I'm here because I was purging old emails and happened to find this one sent by email by the one and only....
sadly, I did delete my post (didn't want any trouble)
Josh Garza
Sat 11/1/2014 7:52 PM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9400587
Some of your post are defamatory and slanderous
“The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this information is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please tell us by return email and destroy this communication and any attachments from your system.”
edit:
the title to the email was
"A warning"
Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 13. (Read 3377790 times)
December 06, 2021, 03:17:59 PM
November 28, 2021, 08:19:55 PM
We had established like 2000 pages ago that PNGs are not "crypto". I'm fine with SEC keeping its paws away from the real stuff like bitcoins, but they should be able to put scammers like Homero or that Bitconnect douche in prison.
jpegs ARE coins
get over it #NFT 
November 27, 2021, 07:44:14 PM
We had established like 2000 pages ago that PNGs are not "crypto". I'm fine with SEC keeping its paws away from the real stuff like bitcoins, but they should be able to put scammers like Homero or that Bitconnect douche in prison.
November 27, 2021, 07:33:09 PM
It's long over, but they need to appeal.
The "securities" issue should have been irrelevant.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1436790/crypto-mining-linked-products-weren-t-securities-jury-finds
It was a Ponzi scheme SMH
SOMEONE NEW needs to file a complaint.
The "securities" issue should have been irrelevant.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1436790/crypto-mining-linked-products-weren-t-securities-jury-finds
It was a Ponzi scheme SMH
SOMEONE NEW needs to file a complaint.
November 26, 2021, 01:00:49 PM
More FALLOUT from GARZA ripping off people.
"Chairman seeks greater authority, but Americans—and a Connecticut jury—aren’t convinced"
https://modernconsensus.com/regulation/is-gary-genslers-bark-worse-than-his-bite/
I guess I am confused about what really happened here. So an innocent man spent 20 months in prison for doing absolutely nothing wrong except being stupid? It will be interesting to see what happens with Audet v. Garza because it isn't officially over until some future court dates. It think January or something? "Chairman seeks greater authority, but Americans—and a Connecticut jury—aren’t convinced"
https://modernconsensus.com/regulation/is-gary-genslers-bark-worse-than-his-bite/
November 25, 2021, 09:31:02 PM
More FALLOUT from GARZA ripping off people.
"Chairman seeks greater authority, but Americans—and a Connecticut jury—aren’t convinced"
https://modernconsensus.com/regulation/is-gary-genslers-bark-worse-than-his-bite/
"Chairman seeks greater authority, but Americans—and a Connecticut jury—aren’t convinced"
https://modernconsensus.com/regulation/is-gary-genslers-bark-worse-than-his-bite/
November 24, 2021, 11:38:21 PM
The fallout from this never ends:
"Fraud Suit Verdict Undermines SEC Control of Cryptocurrencies"
Posted on November 23, 2021
https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2021/fraud-suit-verdict-undermines-sec-control-of-cryptocurrencies/
"Fraud Suit Verdict Undermines SEC Control of Cryptocurrencies"
Posted on November 23, 2021
https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2021/fraud-suit-verdict-undermines-sec-control-of-cryptocurrencies/
November 13, 2021, 06:44:53 AM
I guess I missed this one. There was a motion for extension of time. They had 14 days until final judgement. I wonder what's next?
November 06, 2021, 08:49:01 PM
The amazing thing is the con still want on for six more months even though I clearly showed they had fucked up methods to determine earnings.
Right, they tried to do an ICO and staking and some other sketchy things afterwards, but the writing was already on the wall when you exposed the exploit. It was a full-blown ponzi, no actual mining was taking place, the whole thing was a scam and the SEC correctly identified all that. Now seven years later a jury is manipulated into believing the charade all over again. Fucking Wall Street bankers and their lawyers, what a nasty bunch of lying bastards.
Hear, hear!
"Securities" was hardly the point.
November 06, 2021, 08:36:39 PM
The amazing thing is the con still want on for six more months even though I clearly showed they had fucked up methods to determine earnings.
Right, they tried to do an ICO and staking and some other sketchy things afterwards, but the writing was already on the wall when you exposed the exploit. It was a full-blown ponzi, no actual mining was taking place, the whole thing was a scam and the SEC correctly identified all that. Now seven years later a jury is manipulated into believing the charade all over again. Fucking Wall Street bankers and their lawyers, what a nasty bunch of lying bastards.
November 06, 2021, 08:22:34 PM
I see now. Good article below sums it all up. Essentially:
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
Genius move by Homero to dress the hashlets up in PNGs and add rocket boosts and all that shit... turns out that makes nine random people believe that they have control over the result. Who could have thought
This sounds like it should be appealed.
Edit - just to clarify for anyone who may not remember how this worked: there were no "mining pools" like the Reuters article claims, the whole thing was fake AF. So at best you had 4 or 5 different securities (fake "pools") that you could switch between (and even then only one hashlet type allowed switching; others were locked into one "pool"), but the results had fuck all to do with user's actions. That's like saying your ability to trade stocks at a brokerage makes them not a security because your decisions affect your profits.
Someone really messed up those jury instructions or the jurors are as dumb as a bag with nine rocks in it.
I accidentally exposed the lack of pools by mining at mmpool.org
I used nicehash west and did not use nice hash east.
as I had a small amount of the xpy coins and they based the payouts on nice hash east.{iirc}-
So since they had no hash and only mirror the nice hash numbers. I drove the earnings up 6 fold. I pointed it out and got a lot of threatening emails and pm's I sold my few hash lets. mentioned that the model they used to 'mine' was no good.
The amazing thing is the con still want on for six more months even though I clearly showed they had fucked up methods to determine earnings.
November 06, 2021, 08:05:56 PM
Fraser was in control of Homero and his company that ripped off hundreds, maybe thousands of people to the tune of $10-20 Million.
How did they miss that?
Wasn't that the point?
They need to appeal or file different charges.
November 06, 2021, 04:28:50 PM
The Howey test? WTF? https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=43c1a91e-c9c0-4252-b285-c136c9ea1345
November 05, 2021, 04:09:49 AM
one more story in the mix. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-jury-concludes-cryptocurrency-products-not-securities
November 04, 2021, 04:57:27 PM
I see now. Good article below sums it all up. Essentially:
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
Genius move by Homero to dress the hashlets up in PNGs and add rocket boosts and all that shit... turns out that makes nine random people believe that they have control over the result. Who could have thought
This sounds like it should be appealed.
Edit - just to clarify for anyone who may not remember how this worked: there were no "mining pools" like the Reuters article claims, the whole thing was fake AF. So at best you had 4 or 5 different securities (fake "pools") that you could switch between (and even then only one hashlet type allowed switching; others were locked into one "pool"), but the results had fuck all to do with user's actions. That's like saying your ability to trade stocks at a brokerage makes them not a security because your decisions affect your profits.
Someone really messed up those jury instructions or the jurors are as dumb as a bag with nine rocks in it.
November 04, 2021, 08:14:45 AM
I see now. Good article below sums it all up. Essentially:
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
Genius move by Homero to dress the hashlets up in PNGs and add rocket boosts and all that shit... turns out that makes nine random people believe that they have control over the result. Who could have thought
This sounds like it should be appealed.
Edit - just to clarify for anyone who may not remember how this worked: there were no "mining pools" like the Reuters article claims, the whole thing was fake AF. So at best you had 4 or 5 different securities (fake "pools") that you could switch between (and even then only one hashlet type allowed switching; others were locked into one "pool"), but the results had fuck all to do with user's actions. That's like saying your ability to trade stocks at a brokerage makes them not a security because your decisions affect your profits.
Someone really messed up those jury instructions or the jurors are as dumb as a bag with nine rocks in it.
November 03, 2021, 05:02:32 AM
Well that's a crappy conclusion after all these years. 
Quite surprised to read the primary angle of attack was the classification of the "instruments". Securities or not securities. What bearing does that have on what was thought to be the main and single contention that Uncle Stu ran or had input to run the entire operation?
Unless the article reconfigured the verdict to highlight the securities aspect. But if that was the primary angle of attack it seems to me to be irrelevant and probably harder to prove than just that Uncle Stu had input into the running of the scam.
They "also" found:
The customers alleged all four of the products — Hashlets, Hashpoints, Paycoin and HashStakers — were unregistered securities, and that Fraser was liable for the sales because his role at the companies was comparable to that of a partner or director.
But the jury disagreed, finding none of the products were securities, not even Hashlets, which the SEC described as a security in its case against Garza. Weiner said the defense had argued, apparently convincingly, that Hashlets were not a passive investment and that customers actively controlled their investment.
The jury also found Fraser didn't aid in any common law fraud that may have been committed by GAW Miners. Fraser had argued he too had been a victim of the scheme, losing roughly $12 million, and that he didn't have decision-making power over the operations.
I see now. Good article below sums it all up. Essentially:
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
Quite surprised to read the primary angle of attack was the classification of the "instruments". Securities or not securities. What bearing does that have on what was thought to be the main and single contention that Uncle Stu ran or had input to run the entire operation?
Unless the article reconfigured the verdict to highlight the securities aspect. But if that was the primary angle of attack it seems to me to be irrelevant and probably harder to prove than just that Uncle Stu had input into the running of the scam.
They "also" found:
The customers alleged all four of the products — Hashlets, Hashpoints, Paycoin and HashStakers — were unregistered securities, and that Fraser was liable for the sales because his role at the companies was comparable to that of a partner or director.
But the jury disagreed, finding none of the products were securities, not even Hashlets, which the SEC described as a security in its case against Garza. Weiner said the defense had argued, apparently convincingly, that Hashlets were not a passive investment and that customers actively controlled their investment.
The jury also found Fraser didn't aid in any common law fraud that may have been committed by GAW Miners. Fraser had argued he too had been a victim of the scheme, losing roughly $12 million, and that he didn't have decision-making power over the operations.
I see now. Good article below sums it all up. Essentially:
the nine-member jury found that none of the four crypto products at issue in the case was a security, so Fraser could not be liable for securities fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apparent-first-conn-class-action-jury-finds-crypto-products-are-not-securities-2021-11-03/
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
November 02, 2021, 07:43:41 PM
Its over! Stuart won! Can't believe that shit.
Let's face it, this was a long shot. Stu is dumb as a rock but he's got money and good lawyers and being dumb is not really a crime. The real shame is that Homero is out of the prison and found Jesus and drives a Porsche like nothing happened while people (well, abject idiots but still) who lost their money to his scam got nothing back. Isn't he supposed to repay like $10m? I wonder how that's coming.
first news story I've seen. https://cointelegraph.com/news/connecticut-jury-finds-crypto-related-products-are-not-securities
first one is almost a copy: https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1436790/crypto-mining-linked-products-weren-t-securities-jury-finds
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
November 02, 2021, 06:35:57 PM
Its over! Stuart won! Can't believe that shit.
Let's face it, this was a long shot. Stu is dumb as a rock but he's got money and good lawyers and being dumb is not really a crime. The real shame is that Homero is out of the prison and found Jesus and drives a Porsche like nothing happened while people (well, abject idiots but still) who lost their money to his scam got nothing back. Isn't he supposed to repay like $10m? I wonder how that's coming.
November 02, 2021, 06:20:14 PM
Its over! Stuart won! Can't believe that shit. I wonder what the Gawsuit people are saying? Maybe an appeal is in the works? At least he spent a bunch on attorney fees. https://files.fm/u/g95daz9uc
Jump to: