Bruce Wagner and the surrounding drama.

[bitstarter]

Blockhash I don't make this stuff up lol  here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40477.0

Standard of proof required for trolls: court documents not good enough, signed confession maybe?

Standard of proof required for bbit: forum post from crazy guy who got banned for threatening SA members

Standard of proof required for being an official bitcoin troll:  past history about this scandal https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22311;sa=showPosts

[1713432265]

1713432265

[1713432265]

1713432265

[1713432265]

1713432265

[1713432265]

1713432265

[1713432265]

1713432265

[rainingbitcoins]

Those are slanderous accusations and I hope you have the legal team to back them up.

[DrZaius]

Why can't people display the truth in a more sincere manner? Why must the truth always be portrayed in a deamining and inflammatory way meant to intimidate the entire community? The SA trolling has been going on for MONTHS long before ANY of this Bruce stuff started to happen.

Should all the abuse that you guys have inflicted on this community be forgiven because you brought us a few "good" facts? I say "good" because these facts were not brought out to protect the community from people like Bruce, but instead were brought to light to cause damage and pain to anyone who is part of the Bitcoin movement.

You want proof? You guys have 481 pages of it.

I am absolutely amazed by this post.

Essentially, what you're saying is, yeah, Bruce Wagner is damaging to the community. Yeah, the Bitcoin movement should be protected by people like him.  But because these evidence-backed accusations were apparently done to intimidate the 'entire' community, they should be ignored. So that Bruce can continue to damage the community? What's the endgame here?

First off, not every Anti-Bruce poster is anti-Bitcoin. But let's pretend they were. Who cares? I can defend my own, but regardless,  I don't care about their motives.

What I care about is Bruce Wagner, continually lying and misleading.

*This* man doesn't have the best interests of BitCoin at heart, either. Or he wouldn't have continually insisted that Pattaya was a good spot for the conference. That it was chosen first and foremost as a business centre. Or insisted that underage sex doesn't happen there, despite writing a diatribe on a thai sex website about how, if there was any karma, the low tippers would be the ones getting painfully devirginized over a period of 4 hours. Are there many 38 year old virgins in Pattaya? He wouldn't have lied about what he did and didn't write on those message boards. He wouldn't disrespect the Bitcoin community by lying about what (at the time) were unfounded allegations that were easily defendable.

He wouldn't have continued to promote MyBitCoin, despite assurances to the contrary, for months after it was deemed suspicious. He wouldn't have (allegedly) lied about contacting the FBI.

He wouldn't have lied to the Bitcoin Community about Bold Funding, claiming that they took on too many staff and were simply overworked, despite the fact that court documents showed he couldn't identify a single customer. He wouldn't have, while conducting his business with Bold Funding, lied about its startup date, claiming it began in 1992 and not 2004. He wouldn't have lied about it having 74 regional offices and not 1.

...He wouldn't immediately brush all of this off with a  "Don't you see, these people hate the Bitcoin community!" defense that seems to be working so well on a number of you. That's not a defense against the allegations against himself. That's misdirection, the work of a conman. And it IS working well. Yesterday on IRC he refused to provide a BitCoin address to show evidence of his MyBitcoin refund he's claimed. Despite this, he is still defended and 'trusted'.

And the continued defense of Bruce doesn't just damage the community, it continues to feed the trolls.

[Citation Needed]

I know you're trolling, but to which statement(s) would you like citations for?

[FAtlas]

Being gay, a part of the furry fandom, and on SecondLife since 2003, I've had the (dis)pleasure of observing the SA goons for many years (possibly since the group formed). So, if the accusations against Bruce are true, it's too bad they are coming from attention-whore, flame-baiting, drama queen trolls with almost zero credibility, and zero distinction between fact and hyperbole. That group should have a giant [Citation Needed] warning label.

Wow, a self-identifying Secondlife furry and a bitcoin proponent.  You should join the TVtropes forums too so you can complete the trifecta of shit communities that goons love to make fun of.

[greyhawk]

Being gay, a part of the furry fandom, and on SecondLife since 2003, I've had the (dis)pleasure of observing the SA goons for many years (possibly since the group formed). So, if the accusations against Bruce are true, it's too bad they are coming from attention-whore, flame-baiting, drama queen trolls with almost zero credibility, and zero distinction between fact and hyperbole. That group should have a giant [Citation Needed] warning label.

Wow, a self-identifying Secondlife furry and a bitcoin proponent.  You should join the TVtropes forums too so you can complete the trifecta of shit communities that goons love to make fun of.

TVtropes has forums?

I've GOT to see this.

[FAtlas]

TVtropes has forums?

I've GOT to see this.

I wouldn't recommend it.  It's a horrible slice of humanity that most people aren't equipped to deal with.  Let Goons drag the waters for you:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3411591

[greyhawk]

TVtropes has forums?

I've GOT to see this.

I wouldn't recommend it.  It's a horrible slice of humanity that most people aren't equipped to deal with.  Let Goons drag the waters for you:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3411591

Much appreciated.

[Rassah]

Blockhash I don't make this stuff up lol  here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40477.0

Standard of proof required for trolls: court documents not good enough, signed confession maybe?

Standard of proof required for bbit: forum post from crazy guy who got banned for threatening SA members

It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement.

[Rassah]

Being gay, a part of the furry fandom, and on SecondLife since 2003, I've had the (dis)pleasure of observing the SA goons for many years (possibly since the group formed). So, if the accusations against Bruce are true, it's too bad they are coming from attention-whore, flame-baiting, drama queen trolls with almost zero credibility, and zero distinction between fact and hyperbole. That group should have a giant [Citation Needed] warning label.

Wow, a self-identifying Secondlife furry and a bitcoin proponent.  You should join the TVtropes forums too so you can complete the trifecta of shit communities that goons love to make fun of.

I'm bi, only in that because I like the art and met friends through that, and liked SL because of it's potential for coding, hacking, and economics. I'm quite comfortable with all that, so making fun of me for that is rather pointless. Especially since I have a damn good life, and SA goons project an image of poor, ugly, lazy slobs (you know, the type of people who hate their life, so make themselves feel better by tearing down others).
Also, I've never heard of TVtropes...

[BlockHash]

Blockhash I don't make this stuff up lol  here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40477.0

Standard of proof required for trolls: court documents not good enough, signed confession maybe?

Standard of proof required for bbit: forum post from crazy guy who got banned for threatening SA members

It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement.

The documents don't say anything?! You might want to look over that State of Illinois ruling again, it outlines what our scammy pal Bruce did in great detail. There's also people in the process of getting the court transcripts (which are public record) to see if there's anything else that wasn't covered.

Not being snarky, but there's plenty there to set to rest any unease about this guy being a fraudster of the highest (lowest?) order.

[bitrebel]

Why can't people display the truth in a more sincere manner? Why must the truth always be portrayed in a deamining and inflammatory way meant to intimidate the entire community? The SA trolling has been going on for MONTHS long before ANY of this Bruce stuff started to happen.

Should all the abuse that you guys have inflicted on this community be forgiven because you brought us a few "good" facts? I say "good" because these facts were not brought out to protect the community from people like Bruce, but instead were brought to light to cause damage and pain to anyone who is part of the Bitcoin movement.

You want proof? You guys have 481 pages of it.

I don't know. I think you have a pretty low bar for intimidation.

On the other side of the coin, just yesterday a prominent member of the community was banned for making veiled threats of violence against SA members. He also tweeted similar threats.

How many SA trolls have actually threatened Bitcoiners with violence? Because that sounds a lot more like intimidation than anything you're talking about.

You seriously don't know about the violence SA has done to  forum members ?  Bitcoinmedia is having his family  threatened by SA members!

What? Please someone offer some proof of this, because if true it's ridiculous and very concerning.

who are all these south africans i keep reading about?

Apparently, there are a group of headhunters that have come to this forum. They are all from South Africa. lol
It's Something Smells Awful Forum, that's the SA. It's a forum full of Cops, Narcs, Trolls, Feds, and losers.

[PinkiePie]

Blockhash I don't make this stuff up lol  here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40477.0

Standard of proof required for trolls: court documents not good enough, signed confession maybe?

Standard of proof required for bbit: forum post from crazy guy who got banned for threatening SA members

It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement.

Exactly, some of these trolls are talking like there isn't a legitimate industry in charging people money to find investors to buy a house soon to be in foreclosure and then sell or lease it back to the owners for mutual benefit.  If you can't understand why that could be a valuable and fair service you aren't very bright.

Not everyone doing this kind of thing is running a scam like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_stripping

If they were the scam wouldn't work in the first place since there would be no legitimate companies to make the industry seem real.  It would be like trying to run a lottery scam if there were no real lotteries. 

[DrZaius]

It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement.

What a load of BS.

The Defendants  falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding would locate and secure private funding, for a fee, for homeowners  in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not intend to provide such services and did not provide such services.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had failed to secure private funding for homeowners on only one (1) or two (2) previous occasions; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding had not secured private funding for most, if not all, of its customers.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent,  that Defendant Bold Funding was a private real estate investors' group; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not invest, directly or indirectly, in real

The Defendants  falsely represented,  or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had been a member of the Better Business Bureau for twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding joined the Better Business Bureau for the first time in 2004.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had staff attorneys who assisted homeowners  in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not have any attomeys on staff who assisted homeowners in foreclosure.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had helped homeowners save their homes for the past twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not save homes from foreclosure and Defendant Bold Funding had only existed since 2004.

The Defendants  falsely represented,  or directed others to falsely represent,  that Defendant Bold Funding had seventy-four  (74) regional offices; when in f,act, Defendant Bold Funding maintained and staffed only one (1) office.

Yes, that sounds like a legitimate business simply "gone awry". It's perfectly normal to lie about who you are, how long you've been in operation, how many staff you have, what qualifications they have, and how many offices you have. It's perfectly normal to not provide evidence of a *single* customer receiving help.

https://i.imgur.com/3KvTh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/JCU0z.png
https://i.imgur.com/L5Vw1.png
On the flip side, what single piece of evidence is there that the scam story *doesn't* match up, besides Bruce "Child sex doesn't happen in Pattaya" Wagner's continuous web of lies?

[Rassah]

The Defendants  falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding would locate and secure private funding, for a fee, for homeowners  in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not intend to provide such services and did not provide such services.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had failed to secure private funding for homeowners on only one (1) or two (2) previous occasions; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding had not secured private funding for most, if not all, of its customers.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent,  that Defendant Bold Funding was a private real estate investors' group; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not invest, directly or indirectly, in real

The Defendants  falsely represented,  or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had been a member of the Better Business Bureau for twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding joined the Better Business Bureau for the first time in 2004.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had staff attorneys who assisted homeowners  in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not have any attomeys on staff who assisted homeowners in foreclosure.

The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had helped homeowners save their homes for the past twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not save homes from foreclosure and Defendant Bold Funding had only existed since 2004.

The Defendants  falsely represented,  or directed others to falsely represent,  that Defendant Bold Funding had seventy-four  (74) regional offices; when in f,act, Defendant Bold Funding maintained and staffed only one (1) office.

Thank you! Now, where did this quote come from? I need to know if that is a list of charges, results of fact finding, or court decision. That's important, since I can make a legal document, recorded in court, that says "DrZaius is a thief" as just a charge, during fact-finding present evidence of DrZaius's wrongdoing, but the court may find that nothing actually illegal was done. And yes, while its true that misrepresenting yourself in that manner is a shit thing to do, sadly false advertising is not illegal in US like it is in other countries. Its still a shit thing to do, and I hope Bruce learned his lessons from this.

[PinkiePie]

I don't understand the legalese stuff, but it comes from here:

http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

It's called a "Permanent Injunction and Judgement", what does that mean?

[BlockHash]

I don't understand the legalese stuff, but it comes from here:

http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

It's called a "Permanent Injunction and Judgement", what does that mean?

Same thing as the courts saying "You're guilty - sentenced to x amount of days in prison/etc." in criminal court.

It's the civil side equivalent, where the punishment is revocation of licensing, inability to to business, and massive fines.

[Rassah]

I don't understand the legalese stuff, but it comes from here:

http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

It's called a "Permanent Injunction and Judgement", what does that mean?

Judgement here I think means a decision against the defendant (Bold Funding) and permanent injunction just means ban from doing that specific type of business, permanently. Injunction is basically "stop what you're doing right now."

By the way, notice that document says "Default Judgement." That means that the suit brought against them was uncontested, and they lost by default (like sports teams who don't show up to compete). Not sure why it went that way, but it looks like the plaintiffs brought a complaint, Bold Funding answered, the judge didn't like the answer and struck it from court consideration, and then just ruled that everything that has been brought up against Bruce can stand, regardless of what the complaint said. Normally this happens when someone brings a complaint against the defendant, the defendant doesn't answer, and it is assumed that the defendant doesn't have any challenge to the claims, thus they are all true and can all stand. Here, Bruce's legal counsel was present, and Bruce did answer, but still got a default ruling? Just seems weird. Maybe their reply to the complaints was just REALLY bad, or maybe they just knew that the business was a total failure, and doing anything more with it, including spending more money on lawyers trying to defend themselves, would just waste more money at this point, so they just took the default ruling to save time. Bruce did mention that they didn't show up at the trial because their lawyer suggested they don't. I'm now wondering why.

[wolftaur]

I don't understand the legalese stuff, but it comes from here:

http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

It's called a "Permanent Injunction and Judgement", what does that mean?

Judgement here I think means a decision against the defendant (Bold Funding) and permanent injunction just means ban from doing that specific type of business, permanently. Injunction is basically "stop what you're doing right now."

By the way, notice that document says "Default Judgement." That means that the suit brought against them was uncontested, and they lost by default (like sports teams who don't show up to compete). Not sure why it went that way, but it looks like the plaintiffs brought a complaint, Bold Funding answered, the judge didn't like the answer and struck it from court consideration, and then just ruled that everything that has been brought up against Bruce can stand, regardless of what the complaint said. Normally this happens when someone brings a complaint against the defendant, the defendant doesn't answer, and it is assumed that the defendant doesn't have any challenge to the claims, thus they are all true and can all stand. Here, Bruce's legal counsel was present, and Bruce did answer, but still got a default ruling? Just seems weird. Maybe their reply to the complaints was just REALLY bad, or maybe they just knew that the business was a total failure, and doing anything more with it, including spending more money on lawyers trying to defend themselves, would just waste more money at this point, so they just took the default ruling to save time. Bruce did mention that they didn't show up at the trial because their lawyer suggested they don't. I'm now wondering why.

It's actually extremely simple.

The full court document was OCRed and posted. The court's findings included everything DrZalus posted. Now, Bruce not showing up and defaulting is not actually the same as when a sports team does not show up to play. There is a judge. The judge's job is to make a determination from all presented evidence.

When a sports team doesn't show up they just automatically lose, even if everyone knows for a fact they're a much better team. When a defendant doesn't show up the judge has to look at the actual evidence presented against him, and the defendant can only lose if the evidence is likely sufficient to convict at trial.

The judge's determination includes a list of Bruce's violations. Things like claiming to have foreclosure attorneys when he didn't. Things like lying about how long he was in business. Things like lying about how many offices he had. The judge would not have actually issued those in the ruling if the district attorney did not have evidence.

Bruce's lawyer told him not to show up for one simple reason: Lawyers aren't allowed to encourage a client to commit perjury.

If Bruce's lawyer looked at the actual evidence (which included Bruce's own advertising claiming things, like how long he had been in business, how many offices he had, etc, that are trivial to prove are lies) then he had to know he had a guilty client. If he encouraged Bruce to testify he would be guilty of malpractice (helping a client convict themselves) or suborning perjury, depending on whether Bruce actually told the truth or whether Bruce lied.

Bruce "defaulted" because if he showed up, he would have either had to confess the truth, or he would have had to lie. And perjury means prison time, especially in a case like this. Telling the truth means a much bigger judgment and almost certain harsher penalties.

[Stalin-chan]

I don't understand the legalese stuff, but it comes from here:

http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

It's called a "Permanent Injunction and Judgement", what does that mean?

Judgement here I think means a decision against the defendant (Bold Funding) and permanent injunction just means ban from doing that specific type of business, permanently. Injunction is basically "stop what you're doing right now."

By the way, notice that document says "Default Judgement." That means that the suit brought against them was uncontested, and they lost by default (like sports teams who don't show up to compete). Not sure why it went that way

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that your client shouldn't try to defend himself in an unwinnable case.

[Nagle]

By the way, notice that document says "Default Judgement."

That indicates there was a previous default judgement (indicating the defense didn't show up), and this is a "prove-up" hearing, where the court looks at the default judgement.  This time, Wagner is represented by an attorney, but did not show up himself: Counsel for the People is PRESENT; Counsel for Defendant Bold Funding does not exist; Counsel for Defendant Bruce Wagner (Cantwell & Cantwell) is PRESENT; Defendant Bruce Wagner is ABSENT ....

"The court has considered the People's Amended Complaint, the Prove-Up Affidavits, and the previously entered orders in this case; has heard the witnesses testimony presented at the Prove-Up hearing, has heard the objections of Defendant Bruce Wagner, and over his objections, and being fully advised in the premises, the court finds that..."

So he had his day in court. It didn't go well for him.