The debts were owed since June 2014 and they've refused to pay through 10's of millions of $ of sales of SP30s, SP31, SP35s and SP20s
Is this a statement that you will also edit in the future?
Topic: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs [UNMOD] - page 6. (Read 12353 times)
May 20, 2016, 01:36:09 PM
Is this a statement that you will also edit in the future?
May 20, 2016, 12:44:12 PM
WTF is going on in this thread?
RoadStress' pre-order ASIC scam imploded, but not before swindling millions of $$$$ through a fraudulent merger.
When called out for this behavior, the response was to delete critics' posts.
When we moved to an unmoderated thread, the response was to crapflood it with very long xposts and NSFW pics of dog bollocks.
RoadStress is, as usual, keeping it classy.
May 20, 2016, 12:25:11 AM
http://g4.nh.ee/images/pix/520x360/6D-4_IEhx10/koer-68947853.jpg
Click to enlarge
....................................................
Click to enlarge
....................................................
May 20, 2016, 11:51:25 AM
Lol WTF is going on in this thread, ladies? Is it that time of month or what.
May 20, 2016, 07:39:02 AM
BTCS loses money every quarter, yet the administration seems fit to pay themselves 4.7 times their income.
Here is the latest filing: Yahoo Finance
Here is the latest filing: Yahoo Finance
May 19, 2016, 10:08:10 PM
So far Guy is winning this thread by a mile.
If you mean "torpedoing any goodwill he had left with this community", then, yes, he's winning.
May 20, 2016, 07:04:33 AM
Did he make it rain for you with some of that $2.5M of BTCS' funding they burnt through ? 💯
It was $2.25M of direct cash, then admin and legal fees for a year long international merger for an SEC regulated company probably got them into $3.xxMSo, you are worried about BTCS rich investors?
BTCS is a publicly listed stock on OTC, meaning many of the shareholders are average people with mortgages and families to feed. Spondoolies was the one with 'rich' investors comprising of single wealthy individuals and VCs. May 20, 2016, 01:38:49 AM
BTCS got scammed on a pre-order.
BTCS didn't get the memo on pre-orders.
BTCS didn't get the memo on pre-orders.
May 19, 2016, 11:51:45 PM
disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.
I am not claiming to be an attorney, and more importantly I am not representing you, however I don't think the kind of lawsuit that dogie has filed is a restraining order. I am also fairly certain that talking to dogie directly and making the kind of posts that you are making here (and elsewhere) would likely have roughly the same potential legal implications. Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.
May 19, 2016, 06:38:44 PM
Wow. You really are a piece of shit, huh Guy ?
May 19, 2016, 09:28:37 PM
you cant be bothered to use images that are not copyrighted? Your company ran off with $2.25M and your best logic is putting up images that are covered in watermarks and labelled "for preview purposes"?
using those images in te forum is theft from the copyright holder. good job making spondoolies look like (even more of) the bad guy here
May 19, 2016, 08:00:17 PM
So far Guy is winning this thread by a mile.
*pops some more popcorn*
Please continue....
*pops some more popcorn*
Please continue....
May 19, 2016, 11:07:05 AM
What lies are you referring to, or are you just here for the pictures and shillfest?
I asked him,
How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14791213
dogie answered me
Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14791213
But this is lie.
Explanations can be found here:
RoadStress raised an interesting point.
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"
Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."
disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.
One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).
Edit:
Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14843373
Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits.
In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed.
If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer.
However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance.
So, there are three possible scenarios:
(1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been.
(2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance.
(3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance.
In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice.
Note:
It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed.
This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen.
Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925).
In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court.
Guy
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521520.14160
May 19, 2016, 10:49:38 AM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14843803
1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one.
2. No one else is required to believe me or not.
3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided.
4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously?
5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies?
RoadStress raised an interesting point.
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"
Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."
disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.
One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).
Edit:
Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14843373
Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits.
In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed.
If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer.
However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance.
So, there are three possible scenarios:
(1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been.
(2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance.
(3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance.
In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice.
Note:
It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed.
This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen.
Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925).
In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court.
Guy
Dogie's original post:
Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):
The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:
Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance:
Dogie's smoke screen reply to my original post (before the Edit: addition) after his reply to RoadStress post:
Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!
1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one.
2. No one else is required to believe me or not.
3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided.
4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously?
5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies?
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"
Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."
disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.
One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).
Edit:
Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14843373
Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits.
In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed.
If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer.
However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance.
So, there are three possible scenarios:
(1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been.
(2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance.
(3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance.
In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice.
Note:
It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed.
This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen.
Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925).
In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court.
Guy
Dogie's original post:
Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):
The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:
Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance:
Dogie's smoke screen reply to my original post (before the Edit: addition) after his reply to RoadStress post:
May 19, 2016, 10:47:53 AM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10618063
You preordered 'batches' of SP10 significantly into the future, while not far from release of SP10 were already preordering SP30s and SP10 + SP30 kits.
Every time I need to interact with you I get strong feeling of nausea.
I'm trying to disengage but you keep dragging me into your swamp.
I repeat -
Where did I call you a thief ?
Some received it after 30-60 days.
Our entire 1st gen selling period was under 3 months.
I've spotted many more lies written in the last few pages, I gave an example of two.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar
Where did I call you a thief?
You said that we took 3-4 months preorders on our 1st gen which is another lie.
You said that we took 3-4 months preorders on our 1st gen which is another lie.
You preordered 'batches' of SP10 significantly into the future, while not far from release of SP10 were already preordering SP30s and SP10 + SP30 kits.
Every time I need to interact with you I get strong feeling of nausea.
I'm trying to disengage but you keep dragging me into your swamp.
... Being called a liar and a thief by a CEO ...
I repeat -
Where did I call you a thief ?
... what happened in the first generation and its something I discussed with them at the time. Even when they were selling 'in hand' hardware via batches [fine], some batches were being sold 3-4 months in advance ...
Most of our 1st gen customers received their miners within a 30 days period of ordering them.Some received it after 30-60 days.
Our entire 1st gen selling period was under 3 months.
I've spotted many more lies written in the last few pages, I gave an example of two.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar
May 19, 2016, 10:36:42 AM
With every lie dogie going ever more ugly.
Like Pinocchio nose grows every lie, her just get ugly with every lie.
What lies are you referring to, or are you just here for the pictures and shillfest?
May 19, 2016, 10:26:04 AM
Why do we need to see an invoice from anyones solicitor? This is private information.
As for spondoolies; The arrogance and superior attitude of people like Guy and roadstress is what destroyed that company. How do you feel now about deleting posts and mocking people that questioned you? Things would be different for you today had you made intelligent decisions guy et al.
As for spondoolies; The arrogance and superior attitude of people like Guy and roadstress is what destroyed that company. How do you feel now about deleting posts and mocking people that questioned you? Things would be different for you today had you made intelligent decisions guy et al.
RoadStress' demand to see dogie's private legal invoice is a distraction from the real issue, which is who is RoadStress and how much was he paid to shill for ScamDoolies' exit scam (and whether he should be subjected to Cypherdoc-type asset clawback).
Jump to: