Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 1610. (Read 3377956 times)
January 19, 2015, 05:33:00 PM
more & more interesting as the day goes by. grabs popcorn
January 19, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
I know forums are not always the best place for info but I know a lot of you have more knowledge in this area. Where do you go to file a complaint against Paybase holding your funds? In my limited area of knowledge with this kind of thing since Paybase has filled for a MSB license (I think MSB is right acronym) they fall under the same rules as banks and I know they fall under the CFTC. Some have told me they are not able to hold your coins without a court order. (Not sure if true) So I am considering filing a complaint with the CFTC. I am not sure if the best place or if I should file with other agencies. Currently they are holding my BTC and XPY in Paybase. Normally I do not keep anything there. But I moved BTC to buy XPY cheap and then bam they shut the site down and locked my account.
They have registered as a MSB but they are not licensed in any states. (see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10201107)
Yes they are supposed to follow FinCEN/CFTC/SEC/FTC regulations, but they've made it clear they think the law doesn't apply to them. You will probably need a court order to force them to give you your coins back and I doubt that happens before they get shut down.
January 19, 2015, 05:23:13 PM
@ Tomcat: Is your flight on Paycoin Airways experiencing a little turbulence ? What a complete surprise.
January 19, 2015, 05:18:59 PM
I know forums are not always the best place for info but I know a lot of you have more knowledge in this area. Where do you go to file a complaint against Paybase holding your funds? In my limited area of knowledge with this kind of thing since Paybase has filled for a MSB license (I think MSB is right acronym) they fall under the same rules as banks and I know they fall under the CFTC. Some have told me they are not able to hold your coins without a court order. (Not sure if true) So I am considering filing a complaint with the CFTC. I am not sure if the best place or if I should file with other agencies. Currently they are holding my BTC and XPY in Paybase. Normally I do not keep anything there. But I moved BTC to buy XPY cheap and then bam they shut the site down and locked my account.
File with all relevant agencies you can. While they may not be tasked to handle your situation specifically the information will be shared at a later date between agencies if things keep going so poorly for them.
January 19, 2015, 05:13:53 PM
I know forums are not always the best place for info but I know a lot of you have more knowledge in this area. Where do you go to file a complaint against Paybase holding your funds? In my limited area of knowledge with this kind of thing since Paybase has filled for a MSB license (I think MSB is right acronym) they fall under the same rules as banks and I know they fall under the CFTC. Some have told me they are not able to hold your coins without a court order. (Not sure if true) So I am considering filing a complaint with the CFTC. I am not sure if the best place or if I should file with other agencies. Currently they are holding my BTC and XPY in Paybase. Normally I do not keep anything there. But I moved BTC to buy XPY cheap and then bam they shut the site down and locked my account.
January 19, 2015, 04:10:51 PM
So they are likely getting heat from the old zen pool and how those payouts came from multiple sources other than mining, so it just confirms pay coin was a ill conceived hail mary to get out of that mess, but it just gos to show that fucker lied his ass off as to why zen pool payouts went to shit.
How's the renegotiations for Zenpool going? lols.Good question! ;p I still maintain the "negotiations" are Josh trying to figure out if the SEC will allow him to continue running his illegal security.
Although, given how everything has gone down, perhaps Zenpool was never more than a hook to get people sucked into the shitshow that inevitably followed.
January 19, 2015, 03:59:52 PM
So they are likely getting heat from the old zen pool and how those payouts came from multiple sources other than mining, so it just confirms pay coin was a ill conceived hail mary to get out of that mess, but it just gos to show that fucker lied his ass off as to why zen pool payouts went to shit.
How's the renegotiations for Zenpool going? lols. January 19, 2015, 03:27:39 PM
So from reading what you just wrote there, I can draw the inference that GAW is in fact being investigated by the SEC, and you have leaked documents to prove it?
Pre-announcement. NDA. Learning from the best in business
LULZ
PAYCOINED.
In all reality though we are going to at least get a summary online soon. We have an attorney reviewing it to make sure we aren't going to compromise the investigation. We don't believe it will be because the parts we've seen highlighted have all taken place in the past and would be impossible to cover up now and they likely won't make the same mistake regarding "securities" again.
So they are likely getting heat from the old zen pool and how those payouts came from multiple sources other than mining, so it just confirms pay coin was a ill conceived hail mary to get out of that mess, but it just gos to show that fucker lied his ass off as to why zen pool payouts went to shit.
January 19, 2015, 03:21:08 PM
So from reading what you just wrote there, I can draw the inference that GAW is in fact being investigated by the SEC, and you have leaked documents to prove it?
Pre-announcement. NDA. Learning from the best in business
LULZ
PAYCOINED.
In all reality though we are going to at least get a summary online soon. We have an attorney reviewing it to make sure we aren't going to compromise the investigation. We don't believe it will be because the parts we've seen highlighted have all taken place in the past and would be impossible to cover up now and they likely won't make the same mistake regarding "securities" again.
January 19, 2015, 03:18:11 PM
So from reading what you just wrote there, I can draw the inference that GAW is in fact being investigated by the SEC, and you have leaked documents to prove it?
Pre-announcement. NDA. Learning from the best in business
January 19, 2015, 03:10:00 PM
The main reason I'm sticking around this thread, though, is to find out "Joe Mordica's" real name.
Any research done on Joe Mordica comes up to a dead person.
wtf
Even if he's a zombie, does it really make any difference? Come one guys, give it a rest
Better come up with some new theories on how this mess can be spinned... spun... whatever, how to make it sound like a grand achievement. I'm sure the CEO is watching this thread and waiting for ideas and you're letting him down.
Perhaps he should start making calls to the SEC Enforcement division. I'm sure they can give him some ideas.
There were some rumors that you picked up some SEC paperwork recently? Can nothing be released yet?
We are working on it. The biggest thing is we have to protect our source and so that means combing through things and redacting sections.
Also we have an attorney reviewing materials so it is going to take a bit of time but we are working up at least something to release.
We know if we just outright say we have X that many will say it is FUD and doubt the documents. The more we can release or show all at once the better.
Plus we don't want to compromise the investigation so it is a difficult and hard process. The last time we had documents like this it took several weeks before we released a redacted PDF.
So from reading what you just wrote there, I can draw the inference that GAW is in fact being investigated by the SEC, and you have leaked documents to prove it?
January 19, 2015, 03:09:18 PM
But that's from a forum post perspective of course. Proving some of that crap in a court of law is quite another story, especially after the intense cleansing and TOS manipulation.
That's why a prosecutor would use one item that would encompass all 7 of those requirements AND use the rest as circumstantial/furthering evidence towards intent, including cleansing/TOS manipulation/etc...
January 19, 2015, 03:05:26 PM
1. The defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact;
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
Looks like a slam dunk when you put it that way.
Always profitable
Depreciating costs
Will buy at $20
Merchant adoption at launch
Debit cards within the next two weeks
Probably a few others.
But that's from a forum post perspective of course. Proving some of that crap in a court of law is quite another story, especially after the intense cleansing and TOS manipulation.
January 19, 2015, 03:03:52 PM
Yep.. it's still there. 
Scott-
Scott-
January 19, 2015, 03:02:51 PM
1. The defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact;
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
One word: Amazon
EDIT: I know there's a bunch more words to add... but that one word above meets all 7 single hand-idly.
You mean where he announced via CCN Amazon search and SHOPPING integration the night of PayBase's release?
Ref Page (2): http://gawgate.com/pdf/Josh%20Garza%20Speaks%20on%20PayBase%20Launch%20with%20Amazon%20Shopping%20Using%20Paycoin.pdf
Scott-
Or perhaps the original "press" release from cryptocoinsnews.com which still hasn't been removed/scrubbed yet?
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/josh-garza-speaks-paybase-launch-amazon-shopping-using-paycoin/
http://web.archive.org/web/20150103032640/https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/josh-garza-speaks-paybase-launch-amazon-shopping-using-paycoin/
January 19, 2015, 02:58:41 PM
1. The defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact;
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
One word: Amazon
EDIT: I know there's a bunch more words to add... but that one word above meets all 7 single hand-idly.
You mean where he announced via CCN Amazon search and SHOPPING integration the night of PayBase's release?
Ref Page (2): http://gawgate.com/pdf/Josh%20Garza%20Speaks%20on%20PayBase%20Launch%20with%20Amazon%20Shopping%20Using%20Paycoin.pdf
Scott-
January 19, 2015, 02:54:24 PM
The main reason I'm sticking around this thread, though, is to find out "Joe Mordica's" real name.
Any research done on Joe Mordica comes up to a dead person.
wtf
Even if he's a zombie, does it really make any difference? Come one guys, give it a rest
Better come up with some new theories on how this mess can be spinned... spun... whatever, how to make it sound like a grand achievement. I'm sure the CEO is watching this thread and waiting for ideas and you're letting him down.
Perhaps he should start making calls to the SEC Enforcement division. I'm sure they can give him some ideas.
There were some rumors that you picked up some SEC paperwork recently? Can nothing be released yet?
We are working on it. The biggest thing is we have to protect our source and so that means combing through things and redacting sections.
Also we have an attorney reviewing materials so it is going to take a bit of time but we are working up at least something to release.
We know if we just outright say we have X that many will say it is FUD and doubt the documents. The more we can release or show all at once the better.
Plus we don't want to compromise the investigation so it is a difficult and hard process. The last time we had documents like this it took several weeks before we released a redacted PDF.
So from reading what you just wrote there, I can draw the inference that GAW is in fact being investigated by the SEC, and you have leaked documents to prove it?
January 19, 2015, 02:52:30 PM
1. The defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact;
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
One word: Amazon
EDIT: I know there's a bunch more words to add... but that one word above meets all 7 single hand-idly.
January 19, 2015, 02:51:16 PM
Over the past (40+) hours, many aspects of Mr. Josh Garza’s business activities have come to a head with the alleged ongoing misappropriation of customer balances deposited in to the recently announced and launched PayBase exchange platform. From missing BTC deposits that were never credited to new customer accounts to the inability to withdrawal BTC due to no fault of the existing account holders, up to several hundred small to moderately sized accounts have been affected with no resolution or expressed reasoning from PayBase Support personnel.
Notwithstanding the current situation nor being in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) at [any] state level within the US, it appears Mr. Garza and his representatives are lacking a common understanding of the regulatory processes they must adhere to in the operation of their business entities relating to the handling of securities. Those who feel they have had their FIAT and/or cryptocurrency misappropriated by Mr. Josh Garza, GAW Miners, Inc., or any of his subsidiaries/DBA’s including but not limited to GAW Corp., Zenminers, Geniuses at Work, PayCoin and/or PayBase have options. Please contact the one and only attorney on file for Mr. Garza and his business entities, Brian Klein (below), explain your situation and the loss you have incurred to date with no expressed or implied resolution from those acting as Mr. Garza’s “support team”. If you wish, you can also demand a response to the communication within a certain period of time ranging from 3-5 business days before considering your next legal option to seek relief from the damage(s) you have incurred.
Scott-
==================
Garza's Legal Representation
==================
Brian Klein, Partner
Baker Marquart LLP
[email protected]
10990 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024
424.652.7800 tel
424.652.7850 fax
BIO: http://www.bakermarquart.com/download.php?download_file=http://www.bakermarquart.com/files/documents/Brian_Klein_2014_7.pdf
Notwithstanding the current situation nor being in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) at [any] state level within the US, it appears Mr. Garza and his representatives are lacking a common understanding of the regulatory processes they must adhere to in the operation of their business entities relating to the handling of securities. Those who feel they have had their FIAT and/or cryptocurrency misappropriated by Mr. Josh Garza, GAW Miners, Inc., or any of his subsidiaries/DBA’s including but not limited to GAW Corp., Zenminers, Geniuses at Work, PayCoin and/or PayBase have options. Please contact the one and only attorney on file for Mr. Garza and his business entities, Brian Klein (below), explain your situation and the loss you have incurred to date with no expressed or implied resolution from those acting as Mr. Garza’s “support team”. If you wish, you can also demand a response to the communication within a certain period of time ranging from 3-5 business days before considering your next legal option to seek relief from the damage(s) you have incurred.
Scott-
==================
Garza's Legal Representation
==================
Brian Klein, Partner
Baker Marquart LLP
[email protected]
10990 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024
424.652.7800 tel
424.652.7850 fax
BIO: http://www.bakermarquart.com/download.php?download_file=http://www.bakermarquart.com/files/documents/Brian_Klein_2014_7.pdf
January 19, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
As far as I can tell from the internet, to call an action a fraud requires that it has three elements.
The first one is easy peasy, as there are plenty of records of falsehoods that were later edited out of existence, most notably the magnitude of the price support behind XPY. You can also add merchant support, etc. as things that were misrepresented.
The second is a little trickier. They can attribute a good number of the false statements to internal communication errors. The trick here is to get access to their internal communication. I'm guessing that those message board posts the CEO made prior to all of this, while not absolutely conclusive, might be enough to get a warrant for internal emails and private online messages.
The third one is trickier than it sounds. The most brilliant move they made was to convert those hashpoints to paycoins and let people sell them on the market. That reduced the number of potential claims, as most people who wanted out at that point sold their coins, at a profit, to those who wanted to stay in. This is in line with a lot of the private messages that have been posted on the board. The CEO didn't want customers who asked questions or otherwise didn't agree to follow him blindly. He banned liberally anyone who wasn't on board. That way all of the liability lands in the hands of a few true believers who are likely to blame external forces (dumpers, regulatory agencies, etc.) for their losses instead of GAW. They can probably handle a couple of malcontents with decent settlements. The people who didn't buy in completely pretty much all made money or broke even.
- a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact
- intent to deceive
- damages as a result of the deception
The first one is easy peasy, as there are plenty of records of falsehoods that were later edited out of existence, most notably the magnitude of the price support behind XPY. You can also add merchant support, etc. as things that were misrepresented.
The second is a little trickier. They can attribute a good number of the false statements to internal communication errors. The trick here is to get access to their internal communication. I'm guessing that those message board posts the CEO made prior to all of this, while not absolutely conclusive, might be enough to get a warrant for internal emails and private online messages.
The third one is trickier than it sounds. The most brilliant move they made was to convert those hashpoints to paycoins and let people sell them on the market. That reduced the number of potential claims, as most people who wanted out at that point sold their coins, at a profit, to those who wanted to stay in. This is in line with a lot of the private messages that have been posted on the board. The CEO didn't want customers who asked questions or otherwise didn't agree to follow him blindly. He banned liberally anyone who wasn't on board. That way all of the liability lands in the hands of a few true believers who are likely to blame external forces (dumpers, regulatory agencies, etc.) for their losses instead of GAW. They can probably handle a couple of malcontents with decent settlements. The people who didn't buy in completely pretty much all made money or broke even.
I have a set of my state's civil jury instructions in my office. Here are the elements a jury would have to find to support a judgment for Fraud (keep in mind, these instructions are negotiable by and between the parties to a case, their counsel, and the judge; these instructions are also pegged to a particular state's law): For the plaintiff to recover from the defendant on his/her claim of deceit based on fraud, you must find all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact;
2. The fact was material;
3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant:
_(a) knew the representation was false; or,
_(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false
4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation
5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation;
6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff.
Hope this helps.
Jump to: