[BAKEWELL] Action Proposal - Call for Volunteers

[iCEBREAKER]

The motion would still need to be run to make it official.

And my 110 shares! 

[1714716720]

1714716720

[1714716720]

1714716720

[1714716720]

1714716720

[1714716720]

1714716720

[tolan77]

I own a measly 75 shares of Bakewell on bitfunder I will definitely support a motion to make TradeFortress or Dalkore the new CEO of BAKEWELL if Ian never replies back. However if that doesn't make any headway or is not possible we should definitely be going to the police and try to get him in legal trouble and at least make sure he doesn't get two free avalons out of his scam. It will be an interesting day when a someone is finally convicted of a bitcoin related scam/theft.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

What I think:

There isn't any chance at getting the Avalons shipped to someone other than Ian Bakewell. Yifu/Avalon is not going to do it, it's under his name and maybe we have a slight shot if he was scammed, but the 2 Avalons are going to him.

Going after him through the police and the legal system (for the loans) is the way to go. In addition, we need to ruin his reputation - wonder if a mod would be willing to change this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98764.0 to "SCAMMER: Ian Bakewell" as it is the #2 result in google for his name already.

Voting a new CEO isn't going to do anything.

[iCEBREAKER]

Ooh, I know.  We could call his parents and tattle.

Just threatening to grass him up might do the trick, unless he's already in Thailand with pirate.

"Hello?  Mrs. Bakewell?  This is the internet.  Sorry to bother you, but Ian's been a very naughty little scammer and we thought you should know."

"Oh dear!"

[DiabloD3]

Usagi, you do realize what you're trying to do to bakewell is no different than what nefario tried to do to DMC, right?

Pursue things legally, and since this none of you have a legal contract with Ian, there is not much you can do legally. Consider this a learning experience and move on.

[nameface]

we need to ruin his reputation - wonder if a mod would be willing to change this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98764.0 to "SCAMMER: Ian Bakewell" as it is the #2 result in google for his name already.

Voting a new CEO isn't going to do anything.

+1

Also, should we open this discussion up to more people in a new thread in Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Bitcoin Discussion? Because I think we need more opinions, and this is really a topic of interest for everyone.

[MikeMark]

What I think:

There isn't any chance at getting the Avalons shipped to someone other than Ian Bakewell. Yifu/Avalon is not going to do it, it's under his name and maybe we have a slight shot if he was scammed, but the 2 Avalons are going to him.

Going after him through the police and the legal system (for the loans) is the way to go. In addition, we need to ruin his reputation - wonder if a mod would be willing to change this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98764.0 to "SCAMMER: Ian Bakewell" as it is the #2 result in google for his name already.

Voting a new CEO isn't going to do anything.

The only thing creating a CEO does is create the person who executes the will of this body.

Anything that gets done will still need to be done IRL. Someone will almost certainly need to meet face to face with Ian in order to show the seriousness here. Before that can be done, we should fully understand the legal standing.

We all have a belief that we have been defrauded. There is always a basic choice, take action ourselves, or take action by calling upon an institution created for the purpose. Institutions have rules or laws that must be followed. Our question is now, which ones have willingness, ability and authority to help us?

[zapeta]

I no longer hold any shares, but I lost over 99% of what I invested with him.  I support your actions in trying to recover funds...best of luck.

[strello]

Great dialogue this morning!

We need to keep this moving.

TradeFortress seems to be reluctant to act on anything but the legal approach- shall we ask Dalkore to front it. I think we need a spokesperson to continue trying to block the Avalon shipment, try to get some response out of Ukyo at Bitfunder, and generally have an overview and keep all these strategies alive. And to pull together a strategy for how to deal with any positive results from this.

What I propose in the meantime is that we agree that the current list of Shareholders:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172471.msg1819404#msg1819404

can independently continue any of these strategies in the name of, and with the implicit agreement of the Shareholder group.

Nameface, can you start this new thread in discussions, it's a great idea. We need more publicity and input.

Niko and fourdoorgtz, you seem to be our only Canadians. Can't one of you prepare a simple "dollar value" complaint- he's stolen our money to buy $4000 computers, which we own and want seized, run away from loans amounting to maybe as much as $100K, and has ordered more equipment with our stolen money, which we really want to block from reaching him. And approach the Edmonton police, and at least get a police complaint started, in the name of the Bakewell Shareholders. Here's good advice from Deprived:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172471.msg1802432#msg1802432

Yes, iCEBREAKER, I think it's a great idea to get news of the scumbag's ideas of conducting his business "in a more transparent, ethical, and timely manner"* out in the world, and especially to friends, if any, and family. He deserves public shaming. And we need have a bit more fun and get some publicity.

*https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1178842#msg1178842

Many of us, for all sorts of very good reasons, have an ambivalent trust relationship with "the law" and the Financial Machine. Certainly, that's why I'm in Bitcoin. But, hell, this slimebag has ripped us off for a significant amount of real money. Why can't we play this one out by being smart for once and acting as decent human beings. Find a way to organically organise ourselves at least enough to keep this ball rolling. Appeal to other decent people at Bitfunder, Avalon and out in the world, and try to give justice a chance to prevail by setting an example of mutual cooperation, rather than the traditional threats of legal violence and state-controlled enforcement.

[nameface]

I'm also Canadian. I live near Toronto, on the other side of the country.

I'm connected to Yifu Guo on linkedin. I'll msg him next week to request a phone call to inform him about our situation.

Can we rehash the most important details that we're all on board with?

We want to do three things:

A - Sue Ian for stealing loans, re: BTCJAM
B - Sue Ian for stealing rigs, re: BAKEWELL asset
C - Reroute asics to BAKEWELLL shareholders

Correct?

I'm slightly concerned that if we take over BAKEWELL, re: the motion, that we will be actionable. But if we have such a motion passed on paper, I don't see how Avalon could be actionable for sending the asics to us.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

C is not going to happen.. Ian Bakewell has an order with Avalon, that is all Yifu is concerned about. Perhaps he would act differently if he lost coins to Ian Bakewell.

[Deprived]

I'm slightly concerned that if we take over BAKEWELL, re: the motion, that we will be actionable. But if we have such a motion passed on paper, I don't see how Avalon could be actionable for sending the asics to us.

Where you run into an (obvious if you look at it logically) problem is that you're trying to claim two entirely contradictory things:

1.  That Bakewell (company) is the same thing as Bakewell (individual) - i.e. that it's Ian trading as the company.  You have to claim this to have an entitlement to the Avalons as they were ordered in his name.
2.  That Bakewell (company) is entirely seperate to Bakewell (individual) - you have to claim this for any sort of shareholder motion to have any meaning or for anyone other than Ian to be able to act on behalf of the company.

If you want to claim that the company is an entity beyond Ian Bakewell personally trading then you immediately cease to have any right to approach Avalon - as their contract was with the individual.  Whilst if you say Bakewell was synonymous with Ian personally then shareholders can't pass any motions on its behalf.  The situation would be (slightly) different if the Avalon's had been ordered in a company name but they weren't.

If A (Avalon) owes B (Ian Bakewell) and B owes C (shareholders) and B defaults on their obligation to C then C has no direct right to anything A owes B.  If A gives stuff to C then they have NOT fulfilled their obligation to B - and B then has a claim against them, regardless of the merits of C's claim against B.  Which is (partly) why Avalon won't get involved.  There's loads of other reasons why they shouldn't get involved anyway - but that's the most glaringly obvious one.

[MikeMark]

I'm slightly concerned that if we take over BAKEWELL, re: the motion, that we will be actionable. But if we have such a motion passed on paper, I don't see how Avalon could be actionable for sending the asics to us.

Where you run into an (obvious if you look at it logically) problem is that you're trying to claim two entirely contradictory things:

1.  That Bakewell (company) is the same thing as Bakewell (individual) - i.e. that it's Ian trading as the company.  You have to claim this to have an entitlement to the Avalons as they were ordered in his name.
2.  That Bakewell (company) is entirely seperate to Bakewell (individual) - you have to claim this for any sort of shareholder motion to have any meaning or for anyone other than Ian to be able to act on behalf of the company.

If you want to claim that the company is an entity beyond Ian Bakewell personally trading then you immediately cease to have any right to approach Avalon - as their contract was with the individual.  Whilst if you say Bakewell was synonymous with Ian personally then shareholders can't pass any motions on its behalf.  The situation would be (slightly) different if the Avalon's had been ordered in a company name but they weren't.

If A (Avalon) owes B (Ian Bakewell) and B owes C (shareholders) and B defaults on their obligation to C then C has no direct right to anything A owes B.  If A gives stuff to C then they have NOT fulfilled their obligation to B - and B then has a claim against them, regardless of the merits of C's claim against B.  Which is (partly) why Avalon won't get involved.  There's loads of other reasons why they shouldn't get involved anyway - but that's the most glaringly obvious one.

I think the public record (in the original BAKEWELL thread) shows that Ian was acting according to 1. In other words Ian was given money by those who were interested in seeing a profit from BAKEWELL in the form of a dividend from the mining operations. Ian asked for funds specifically to purchase equipment for those who bought shares (portions of ownership of) in that equipment and it's produce. His offer is/was to care for the equipment and see to it that the profit would be distributed properly.

Shareholder votes and all the legalistic jargon aside, the reality is that we here have a common cause and proof to back up a claim. The reason the legal formation of companies was created was to formalize the records that constitute claims. Here, there is a record of the decisions by all involved to bring us to the point of this claim. The question now is who will support this claim?

It would be best if Ian himself supported our claim. If he will not, our next best choice is for Avalon to support our claim. After that, our choices become poorer, with less reclaimed at the end after longer periods of time.

[MikeMark]

Time really is the problem we have. In order for there to be a good chance of recouping loss, the equipment needs to be put to work as soon as it arrives. As time goes on the profit from mining is reduced. These days it is dropping fairly fast.

That's also one of the reasons I'd like to see Ian actually come forward to work this out.

We really need an opinion from a lawyer or judge on this regarding the possibilities, time frame, and the proper action. Who has contacts in the proper or related jurisdiction?

Also, do we have on record anywhere that Ian agreed to internet arbitration in the event of disagreement?

[strello]

Nice work, MikeMark.

I completely agree that evidence in the original thread that Ian announced this offering as a company with actual stock shares, in which the investors (shareholders) own a piece of the company, and it's equipment, current and on order, strongly supports our case that we do actually own the Bakewell equipment.

So, does anyone understand how this legal process might work, or even how to get it started?

So, nameface, I think that we should be focussing on going after Ian Bakewell as operator of the BAKEWELL company which essentially we own, for all assets we can possibly recover.

Also I've posted a long, rambling and personal summary of the whole sad story in Discussions, mostly aimed at the outside world, hoping that the press etc might pick it up. I've locked it in an attempt to keep any useful discussion focussed here.

Please feel free to link to it if you don't think it's too stupid and idealistic, which I certainly do, but the occasional rant makes me happy.

[Deprived]

I think the public record (in the original BAKEWELL thread) shows that Ian was acting according to 1. In other words Ian was given money by those who were interested in seeing a profit from BAKEWELL in the form of a dividend from the mining operations. Ian asked for funds specifically to purchase equipment for those who bought shares (portions of ownership of) in that equipment and it's produce. His offer is/was to care for the equipment and see to it that the profit would be distributed properly.

Shareholder votes and all the legalistic jargon aside, the reality is that we here have a common cause and proof to back up a claim. The reason the legal formation of companies was created was to formalize the records that constitute claims. Here, there is a record of the decisions by all involved to bring us to the point of this claim. The question now is who will support this claim?

What you seem to miss is that Avalon is NOT a pretend company that only exists as an entity in a thread on a forum.  It's a company operating in the real world.

Real-world companies DON'T take it upon themselves to decide what has and hasn't been proven in disputes between others.  They rely on a legal system and law-enforcement to give them directions in those circumstances.

And aside from those issues do we really want to say it's OK for a company to break a deal they made because THEY decide their customer wronged someone else?  Should ALL companies in Bitcoin-land start breaking contracts whenever they decide the other party owes money to someone else?  Who decides whether such decisions are right?  Should we all just start selectively honouring our obligations based on whether we think the other party is deserving?

I run a fund and have issued bonds on it myself.  If I'm sure an investor owes someone else a debt they're overdue on - or believe they scammed - then should I hold backfunds if they try to sell to me and give it to who I think they owe money to (I'm NOT actually aware of any such investor - but IF one existed)?  If not, why not - if you think Avalon should do that?  Either you believe companies have the right too do that - or you don't.  If your argument is over the level of proof then who decides whether the evidence is sufficient?  If it isn't the company then surely it can't be you - the party claiming to be wronged! (NOTE: I 100% believe Bakewell is in the wrong - don't interpret ANYTHING I say as trying to defend him).  There has to be some uninvolved arbiter - which, shockingly, is the role of the legal system (with law-enforcement gathering the evidence when criminal behaviour is believed to be involved).  Bitcoin has no alternative to that - so the choice is either use the existing system or descend into anarchy where anyone can break deals at will so long as they claim to believe they were right to do so.

In summary: not only do I believe this approach will fail but I believe it MUST and SHOULD fail.  As the precedent if it succeeds is a horrible one.  At a minimum report it, get a crime number then provide that to Avalon and ask them to delay shipping until either Ian responds to them and/or the issue is resolved.  If the purchase is being criminally investigated then they likely DO have sufficient grounds to hold back on shipping to him.

[strello]

At a minimum report it, get a crime number then provide that to Avalon and ask them to delay shipping until either Ian responds to them and/or the issue is resolved.  If the purchase is being criminally investigated then they likely DO have sufficient grounds to hold back on shipping to him.

+1

[usagi]

Also, do we have on record anywhere that Ian agreed to internet arbitration in the event of disagreement?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

CPA Shareholder Protection Agreement
Customer: Ian B. (bitcointalk.org: ianbakewell)
CPA Agents: usagi (tsukino)
DATE: August 31st, 2012


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A. GLBSE Shareholder Protection Agreement
1. Parties are Ian and his business ("the business"), CPA
   ("CPA") and the GLBSE shareholders of the business ("the
   shareholders").
2. CPA will insure shareholders by paying out on behalf of
   the business should the business become unable or unwilling
   to fufill the terms of it's contract (see section C).
3. CPA will not be liable for losses greater than the value
   of the funds held in trust; all other liabilities are the
   sole responsibility of the business.
4. No party may cancel this contract although any party may
   choose to accelerate their obligation at any time.


B. Payment of Premium
1. The business will contribute one bitcoin (or more) per week
   to a trust account operated by CPA.
2. The payment address is [1JHP6iaNmPs7osgPKoiki2i28ndm8rDddU]
   ("CPA Accounts #18 (Ian)").
3. The first week of coverage is 2012 Week #36 (September 2nd to
   September 8th).


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


D. Expiration Clause
1. If there is no default event prior to September 15th, 2013,
   CPA will contact the business and request guidance; the
   options will be:
   1. to extend coverage,
   2. to release the trust account to the business,
   3. to release the trust account to the shareholders
      (as a special dividend).
2. The guidance will be published on the CPA website for a
   period of 30 days before actoin is taken on that guidance.


E. Insurability (This is the "Fine Print")
1. Indemnity
   The insurance company indemnifies, or compensates, the
   shareholders in the case of certain losses only up to the
   lower of the shareholder's interest and the trust amount.
2. Insurable interest
   The shareholders must directly suffer from the loss; the
   shareholders have a "stake" in the loss or damage to the
   assets insured.
3. Utmost good faith
   The business is bound by a good faith bond of honesty and
   fairness. Material facts must be disclosed.
4. Contribution
   Insurers which have similar obligations to the insured
   contribute prior to any contribution by CPA.
5. Subrogation
   CPA acquires legal rights to pursue recoveries on behalf of
   the insured; for example, the insurer may sue those liable
   for insured's loss.
6. Causa proxima, or proximate cause
   The cause of loss (the peril) must be directly related to
   the breaking of the business's contract for financial gain
   at the shareholders' expense.
7. Mitigation - Before, and in case of any loss or casualty,
   the business must attempt to keep the loss to a minimum, as
   if the asset was not insured.


F. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this
   contract, or the breach of this contract, shall be settled
   by binding internet arbitration at judge.me in accordance
   with the judge.me arbitration agreement. The arbitrator's
   decision shall be final and legally binding and judgment may
   be entered thereon.
2. The business must indemnify (make whole) CPA's incurred
   legal fees if they lose their claim, limited to the amount
   required to be paid by CPA to judge.me.
3. All judge.me fees related to this contract must be paid in
   bitcoins.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Confirmed

Given what happened, I have the right to open a case on him, and seek damages.

I would extend those damages to what he has announced his assets are, as is the nature of my company to do so, on behalf of the shareholders.

I will investigate doing this but I am feeling really tired today.

[usagi]

Here's another, for documenting Ian's assets.

Dividends are currently suspended.

I was preparing to order the Avalon ASIC on the morning of the 31st... The total of the funds raised from the transitional tranche alongside the growth fund brought us up to just over BTC130
...I could use 75 to order one box, and sit on the rest... or I could take a loan to kick us up to 150 and order two.

I found a shark tank deal for a BTC20 loan. To repay this loan BAKEWELL will direct 100% of its hashpower to our creditor @ 50btc pps rates against our debt until the BTC20 is paid back.
Once the initial BTC20 is paid back BAKEWELL regains its hashpower and will resume dividends on the regular schedule.
Then the BTC received on the growth fund will be forwarded to our creditor for a short time in order to cover their profit for the loan.

On the bright side, after a hell of an interesting / nail biting morning... I think I was successful in placing an order for two Avalon ASIC (#2 batch) and I think I should be in the first handful of those orders.
 -I made the purchase via a WalletBit account, so we have a receipt on file with them
Once these come in I will sell the gaming PC's & I figure the sale of those should cover one more Avalon box with the remainder going toward the expansion units,
So if all goes well that means BAKEWELL will have 3 full Avalon ASIC boxes up and running shortly.

and

https://bitfunder.com/asset/BAKEWELL

Shares outstanding: 6000

First Tranche: sold out (.15 per | 2500 total | BTC375 raised)

Balanced shares:
Ian given 748 shares with another 252 given out as bonus for a total of 1000
growth and maintenance hold 1500 shares

-------

Transitional Tranche: sold out (.15 per | 500 total | BTC75 raised)

Ian given 200 shares
growth and maintenance now hold 1800 shares

-------

Gaming Rigs: $4000 CAD (paid BTC375)

-------

Avalon ASICs: $3000 USD (paid BTC151.59914357)

There are a few others. guys, go to the archival board here and search for bakewell $4000 and bakewell 6000 and bakewell avalon and stuff. If you find any other posts link 'em! We need this info to make a list of the assets he claimed to be buying on behalf of his investors.

deprived: wake up, he bought the avalons in the capacity of an officer of his company. he's guilty at least of fraud if he didn't buy them in his company name and ever tried to say they were personal buys. So Avalon would not risk anything rerouting the orders. What, you think Ian is going to incriminate himself in court? Thats a laugh riot. The guy is probably shaking in fear under a mattress in hell's kitchen right about now. So it's still a longshot but we need a statement from avalon. To do that we need an official judgement. So we need some sort of judgement or criminal case file number. A judgement from judge.me MIGHT be sufficient because it is legally enforceable in Canada. If I won a judgement via judge.me I would have ironclad means to seize property via the court legally.

[niko]

I suggest everyone should immediately quit discussing strategies and legal options in this public thread. Communicate via email/skype/in person, and even then make sure you are not communicating with Ian's puppet accounts.

As I already pointed out, I have no stake in this matter anymore. The reason I sold out and quit dealing with Bakewell was that I decided not to waste any more time or money on him. This is still so.

I am sorry for those of you who have not seen things the same way, and continued dealing with him. I wish you best of luck recovering your belongings. In case any of you decide to report this matter, a good place to start is

http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/communitypolicing/organizedcrime/economiccrimes.aspx

Ian, if you read this thread - read it again.