Deleted posts in the Hardware BFL Thread, Double Standards, and Hypocrisy

[brush242]

Lawyer dude decided to poke the bear. He was doxed for his derailing in a BFL thread. He cried harassment when he was unmasked. You came in on a white horse to his rescue.

Ah. I see. I "poked the bear" how exactly?

~Not accepting some of the absolutely stupid opinions posted in there, and demonstrating why they are wrong? Providing reasoning? "No, that isn't correct because (and then I insert my reasoning here)?"

~Explaining why some of the standards being used to judge professional competence were irrelevant? In fact, someone in there posed a standard that would have resulted in BFL not having any legal representation at all. Oh yeah, that's brilliant. We somehow, because we have chosen guilt without first-hand knowledge in something, think it is a good idea to have the gov't absolutely crush people without any defense? Brilliant.

~Showing how US law and TROs work? You WANT the few attorneys that post here taking their time to explain, even if you don't happen to like the answer. Learning how the system works will better your efforts.

Gmaxwell noted "...ten pages about people who have nothing to do with BFL beyond having posted in that particular thread, do nothing to aid people recover their losses-- in fact, it does precisely (and I think, intentionally) the opposite."

Exactly. You people who want BFL to burn so badly are harming your position, not helping it.

[brush242]

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Oh yeah, rocket scientist, do a little ~more~ research and you may find that some attorneys even have >gasp< webpages! Ads in the yellow pages, even! If that still exists.

[brush242]

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Well I be a butterfly! It sure does look like Stephen M. Reid was acting against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting his business here on BCT. (Not surprising as he advocated BFL's lawyers were acting professionally too.) It's a good thing then (for him) that he deleted those posts and got the remainder of these incriminating posts deleted by the moderator...

Uh huh.

More accurately, I asked the mods to pull that BS down because it was stupid, and irrelevant.

As I said to them, I have no problem being out there, I AM out there. LinkedIn, @TheBitcoinimist, et cetera. In fact, I just added it to my .sig, that way you'll always know where to find me.

The issue was, once again, stupidity. Using an old tracking number that I provided, and then posting some dumb crap about it without checking with the USPS? You guys should just search for "Steve Reid" or "Stephen Reid". Guess what? There are thousands of us, oh my!  Very very very few of them will have anything to do with BTC or BFL, except me. And guess what, my connection is minor, at best.

Some of us will be anything you want them to be: lawyers, criminals, firemen, people who post things on the internet, people who own exotic pets, me, not me, almost always not me, accountants, someone who lives somewhere else, et cetera ad infinitum.

Drawing loads of irrelevant and unrelated inferences about me does what? Can you guess?

Dilutes the value of the BFL thread.

Smart plan.

[VenusFlyTrap]

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Oh yeah, rocket scientist, do a little ~more~ research and you may find that some attorneys even have >gasp< webpages! Ads in the yellow pages, even! If that still exists.

Stephen Mark Reid da ghost attorney! The master creator of many pseudonyms. Looking for clients on bitcointalk and fighting all the idiots out there.

[brush242]

(Xian01 tells me that this thread was created because of messages I removed in a thread about BFL)

I don't know and don't care about "dox".  I removed a ton of posts that have absolutely nothing, not even any claim, of having to do with BFL, that were basically making it impossible to find the one in ten posts that were actually about BFL.

For the abstract question ... harassing people is not okay, but there are limits to what can be done about it.

I sent you a PM, bud.

You know what would be interesting to know Bruno; whether the service of Stephen M. Reid as an army interrogator crossed paths with the service of a certain Korean army linguist aka Inaba aka BFL_Josh aka Joshua Ryan Zerlan...

That would certainly shed some light on the entanglement of these here "actors" on BCT....

Here, I'll give you the answer right now: no. We didn't cross paths. If I remember correctly, I was off of active duty two or three years before he even started.

Did you find that interesting? Did it shed any "...light on the entanglement of these here 'actors' on BCT...."?

[brush242]

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Well I be a butterfly! It sure does look like Stephen M. Reid was acting against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting his business here on BCT. (Not surprising as he advocated BFL's lawyers were acting professionally too.) It's a good thing then (for him) that he deleted those posts and got the remainder of these incriminating posts deleted by the moderator...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492749.0

What is even funnier that Stephen Mark Reid (Brush242) is having a legal signature attached to his pseudonym. 

Funny? Why is it funny?

It's a standard disclaimer such that people realize the limit of what comprises legal representation and legal advice.

In fact, directly below my disclaimer is BCT's disclaimer.

Followed thereafter by someone who thinks it's odd that casinos would have legal representation.

[brush242]

[...]What would GMaxwell's motivation be for trying to benefit BFL in any way?[...]

>snip<
c. once the "BFL fucked us over again" topic started finding more and more evidence of that this "lawyerdude" shows up intentionally derailing the thread;
d. dude gets doxed;
e. GMaxwell all of a sudden (yes, sudden) starts moderating the bejeezers out of cet topic...

Considering the amount of doxxing previously going on by BFL representatives (and that being allowed by the mod.) this seems highly suspicious.

So maybe BCT in general, or GMaxwell in particular still have something to gain from either BFL or Bitpay  

Again: SPECULATION, but motivation enough for you?

Oh yeah, ~my~ few posts are what derailed that thread. I certainly did not set the tone in there, and what little I posted certainly did not "derail" it. That had been done literally thousands of posts before mine.

You may believe that my posts "derailed" it, you are entitled to your opinion.

[VenusFlyTrap]

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Well I be a butterfly! It sure does look like Stephen M. Reid was acting against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting his business here on BCT. (Not surprising as he advocated BFL's lawyers were acting professionally too.) It's a good thing then (for him) that he deleted those posts and got the remainder of these incriminating posts deleted by the moderator...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492749.0

What is even funnier that Stephen Mark Reid (Brush242) is having a legal signature attached to his pseudonym. 

Funny? Why is it funny?

It's a standard disclaimer such that people realize the limit of what comprises legal representation and legal advice.

In fact, directly below my disclaimer is BCT's disclaimer.

Followed thereafter by someone who thinks it's odd that casinos would have legal representation.

Who do you work for?

[brush242]

There is more to that. Brush242 did not manage to hush people up; ""It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" --Some Guy, Late 1800s

I didn't offer anonymous service, or even pseudo-anonymous service. I would not be anonymous. Any client will be able to confirm my legitimacy in the jurisdictions where I am admitted to practice law.

Depending on the extent of the services needed for legal representation, clients and I will enter into a written representation agreement that covers fees, costs, scope of service, et cetera. For other services, a standard business agreement."

See for yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492749.msg10050629#msg10050629

So then comes a force majeure and caboom... everyone's posts are gone. A very interesting coincidence  

Not a coincidence at all. I asked the mods to do it.

Why should that surprise anyone?

Further, why should any of you think that is acceptable behavior? It doesn't have any relevance and makes you look petty:

"Welp, I ain't got no reel agruments 'bout TROs but here's Stevie's name, oh, an' lookee hyah, I put up sumtin else stupid that is unreelayted."

The reason someone did it was what? "To change my tone?" Won't happen, I didn't set the tone here. "Teech me a lessun?" Nope. If anything I was trying to teach some of you how the US legal system actually works.

There is NOTHING I have posted that I would have hesitated to say to anyone's face. And when I have met people from on line, I have done exactly that. Oh, right, but now I'm doxxed. That'll show me, eh?

Get real.

[brush242]

Which makes your removal of the dox of such an "upstanding professional" so troubling, considering the rubbish he was adding to the thread, and resulted in said doxing.

In the nicest way possible, I'm trying to say "In this instance, I think you went a bit too far. He deserved to be unmasked considering his 'contributions'. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that much of the last 10-15 pages of that thread have been pure cancer, but lawyer dude fucked up, and I think it was totally uncool of you to nuke the genesis post doxing him. The circle jerk went way too far after that, though"

EDIT: As an alternative, I might have suggested splitting off the last 10 pages and moved it to meta or offtopic or something...

Uh huh. Which rubbish was that precisely? How US TROs work? Oh man, you guys should dox PuertoLibre! He posted an entire QUOTE FROM ANOTHER SOURCE which further explained how they work.

Similarly, how did I "fuck up" as you put it? Posting an explanation? Explaining why no one in the instant case needs to have "fucked up" to have the outcomes we've seen so far? There is nothing in those posts I would hesitate to post again. Plenty of them should be reposted, but I'm not going to rewrite them.

[brush242]

[...] like I removed something to the betterment of BFL, which I think cannot be sanely alleged.[...]

Well Gregory: Sorry, but it can; "lawyer-dude" Stephen M. Reid showed up as this community was posting more and more evidence of BFL/Bitpay's fraud/money laundering and started derailing that. Since no mod was anywhere near to putting that dude in his place the community acted itself (thank you, Bruno et al.) and doxed him. By your blunt actions this context has been totally lost while his (lawyer-dude's) prior derailments still stand.

So sorry, but: yes, your "aggressive" actions actually led "to the betterment of BFL"... 

And to put insult to injury you then start threatening that very community

I "showed up" because I was curious about the status and I was appalled at the state of that thread. If I "derailed" anything, it was stupid and unfounded opinions. Not, of course that people aren't allowed to have them. They can have them no matter how wrong they are. But providing good information helps mitigate bad information.

Doxxing? Oh yeah. They sure showed me.

What, precisely, do you think that accomplished? You feel as if somehow I've been punished?

And if that was the plan, to punish me, or "get" me what I "deserved", then that's even more stupid. You don't have to agree with me, but taking the time to correct glaring errors and misconceptions about the case isn't wrong—even if you hate what I have to say. Doxxing me for it is even more stupid because it discourages other people from posting helpful information. Net result once again: harm for your case.

One of you please reply to this post and put my LinkedIn link here please? I don't have it handy.

That'll show me.

[brush242]

Is it on topic? I've asked that question countless times now and can't get an answer. How is this guy (brush242-the doxed attorney) connected to BFL? I went back through the posts that are left and can't see it (there's still a lot of irrelevent shit in that thread BTW).

I'm not connected to BFL, other than I bought a little single, it crapped out, they replaced it.

[brush242]

@maxwell. I understand your position. But this is not kindergarten. And you cannot ground people in the corner. People are gathering information and at times they make jokes. Keep in mind Maxwell that FTC has been referred to this list several times because many of us have gathered an enormous amount of information. We are trying to make their job easier too. It can very well be considered as tampering with evidence. Considering what happened last night, you can warn people from time to time not to overload the thread with too many pictures. But be careful with overzealous deletions.

Okay folks, raise your hands if you think anyone in the US legal system thinks that posts here "can very well be considered as tampering with evidence?"

Seriously, raise them up high, so's I can see'um.

Now, I could explain what the actual answer is such that those with their hands in their put them down (well, except for the few stubborn ones who *really* know what's going on), and why that is a stupid opinion to hold. But what's the point?

[brush242]

Bruno, I asked you in the other thread but it was deleted, what does doxing brush242 have to do with BFL? Did he work for them?

Nothing. And no.

But dey's gunna show me sumtin'!!

[QuestionAuthority]

And no one understands why I think it's crazy for a practicing professional to use this forum. There is only one Bitcoin business that I still completely respect. That business is BitPay because they refuse to visit this forum anymore.  

I sure hope the FTC isn't really following that abortion of a thread. How embarrassing would that be?

Everyone here loves conspiracy theories so here's one for you. What if the people posting all of the weird crap in that thread and then claiming how they hate BFL are actually being paid by BFL to make all of the negative claims against them look like they are unfounded and being made by stupid kooks. Now that would be funny.

[brush242]

Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase his vomit though. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards. We've seen that he's a idiotic piece of shit, yet he got that done.

More idiocy and conclusory accusations with zero evidence or reasoning. Try this "Steven(sic) Reid is an idiotic piece of shit and wrong about TROs because (then put whatever you think will support your statement here)" or, "Super Stephen the MahaRushie the idiotic piece of shit, the last few findings by the court are incorrect because the evidence at hand (you know what to put here)". Do you think people will take that more seriously or less seriously?

I think a lot of you simply don't understand that projecting your likely-justified anger about BFL on me, even if you really, really, REALLY, FOR REALZ hate what I have to say is of no value whatsoever.

[brush242]

How is the connection between an active and disruptive forum participant and a BFL official considered OFF-TOPIC here

Welp, seein' as dere ain't one, Brainiac, of course it's off-topic.

Hey, I've got an idea!! See how many man-hours you guys can waste on that wild goose chase! That will certainly help!

[Xian01]

Lawyer dude decided to poke the bear. He was doxed for his derailing in a BFL thread. He cried harassment when he was unmasked. You came in on a white horse to his rescue.

Ah. I see. I "poked the bear" how exactly?

Took the bait, m8

[brush242]

Two can play at that game. If the mods have left it there (it being totally off-topic), why ironically exercise moderation duties in the interest of being "on-topic"? The fact that it is there is practically an admission of less stringent posting rules. But the point is people's posts that were on-topic to the thread itself were deleted, which was atypically excessive for such a thread. (Was that last sentence understated enough?)

Why would it surprise you that in a thread where posters deliberately push the envelope of what comprises acceptable behavior, sometimes the moderation pushes the envelope as well? Why would it surprise you that when participants deliberately decide to "punish" a poster who is unrelated to the topic at hand that said posts would deleted?

[brush242]

At what point did I say that? It's good to bring up new things that help. I want you to do it and I want you to do it in any part of the forum that makes sense. I just see a lot of crap being restated in a new way post after post that's even hard for me to follow and I've watched the story from the beginning. Do you expect someone that doesn't know the story to be able to weed through all that and understand what's going on? I bet the real info there could be condensed into about 30 pages. Dree condensed the entire scam, hack and fraud history of Bitcoin into fewer pages than that!

Now now, QuestionAuthority, you're making the same points I have. Soon, very soon, that will irritate someone, an' dey will teechify you da lessan!!