Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[augustocroppo]

Cool - I can play that game too.

(...)

I rest my case.

Rest well, because all you did was not to provide any evidence which indicates that IRC logs are accepted as direct evidence to determine that a contract was signed, even less that any court of law have relied on IRC logs to determine the legitimacy of a contract.

All quotes you posted does not substantiate MPOE-PR claims.

In fact it has been long established legal practice (where "long" means > 100 years) in both civil and common law that any exchange which shows agreement between businessmen of the sort they would normally employ in the usual course of their trade is sufficient and binding as a contract. These aren't retail investors dealing here.

You are clever only to do claims. As I had already admitted, you fail to understand the meaning of evidence. Since you only have a IRC log, that does not count as contract, but as evidence for a mutual agreement. Without a physical or digital signature from both parties, there is not a method to determine if both parties have changed the contract after the initial agreement. That means you or Patrick cannot prove which party is providing the legitimate contract.

Do you like old books? I suggest you read this before you send another 500 Bitcoins to an Internet user:

Handbook of the law of contracts (Open Library)

http://www.archive.org/stream/lawrencecontracts00clar#page/n3/mode/2up

[1714223800]

1714223800

[SgtSpike]

Cool - I can play that game too.

(...)

I rest my case.

Rest well, because all you did was not to provide any evidence which indicates that IRC logs are accepted as direct evidence to determine that a contract was signed, even less that any court of law have relied on IRC logs to determine the legitimacy of a contract.

All quotes you posted does not substantiate MPOE-PR claims.

In fact it has been long established legal practice (where "long" means > 100 years) in both civil and common law that any exchange which shows agreement between businessmen of the sort they would normally employ in the usual course of their trade is sufficient and binding as a contract. These aren't retail investors dealing here.

You are clever only to do claims. As I had already admitted, you fail to understand the meaning of evidence. Since you only have a IRC log, that does not count as contract, but as evidence for a mutual agreement. Without a physical or digital signature from both parties, there is not a method to determine if both parties have changed the contract after the initial agreement. That means you or Patrick cannot prove which party is providing the legitimate contract.

Do you like old books? I suggest you read this before you send another 500 Bitcoins to an Internet user:

Handbook of the law of contracts (Open Library)

http://www.archive.org/stream/lawrencecontracts00clar#page/n3/mode/2up

The only point I was setting out to prove is that any agreement, with or without signature, can be upheld as a contract in a court of law.  That includes handshake agreements, verbal agreements, and written agreements (and yes, IRC logs as well, since they are "written").  Proving identities might be tricky, but as long as that is done, any written agreement (which this certainly qualifies as one) can be upheld as a contract.

[Dalkore]

In fact it has been long established legal practice (where "long" means > 100 years) in both civil and common law that any exchange which shows agreement between businessmen of the sort they would normally employ in the usual course of their trade is sufficient and binding as a contract. These aren't retail investors dealing here.

You are clever only to do claims. As I had already admitted, you fail to understand the meaning of evidence. Since you only have a IRC log, that does not count as contract, but as evidence for a mutual agreement. Without a physical or digital signature from both parties, there is not a method to determine if both parties have changed the contract after the initial agreement. That means you or Patrick cannot prove which party is providing the legitimate contract.

Do you like old books? I suggest you read this before you send another 500 Bitcoins to an Internet user:

Handbook of the law of contracts (Open Library)

http://www.archive.org/stream/lawrencecontracts00clar#page/n3/mode/2up

I actually have an old book on contract law, and yes, I love old books, being that I own quite a few.  You would be surprised what you can get for under $10 on Amazon if you know what your looking for.  

In regards to this, we need to understand that we have no regulations other than this forum and people's personal knowledge of different events.  Kinda like a social credit rating.  I read the response above from the OP, thank you for your reply.   I understand what you are saying and if you feel that strongly about the issue then I can see why you think the "Scammer" tag is appropriate.   I did not know his debt was that large (BTC20K ~ can someone verify this?).   I have been doing some reading on here and at least from what I have seen, there is no doubt he is in "Default" and the mods should have this tag available in conjunction with "Scammer".  

I still don't think the bar has been met to apply the latter.   It just doesn't seem that much of a no-brainer....at this point.   If it was a slam dunk, I mean he has truly disappeared or didn't immediately starting paying back debts, I would agree with you.

Outstanding Question in my mind:  I would like to hear more about Patrick's deposit guarantee, what stipulations it had and what "his" explanation why he got so leveraged that he didn't keep up with his deposit guarantee.   I will say this, why I was looking at all the offers out there, that guarantee was the most attractive offer available at that point, he did seem to have his s**t together, I knew there was risk though, because I knew he was speculating & lending and I figured some of the people were not the best of character.   What I also figured is that he knew what he was doing and he was the least risky of the bunch, but if you had to ask me what his rating was that would make it the highest at that point... rating:  BBB-

[AndrewBUD]

Seems like you should put this effort in to working something out with Patrick vs. crying about it in the forums....

I don't understand the logic of "let's negotiate with the scammer". What's the value proposition, does it go something like

He only keeps part of what he stole from me in exchange for being able to steal from a lot more people in the future. Win-win!!11

What sense does that make?!

I think it's because it's black and white for some people, while white and black for others, which makes for a heated, lengthy thread topic.  Nothing special about Patrick - the situation he is in is just special.

No, I fully agree with Zeeks. There's a little sewing circle, Nitwits United or something like that. The benefits of social media.

For the record, he hasn't been operating for "so long". He has just been slimy, that specific sort of "bro"-ness that has the respective nitwits all enamored. Pirate did the exact same thing. In fact, pretty much all the people that fucked "the community" in the ass with a piece of raw pine did exactly the same thing. Buddy-buddy pays for scammers.

Well no.. But something is better than nothing. no?

[JoelKatz]

For the record, he hasn't been operating for "so long". He has just been slimy, that specific sort of "bro"-ness that has the respective nitwits all enamored. Pirate did the exact same thing. In fact, pretty much all the people that fucked "the community" in the ass with a piece of raw pine did exactly the same thing. Buddy-buddy pays for scammers.

And the people who paid them to do it bear no responsibility whatsoever, right? The people who loaned Patrick money made precisely the same mistake Patrick did. (Assuming Patrick is telling the truth about his default problems, which is plausible but not confirmed.)

[SgtSpike]

For the record, he hasn't been operating for "so long". He has just been slimy, that specific sort of "bro"-ness that has the respective nitwits all enamored. Pirate did the exact same thing. In fact, pretty much all the people that fucked "the community" in the ass with a piece of raw pine did exactly the same thing. Buddy-buddy pays for scammers.

And the people who paid them to do it bear no responsibility whatsoever, right? The people who loaned Patrick money made precisely the same mistake Patrick did. (Assuming Patrick is telling the truth about his default problems, which is plausible but not confirmed.)

No.  The people who loaned Patrick money made the mistake of trusting Patrick.  And Patrick made the mistake of trusting whoever it was claimed to be a PTT.

The people who loaned Patrick money did NOT have a choice of where it was invested.  Because Patrick chose how to invest it, and because he offered a risk-free contract (i.e., a set payback amount and period, not a payback based on whether his investments panned out or not), Patrick is liable to his investors for the FULL amount that he promised he would pay.

Patrick could have said "if the investments I am investing this money in default, then you will not be repaid", but he made no such specification in his contract.  All he did was promise a certain payback over a certain period of time.  And that's exactly what he should be held liable to.

[JoelKatz]

No.  The people who loaned Patrick money made the mistake of trusting Patrick.

And Patrick made the mistake of trusting the people he loaned money to. Same mistake.

And Patrick made the mistake of trusting whoever it was claimed to be a PTT.

Right.

The people who loaned Patrick money did NOT have a choice of where it was invested.

That's not true. They could have imposed any restrictions they wanted to on how the funds were invested. And they chose to invest with Patrick.

Because Patrick chose how to invest it, and because he offered a risk-free contract (i.e., a set payback amount and period, not a payback based on whether his investments panned out or not), Patrick is liable to his investors for the FULL amount that he promised he would pay.

He didn't offer a risk-free contract. He stated that he believed he had sufficient diversity in his loans to cover a Pirate default.

Patrick could have said "if the investments I am investing this money in default, then you will not be repaid", but he made no such specification in his contract.  All he did was promise a certain payback over a certain period of time.  And that's exactly what he should be held liable to.

Right, but in this case that was after both parties agreed that he had sufficient diversity to cover a Pirate default. If two people agree on X and then agree "therefore Y", if X turns out to be false, they didn't actually agree on Y. Read the transcript:

Aug 10 08:06:54 <mircea_popescu>   hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21 <patrickharnett>   I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39 <patrickharnett>   that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58 <mircea_popescu>   you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00 <patrickharnett>   back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57 <patrickharnett>   back
Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41 <patrickharnett>   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56 <mircea_popescu>   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you
Aug 10 08:11:02 <mircea_popescu>   do you mind id'ing with gribble ?

Both parties agreed that Patrick's loan portfolio was significantly free from correlated risk. Patrick concluded, based on that agreed fact, that he would have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. However, Patrick's loan portfolio was not significantly free from correlated risk, and thus he didn't have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. The parties never discussed what would happen if the portfolio had significant correlated risk -- it was something neither party considered.

For example:

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I'll paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A is responsible.

B: I measured your house, it's 1,200 square feet. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, B is responsible.

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I know, I measured it. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
-
Common mistake. If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A and B are jointly responsible.

This is like the last case. Both parties, with sufficient information to realize otherwise, concluded that the loan portfolio was free from correlated risk. Patrick's agreement was based on that shared mistaken conclusion.

[SgtSpike]

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I know, I measured it. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
-
Common mistake. If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A and B are jointly responsible.

This is like the last case. Both parties, with sufficient information to realize otherwise, concluded that the loan portfolio was free from correlated risk. Patrick's agreement was based on that shared mistaken conclusion.

Using your example...

Patrick is assuring the person paying for the paint job that the house is 1,200 square feet after measuring it himself.  The house turns out to not be 1,200 square feet.  It is PATRICK'S fault that the house is not 1,200 square feet, because HE was the one in the position to ensure the house was 1,200 square feet.

It is NOT a common mistake, because those investing in Patrick had no choice of who to invest in, nor did they have any way to verify that they were not PPT's.  Patrick was the ONLY one in that position, and he gave people false information.  Sure, he didn't know it was false information at the time, but it is on him that the information ended up being wrong.

To revise your example:
A: I have no idea how big my neighbor's house is, but I want you to paint it.
B: I measured it, and it is 1,200 square feet.  I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
B: Whoops - turns out you owe me $5,000, because I asked the home owner how big it was, and they said it was only 1,200 square feet.  Turns out it's actually 2,400.
A: No.  Just, no.

[cunicula]

To revise your example:
A: I have no idea how big my neighbor's house is, but I want you to paint it.
B: I measured it, and it is 1,200 square feet.  I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
B: Whoops - turns out you owe me $5,000, because I asked the home owner how big it was, and they said it was only 1,200 square feet.  Turns out it's actually 2,400.
A: No.  Just, no.

+1

[MPOE-PR]

Cool - I can play that game too.

(...)

I rest my case.

Rest well, because all you did was not to provide any evidence which indicates that IRC logs are accepted as direct evidence to determine that a contract was signed, even less that any court of law have relied on IRC logs to determine the legitimacy of a contract.

All quotes you posted does not substantiate MPOE-PR claims.

In fact it has been long established legal practice (where "long" means > 100 years) in both civil and common law that any exchange which shows agreement between businessmen of the sort they would normally employ in the usual course of their trade is sufficient and binding as a contract. These aren't retail investors dealing here.

You are clever only to do claims. As I had already admitted, you fail to understand the meaning of evidence. Since you only have a IRC log, that does not count as contract, but as evidence for a mutual agreement. Without a physical or digital signature from both parties, there is not a method to determine if both parties have changed the contract after the initial agreement. That means you or Patrick cannot prove which party is providing the legitimate contract.

Do you like old books? I suggest you read this before you send another 500 Bitcoins to an Internet user:

Handbook of the law of contracts (Open Library)

http://www.archive.org/stream/lawrencecontracts00clar#page/n3/mode/2up

That's pretty retarded throughout, but the bolded part is particularly funny. Even WITH a signed contract there's no way to determine that. The latter contract would have to be brought up by the interested party. Which, you know, the interested party is welcome to do at any time, instead of sending in the likes of you and Katz to make these outrageously funny arguments you make.

Well no.. But something is better than nothing. no?

No, it is not.

No.  The people who loaned Patrick money made the mistake of trusting Patrick.

And Patrick made the mistake of trusting the people he loaned money to. Same mistake.

And Patrick made the mistake of trusting whoever it was claimed to be a PTT.

Right.

The people who loaned Patrick money did NOT have a choice of where it was invested.

That's not true. They could have imposed any restrictions they wanted to on how the funds were invested. And they chose to invest with Patrick.

Because Patrick chose how to invest it, and because he offered a risk-free contract (i.e., a set payback amount and period, not a payback based on whether his investments panned out or not), Patrick is liable to his investors for the FULL amount that he promised he would pay.

He didn't offer a risk-free contract. He stated that he believed he had sufficient diversity in his loans to cover a Pirate default.

Patrick could have said "if the investments I am investing this money in default, then you will not be repaid", but he made no such specification in his contract.  All he did was promise a certain payback over a certain period of time.  And that's exactly what he should be held liable to.

Right, but in this case that was after both parties agreed that he had sufficient diversity to cover a Pirate default. If two people agree on X and then agree "therefore Y", if X turns out to be false, they didn't actually agree on Y. Read the transcript:

Aug 10 08:06:54 <mircea_popescu>   hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21 <patrickharnett>   I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39 <patrickharnett>   that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58 <mircea_popescu>   you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00 <patrickharnett>   back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57 <patrickharnett>   back
Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41 <patrickharnett>   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56 <mircea_popescu>   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you
Aug 10 08:11:02 <mircea_popescu>   do you mind id'ing with gribble ?

Both parties agreed that Patrick's loan portfolio was significantly free from correlated risk. Patrick concluded, based on that agreed fact, that he would have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. However, Patrick's loan portfolio was not significantly free from correlated risk, and thus he didn't have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. The parties never discussed what would happen if the portfolio had significant correlated risk -- it was something neither party considered.

For example:

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I'll paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A is responsible.

B: I measured your house, it's 1,200 square feet. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, B is responsible.

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I know, I measured it. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
-
Common mistake. If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A and B are jointly responsible.

Let's try and put this insanity to rest.

I. If A trusts B and B trusts C, these are not nor could they ever be "the same". They are different. They are of the same kind, they may have the same name or belong in the same category, they may be similar. They are not the same. In order for them to be the same in this context they would have to be identical, which is to say the same exact thing. Not two different cherries that are both cherries and thus "the same", but the same exact cherry.

II. The common mistake is a doctrine in common law that allows setting aside contracts that have no basis in fact. If for instance Mircea Popescu and PatrickHarnett both heard about this virtual cryptocurrency called Bitcoin (by reading on Something Awful, let's say) and then entered the original contract, except later it was discovered that there exists no such thing as "Bitcoin", it all being a joke pulled by SA, then indeed the contract would be void, by reason of common mistake.

However, even in this case, the voiding of the contract would not release PatrickHarnett from the obligation to repay all sums he might have received under the presumed contract. So, if indeed Bitcoin did not exist, and Patrick Harnett recieved $5,000 to invest in Bitcoin loans, PatrickHarnett would be held to repay the $5,000. It is true that the contract was void, it is true that this was because of a common mistake, it is not true that one gets to walk with the other's money.

III. The common mistake is always narrowly construed. The case of Bell vs Lever Brothers Ltd. is particularly informative. The relevant quote is

A mutual mistake as to some fact which, by the common intention of the parties to a contract, whether expressed or implied, constitutes the underlying assumption without which the parties would not have made the contract they did, and which, therefore, affects the substance of the whole consideration, is sufficient to render the contract void.

In this case a company hired some people on generous terms. It was later shown those people engaged in fraudulent activities. The company sought to quash the contract, on the grounds that had it known about those activities it would not have entered into the contracts. This was denied by the Lords, on the grounds that the cited mistake wasn't sufficient to nullify or negate the consent of the parties. This is still case law to this day, upheld in Appeals as recently as 2002.

So, if two people contract to convey a certain piece of machinery, which the seller certifies as "free of defects" and then the buyer finds a defect this is not enough to void the contract. The buyer may have access to equitable relief, but since the piece of machinery was actually conveyed the contract is, principally, satisfied (barring specification in the contract to the contrary).

If two people contract to convey a certain piece of art, which both the seller and the buyer mistakenly identify as Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper in spite of the circumstance that the only recognizable shape on the canvas is a truck apparently carrying a couple of oversized cherries, and they later discover that in fact they were mistaken and that piece of art is not Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper this is not enough to void the contract: the certain piece of art was in fact conveyed.

If however two people contract to convey interest in land for the purpose of building a public land pool where the general public may be admitted to swim in earth for a fee, and they later discover that their assumption that one could swim through the earth like they would through water is mistaken, then the contract could be voided for common mistake.

IV. The understanding entered was that the lender will lend, that the borrower will repay with interest, and in a specified contingency (pirate default) the borrower will make good with his own money ("I have more than enough assets to cover that"). There's no room for common mistake here. There is plenty of room for misrepresentation of fact, as in, one party represented they had assets they did not have, represented they were using assets in a manner substantially different from the way assets were actually used and other such fraudulent representations. All this falls squarely under fraud in contracts, and has nothing to do with "mistakes" (which, obviously, is a term of art).

This is all plain obvious, ofcourse, and it is completely unassailable by rational means, of course. Nevertheless, I have not the faintest hope that the forum entertainers (and by this I mean at the very least JoelKatz) might leave their nuttery aside and come to sense - for the very simple reason that once an idiot has made any personal investment whatever into some particular idiocy, that idiot will expend all available effort and all available capital in pursuit no matter how doomed of the illusory hope that his idiocy, his darling idiocy, might be somehow enacted as sensible. This is, after all, how people ended up buying pirate "debt" after the unraveling of that scam.

This is like the last case. Both parties, with sufficient information to realize otherwise, concluded that the loan portfolio was free from correlated risk. Patrick's agreement was based on that shared mistaken conclusion.

You've stated this numerous times, it was rebuffed as FALSE numerous times. Again: Patrick's portofolio was never discussed nor considered. Instead of repeating the same FALSE claim numerous times, be so kind as to actually substantiate it.

[JoelKatz]

You've stated this numerous times, it was rebuffed as FALSE numerous times. Again: Patrick's portofolio was never discussed nor considered. Instead of repeating the same FALSE claim numerous times, be so kind as to actually substantiate it.

The only information needed to know that Patrick had significant Pirate exposure was the basic methodology of his business (bitcoin loans at high interest rates) and the existence of Pirate. You can search the posts to this forum and you'll see many people arguing, from just that information, that he had to have significant Pirate exposure. The transcript, and common sense, shows that those who loaned to Patrick knew that he was loaning the money back out. Obviously, the interest rate couldn't have been lower. And everyone knew that Pirate exists.

Without their mutual erroneous belief that Patrick's business model was sound, the contract would never have occurred. Of course, I agree this doesn't mean Patrick gets to keep all the money. Some equitable solution to share the harm would have to be found.

I think everyone can agree that Patrick should pay at least 40% over three years. That's *ridiculously* generous to him. That's why I've said that if he isn't committed to, and on track towards, paying at least that, he definitely deserves a scammer tag.

Patrick is assuring the person paying for the paint job that the house is 1,200 square feet after measuring it himself.  The house turns out to not be 1,200 square feet.  It is PATRICK'S fault that the house is not 1,200 square feet, because HE was the one in the position to ensure the house was 1,200 square feet.

This is faulting Patrick for not doing the impossible. Please learn something from the Pirate fiasco -- there is no way to provide high returns at low risk. Patrick's belief was obviously wrong and was shared by those who loaned him money. They both made precisely the same mistake.

There will always be Patricks, Hashkings, and Pirates. We'll never stop that. If nobody holds the people who paid them to screw the community over accountable, this will never end.

[augustocroppo]

That's pretty retarded throughout, but the bolded part is particularly funny. Even WITH a signed contract there's no way to determine that. The latter contract would have to be brought up by the interested party. Which, you know, the interested party is welcome to do at any time, instead of sending in the likes of you and Katz to make these outrageously funny arguments you make.

Now you are pretending that a signed contract cannot determine if the mutual agreement was changed or not. In case you do not know, contracts are signed to avoid any party to append additional obligations that were not part of the mutual agreement. If you were wise enough to read the book I recommended to you, instead to spell out your arrogance, you would find this:

A written offer containing all the terms of the contract, signed by the proposer, and accepted by the other party by performance on his part, is enough to enable the latter to sue under the statute of frauds. And where there is no such necessity for writing, it is optional with the parties to express their agreement by word of mouth, by action, or by writing, or partly by one and partly by another of these processes. It is always possible, therefore, that a simple contract may have to be sought for in the words and acts, as well as in the writing, of the contracting parties. But in so far as they have reduced their meaning to writing they cannot adduce evidence in contradiction or alteration of it. They put on paper what is to bind them, and so make the written document conclusive evidence against them.

[JoelKatz]

Now you are pretending that a signed contract cannot determine if the mutual agreement was changed or not. In case you do not know, contracts are signed to avoid any party to append additional obligations that were not part of the mutual agreement. If you were wise enough to read the book I recommended to you, instead to spell out your arrogance, you would find this:

A written offer containing all the terms of the contract, signed by the proposer, and accepted by the other party by performance on his part, is enough to enable the latter to sue under the statute of frauds. And where there is no such necessity for writing, it is optional with the parties to express their agreement by word of mouth, by action, or by writing, or partly by one and partly by another of these processes. It is always possible, therefore, that a simple contract may have to be sought for in the words and acts, as well as in the writing, of the contracting parties. But in so far as they have reduced their meaning to writing they cannot adduce evidence in contradiction or alteration of it. They put on paper what is to bind them, and so make the written document conclusive evidence against them.

This is called the parol evidence rule. It is important to remember three things:

1) The parol evidence rule only applies to things that occurred *before* the contract was reduced to writing. The logic is that if the parties intended their previous agreements or terms to be part of the final agreement, they would have included them in that final agreement. This can't apply to subsequent acts. (Though if the contract specifically states how the contract may be modified, this is usually enforceable.)

2) The parol evidence rule does not apply to evidence of fraud, mistake, or other ways to invalidate the contract. These are not forms of extrinsic evidence seeking to modify terms of the contract, and so are not restricted by this rule.

3) The parol evidence rule only applies if the written agreement appears to have been intended by the parties to encompass their complete agreement. This is why many contracts specifically state that they are the entire agreement.

[MPOE-PR]

The only information needed to know that Patrick had significant Pirate exposure was the basic methodology of his business (bitcoin loans at high interest rates) and the existence of Pirate. You can search the posts to this forum and you'll see many people arguing, from just that information, that he had to have significant Pirate exposure. The transcript, and common sense, shows that those who loaned to Patrick knew that he was loaning the money back out. Obviously, the interest rate couldn't have been lower. And everyone knew that Pirate exists.

What "everyone knows" is irrelevant to this discussion.

Without their mutual erroneous belief that Patrick's business model was sound, the contract would never have occurred.

The contract does not involve Patrick's "business model".

Of course, I agree this doesn't mean Patrick gets to keep all the money.

Nobody asked you.

For the record, the sought compensation is detailed below:

500 BTC capital
+ 1% per week until the date of full repayment. Currently this is 14 weeks (since August the 10th), or 74.7371065 BTC
+ .01 BTC per word of my posts in this thread. Currently this is 3935 words = 39.35 BTC
+ Treble damages (punitive).

Total sought (if discharged today): 1842.2613195 BTC.

There will always be Patricks, Hashkings, and Pirates. We'll never stop that. If nobody holds the people who paid them to screw the community over accountable, this will never end.

Review the bolded part below:

Yeah yeah, right. Stop trying to present yourself as some sort of thought leader of a process you have - to the best I can determine - absolutely nothing to do with.

Augustocroppo: you're so far out in left field I'm not even going to respond to you directly (other than to state for the record that you're an idiot).

Please stop for a moment and consider this: just the fact that you can sort-of read the letters in a book or on this screen does not, by itself, guarantee you understand what they mean. You, personally, do not. This is a failure on your part, due jointly to a defect of your brain (you, unlike other people, lack that important quality called intelligence, being stupid, ie, your brain does not quite work well, much like an old beat up Honda Civic for instance does not run smoothly) and a fault of your parents, who either didn't bother or could not afford to educate you properly. You are simply a deficient human being, unfit for human intercourse over a certain level of complexity. What is going on here, and around Bitcoin in general, and around the Internet in many cases is far, far past the level of complexity your inferior intellect and your lacking education can efficiently handle.

A better use of your time would be to find a floor to wash somewhere. At least that way the net result of your effort would be a clean floor rather than nothing at all.

[augustocroppo]

Augustocroppo: you're so far out in left field I'm not even going to respond to you directly (other than to state for the record that you're an idiot).

Please stop for a moment and consider this: just the fact that you can sort-of read the letters in a book or on this screen does not, by itself, guarantee you understand what they mean. You, personally, do not. This is a failure on your part, due jointly to a defect of your brain (you, unlike other people, lack that important quality called intelligence, being stupid, ie, your brain does not quite work well, much like an old beat up Honda Civic for instance does not run smoothly) and a fault of your parents, who either didn't bother or could not afford to educate you properly. You are simply a deficient human being, unfit for human intercourse over a certain level of complexity. What is going on here, and around Bitcoin in general, and around the Internet in many cases is far, far past the level of complexity your inferior intellect and your lacking education can efficiently handle.

A better use of your time would be to find a floor to wash somewhere. At least that way the net result of your effort would be a clean floor rather than nothing at all.

The two last paragraphs only shows how very desperate you are. In the first paragraph you said that you would "not even going to respond to" me "directly". But then you proceed to respond to me directly with an ad personem argument in a last effort to instigate humiliation. You completely failed. I known who I am, where I come from and what I understand.

Whatever you write about my character, this will not change the fact that you did not require a signed contract to secure your end of the deal.

The contract does not involve Patrick's "business model".

If Patrick's business model did not have any relevance to the mutual agreement, why did you choose to invest in Patrick's business model?

For the record, the sought compensation is detailed below:

500 BTC capital
+ 1% per week until the date of full repayment. Currently this is 14 weeks (since August the 10th), or 74.7371065 BTC
+ .01 BTC per word of my posts in this thread. Currently this is 3935 words = 39.35 BTC
+ Treble damages (punitive).

Total sought (if discharged today): 1842.2613195 BTC.

You do not have a contract which specifies such obligations. You will have to settle an agreement with Patrick before you pretend he will accept your terms.

[JoelKatz]

Without their mutual erroneous belief that Patrick's business model was sound, the contract would never have occurred.

The contract does not involve Patrick's "business model".

I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are delusional. You posted a log that *very* clearly shows the complete opposite of this.

Aug 10 08:06:54 <mircea_popescu>   hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21 <patrickharnett>   I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39 <patrickharnett>   that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58 <mircea_popescu>   you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00 <patrickharnett>   back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57 <patrickharnett>   back
Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41 <patrickharnett>   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56 <mircea_popescu>   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you

In fact, you argued yourself that the contract was based on Patrick's business model:

That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened.

The difference between our positions comes from the fact that you hold Patrick 100% responsible for this mistake while I hold both parties roughly equally responsible for it.

500 BTC capital
+ 1% per week until the date of full repayment. Currently this is 14 weeks (since August the 10th), or 74.7371065 BTC
+ .01 BTC per word of my posts in this thread. Currently this is 3935 words = 39.35 BTC
+ Treble damages (punitive).

Total sought (if discharged today): 1842.2613195 BTC.

You really are delusional.

[AndrewBUD]

Yeah that's a whole lot of crazy if you ask me...

[MPOE-PR]

Yeah that's a whole lot of crazy if you ask me...

You really expect someone breaching a contract to get away with paying less than what they owed by contract? In what alternate universe is this ever the case?

[augustocroppo]

I guess that are more than one person behind the user MPOE-PR, hence the recent contradictory statements.

A quick investigation reveals different Internet users utilizing the same avatar picture:

http://www.thewickednoodle.com/luscious-lemon-curd/

aiche
7 months ago
Nice looking pics. What’s the yield on the foolproof method? Enough for a nice big pie, wouldya say?
aiche recently posted..Losing Sight

http://www.biznology.com/2010/01/internet_hucksters_of_the_info/

Comment by aiche:
Sunday, January 31st 2010 at 3:01 pm |
Solid point on snake oil having a different sheen online than off; why it’s so easy to scrutinize a person or product face to face yet so difficult to do so on the internet is probably one of its greatest, if least recognized, areas available for exploitation.

In the two next links, Mircea Popescu appears along with an user using MPOE-PR's avatar picture:

http://www.pahomi.ro/cacanarii-din-social-media.html

PLETZALCOATL says:
Feb 9, 2011
ROFL@Cartel. Ce s-a intamplat, v-a murit la intrare puilor? Iar v-a violat Popescul care este?

http://pavelarcana.com/2011/04/11/imi-furi-caciula-singur/

PLETZALCOATL
In ultimele 24h vad o pagina + inca pe a doua, cat e aia 40-50 de linkuri introduse?

The above user participates in the comments of Mircea Popescu's personal blog:

http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/the-storm-that-was-fel/#comment-90309

pleztalcoatl
Marti, 6 Noiembrie 2012
It would inspire more confidence if the reward was at least 13.37 BTC

The bet did get all the way to 11ish BTC…

Crossing all the references of the above users it is possible to trace back his presence in this blog:

http://thewhet.net/about/

About

My name is Hannah.

At the moment I live in Romania, which is why, from time to time, posts in (what we’ll indulgently call) Romanian will show up. Native speakers are invited to edit and/or slander my attempts at intelligible prose.

The language structure of the next post it is quite similar to MPOE-PR's recent posts in this forum:

http://thewhet.net/2012/the-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/

Why? Because pedagogy, at least in my experience –which is limited to three albeit second and third-tier universities, and a great deal more independent study–, is suffering an intolerable and frankly disgusting state. Because the oppressed aren’t limited to what we in the first-world countries imagine is the third-world, but in fact is making quite a meal of the world at large, at least in terms of education. The proof, if you want it, is anywhere you’d care to look; it’s in the general public having little to no clue about such basic things as the order of the planets in our solar system or how to make change without a calculator, it’s in the recurring dramas of altered standardized test scores and the failure of entire swaths of adolescents to pass exams. More importantly, it’s in the fact that apologies are made in lieu of actual teaching.

I am inclined to assume that MPOE-PR is a minion acting in behalf of Mircea Popescu.

[AndrewBUD]

Yeah that's a whole lot of crazy if you ask me...

You really expect someone breaching a contract to get away with paying less than what they owed by contract? In what alternate universe is this ever the case?

No of course not.... BUT I would expect him to pay what he really owes not some made up amount counting words in a forum thread....