Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 80. (Read 452235 times)

So lawyer was supposed to give news on friday or saturday i guess and he was "sick" and now monday is over (at least for me) and still nothing. So it was a lie or this lawyer is too dumb to handle this.

Strong terms both of you are using. But I think your pasting over his point using the term proof. However, he has what he believes is reasonable evidence - not proof - of fraud. He therefore can ask for proof of no fraud, that is, things which can easily explain the things he observes to make him reasonably suspicious. Trying to counter him by asking for proof of no fraud is close but does not quite make it an impasse (or stalemate) you are presenting, because he already has reasonable concern, and has presented on areas where there is evasiveness on LR's part. LR often talks about all the work he's doing, but nothing really ever seems to come to fruition. Then he dropped that bomb the other day. From someone whose been a victim of several sophisticated frauds that have ended in asset liquidations and fraudster imprisonment - there are some very suspicious facets to this.

He (Bittymitty) didn't list it, but one of the reasons he probably has in mind, was Labrat's apparent willingness to fix bonds to a specific hashrate with no guarantee of increased value for investors with new hardware. That alone, as I've said before, should set off buzzers to how LR views investors. Further, I provided evidence that Dave is still - to this day - shipping Bitfury hardware, and yet LR has reported nothing of any new hardware.

Don't you think it odd that Dave's website is reporting Bitfury hardware in stock that can ship upon receipt of payment, and yet LR has reported receipt of no new hardware?

I'm not sure I can say it IS a fraud. My guess is that Zach is in a bit over his head, and probably scared with how to proceed. And he might have convinced himself it's okay to put his personal interests ahead of investors (who took all the risk and funded the entire company) - which can be corrected with a lawsuit based on the original agreement - a possibility that won't go away even with a new contract. But it certainly doesn't look good, and I can't blame Bittymitty for being suspicious of a possible fraud.

Where is the proof there that a deception was made? If you made assumptions based on no proof then you can't have been deceived aka no fraud. Just to define things for you.
If it turns out the hardware has arrived and is mining but not being reported that would be an issue.

We have no list of bonds - why not?

We have no contract - where is it?

We have no new hardware -  what happened?

Where is the proof this is not a fraud?

I retracted that sell after I realized what was going on.... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5647839

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud. 

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

Nope, I'm in Canada.  I've never actually met Zach in person, and have talked with him on the phone just once, I think.

Living in the future is cool.



grnbrg.

Do you live in New Jersey too? Just curious, because I thought you did some work with the hardware there...but at the same time thought you might not live in that area.

Hard to be entertaining lately.  I haven't got anything significant (or insignificant) from Lab_Rat to share, and don't really want to stir the pot by arguing when there really isn't any information to argue about.

As far as a list of bond holders...  I don't think there has been one.  There have been lists of addresses and associated bonds, but there has never been a public list of names.  The last one I posted was at the end of January - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiur3uoeAOQndGtsS1FObjNDcFlCVFFiMmhPX016VUE&usp=sharing I'd like to get an updated database before I put out another.  There have been relatively few trades since then, though, and they're all listed in the trading thread.

Lab_Rat was supposed to have a meeting with his lawyer on Friday, but it was cancelled.  Hopefully (I have no special knowledge one way or another) that means there will be a meeting and news early this week.


grnbrg.

Then ask LR. That should be basic info LR should already have available.

People can always sue LR for disclosure - that should be a slam dunk case - and it should have trivial consequence so a recourse to sue for disclosure of figures would not ruin LRM, unless an audit revealed something he was hiding from investors. So, it would be a great gesture if he actually volunteered that info before such a lawsuit. Why he wouldn't - if operating as an upright business - seems to have zero to very limited reasoning and is just another of those red flags. The only thing I can think of is if people were to reverse engineer how much he is purchasing hardware for, and perhaps LR would not want to reveal that to the hardware suppliers other customers for the sake of the supplier. However, that seems trivial since people already know quantity discounts are the norm, and the tension that builds causes more problems than it seems to avoid. It's not like the supplier will stop selling hardware to one of his top two customers in the nation - and apparently LRM is one of those two. Though, it doesn't seem like it with the lack of reporting of hardware shipment.

In the past he entertained us... now not anymore

Ask grnbrg.

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

Some hardware mined for two weeks last time some for three and I think some of it was even close to four weeks of premining. Zach never disclosed how many coins were mined he also kept the hardware in a secret pool. Whilst I am not saying I hv proof of any wrong doing it most certainly could of happened and investors didn't seem to care about the total lack of transparency. Again this time round people just seem happy to trust a guy that has never been open and upfront about anything except when he is trying to hype bond sales.

We will likely never know the details of coinseed deal now zach refuses to answer anything about anything and unless this changes he is going to end up in court one day and judging by the advice his lawyer has given him in the past I don't like his chances.

Yeah, that's in the ballpark of my point #3 in one of my recent comments.

Believe it or not. I think LR could turn LRM into a really legit mining powerhouse - with happy long term investors - if he just took the good advice given. Or if he hired a good business consultant. Of course, that costs money... But in this forum are some people that LR could resource form. I don't want to name names, but I pointed LR to one particular person that when he posts, he posts pretty much world class advice (as far as I've read). Now, whether LR takes that advice, or rejects any advice from critics for no good reason is another question.

BTW: The last time pre-mining was done was for about two weeks last year...well, as far as I know. I can't think of any other time. And I think Zach would probably tell investors...unless maybe he wanted to hide the mining returns. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a fierce lawsuit though.