Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 804. (Read 3377922 times)

This guy was dealing with someone who is a sociopath. I don't blame him for his efforts to get paid what he is owed.

People who are accused of complicity in crimes claim they are completely innocent and have fancy stories to justify their actions? Holy Cow! This is earth shattering news! I am sure this has never before happened in the annals of human history. 

Are you saying that I neglected to comment on the part about you aspiring to redemption by posing a plan to burn the PC coins and stake therefrom? Fair enough:

If you think the Foundation or anyone else is going to approve your code to burn the PC coins and controllers, you have learned nothing about the situation you are in sir. Your naivete is galling and frankly childish. Further, sir, you are working for people who have NO RIGHT to be making decisions for anyone in the community. What/who gave them their entitlement to enact anything on behalf of Paycoin? It can be strongly argued Homoro Garbanzo did - so it's fine by you that the criminal you left for 'ethical' reasons handed the PC's over to the new, greedy criminals you work for and that gives them entitlement? WTF are you thinking?

Anything you do PERPETUATES this situation - allows for more people to be drawn into this shitstorm.

And before you fire back that @huey and @sciborg and others haven't been proven to be criminals or intending to do further harm, check yourself. You would have said the same thing about your former employer a few months ago, Joe. Their first move, had they been good actors in all of this would have been to ELIMINATE the PC's and/or the stake UNTIL their efforts had provided liquidity for the COMMUNITY of harmed investors - NOT themselves. That would have been the first, necessary step in doing ANYTHING to remove the stench from this project. Because they did not to this, their intentions are clearly not in sync with the interests of the people in the community.

RESIGN.

Um Joe, we have all the emails where you blackmailed Josh Garza and then he came up with the offer of a prime controller(s) to pay you off. How do you reconcile this with your bullshit story? 

Please read my whole post before responding (instead of avoiding to quote my plan to either revive the coin or give up my position).

If you have something on lawyers for professional misconduct post it and I'll go to the state bar with a non-anonymous complaint.

mmmm mmm thats dank 

eightcylinders thanks for that. its very illuminating and has made me re-evaluate few things i can take more distance and look at some of the correspondence with lawyers more neutrally. it looked like some of the lawyer(s) had an emotional component in all of this but in actuality it was just talk to retain the customer (maybe not in good taste. but oh well even the guilty need lawyers and im sure he would have chosen someone more... lets say amicable). Mr. Garbazzo had many different law firms during the fraud so he could control the message exactly like he wanted to any one entity


ps:
i fully agree with Paul its integral in the grand scheme of things. currently Mr. Garbozo + co are staking at 100%. this thing is an ongoing fraud still. if you cant take posts that are spit-balling ideas maybe this is not the place for you, or you can check page 1 for updated details as they are confirmed. it would be a very dry and boring thread if there was no commentary/analysis along the way

about the current fork thats in place: Garza tried to battle it saying his lawyers will handle it. now he is all on board? something changed. is he trying to gain control again...
the fact that miavitor and jmordica are on board with decreasing or even removing PC's leave only few options left. who the hell is currently against it (if any except GAW)? was this only a starting salvo to start phasing out Mr. Garbanzo. who are the controlling parties in GAW's portion of PC's... eg. is Stu activating legal means to gain some control

or is it all talk by current "ruling party" to try and keep price stable enough to unload more on "the muggles"

You were negotiating with Homoro for PC's in your wrongful termination lawsuit, Joe - we have those emails. Just because you didn't have enough of a case to grab them from Homero's greedy fingers doesn't absolve you of your attempt to control one or more of them on your own. Further, you were not 'part of the team' - you were the CTO of GAW - the technology (or lack thereof) produced by GAW is on you.

This is not about what you own at this point - this is about what you do once the fraud is revealed to you. You know everything there is to know at this point about this just like everyone else, and you ARE STILL INVOLVED. Pay, no pay, you are still dragging this on by helping the lesser of the greedy fuckholes continue this project. Resign.

Send me all of your bitcoins Paul Revere.

Immediatly.

circlejerk over dank memes mostly 

Community members "volunteering" (supposedly )  to patch up Paycoin, which will benefit Josh and the rest of the major XPY holders and allow this scam to continue on is completely relevant to this discussion. Please refrain from trying to divert such an important aspect as this to another thread where it will not get the attention in the proper context that it deserves.

I will say this once again. I do not own anything (Paycoin or Prime Controllers). Hopefully this is clear. I never owned a Prime Controller. I never owned a single Paycoin (or a fraction of it). I was part of the team that worked on the Paycoin project. I was promised Paycoin among other things but never received any compensation/assets besides my salary while working at GAW (which I assume you have all seen by now).

I am a volunteer on the XPYTrust board which manages 5 Prime Controllers. I am in the process of putting together a bold approach to burn many of the Controller Coins and stake. When this proposal is finished I will present to Paycoin Foundation and XPY Dev for review. The plan consists of some of the items discussed a couple of pages back in this thread referring to a 50% cut of the coin and hyperinflation.

I believe this to be the only approach (if executed correctly) to give Paycoin a chance at survival. I will be offering up my position as a volunteer on the XPYTrust board if this approach (or something similar) fails to be successful and/or gets complete.

XPY has taking a beating (for obvious reasons) and may not be able to stand for much more without such drastic change to the current design.

TheMage, Paul Revere, eightcylinders XPY discussion https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xpy-paycoin-paul-revere-themage-the-community-on-forking-the-future-etc-1033894

I migrated the content I could find.

I'll clean up all the nested quotes and add whatever changes people have.

Since THIS thread is primarily to expose the fraud?  Make fun of Josh? etc.

First learn how to quote and two there was no BS. I did listen to it. Not once but twice. She, in her own words, gave 'dirty money' to charity. Think of the logic of that for a moment you stupid fuck.

So it looks like Eric gets a pass. Joe does not. He can start the path to righteousness by destroying all of his coins and prime controllers.

whine? really? bitch?

You are not bothered, yet you find it necessary to whine like a bitch. Fascinating. I will decide what is important to me and discuss things on that basis. If that amuses you, you are quite welcome to sit around and giggle like a fucking idiot all you like.

This will probably get the anti-lawyer folks up in arms, but here it goes:

A lawyer's primary duty is to his or her client, not the public and certainly not a potential defendant.  Except for certain limited instances, a lawyer is not required to fact-check a client to ensure that they are on the up and up.

The exceptions to that are:  (1) when a lawsuit is filed, because courts do not want to waste their time dealing with half baked  unsupportable claims, a lawyer must conduct a reasonable investigation to confirm facts and law, (2) a lawyer cannot provide advise or assistance to knowlingly aid a client in fraud or the commission of a crime (with apologies to Saul), (3) a lawyer must be honest and civil in deals with third parties (a lawyer could not lie in a C&D; for example, could not say "I have reviewed the Amazon agreement" etc.)

There are a few other very limited exceptions but those are the big ones.  That is **only** the ethical duty, however, not whether its a good idea to proceed to a C&D on the word of your client alone.

As far as whether it was a good idea for BM to proceed to a C&D without conducting an investigation, that is a different question as I said above.  It is **not** a good idea for three reasons at least.  

First, it does a disservice to the client IMHO.  When the bluff is called, the client (and law firm) lose a lot of credibility when they fail to follow through with a lawsuit.  Clients frequently ask me to send C&Ds to try to bully smaller companies, and I always say the same thing: I will only send a C&D if you are able to provide a sufficient retainer to pay my fees throughout a lawsuit, and you are ready, willing and able to initiate a lawsuit if there is no compliance by the deadline.  No bluffs, they are bad for the client's and the firm's reputation.

Second, sending a C&D without an investigation for any kind of internet activity risks a major backlash (as happened here).  It is a pretty common defense to simply post the C&D for the world to see, and let the public response do its job.  Absent a real wrong, most people hate it when lawyers send C&Ds (especially to journalists or web sites) .. doing so almost ALWAYS backfires badly, and I personally have dissuaded several clients from making this mistake.

Third, for the reasons above, if I send a C&D client I need to be ready to follow through with the lawsuit.  Which means, I won't send a C&D without first making sure I can sign my name to a lawsuit.. which in turn means I have to conduct an investigation anyway because filing a lawsuit requires such.  But that is just my practice (and the practice of most top lawyers I know), not an ethical requirement.