Bruce Wagner and the surrounding drama.

[bitrebel]

A huge number of scams involving technology intentionally use two people: one is the smooth talker who doesn't fully understand computers, the other is the one who knows how to code and handle systems, who works in secret in the background.

A huge number of scams include two or more people where some of them get "scammed" along with the marks to provoke a feeling of solidarity and sympathy (as well as trust)

Where's Manny?

[1715135287]

1715135287

[1715135287]

1715135287

[bosschair]

But people keep calling Bruce a 'convict' in the mortgage case, which just isn't true.  The same way OJ Simpson was never convicted of murder.

lol, great supporters you've got, Bruce.

[rainingbitcoins]

How tragic. He wanted to be the Oprah of Bitcoins and he wound up the O.J. Simpson.

[FAtlas]

I have read some of the threads, but as there's so much info I can't possibly take the time to read it all.

"Hello, I'm the OP.  I couldn't be bothered to read all of the freely available information on this subject but I thought I should start a whole new thread and write up several paragraphs letting you all know what I think about the matter.  I'm doing this because I'm a huge attention whore."

[Herodes]

I have read some of the threads, but as there's so much info I can't possibly take the time to read it all.

"Hello, I'm the OP.  I couldn't be bothered to read all of the freely available information on this subject but I thought I should start a whole new thread and write up several paragraphs letting you all know what I think about the matter.  I'm doing this because I'm a huge attention whore."

I could feel inclined to do a harsh reply to your post. But I won't. I don't get offended by what anyone says on a forum anymore.

I read quite a few threads here, and on the something awful forums, mostly dealing with the pedophilia accusations. I didn't know about the mortgage scam business Bruce was involved with, which I already stated in another post.

I wanted to express my disgust with some people accusing someone else of a very horrible crime (ie. misusing children for sexual purposes).

I don't know about you, but I don't sit around round the clock and read every post in every thread. I read enough about the issue to have an opinion, and I already apologized for me not knowing the whole picture, and in addition I thanked for the extended information I was given.

I don't know how anyone making a topic on the bitcoin forum could be an attention whore, but perhaps there's a country where such thread creators have expensive cars, gigantic gold chains around their neck, and surgically enhanced bitcoin babes doing the boob-a-top dance around their swelling upper arms and chests. I guess that's where you live? 

[Jack of Diamonds]

http://buttcoin.org/has-bruce-wagner-pulled-off-the-financial-biggest-scam-on-the-bitcoin-community

We made a megapost here with all the currently known information including a timeline(there may be some recent developments missing but it will be updated soon enough).  Feel free to spread the link around to anyone who wants to know what's actually going on, all we want is the truth to be known.  

And sorry if I came off too harsh, wolftaur was right.  I ran into the no evidence and "lots of fuss about him being gay" and went off the deep end a bit    

Edit:  For what its worth I agree about the pedo accusations, I never supported that position.  He's still a scumbag though.  

What is the source for that quote in the article?

Is nobody else concerned if this is actually Bruce, he has admitted to molesting children for money in Thailand?

Also,  his name could be based on a book (maybe he had it legally changed).
http://www.amazon.com/Im-Losing-You-Bruce-Wagner/dp/0452278686

It is a business where the shyster producer of a hit dog movie hopes his next project will be a remake of Gogol's Dead Souls - this time around featuring Alec Baldwin as a burnt-out salesman hustling life insurance to persons with AIDS.

It's a town where a mad agent plays God to a homeless woman -

an affair that ends in sodomy, pedophilia, and murder.

[Stalin-chan]

Bruce Wagner HAS been found guilty by a court of law. So I don't see why we shouldn't be highly suspicious of him.

[Rassah]

Bruce Wagner HAS been found guilty by a court of law. So I don't see why we shouldn't be highly suspicious of him.

People who don't know anything about the court and law system, and confuse criminal court's "guilty in a court of law" with civil court's "losing in a civil case" are kind of annoying. There was no government law that Bruce was found guilty of. The civil court simply agreed with the plaintiffs that they have been wronged. And based on Bruce's explanation, if what he did was scamming people, then likewise MtGox having people give them money, growing too fast, and losing people's money to hackers or whatever other unfortunate incident was also "scamming people." So is every start-up that has ever taken investor's money and ended up losing it because the business idea sucked. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but losing other people's money in unfortunate business screw-ups isn't "scamming," it's reality of business and happens often. Just because the type of people that got hurt makes your heart bleed doesn't change that fact.

[wolftaur]

Bruce Wagner HAS been found guilty by a court of law. So I don't see why we shouldn't be highly suspicious of him.

People who don't know anything about the court and law system, and confuse criminal court's "guilty in a court of law" with civil court's "losing in a civil case" are kind of annoying. There was no government law that Bruce was found guilty of. The civil court simply agreed with the plaintiffs that they have been wronged. And based on Bruce's explanation, if what he did was scamming people, then likewise MtGox having people give them money, growing too fast, and losing people's money to hackers or whatever other unfortunate incident was also "scamming people." So is every start-up that has ever taken investor's money and ended up losing it because the business idea sucked. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but losing other people's money in unfortunate business screw-ups isn't "scamming," it's reality of business and happens often. Just because the type of people that got hurt makes your heart bleed doesn't change that fact.

Bruce's explanation leaves out things like:

* He was doing the business without the required license
* When brought into court he was unable to name a SINGLE customer he actually provided the "service" for

The comparison to Mt.Gox isn't accurate. Mt.Gox actually handled things until they got overloaded. Bruce was unable to demonstrate he provided service for even _one_ client. That isn't getting overwhelmed. That is scamming. Especially since, well... There were positive "reviews" posted of his service. Supposedly-happy-customers. Except Bruce couldn't produce even one of those supposedly happy customers for the court.

[Rassah]

Bruce Wagner HAS been found guilty by a court of law. So I don't see why we shouldn't be highly suspicious of him.

People who don't know anything about the court and law system, and confuse criminal court's "guilty in a court of law" with civil court's "losing in a civil case" are kind of annoying. There was no government law that Bruce was found guilty of. The civil court simply agreed with the plaintiffs that they have been wronged. And based on Bruce's explanation, if what he did was scamming people, then likewise MtGox having people give them money, growing too fast, and losing people's money to hackers or whatever other unfortunate incident was also "scamming people." So is every start-up that has ever taken investor's money and ended up losing it because the business idea sucked. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but losing other people's money in unfortunate business screw-ups isn't "scamming," it's reality of business and happens often. Just because the type of people that got hurt makes your heart bleed doesn't change that fact.

Bruce's explanation leaves out things like:

* He was doing the business without the required license
* When brought into court he was unable to name a SINGLE customer he actually provided the "service" for

The comparison to Mt.Gox isn't accurate. Mt.Gox actually handled things until they got overloaded. Bruce was unable to demonstrate he provided service for even _one_ client. That isn't getting overwhelmed. That is scamming. Especially since, well... There were positive "reviews" posted of his service. Supposedly-happy-customers. Except Bruce couldn't produce even one of those supposedly happy customers for the court.

Note it said he didn't have a mortgage or real estate license. I used to have one because I would actually sell mortgages. What Bruce was apparently doing in his business was not selling mortgages, but pairing owners with investors/buyers. I wouldn't think you would need a mortgage license for that. My guess is the investors would need some sort of license to sell the loans themselves. Perhaps the state court dissagreed.
Don't know why no one they actually helped was brought up. I have many guesses, but that's all they are. Bruce will have to explain that one himself.

[rainingbitcoins]

Don't know why no one they actually helped was brought up. I have many guesses,

Really? You have many guesses? Because I only have one.

[wolftaur]

Note it said he didn't have a mortgage or real estate license. I used to have one because I would actually sell mortgages. What Bruce was apparently doing in his business was not selling mortgages, but pairing owners with investors/buyers. I wouldn't think you would need a mortgage license for that. My guess is the investors would need some sort of license to sell the loans themselves. Perhaps the state court dissagreed.
Don't know why no one they actually helped was brought up. I have many guesses, but that's all they are. Bruce will have to explain that one himself.

It varies by state. In the state where I live right now you actually need a license to even discuss foreclosure-related finance with a client, or to even attempt to arrange a sale or equity transfer. In my home state you only need a license to make the actual sale/transfer to file with the county.

As to Bruce having to explain himself why he couldn't demonstrate that he helped even one single person when questioned by the court, I doubt such an explanation will be forthcoming considering that he has not responded to anything here ever since the thread was unlocked by a moderator. Bruce posted his list of excuses and locked the thread, wanting to be able to preach to a forcibly silenced audience. He didn't get his way on that part and he has ignored it since, as he has done in every other thread where these things have been getting brought up.

I'll note that in several of those threads I was defending him, quite vocally, because most of what was being raised as accusations were inflammatory and had no actual evidence. A bunch of people were trying to "prove" Bruce is a pedophile with no real grounds or evidence, for example. That's a really horrible accusation to make if you can't back it up... The court cases, though, he lost. Cases, not case. We're talking about judgments against him in multiple states now -- not just one civil trial he lost. Just one civil trial? I would be quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was possible he thought it was a great business idea and didn't realize what he stepped in until it was all over his shoes. But it wasn't just one. And it wasn't in just one state. And the most recent is still an active case.

[wolftaur]

Really? You have many guesses? Because I only have one.

Give Rassah some slack and civility on that, please. Not wanting to make random speculation or accusations without specific knowledge is completely reasonable and fair. Respecting the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the same as defending known wrongdoing. Rassah has been rational and reasonable, there's no justification to get hostile with him.

[rainingbitcoins]

As to Bruce having to explain himself why he couldn't demonstrate that he helped even one single person when questioned by the court, I doubt such an explanation will be forthcoming considering that he has not responded to anything here ever since the thread was unlocked by a moderator.

A bunch of people asked him in IRC. Some of them he ignored, the rest he called liars. When people pointed out that it was the court documents and news accounts that said that and asked if all of them were liars, he ignored them.

Rassah has been rational and reasonable, there's no justification to get hostile with him.

Let's just say that I've dealt with him before on this forum and I've found him to be exactly the opposite of reasonable.

[Stalin-chan]

Really? You have many guesses? Because I only have one.

Give Rassah some slack and civility on that, please. Not wanting to make random speculation or accusations without specific knowledge is completely reasonable and fair. Respecting the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the same as defending known wrongdoing. Rassah has been rational and reasonable, there's no justification to get hostile with him.

It's totally not reasonable or fair, no one defended Bruce because his other clients didn't exist.
If you read the court documents it shows that Bruce was lying to every costumer he worked with. Bruce couldn't have made these lies up on accident so it's obvious that he knew full well what he was doing.

Now as for giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt, well its called a benefit for a reason. Bruce has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't scam at least 20 people in the year 2004 alone.

His post here doesn't even begin to explain half the charges against him, and I would really like to hear what he has to say but he wont talk to us. What else do you expect me to think? Theres a line between benefit of the doubt and ignorance, I think its safe to say we have crossed that line until Bruce himself actually explains what happened.

[wolftaur]

As to Bruce having to explain himself why he couldn't demonstrate that he helped even one single person when questioned by the court, I doubt such an explanation will be forthcoming considering that he has not responded to anything here ever since the thread was unlocked by a moderator.

A bunch of people asked him in IRC. Some of them he ignored, the rest he called liars. When people pointed out that it was the court documents and news accounts that said that and asked if all of them were liars, he ignored them.

Yeah, I would have guessed as much. I'm sure Bruce knows any truthful answer will make him look worse, and if he lies...

Court records are available for anyone who wants them and his lie will be exposed very quickly.

[wolftaur]

Really? You have many guesses? Because I only have one.

Give Rassah some slack and civility on that, please. Not wanting to make random speculation or accusations without specific knowledge is completely reasonable and fair. Respecting the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the same as defending known wrongdoing. Rassah has been rational and reasonable, there's no justification to get hostile with him.

It's totally not reasonable or fair, no one defended Bruce because his other clients didn't exist.
If you read the court documents it shows that Bruce was lying to every costumer he worked with. Bruce couldn't have made these lies up on accident so it's obvious that he knew full well what he was doing.

I know, and that was what I pointed out to Rassah. But remember that someone just coming into this thread may not have seen all of the evidence which is at this point scattered across 12 threads on 3 sub forums here.

Now as for giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt, well its called a benefit for a reason. Bruce has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't scam at least 20 people in the year 2004 alone.

His post here doesn't even begin to explain half the charges against him, and I would really like to hear what he has to say but he wont talk to us. What else do you expect me to think? Theres a line between benefit of the doubt and ignorance, I think its safe to say we have crossed that line until Bruce himself actually explains what happened.

I said I could consider giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt if he had only been brought to court once. But it was multiple times, and in multiple parts of the country. I most certainly cannot give him the benefit of the doubt: Bruce's entire defense is "We didn't mean it to happen like that." That is a lie, because if he didn't mean it ... it would have been a one time thing, he'd be in trouble in one court in one state, not multiple judgements against him involving the court systems of multiple states.

[Rassah]

Don't know why no one they actually helped was brought up. I have many guesses,

Really? You have many guesses? Because I only have one.

Well, since you asked:
1) It was all just a scam and he got caught (how was he expecting to get away with the scam without providing any services though?)
2) They were sued while still in the process of getting their first mortgage-investor match, and thus never had time to actually conclude any business before they were forced to stop (seemingly-good idea so overwhelmed them that it crashed before getting off the ground)
3) Just as their lawyer had suggested they don't go to the court proceedings, their lawyer may have also suggested that they don't provide any information regarding this business's customers. I don't know why. Maybe it was a privacy issue, or maybe it was because Bruce's company was obviously at fault (the business did crash) and there was no point in providing that information since they knew they would lose the case anyway.
I haven't actually read the detailed court proceedings, so I can't say for sure. Frankly, I don't even know where to look for those.

Also, I was not aware of the multiple cases when I posted my original reply. Not knowing all the details, I would conclude that either Bruce is a major scam artist (albeit a crappy one, since he keeps getting busted and doesn't have exit strategies), or Bruce is a gung-ho entrepreneur who keeps having either bad luck, or a severe lack of business skills. Again, I would have to see the cases in more detail. I do know that many entrepreneurs have a LOT of crappy history and failures, including amassing huge debts and legal issues. That's the road you have to be willing to travel if you want to strike it rich with one of those single business ideas people actually remember you by.

[Rassah]

Rassah has been rational and reasonable, there's no justification to get hostile with him.

Let's just say that I've dealt with him before on this forum and I've found him to be exactly the opposite of reasonable.

That's interesting. I don't actually remember you at all, or ever having discussed anything with you. But if you think I am unreasonable, I guess I'll have to work on that.

[wolftaur]

1) It was all just a scam and he got caught (how was he expecting to get away with the scam without providing any services though?)

He had them signing contracts where they agreed that he would be trying to find an investor for the house, but might not succeed. He had primed them to think that, well, it's like any realtor.

If I go to a realtor and say, "I want to sell my house for $120,000" the realtor can only sell it for $120,000 if someone wants to buy it. Bruce's "You agree it's not my fault if nobody wants to invest in your property" contract meant that in the majority of cases he did nothing he was able to convince the homeowner he did something but just failed. And everyone of course thought they had this binding contract saying it wasn't Bruce's fault.

What got him nailed was that he had been telling people he had successfully saved many homes, but he couldn't actually prove that: cover-your-ass contracts are not actually enforceable to protect the business owner when you can prove intent to defraud, and giving false information about what the business's success rates are is sufficient to prove intent to defraud.