OgNasty Ponzi passthrough and ponzi fans.. BTC losses everywhere he goes

[nutildah]

I didn't say it was a possible lie, I said it was a lie.  

 
Really?

Why do I have to beg for proof of anything?  
Even a mere lie and no proof?

Ya'll are making me frustrated..

You don't have to do anything. You could stop posting right now. Nobody owes you anything.

From Og:

I lost my BTC in Bitcoin Savings & Loan along with everyone else.

I did not keep any "refund" for myself.

From Shavers' SEC testimony:

Q And did you return bitcoins to others during that time period?

A Yes.

Q Who?
...
A Yes. Ognasty, O-g-n-a-s-ty;
...
Q And all the other individuals you named you returned their entire principal amount?

A Their entire balance.

Then you have Exhibit 3 which shows transactions being made to Og, backed by entries on the blockchain.

This is plenty of proof. Now please, stop asking the same questions if you don't like the answers.

I don’t appreciate the insinuation. Although, I agree whomever it is does seem to echo some of the things I (and a few others) have said, in some sort of trolling way, but I don’t agree with most of it. It’s a little odd for me because… I occassionally joke around with people IRL using a Scooby Doo voice in a joking way, and I’m pretty certain I’ve never stated this anywhere..

Maybe it is you, as you are finding a way around your limit of 14 posts every 2 weeks! (completely jesting)

I remember when your posts, activity and merit were all in parity for a brief while. Nobody needs to give you merits for 150 days now, it would appear.

[sbogovac]

[...] From Og:

I lost my BTC in Bitcoin Savings & Loan along with everyone else.

I did not keep any "refund" for myself.

From Shavers' SEC testimony:

Q And did you return bitcoins to others during that time period?

A Yes.

Q Who?
...
A Yes. Ognasty, O-g-n-a-s-ty;
...
Q And all the other individuals you named you returned their entire principal amount?

A Their entire balance.

Then you have Exhibit 3 which shows transactions being made to Og, backed by entries on the blockchain.

This is plenty of proof. [...]

So, still the same question for OgNasty:

[...] it would be quite simple:

[Deflection]

C'mon... how hard can it be...?

[...]This is pretty much very simple yes-know question.

@OG have you returned whole amount to depositors? Did pirate return you whole amount, as he claim he did?

and provide the blockchain proof to back his words up... sounds simple enough to me...

[allyouracid]

I think this didn't come out the way I meant it to. Maybe language barrier. I was referring to Pirate: he's got nothing to gain from lying to the court, especially with information which is easily verifyable.

Generally, I totally agree that "guilty until proven innocent" is not an option, hence I'm careful forming an opinion, here.

I don't know much about what else is going on between Twitchy and OgNasty. All I've seen is the information provided in this thread, and I absolutely think it's enough to ask questions.

Now you are just repeating yourself. He isn't just "asking questions" is he? He is making conclusions, and claiming to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty stole" that Bitcoin. That is a lie and you know it no matter how many times you try to equivocate. The history of flimsy accusations against OGNasty is quite important to this matter, but being ignorant of the history of this situation doesn't stop you from equivocating over and over playing the role of "the moderate" as you perpetuate his lies now does it?

Now why are you always bringing Twitchy in? For the sake of getting this resolved, I really don't care much about whether he is asking questions or drawing conclusions. I am asking questions and others are, too. In order to get some clarity about this situation, it would be really helpful if we can put this obsession aside and focus on the actual questions being asked. But that doesn't seem to be your intention, otherwise you probably wouldn't misunderstand what I'm writing on purpose, all the time.

So, one more time, I'm not here to argue with you about Twitchy, I'm here to ask questions I consider important and helpful in getting this mess resolved. Did that arrive?

[TECSHARE]

Now why are you always bringing Twitchy in? For the sake of getting this resolved, I really don't care much about whether he is asking questions or drawing conclusions. I am asking questions and others are, too. In order to get some clarity about this situation, it would be really helpful if we can put this obsession aside and focus on the actual questions being asked. But that doesn't seem to be your intention, otherwise you probably wouldn't misunderstand what I'm writing on purpose, all the time.

So, one more time, I'm not here to argue with you about Twitchy, I'm here to ask questions I consider important and helpful in getting this mess resolved. Did that arrive?

Maybe because he is the one claiming he has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty stole" those Bitcoins? Exactly how am I supposed to address the accusations without addressing the accuser? By Twitchy Seal's own admission he has no proof who those coins went to, therefore by definition he is lying about having "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty" stole.

I don't really care if you think it is important that the one making the accusations is flat out fabricating conclusions, it is in fact important. We have been over the questions, over, and over, and over, and over again. Exactly what is being accomplished other than trying to convince people of his guilt by repetition? It has been established with Twitchy Seal's own admission he doesn't have any idea where those funds went. I consider the fact that you are ignoring this fact quite relevant. I understand perfectly. You only want to look at one side of this issue and ignore the complete fabrications being claimed by the accusers while you pretend to play the role of undecided moderate.

[allyouracid]

I understand perfectly. You only want to look at one side of this issue and ignore the complete fabrications being claimed by the accusers while you pretend to play the role of undecided moderate.

If this is what you "understand" from what I write, then I suggest we better stop wasting each other's time. You are in fact creating a strawman you can fight against, and nothing I say will convince you of what I'm actually saying.

Over and out.  

[JayJuanGee]

I think this didn't come out the way I meant it to. Maybe language barrier. I was referring to Pirate: he's got nothing to gain from lying to the court, especially with information which is easily verifyable.

Generally, I totally agree that "guilty until proven innocent" is not an option, hence I'm careful forming an opinion, here.

I don't know much about what else is going on between Twitchy and OgNasty. All I've seen is the information provided in this thread, and I absolutely think it's enough to ask questions.

Now you are just repeating yourself. He isn't just "asking questions" is he? He is making conclusions, and claiming to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty stole" that Bitcoin. That is a lie and you know it no matter how many times you try to equivocate. The history of flimsy accusations against OGNasty is quite important to this matter, but being ignorant of the history of this situation doesn't stop you from equivocating over and over playing the role of "the moderate" as you perpetuate his lies now does it?

Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.  

In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?

For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid.  If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC?  We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?

Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.  

There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence.  Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence.  Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).

Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.

[TECSHARE]

Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.  

In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?

For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid.  If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC?  We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?

Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.  

There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence.  Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence.  Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).

Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.

All the evidence does not show that. All the evidence shows is transfers were made, not to who, for what, or why. That is absolutely speculation. I took the liberty of putting the part where you yet again try to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

Interesting how we can't conclude he is innocent until proven otherwise, but for you to speculate and make conclusions based on speculation about what happened to those funds, well that is perfectly acceptable to conclude isn't it? You keep crying up and down that you aren't twisting around the burden of proof, but it you do it over and over in every reply.

[marlboroza]

~
So, still the same question for OgNasty:

[...] it would be quite simple:

[Deflection]

C'mon... how hard can it be...?

[...]This is pretty much very simple yes-know question.

@OG have you returned whole amount to depositors? Did pirate return you whole amount, as he claim he did?

and provide the blockchain proof to back his words up... sounds simple enough to me...

Transparency.  It's not for everyone I guess.  

[JayJuanGee]

Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.  

In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?

For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid.  If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC?  We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?

Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.  

There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence.  Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence.  Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).

Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.

All the evidence does not show that. All the evidence shows is transfers were made, not to who, for what, or why. That is absolutely speculation. I took the liberty of putting the part where you yet again try to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

Well, perhaps I am saying that the burden of proof shifts, and perhaps that is a fair way of saying that if we conclude that the evidence establishes that OGNasty received BTC that should have been the property of others, and it appears that he did not distribute those to the others, then he has some kind of burden to describe or show what happened to those BTC.

Of course, you are saying that we do not know the who, what, or why, and that seems to be a bit of an overstatement regarding what the reasonable inferences seem to establish.  Yeah, you can argue that they are not established enough, but maybe you are being unreasonable?    Levels of reasonableness frequently vary, and that can be why jurors differ in their opinions, even after  instructions regarding how to consider the evidence and which parties have which burdens to show what.    We are not exactly a jury here, but similar principles apply, even if we might be having some disagreement about what are the standards or even the thresholds for the burdens.

 

Interesting how we can't conclude he is innocent until proven otherwise,

Yes.  We seem to agree on that.

but for you to speculate and make conclusions based on speculation about what happened to those funds,

It is not called speculation, it is called reasonable inferences.  Sure, we can disagree what reasonable inferences establish in this case or any other case.

well that is perfectly acceptable to conclude isn't it?

Sometimes you conclude based on what you got.  Sometimes you have direct evidence and other times you have indirect evidence.

With indirect evidence, you can still determine if you believe that it is enough to establish reasonable inferences of x or y, even if it might not be as solid of an evidentiary ground as direct evidence.

Don't try to act as if the only kind of relevant evidence is direct evidence.  That is ridiculous.  We have thousands of years of history in which indirect evidence and reasonable inferences is used (even justly so) when direct evidence cannot be obtained.  People do not admit, frequently, when they did something wrong, but they still end up getting convicted (either criminally or civilly) on a regular basis, and justly so based on various kinds of indirect evidence and reasonable inferences.   There are a variety of evidentiary standards including beyond a reasonable doubt (as Twitchy keeps mentioning), but this is not necessarily a criminal matter.  There is also preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing, and depending on the kind of case will determine the evidentiary standards (sometimes established by common law and other times by statute). 

I think frequently fiduciaries are going to be held to higher standards than regular people because they have a duty to those that they are entrusted with the funds.  So frequently we hear about a reasonable person standard, but in the case of a fiduciary, the standard might be tailored to what would a reasonable fiduciary do.  OGNasty likely knows enough about what he is doing in order to be held to the standards of reasonable fiduciary practices.

You keep crying up and down that you aren't twisting around the burden of proof, but it you do it over and over in every reply.

I am just providing an opinion on these various facts and arguments as they are presented.  I doubt that I am twisting anything because I don't have any beef against OGNasty or any alliance with Twitchy or any of the other supposed Nasty haters.  Like I mentioned several times already, this Nasty-hater theme, just seems to be quite a bit of a distraction rather than really attempting to figure out what the newly established facts are/mean and/or inferences that can reasonably drawn from them.

[TECSHARE]

Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.  

In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?

For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid.  If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC?  We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?

Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.  

There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence.  Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence.  Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).

Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.

All the evidence does not show that. All the evidence shows is transfers were made, not to who, for what, or why. That is absolutely speculation. I took the liberty of putting the part where you yet again try to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

Well, perhaps I am saying that the burden of proof shifts, and perhaps that is a fair way of saying that if we conclude that the evidence establishes that OGNasty received BTC that should have been the property of others, and it appears that he did not distribute those to the others, then he has some kind of burden to describe or show what happened to those BTC.

Of course, you are saying that we do not know the who, what, or why, and that seems to be a bit of an overstatement regarding what the reasonable inferences seem to establish.  Yeah, you can argue that they are not established enough, but maybe you are being unreasonable?    Levels of reasonableness frequently vary, and that can be why jurors differ in their opinions, even after  instructions regarding how to consider the evidence and which parties have which burdens to show what.    We are not exactly a jury here, but similar principles apply, even if we might be having some disagreement about what are the standards or even the thresholds for the burdens.

 

Interesting how we can't conclude he is innocent until proven otherwise,

Yes.  We seem to agree on that.

but for you to speculate and make conclusions based on speculation about what happened to those funds,

It is not called speculation, it is called reasonable inferences.  Sure, we can disagree what reasonable inferences establish in this case or any other case.

well that is perfectly acceptable to conclude isn't it?

Sometimes you conclude based on what you got.  Sometimes you have direct evidence and other times you have indirect evidence.

With indirect evidence, you can still determine if you believe that it is enough to establish reasonable inferences of x or y, even if it might not be as solid of an evidentiary ground as direct evidence.

Don't try to act as if the only kind of relevant evidence is direct evidence.  That is ridiculous.  We have thousands of years of history in which indirect evidence and reasonable inferences is used (even justly so) when direct evidence cannot be obtained.  People do not admit, frequently, when they did something wrong, but they still end up getting convicted (either criminally or civilly) on a regular basis, and justly so based on various kinds of indirect evidence and reasonable inferences.   There are a variety of evidentiary standards including beyond a reasonable doubt (as Twitchy keeps mentioning), but this is not necessarily a criminal matter.  There is also preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing, and depending on the kind of case will determine the evidentiary standards (sometimes established by common law and other times by statute). 

I think frequently fiduciaries are going to be held to higher standards than regular people because they have a duty to those that they are entrusted with the funds.  So frequently we hear about a reasonable person standard, but in the case of a fiduciary, the standard might be tailored to what would a reasonable fiduciary do.  OGNasty likely knows enough about what he is doing in order to be held to the standards of reasonable fiduciary practices.

You keep crying up and down that you aren't twisting around the burden of proof, but it you do it over and over in every reply.

I am just providing an opinion on these various facts and arguments as they are presented.  I doubt that I am twisting anything because I don't have any beef against OGNasty or any alliance with Twitchy or any of the other supposed Nasty haters.  Like I mentioned several times already, this Nasty-hater theme, just seems to be quite a bit of a distraction rather than really attempting to figure out what the newly established facts are/mean and/or inferences that can reasonably drawn from them.

Yet again you simply flip the burden of proof on its head and just pretend you haven't, but if you have its ok because "burden of proof shifts" according to you. It is not an overstatement at all. You nor anyone else have as any fucking clue whatsoever where those funds went. This is 100% a fact. Your speculation about what happened to it is not evidence, it is speculation.

You are right, I am being totally unreasonable expecting you to be able to prove your accusations of theft without relying completely upon speculation and using that to demand the burden of proof now be upon OGNasty. You have fun with your twisted semantic gymnastics, just be careful you don't sprain your brain bending over backwards to try to make all your rambling gibberish seem like it makes logical sense.

[JayJuanGee]

[  edited out]

Yet again you simply flip the burden of proof on its head and just pretend you haven't, but if you have its ok because "burden of proof shifts" according to you.

Seems that you are purposefully attempting to skew the kinds of accepted practices in this burden of proof kind of area.

It does not matter at all what I think.  I am merely attempting to describe what I understand to be the standards and practices, and if I don't understand or if I am not explaining well, then I have no problem being corrected.  Your level of wanting to misunderstand or to divert into nonsense about what I think leads us into gobble-dee-gook landia, which seems to be your preferred stomping grounds.  hahahahaha

Anyhow, it seems that I already stated what I mean by shifting burdens, and there is really no need for me to attempt to reiterate what I have already said.

It is not an overstatement at all. You nor anyone else have as any fucking clue whatsoever where those funds went. This is 100% a fact. Your speculation about what happened to it is not evidence, it is speculation.

There has been some compiling of facts that lend reasonable inferences regarding that the funds likely went into the pockets of OGNasty.  Is that the only explanation? no.  Is it 100%? no.  But it seems to be the most probable based on the evidence so far presented.  Is it enough evidence to convict in a criminal proceeding?  Perhaps.... Is it enough evidence to get a prosecutor interested?  Perhaps.  Is there a statute of limitation problem or an amount in controversy (like de minimus issue)?  Could be.  Does there need to be enough evidence in order to have a criminal conviction?  no way José.  Just like nutildah said, members can decide to remove trust from OGNasty or to refuse to trust him or to distrust him based on evidence already presented.  Or they could decide that the evidence does not rise to a level that inspires them to take any actions in regards to whether or not to trust OGNasty.

You are right, I am being totally unreasonable expecting you to be able to prove your accusations of theft without relying completely upon speculation and using that to demand the burden of proof now be upon OGNasty.

You are being unreasonable by trying to personify every statement that is made.  Who gives any shits what I say in terms of proving anything?  I am not trying to prove anything.  I am just describing various aspects of applicable standards to consider, and you seem to want to argue about basic foundational ideas.

You have fun with your twisted semantic gymnastics, just be careful you don't sprain your brain bending over backwards to try to make all your rambling gibberish seem like it makes logical sense.

Sure, sometimes there are better ways that I might be able to say the thing that I am trying to say.  I am just a mere mortal with my communication limitations.  On the other hand, it does not seem that you are doing much if any better than me in terms of exuding logical clarity, especially since you seem to get so easily distracted into irrelevancies regarding conspiracy theories or even trying to confuse what the facts and logic establish.... directly or indirectly, including lacking or refusing to consider various standards of proof and how burdens might shift under certain circumstances.

[Vod]

JayJuanGee, you have done an excellent job of mathematically proving OGNasty is a thief and subsequently a liar.  There is no way he could be innocent.

However, all I see in this thread is posts from Techy (contents ignored) trying his best to deflect and muddy the waters.

No future reader can gain anything useful from this thread.

If you could make up a concise, condensed, easy to understand post with the proof OG stole hundreds of thousands of dollars (in today's value) I will put it in the impeachment thread where people don't have to wade through all this BS.

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee, you have done an excellent job of mathematically proving OGNasty is a thief and subsequently a liar.  There is no way he could be innocent.

However, all I see in this thread is posts from Techy (contents ignored) trying his best to deflect and muddy the waters.

No future reader can gain anything useful from this thread.

If you could make up a concise, condensed, easy to understand post with the proof OG stole hundreds of thousands of dollars (in today's value) I will put it in the impeachment thread where people don't have to wade through all this BS.

I think that Twitchy and some others have largely compiled the transactional information and timeline matters that might be useful in terms of boiling matters down to OGNasty getting paid by Pirate after he had made all of the pass through payments to investors, which suggests that he did not pay any pass through investors (or at least not the full amounts) after getting paid from Pirate. 

Twitchy summarized the matter with references in this post.  There might be supplementary and supportive information that Twitchy could point out.

I have not done anything to really help in the compiling or analyzing of any of the evidence except getting caught up in arguing with TecShare and TOAA regarding their various distraction points.

[Vod]

I have not done anything to really help in the compiling or analyzing of any of the evidence except getting caught up in arguing with TecShare and TOAA regarding their various distraction points.

Only idiots argue against proof.

There are no reputable members defending OG here.  Also, it seems I stopped lying once OG was caught stealing.   Funny how OG's deflection/distraction worked...

[Lauda]

However, all I see in this thread is posts from Techy (contents ignored) trying his best to deflect and muddy the waters.

Exactly. Guilty or not, there is a lot of distracting stuff in this thread. It would be best to ignore him and a couple of others and try sorting this out.

[philipma1957]

You're killing me man.  Just read the thread please

It is getting getting exceedingly difficult to read all of this thread.. Passing my give a fuck levels..

tl;dr please
144BTC @ <$10?

Get to it if you want me to change my mind to "OG is a scammer"..

There's evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole BTC144.

There's evidence that he stole ~BTC1,000 , but not enough to classify as beyond a reasonable doubt.

When pirate sent him the funds he stole BTC1 = ~$11.80

If you think one of the most trusted users on the site deserves a pass because the bitcoin he stole was only worth $1,700 at the time , and you want to dismiss the other evidence that is was possibly much more, then you should give him a pass.

so 144 coins.

did not he repeatedly state he invested coins .

he did. lots of posts show he said he put coins into this pirate club.

so now you need to prove those 144 coins belonged to whomever.

i rounded a  bit
aug 6.    1 btc was. 10.75. x 66.8. = 725
aug 13.  1 btc was 11.86.  x 39.2. = 453
aug 17. 1 btc was 13.31.   x 38.0. = 505

I get 1683 in usd.

so did he simply keep that as it was what he invested?

we don’t know

was some of that paid to a third party investor

we don’t know

did it belong to multiple third parties and og kept it wrongly

 we dont know.


when og had 3 million plus in funds did he keep them safely
we do know answer is yes.


my biggest concern about og was he may have made some coin with digibyte in a gray manner.

not this.

to op when you can answer the questions we dont know let us know.

[TECSHARE]

so 144 coins.

did not he repeatedly state he invested coins .

he did. lots of posts show he said he put coins into this pirate club.

so now you need to prove those 144 coins belonged to whomever.

i rounded a  bit
aug 6.    1 btc was. 10.75. x 66.8. = 725
aug 13.  1 btc was 11.86.  x 39.2. = 453
aug 17. 1 btc was 13.31.   x 38.0. = 505

I get 1683 in usd.

so did he simply keep that as it was what he invested?

we don’t know

was some of that paid to a third party investor

we don’t know

did it belong to multiple third parties and og kept it wrongly

 we dont know.


when og had 3 million plus in funds did he keep them safely
we do know answer is yes.


my biggest concern about og was he may have made some coin with digibyte in a gray manner.

not this.

to op when you can answer the questions we dont know let us know.

Exactly. All the same mob members who have been attacking OGNasty forever now are here repeating over and over again how they have proof, but hey have nothing of the sort. The only 100% absolute fact here is no one knows where those funds went, to who, or why. This point is not even being debated, just being glossed over in favor of repeating "there is proof" ad nauseam without ever presenting it. This is 100% about targeting OGNasty. None of these people here accusing him give a flying fuck about anyone that was supposedly victimized or this community in general. This community is simply a tool for them to punish their adversaries as they have demonstrated repeatedly in the past.

EDIT:

And of course this same mob of people is making sure I pay a price for speaking up here in the form of more trust system abuse. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest.

Lauda   2019-12-18   Reference   "Dishonest. Wouldn't trust."

[nutildah]

Exactly. All the same mob members who have been attacking OGNasty forever now are here

Wrong. Didn't give a shit about OgNasty until this thread was revived.

repeating over and over again how they have proof, but hey have nothing of the sort.

Wrong. Your failure to digest proof submitted here many times over is no fault but your own.

The only 100% absolute fact here is no one knows where those funds went, to who, or why.

Wrong. We know funds went from pirate to Og even though Og said he was never reimbursed by pirate.

This point is not even being debated, just being glossed over in favor of repeating "there is proof" ad nauseam without ever presenting it.

Wrong. Its been an ongoing debate for over a week now.

This is 100% about targeting OGNasty. None of these people here accusing him give a flying fuck about anyone that was supposedly victimized or this community in general.

We've gone over this already, several times. I for one don't feel sorry for victims who knowingly invest in Ponzi schemes. Regardless, it was 7 years ago, so good luck finding someone willing to claim they were a victim now. This issue has never been about this point despite your repeated attempts to make it so.

This community is simply a tool for them to punish their adversaries as they have demonstrated repeatedly in the past.

Nobody is making you stay here.

And of course this same mob of people is making sure I pay a price for speaking up here in the form of more trust system abuse. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is!

Because you are currently attempting to introduce confusion into a relatively clear matter. Og said he lost funds to pirate. Pirate submitted testimony to the SEC saying he was refunded in whole. Documents submitted by pirate correspond to blockchain evidence which prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least some funds were sent to Og. In this instance, given the circumstances, it makes absolute sense to trust pirate's word over Og's, given that pirate was submitting testimony to government officials and Og is not.

I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.

You don't have to be here. If you hate this community so much, then leave. You show up with a bad attitude every single day. Nobody has ever asked for your advice on anything. Nobody needs you. Just leave if you hate it so much.

[TECSHARE]

Exactly. All the same mob members who have been attacking OGNasty forever now are here

Wrong. Didn't give a shit about OgNasty until this thread was revived.

repeating over and over again how they have proof, but hey have nothing of the sort.

Wrong. Your failure to digest proof submitted here many times over is no fault but your own.

The only 100% absolute fact here is no one knows where those funds went, to who, or why.

Wrong. We know funds went from pirate to Og even though Og said he was never reimbursed by pirate.

This point is not even being debated, just being glossed over in favor of repeating "there is proof" ad nauseam without ever presenting it.

Wrong. Its been an ongoing debate for over a week now.

This is 100% about targeting OGNasty. None of these people here accusing him give a flying fuck about anyone that was supposedly victimized or this community in general.

We've gone over this already, several times. I for one don't feel sorry for victims who knowingly invest in Ponzi schemes. Regardless, it was 7 years ago, so good luck finding someone willing to claim they were a victim now. This issue has never been about this point despite your repeated attempts to make it so.

This community is simply a tool for them to punish their adversaries as they have demonstrated repeatedly in the past.

Nobody is making you stay here.

And of course this same mob of people is making sure I pay a price for speaking up here in the form of more trust system abuse. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is!

Because you are currently attempting to introduce confusion into a relatively clear matter. Og said he lost funds to pirate. Pirate submitted testimony to the SEC saying he was refunded in whole. Documents submitted by pirate correspond to blockchain evidence which prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least some funds were sent to Og. In this instance, given the circumstances, it makes absolute sense to trust pirate's word over Og's, given that pirate was submitting testimony to government officials and Og is not.

I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.

You don't have to be here. If you hate this community so much, then leave. You show up with a bad attitude every single day. Nobody has ever asked for your advice on anything. Nobody needs you. Just leave if you hate it so much.

You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.

[Lauda]

You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.

I have no idea who is right or wrong here, neither do I care. Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well). I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not.
This was one of the clearest ratings[1] that I have ever handed out to anyone here. With that, I also will not address whatever you reply/distract to this, or to your attacks against the "accusers" or whatever it is that you're doing.

I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.

Thanks. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are doing stuff like this purely to test where the limits are of different individuals here.
[1] Even the write-up is concise, and clean. Totally unlike me!