-

[Endlessa]

Gotta love the no bonus payout.

The people getting screwed by LRM are also paying his legal fees for him to defend screwing us.

Long past time to recognize a bad investment, soak the loss, and watch LRM be razed to the ground in court.

what I was thinking... funny though how Laby removed his post where he stated in other words that no matter what (lose or win in court) he won't lose a thing but we the investors in other hand will lose big time

wish somebody had that cached for a quality quote

[grnbrg]

Gotta love the no bonus payout.

The people getting screwed by LRM are also paying his legal fees for him to defend screwing us.

Long past time to recognize a bad investment, soak the loss, and watch LRM be razed to the ground in court.

what I was thinking... funny though how Laby removed his post where he stated in other words that no matter what (lose or win in court) he won't lose a thing but we the investors in other hand will lose big time

wish somebody had that cached for a quality quote

That paraphrase of the post has been embellished considerably....  A more balanced summary might be that win or lose, the lawsuit will cost us.


grnbrg.

[Endlessa]

Gotta love the no bonus payout.

The people getting screwed by LRM are also paying his legal fees for him to defend screwing us.

Long past time to recognize a bad investment, soak the loss, and watch LRM be razed to the ground in court.

what I was thinking... funny though how Laby removed his post where he stated in other words that no matter what (lose or win in court) he won't lose a thing but we the investors in other hand will lose big time

wish somebody had that cached for a quality quote

That paraphrase of the post has been embellished considerably....  A more balanced summary might be that win or lose, the lawsuit will cost us.


grnbrg.

either way I'd love to see the facts I be a math (fact) based girl

[Endlessa]

also, a loss in the face of fairness, is a loss deserved.

I'll quote complaint 27 b & c:

"attempting to coerce the Plaintiffs to relinquish their contractual and othter legal rights by demanding that Plaintiffs accept and convert to modified contracts that materially alters the terms of the parties' contracts and substantially diminishes the Plaintiffs' ability to recover their investments;"
and
"repeatedly misrepresenting and concealing the true nature and status of the Plaintiff's investments in LRM as well as finances, operations and legal status of LRM;"


assuming the statements are fair (imo they are), then whatever decision occurs is a decision that should be.

[countduckula]

Would you be so kind to share the documents online for all us to see?

[runam0k]

also, a loss in the face of fairness, is a loss deserved.

I'll quote complaint 27 b & c:

"attempting to coerce the Plaintiffs to relinquish their contractual and othter legal rights by demanding that Plaintiffs accept and convert to modified contracts that materially alters the terms of the parties' contracts and substantially diminishes the Plaintiffs' ability to recover their investments;"
and
"repeatedly misrepresenting and concealing the true nature and status of the Plaintiff's investments in LRM as well as finances, operations and legal status of LRM;"


assuming the statements are fair (imo they are), then whatever decision occurs is a decision that should be.

Solid ground, it was a clear case of coercion.

[btcrealm]

If you are looking for the court documents, you need to register with PACER(Federal Case DB) for view only access. As explained here.

https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/CHtech/pacer.htm

There is like a $10 USD quarterly fee.  Use the Case Locator to find Case "8:2014-cv-02091".  all documents are there as a matter of public record.


Edit: after that click History/Documents

Thanks for the info.

Gotta love how our public court system has managed to privatize/charge us for what is a case of "public record".

[Endlessa]

Thanks for the info.

Gotta love how our public court system has managed to privatize/charge us for what is a case of "public record".

yeah lol, though I read their faq and it was congress's fault, they mandated the courts supply public records, but gave them no funds to do so (basically told them it's not our problem, find the money yourself).  So, the courts had to find a way to pay for it.  The fees aren't too bad, the private company I tried at first wanted me pay like 18 bucks for the docs.  Pacer only charged $1.80 . . .

[Lab_Rat]

I cannot speak about the lawsuit as unfortunately, my hands are tied. I am giving it my full attention to make sure everything goes as best as possible for the company and all those who would be affected.

As per the bonus, that was not a regular thing, just the fact that a retainer had to be put up for lawyers to handle the case and that was not built into the operating budget.

I apologize for any ill feelings or inconveniences this has caused.

Sincerely,
Lab_Rat

[sparky999]

I cannot speak about the lawsuit as unfortunately, my hands are tied. I am giving it my full attention to make sure everything goes as best as possible for the company and all those who would be affected.

As per the bonus, that was not a regular thing, just the fact that a retainer had to be put up for lawyers to handle the case and that was not built into the operating budget.

I apologize for any ill feelings or inconveniences this has caused.

Sincerely,
Lab_Rat

Why did it even come to a court case?

[tabbek]

...

As per the bonus, that was not a regular thing, just the fact that a retainer had to be put up for lawyers to handle the case and that was not built into the operating budget.

...

So, I was correct then.  Your retainer was paid for, in some part, with the bonus that would have otherwise gone to the very people the suit alleges you harmed.

[sparky999]

...

As per the bonus, that was not a regular thing, just the fact that a retainer had to be put up for lawyers to handle the case and that was not built into the operating budget.

...

So, I was correct then.  Your retainer was paid for, in some part, with the bonus that would have otherwise gone to the very people the suit alleges you harmed.

Whilst you are correct and it is annoying - it is also unsurprising and something everyone should have expected if a case was ever filed vs LRM. Nobody should be feel wronged by divs being used to pay a retainer, since you expressly agreed to it in both contracts. There are many things to be pissed at zach for but that is not one of them.

[Endlessa]

Would you be so kind to share the documents online for all us to see?

Took me a couple of days to find the time and a site that didn't try to compress the images (they are apparently scanned documents), but here they are.  

DISCLAIMER: These are provide for discussion purposes and I do not validate them or represent them to be anything except what I downloaded from the government pacer database and are, by my understanding, what is currently filed with the court. I have nothing to do with the filing of these documents or the accuracy of them.

The Complaint against: LRM
https://byteshot.com/AgLMlQ/

Exhibit 1:
https://byteshot.com/zjkJpS/

Exhibit 2:
https://byteshot.com/vnZR23/

Summons:
https://byteshot.com/mqNnMO

Civil Cover Sheet:
https://byteshot.com/giVM4Z




Discuss Away!

[Endlessa]

Just as some helpful urls and to save you some time looking it all up.

Here's a list of the counts and the referenced law (if any) in the Header (for those I found)

COUNT I - VIOLATION OF 17 C.F.R § 240.10b-5
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-5

COUNT II - VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA SECURITIES AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT FLA. STAT. § 517.301
 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0500-0599/0517/Sections/0517.301.html

COUNT III - COMMON LAW FRAUD
http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-fraud/

COUNT IV -  NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
http://www.fraudlaw.org/Definitions%20and%20concepts/Law%20by%20Topic/Negligent%20Misrepresentation/Negligent%20Misrepresentation.htm

COUNT V - FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-fraudulent-inducement-mean.htm

COUNT VI - BREACH OF CONTRACT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

COUNT VII - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment


DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice (always consult a lawyer for that kind of thing, I am no lawyer) and only presented for the sake of discussion and to help other with a cursory understanding what the claims being made mean.  

[fractal02]

Thank you Endlessa for all the documents and search you made.

I'm going to read all this stuff.

[Endlessa]

Thank you Endlessa for all the documents and search you made.

I'm going to read all this stuff.

NP I just think it's fair that everybody have a chance to understand what's going on.  At least the public records part, since neither of the parties can talk about it, for obvious reasons.  The links were ones I mostly made while I read through it the first time so I could parse the document within some kind of legal context.  If anybody has better ones, please share with the class

[countduckula]

Thank you very much! I'll read them carefully tonight!

You're the best!

[fractal02]

Soo...today Bonus or not Bonus ?

[sparky999]

According to Zach the retainer has been paid so that should be it as far as bonus stealing goes.

Now you just sit back and wait 6-12 months and see how much Zach/LRM gets fined.

[grnbrg]

Thank you Endlessa for all the documents and search you made.

I'm going to read all this stuff.

NP I just think it's fair that everybody have a chance to understand what's going on.  At least the public records part, since neither of the parties can talk about it, for obvious reasons.  The links were ones I mostly made while I read through it the first time so I could parse the document within some kind of legal context.  If anybody has better ones, please share with the class

What did these cost you?  I'll chip a couple of mBTC if you want to post an address....



grnbrg.