments and reputation you must maintain) then I would ask that we begin working on this option: "The best I can offer you is to have Nefario pay the money as a special dividend, as you wouldn't have met the trust concerns of no default over a 1 year period."

Thank you,
Ian

I changed my mind and decided to wait a few days more, see how things would play out over the next little bit. Maybe Usagi is all good and trolls are trolls.
I send them this:

Usagi,

Another idea:
Would you be willing to move the minimum contribution down from 1btc to 50% of my dividends (as pledged here)
I would be happy to continue on with CPA as we grow.

Ian

Ok, I have confirmed that's ok here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1223276#msg1223276

Although if you do want the money back that's fine, I just want to see that your shareholders agree (motion).

As you may guess I've been busy as can be recently and I haven't had a chance to look at the new securities in greater depth, but glancing thru the thread I'm happy to see your shareholders are excited ^^ That's a good sign.

Ok so to recap, moving forward, we're lowering the minimum payment to 0.1/week (or 50% of div or whatever) -- the idea I think should be to show investors the fund is increasing every week by something. If it's a small amount thats probably fine, since you don't have your ASIC units yet.

*bold emphasis mine*

[usagi]

quoting this because it's relevant (note: please do not reply to this on the other thread; respond to it here only)

...Ian Bakewell broke a signed contract with CPA...publicly lied to me, threatened to lie about me in PMs (on record, theymos or other mods can see), lied about his company's finances, and so forth.

I don't think this scam accusation does not have it's merits. I strongly believe that Ian should get a scammer tag, but I don't think other people's scammer threads are the good place to post this.

bold emphasis mine (and FWIW I am sorry to HorseRider and BadBear for posting off-topic the other thread).

[Deprived]

8. Ian Bakewell voted NO on one of my securities on BTCT.CO and left nasty, damaging comments which surely affected other investors. As a result I have been forced to list with restrictions -- My companies can not trade. Therefore I am unable to establish market value and this will severely and adversely affect the value I am able to return to shareholders.

9. Ian Bakewell has not returned the 423 shares of BAKEWELL to me nor acknowledged any e-mails requesting the return of those shares.

These two are things where the facts can be pretty easily established.

On 8., identify the comment you believe Bakewell made.  If Bakewell then agrees to it, have burnside confirm whether or not that post was made by Bakewell.  Would seriously expect this is just you jumping to conclusions - there's plenty of people who could have made unfavourable comments about you.

9. Is a very serious allegation.  You clearly received back shares from other investments.  So to prove you never received shares all you need do is identify the email address you used for your GLBSE claims and have other asset issuers confirm/deny that email was allocated the shares you claim to have in other assets.  Then have burnside confirm whether or not shares in bakewell were allocated to that email address.

It's that simple.

On both points you're saying something which bakewell is denying - and that something should be fairly simple to establish the truth of.  There weren't unallocated shares left in bakewell sufficient to be yours (if somehow nefario had missed you off the list) - so either they went to the email address you provided (which worked for other asset issuers) or bakewell edited the file he sent to burnside and changed your email address to a different one: one of you did something very wrong and deserves a scammer tag.

So bakewell needs to agree for burnside to confirm whether or not he posted the message you claim he did (if, as he claims, he's never held any LTC-GLOBAL shares then that's pretty much end of story unless the message was posted by some brand new account that bouhgt 10 LTC-GLOBAL just to post the message).

ABM would be a decent place to start for point 9.

ABM    210    1usagi8WQJvnCoyV21XSZyUHhC6MzfksW

That's the 210 shares of it you currently hold on BitFunder.  The email address associated with that will be the one you provided to nefario (and the one burnside should check for in bakewell's import list).  We know that's your shares (from the public asset list) not just because of the 1usagi start of address but also because of:

UNUSED    5,132    1usagi8WQJvnCoyV21XSZyUHhC6MzfksW

WHich is the untraded shares in your cancelled BMF listing there - which obviously have to still be in your account.

So do you give permission for ukyo to identify the email address used to import those ABM shares?
Bakewell: Do you give permission for burnside to check for that email address in the import list for your asset on BTC.CO?

If you both do (and whichever of you is telling the truth is surely going to agree) then it's pretty easy to get to the bottom of the most serious allegation (theft of 400+shares).  And whichever of you is lieing was really dumb in picking something easily verifiable to lie about.

Now to see who says "Go for it" and who makes excuses.

[Deprived]

Of course burnside can check and verify that message.
Mods can check to verify any of the behind the scenes stuff here as well, ie: that Usagi PM me last in Oct.

The message is trivial - probably just an assumption usagi made.

Usgai never claimed to have PMed, so verifying no PMs since Oct means nothing.

The important thing is if the email address used to import usagi's shares on BitFunder is identified, do you consent to burnside confirming whether or not shares in bakewell were issued to it?  If the email address for the dumped shares is same as the one usagi got shares on BitFunder to then it's pretty obvious usagi is in the wrong (as he's been using that account).  If no shares were imported for bakewell to that email address then obviously things look a lot less favourable for you - as it wasnt just ABM shares loaded to that address but also S-Dice ones, so it couldn't just be usagi getting one asset issuer to edit an email address before submitting the list (obvious asset issuers would need to be asked whether any requests to change email address were made by usagi).

[Deprived]

One possibility I didnt' mention - if the emails don't match then it's possible usagi didn't own any bakewell shares at the time GLBSE closed (or had them on a seperate account).  That can be addressed if necessary - it would require either verifying an original of the asset holders list from nefario (which may or may not be possible - not possible if it only exists on a computer under bakewell's control) or getting nefario himself to confirm it.

Obviously also IP address used for the account selling 430 shares can be compared to usagi's/bakewell's if necessary - unlikley though it is, some people ARE dumb enough not to use proxies when doing something they shouldn't be doing.

[usagi]

do you consent to burnside confirming whether or not shares in bakewell were issued to it?

Burnside knows what e-mail address I used to lay claim to GLBSE shares because it's at the top of all the lists he owns. To date I have received zero notice at that address. Did I miss it? Where is it? Either way it will be handled. That isn't the main issue.

The main issue here for me is that Ian Bakewell has damaged my reputation and defrauded me and my investors. If you think he hasn't damaged my reputation -- look around. There's money involved here. Real damages.

I've offered an easy remedy for Ian.

[Deprived]

do you consent to burnside confirming whether or not shares in bakewell were issued to it?

Burnside knows what e-mail address I used to lay claim to GLBSE shares because it's at the top of all the lists he owns.

Not sure that's strictly accurate.

All burnside knows is what email is at the top of the lists you sent him.  He has no way of knowing whether it's the email address you provided nefario with (or were the lists signed with nefario's public key?  If so, then yes- burnside does know assuming he verified the signature).

As you and Ian are both (pretty much) claiming the other is lieing there's no way he can take either of your word for anything is there?  If he'll take your word that X is the email address you gave nefario then he may just as well take your word for it that Ian stole your shares.  That's why I said the email address used needed to be verified by a disinterested party.

Unfortunately you also need to verify that you actually owned shares.  If nefario will cooperate you can do that.  What you need to do is email nefario, provide your email address (and sufficient information that he can know it's yours - which won't be hard) then ask him whether you owned Bakewell shares and if so, to confirm in a GPG signed email that you held X shares and that those shares were in the list provided to Bakewell at the email address you provided.  Then you can forward the email to burnside (and publish it here) and have him confirm that email address wasn't in the list bakewell provided.  Obviously if nefario replies that you didn't own any shares then an apology would be in order.

Similarly, bakewell (if honest) could email nefario asking for nefario to send him a signed copy of the list - then provide that to burnside and have burnside confirm it's same as the list he received.

Obviously there's a pretty good chance nefario won't assist - but whichever of you two is telling the truth should surely be trying to actually prove their innocence and the other party's guilt.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't have any particular view on which (either or both) of you is telling (or in usagi's case thinks they're telling - as the shares could have been sold and forgotten about or not even noticed) the truth.

[usagi]

9: I had a single entity on the list from the GLBSE with 430 shares of BAKEWELL. The only person who fit this profile is Usagi. Those shares have been dumped on the open market & that entity now controls 0 shares.
Usagi has sent 0 emails to acknowledge, and the last PM I received from them was on October 01, 2012, 10:52:38 AM.
Usagi also never initiated the BAKEWELL claims process with me directly, despite a BAKEWELL thread being consistently bumped to the top of the securities section for many weeks asking shareholders to do so.
I can only assume that Usagi dumped the shares, pocketed the BTC, and is now looking for a convenient excuse to feed BMF shareholders.

Do you ever think before you post? I registered on BTCT.CO with the proper address. Burnside said I wasn't on the list you gave him. How could I have ever obtained the shares, if I registered with the proper address? I did not receive an e-mail from you.

Did you give him that address or not?

If you edited the list you gave him, knowing full well I was the only shareholder with that many shares, then you stole BMF investor's shares.

Everyone else sent me a mail, and you didn't bother to send us a mail once you got the lists from nefario? WTF?

[usagi]

do you consent to burnside confirming whether or not shares in bakewell were issued to it?

Burnside knows what e-mail address I used to lay claim to GLBSE shares because it's at the top of all the lists he owns.

Not sure that's strictly accurate.

it's accurate.

There's no way someone else had anywhere so close to the 430 odd shares we had.

Unfortunately you also need to verify that you actually owned shares.  If nefario will cooperate you can do that.  What you need to do is email nefario, provide your email address (and sufficient information that he can know it's yours - which won't be hard) then ask him whether you owned Bakewell shares and if so, to confirm in a GPG signed email that you held X shares and that those shares were in the list provided to Bakewell at the email address you provided.

That's actually the only way to provide proof. Although, if burnside says Ian only gave him a YML file that would be pretty suspicious.

Similarly, bakewell (if honest) could email nefario asking for nefario to send him a signed copy of the list - then provide that to burnside and have burnside confirm it's same as the list he received.

Obviously there's a pretty good chance nefario won't assist - but whichever of you two is telling the truth should surely be trying to actually prove their innocence and the other party's guilt.

That would be a first. Yeah unfortunately though asking Nefario is probably the only way to actually prove this.

I've e-mailed him.

[usagi]

Of course burnside can check and verify that message.
The info on the YML has it attached to a tormail email & the wallet is not 1usagi
Mods can check to verify any of the behind the scenes stuff here as well, ie: that Usagi PM me last in Oct.

Usagi was also a high profile holder of DMC, and yet:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=132961.msg1416752#msg1416752

..and yet you cannot read, that the consensus was (and my statement was) I did not use 1usagi or my known e-mail address to file claim.

Precisely to avoid this sort of drama. But you knew how many shares BMF held.

I hope for your sake Nefario refuses to confirm our holdings, or that it comes out some other well-known shareholder had exactly as many shares as we had... Because if it comes out that you committed fraud yet again, this time by doctoring your shareholder lists, that's not going to work out very well for you on these forums.

[MPOE-PR]

This was one of the best summaries ever: about five times as long as the whole story.

Here's the real summary: both of you (usagi, eskimobob) are pointless idiots wasting everyone's time. Bugger off.

[usagi]

This was one of the best summaries ever: about five times as long as the whole story.

Here's the real summary: both of you (usagi, eskimobob) are pointless idiots wasting everyone's time. Bugger off.

No, this has merit. Ian's security was just disapproved from BTC-TC, it now has 4 upvotes and 10 downvotes.

Ian needs to deal with reality and respond to this thread or at least the G&M scandal properly or he'll probably end up with a scammer tag and delisted from BTC-TC.

[creativex]

No, this has merit. Ian's security was just disapproved from BTC-TC, it now has 4 upvotes and 10 downvotes.

Ian needs to deal with reality and respond to this thread or at least the G&M scandal properly or he'll probably end up with a scammer tag and delisted from BTC-TC.

You finally said something with which I can agree 100%. The actual vote count is 4 pro and 5 con as down votes count as 2.

Edit: It was 4 up and 5 down votes until usagi changed his vote from no to abstain.

[usagi]

No, this has merit. Ian's security was just disapproved from BTC-TC, it now has 4 upvotes and 10 downvotes.

Ian needs to deal with reality and respond to this thread or at least the G&M scandal properly or he'll probably end up with a scammer tag and delisted from BTC-TC.

You finally said something with which I can agree 100%. The actual vote count is 4 pro and 5 con as down votes count as 2.

I decided to take advantage of the opportunity Ian gave us to phone him, solely because there is a controversy over voting with G&M shares. I was a bit emotional. I wanted to tell him how upset I was, and talk about how he broke the CPA contract but I didn't. Instead I apologized to him. I guess I meant it.

You know, if Ian and I knew each other in real life, I guarantee we would not hate each other. I can feel that. I can hear his accent and it makes me think of where I grew up and some of my old friends. But the internet "is what it is".

I dunno if I was on Ian's list of shareholders or not. Maybe James made a mistake. Maybe we hit a sale order on the day it closed. I don't know.

I'm very close to closing this because while he did in fact break a contract and lie about me clawing back funds, I thought -- maybe this isn't so important any more.

Sometimes I hate the country I live in now and wish I was back in Canada. But I know my future is here now.