Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2019, 12:57:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 [172] 173 174 175 176 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Butterflylabs Huge SCAM  (Read 390289 times)
Gleb Gamow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1119



View Profile
May 10, 2016, 11:51:26 PM
 #3421

http://bitcoininfo123.blogspot.com/2016/03/butterfly-labs-corrects-record-on.html

Quote
For now, though, the company says its top priority is to get back up and running and allocate the revenue they make to customer refunds.

The post Butterfly Labs Corrects Record on Settlement With FTC and Future Plans appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/butterfly-labs-corrects-record-on-settlement-with-ftc-and-future-plans-1456955902

http://www.butterflylabs.com/addressing-misperceptions/



The fucker is breeding!
1563497851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563497851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563497851
Reply with quote  #2

1563497851
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563497851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563497851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563497851
Reply with quote  #2

1563497851
Report to moderator
1563497851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563497851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563497851
Reply with quote  #2

1563497851
Report to moderator
1563497851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563497851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563497851
Reply with quote  #2

1563497851
Report to moderator
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1965


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
July 14, 2016, 01:45:26 AM
 #3422

Any Investigative Reporter types around here interesting in writing up a "where are they now" piece ?

Would be interesting to see what all the Butterfly Labs scammers are up to today.

I think Josh is working as a jump instructor or something, but wonder about the others.
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1375


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
July 14, 2016, 02:30:54 AM
 #3423

Any Investigative Reporter types around here interesting in writing up a "where are they now" piece ?

Would be interesting to see what all the Butterfly Labs scammers are up to today.

I think Josh is working as a jump instructor or something, but wonder about the others.

I think they were spotted recently at the Ritz Carleton Grand Cayman.


Zeta0S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1031


View Profile
July 15, 2016, 11:33:24 PM
 #3424

Any Investigative Reporter types around here interesting in writing up a "where are they now" piece ?

Would be interesting to see what all the Butterfly Labs scammers are up to today.

I think Josh is working as a jump instructor or something, but wonder about the others.

I think they were spotted recently at the Ritz Carleton Grand Cayman.


Please tell us more

Get a HUGE 3% discount with promo code: MOON @ Genesis Mining
https://www.genesis-mining.com
Gleb Gamow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1119



View Profile
September 09, 2016, 02:22:42 AM
 #3425

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/50bsox/a_church_posted_pics_of_their_baptisms_this_was/d73dfgk

Quote
I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is religion and people who believe in sky fairies being allowed to lead society. I am not part of the problem. I am the exact opposite of that. I don't believe in fairy tales and I am responsible for my own actions. I don't need magic to make me a good person.

If you need the threat of eternal damnation to make you a good person... You are not a good person.

For those not up to speed, that's Josh Zerlan singin' that tune:

If you believe in magic, come along with me
We'll dance until morning 'till there's just you and me
And maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night
And we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see
How the magic's in the music and the music's in me
awesome31312
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 503


View Profile
September 09, 2016, 03:49:39 AM
 #3426

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/50bsox/a_church_posted_pics_of_their_baptisms_this_was/d73dfgk

Quote
I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is religion and people who believe in sky fairies being allowed to lead society. I am not part of the problem. I am the exact opposite of that. I don't believe in fairy tales and I am responsible for my own actions. I don't need magic to make me a good person.

If you need the threat of eternal damnation to make you a good person... You are not a good person.

For those not up to speed, that's Josh Zerlan singin' that tune:

If you believe in magic, come along with me
We'll dance until morning 'till there's just you and me
And maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night
And we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see
How the magic's in the music and the music's in me

What does this have to do with Butterfly Labs being a scam?

This thread needs to be locked Sad

CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1965


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
September 09, 2016, 11:43:43 AM
 #3427

LOL. That's so cute I could just squee. Josh Zerlan thinking he's a good person.

How many BTC did he siphon out of Butterfly Labs' illicit mining operations to purchase his house and various toys ?

I'm amazed that anyone would hire the guy after BFL closed down, considering his legendary duplicity. Guess some employers don't do thorough background checks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/50bsox/a_church_posted_pics_of_their_baptisms_this_was/d73dfgk

Quote
I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is religion and people who believe in sky fairies being allowed to lead society. I am not part of the problem. I am the exact opposite of that. I don't believe in fairy tales and I am responsible for my own actions. I don't need magic to make me a good person.
If you need the threat of eternal damnation to make you a good person... You are not a good person.
For those not up to speed, that's Josh Zerlan...
TooDumbForBitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 09, 2016, 02:55:28 PM
 #3428

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/50bsox/a_church_posted_pics_of_their_baptisms_this_was/d73dfgk

Quote
I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is religion and people who believe in sky fairies being allowed to lead society. I am not part of the problem. I am the exact opposite of that. I don't believe in fairy tales and I am responsible for my own actions. I don't need magic to make me a good person.

If you need the threat of eternal damnation to make you a good person... You are not a good person.

For those not up to speed, that's Josh Zerlan singin' that tune:

If you believe in magic, come along with me
We'll dance until morning 'till there's just you and me
And maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night
And we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see
How the magic's in the music and the music's in me

What does this have to do with Butterfly Labs being a scam?

This thread needs to be locked Sad

If this thread were locked, where would you post your whining?



▄▄                                  ▄▄
 ███▄                            ▄███
  ██████                      ██████
   ███████                  ███████
    ███████                ███████
     ███████              ███████
      ███████            ███████
       ███████▄▄      ▄▄███████
        ██████████████████████
         ████████████████████
          ██████████████████
           ████████████████
            ██████████████
             ███████████
              █████████
               ███████
                █████
                 ██
                  █
veil|     PRIVACY    
     WITHOUT COMPROMISE.      
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
|   NO ICO. NO PREMINE. 
   X16RT GPU Mining. Fair distribution.  
|      The first Zerocoin-based Cryptocurrency      
   WITH ALWAYS-ON PRIVACY.  
|



                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌




   ▄███████
   ████████
   ███▀
   ███
██████████
██████████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███




     ▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄
   ▐██▄▄██████████████▄▄██▌
   ████████████████████████
  ▐████████████████████████▌
  ███████▀▀▀██████▀▀▀███████
 ▐██████     ████     ██████▌
 ███████     ████     ███████
▐████████▄▄▄██████▄▄▄████████▌
▐████████████████████████████▌
 █████▄▄▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▄▄█████
  ▀▀██████          ██████▀▀
      ▀▀▀            ▀▀▀
Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1154



View Profile WWW
April 17, 2017, 04:33:31 PM
 #3429

what is the recent state of Butterfly Labs?

Website is broken --> http://www.butterflylabs.com

http://www.coindesk.com/ftc-settles-charges-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-butterfly-labs/
Zeta0S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1031


View Profile
April 25, 2017, 11:08:25 PM
 #3430

I got a email from BFL, my FPGA miner will be shipping soon!

Get a HUGE 3% discount with promo code: MOON @ Genesis Mining
https://www.genesis-mining.com
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1965


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
April 26, 2017, 01:16:18 AM
 #3431

Looks like their website and eclipsemc have finally shuttered.

I wonder what those cunts have been up to lately. Have any been able to find gainful employment ? Finding ways of living off the spoils of their hidden Bitcoin stashes ?
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1375


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
April 26, 2017, 02:59:18 AM
 #3432

Looks like their website and eclipsemc have finally shuttered.

I wonder what those cunts have been up to lately. Have any been able to find gainful employment ? Finding ways of living off the spoils of their hidden Bitcoin stashes ?

Josh Zerlan still works at iFly according to his LinkedIn account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-zerlan-a4140478/

Why don't you just call him and ask how the gangs doing or I can do it if you're worried about doing it. Just don't be rude, obnoxious or threatening. Say something that will scare him like, "Hi Inaba, it's me Cocksucker, or am I Motherfucker, I get confused you've called me both. I was just wondering what you and the BFL gang are up to now that the case is closed. I hope you're enjoying my btc. We miss you on Bitcointalk."  Then just hang up.

That should drive him nuts. He'll run around iFLY calling all the children "Cocksucker". LOL

iFLY Kansas City
10975 Metcalf Avenue
Overland Park,Kansas
(913) 305-4359

Zeta0S
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1031


View Profile
April 28, 2017, 12:12:47 AM
 #3433

Looks like their website and eclipsemc have finally shuttered.

I wonder what those cunts have been up to lately. Have any been able to find gainful employment ? Finding ways of living off the spoils of their hidden Bitcoin stashes ?

Josh Zerlan still works at iFly according to his LinkedIn account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-zerlan-a4140478/

Why don't you just call him and ask how the gangs doing or I can do it if you're worried about doing it. Just don't be rude, obnoxious or threatening. Say something that will scare him like, "Hi Inaba, it's me Cocksucker, or am I Motherfucker, I get confused you've called me both. I was just wondering what you and the BFL gang are up to now that the case is closed. I hope you're enjoying my btc. We miss you on Bitcointalk."  Then just hang up.

That should drive him nuts. He'll run around iFLY calling all the children "Cocksucker". LOL

iFLY Kansas City
10975 Metcalf Avenue
Overland Park,Kansas
(913) 305-4359

I will do that :-)

Get a HUGE 3% discount with promo code: MOON @ Genesis Mining
https://www.genesis-mining.com
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1375


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
April 28, 2017, 03:04:59 AM
 #3434

Looks like their website and eclipsemc have finally shuttered.

I wonder what those cunts have been up to lately. Have any been able to find gainful employment ? Finding ways of living off the spoils of their hidden Bitcoin stashes ?

Josh Zerlan still works at iFly according to his LinkedIn account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-zerlan-a4140478/

Why don't you just call him and ask how the gangs doing or I can do it if you're worried about doing it. Just don't be rude, obnoxious or threatening. Say something that will scare him like, "Hi Inaba, it's me Cocksucker, or am I Motherfucker, I get confused you've called me both. I was just wondering what you and the BFL gang are up to now that the case is closed. I hope you're enjoying my btc. We miss you on Bitcointalk."  Then just hang up.

That should drive him nuts. He'll run around iFLY calling all the children "Cocksucker". LOL

iFLY Kansas City
10975 Metcalf Avenue
Overland Park,Kansas
(913) 305-4359

I will do that :-)

Sounds good. Remember, if you reach him, don't say anything illegal. I'm sure everyone here would like to tell him how they will roast his balls on their backyard BBQ but you can't do that. Don't be threatening at all and don't call him more than once. Don't be a stalker. Trust me, just having his former life and legal troubles bleed over into his current life will be enough to put a bug up his ass. ROFL

BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1965


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
April 28, 2017, 09:18:15 AM
Last edit: April 28, 2017, 09:37:54 AM by BobLawblaw
 #3435

Doc 1

U.S. District Court
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:16-cv-01115-FJG

Bevand v. BF Labs Inc. et al
Assigned to: District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr
Demand: $76,000
Cause: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act   
Date Filed: 10/17/2016
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

MARC BEVAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BF LABS INC., d/b/a BUTTERFLY LABS,
Serve:
National Corporate Research, Ltd.
1107 W 6th Ave Ste B
Cheyenne, WY 82001

SONNY VLEISIDES,
Serve:
Sonny Vleisides
9817 Walnut St.
Kansas City, MO 64108

DARLA JO DRAKE a/k/a JODY DRAKE,
Serve:
Darla Jo Drake
9324 W 51st St
Shawnee, KS 66203

JEFF OWNBY,
Serve:
Jeff Ownby
130 N Park Rd
La Grange, IL 60525

and
JOSHUA ZERLAN,
Serve: Joshua Zerlan 26163 W 108th Terrace Olathe, KS 66061
Defendants.
Cause No. Division No.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS  TRIAL BY JURY

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Marc Bevand brings this Complaint for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) against Defendants BF Labs, Inc. d/b/a Butterfly Labs, Sonny Vleisides, Darla Jo Drake a/k/a Jody Drake, Jeff Ownby, and Joshua Zerlan (collectively (“Defendants”).

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff seeks recovery of the purchase price and consequential damages for Bitcoin mining machines Plaintiff purchased from Defendants but which Plaintiff never received, and for which Plaintiff never received a refund, despite multiple promises of a refund over several years.

2. This suit also seeks treble damages and attorneys’ fees under RICO for Defendants’ illegal scheme to obtain customers’ money by making fraudulent statements via mail, wire, and the internet, omitting and concealing material information in order to induce customers to make pre-payments for non-existent Bitcoin mining equipment, failing to ship Bitcoin mining equipment orders for which Plaintiff pre-paid, profiting from Bitcoin mining for Defendants’ own benefit using Plaintiff’s equipment without permission or authorization from Plaintiff, and retaining both the prepayments and the equipment ordered by Plaintiff without providing a refund.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE

3. Plaintiff Marc Bevand is a natural person, a French citizen, and a permanent resident of the State of Missouri.

4. Defendant BF Labs, Inc. d/b/a Butterfly Labs (“BFL”), is a Wyoming corporation
with its principal place of business at 10770 El Monte Street, Leawood, KS 66211. 2

5. Defendant Sonny Vleisides (“Vleisides”) is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Missouri.

6. At all relevant times, Vleisides was a founder, part owner, Innovation Officer and Vice President of Product Development of BFL, who, individually, and in concert with others, controlled the acts and practices of BFL generally and as alleged herein, had actual or constructive knowledge of the acts and practices alleged herein, and committed or participated in the acts and practices alleged herein.

7. Defendant Darla Jo Drake a/k/a Jody Drake (“Drake”) is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Kansas.

8. At all relevant times, Drake was the General Manager at BFL, and also served as the Secretary and Treasurer of BFL, who, individually, and in concert with others, controlled the acts and practices of BFL generally and as alleged herein, had actual or constructive knowledge of the acts and practices alleged herein, and committed or participated in the acts and practices alleged herein.

9. Defendant Jeff Ownby (“Ownby”) is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois.

10. At all relevant times, Ownby was a part owner and Vice President of Marketing and E-commerce of BFL who, individually, and in concert with others, controlled the acts and practices of BFL generally and as alleged herein, had actual or constructive knowledge of the acts and practices alleged herein, and committed or participated in the acts and practices alleged herein.

11. Defendant Joshua Zerlan is a natural person and is a citizen of the State of Kansas.

12. At all relevant times, Zerlan was Operations Manager, Chief Operating Officer, and Vice President of Product Development of BFL who, individually, and in concert with others,
controlled the acts and practices of BFL generally and as alleged herein, had actual or constructive
knowledge of the acts and practices alleged herein, and committed or participated in the acts and practices alleged herein.

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1391 in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Western District of Missouri.

15. The amount in controversy herein is in excess of $75,000.00.  

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Background on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Mining

16. Bitcoin is a payment system that is also referred to as a “virtual currency.”

17. Bitcoins can be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars, Euros, and other physical or virtual currencies. Bitcoin users can send payments to another for goods and services through online entities.

18. Bitcoins are increasingly used worldwide to pay debts, purchase goods and services, and are regularly exchanged for other currencies.

19. Unlike traditional currency, Bitcoins are not created by a government or central bank, such as the Federal Reserve.

20. Bitcoins can only be generated through a process called Bitcoin “mining,” a process where “miners” receive transaction fees and newly minted Bitcoins in return for using computers or other devices to solve computational puzzles.  

21. Solving these computational puzzles also has the effect of verifying and recording payments made using Bitcoin.

22. By design, Bitcoin mining is a computationally intensive process that becomes
more difficult over time.

23. As more miners have joined the Bitcoin network, it has become increasingly difficult to solve the computational puzzles and make a profit. Therefore, miners must seek faster and faster equipment, and must seek efficiencies to cut their operating costs, which includes high electricity bills and wear-and-tear on the mining machines.

24. As the difficulty of Bitcoin mining has increased over time, the computer hardware required to profitably mine has advanced from general purpose CPUs (found in common desktop computers), high-end GPUs (often found in gaming computers), FPGAs (field.programmable gate arrays), and ultimately to ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits) purpose-built for performing the calculations necessary for Bitcoin mining.

25. With the development and release of each new generation of mining technology, previous generations become effectively obsolete and worthless

26. Although the total number of Bitcoins in circulation is increasing, the number is increasing at a slowing rate, and, at some point, Bitcoins will cease to be generated altogether. Specifically, roughly every four years that the Bitcoin network operates, half the number of Bitcoins are created as compared to the prior four years. All Bitcoins are expected to be mined by 2140.

27. The faster one is able to mine Bitcoins, the more money one may make.

28. Bitcoins have significant monetary value that constantly fluctuates.  

29. For example, in November 2013, the price of one Bitcoin skyrocketed above $1,000.

30. On March 19, 2014, one Bitcoin could be exchanged for an average of $613.12.

31. On August 20, 2015, one Bitcoin could be exchanged for an average of $233.48.

32. Bitcoin experts predict that the value of one Bitcoin may fall even further or may increase to as high as $35,000.

33. Time is of the essence when it comes to Bitcoin mining.

Defendants’ Sale of Bitcoin Mining Machines

34. Defendants purport to manufacture and sell Bitcoin mining machines and services that consumers can use to generate Bitcoins. Defendants also purport to sell the latest generations of Bitcoin mining machines.

35. Defendants market their Bitcoin mining machines and services for sale online, including on Facebook, as well as on their own website, www.butterflylabs.com.

36. Defendants purport to sell these machines nationwide in interstate commerce.

37. Defendants stated on their website that “Butterfly Labs manufactures a line of high speed encryption processors for use in Bitcoin mining, research, telecommunication and security applications.” The website describes products for sale and their prices, delivery dates, and terms and conditions of sale. It touts the low power consumption and high efficiency and processing speed of Defendants’ mining machines.

38. For all orders, Defendants have required consumers to pay up-front by PayPal, Bitcoins, or bank wire transfer the entire amount of an order at the time the order is placed.

Defendants’ “Pre-Order” Scheme

39. Defendants created a scheme to obtain “pre-order” funds from the public, but contrary to its representations to customers, diverted these funds to other purposes, including their own personal enrichment.

40. BFL advertises via “pre-order” sale Bitcoin mining products they hoped to design
and manufacture, without disclosing the products did not yet exist, that there was no final working prototype, that unless enough pre-orders were made by customers, BFL would not have sufficient funds to develop and manufacture the advertised products at all, and without disclosing BFL’s intent to use the products for its own benefit and enrichment prior to shipping or in lieu of shipping.

41. BFL’s pre-order scheme was deceptive because it was not really a pre-order system but, rather, it was a method of raising investment capital under the guise of a pre-order.

42. In order to encourage and to entice paid-in-full “pre-orders” from customers, BFL advertised its high-speed miners were shipping soon—even though BFL did not know whether it would receive sufficient pre-order funds to ever develop or manufacture the product advertised.

43. BFL represented its Bitcoin mining products were “in production” and “real.”

44. BFL represented that customers would most likely receive their equipment within “two months” after ordering, or such equipment “would be shipped in two months,” or sooner.

45. BFL’s products did not exist at the time BFL accepted pre-payments.

46. BFL knew or had reason to know that the products would not ship on the dates represented to customers.

47. A former employee testified it was BFL’s “company policy” to inform prospective customers that delivery was “two months away” and even sooner for existing customers, even though the two-month timeframe was not tied to supply chain or the engineering timeline and no final prototype for the machines existed.

48. A former employee recommended to company management that customers be provided with information about delivery delays but his recommendation was dismissed, and the
reason provided was BFL did not want customers to know that they would have to wait so long for
the machines.

49. To reinforce and to continue the pre-order scheme, BFL falsely advised customers that shipping had already begun; at the same time, BFL continued receiving prepayments.

50. BFL did not ship its products within two months or within any time period represented by BFL.

51. In or about 2012, BFL purchased from Zerlan a business known as “Eclipse Mining Consortium,” which operates as a Bitcoin mining pool, an organization which permits the combination of Bitcoin mining efforts.

52. Instead of shipping completed Bitcoin mining hardware to customers after customers have already paid for the equipment, BFL utilized completed Bitcoin mining hardware to earn mining income for itself under the guise of “testing” such hardware.

53. BFL represented it did not mine Bitcoins for itself, but, in reality, without authorization or permission, BFL mined Bitcoins for itself using customer equipment on each and every unit before shipping to customers.

54. BFL mined using customers’ equipment on the live Bitcoin network for hours, days, or longer even though the equipment only required 10 to 30 minutes of testing and could have been tested on “test.net,” which enables the equipment to be tested without being used.

55. BFL used customers’ equipment on the live Bitcoin network instead of on the test-net because BFL would not make any money for itself using the test-net.

56. Instead of shipping manufactured and fully tested miners to customers, BFL kept them and operated them on the live Bitcoin network for BFL’s benefit and enrichment until
additional replacement miners were manufactured so that BFL could keep the same number of
miners operating on the live Bitcoin network.

57. This “testing” served to enrich BFL at the detriment of its customers by both denying customers use and benefit of equipment they have already paid for, as well as increasing the overall mining difficulty required to generate future Bitcoins.

58. Instead of shipping to customers, BFL also sent hundreds or thousands of miners to Netsolus to mine Bitcoins for itself.

59. BFL claims the miners sent to Netsolus were “defective,” yet BFL was able to mine substantial Bitcoins for itself using such miners.

60. BFL represented customers could receive a refund simply by asking for one, that “it’s not a problem” for a customer to receive a refund, and BFL could refund all prepayments “without a problem.”

61. Even after mining units became effectively obsolete due to the length of time customers were waiting for BFL to ship, customers were not allowed to obtain a refund even if they refused delivery.

62. A former employee testified that, per management’s instructions, BFL would keep both the mining units and customers’ funds.

63. BFL used customers’ funds for the individual benefit of BFL’s officers and shareholders, including Vleisides, Drake, Ghoseiri, Ownby, and Zerlan.

64. For example, BFL purchased a home and a $66,171.27 car for Vleisides.

Plaintiff’s Purchase Order

65. On Aug 17, 2013, Plaintiff Marc Bevand (“Bevand”) placed a purchase order on BFL’s website for nine (9) standard “Monarch” units, each of which purportedly consisted of a 600 GH/s Bitcoin mining card.

66. The total amount Bevand paid for these nine units was $31,632.00, which included $42.00 in shipping. This amount was paid in Bitcoins, which at then-current exchange rate was 319.0192 BTC.

67. As of March 21, 2014, the units had not shipped.

68. On that date, BFL offered to either (1) refund the amount paid by Bevand or (2) upgrade his pending order to nine (9) “Imperial Monarch” units in addition to the nine (9) standard “Monarch” units he had already ordered by simply paying an extra “shipping” fee of $342.00.  

69. Mr. Bevand chose option (2), and paid the additional $342.00 to BFL, bringing the amount of his total payments to BFL to $31,974.00.

70. On August 29, 2014 BFL sent an email to Bevand saying they were now finally ready to ship his order, but that they had reduced their prices. If Bevand wanted to take advantage of this new pricing, this would “result in a new configuration of your order and replace all previous offers.”

71. This time, given that BFL had previously made such an “upgrade” offer and then failed to deliver, Bevand responded by requesting a refund.

72. As of August 28, 2014, BFL stated on its website that it would offer refunds to those who would prefer cancelling their order.

73. On September 15, 2014, “Davis W” from BFL stated that Bevand’s refund request was “approved.”

74. On December 31, 2014, BFL sent Bevand an email informing him that the FTC had
frozen BFL’s assets but that the company would regain control of their accounts by that same day.

75. Bevand followed up multiple times demanding his refund from BFL between January 8, 2015 and the present day.  

76. To date, Bevand has received no equipment nor any refund from BFL.

77. Since placing his order with BFL in August of 2013, numerous Bitcoins have been mined by BFL and others, and the difficulty of mining new Bitcoins has substantially increased over such time.

Pattern of Racketeering Activity

78. In addition to Defendants’ conduct with respect to Plaintiff, Defendants have engaged in similar fraudulent conduct with respect to many other customers, as set forth herein, constituting a pattern of racketeering activity.

79. In June 2012, Defendants’ website advertised its line of “BitForce SC chip” (hereinafter, “BitForce”) mining machines. At the time, the BitForce mining machines purported to allow consumers to use the latest technology for Bitcoin mining.  

80. Defendants’ BitForce mining machines ranged in price from $149 for their lowest power machine to $29,899 for their highest power machine.

81. Beginning in June 2012, Defendants informed consumers that the BitForce mining machine “is now in final state development. Initial product delivery is scheduled for October 2012.” However, Defendants did not deliver any BitForce mining machines to its customers in October 2012. Indeed, by April 1, 2013, Defendants still had not delivered a single BitForce mining machine to their customers.


82. Many months later, as of September 2013, Defendants had failed to ship mining
machines to more than 20,000 customers who had paid for the equipment in full.

83. On November 28, 2013, Defendants posted on their website that all the orders for the BitForce mining machines had been shipped. However, consumers continued to file complaints about not receiving their prepaid BitForce mining machine.

84. In approximately August 2013, Defendants announced that they were selling Monarch mining machines, which purportedly possessed greater mining power than any of the previous mining machines in the market. Butterfly Labs stated that the Monarch is the “fastest and most power efficient Bitcoin miner yet.” Defendants required consumers to pay $2,499 to $4,680 upfront to purchase the machines.

85. In fact, as of the end of 2014, Defendants had yet to provide consumers with a single Monarch machine, despite Defendants’representation that the machines should be delivered by the “end of the year [2013].” Months later, in approximately March 2014, Defendants stated that they would provide consumers with Monarch machines in April 2014.  

86. In numerous instances, consumers were not able to generate Bitcoins using the BitForce or Monarch Bitcoin mining machines because Defendants did not fulfill consumers’ orders.

87. In numerous instances, Defendants eventually delivered a BitForce that was either defective, obsolete, or mining far less Bitcoins than it would have had it shipped on the promised shipment dates.

88. In approximately December 2013, Defendants began offering mining services, at an average upfront cost of approximately $10/GH for 12 months, whereby Butterfly Labs supposedly would use the Monarch mining machines to generate Bitcoins for the consumer.  

89. Butterfly Labs stated that they would begin generating Bitcoins for consumers who
paid for these services in the “March 2014 time frame.”  Defendants failed to do so.  In fact, as of August 2014, Defendants had not generated any Bitcoins for consumers who had purchased the mining services, often at a cost of thousands of dollars per consumer.

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (“RICO”)
(against the Individual Defendants)

90. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other Paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

91. This Count is against Defendants Sonny Vleisides, Darla Jo Drake a/k/a Jody Drake, Jeff Ownby, and Joshua Zerlan (the “Individual Defendants”).

92. BF Labs, Inc. d/b/a Butterfly Labs is an enterprise engaged in and whose activities affect interstate commerce. The Individual Defendants are employed by or associated with the enterprise, and operate and manage its affairs.

93. Pursuant to and in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, each of the Individual Defendants committed multiple related acts of mail fraud and wire fraud, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961, specifically, Defendants used the internet and the mail, in interstate commerce, with the intent to conduct the unlawful activity of fraud, as described herein, and obtained money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

94. Pursuant to and in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, each of the Individual Defendants committed multiple related acts of wire, radio or television fraud, as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 1961, specifically, Defendants transmitted communications by wire, radio, or television, in interstate commerce, with the intent to conduct the unlawful activity of fraud, as described herein, and obtained money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

95. Plaintiff relied, to his detriment, on the fraudulent representations of the Individual Defendants.

96. The Individual Defendants agreed to and did conduct and participate in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and for the unlawful purpose of intentionally defrauding Plaintiff. Specifically,  

a.    The Individual Defendants collected numerous payments from numerous customers, including Plaintiff, for Bitcoin mining machines they never intended to deliver, as described herein, over a period of time, including but not limited to, between June 2012 and December 31, 2014; and

b.    The Individual Defendants advertised the availability of Bitcoin mining machines they never intended to deliver, as described herein, over a period of time, including but not limited to, between June 2012 and December 31, 2014; and

c.    The Individual Defendants routinely delayed delivery of Bitcoin mining machines in order to use them for their own mining purposes, rendering the products useless when they were ultimately delivered; and

d.    The Individual Defendants participated in this scheme by developing and executing the scheme to defraud, and by training and supervising others at BFL to perpetrate the fraud described herein.

97. The acts set forth herein, constitute a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

98. The Individual Defendants have directly and indirectly conducted and participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through the pattern of racketeering and activity described
above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

99. As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants’ racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property, including loss of the amounts paid to Defendants, consequential damages, interest, lost profits and attorneys’ fees, as described herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against the Individual Defendants as requested in the Request for Relief set forth below in this Complaint, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(against all Defendants)

100. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other Paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

101. On or about August 17, 2013 Plaintiff placed on order on BFL’s website for nine
(9) standard “Monarch” Bitcoin mining cards, for which he paid $31,632.00.  

102. On March 21, 2014, BFL offered to either provide a refund or “upgrade” Plaintiff’s order by adding nine (9) “Imperial Monarch” Bitcoin mining cards if Plaintiff paid an additional $342.00; an offer which Plaintiff accepted.

103. On September 2014, having not received any refund or merchandise, Plaintiff requested a refund.

104. Despite repeated demand, Defendants have failed and refused, and still fail and refuse to pay Plaintiff a refund.

105. Defendant breached the contract by failing to timely deliver the machines.

106. To date, Plaintiff has received neither the machines he ordered nor any refund.

107. Implicit in the contract for purchase of the Bitcoin mining machines was that time
is of the essence, since Bitcoin mining machines rapidly become obsolete, as discussed herein.

108. Delivery of the machines at this time would therefore be of no benefit to Plaintiff.

109. Had the machines been timely delivered, or had Plaintiff’s money been timely returned, Plaintiff would have earned profits from Bitcoin mining, in an amount which can be calculated with reasonable certainty.

110. As a result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff suffered damage, including loss of the amounts paid to Defendants, consequential damages, interest, lost profits, and attorneys’ fees.

111. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a refund of the amounts he paid to Defendants as the purchase price for the Bitcoin mining machines, plus consequential damages, interest, lost profits, and attorneys’ fees.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the relief requested in the Request for Relief set forth below in this Complaint.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING
PRACTICES ACT (REV. STAT. MO. §§ 407.010, et seq.)
(against all Defendants)

112. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other Paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

113. This Count is brought to secure redress for the unlawful, deceptive and unfair trade practices perpetrated by Defendants.

114. Defendants have violated and continue to violate § 407.020 of the MMPA in connection with the sale and advertisement of their Products in sale or commerce as described herein.

115.    MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce . . . in or from the state of Missouri, is declared to be an unlawful practice . . . Any act, use or employment declared unlawful by this subsection violates this subsection whether committed before, during or after the sale advertisement or solicitation.

116. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act further provides for a civil action to
recover damages in MO. REV. STAT. § 407.025.1, as follows:  
Any person who purchases or leases merchandise primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by section 407.020, may bring a private civil action in either the circuit court of the county in which the seller or lessor resides or in which the transaction complained of took place, to recover actual damages. The court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages and may award to the prevailing party attorney’s fees, based on the amount of time reasonably expended, and may provide such equitable relief as it deems necessary or proper.

117. Any act, use or employment declared unlawful by § 407.020 of the MMPA violates

118. Section 407.010(4) of the MMPA defines “merchandise” as any objects, wares,

119. Defendant’s Products are merchandise under this provision of the MMPA.
that subsection, whether committed before, during or after the sale, advertisement or solicitation.
goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services.
Defendant has, therefore, sold merchandise in the State of Missouri as that term is defined in §
407.010(4).

120. Plaintiffs purchased Defendant’s Products.  

121. Such purchase of Defendant’s Products was primarily for personal, family, or

122. Defendants violated the MMPA by willfully failing to state a material fact or
household purposes.
willfully concealing, suppressing, or omitting material facts, in connection with the sale and advertisement of the Bitcoin mining machines Plaintiff purchased from them, including:

a.    the lack of sufficient capital to design, develop, and manufacture the advertised products;

b.    the inability to design, develop, and manufacture the advertised products unless and until a certain number of pre-orders were received;

c.      the advertised products were not in the final stage of development;

d.    the advertised products were not functional;

e.    no final working prototype existed;

f.    the lack of chips necessary to produce the advertised products;

g.    shipping would not occur as represented, anywhere close to as represented, or ever;

h.    shipping representations were not tied to the supply chain or engineering timeline;

i.    intent to design, develop, and manufacture miners for Defendants’ benefit;

j.    intent to delay or avoid shipment of miners;

k.    intent to delay or avoid providing refunds;

l.    intent to keep the customers’ prepayments and the products ordered;

m. each miner is used on the live Bitcoin network for Defendants’ benefit prior to shipping;

n.    even after sufficient testing had occurred, miners are used on the live Bitcoin network for Defendants’ benefit until replacement miners are manufactured;

o.    numerous miners were to be sent to Netsolus for self-mining instead of shipping to customers; and

p.    the general scheme as alleged herein.

123. Defendant’s concealment, suppression, misrepresentations and omissions as set
forth in this Complaint are material in that they relate to matters which are important to consumers or are likely to affect the purchasing decisions or conduct of consumers, including Plaintiff.

124. In violation of the MMPA, Defendants employed fraud, deception, false promise, misrepresentation, and the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts in their sale and advertisement of their products in the State of Missouri.

125. Defendants engaged in the concealment, suppression, misrepresentation and omission of the aforementioned material facts with the intent that others, such as Plaintiff, and the general public, would rely upon the concealment, suppression, misrepresentation and omission of such material facts and purchase their products.

126. As a result of his purchase as described herein, Plaintiff sustained ascertainable loss and damage in that, among other things, he paid the purchase price but never received the equipment, he was unable to mine Bitcoins using the equipment, could not make alternate arrangements to mine Bitcoins using those funds, and has incurred attorneys’ fees.  

127. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive or other equitable relief, pursuant to Missouri law, including MO. REV. STAT. § 407.025.

128. Furthermore, Defendant’s unlawful conduct set forth in this Complaint was and is outrageous because of Defendant’s evil motive or reckless indifference to and conscious disregard of the rights of others and for the rights of Plaintiff, and warrants an award of punitive damages to deter Defendant, and others in similar circumstances, from committing such actions in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the relief requested in the Request for Relief set forth below in this Complaint.

COUNT IV
CONVERSION
(against all Defendants)

129. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other Paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

130. Plaintiff paid money to Defendants for the purposes of purchasing Bitcoin mining equipment consonant with the representations made by Defendants.

131. Plaintiff has an ownership interest in such money until a condition is satisfied, i.e., until Defendants provides the Bitcoin mining equipment.

132. Plaintiff never authorized Defendants to keep and use his money without providing Bitcoin mining equipment or for any purpose other than to timely manufacture and ship the Bitcoin mining equipment to Plaintiffs.

133. Without authorization, Defendants assumed or exercised the right of ownership and possession over Plaintiff’s money by using such money for purposes other than timely manufacturing and shipping the Bitcoin mining equipment to Plaintiff.

134. During Defendants’ exercise of unauthorized ownership and possession over Plaintiff’s money, Plaintiffs were excluded from exercising their ownership and possession rights over the money.

135. Further, by paying for and purchasing Bitcoin mining equipment from Defendants, Plaintiffs had an ownership interest in such Bitcoin mining equipment.

136. After Plaintiff’s Bitcoin mining equipment was manufactured, but before shipping such Bitcoin mining equipment to Plaintiffs, Defendants used Plaintiff’s Bitcoin mining equipment to mine Bitcoins for Defendants’ own use, benefit, and enrichment.

137. Plaintiffs never authorized Defendant to keep and use their Bitcoin mining
equipment to mine Bitcoins for Defendants’ own use, benefit, and enrichment.

138. Without authorization, Defendants assumed or exercised the right of ownership and possession over Plaintiff’s Bitcoin mining equipment by keeping and using Plaintiff’s Bitcoin mining equipment to mine Bitcoins for Defendants’ own use, benefit, and enrichment before shipping such equipment to Plaintiffs.

139. During Defendants’ exercise of unauthorized ownership and possession over Plaintiff’s Bitcoin mining equipment, Plaintiffs were excluded from exercising their ownership and possession rights over the Bitcoin mining equipment.

140. On September 24, 2014, among other times, Plaintiff demanded BFL return the money he paid, but to no avail.

141. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conversion of Plaintiff’s money, Bitcoins, and Bitcoin mining equipment, Plaintiff was aggrieved and suffered an ascertainable loss, including, but not limited to: the purchase price and interest thereon, the loss of use of equipment ordered, the loss of Bitcoins which were mined by Defendants prior to shipping, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the relief requested in the Request for Relief set forth below in this Complaint.

COUNT V
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(against all Defendants)

142. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all other Paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

143. A benefit was conferred on Defendants in that Plaintiff paid money to Defendants.

144. A benefit was conferred on Defendants in that Defendants used Plaintiff’s mining
equipment to mine Bitcoins for themselves.

145. Defendants accepted and appreciated the money from Plaintiffs and had knowledge of such facts.

146. Defendants accepted and appreciated the use of Plaintiff’s mining equipment and the Bitcoins it mined for itself using Plaintiff’s mining equipment and had knowledge of such facts.

147. To date, Defendants have retained such benefits in that Defendants have retained and used Plaintiff’s money without paying for its value or increased value over time.

148. To date, Defendants have retained such benefits in that Defendants have retained the Bitcoins it mined for itself using Plaintiff’s mining equipment without paying for the use of Plaintiff’s mining equipment or the value or increased value of Bitcoins mined over time.

149. Under the circumstances, Defendants’ acceptance and retention of the money or Bitcoins, and use of Plaintiff’s mining equipment and retention of Bitcoins mined therefrom, without paying for its value, is inequitable because:

f.    Defendants’ retention of the money or Bitcoins over time has resulted in additional profits from mining that could have been earned by Plaintiff had Defendants timely shipped the mining equipment to Plaintiff.

150. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices, Plaintiff was aggrieved and has suffered an ascertainable loss, including, but not limited to: the purchase price and interest thereon, the loss of use of equipment ordered, the loss of Bitcoins which were mined by Defendants prior to shipping, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees.

151. The imposition of a constructive trust on the money and Bitcoins paid to Defendants and the Bitcoins mined by Defendants prior to shipping is warranted given Defendants’ unlawful conduct described above.

a.  Defendants have either not provided the mining equipment it promised to ship to Plaintiff in exchange for the money paid by Plaintiff or have used the equipment for Defendants’ own enrichment, to Plaintiff’s detriment, before providing the equipment;  

b.  even if Defendants immediately provided the mining equipment to Plaintiff, the equipment is now essentially worthless to Plaintiff;  

c.  the money and Bitcoins retained by Defendants have increased in value over time;  

d.  Plaintiff never gave Defendants permission to use his mining equipment to mine Bitcoins for itself or for anyone else;  

e.  Defendants have benefitted from the increase in value in money and Bitcoins over time and have used this money and Bitcoins to purchase houses and cars, to make loans, to exchange into dollars, to pay expenses, or to develop and manufacture mining equipment for its own use and benefit; and  

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the relief requested in the Request for Relief set forth below in this Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, having stated the foregoing allegations and claims, Plaintiff Marc Bevand prays that this Court:

A. Enter judgment against Defendants, for a fair and reasonable amount in excess of $75,000.00, and for interest, together with her attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages;

B. Award to Plaintiff all remedies available to him in law and equity, including but not limited to: awards of actual or compensatory damages, incidental or consequential damages, or restitution, in such amounts to be determined at trial, with
punitive damages, treble or other multiple or enhanced damages, or penalties where permitted by law, in amounts determined at trial, and declaratory relief as appropriate;

C. Award Plaintiff his costs of suit in the present suit, including any reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, to include expert witness fees, as provided by law;

D. Order that Defendants be enjoined from continuing the deceptive and unlawful
marketing and sales practices described herein, including a permanent injunction; and

E. Award to Plaintiff such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the case
may require, or as may be determined to be just, equitable, and proper by this Court.

DEMAND FOR JURY
Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
KEANE LAW LLC
 /s/ Alex Braitberg        
Ryan Keane, #62112MO
Alex Braitberg, #67045MO
9666 Olive Blvd., Ste. 690
St. Louis, MO 63132
Phone: (314) 240-5278
       ryan@keanelawllc.com
       alex@keanelawllc.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1965


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
April 28, 2017, 09:26:45 AM
 #3436

Doc 27

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

 WESTERN DIVISION

 

Marc Bevand, )

 Plaintiff, )

vs. )No. 16-1115-CV-FJG

 )

BF Labs, Inc., et al., )

 Defendants. )

 

 

SCHEDULING AND TRIAL ORDER

 1. TIMELINESS OF SUBMISSIONS. The parties and counsel are advised
that any filing or submission made after 5:00 p.m. will not be reviewed by the Court until
the next business day.

2. PROTECTIVE ORDERS

Counsel are advised that protective orders shall be issued upon motion of
counsel only. This motion shall be filed with the proposed protective order provided as
an attachment to the document. The proposed protective order shall also be emailed to
the courtroom deputy in Word format at rhonda.enss@mow.uscourts.gov.

In the event that the parties are unsuccessful in reaching an agreement on
a proposed protective order, the Court refers the parties to the Manual for Complex
Litigation, Fourth ' 40.27 for a sample protective order.

Issues subject to protective orders under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c)(5) must be
raised by written motion prior to the scheduling of the pertinent depositions citing the
Agood cause@ in specific detail.

3. INDICES

Counsel should note that the scheduling and trial order indices are provided
for their convenience only. All parties are directed to review the entire text of this
order. The schedules fixed herein will not be extended except for good cause shown
and upon further written order of the Court.


 I. SCHEDULING

INDEX

 

1. Close of discovery August 31, 2017

 

2. Motion to join additional parties May 31, 2017

 

3. Motion to amend pleadings May 31, 2017

 

4. Motion for summary judgment September 15, 2017

 

5. Other motions September 15, 2017

 

6. Supplement to discovery response Ten days before

pretrial teleconference

7. Plaintiff’s expert reports June 2, 2017

 Defendants’ reports July 3, 2017

Rebuttal reports July 24, 2017

Challenges/Daubert motions September 15, 2017

 

8. Status reports July 12, 2017

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Pursuant to Rules 16(b) and 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and upon consideration of the
parties' proposals in the matter, the following time schedule is established.

1. DISCOVERY

Fact Discovery shall close as of August 31, 2017. Close of discovery
means that all discovery, including depositions, shall be completed not simply
submitted on the date specified by this paragraph. Any last minute discovery
submitted too late for the opposing side to timely discover may be stricken.
Counsel should also note that the Court expects discovery to proceed in a timely
manner. The filing of a dispositive motion does not preclude the parties from
conducting discovery.

 a. The Court reserves the right to exercise control over the taking of
depositions in any case. The Court may either limit the total number of depositions or


place a time limitation on the taking of depositions in general. Any proposed
deposition lasting longer than seven hours requires prior approval by the Court.
Proposing counsel shall file a motion explaining the justification for such
deposition(s).

b. Any discovery motion must be filed before the close of
discovery, and in sufficient time for the Court to rule the motion. The Court will not
entertain any discovery motion absent full compliance with Local Rule 37.1. Any
discovery motion filed without complying with Local Rule 37.1 will be denied.

c. In the event that a teleconference is needed, please email your
request to my chambers at marylynn.shawver@mow.uscourts.gov. The request should
include a typed description of the discovery dispute, using a 12 pitch font and not
exceeding two pages in length. These teleconferences are intended to resolve one or
two issues that do not require authoritative briefing. Where multiple and complex issues
are involved, motion practice is appropriate. If you have questions regarding the
appropriateness of your dispute for a teleconference, please ask my judicial assistant.

2. MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES

 Any motion to join additional parties will be filed no later than May 31,
2017. Where a motion to join additional parties is granted, plaintiff will telephone the
Court's judicial assistant at (816)512-5630 to discuss a deadline for filing any proposed
amendments to the scheduling and trial order.

3. MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS

 Any motion to amend pleadings shall be filed no later than May 31, 2017.

4. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed no later than September 15,
2017. Further, no motion for summary judgment will be entertained absent strict
compliance with the following provisions:

a. Any motion for summary judgment shall fully comply with the


provisions set forth in Local Rule 7.0; and

b. No deviations from Local Rule 7.0 will be allowed absent leave of
Court obtained PRIOR to filing non-conforming documents. Unless prior Court approval
is granted, motions for leave to deviate from Local Rule 7.0 that are filed
contemporaneously with a non-conforming filing shall be denied.

5. OTHER MOTIONS

All other motions, except those which, under Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), Fed. R.
Civ. P., may be made at any time, and except for motions in limine and discovery motions,
shall be filed (with supporting suggestions) no later than September 15, 2017. Absent
full compliance with Rule 7.0, these motions will be denied.

6. SUPPLEMENT TO DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Any supplement to discovery responses under Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
will be filed no later than ten days before the scheduled pretrial teleconference. This
obligation extends to expert affidavits.

7. EXPERT TESTIMONY.

 a. A party shall disclose to other parties the identity of any person who
may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705, Fed. R. Evid.

 1. Standard discovery deadlines include submission of expert
reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., for all witnesses retained or specially
employed to provide expert testimony or whose duties as the party’s employee regularly
involve giving expert testimony. Expert report will be filed no later than June 2, 2017,
responding reports no later than July 3, 2017, and rebuttal no later than July 24, 2017.
These deadlines also apply to the disclosures of witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed.
R. Civ. P., for whom no reports are required.

 2. Any Daubert motion or other challenge to a proposed expert
under Rules 26(a)(2)(B) or 26(a)(2)(C) must be filed no later than September 15, 2017.
Objections not raised by this deadline may not be raised for the first time at trial.


 3. No expert depositions or other expert discovery shall be
taken without a Court order. The party requesting further discovery shall file a motion
specifying what additional discovery is needed, and stating in detail why additional
discovery is necessary. This motion shall be filed no later than five days before the close
of discovery. This request for additional discovery will not be automatically granted.

 b. One of the purposes of the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert report is to set
forth the substance of a direct examination. If properly done, the expert report should
eliminate the need for deposing some experts. Consequently, detailed statements in the
report are essential.

 c. A party's expert witness will be permitted to testify at trial only in
conformity with that witness's report unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

 d. Any expert report or disclosure to be submitted under this section
shall be filed with this Court on ECF by the deadlines provided in 7(a)(1).

 e. If a witness is not required to provide a written report under Rule
26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., the party naming that witness must prepare a disclosure
indicating (1) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence
under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and (2) a summary of the facts and
opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P.
These disclosures are due on the same dates as set forth in 7(a)(1). Daubert motions or
other challenges to Rule 26(a)(2)(C) witnesses are due on the same dates as set forth in
7(a)(2).

8. STATUS REPORTS

The parties shall file a joint status report outlining the progress of this case
and advising the Court of any potential problems related to discovery or any other
matters. These reports shall be due on or before July 12, 2017.

 


II. TRIAL

 Trial will be set by future order of this Court.

 

 

/s/Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.

United States District Judge

Dated: March 21, 2017

 


BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1965


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
April 28, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
 #3437

Doc 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION


MARC BEVAND, )


v.
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:16-cv-1115-FJG
BF LABS INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)

DESIGNATION OF MEDIATOR CERTIFICATE

The parties jointly designate Michael S. Dodig from the Court’s List of Outside

Mediators to conduct the MAP mediation in this case. The mediation will be held on May 2,

2017 at 10:00 am at 200 NE Missouri Road, Suite 200, Lee's Summit, MO 64086.

DATED: April 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ryan Keane
RYAN A. KEANE MO #62112
ALEXANDER L. BRAITBERG MO #67045

KEANE LAW LLC

9666 Olive Blvd., #690
St. Louis, MO 63132
(314) 240-5278
(314) 244-3778 (FAX)

ryan@keanelawllc.com
alex@keanelawllc.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Mark A. Olthoff
MARK A. OLTHOFF MO #38572
MICHAEL S. FOSTER MO #61205

POLSINELLI PC

900 W 49th Place
Suite 900

Case 4:16-cv-01115-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 2


Kansas City, Missouri 64112-1895
(816) 753-1000
(816) 753-1536 (FAX)

molthoff@polsinelli.com
mfoster@polsinelli.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS BF LABS
INC., SONNY VLEISIDES, JEFFREY OWNBY,
JOSHUA ZERLAN, AND DARLA DRAKE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed via the Court’s Electronic Filing
System this 13th day of April, 2017, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of
record.

/s/ Ryan Keane

2

Case 4:16-cv-01115-FJG Document 28 Filed 04/13/17 Page 2 of 2


QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1375


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
April 28, 2017, 09:38:29 PM
 #3438

Because this case exists, would you assume they actually didn't steal as much money from people as was first believed?

If you have a class action RICO case against you that can grow to an enormous number of claims as more people join and you don't leave the country, doesn't that mean you're broke. You would need to either be broke or retarded to stay in the USA and face all these cases with a million dollars in reserve. The way Bitcoin is climbing you only need 750 btc locked away to have $1,000,000. And if they are broke you can sue them to death and you ain't gonna get blood from a turnip.

Why are they not sitting in Panama having drinks with Erik Voorhees? I don't get it.

Gleb Gamow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1119



View Profile
April 30, 2017, 02:51:24 AM
 #3439

Because this case exists, would you assume they actually didn't steal as much money from people as was first believed?

If you have a class action RICO case against you that can grow to an enormous number of claims as more people join and you don't leave the country, doesn't that mean you're broke. You would need to either be broke or retarded to stay in the USA and face all these cases with a million dollars in reserve. The way Bitcoin is climbing you only need 750 btc locked away to have $1,000,000. And if they are broke you can sue them to death and you ain't gonna get blood from a turnip.

Why are they not sitting in Panama having drinks with Erik Voorhees? I don't get it.

Sonny Vleisides would be if he wasn't still on probation. Rest assured that Sonny has bitcoins and or cash stored away, ready to be touched once his name his cleared with the courts. The bitcoins processed by BitPay stemming from the bitcoin wallet address - 1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs - prior to the FTC briefly taking over the remaining bitcoins DID NOT go to a BFL bank account, but to several in Sonny or his close cohort's name, for Sonny is well versed in structuring bank accounts.

TBC, if you, I, the King of Siam, or Robert Mercer wanted to exchange a dollars worth of bitcoin to fiat via BitPay, we all would be denied, yet Sonny successfully exchanged over ten million dollars of bitcoin to fiat, and I have all the proof, whereupon a myriad crypto-based periodicals published countless articles on said affairs. Oh, wait! My bad! No rags wanted to touch the subject. I got this info mixed up with articles penned about a homeless man finding a laptop loaded with bitcoins or of a multi-million-dollar home in California sold via bitcoin or of some other mundane articles perhaps based on fiction as fodder for them rags.
Gleb Gamow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1119



View Profile
April 30, 2017, 02:56:16 AM
 #3440

Looks like their website and eclipsemc have finally shuttered.

I wonder what those cunts have been up to lately. Have any been able to find gainful employment ? Finding ways of living off the spoils of their hidden Bitcoin stashes ?

Josh Zerlan still works at iFly according to his LinkedIn account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-zerlan-a4140478/

Why don't you just call him and ask how the gangs doing or I can do it if you're worried about doing it. Just don't be rude, obnoxious or threatening. Say something that will scare him like, "Hi Inaba, it's me Cocksucker, or am I Motherfucker, I get confused you've called me both. I was just wondering what you and the BFL gang are up to now that the case is closed. I hope you're enjoying my btc. We miss you on Bitcointalk."  Then just hang up.

That should drive him nuts. He'll run around iFLY calling all the children "Cocksucker". LOL

iFLY Kansas City
10975 Metcalf Avenue
Overland Park,Kansas
(913) 305-4359

I will do that :-)

Sounds good. Remember, if you reach him, don't say anything illegal. I'm sure everyone here would like to tell him how they will roast his balls on their backyard BBQ but you can't do that. Don't be threatening at all and don't call him more than once. Don't be a stalker. Trust me, just having his former life and legal troubles bleed over into his current life will be enough to put a bug up his ass. ROFL

Yep, for the ONLY person convicted in regards to the BFL fiasco is the dude penning this post, not to mention the bogus 1099 BFL was kind enough to send me for bogus subcontract work I never performed.
Pages: « 1 ... 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 [172] 173 174 175 176 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!