BurtW arrested (update: charges dropped!)

[Litejavichu]

BurtW used to be BWagner on this forum, but changed it after Bruce Wagner wanted everybody to have the next (his being the first) Bitcoin Conference held in his hotel room in Pattaya (paraphrased for humor).

The websites in question do belong to Burt and are in his control regardless the IPs, etc.

The pending case does not involve drugs, for even the court docs depict such is not the case, hence its exclusion.

Is that how the law works in the U.S.? If the alleged "criminal offense" and/or "unlawful activity" in the indictment was drugs it would have to be stated as such?

Laws work this way where private prisons.
Police are to bring customers to your business, possible stupid ways permitted.

[1715271236]

1715271236

[1715271236]

1715271236

[1715271236]

1715271236

[1715271236]

1715271236

[bitcoin_bagholder]

BurtW used to be BWagner on this forum, but changed it after Bruce Wagner wanted everybody to have the next (his being the first) Bitcoin Conference held in his hotel room in Pattaya (paraphrased for humor).

The websites in question do belong to Burt and are in his control regardless the IPs, etc.

The pending case does not involve drugs, for even the court docs depict such is not the case, hence its exclusion.

Is that how the law works in the U.S.? If the alleged "criminal offense" and/or "unlawful activity" in the indictment was drugs it would have to be stated as such?

Laws work this way where private prisons.
Police are to bring customers to your business, possible stupid ways permitted.

I have no idea what you just said.

My point is the indictment is vague. Unless the court has released more details or you've heard from the horse's mouth (BurtW), y'all are just speculating.

[Madness]

I just relized that his wife changed the content of the website , It's sad how people accuse him of dealing with drugs while they have no proof or don't even know the guy at all .

Please stop defaming my husband.

My husband has no involvement in drugs at all. 

Please stop confusing BurtW with Bruce Wagner.  They are not the same person.

My daughter and our friends and families wanted to help, so we put up this little fundraising website for friends and families last October.

Our personal and business losses and the costs and fees for legal representation are astronomical.

We can use all the help we can get. 

If you are sincere and well-meaning, you may contact me at jean@jmwagner.com

[Gleb Gamow]

BurtW used to be BWagner on this forum, but changed it after Bruce Wagner wanted everybody to have the next (his being the first) Bitcoin Conference held in his hotel room in Pattaya (paraphrased for humor).

The websites in question do belong to Burt and are in his control regardless the IPs, etc.

The pending case does not involve drugs, for even the court docs depict such is not the case, hence its exclusion.

Is that how the law works in the U.S.? If the alleged "criminal offense" and/or "unlawful activity" in the indictment was drugs it would have to be stated as such?

Laws work this way where private prisons.
Police are to bring customers to your business, possible stupid ways permitted.

I have no idea what you just said.

My point is the indictment is vague. Unless the court has released more details or you've heard from the horse's mouth (BurtW), y'all are just speculating.

"I'm not speculating."

[Litejavichu]

BurtW used to be BWagner on this forum, but changed it after Bruce Wagner wanted everybody to have the next (his being the first) Bitcoin Conference held in his hotel room in Pattaya (paraphrased for humor).

The websites in question do belong to Burt and are in his control regardless the IPs, etc.

The pending case does not involve drugs, for even the court docs depict such is not the case, hence its exclusion.

Is that how the law works in the U.S.? If the alleged "criminal offense" and/or "unlawful activity" in the indictment was drugs it would have to be stated as such?

Laws work this way where private prisons.
Police are to bring customers to your business, possible stupid ways permitted.

I have no idea what you just said.

My point is the indictment is vague. Unless the court has released more details or you've heard from the horse's mouth (BurtW), y'all are just speculating.

mean that the police work for private prisons and have stupid laws in that order
my opinion for this(Maybe do not understand accurate translate)
[/quote]
Is that how the law works in the U.S.? If the alleged "criminal offense" and/or "unlawful activity" in the indictment was drugs it would have to be stated as such?
[/quote]
Relax & take Kalm

[jbreher]

I would like to ask all of you that are making statements of 'fact' as if you have proof of something to check yourselves.

It's fine (I guess) to speculate. You're gonna do it anyhow. But don't pass off your speculation as fact. Specifically, if you do not have personal knowledge of BurtW's actions, or are able to see into his mind, don't make assertions out of your imaginings.

Do you know the applicable law? Fine - quote it. Even state your analysis. But first, make sure your 'analysis' would hold up in court. If you cannot support it, either keep it to yourselves, or label it as speculation.

Do you know what the indictment says? Fine - quote it. Don't misrepresent it. Further, understand the difference between an allegation in an indictment, and a settled matter not in dispute.

I've seen so much absolute falsehood labeled as fact in this here thread, I can't even start to correct it all.

-----

I am quite convinced the burtw.com site is genuine. That is not yet an assertion of fact.

(See how easy that was?)

Incidentally, there is a good chance I have interacted with BurtW face-to-face more than anyone else on this forum. While I cannot make any assertion of _fact_, I am convinced that:
- he did not know before the Pirate implosion that pirate's 'biz' was a ponzi
- he did not exchange bitcoins with anyone for the known purpose of obtaining drugs
- he lost something on the order of many thousands of bitcoins in the pirate implosion

To you who are foaming at the mouth about '...but MSBz!!!1!!!1!!' - you need to consider what it was like several years ago. Turn bits into money?! Preposterous! There was no way of knowing that our little experiment would actually be considered money some day. Hell, we'd never even heard the term 'Money Services Business'. Before you get all accusatory, I suggest you think about: a) what the moral case is for forcibly preventing willing participants from trading, and; b) how the hell we might have known that such licensure was required.

...

No, I have not spoken with him in several months.

[saddambitcoin]

Exactly. We should be uniting with BurtW to *FIGHT* these absurd laws.

[CoinCidental]

Exactly. We should be uniting with BurtW to *FIGHT* these absurd laws.

How do you suggest we deny the facts of the matter?

He did transmit money without a licence
He did partake in the top level of a ponzi scam

Nobody can say he didn't do the only possible defence is that the law must be changed, and good Luck fighting that.....

It maybe unfair but since when have they ever cared what is or isn't fair?

[jbreher]

He did transmit money without a licence
He did partake in the top level of a ponzi scam

Please cite evidence of both the above assertions. Please also provide your definition for the words 'transmit' and 'partake'.

[inBitweTrust]

Exactly. We should be uniting with BurtW to *FIGHT* these absurd laws.

Regardless of how we feel about him personally , we all should agree with this statement. First thing we should do is keep local trading and roll out more atms that neglect KYC.

[hack_]

some of these laws have and enforce are becoming too archaic and incompatible with reality

[CoinCidental]

He did transmit money without a licence
He did partake in the top level of a ponzi scam

Please cite evidence of both the above assertions. Please also provide your definition for the words 'transmit' and 'partake'.

transmit is the legal jargon they use for swapping btc for cash or vice versa
he is well known for running a pirate passthrough for  trendon shavers of btcst fame

you must be new here ,learn to use the search function and an  english dictionary  would help you a lot :

partake
pärˈtāk/Submit
verbformal
join in (an activity).
"visitors can partake in golfing or clay pigeon shooting"
synonyms:   participate in, take part in, engage in, join in, enter into, get involved in, share in, contribute to, play a part in, have a hand in, sit in on
"only senior officers are allowed to partake in the negotiations"

[jbreher]

He did transmit money without a licence
He did partake in the top level of a ponzi scam

Please cite evidence of both the above assertions. Please also provide your definition for the words 'transmit' and 'partake'.

transmit is the legal jargon they use for swapping btc for cash or vice versa

By that definition, if you have ever exchanged btc for cash -- or vice versa -- you have 'transmitted money without a license'. Have you ever held any bitcoin? Has it all been obtained by mining?

Not so subtle point that seems to have flown over your head: when making assertions of fact, it is wise to be circumspect about that which you claim.

he is well known for running a pirate passthrough for  trendon shavers of btcst fame

No, he is not well known for running a pirate passthrough for trendon shavers of btcst fame. I won't argue here about his involvement with a PPT passthrough. However, the matter of it being 'for' trendon shavers is most certainly in dispute. I challenge you to support your assertion.

Oh - and when you do, please provide a link to your evidence. Your quote in #150 above is not so supported. While I am unsure, it looks like the quote may be from the so-called 'news' article that is so sloppy and poorly researched that it even claims Burt and Bruce are the same person.

you must be new here ,learn to use the search function

Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahaha. You so funny.

and an  english dictionary  would help you a lot :

A basic English dictionary is of little use when parsing matters of legal interpretation. But I'll play along with your juvenile retort.

partake
pärˈtāk/Submit
verbformal
join in (an activity).
"visitors can partake in golfing or clay pigeon shooting"
synonyms:   participate in, take part in, engage in, join in, enter into, get involved in, share in, contribute to, play a part in, have a hand in, sit in on
"only senior officers are allowed to partake in the negotiations"

So by word substitution, your claim would seem to be that he 'He did join in the top level of a ponzi scam'. Would that be accurate?

From my vantage point, it seems clear that the only person that was at the top level of the ponzi scam that was BTCST was Shavers. Unless, of course, you can prove differently.

Now about that evidence you were going to cite... (Hint: here would be the place to spill the beans...)

[CoinCidental]

He did transmit money without a licence
He did partake in the top level of a ponzi scam

Please cite evidence of both the above assertions. Please also provide your definition for the words 'transmit' and 'partake'.

transmit is the legal jargon they use for swapping btc for cash or vice versa

By that definition, if you have ever exchanged btc for cash -- or vice versa -- you have 'transmitted money without a license'. Have you ever held any bitcoin? Has it all been obtained by mining?

Not so subtle point that seems to have flown over your head: when making assertions of fact, it is wise to be circumspect about that which you claim.

he is well known for running a pirate passthrough for  trendon shavers of btcst fame

No, he is not well known for running a pirate passthrough for trendon shavers of btcst fame. I won't argue here about his involvement with a PPT passthrough. However, the matter of it being 'for' trendon shavers is most certainly in dispute. I challenge you to support your assertion.

Oh - and when you do, please provide a link to your evidence. Your quote in #150 above is not so supported. While I am unsure, it looks like the quote may be from the so-called 'news' article that is so sloppy and poorly researched that it even claims Burt and Bruce are the same person.

you must be new here ,learn to use the search function

Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahaha. You so funny.

and an  english dictionary  would help you a lot :

A basic English dictionary is of little use when parsing matters of legal interpretation. But I'll play along with your juvenile retort.

partake
pärˈtāk/Submit
verbformal
join in (an activity).
"visitors can partake in golfing or clay pigeon shooting"
synonyms:   participate in, take part in, engage in, join in, enter into, get involved in, share in, contribute to, play a part in, have a hand in, sit in on
"only senior officers are allowed to partake in the negotiations"

So by word substitution, your claim would seem to be that he 'He did join in the top level of a ponzi scam'. Would that be accurate?

From my vantage point, it seems clear that the only person that was at the top level of the ponzi scam that was BTCST was Shavers. Unless, of course, you can prove differently.

Now about that evidence you were going to cite... (Hint: here would be the place to spill the beans...)

everyone who was here at that time  knows he was operating  a ppt for pirateat40 (trendon shavers )
the people 5-6 persons who ran the ppts were at the top of the ponzi and shavers was the "mastermind"  who devised  it 
the unlicenced  money trasmit charge is probably valid in colorado or  whatever state hes going to be tried in

tell it to the judge man ,i hope he can beat the charges but im sure they have some proof so id say his chances are slim
nobody has to spill the beans ,theyre already spilled long ago

[jbreher]

everyone who was here at that time  knows he was operating  a ppt for pirateat40 (trendon shavers )
the people 5-6 persons who ran the ppts were at the top of the ponzi and shavers was the "mastermind"  who devised  it 

And again I repeat. Nobody who was here at the time knows anything about BurtW operating a ppt for pirateat40. At least nobody claims to. Well, you claim such. But what is the basis for your claim? I stress here the "for pirateat40" part.

You're making an extraordinary claim of fact, yet you once again conveniently fail to provide any evidence whatsoever.

[inBitweTrust]

And again I repeat. Nobody who was here at the time knows anything about BurtW operating a ppt for pirateat40. At least nobody claims to. Well, you claim such. But what is the basis for your claim? I stress here the "for pirateat40" part.

You're making an extraordinary claim of fact, yet you once again conveniently fail to provide any evidence whatsoever.

Your points are clear and valid, but what concerns others is the mere association with those operations. A more recent example is those associated with promoting the paycoin scam or all the recent cloud mining ponzi's despite all the warnings and red flags. Those promoting them as an affiliate , the internal employees, and the CEO all have different levels of accountability, thus when something seems questionable it may be helpful to not take chances and distance yourself from the project/operation altogether.

His current charges are all bullshit however as ethically "Money Laundering" for drug dealers or users should be completely permitted in society whether he did so knowingly or not. We all should fight to undermine those unjust and immoral laws which do great harm to society.

[jbreher]

And again I repeat. Nobody who was here at the time knows anything about BurtW operating a ppt for pirateat40. At least nobody claims to. Well, you claim such. But what is the basis for your claim? I stress here the "for pirateat40" part.

You're making an extraordinary claim of fact, yet you once again conveniently fail to provide any evidence whatsoever.

Your points are clear and valid, but what concerns others is the mere association with those operations.

Which is a concern I fully understand. I am not trying to stifle conversation. I am trying to stop people from presenting mere conjecture as statements of fact.

A more recent example is those associated with promoting the paycoin scam or all the recent cloud mining ponzi's despite all the warnings and red flags.

Sure, I can see the GAW fiasco as the ponzi it almost certainly is. However, I don't for one second believe that all those invested know that it is a ponzi. As such, after the implosion, I won't be impugning the character of those involved by presenting mere assertions that 'they had to have known' as The One Real Truth. Dollar signs (OK, 'bitcoin profits') go far in blinding anyone to reality. How do I know? I have learned from brutal first-person experience some of the telltale signs of such scams. IOW, I lost a fair amount in the PPT implosion as well.

Those promoting them as an affiliate , the internal employees, and the CEO all have different levels of accountability, thus when something seems questionable it may be helpful to not take chances and distance yourself from the project/operation altogether.

Sure, I _believe_ Homero is operating a ponzi. Once that suspicion broadens beyond him as the head of the snake, the picture gets murky in regards to who may or may not be in on the (assumed) scam.

Incidentally, it appears crystal-clear to me that the PPT in question was not in any way affiliated with or chartered by Shavers, but were instead fully independent businesses. Unless anyone has actual evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that people keep this in mind in their comments.

His current charges are all bullshit however as ethically "Money Laundering" for drug dealers or users should be completely permitted in society whether he did so knowingly or not. We all should fight to undermine those unjust and immoral laws which do great harm to society.

While I agree, that is irrelevant in regards to the charges BurtW is facing.

[inBitweTrust]

While I agree, that is irrelevant in regards to the charges BurtW is facing.

(C) involved the transport and transmission of funds that were known to the defendant to have been derived from a criminal offense and were intended to be used to promote and support unlawful activity; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1960."

We are unaware what specific charges he is facing as of yet, but the last one insinuates that this sting may be similar to the other ones where the investigators let it be known to the local bitcoin trader that the funds would be used for money laundering either drug money or stolen credit cards.

This is an important distinction to make because it further gives credence to the fact that investigators are targeting Bitcoin sellers who knowingly trade with potential "criminals" rather than someone who simply wants to buy some bitcoin. I will turn away anyone who admits to using bitcoin for illegal means even if I think the illegal activity is peaceful and should be permissible simply because such behavior endangers everyone with a very dangerous group of corrupt individuals.

 It will be interesting to get more details on the case.

However, I don't for one second believe that all those invested know that it is a ponzi.

You are correct, there are many people that are credulous, or simply choose not to believe despite all the evidence shown because they rather believe in the fantasy vs accepting reality. Those individuals are not charlatans but certainly hold some responsibility due to their credulity and the harmful effects their ignorance has upon society.

[jbreher]

While I agree, that is irrelevant in regards to the charges BurtW is facing.

(C) involved the transport and transmission of funds that were known to the defendant to have been derived from a criminal offense and were intended to be used to promote and support unlawful activity; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1960."

We are unaware what specific charges he is facing as of yet,

Well, with the explicit disclaimer that IANAL, I believe we know exactly what the charges are that he is facing. After all, the indictment from which you quote, opens with the phrase "The Grand Jury charges that:...". Accordingly, my assumption is that he is facing the three specific charges listed therein, one of which you quote.

but the last one insinuates that this sting may be similar to the other ones where the investigators let it be known to the local bitcoin trader that the funds would be used for money laundering either drug money or stolen credit cards.

Well, I have a different take on this. Note that so far, the government has been able to make civil prosecution stick to Shavers to the tune of (IIRC) something like forty million dollars (not like they'll ever be able to collect it from the deadbeat). And that is before the criminal case runs its course. My worry is that, much like the flappy-gummed assumptionators I am arguing with in this thread, they may assume they can convince a jury that BurtW actually was consciously involved in Shavers' operations*.

Again, I do not yet know.

Incidentally, thank you for highlighting 'insinuates'.

This is an important distinction to make because it further gives credence to the fact that investigators are targeting Bitcoin sellers who knowingly trade with potential "criminals" rather than someone who simply wants to buy some bitcoin.

If your assumption is validated, then I am agreed.

* Edited to add: They may assume they can convince a jury, or they may seek to pleabargain this down to some lesser charge, in order to move the center of case precedent as to what is legal and what is not in the sphere of voluntary agreements between willing participants. I would be unsurprised to learn in the future that they are aware that these charges are totally without merit, yet seek to achieve such an aim for their imagined 'greater good'.

[jbreher]

However, I don't for one second believe that all those invested know that it is a ponzi.

You are correct, there are many people that are credulous, or simply choose not to believe despite all the evidence shown because they rather believe in the fantasy vs accepting reality. Those individuals are not charlatans but certainly hold some responsibility due to their credulity and the harmful effects their ignorance has upon society.

Its a temporary condition. Well, it may be serial for some - I dunno. However, bear in mind that the so-called 'harmful effects' due to the ignorant believers is limited to non-coercive ones. What consequences do you believe this asserted 'responsibility to society' should carry?