Topic: [Resolved] Violating agreement (Read 2543 times)

Matthewh3 has not yet paid the money.

Thats to many bitcoins for me, but I will buy some yeah, I'll send you a pm tho now as I see no reason to clog up what was supposed to be a scammer tread with a trade deal.

Matthewh3, Why are you acting in such a scamming way??

Some other shareholders find back their shares, but you have not give my shares to me, nor you pay the buying back bitcoin.

Buy back my shares, send the bitcoin to me!!

I'm sorry. That mail was in the spam box and was not forwarded to my frequently used email.  I have already found my shares back on btct.co.

I have neither seen the bitcoin nor the security in my btct.co account. Matthewh3 continues his scamming.

137-113=24 shares. I agree if you want to buy the 24 shares @ 0.299 BTC/share

But I just want to see the money in a timely manner. So you can have your NAV per share increase, and I can have the liquidity I need badly.

I'll agree to you buying out the full 113 should you wish Matthew.

Horserider, how many does that leave you left with if Matthew buys back 113? I may consider buying the rest if its not many.

Matthewh, why are yo delaying again? According to Evolvex's post, Evolvex has already agreed to buy back 66 shares. I think the 66 shares' buying back has already been a consensus.

The number of shares to be bought back can be 113 or 66 shares, it's up to you and I will agree any number between 66 to 113.  And the price is 0.299BTC per share. But just be quick. Our contract should have been carried out months ago.

I've still never lost a motion and your just bitter because we're not going to your exchange.  Don't say you wouldn't let us as that is irrelevant now and probably a lie.

Totally did not see this coming back in like...March.

Nice to see the progress. Waiting for the approval and executing of your plan.

My bitcoin address is 18w3kTsMADXYwYCN4AkWwbknAUySujHt64, which is the same address that has been given to GLBSE.

We can buy back at least 113 shares at BTC0.299 if Evolex agrees as Sen did.  This will increase everyone else's holdings and dividends by 4.07%.  Your remaining shares can be traded on BTC-TC once we're approved or I promise to start buying them once dividends start to be paid.

@Evolvex, @matthewh3

I want to 66 of my shares to be bought back now @ 0.299 BTC per share.

It's nice to hear what you have said. Matthewh3 and Evolvex all agreed so. So it seems it's very close to the final "approval" of the settlement. I believe BFL, too, if you check my previous post. However, I need the money very much right now. Your previous buy back promise is extremely important for me.

"It's always like you. Change the plans and promise as you like.  No respect to promise, agreement and contract. You're a scammer, Matthew.

Show us the evidence that you have the money. You have already spent them, right?"

I have two wallet addresses that show a combined total of 34.39896729 btc. I have yet to trawl through and make sure whats left is correct based on whats been spent, but there are certainly two addresses I have been supplied with that contain btc in them.  I believe the funds are available to trade with you - you have no basis to make such claims and this subterfuge surely does not form part of this "scammer thread", I dont think insulting people ever gets anyone anywhere, which is something I have seen a fair bit of.

For the record, I dont see that there has actually been any one scammed yet and as mentioned before, I think is a needless thread created to force a sale. No one wants a scammer tag around these parts.

That said, in the interests of keeping the peace I thought an agreement had been made? Was it 70 shares or 66 shares you are asking (now demanding) Matthew to buy back? you say 70, then someone may be buying 4, so will be 66 if that deal closes before your deadline - what happened to that deal?

And in answer to one of your questions to Matthew in the RSM thread, I'm going to answer what I believe is the answer to it:-

"Now you break the contract. If you think RSM cannot buy back the shares, why the hell at the beginning you offered so?" - I would of thought looking at the post times that he more than likely made the statement about buying shares before BFL delays were known and it was accepted that we wouldnt have the gear up and running as quick as thought, things change dont they, RSM would of had a better projected cashflow back then.

(Just a thought, but if you went past a shop with a sign saying it was selling apples, when you go in, the woman tells you she is no longer selling her remaining apples until some more apples get delivered - does that make her a scammer?).

Anyway - so Matthew looks to of been backed into a corner and the ol' "but you said" rule used - Matthew, pay him for the 70 (or 66 depending on HorseRiders whim) shares if the other share holders agree and change the RSM page to stop ALL further buy outs until further notice.

Settlement to the disagreement offered.

It's always like you. Change the plans and promise as you like.  No respect to promise, agreement and contract. You're a scammer, Matthew.

Show us the evidence that you have the money. You have already spent them, right?

The coins are there for the trade and have been for a while.  I was expecting BFL to ship in October and the trade to take place after we had some hardware.  What is happening now we're waiting for BFL to ship.  On the minute chance BFL is a scam, then all the other shareholders will have something left in the company wallet instead of you having it all.  I know you have stated you thought this was a private trade well its not.  In every post I made in the RSM thread I was speaking on behalf of RSM.  As soon as BFL ship the off market trade can take place, I am only stalling now to protect all the other RSM shareholders.  I have also been contacted by other shareholders who want to increase there stake so maybe they could buy your shares as well.  RSM has been offered free listing on Btc.co but with it being the Christmas holidays I am unable to make up all the relevant documentation needed by Btc.co.  Once we are listed the trading of shares can take place and once BFL ship the BTC28.70 for 70 shares at BTC0.41 can be released.  Then those 70 shares destroyed there by increasing every other shareholders holdings and dividends by 2.5%.

I understand that he gave you his word. However, this isn't really a contract. Although I am lax to bring up other scam accusation threads specifically, it is common practice that without an "actual contract", one's word -- even when several witnesses can come forward -- is just not good enough. Now, I'm not a moderator so I can't say for sure, but that is what I have seen several times in the past. Ok, so he broke his word and he is slime. He is a dink. But he did not "break a contract" in that sense of the word.

The issue of whether or not he has a scammer tag, on this point, would still be open. If he led you to believe that he was going to give or assign value to you even without a contract, and you confirmed this with him, then he defrauded you. To this three comments stand out to me in particular

1. "first come first serve"
2. "OK you are first on the list." and
3. "We just have to wait until I receive the records from the GLBSE then confirm your associated email then'll we'll send the BTC28.7 to the bitcoin wallet address associated with your GLBSE RSM claim."

Because of point 3, now that it is proven he has the lists, if he does not now give you the 28.7 BTC he has broken his word.

I believe based on that that you have a case.

So, what I would like to see -- as a community member -- is that Matthew makes an arrangement with you to guarantee the payment of the 28.7 BTC either immediately or by a certain date (not exceeding 60 days) with an interest payment made to you, or that you agree to a payment plan with him. If he cannot do this (I.E. if he cannot appease you) then we have to admit it, he broke his word... sure, why not give him a scammer tag. The key here is I really would like to see Matthew given a "remedy" -- give him the chance to cut a deal with you. Please do not be heartless, that is all I am saying. Matthew has an excellent track record doesn't he? Maybe we should give him another chance to make this right?


Ok, you're right -- I misunderstood. What you have said is very convincing. I agree.


This makes me sad to say it but I agree. But as a community member please give him a chance to make this right. Can we wait until Matthew makes a response (or seven days) before he is tagged?

usagi: Firstly, please discuss Ian Bakewell in the thread you have already opened. I'm personally against any kind of violating agreement/contract. IF Ian Bakewell has done that, I will be against Ian Bakewell, too. But I won't talk about it until I think I really understand the sitution.

Secondly, your review of matthewh3's scam is full of misunderstanding and over generousness, which is not approriate at all.
 
About the "calm down" thing advise: I'm totally calm down. I already preapared that after Matthew being tagged scammer he will abandon all his responsibility, and I will lost the hundreds of dollars investment forever. ( He somehow threatened it vaguely in one of his PM.) It is small money and I don't care. However, tag this guy a scammer is very important for this whole community. We should hold the culture here: all contract should be respected perfectly.


First, the contract between Matthewh3 and me is written down publicly and recorded by this forum's PM system. It is not a verbal contract! It is a written contract!

Second, the point is "contract". It is a contract. Any breaking is unacceptable.


First, buying back the share and waiting for the BFL equipment is two independent thing, and how you and matthewh can mix these two things togher is puzzling me. Additionally, Matthewh is controlling RSM, and he knows more than anyone else.  If he think he cannot do that, then he should not make RSM offer buying back at the very beginning. However, he has made the 100 shares buying back offer publicly, and signed it with me on the 70 shares buying back contract. It is a contract. Tell me why should he is able to refuse fulfill the contract?


Please don't judge a case by only one evidence. Please see evidence 4, which can prove that I was the first to come. It is MY shares to be bought back.

Conclusion: The contract between RSM and me is very simple and clear. Matthew is the one who made RSM into signing the contract with me. Matthewh broke the contract. He should be tagged as scammer.

I don't think this scam accusation does not have it's merits. I strongly believe that Ian should get a scammer tag, but I don't think other people's scammer threads are the good place to post this.

In your situation it appears that you only had a verbal contract and that Matthew just wants a little time until the ASICs arrive. This is completely reasonable since you should know he would invest it in mining hardware, having run RSM, right? It is completely fair that you, as owner of RSM shares, now must acquire the liabiliy of waiting for the ASICs to arrive.

[NOTE: comparisons to another scam case have been apologized for and edited out by usagi.]