Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 141. (Read 3377922 times)

Oh nice work!  This made me really laugh though, from that draft link in your post above:

 







 


 

 
 
 

"minority investor"  "just a financial backer"  "no control whatsoever"  "knows nothing about the crypto space" 

Hand crafted with love and care by Stuart A Fraser

http://archive.is/VWRa2 

Maybe so SKERMY, but then again I'm not too worried about it, no effect on my life at all, just entertainment. As for yourself, you obviously have some sort of other vested interest in it since you are always defending these scumbags. Sucks to be you, have a great life!  


Yeah, that ^^^ too.

People can, and will, claim that the line in the wsj blog about Fraser's involvement is just as accurate as the information in those posts about the data center, how many bitcoins they had, and all the other horseshit involved.

There's a huge difference between Fraser being intimately involved, and the guy saying that he had miners that could mine on 2 pools at once saying that they were involved.

I don't remember what the emails said, and who knows what will be turned up in discovery, but pointing to a blog post that we all knew was full of bullshit the second it was posted probably isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Sadly though, it's not up to any of us. Some random judge will decide it. Hooray USA.

Was Stuart Fraser really a MINOR contributor, or contributor to the delinquency of a minor - miner?

Nice try, good delay, but NO WAY can Fraser slime out of this, with those WSJ releases, he is toast.

Garza was supposed to respond by September 5 and the request for extension was thrown out. Maybe there is something in that meeting report (doc #40) that allows him more time, not sure.

Re WSJ: it's funny how the defense lawyers referenced the first blog post as proof that Fraser was merely "backing Mr. Garza” but obviously forgot to mention the second one. No doubt most of these "rebuttals" are similarly selective, not to mention that the leaked e-mails and other public sources represent only a tiny part of what a proper discovery could... ummm... discover.

Edit: Garza was not part of the meetings. Not sure why he's silent.

Right here, another clear cut example:

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/12/01/bitbeat-under-fire-gaw-miners-ceo-garza-takes-on-his-critics/


Nice words to rope everyone in to the fraud "partner" "principal partner" even, "founder" ... etc. so what was the public supposed to know back then? That was really, it was all white lies, there is and never was proof that Uncle Stu was nothing more than a hands off silent partner?    C'mon Mr. Judge. Got Uncle Stu changing that other press release to make it sound like he was more involved that he was. Which of course we all only find out now, long after the fact?? 


Q:

What is a principal partner?

A:
Quick Answer
A principal partner in a business is the partner that represents the firm. Usually, a principal partner's decisions are representative of the all the partner's interests, and often speaks on behalf on the entire firm.
 


Little White Lies, to lure in more money isn't fraud? 

Thanks for securing the docs. bit disappointing in my view. Pretty much a whine-fest over and over, "minority share holder"  only "financial backer" over and over gain,  pretty clear their tactic to drill that home into the Judge's mind.

The thing is thought this is of course all after the fact. Before the picture was pretty clearly painted wall street blog, press releases words used "partner" "founder" [his own words], his linkedIN had "gaw miners" under current [cannot find or recall if it indicated a title] Homer's words my "best friend" "my partner" etc etc. All early on when it was used to rope people in. I even posted the blurb here from the email recently discovered Uncle Stu insisted he be called a partner or early founder or some shit like that.

So that is the picture that was painted to the public before it broke. Now whether after the fact suddenly Uncle Stu can throw his arms in the air and say well I had zero involvement whatsoever and was just a "minority shareholder" and only a "financial backer" seems to me to be a bit late.  It may very well be true and it may very well not be provable at all that he had any control over this primary whatever it is they call it. But isn't it too late? Are not the victims of the fraud a result of him the not saying strongly enough BEFORE they were roped in that they had zero control and zero input on the direction? The wsj blogs, the press releases, the others, sure didn't make it crystal clear back then before people invested and lost everything. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

I think that might be what it all hinges on. Yes now today, there is no proof at all that he had any control whatsoever, no but before, the picture sure was painted that he was deeply involved and more than a hands off financial backer. More than likely many people trusted it all thinking that "what could go wrong" with such a prominent experienced respected businessman involved.

I will be interested to see the outcome of this aspect. Technically and legally is it correct that under that specific, we find out only today, well after the fraud has been committed that indeed he had zero control and was indeed nothing more than a financial backer therefore it must be dismissed, or because before the fact, it was painted by himself and Homero that he was much more than that, more important and what really counts in this particular case and in the charge against him by the plaintiffs [actually have to read again what it is they charge him or accuse him of in this respect].

At the same time I am wondering if this too is nothing more than a tactic. Yes, lets accuse Uncle Stu of this outlandish claim that we all know is not true or correct and is definitely not provable, in order to make him vehemently deny it, which then will force Homero to come in and try to point the finger at Uncle Stu in order to share the blame? So they are intentionally pitting him against Homero  in order for Homero to spill the beans for them? Uncle Stu pleads complete ignorance, Homero enters the fray with "some" proof that Uncle Stu knew "somethings" etc. LOL. If so quite crafty.

One thing is for sure and I read them myself as I am sure many others did, its not as cut and dry as this defense makes it seem to be. Uncle Stu most certainly did not cut him 200,000 dollar check, fuck of to Cape Cod and twiddle his thumbs and "on occasion ask a for numbers" or whatever.

There are complicated discussions about shares in all of this, in GAW, in Zenminer, in Great AUK, in the town house he was renting out, all between Uncle Stu and Homero. Share swap talks, loan swap and debt between the business entities, etc. How to payback,  off-set, forgive one from another. Quite complicated and quite a lot more involved than just some silent partner who wrote a check once or twice and sat back and had no further involvement. Lot of information in those emails about all of this.

So on the one hand a lot more financial involvement than the defense makes out, a lot more involvement in creating an impression he was involved in it all vs. that specific law quoted where it must be shown that he was actually in control some way or another.

Overall in my view the defense is seems rather thin. Zero idea legally the importance of harping over and over again that that definition in that specific law of "control" cannot be met because it never was, is the crux of the matter. Again need to read the overall accusation whether plaintiff's claim is that he did have control and should have known better and nothing more. Which I don't think the charge is at all. Maybe a very small part of it.

Very interesting to see how it plays out. Lying Fucker Homero, still needs to appear and we have to see what he says about it all. So they have to respond to this by the 18 October. Cannot see immediately when Homero's time is up [it it is the 28th or 9th] which ever case plaintiffs wil delay in order for Homero to say what he has to say then proceed from there. Here one has to wonder if they are in cahoots.  Where Uncle Stu's lawyers have advised Homero not to say a single word about his involvement [pay off maybe? foot his legal bills?], do not implicate or fortify plaintiff's claims or else. Or if they really are completely disassociated and no longer on any terms and Homero will spill the or some beans, so that Uncle Stu shoulders some of the claimed funds, which for sure no matter what Homero's defence is, he will be liable for.

This aspect will be the drama we seek: what will Homero do?  

edit: no edit - no apologies  atrocious structure going on in that wall of text.

Yeah it will move forward. The plaintiffs' lawyer (Susman and Godfrey) toke the case on a "no win no fee" basis and I doubt they would do so without a careful and thorough consideration of all the facts. At the end, if they loose against GARZA/FRASER, they don't just loose a possible compensation but credibility as the No. 1 boutique litigation law firm in the states. Looking forward to the plaintiff's motion now...

Well, the lawyers of course had to try this motion to dismiss but it's not a done deal yet. IANAL but I hope the plaintiffs' lawyers can come up with a good enough response for the case to go forward. Would be weird if this gets thrown out. For one, Stu could have ended the whole thing if he just pulled the plug on Garza's finances at any point so he clearly "controlled the primary violator". Was he aware of the fraud or not - not sure if they can determine that without proper discovery, including depositions of Garza and everyone else involved. Unless Garza has been paid off or otherwise coerced to take the fall.

Yes, and from reading that PDF, his lawyers seem to have done a decent job of it, IMO. I mean, they do bring up the fact that the guy was basically clueless as to what was going on. I can only imagine how burned that guy must feel. Maybe it's Homero's way of paying him back for something? It's all just so weird when you really look at the whole picture. Thanks for the links suchmoon!

Thanks Suchmoon for the summary. So basically Fraser is dissociating himself from this mess...

may be a typo, is there something like a vice chair man? some weird naming for a janitor maybe?

Yes. But the above memorandum clearly states "Fraser, who lives and works in New York, serves as a Vice Chairman at Cantor
Fitzgerald, L.P. (“Cantor”), a well-known investment bank based in New York City."

This saga never gets old.

BTW,  for followers of this thread, blatant plug here for BitStashers wallets (find our thread via search). Yes, I know, off topic etc, but I'm trying to get more folk interested in our products.

Back on topic, Fraser still removed from the Cantor website?

Fraser's lawyers submitted a huge "memorandum" explaining why they think this case should be dismissed. I guess now the other side has to respond by October 18.

Document here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.42.0.pdf

Other case documents here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.docket.html

Edit - some quotes for those who are too lazy to open the PDF:


(this is in reference to the WSJ blog shill piece)




And it goes on like that.

So what's the outcome?  Dismissed or laughed at?