Topic: [BAKEWELL] Action Proposal - Call for Volunteers - page 4. (Read 7747 times)

Read the post. he agreed to judge,me arbitration already, in the case that he screwed over his shareholders. This is certainly "any related controversy", and that wording was chosen for what it means -- ANY RELATED CONTROVERSY AT ALL. It's a shareholder protection agreement, what do you think it's for?

Even if we can't get a judgement for his hardware I will ask what they will do for me about his contract. The goal here is to get ANYTHING on Ian -- at all -- so that we don't have to haul his ass to jail. Even though that is where it will probably end up anyway.

Update: I have reached out to an associate of Jenell Sale (Ian's GF/wife), will update if I hear anything back.

If you get a judgment of any kind that's entirely different.

Not sure why you think he'd agree to judge.me arbitrating though - and they won't issue a judgment without BOTH parties agreeing to them hearing the case.  You producing a forum post (about an entirely different dispute with him) is NOT going to convince judge.me to do anything.

You saying he's guilty has no legal standing.  Not even if you say it's obvious or that everyone knows.  I agree he's totally guilty - but that's also completely irrelevant.

As for Ian incriminating himself in court - not sure what you're trying to say.  I'm the one saying the court/legal system is the way to go.  You're the one who seems to think it can all be ignored because Usagi says he's obviously guilty therefore Avalon will agree as that's enough for them to break a contract.

And if it ever gets to court then just think about what you're saying.  He's either going to:

1.  Plead guilty.
2.  Plead non-guilty.  And this may shock you - but guilty people who plead not-guilt often lie!  Seriously - they do!  I know you'll find it hard to believe - but the minute they plead not-guilty they've started lieing and will tell more lies.

So in exactly what circumstances do you think he'd be giving testimony in court and telling the tuth?  The only defendants who do that are innocent ones.  And people who plead guilty (or don't deny the allegations in civil cases) don't give evidence.

A little bit of logical thinking would do you a world of good.

The reason I suggest the Police rather than the courts is purely one of time.  If you try to bring a civil complaint then it will take a fair while to get to a hearing.  As with Avalon the courts are NOT going to immediately issue a judgement or order just because usagi says he's obviously guilty - they like to give the other side time to respond and there's proscribed periods of time for responses etc.  Not even if you get shareholders in an unregulated security who agree with you to pass a vote saying he's guilty.  Wherease the police can cause action to occur much quicker.  Ideally you want someone who made a straightforward loan to him to make the initial complaint - that's a much clearer case to make and there's no risk of the Police getting side-tracked by questions over the nature of the security.

One thing I do agree with you on is that Ian Bakewell is likely shitting himself right now - though he'll get over that if everyone wants to mess around with shareholder motions rather than doing something productive like going to the Police.  Though if Bitcoin price falls much lower he may be able to repay everything anyway (though I'm by no means convinced his story about some opportunity to renovate trailers is the truth).

I suggest everyone should immediately quit discussing strategies and legal options in this public thread. Communicate via email/skype/in person, and even then make sure you are not communicating with Ian's puppet accounts.

As I already pointed out, I have no stake in this matter anymore. The reason I sold out and quit dealing with Bakewell was that I decided not to waste any more time or money on him. This is still so.

I am sorry for those of you who have not seen things the same way, and continued dealing with him. I wish you best of luck recovering your belongings. In case any of you decide to report this matter, a good place to start is

http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/communitypolicing/organizedcrime/economiccrimes.aspx

Ian, if you read this thread - read it again.

Here's another, for documenting Ian's assets.



and



There are a few others. guys, go to the archival board here and search for bakewell $4000 and bakewell 6000 and bakewell avalon and stuff. If you find any other posts link 'em! We need this info to make a list of the assets he claimed to be buying on behalf of his investors.

deprived: wake up, he bought the avalons in the capacity of an officer of his company. he's guilty at least of fraud if he didn't buy them in his company name and ever tried to say they were personal buys. So Avalon would not risk anything rerouting the orders. What, you think Ian is going to incriminate himself in court? Thats a laugh riot. The guy is probably shaking in fear under a mattress in hell's kitchen right about now. So it's still a longshot but we need a statement from avalon. To do that we need an official judgement. So we need some sort of judgement or criminal case file number. A judgement from judge.me MIGHT be sufficient because it is legally enforceable in Canada. If I won a judgement via judge.me I would have ironclad means to seize property via the court legally.

+1

What you seem to miss is that Avalon is NOT a pretend company that only exists as an entity in a thread on a forum.  It's a company operating in the real world.

Real-world companies DON'T take it upon themselves to decide what has and hasn't been proven in disputes between others.  They rely on a legal system and law-enforcement to give them directions in those circumstances.

And aside from those issues do we really want to say it's OK for a company to break a deal they made because THEY decide their customer wronged someone else?  Should ALL companies in Bitcoin-land start breaking contracts whenever they decide the other party owes money to someone else?  Who decides whether such decisions are right?  Should we all just start selectively honouring our obligations based on whether we think the other party is deserving?

I run a fund and have issued bonds on it myself.  If I'm sure an investor owes someone else a debt they're overdue on - or believe they scammed - then should I hold backfunds if they try to sell to me and give it to who I think they owe money to (I'm NOT actually aware of any such investor - but IF one existed)?  If not, why not - if you think Avalon should do that?  Either you believe companies have the right too do that - or you don't.  If your argument is over the level of proof then who decides whether the evidence is sufficient?  If it isn't the company then surely it can't be you - the party claiming to be wronged! (NOTE: I 100% believe Bakewell is in the wrong - don't interpret ANYTHING I say as trying to defend him).  There has to be some uninvolved arbiter - which, shockingly, is the role of the legal system (with law-enforcement gathering the evidence when criminal behaviour is believed to be involved).  Bitcoin has no alternative to that - so the choice is either use the existing system or descend into anarchy where anyone can break deals at will so long as they claim to believe they were right to do so.

In summary: not only do I believe this approach will fail but I believe it MUST and SHOULD fail.  As the precedent if it succeeds is a horrible one.  At a minimum report it, get a crime number then provide that to Avalon and ask them to delay shipping until either Ian responds to them and/or the issue is resolved.  If the purchase is being criminally investigated then they likely DO have sufficient grounds to hold back on shipping to him.

Nice work, MikeMark.

I completely agree that evidence in the original thread that Ian announced this offering as a company with actual stock shares, in which the investors (shareholders) own a piece of the company, and it's equipment, current and on order, strongly supports our case that we do actually own the Bakewell equipment.

So, does anyone understand how this legal process might work, or even how to get it started?

So, nameface, I think that we should be focussing on going after Ian Bakewell as operator of the BAKEWELL company which essentially we own, for all assets we can possibly recover.

Also I've posted a long, rambling and personal summary of the whole sad story in Discussions, mostly aimed at the outside world, hoping that the press etc might pick it up. I've locked it in an attempt to keep any useful discussion focussed here.

Please feel free to link to it if you don't think it's too stupid and idealistic, which I certainly do, but the occasional rant makes me happy.

Time really is the problem we have. In order for there to be a good chance of recouping loss, the equipment needs to be put to work as soon as it arrives. As time goes on the profit from mining is reduced. These days it is dropping fairly fast.

That's also one of the reasons I'd like to see Ian actually come forward to work this out.

We really need an opinion from a lawyer or judge on this regarding the possibilities, time frame, and the proper action. Who has contacts in the proper or related jurisdiction?

Also, do we have on record anywhere that Ian agreed to internet arbitration in the event of disagreement?

I think the public record (in the original BAKEWELL thread) shows that Ian was acting according to 1. In other words Ian was given money by those who were interested in seeing a profit from BAKEWELL in the form of a dividend from the mining operations. Ian asked for funds specifically to purchase equipment for those who bought shares (portions of ownership of) in that equipment and it's produce. His offer is/was to care for the equipment and see to it that the profit would be distributed properly.

Shareholder votes and all the legalistic jargon aside, the reality is that we here have a common cause and proof to back up a claim. The reason the legal formation of companies was created was to formalize the records that constitute claims. Here, there is a record of the decisions by all involved to bring us to the point of this claim. The question now is who will support this claim?

It would be best if Ian himself supported our claim. If he will not, our next best choice is for Avalon to support our claim. After that, our choices become poorer, with less reclaimed at the end after longer periods of time.

Where you run into an (obvious if you look at it logically) problem is that you're trying to claim two entirely contradictory things:

1.  That Bakewell (company) is the same thing as Bakewell (individual) - i.e. that it's Ian trading as the company.  You have to claim this to have an entitlement to the Avalons as they were ordered in his name.
2.  That Bakewell (company) is entirely seperate to Bakewell (individual) - you have to claim this for any sort of shareholder motion to have any meaning or for anyone other than Ian to be able to act on behalf of the company.

If you want to claim that the company is an entity beyond Ian Bakewell personally trading then you immediately cease to have any right to approach Avalon - as their contract was with the individual.  Whilst if you say Bakewell was synonymous with Ian personally then shareholders can't pass any motions on its behalf.  The situation would be (slightly) different if the Avalon's had been ordered in a company name but they weren't.

If A (Avalon) owes B (Ian Bakewell) and B owes C (shareholders) and B defaults on their obligation to C then C has no direct right to anything A owes B.  If A gives stuff to C then they have NOT fulfilled their obligation to B - and B then has a claim against them, regardless of the merits of C's claim against B.  Which is (partly) why Avalon won't get involved.  There's loads of other reasons why they shouldn't get involved anyway - but that's the most glaringly obvious one.

C is not going to happen.. Ian Bakewell has an order with Avalon, that is all Yifu is concerned about. Perhaps he would act differently if he lost coins to Ian Bakewell.

I'm also Canadian. I live near Toronto, on the other side of the country.

I'm connected to Yifu Guo on linkedin. I'll msg him next week to request a phone call to inform him about our situation.

Can we rehash the most important details that we're all on board with?

We want to do three things:

A - Sue Ian for stealing loans, re: BTCJAM
B - Sue Ian for stealing rigs, re: BAKEWELL asset
C - Reroute asics to BAKEWELLL shareholders

Correct?

I'm slightly concerned that if we take over BAKEWELL, re: the motion, that we will be actionable. But if we have such a motion passed on paper, I don't see how Avalon could be actionable for sending the asics to us.

Great dialogue this morning!

We need to keep this moving.

TradeFortress seems to be reluctant to act on anything but the legal approach- shall we ask Dalkore to front it. I think we need a spokesperson to continue trying to block the Avalon shipment, try to get some response out of Ukyo at Bitfunder, and generally have an overview and keep all these strategies alive. And to pull together a strategy for how to deal with any positive results from this.

What I propose in the meantime is that we agree that the current list of Shareholders:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1819404

can independently continue any of these strategies in the name of, and with the implicit agreement of the Shareholder group.

Nameface, can you start this new thread in discussions, it's a great idea. We need more publicity and input.

Niko and fourdoorgtz, you seem to be our only Canadians. Can't one of you prepare a simple "dollar value" complaint- he's stolen our money to buy $4000 computers, which we own and want seized, run away from loans amounting to maybe as much as $100K, and has ordered more equipment with our stolen money, which we really want to block from reaching him. And approach the Edmonton police, and at least get a police complaint started, in the name of the Bakewell Shareholders. Here's good advice from Deprived:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1802432

Yes, iCEBREAKER, I think it's a great idea to get news of the scumbag's ideas of conducting his business "in a more transparent, ethical, and timely manner"* out in the world, and especially to friends, if any, and family. He deserves public shaming. And we need have a bit more fun and get some publicity.

*https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1178842#msg1178842

Many of us, for all sorts of very good reasons, have an ambivalent trust relationship with "the law" and the Financial Machine. Certainly, that's why I'm in Bitcoin. But, hell, this slimebag has ripped us off for a significant amount of real money. Why can't we play this one out by being smart for once and acting as decent human beings. Find a way to organically organise ourselves at least enough to keep this ball rolling. Appeal to other decent people at Bitfunder, Avalon and out in the world, and try to give justice a chance to prevail by setting an example of mutual cooperation, rather than the traditional threats of legal violence and state-controlled enforcement.

I no longer hold any shares, but I lost over 99% of what I invested with him.  I support your actions in trying to recover funds...best of luck.

The only thing creating a CEO does is create the person who executes the will of this body.

Anything that gets done will still need to be done IRL. Someone will almost certainly need to meet face to face with Ian in order to show the seriousness here. Before that can be done, we should fully understand the legal standing.

We all have a belief that we have been defrauded. There is always a basic choice, take action ourselves, or take action by calling upon an institution created for the purpose. Institutions have rules or laws that must be followed. Our question is now, which ones have willingness, ability and authority to help us?

+1

Also, should we open this discussion up to more people in a new thread in Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Bitcoin Discussion? Because I think we need more opinions, and this is really a topic of interest for everyone.

Usagi, you do realize what you're trying to do to bakewell is no different than what nefario tried to do to DMC, right?

Pursue things legally, and since this none of you have a legal contract with Ian, there is not much you can do legally. Consider this a learning experience and move on.

Ooh, I know.  We could call his parents and tattle.

Just threatening to grass him up might do the trick, unless he's already in Thailand with pirate.

What I think:

There isn't any chance at getting the Avalons shipped to someone other than Ian Bakewell. Yifu/Avalon is not going to do it, it's under his name and maybe we have a slight shot if he was scammed, but the 2 Avalons are going to him.

Going after him through the police and the legal system (for the loans) is the way to go. In addition, we need to ruin his reputation - wonder if a mod would be willing to change this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/introduction-ian-bakewell-98764 to "SCAMMER: Ian Bakewell" as it is the #2 result in google for his name already.

Voting a new CEO isn't going to do anything.