GLBSE Payment Claims (Announce your payment here)

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Welcome to bitcoin.

Sent to address I control = mine. Period.

Need chargebacks, pay with creditcards.

If an agreement for my holding someone elses coin is in place, or I am to provide some value for an investment, etc - and failed to come through, sure I should be ostracized by the community.

But to say that keeping coins that magically appeared one night on my address with absolutely no agreement in place regarding the transaction, are not mine, is laughable.

Ohh, come on people. There is nothing to discuss here about returning the funds or not.

If people were appealing to others to return on strong morals and good character, I would agree there would be nothing to discuss.

Unfortunately, people are making loaded statements and claiming that failure to return is "criminal" "scamming" "theft" etc

I have made the case that it is not.

While taking action to return the funds would be laudable. Taking no action at all should not be considered criminal, scamming, or theft

You haven't brought any argument so far other that if someone hands you more cash than intended, you consider it perfectly okay to just keep it and not do anything about it because there was no prior agreement that you would return said fund backs. No contract to show, no way to force a chargeback, you keep it. Perfectly knowing there's too much and the funds are needed to pay others still awaiting there payment.

If people were appealing to others to return on strong morals and good character, I would agree there would be nothing to discuss.

Well that's exactly what people here seems to be asking for. To return it on good faith because you know someone's else account needs those funds to be paid out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, for anyone reading this who has gotten a double payment, the return address is 1BgPRMk4uaJrohM1T9Cn4Hd9pHaEL6FH5j

It would be better to return the coins without me having to chase you for them.

About a month ago, the cashier at a restaurant I used to frequent regularly gave me $5 USD too much in change. I immediately bought the mistake to her attention, returning the fin because I like the establishment. Three days later, a cashier at KFC returned to me change which included an extra $10 USD. I nonchalantly pocketed the sawbuck and left the premises. Fuck them nefarious bastards who kill chickens, use some kind of secret herb and spices, have me pre-order, then make me wait in line for my meal.

I have no fear of some KFC guy chasing me down to have me return ten bucks. In fact, if it were a hundred dollar mistake, I still wouldn't have a concern. And they're a global entity. I've even returned to the same franchise--twice--taunting them to ask me to return the money, but they have yet to take the bait. I'm willing to bet that they know, that I know, that they know something's afoot, but can put a chicken finger on it.

Bottomline, Nefario, kindly ask for the overpayments to be returned, thanking all those who comply. The funds you don't get returned, eat it, continuing to refund those waiting, otherwise the chaser may become the chasee.

~Bruno K~

So depending on if you like the establishment, you'll keep extra change handed? The establishment can take it no problem, but that's really dishonest, especially for the employee who has nothing to do with the quality of the establishment. He just happen to work there and a non-balancing cash register will get him troubles. Especially when your argument is that you do that to them because they make "kill chicken & make you wait in line". It's a fast food. What did you expect? I don't see much value in your statement. You go somewhere on your own free will in a fast food and then avenge yourself for not liking the place because it's managed like you'd expect a fast food to be? Unless the employees were real jerks but you forgot to mention it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A thief asking to return his stolen money is like asking for "fucking respect".

If you deserve it, you will get it.

That's the thing, you can believe as much as you want that he's incompetent and be angry all you want about GLBSE's closure, in the end, he hasn't stolen those funds. He's trying to distribute them and accidentally rerun the script for the 90% payment. Those funds are needed to pay those who haven't been paid yet. Keeping the funds to do yourself your own justice for GLBSE closing down and making you wait? It's the funds of other depositors you'd be keeping. It's not harming Nefario at all, I don't think his reputation could sink lower around here. Only thing keeping the funds can achieve is depriving other depositors from getting their balance paid out.

I don't have a drumstick to stand on in reference to the the non-bold text (first half), but as far as the bolded text is concerned, I think you missed the joke when I penned:

Fuck them nefarious bastards who kill chickens, use some kind of secret herb and spices, have me pre-order, then make me wait in line for my meal.

If said event happened at Burger King, the word monarch may have migrated into that sentence. Hopefully, the bolded text now liberates the humor.

The point in relaying the now unfortunate-for-me story was to drive the following home in a very kind way to Dr. Nefario/James:

Bottomline, Nefario, kindly ask for the overpayments to be returned, thanking all those who comply. The funds you don't get returned, eat it, continuing to refund those waiting, otherwise the chaser may become the chasee.

~Bruno K~

[1714135457]

1714135457

[1714135457]

1714135457

[1714135457]

1714135457

[1714135457]

1714135457

[1714135457]

1714135457

[1714135457]

1714135457

[SebastianJu]

I think the double payment should be paid back. In real world its probably true that, if you send someone money through wire and you accidentally changed a number that you dont get your money back but its a different thing for businesses. For example the cases where a bank send one of their customers some million euro and he has to pay it back of course because its not his.

The double payment mostly isnt worth the amount of assets one owned but you can be sure that nef wont run the assetinfo until this money is back. So you can try and blackmail nef with not giving back this money... but why should he care about? Its not his money and he showed that he wants to pay back most of it. So blackmailing him will only lead to the point where he can point with the finger at you guys and say "Look... these are the bad guys" and nothing will move. You know its true. He hasnt shown any responsibility for the damage he caused and feels he is doing everything right. Wants the last months ceo payment and so on even though his shareholders probably suffered higher loss than this because of his actions. I mean would you stop a business this way that afterwards everyone is angry at you? I mean when i would do it i would expect that it will cost me something. And when its only to not leave them all angry.

You try to blackmail him... with money that is not nefarios but belongs to other normal users. He wont care. Why should he? And why should he follow the blackmailing?

You guys deliver him a perfect excuse to not going further.

Perfect business trick.
Now he sent double payments & ordered to return the bitcoins

Or this ^ (deleted some of your lines) is the business trick because nef can be sure that at least some dont pay back. So he could create a perfect excuse why he cant process the sharesinfo.

[organofcorti]

Double payment coins returned
b7cf57ee4e9a37e3dc3e229323edadcd31969cb92d1d1a72c717d6280b2199bc

[Akka]

Returned mine as well:

85d3a4cccf14e6b0677bd1e56ade3285c161e71ed03abe90efb4e92282514faf

Nefario, please don't make me regret it.

[Deprived]

The issue of returning extra coins sent in error isn't as black and white as either side seems to think.

The general principle (in the UK) is that if you know they aren't yours then you have to return them.  Where the problem arises here is that, so far, nefario hasn't released the information necessary for people to establish how many coins they were actually supposed to be sent.  Once he's provided .csv files of transaction histories then people can verify how much they should have received and return the extra.  Right now he hasn't even given a good explanation of why GLBSE had to close down in a rush - let alone given the information necessary for people to verify what funds they were due.

His primary (original) reason for shutting down was AML.  An entirely credible reasons - but undermined by his subsequent behaviour.  He initially insisted that his legal advice was that he had to obtain ID info for everyone - then retreated very quickly from that position without any explanation.  Was his original legal advice wrong?  Was he just making up that legal advice?  Who knows.

It is absolutely 100% certain that he misled or lied to his fellow shareholders in their irc discussion in respect of his legal advice.  There is NO WAY that a single solicitor could represent both GLBSE (collectively) and nefario (individually) when (as was made perfectly plain in the irc log) his personal objectives were definitely not fully aligned with those of all his fellow shareholders/officers (the officers is the key part).  There's also NO WAY a solicitor could give advice to the company as a whole whilst telling nefario he couldn't tell his fellow officers about it - if the information was only relevant to nefario then his PERSONAL solicitor should be dealing with it.  It's also standard practice in the UK that when advised by a solicitor on a significant business issue, you are then sent a written summary of their advice.  This should have been provided to (at least) the other officers, if not to all shareholders (there's a difference between passive shareholders and actual officers who participate in running the business).

I can understand nefario maybe not understanding what a conflict of interest is.  But I'd be shocked if a solicitor didn't - they tend to try desperately to avoid such conflicts as it leaves them open to liability and complaints of malpractice.  I've had a solicitor refuse to advise me on an issue that arose whilst I was working under instructions from them (and a barrister I was working with on the same matter also refused to give advice) even though the actual solution to the issue that had arisen (which was arrived at after taking independent legal advice) was fairly simple and not detrimental to any of us.  I can only surmise that nefario either consulted on an individual basis and/or played down the involvement of theymos etc such that the solicitor concluded they had no part in actually running GLBSE.

In short, nefario has been less than honest and open so far - both to users of GLBSE and to his own business partners.  There's, thus, no reason anyone should be willing to take his unsupported word on what they're owed.  And how much should be sent back anyway?  Has he even ever stated whether the whole 2nd payment was an error - or was it meant to be sending the last 10%?

Note: I received all (I believe - though can't confirm obviously) my tiny amount of funds back in the first batch of payments.  I haven't received any 2nd payment so have nothing personally to decide whether to return, how much to return or who to return it to.  If I HAD received an overpayment then I'd be putting the 2nd payment in cold storage then waiting until I had the information necessary to determine precisely what I WAS owed AND had either received back control of my assets OR received a good explanation of why they weren't being returned before sending any funds anywhere.

If he's spewing funds around at random then there's no guarantee returning them to him would get them to whoever their rightful owner is anyway.  He could have just disabled trading/transfers and left the site up so we could withdraw and verify our holdings now that he no longer required ID information.  And if there's specific accounts that he can't do that on (e.g. if he has been given specific instructions in respect of asset issuers) then the withdrawal functionality could have been removed from them.

[dishwara]

I don't think Nefario sent double payment by mistake.
He deliberately sent double payment to cause problems.

He got scammer tag for not giving back bitcoins.
& now those who gave scammer tag, must give scammer tags to those who don't payback also.

[theymos]

How many persons will be given scammer tag in this forum for not paying back the double payment?

If you know that you received extra money, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and return it (maybe minus a few percent).

However, in this case:
- You can't return it to the rightful owners directly.
- Nefario is obviously very incompetent and untrustworthy, so it would be reasonable to think that returning the money to him would not get the money to the rightful owners.
- Nefario is holding hostage your assets and the BTC of most users, so I think you would be morally justified in refusing to return the money until those things are released.

So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info.

[capn noe]

How many persons will be given scammer tag in this forum for not paying back the double payment?

If you know that you received extra money, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and return it (maybe minus a few percent).

However, in this case:
- You can't return it to the rightful owners directly.
- Nefario is obviously very incompetent and untrustworthy, so it would be reasonable to think that returning the money to him would not get the money to the rightful owners.
- Nefario is holding hostage your assets and the BTC of most users, so I think you would be morally justified in refusing to return the money until those things are released.

So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info.

wow

[Phinnaeus Gage]

No, because Nefario can go to the police now esp if he has AML docs on these people.

No, he can't. Because his collecting AML docs as an unregistered finanical institution was illegal as well in most jurisdictions.

This post bothers me. (don't want to derail or post OT, so will keep what I want to relay in the content of N, but applies to others who...)

I've seen the mega thread about AML as it relates to Mt Gox, reading most of the posts, albeit not retraining a lot of the info, but feel I got the gist, but not until now realized a possible deeper motive by those who request AML docs under the guise that they're entitled/obligated to request said documents.

A couple questions come to mind:

• Is what Nefario did legal? (collecting AML docs as a UFI)
• What are said docs worth on the BM?
• How could this private information in the wrong hands affect the future of those who supplied said docs?
• What other entities in the Bitcoin world collected said docs under illegal pretense, and are no longer around (include those still active)?

Again, I hope my post here doesn't derail this thread. If the subject matter is important, somebody please start another thread to address these very important concerns.

Thanks.

~Bruno K~

[Mushoz]

Still haven't received a mail nor any coins. Anything I can do at this moment? Or should I just wait, like I've been doing for an eternity for my Bitcoinica funds? =/

[jasinlee]

No, because Nefario can go to the police now esp if he has AML docs on these people.

No, he can't. Because his collecting AML docs as an unregistered finanical institution was illegal as well in most jurisdictions.

This post bothers me. (don't want to derail or post OT, so will keep what I want to relay in the content of N, but applies to others who...)

I've seen the mega thread about AML as it relates to Mt Gox, reading most of the posts, albeit not retraining a lot of the info, but feel I got the gist, but not until now realized a possible deeper motive by those who request AML docs under the guise that they're entitled/obligated to request said documents.

A couple questions come to mind:

• Is what Nefario did legal? (collecting AML docs as a UFI)

• What are said docs worth on the BM?

[/b]

• How could this private information in the wrong hands affect the future of those who supplied said docs?

[/b]

• What other entities in the Bitcoin world collected said docs under illegal pretense, and are no longer around (include those still active)?

Again, I hope my post here doesn't derail this thread. If the subject matter is important, somebody please start another thread to address these very important concerns.

Thanks.

~Bruno K~

Those docs are worth anywhere from $50 to $500 or more depending on credit, and they will use them to falsify credit card applications and possibly get the person whos ID they stole arrested if it is not seen as ID theft.

[deeplink]

A thief asking to return his stolen money is like asking for "fucking respect".

If you deserve it, you will get it.

That's the thing, you can believe as much as you want that he's incompetent and be angry all you want about GLBSE's closure, in the end, he hasn't stolen those funds. He's trying to distribute them and accidentally rerun the script for the 90% payment. Those funds are needed to pay those who haven't been paid yet. Keeping the funds to do yourself your own justice for GLBSE closing down and making you wait? It's the funds of other depositors you'd be keeping. It's not harming Nefario at all, I don't think his reputation could sink lower around here. Only thing keeping the funds can achieve is depriving other depositors from getting their balance paid out.

You can point to other people and say they are the reason why you have no responsibility for your failures. But that is not how I tick. I have hundreds of customers myself and if I make a mistake I always fix it. Even if it costs me money. Customers are never responsible for my mistakes. And I expect the same from everybody else. It is about taking responsibility. Morality will come second. I am sure most people are still honest here and if they feel you deserve it, they will return what is not rightfully theirs. But only after the people responsible for this mess have cleaned it up as good as they can.

[SebastianJu]

How many persons will be given scammer tag in this forum for not paying back the double payment?

If you know that you received extra money, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and return it (maybe minus a few percent).

However, in this case:
- You can't return it to the rightful owners directly.
- Nefario is obviously very incompetent and untrustworthy, so it would be reasonable to think that returning the money to him would not get the money to the rightful owners.
- Nefario is holding hostage your assets and the BTC of most users, so I think you would be morally justified in refusing to return the money until those things are released.

So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info.

Its ok not to trust nefario but what you are saying will actually lead to the point were nefario wont give out any more payment nor the assetinfo. And you know that he wont give it out. So just in case nefario made this double payment on purpose to not have to give out the assetinfo you quite perfectly play his game.
And till now nefario showed that he wants to pay back. As far as i read there are paid back not small amounts already. Even though only getting 90% of the btc back... the assetinfo is worth more for the assetowners. Its worth nothing to nefario.

[deeplink]

How many persons will be given scammer tag in this forum for not paying back the double payment?

If you know that you received extra money, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and return it (maybe minus a few percent).

However, in this case:
- You can't return it to the rightful owners directly.
- Nefario is obviously very incompetent and untrustworthy, so it would be reasonable to think that returning the money to him would not get the money to the rightful owners.
- Nefario is holding hostage your assets and the BTC of most users, so I think you would be morally justified in refusing to return the money until those things are released.

So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info.

Its ok not to trust nefario but what you are saying will actually lead to the point were nefario wont give out any more payment nor the assetinfo. And you know that he wont give it out. So just in case nefario made this double payment on purpose to not have to give out the assetinfo you quite perfectly play his game.
And till now nefario showed that he wants to pay back. As far as i read there are paid back not small amounts already. Even though only getting 90% of the btc back... the assetinfo is worth more for the assetowners. Its worth nothing to nefario.

This is all speculation. Likely, but speculation. You will never get everyone to return their double payments, so Nefario will always have a reason to point to that and say it is not his fault he is stalling. Instead it could be more productive if customers made a united stand and responded that this mess has to be fixed first. Customers are not responsible for this fuck-up. Also see the post above your post.

[theymos]

Its ok not to trust nefario but what you are saying will actually lead to the point were nefario wont give out any more payment nor the assetinfo. And you know that he wont give it out. So just in case nefario made this double payment on purpose to not have to give out the assetinfo you quite perfectly play his game.
And till now nefario showed that he wants to pay back. As far as i read there are paid back not small amounts already. Even though only getting 90% of the btc back... the assetinfo is worth more for the assetowners. Its worth nothing to nefario.

This overpayment doesn't give Nefario a good excuse to keep asset info for most users. Maybe he could keep it for those people who were over-paid, but not for everyone.

[Namworld]

Fuck them nefarious bastards who kill chickens, use some kind of secret herb and spices, have me pre-order, then make me wait in line for my meal.

~Bruno K~

Eh, yeah, completly missed it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How many persons will be given scammer tag in this forum for not paying back the double payment?

If you know that you received extra money, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and return it (maybe minus a few percent).

However, in this case:
- You can't return it to the rightful owners directly.
- Nefario is obviously very incompetent and untrustworthy, so it would be reasonable to think that returning the money to him would not get the money to the rightful owners.
- Nefario is holding hostage your assets and the BTC of most users, so I think you would be morally justified in refusing to return the money until those things are released.

So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info.

In short, nefario has been less than honest and open so far - both to users of GLBSE and to his own business partners.  There's, thus, no reason anyone should be willing to take his unsupported word on what they're owed.  And how much should be sent back anyway?  Has he even ever stated whether the whole 2nd payment was an error - or was it meant to be sending the last 10%?

Note: I received all (I believe - though can't confirm obviously) my tiny amount of funds back in the first batch of payments.  I haven't received any 2nd payment so have nothing personally to decide whether to return, how much to return or who to return it to.  If I HAD received an overpayment then I'd be putting the 2nd payment in cold storage then waiting until I had the information necessary to determine precisely what I WAS owed AND had either received back control of my assets OR received a good explanation of why they weren't being returned before sending any funds anywhere.

If he's spewing funds around at random then there's no guarantee returning them to him would get them to whoever their rightful owner is anyway.  He could have just disabled trading/transfers and left the site up so we could withdraw and verify our holdings now that he no longer required ID information.  And if there's specific accounts that he can't do that on (e.g. if he has been given specific instructions in respect of asset issuers) then the withdrawal functionality could have been removed from them.

A thief asking to return his stolen money is like asking for "fucking respect".

If you deserve it, you will get it.

That's the thing, you can believe as much as you want that he's incompetent and be angry all you want about GLBSE's closure, in the end, he hasn't stolen those funds. He's trying to distribute them and accidentally rerun the script for the 90% payment. Those funds are needed to pay those who haven't been paid yet. Keeping the funds to do yourself your own justice for GLBSE closing down and making you wait? It's the funds of other depositors you'd be keeping. It's not harming Nefario at all, I don't think his reputation could sink lower around here. Only thing keeping the funds can achieve is depriving other depositors from getting their balance paid out.

You can point to other people and say they are the reason why you have no responsibility for your failures. But that is not how I tick. I have hundreds of customers myself and if I make a mistake I always fix it. Even if it costs me money. Customers are never responsible for my mistakes. And I expect the same from everybody else. It is about taking responsibility. Morality will come second. I am sure most people are still honest here and if they feel you deserve it, they will return what is not rightfully theirs. But only after the people responsible for this mess have cleaned it up as good as they can.

Deprived, theymos, deeplink, I understand those points, but Nefario has already lost his reputation and I see no reason he would accept any such blackmailing since it's not his funds. Although as I said, Deprived, I perfectly agree that request to return funds should be communicated properly and people can and should request an official request from Nefario, along with an account statement showing your final balance and assets.

The issue in holding those funds for not trusting Nefario (even if there's no doubt good reasons to not do so) is that it belongs to other issuers. Holding the funds as escrow to force Nefario to release any data makes you appoints yourself as arbitrator and fund holder. This forces whoever those funds belong to to trust those refusing to send the fund back with their money over trusting Nefario, something they never consented to.

If I understand correctly deeplink, you want them to pay for unreturned funds from their own pocket  and release info before sending them the BTC which would end up reimbursing what they paid from their own pocket? You're free to do that if you want. It does seem like their funds are tight, but as many already/are planning to return funds, I'm sure they can come up with a few 1000s USD for the remaining. Albeit I don't agree with people appointing themselves as escrow in the name of others, especially since they can't give or deny consent for this.

[stochastic]

...You guys deliver him a perfect excuse to not going further.

Has anyone not thought that most of those payment addresses that received the "double payment" is Nefario's own addresses?

I have had a teller give me some extra money before.  The reason why I give it back is because the till count will be off and that teller would have to makeup the extra money the teller gave out.

I don't see how this is not the same for Nefario.  He can go forward.  If he does not have any bitcoins left, he can start to release the assets without any problem to asset issuers and claim codes to users.  He can also be contacting all those he sent double payment and ask to receive the funds back, for those that don't he can make up the difference with his money, just like they do in the real world.

[Namworld]

A few choice quotes from the shareholder meeting. It's a long read but please go read it for other shareholders' point of view about it. This mostly highlight what Nefario claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

[05/10/2012 16:59:18] <shareholder2> da2ce796: we don't even know if there is an investigation or order
...
[05/10/2012 16:59:59] <nefario> shareholder2: I can't tell you if there is an order if there IS one
...
[05/10/2012 18:05:04] <nefario> shareholder2: we COULD go against what my lawyer says
[05/10/2012 18:05:07] <nefario> the result would be
[05/10/2012 18:05:10] <shareholder4> suppose, just for a moment, that we vite no
[05/10/2012 18:05:11] <nefario> GLBSE gets shut down
[05/10/2012 18:05:16] <nefario> and I get imprisoned
...
[05/10/2012 18:15:09] <shareholder1> the simple point is some people are gonna lose bitcoins because they cant AML
...
[05/10/2012 18:16:05] <shareholder1> but who gets it ?
[05/10/2012 18:16:05] <nefario> I don't know
[05/10/2012 18:16:06] <chrisrico> you keep it?
[05/10/2012 18:16:09] <nefario> HAHA
[05/10/2012 18:16:10] <nefario> me
[05/10/2012 18:16:11] <nefario> lol
...
[05/10/2012 18:16:34] <nefario> I'll ask the lawyer what we do with the funds that are not claimed
...
[05/10/2012 18:32:35] <nefario> I propose a motion to have theymos return the user BTC which has in his posstion for the purpose of allowing me to repay users
[05/10/2012 18:32:42] <nefario> to me
[05/10/2012 18:32:43] <nefario> or
[05/10/2012 18:32:44] <nefario> coldhardmetal
...
[05/10/2012 18:41:05] <chrisrico> because in THIS case, THEYMOS has the money that NEFARIO wants
[05/10/2012 18:41:06] <shareholder1> So theres literally nothing we can do
[05/10/2012 18:41:27] <shareholder3_> guys, lets do this together, fighting internally does not help
[05/10/2012 18:41:31] <nefario> chrisrico: that is users money, not GLBSE's
[05/10/2012 18:41:40] <shareholder3_> lets finish the motion and move forward
[05/10/2012 18:41:44] <nefario> I don't want it, I'm happy for coldhardmetal to hold it
[05/10/2012 18:42:13] <nefario> we're waiting for cold to toll up the votes so far
[05/10/2012 18:42:15] <chrisrico> theymos can hold it
[05/10/2012 18:42:17] <shareholder1> I trust chm to do the right thing with it
[05/10/2012 18:42:42] <ColdHardMetal> 57.85% for. My vote doesn't matter. Motion carries
[05/10/2012 18:42:51] <shareholder2> that's funny
[05/10/2012 18:43:09] <shareholder2> nefario who wouldn't observe the result of a motion concerning him forces theymos to do so
...
[05/10/2012 18:44:36] <chrisrico> nefario: given that we are paying for this lawyer, please give us his contact information
[05/10/2012 18:44:38] <shareholder4> chrisrico: yes but just fot the lulz
[05/10/2012 18:44:42] <shareholder3_> not about the legal stuff, but the shutdown process i mean
[05/10/2012 18:44:51] <chrisrico> *his or her
[05/10/2012 18:44:55] <shareholder1> yes what is the lawyers contact info
[05/10/2012 18:45:02] <shareholder3_> so, when and how will glbse communicate with users?
[05/10/2012 18:45:15] <ColdHardMetal> asap.
[05/10/2012 18:45:15] <nefario> buckworthsolicitors.co.uk
...
[05/10/2012 18:49:34] <shareholder2> then i want full transparency since it's our lawyer
[05/10/2012 18:49:53] <shareholder2> anything else is dishonest, nefario
[05/10/2012 18:49:57] <nefario> shareholder2: then you'll have to give your AML info to me and take the same risk I am for GLBSE
...
[05/10/2012 18:53:48] <nefario> these are the basic facts the announcement needs to convey: 1) GLBSE is closing, 2) All BTC will be returned to users, 3) Users need to AML, 4) Issuers who are not already verifified will need to do AML, 5) Issuers who have been AML'd will be given all support to move off GLBSE, 6) Users AML'd will be given all support to move their assets off GLBSE
...
[05/10/2012 18:56:08] <nefario> shareholder4: I've talked about this with the lawyer, because there is no way to prove that one person hasn't oppened dozens of accounts with smaller amounts we have to do aml for everyone
...
[05/10/2012 18:43:12] <shareholder2> oh well
[05/10/2012 18:43:17] <chrisrico> what happened with the vote to remove nefario as CEO?
[05/10/2012 18:43:24] <chrisrico> out of curiousity
[05/10/2012 18:43:24] <shareholder1> didnt pass
[05/10/2012 18:43:24] <ColdHardMetal> didn;t pass
[05/10/2012 18:43:31] <nefario> shareholder2: I've not violated the results of any motions

[conspirosphere.tk]

So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info.

Its ok not to trust nefario but what you are saying will actually lead to the point were nefario wont give out any more payment nor the assetinfo.

I vote to put all the double payments in a legal fund to send Nefario to the jail where he belongs. Moreover I will donate all my GLBSE assets  to the first convict who rapes him.

[Namworld]

And under what cause could you possibly get him sent to prison? He's still processing payments and hasn't ran away with anyone's money, at least for now. He's also closing GLBSE, which is not a crime in itself. People don't go in prison for merely pissing people off.