Should Giga be tagged as a scammer?

[Deprived]

They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding.

This is patently untrue. You can verify it very easily: go kill someone, call up your lawyer, tell them you've killed the someone and see if he stands up in court and says "Your Honor...he has told me he killed X".

ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand  to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told.

Who the hell told you this? If things actually worked that way we'd have a simple test now wouldn't we.

Nice selective quoting you tried there missing the entire point being made which was your lawyer cannot be compelled to incriminate you even if you have confessed to them but they cannot knowingly allow you to commit perjury. I don't know where your at but where I am lawyers are not permitted to lie to the court or knowingly allow lies to be told to the court.

It's not quite that simple.  If lawyers in a criminal case couldn't allow their clients to lie then they'd be unable to represent anyone who wanted to plead Not Guilty but had admitted to committing the offence.

In fact, when it comes to the Defendant themselves, the lawyer MUST let them lie under oath if they insist on doing so: however the lawyer can't assist in supporting statements they know to be untrue (so they'd ask for the evidence in narrative form, not ask questions about it, and avoid reference to it in their closing arguments).  You see there's two competing factors - on the one hand lawyers aren't supposed to elicit false testimony, on the other hand ALL defendants (even ones who tell their lawyer that they intend to lie) are entitled to effective counsel.

If a defendant tells their lawyer (in a criminal case) that they intend to lie then in general what will happen is this (assuming the lawyer is playing by the rules).  The lawyer will advise them against it, explain that it's agianst the law, explain the consequences (potential further charges/longer sentence) if it's subsequently established that they lied.  If the Defendant still insists that they want to lie then the lawyer MAY try to withdraw from the case (and is obliged to do so if they haven't yet agreed to represent the Defendant) but depending on them timing that may not be an option.  The lawyer MAY ask the Defendant to sign a statement they've chosen to act against their counsel's advice after being advised otherwise.  Then the lawayer would let the Defendant give their false testimony - but be careful not to act themselves so as to give the lies extra credibility.

It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie).  And they can never prevent a Defendant from lieing or tell open court that the Defendant is lieing - they can either withdraw from the case (not practical once the trial has started, usually) or avoid supporting the lies.  If you're ever on a jury and the Defendant's lawyer asks him to give evidence in narrative form (i..e "tell the jury what happened" rather than asking specific questions) then it's a fair bet that the Defendant has told the lawyer he is going to lie - and the lawyer is avoiding asking the usual specific questions so as to avoid any risk of being guilty of eliciting false testimony.  That will be confirmed for you when, in his summing up, the Defendant's lawyer doesn't mention things stated by the Defendant which you'd think would be important (the lawyer can't argue them in a closing statement if he knows them to be false).

You may then think - well how can the lawyer make a closing argument at all if he knows the defendant did it?  The answer to that is simple - the closing argument is about whether there's sufficient evidence to support a conviction, not actually about whether the Defendant committed the offence or not (the two things are inter-twined but are actually different).  The lawyer can still argue that the Defendant should be acquitted (which they may believe) - they just can't state that the Defendant is innocent (which they know to be untrue).

None of which has anything to do with a civil matter. Except - a lawyer does NOT investigate whether what his client tells him is true or not.  That's not his responsibility - even if he believes it is likely to be untrue.  He is only prevented from allowing his client to say something if he comes into knowledge grounded in material facts that it is a lie - and lawyers can generally avoid that by avoiding questions/topics which could lead them to knowing (in a meaningful sense) that their client was lieing.  Lawyers are NOT unbiased - they aren't meant to be.

If a lawyer says something on behalf of a client that does NOT mean the lawyer necessarily believes it to be true.  At best it means they don't know with certainty that it's a lie.  So long as their client claims it's true (and the lawyer hasn't accidentally stumbled over totally convincing evidence that it's a lie) their belief of whether it's true or not is totally irrelevant.  It's not their role to determine truth, it's their job to assist ONE side in the dispute.

If lawyer's really did (or were legally compelled to) only tell the truth/allow the truth to be told then you wouldn't need one each in a dispute (or a judge/jury) - you'd just both send your information to one lawyer and he'd tell the truth about who was right.  At root that argument fails because the truth isn't necessarily easy to determine - and it's absolutely NOT a lawyer's job to do so.

[Coinoisseur]

http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/19/the-ethics-of-letting-a-lying-defendant-testify/

At least in English common law countries you are directed to not facilitate knowingly deceiving the court. Of course there will be lawyers who don't follow the directives also ones that are very careful to keep themselves as much in the dark as possible regarding the veracity of certain clients/witnesses/statements.

"It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie)." - This is not grey, this will get a lawyer in serious trouble if it can be proven they facilitated deception of the court.

As for a client testifying dishonestly and in a way known to their counsel, they have to let them take the stand but they'd need to not get involved in their questioning. Given how this would appear to the court the usual result is either the client doesn't testify, the defense counsel withdraws, or an unscrupulous counsel throws ethics out the window and participates in the dishonesty.


- In regards to this aspect of the thread, it is unethical to ask people to certify statements you know to be false. The lawyer involved may be carefully keeping themselves enough in the dark to still use such documents though. Conversations a long the lines of "Well, if your agreement is A-B-C that would be bad for you but if your agreement was actually X-Y-Z that would put you in the clear. Oh and btw, I'll need certified documents describing the actual agreement you have with these people."

[Deprived]

http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/19/the-ethics-of-letting-a-lying-defendant-testify/

At least in English common law countries you are directed to not facilitate knowingly deceiving the court. Of course there will be lawyers who don't follow the directives also ones that are very careful to keep themselves as much in the dark as possible regarding the veracity of certain clients/witnesses/statements.

"It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie)." - This is not grey, this will get a lawyer in serious trouble if it can be proven they facilitated deception of the court.

As for a client testifying dishonestly and in a way known to their counsel, they have to let them take the stand but they'd need to not get involved in their questioning. Given how this would appear to the court the usual result is either the client doesn't testify, the defense counsel withdraws, or an unscrupulous counsel throws ethics out the window and participates in the dishonesty.


- In regards to this aspect of the thread, it is unethical to ask people to certify statements you know to be false. The lawyer involved may be carefully keeping themselves enough in the dark to still use such documents though. Conversations a long the lines of "Well, if your agreement is A-B-C that would be bad for you but if your agreement was actually X-Y-Z that would put you in the clear. Oh and btw, I'll need certified documents describing the actual agreement you have with these people."

Your last paragraph pretty much explains what I was referring to when I said "It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie".  The greyness arises from the degree of knowledge they need to have to treat something as lie which they can't then elicit.  The lawyer may be certain that the defendant is lieing through his teeth - but without that knowledge being grounded in established facts they are entitled to proceed as though they accepted it as truth.  Without that, people who were "obviously guilty" (by which I mean their account is such that noone hearing it believes it to be true) couldn't get legal representation.

Just being sure that they're lieing doesn't make it a lie for the purposes of eliciting false testimony - there needs to be a more solid grounding for that belief.  And that's where it becomes very grey.

Decent read at the link you posted by the way - he also seems to think it's a pretty grey area and ends up advocating a position contrary to your argument: that you treat testimony you know to be false (from the Defendant only - other witnesses the same issues don't arise) exactly the same as you would evidence you believed to be true.

[Coinoisseur]

Yes, but with that he's arguing for a change in the way courts view the balance between the right to a defense and untruthfulness. But I think it's along the lines of "this stuff is kind of hard, why don't we just say anything goes." Imo, anyone dissatisfied with the current Gigamining information request should ask for direct lawyer contact info and, if provided, send a certified letter outlining your issues. If the contact info is not provided... should probably post in this thread. ;p

[jamesg]

If the contact info is not provided... should probably post in this thread. ;p

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127437.msg1353191#msg1353191

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75802.msg1353074#msg1353074

http://gigamining.com/claims.html

[server]

Gigavps == gigascammer

[jamesg]

Gigavps == gigascammer

If I'm scamming then why did I send certified mail to get the lists? If I'm scamming then why do I hold 100% of the coins, over 3,500 at this point, to pay out per the 5Mh/s contract. If I'm scamming, they why I am asking for people to verify their claim so I can pay them?

Not one person in this thread as quoted anything I wrote in my previous posts and has taken issue with it. I'll quote it for you, so you can read it again.

To the bitcoin community:

We are all in the very unenviable position of riding in the wake of the aftermath of James McCarthy. I have been placed in a very bad spot in this wake, and my only goal is to protect and serve Gigaminers as I have over the last half year.

I would like to point out that I am the only asset issuer on GLBSE, as far as I am aware, who is trying to move forward and abide by all the laws of local, state, federal and international law. I am the only asset issuer, as far as I am aware, to hire legal counsel and to send via certified mail, a demand letter to James McCarthy after multiple unanswered emails and phone calls. I am fairly confident that the asset lists only started arriving once the letter was received.

Further more, how exactly would you like me to handle situations where claims are made against gigamining that are not in the list provided from GLBSE? Should I and all Gigaminers just keep trusting nefario? This is the exact reason to have a claims process in the first place. Nefario is withholding information for a mistake he made, Gigaminers should not have to suffer because of Nefario's mistakes any longer.

I have received claims for over 10% of Gigamining that are NOT on the lists given to me by GLBSE. This is a significant percentage and it warrants the claims process.

Finally, what should happen if I pay the wrong individual a large amount of the held coins? Guess what, I'm still on the hook according to the law. It is only right to protect the interests of all Gigaminers by making sure I have legal recourse should such a situation occur.

I hope it is clear that I am only trying to clean up and move forward from the situation at hand.

Best regards,
James

[server]

Using a lawyer to put pressure on James McCarthy I can understand.

Breaking contracts and changing the rules of the game while playing not.

[jamesg]

Breaking contracts and changing the rules of the game while playing not.

Please help me understand how else I should handle this situation?

Maybe you have some insight that will help make the situation all better.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Breaking contracts and changing the rules of the game while playing not.

Please help me understand how else I should handle this situation?

Maybe you have some insight that will help make the situation all better.

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

[jamesg]

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

The claimants of the over 4k are very well respected and well know in the community.

Can you see the conundrum here?

Why do you condone trusting nefario after he destroyed your entire investment in GLBSE?

Do you also condone nefario's inability to do the most simplest things as a reason for someone to not be able to make a claim and get paid?

[conspirosphere.tk]

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

The claimants of the over 4k are very well respected and well know in the community.

Can you see the conundrum here?

Why do you condone trusting nefario after he destroyed your entire investment in GLBSE?

Do you also condone nefario's inability to do the most simplest things as a reason for someone to not be able to make a claim and get paid?

You trusted Nefario enough to take our money. It' soo convenient that now you don't trust him any more. Maybe you should have asked an affidavit in advance? Guess how many investors you would had.

Anyway if less than 65% are on the list is due to unclaimed shares and double payments not returned according to Nefario. So ppl unlisted would not get paid now, due to their fault. Maybe they will be later if they act on it and you and Nefario follow up. This is no excuse for you to steal the coins of little investors and ppl who wants to remain private. Clear enough?

[server]

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

65% did everything that was required and should be rewarded without your extra demands.

35% did not agree to send you their GLBSE data. Their mistake.

You should not punnish 65% of your shareholders, the ones that did everything right.

[Bitcoin Oz]

You mention that there are 10% of claims not on the list. My issue is that you are claiming you cant pay back the 90% of people because of this.

What exactly is preventing you paying out to the 90% who ARE ON THE LIST?

The solution is if you're not on the list you dont get paid yet. Youre holding 90% of people coins hostage because 10% of people claimed who arent on the list. If you cant see an issue with that I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

Less than 65% of the shares are on the list..... so that means more than 35% wouldn't get paid.

The claimants of the over 4k are very well respected and well know in the community.

Can you see the conundrum here?

Why do you condone trusting nefario after he destroyed your entire investment in GLBSE?

Do you also condone nefario's inability to do the most simplest things as a reason for someone to not be able to make a claim and get paid?

If you payout the 65% it might motivate the other 35% to make a glbse claim. At some stage you are going to need to trust the glbse shareholder list or otherwise your choice is to make your bondholders suffer.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Nefario needs to be sacked and a competent administrator appointed. But in the bitcoin world it appears there is nothing at all you an do if the operator goes rogue.

You can have all the bylaws and rules you want but if someone controls the server and the only information source there is fuck all you can do about it. It really calls for "multi sig for data" where one person cant just run off with the data.

[jamesg]

You should not punnish 65% of your shareholders, the ones that did everything right.

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute.

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Does that sound like fun to you?

You are basically telling me to not worry about my liabilities because nefario is getting it right. Only, he can't even send over a properly formatted yaml file which means he probably put the file together by hand.

There is also the issue of people who have filled out the GLBSE claims form and didn't receive a double payment, yet still aren't on the list. Is this still a situation of "your not on the list, o well"?

As to trusting nefario now vs. later, you can't do better until you know better.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute.

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Does that sound like fun to you?

So, better to fuck a much greater number of ppl who trusted YOU?

[SAC]

As to trusting nefario now vs. later, you can't do better until you know better.

There were problems with this bond in getting it listed from the start you knew better then.

[server]

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute.

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Does that sound like fun to you?

Nope, fun is long gone.
Maybe the payout problem can be solved by using a php script that verifies a payout of 0.01% -> user agree -> send 99.99%

But this is not the real problem.

[superfastkyle]

your worried about sending out a couple hundred coins by error when you have profited how much off your investors? $100,000 $250,000? $500,000, Get real

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

[cunicula]

your worried about sending out a couple hundred coins by error when you have profited how much off your investors? $100,000 $250,000? $500,000, Get real

If I send out 65% of 3,500 coins (2,275) and 10% of the coins go to the wrong address, someone they shouldn't have gone to, etc. I've just made a $2,750 mistake and am still liable.

Though the profit calculations are inaccurate, this is a very good point.

You have to compare: 1) Sum Total costs of legal compliance for all shareholders. vs 2) Cost of Sending Payouts to scammers for GigaVPS

If (1) > (2), it would be more efficient for GigaVPS to divide the costs of paying out scammers among all shareholders and not require legal compliance.
If (2) > (1), it is more efficient for GigaVPS to require legal compliance.

Could the shareholders donate to a Scammer fund to motivate you to reverse your decision? If not, then GigaVPS is making a specious argument. i.e. his real reason is not the reason he claims.