P

[Bitcoin Oz]

Well, if all else fails, I am still a fan of the 'Scorched Earth' way of doing things.

If I can't have it - neither can he..... and I will move my claims to the IRS, Homeland Security and Customs/Immigration.

You should try the Dallas Morning News as well.

McKinney Currier-gazette and Plano Star

Do eeet

Trust me. He will be the PRIDE of PLANO if I don't get paid.

Libel ? NOT A FUCKING CHANCE - ALL TRUTH.

Let Walker texas ranger handle it  

[Serge]

<pirateat40> Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders.
<pirateat40> At his time, all Pirate Pass-Thru operators are required to submit a list of their sub-accounts including; balance, forum / IRC name (or any other way of linking and confirming the account) and Bitcoin withdraw address. Payments will be processed directly by Bitcoin Savings & Trust to Pirate Pass-Thru sub-accounts upon verification and cleared of any outstanding conditions.
<pirateat40> Payments will be processed directly by Bitcoin Savings & Trust to Pirate Pass-Thru sub-accounts upon verification and cleared of any outstanding conditions.Payments will be processed directly by Bitcoin Savings & Trust to Pirate Pass-Thru sub-accounts upon verification and cleared of any outstanding conditions.
<pirateat40> Principal and interest payments are subject to review.
<pirateat40> No timeline or further information is available at this time.

Haha.
So I see that Pirate has decided to not put the money through your lying promises, but he wants to just pay the PPT customers directly, instead.
Which means, you will have no opportunity to screw anyone with your empty PPT bonds scam...
And now, since you've already dumped 30129 shares onto the market, of which over 10% has not been deposited into BS&T - you are so fucked up, Goat
Sell more, sell!  There is still time...

dude, you are clueless

there is no way for Goat or any other GLBSE PPT issuer to provide what pirate is asking and certainly there is no way for Pirate to pay directly to GLBSE PPT bond holders.
furthermore GLBSE PPT bond holders are not BTCST Trust sub-accounts

of course there is a way.
goat and nefario don't even need to help with the process.
someone with glbse account can just act as a proxy - people would be transferring the bonds to him, together with the withdrawal address (with a message that goes off GLBSE) - and pirate would be sending money to that address.

so goat, the only thing you can do now to save yourself from the shit hitting the fan, is ordering your bitch to shut the service down - then indeed there would be no way...
but that would also be like GLBSE committing a suicide.... so, is nefario so much engaged to your - or isn't he? i guess we will find out soon...

Goat claims to have 40k BTC with BTCST. he can safely release upto 40000 bonds of this asset on the market. what is the problem?

[piotr_n]

<pirateat40> Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders.
<pirateat40> At his time, all Pirate Pass-Thru operators are required to submit a list of their sub-accounts including; balance, forum / IRC name (or any other way of linking and confirming the account) and Bitcoin withdraw address. Payments will be processed directly by Bitcoin Savings & Trust to Pirate Pass-Thru sub-accounts upon verification and cleared of any outstanding conditions.
<pirateat40> Payments will be processed directly by Bitcoin Savings & Trust to Pirate Pass-Thru sub-accounts upon verification and cleared of any outstanding conditions.Payments will be processed directly by Bitcoin Savings & Trust to Pirate Pass-Thru sub-accounts upon verification and cleared of any outstanding conditions.
<pirateat40> Principal and interest payments are subject to review.
<pirateat40> No timeline or further information is available at this time.

Haha.
So I see that Pirate has decided to not put the money through your lying promises, but he wants to just pay the PPT customers directly, instead.
Which means, you will have no opportunity to screw anyone with your empty PPT bonds scam...
And now, since you've already dumped 30129 shares onto the market, of which over 10% has not been deposited into BS&T - you are so fucked up, Goat
Sell more, sell!  There is still time...

dude, you are clueless

there is no way for Goat or any other GLBSE PPT issuer to provide what pirate is asking and certainly there is no way for Pirate to pay directly to GLBSE PPT bond holders.
furthermore GLBSE PPT bond holders are not BTCST Trust sub-accounts

of course there is a way.
goat and nefario don't even need to help with the process.
someone with glbse account can just act as a proxy - people would be transferring the bonds to him, together with the withdrawal address (with a message that goes off GLBSE) - and pirate would be sending money to that address.

so goat, the only thing you can do now to save yourself from the shit hitting the fan, is ordering your bitch to shut the service down - then indeed there would be no way...
but that would also be like GLBSE committing a suicide.... so, is nefario so much engaged to your - or isn't he? i guess we will find out soon...

Goat claims to have 40k BTC with BTCST. he can safely release upto 40000 bonds of this asset on the market. what is the problem?

the problem is that he is a fucking liar - so nobody should believe him.

[repentance]

It is Texas so litigation would not be able to take his house (unless he purchased it by illegal means), but everything else is open to forfeiture.  People can declare bankruptcy but that is only for outstanding debt, that does not include fraud.  If that fraud was done over the internet then that is wire fraud.

How easy is it to establish fraud in Texas?  Something can be as sketchy as hell and still not meet the legal standard required for being considered "fraudulent".  Are people going to take the risk of litigating when doing so opens up the IRS and AML can of worms?

[sadpandatech]

It is Texas so litigation would not be able to take his house (unless he purchased it by illegal means), but everything else is open to forfeiture.  People can declare bankruptcy but that is only for outstanding debt, that does not include fraud.  If that fraud was done over the internet then that is wire fraud.

How easy is it to establish fraud in Texas?  Something can be as sketchy as hell and still not meet the legal standard required for being considered "fraudulent".  Are people going to take the risk of litigating when doing so opens up the IRS and AML can of worms?

yep, which keeps bringing me back to the suspicion that Pirate is not filing any sort of legal work either. For all we know he is attempting to rouse everyone to buy more time and move any who were thinking of taking legal action away from doing so..

On the fraud matter, I would think by the very nature of his stated business it would be almost impossible for him to be in such a position without their being fraud involved. If he was turning over BTC for cash in hand on a weekly or more frequent basis even. Then he would have a very, very difficult time proving a loss of more than a few points between any one exchange. If he was slowly moving further and further away from returning to a parity liquid BTC state with each continued exchange period then he would be negligent at best for not alerting his creditors at the first instance of such a situation.

The creditors can easily show that they continued to entrust Pirate with operating funds because he at no time indicated his model was not maintaining the quick(weekly or less) and equally beneficial profits that were stated to be paid to creditors. If he was aware that his credited balance would suffer at any such exchange then he would have been bound and obligated to stop circulating funds at that time and to notify creditors immediatly.

Your lawyers would know better than I will, that's for sure. What I do know, is that something stinks.. And the only way for the funds to not be availavle would be for Pirate to knowingly deviate from the stated means of operation at some point.



Or, it's just a damn ponzi and he is trying to stall as long as possible to make his escape.

P.S. It would be awfully helpful in determining some finer points of where things went wrong if I had access to more of the original deposit addresses from some of the larger lenders... Please PM them to me. Your info will not be shared or used in any manner that could implicate anyone. It is for research and documentation purposes only.

cheers

[bitlane]

Wanna see Pirate's MIXING of funds ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104221.msg1142230#msg1142230


Separate Operation ? Limited Liabilities ?......NOT A CHANCE.

[JoelKatz]

What if pirate is asking for sub-accounts simply as a guarantee? What do you do if instead of paying the sub-accounts directly, you give the money to the PPT operator and the operator run away?

That makes no sense. Pirate owes the PPT operators the balance on their accounts. He can't decide he doesn't like what they might do with the money. It's none of his business.

I mean, everybody already knows the life of pirate, with his name and all. But we don't know so much about all the PPT operators. Pirate is already in a delicate situation, and in the event where pirate comes to a pay back agreement, having an operator running away with the funds is probably not going to be really helpful. Also, consider that if he's doing all this the "legal" way, filing bankruptcy and all, I don't think having strangers manipulating the assets is part of the legal processing.

He has no choice. He owes the funds to the PPT operators. He can't decide he doesn't want to pay them back and would rather pay someone else instead.

But I'm no lawyer, I only want to give another "possible" explanations.

That's outright absurd. That would be like my boss deciding to pay my mortgage instead of paying me my salary, because maybe I won't pay the bank back the money they loaned me.

I agree with Goat. Pirate's obligations are to *his* account holders.

As for the authority to settle, I would think the legal argument could be sustained that PPT holders have the authority to enter into partial settlement agreements with Pirate. However, they cannot release Pirate from liability for the damages a partial payment will do to their bond holders because they are intended third party beneficiaries. This kind of sucks for Pirate. But as I understand it, it's the law. Intended third party beneficiaries can sue for damages of a breach, even if the parties of the contract release the damages. (It's not completely clear if PPT holders are intended third party beneficiaries though, but I think they are.)

Here, Dad makes a contract with the Car Dealer to buy a new car for his daughter Lisa. Dad agrees to pay $10,000 for the car and the Car Dealer agrees to deliver the car to Lisa. Now, Lisa is not a party to the contract. Lisa did not sign anything! Lisa is simply a third party beneficiary of the contract.

The next question is whether Lisa is an "intended" third party beneficiary (where she would have rights to enforce the contract against the Car Dealer and/or Dad) or just an "incidental" third party beneficiary (where she would not have any rights to enforce the contract against the Car Dealer or Dad). In the real world, it’s often not so easy to determine whether someone is an intended or incidental third party beneficiary.

Well, let’s assume that Lisa heard about this deal and sold her current car to a friend. Lisa also spent money on new accessories for the car that she thought she was going to get. Lisa took a weekend off of work in anticipation of receiving the new car that weekend. Plus, the Car Dealer and Dad informed her that she would be getting the car. Then, the car never came and the Car Dealership failed to bring the new car to Lisa. Here, it’s pretty obvious that Lisa relied to her detriment upon the contract created by the Car Dealer and Dad to get the new car. It’s very likely that Lisa was an "intended" third party beneficiary. So, she could likely sue the Car Dealer for not sending her the car.

http://www.legalflip.com/LegalWordOfTheDay.aspx?id=23

Where things get really confusing though is this -- if all PPT operators settle for a partial payment, does that make Matthew lose his bet? Does a default to an intended third party beneficiary count if the direct party agrees to a partial payment? (Again, in addition to me not having money that I can afford to lose, these kind of vague terms in the bet are the main reason I didn't accept Matthew's bet.)

[piotr_n]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands.

[JoelKatz]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

Well, in the trivial sense, anyone can sue anyone for anything. And, of course, it's not worth a lawsuit over one bond unless you're in it for the lulz or the principle of the thing. But basically, yes. Anyone who holds a PPT could perhaps successfully sue Pirate, as an intended third party beneficiary, for breaching his agreement with the PPT operator. The legal reasoning is that the PPT operator doesn't have any incentive to sue, since it not their money. And it wouldn't be fair if nobody who was harmed by the breach had the right to sue. That would let criminals get away with murder.

This also applies if the PPT operators agree to settlement. But that would be a weaker argument that I'm not sure would work. The settlement harms the PPT holders compared to full compliance. And the same legal reasoning applies, it's not just to allow the PPT operators to be pressured into extinguishing the rights of their holders.

[JoelKatz]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands.

I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat.

[piotr_n]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands.

I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat.

Read again:

Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders.

So all the goat's lawyers can do now, is going to Texas to lick Pirate's balls - but only if he'd generously allow them to.

Though, the bond holders can still get their money back from BS&T - there is no need to sue anyone, all they need to do is proving that they do own the PPT bonds.
Which of course would go much smoother if Goat and Nefarion were willing to cooperate... but will they? Knowing these two crooks, I kind of doubt it.

[JoelKatz]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands.

I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat.

Read again:

Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders.

So all the goat's lawyers can do now, is going to Texas to lick Pirate's balls - but only if he'd generously allow them to.

I thought you were arguing that this would be some scheme to get him out of default.

[sadpandatech]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands.

I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat.

Read again:

Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders.

So all the goat's lawyers can do now, is going to Texas to lick Pirate's balls - but only if he'd generously allow them to.

Though, the bond holders can still get their money back from BS&T - all they need to do is proving that they do own the bonds and there is no need to sue anyone.

yea, he read it. While that notice is fine for proving that he informed his creditors that he cannot at this time maintain the orginal contract to complete satisfaction. It is by no means to serve in lieu of a legal notice stating that Pirate is released from still maintaining the contract to the fullest extent of which he is capable of.

Has anyone seen a legal filing in TX from Mr. Pirate regarding this matter?

[piotr_n]

That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.

That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands.

I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat.

Read again:

Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders.

So all the goat's lawyers can do now, is going to Texas to lick Pirate's balls - but only if he'd generously allow them to.

I thought you were arguing that this would be some scheme to get him out of default.

He's obviously going to loose the bets - but then he's protecting all the small investors from scams, like the one Goat and Nefario have tried to run.
For which I admire him. Though I should't say it, before getting my money back, but well - I trust the guy, even more today than I did 2 weeks ago.
If he doesn't pay back - then you can laugh at me as much as you want, for being so naive.

[sadpandatech]

He's obviously going to loose the bets - but then he's protecting all the small investors from scams, like the one Goat and Nefario have tried to run.
For which I admire him. Though I should't say it, before getting my money back, but well - I trust the guy.
If he doesn't pay back - then you can laugh at me as much as you want, for being so naive.

Whatever you may believe about Goat or Nefario aside. I can assure you that Pirate is looking out for #1 and his seeking individual PPT depositor info has zero to do with your feelings about Goat. Goat is only one of several large, and some much larger PPT's.

[piotr_n]

He's obviously going to loose the bets - but then he's protecting all the small investors from scams, like the one Goat and Nefario have tried to run.
For which I admire him. Though I should't say it, before getting my money back, but well - I trust the guy.
If he doesn't pay back - then you can laugh at me as much as you want, for being so naive.

Whatever you may believe about Goat or Nefario aside. I can assure you that Pirate is looking out for #1 and his seeking individual PPT depositor info has zero to do with your feelings about Goat. Goat is only one of several large, and some much larger PPT's.

Except that few of the several large PPT's have no issues with giving Pirate the list of their customers, so he could pay them out directly - while the few others are treating him with lawyers.

[Bitcoin Oz]

He's obviously going to loose the bets - but then he's protecting all the small investors from scams, like the one Goat and Nefario have tried to run.
For which I admire him. Though I should't say it, before getting my money back, but well - I trust the guy.
If he doesn't pay back - then you can laugh at me as much as you want, for being so naive.

Whatever you may believe about Goat or Nefario aside. I can assure you that Pirate is looking out for #1 and his seeking individual PPT depositor info has zero to do with your feelings about Goat. Goat is only one of several large, and some much larger PPT's.

Except that few of the several large PPT's have no issues with giving Pirate the list of their customers, so he could pay them out directly - while the few others are treating him with lawyers.

 I suggest people contact the PPT operator and expressly forbid them from handing over any such identifying info. Payb.tc for instance is in Australia and there are massive fines for breaking the privacy act.

[piotr_n]

I'm pretty sure no one will hand that stuff over.

You wanna bet?

@bitcoin.me, what business do you have in this?

[JoelKatz]

He's obviously going to loose the bets - but then he's protecting all the small investors from scams, like the one Goat and Nefario have tried to run.
For which I admire him. Though I should't say it, before getting my money back, but well - I trust the guy, even more today than I did 2 weeks ago.
If he doesn't pay back - then you can laugh at me as much as you want, for being so naive.

You admire Pirate for defaulting on his obligations to Goat and Nefario because you think he might be trying to protect small investors from scams!?

Pirate has defaulted twice now. Do you have any evidence Goat and Nefario have ever failed to meet their obligations to depositors?

I honestly cannot believe that you are being serious. Maybe I'm naive.

[piotr_n]

You admire Pirate for defaulting on his obligations to Goat and Nefario because you think he might be trying to protect small investors from scams!?

Yes.
Except that Pirate never had any obligations to Nefario.
Though, Nefario has earned shit lots of money from the PPT bonds.