Topic: Ian Bakewell (Read 2457 times)

I decided to take advantage of the opportunity Ian gave us to phone him, solely because there is a controversy over voting with G&M shares. I was a bit emotional. I wanted to tell him how upset I was, and talk about how he broke the CPA contract but I didn't. Instead I apologized to him. I guess I meant it.

You know, if Ian and I knew each other in real life, I guarantee we would not hate each other. I can feel that. I can hear his accent and it makes me think of where I grew up and some of my old friends. But the internet "is what it is".

I dunno if I was on Ian's list of shareholders or not. Maybe James made a mistake. Maybe we hit a sale order on the day it closed. I don't know.

I'm very close to closing this because while he did in fact break a contract and lie about me clawing back funds, I thought -- maybe this isn't so important any more.

Sometimes I hate the country I live in now and wish I was back in Canada. But I know my future is here now.

You finally said something with which I can agree 100%. The actual vote count is 4 pro and 5 con as down votes count as 2.

Edit: It was 4 up and 5 down votes until usagi changed his vote from no to abstain.

No, this has merit. Ian's security was just disapproved from BTC-TC, it now has 4 upvotes and 10 downvotes.

Ian needs to deal with reality and respond to this thread or at least the G&M scandal properly or he'll probably end up with a scammer tag and delisted from BTC-TC.

This was one of the best summaries ever: about five times as long as the whole story.

Here's the real summary: both of you (usagi, eskimobob) are pointless idiots wasting everyone's time. Bugger off.

..and yet you cannot read, that the consensus was (and my statement was) I did not use 1usagi or my known e-mail address to file claim.

Precisely to avoid this sort of drama. But you knew how many shares BMF held.

I hope for your sake Nefario refuses to confirm our holdings, or that it comes out some other well-known shareholder had exactly as many shares as we had... Because if it comes out that you committed fraud yet again, this time by doctoring your shareholder lists, that's not going to work out very well for you on these forums.

it's accurate.

There's no way someone else had anywhere so close to the 430 odd shares we had.


That's actually the only way to provide proof. Although, if burnside says Ian only gave him a YML file that would be pretty suspicious.


That would be a first. Yeah unfortunately though asking Nefario is probably the only way to actually prove this.

I've e-mailed him.

Do you ever think before you post? I registered on BTCT.CO with the proper address. Burnside said I wasn't on the list you gave him. How could I have ever obtained the shares, if I registered with the proper address? I did not receive an e-mail from you.

Did you give him that address or not?

If you edited the list you gave him, knowing full well I was the only shareholder with that many shares, then you stole BMF investor's shares.

Everyone else sent me a mail, and you didn't bother to send us a mail once you got the lists from nefario? WTF?

Not sure that's strictly accurate.

All burnside knows is what email is at the top of the lists you sent him.  He has no way of knowing whether it's the email address you provided nefario with (or were the lists signed with nefario's public key?  If so, then yes- burnside does know assuming he verified the signature).

As you and Ian are both (pretty much) claiming the other is lieing there's no way he can take either of your word for anything is there?  If he'll take your word that X is the email address you gave nefario then he may just as well take your word for it that Ian stole your shares.  That's why I said the email address used needed to be verified by a disinterested party.

Unfortunately you also need to verify that you actually owned shares.  If nefario will cooperate you can do that.  What you need to do is email nefario, provide your email address (and sufficient information that he can know it's yours - which won't be hard) then ask him whether you owned Bakewell shares and if so, to confirm in a GPG signed email that you held X shares and that those shares were in the list provided to Bakewell at the email address you provided.  Then you can forward the email to burnside (and publish it here) and have him confirm that email address wasn't in the list bakewell provided.  Obviously if nefario replies that you didn't own any shares then an apology would be in order.

Similarly, bakewell (if honest) could email nefario asking for nefario to send him a signed copy of the list - then provide that to burnside and have burnside confirm it's same as the list he received.

Obviously there's a pretty good chance nefario won't assist - but whichever of you two is telling the truth should surely be trying to actually prove their innocence and the other party's guilt.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't have any particular view on which (either or both) of you is telling (or in usagi's case thinks they're telling - as the shares could have been sold and forgotten about or not even noticed) the truth.

Burnside knows what e-mail address I used to lay claim to GLBSE shares because it's at the top of all the lists he owns. To date I have received zero notice at that address. Did I miss it? Where is it? Either way it will be handled. That isn't the main issue.

The main issue here for me is that Ian Bakewell has damaged my reputation and defrauded me and my investors. If you think he hasn't damaged my reputation -- look around. There's money involved here. Real damages.

I've offered an easy remedy for Ian.

One possibility I didnt' mention - if the emails don't match then it's possible usagi didn't own any bakewell shares at the time GLBSE closed (or had them on a seperate account).  That can be addressed if necessary - it would require either verifying an original of the asset holders list from nefario (which may or may not be possible - not possible if it only exists on a computer under bakewell's control) or getting nefario himself to confirm it.

Obviously also IP address used for the account selling 430 shares can be compared to usagi's/bakewell's if necessary - unlikley though it is, some people ARE dumb enough not to use proxies when doing something they shouldn't be doing.

The message is trivial - probably just an assumption usagi made.

Usgai never claimed to have PMed, so verifying no PMs since Oct means nothing.

The important thing is if the email address used to import usagi's shares on BitFunder is identified, do you consent to burnside confirming whether or not shares in bakewell were issued to it?  If the email address for the dumped shares is same as the one usagi got shares on BitFunder to then it's pretty obvious usagi is in the wrong (as he's been using that account).  If no shares were imported for bakewell to that email address then obviously things look a lot less favourable for you - as it wasnt just ABM shares loaded to that address but also S-Dice ones, so it couldn't just be usagi getting one asset issuer to edit an email address before submitting the list (obvious asset issuers would need to be asked whether any requests to change email address were made by usagi).

These two are things where the facts can be pretty easily established.

On 8., identify the comment you believe Bakewell made.  If Bakewell then agrees to it, have burnside confirm whether or not that post was made by Bakewell.  Would seriously expect this is just you jumping to conclusions - there's plenty of people who could have made unfavourable comments about you.

9. Is a very serious allegation.  You clearly received back shares from other investments.  So to prove you never received shares all you need do is identify the email address you used for your GLBSE claims and have other asset issuers confirm/deny that email was allocated the shares you claim to have in other assets.  Then have burnside confirm whether or not shares in bakewell were allocated to that email address.

It's that simple.

On both points you're saying something which bakewell is denying - and that something should be fairly simple to establish the truth of.  There weren't unallocated shares left in bakewell sufficient to be yours (if somehow nefario had missed you off the list) - so either they went to the email address you provided (which worked for other asset issuers) or bakewell edited the file he sent to burnside and changed your email address to a different one: one of you did something very wrong and deserves a scammer tag.

So bakewell needs to agree for burnside to confirm whether or not he posted the message you claim he did (if, as he claims, he's never held any LTC-GLOBAL shares then that's pretty much end of story unless the message was posted by some brand new account that bouhgt 10 LTC-GLOBAL just to post the message).

ABM would be a decent place to start for point 9.

ABM    210    1usagi8WQJvnCoyV21XSZyUHhC6MzfksW

That's the 210 shares of it you currently hold on BitFunder.  The email address associated with that will be the one you provided to nefario (and the one burnside should check for in bakewell's import list).  We know that's your shares (from the public asset list) not just because of the 1usagi start of address but also because of:

UNUSED    5,132    1usagi8WQJvnCoyV21XSZyUHhC6MzfksW

WHich is the untraded shares in your cancelled BMF listing there - which obviously have to still be in your account.

So do you give permission for ukyo to identify the email address used to import those ABM shares?
Bakewell: Do you give permission for burnside to check for that email address in the import list for your asset on BTC.CO?

If you both do (and whichever of you is telling the truth is surely going to agree) then it's pretty easy to get to the bottom of the most serious allegation (theft of 400+shares).  And whichever of you is lieing was really dumb in picking something easily verifiable to lie about.

Now to see who says "Go for it" and who makes excuses.

quoting this because it's relevant (note: please do not reply to this on the other thread; respond to it here only)


bold emphasis mine (and FWIW I am sorry to HorseRider and BadBear for posting off-topic the other thread).

Quoted Posts:
(*):







(**):

Summary:
I made a scam accusation against EskimoBob, in which I posted IRC logs and several witnesses came forward to confirm what I said was true. Maged allowed EskimoBob to derail the thread, and said that I had made dishonest statements. Ian Bakewell read those comments and decided to back out of a contract with a no cancellation clause. In order to do this, Ian Bakewell threatened me, lied to me, defrauded CPA and attempted to defraud his own investors.

Detail:
Ian Bakewell broke a signed contract with CPA. We had a public contract which he signed in his asset thread. Ian was spotty with payments but managed to pay 4 btc. One day he sent me a letter stating quite clearly that his company had financial trouble and could no longer afford to make payments. He himself offered to make half payments or reduced payments until such time as he could afford to pay the full amount. I agreed. A few days later he sent another e-mail stating he could no longer keep his contract and would be forced to break it. I told him I understood his position but that due to the structure of the contract I could not return the bitcoins to him. He immediately blew up and threatened that if I did not return the bitcoins to him, he would "drag my name through the mud". After some back and forth I informed him I would require a shareholder motion before returning the funds as a dividend. He refused and begain issuing malicious libel against me; for example he stated I was attempting to clawback the funds. he stated I was breaking the contract (I was keeping the contract!) He stated that when I said I would return the money I meant "to him" (I did not, please see the contract). He also began attacking me in other theads. He took potshots against me in many other threads and was a contributing factor in the troll campaign against me. To this day he continues to mock me and take potshots against me. I feel the time has come this must stop, and I have a little free time tonight, so I am finally typing this up.

I request that Ian Bakewell be given the scammer tag for:
1. Defrauding CPA and CPA's investors by backing out of a contract in a hostile manner;
2. For lying about me, threatening me (in short-- for blackmailing me into acquiescing to his demands)
3. For attempting to defraud his investors, by reclaiming funds under which contract stated would be returned to his invetsors
4. For issuing libel and slander against me, which has caused the value of my companies to decline and has harmed my shareholders.

Proof:
1. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1235273 (* quoted in post #2 below)
Ian lied to me about his financial position in BAKEWELL and asked me to reduce his payment. A few days later he said he had to break the contract.
He then tried to drag my name thru the mud. Read the above link. it's quite clear I stuck to my contract and he was a total asshole to me. here are some of the other lies he told about me:

---"I would then like to restart this with a larger initial contribution and a payment plan based on dividend income once half of my ipo is cleared out."
This is clearly a lie based on his later stated reasons for breaking the contract. He was trying to trick me.

---"Wants the shareholders to be paid in an attempt to claw back, as they hold some BAKEWELL shares that would get the divvy."
The contract clearly stated the money would be returned to shareholders. Read the thread, people were agreeing with me.

2. (ibid)
"I do want the money back, my shareholders do agree, please pay:  1Q1k2uTUZ1ZSSufH2w9xnCnPPzC1QmreEa"
No shateholder motion was issued or voted on at that time. He lied.

3. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1343386
"Long live those trolls."
Announces his recognition and supports the idea that he was just trolling against me to damage my reputation and crash my business.

4. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1343639
No unresolved issues.

5. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1226222
"I make all my financials available in the third post of my thread & I try to stay as current as possible."
Ian did not disclose for several weeks that he could not get his 7970's to work, thereby defrauding investors in his company who were lied to in order that Ian could get more BTC from sale of shares.

6. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1231746 (** quoted in post #2 below)
In this post Ian presents himself as a scammer by his own words. Read the post.
A rough summary is as follows:

a. Ian says:
"In the time between founding BAKEWELL and creating the shareholder insurance fund with you, and now, the plan for BAKEWELL has dramatically changed.
BAKEWELL is a much smaller company than I initially thought I would launch with. We will continue to grow, but on a slow roll out basis.
At this time, the dividends from BAKEWELL will not cover the funds fee. As such I am not able to continue with it at this time.
I will be utilizing the small dividend I receive to aggressively grow BAKEWELL until the first half of the ipo is sold out.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.

The fund currently has 4 BTC in it.
I would like to work out a refund of this from you, less a small management fee.
I would then like to restart this with a larger initial contribution and a payment plan based on dividend income once half of my ipo is cleared out."

b. I immediately respond:
"Working out a refund is not possible because this is an agreement designed to protect your shareholders in case of a default on your end."

c. Ian responds he is aware he CAN NOT cancel the contract in this way:
"I am aware of the contract clauses, particularly A4 and section D."

d. He gets caught in the lie here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1232050

e. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1236180
In this post Ian once again states that the "single largest factor" in losing his business was the troll threads. This is in sharp contrast to his statement in a).

7. Ian bakewell tries to blackmail me by threatening to "drag my name through the mud" if I did not do what he said:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1236142
Please note above (point 6c) that Ian was fully aware of the no cancellation clause when he lied to me and threatened me in this way.

8. Ian Bakewell voted NO on one of my securities on BTCT.CO and left nasty, damaging comments which surely affected other investors. As a result I have been forced to list with restrictions -- My companies can not trade. Therefore I am unable to establish market value and this will severely and adversely affect the value I am able to return to shareholders.

9. Ian Bakewell has not returned the 423 shares of BAKEWELL to me nor acknowledged any e-mails requesting the return of those shares.

In short, Ian has committed fraud on multiple fronts; he defrauded CPA, he lied in order to cancel his contract in full knowledge he could not do this and he attempted to slander me on the forums in order to get out of his contract. Secondly he is ripping off BMF for about 60 bitcoins (423 shares of BAKEWELL).

As is required by common law and intelligent people, I offer Ian Bakewell a remedy; if he issues a RETRACTION and an APOLOGY (these are two separate things) and returns the 423 shares of BAKEWELL, then I will consider the matter settled. If he does not then I want him to get a scammer tag until such time as he issues a retraction and an apology and returns the shares, The bitcoins (from the CPA contract) were returned to BAKEWELL shareholders so that is not an issue; this is about the likely irreparable damage he has done to my reputation and my businesses.

I only ask that this case be treated fairly. Thank you for your time.