Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 16. (Read 39305 times)

This is where you're consistently getting yourself confused.  From everything I've seen in this thread MP didb't measure the house but took PH's word for it.  Nowhere have I seen any evidence (or even suggestion) that PH gave MP a list of all his deposits so that they could be verified as Pirate risk-free.  PH made an assertion which MP accepted - nothing more than that.

The basis of a common mistake is common knowledge.  In your house example that's access to the house to measure it (what if the house owner offers the builder access but the builder declines and says they'll take the home-owner's word for it?).  In this instance no such access existed - there was no public list of PH's deposits and no access to such was offered.

If your argument then mutates into "well MP didn't ask for access so it's still MP's fault" then you move into the area of sheer lunacy.  Imagine the following conversation with your bank:

Bank: Sorry, we can't return any of your deposits as we made some bad investments.
JK: But you told me my money was safe with you!
Bank: Well if you'd looked at our books you'd have seen it wasn't safe.
JK: But you never showed me your books!
Bank: You didn't ask to see them.
JK: If I'd asked would you have showed me them?
Bank: No.
JK: So why don't you owe me the money?
Bank: You didn't ask for the books - so it was a "common mistake" as we both assumed (or, in our case, asserted) that your money was safe with us.  Sorry - but we'll give you a little bit if/when we can, however we aren't in default as you're as much to blame as us.

That appears to be what you're arguing.

PH had access to significantly more relevant information than MP (details of his deposits).  No offer to share that information was made.  PH made an assertion about that information (that the deposits were pirate-free) which MP accepted, being unable to verify it.  Without (substantially) equal information there can't be a common mistake - and details of the deposits was, by far, the most important information in making that assessment here.

Let's take your argument to the extremes of ridiculousness - why has pirate got a scammer tag?  After all, it was obvious it was going to go bust.  So isn't that a "common mistake" between pirate and his investors - as they all knew (or should have known) that it wasn't going to end well?

There's some irony in the fact that you seem to have come here to defend PH yet, by your argument, are actually making the worst case against him.  MP''s (or MPOE-PR - same person as far as I'm concerned) case is that PH had the credibility and repuation to deserver having his word taken on something as basic as how he'd invested the funds under his control.  You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing that his reputation was so bad back then (forget now) that anyone who believed an assertion he made about how his funds were deployed deserved blame for being naive enough to take him seriously and enter into a contract with him.  To be crystal clear, your argument only holds water IF it was common knowledge and readily apparent that PH was unfit to give accurate representations about how the funds he managed were deployed (e.g. he was KNOWN not to do proper diligence).  Is that actually your argument?  More to the point is it PH's?  Is he actually going to post saying "Look - sorry but you should have known I didn't have a clue what I was doing and shouldn't have taken my word on anything, so you're as much to blame as me."?

Not sure why all the crap about written/verbal contracts arose (not from you JK).  The form of a contract only matters if its content is disputed.  All of the citations from various wikis etc are only of relevance when there's an argument over what was agreed - there appears to be no such difference here.

Unless PH disputes the terms of the contract (or claims it's in some way invalid -e.g. by JK's argument of incompetence) it's hard to see any option but to consider that he owes the obligations under it and is in default.  Whether that deserves a scammer tag is a seperate issue - there appears little consistency in how these are given out and he didn't offend a moderator so likely he's safe from that.  From my perspective I'd like to see scammer tags given to anyone who defaults on an obligation (whether through malice or misfortune) with the tag removable where it was just misfortune after repayment in full or an agreed settlement.  I accpet that the tag should likely be renamed were that to be the case -or split into two (Scammer and Defaulter maybe?).

He claims that a lot of people borrowed from him to invest in Pirate, despite having sworn otherwise. When Pirate defaulted, they were unwilling to dip into their personal finances to settle a debt that likely wouldn't be enforceable in any court of law. There is no way to verify this, but it is precisely what lots of people warned would happen. It's also possible Patrick significantly exaggerated the extent to which this happened and walked off with a bunch of money. We don't know.

With the amount outstanding if you are correct (BTC20K), I would not take such a hardline stance on your settlement of this debt.   I would be for sure, flexible on interest owed and just good judgement on the principle. 

You did take risk in investing in "his" investment strategy and investing in "him" as that principle for your BTC.  Maybe we just have different ideology on capital, investment and risk, I accept that.   But please believe, I am quite read on this subject, I am mean the old way of doing things, which I think was a much more fair and proper system (pre-1913).  I think keeping good communication with him and giving him time to dispatch his debt to you will serve your interest more that berating him on here as hard as you have.


Does anyone have a explanation on why his Guarantee did not meet his non-pirate exposed liabilities?   I assumed it is from deadbeat borrowers. 

If not, she's even more delusional than I thought.

I am reclined with laughter.

I am inclined to believe you are a fucking genius.

No of course not.... BUT I would expect him to pay what he really owes not some made up amount counting words in a forum thread....

I guess that are more than one person behind the user MPOE-PR, hence the recent contradictory statements.

A quick investigation reveals different Internet users utilizing the same avatar picture:

http://www.thewickednoodle.com/luscious-lemon-curd/


http://www.biznology.com/2010/01/internet_hucksters_of_the_info/


In the two next links, Mircea Popescu appears along with an user using MPOE-PR's avatar picture:

http://www.pahomi.ro/cacanarii-din-social-media.html


http://pavelarcana.com/2011/04/11/imi-furi-caciula-singur/


The above user participates in the comments of Mircea Popescu's personal blog:

http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/the-storm-that-was-fel/#comment-90309


Crossing all the references of the above users it is possible to trace back his presence in this blog:

http://thewhet.net/about/


The language structure of the next post it is quite similar to MPOE-PR's recent posts in this forum:

http://thewhet.net/2012/the-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/


I am inclined to assume that MPOE-PR is a minion acting in behalf of Mircea Popescu.

You really expect someone breaching a contract to get away with paying less than what they owed by contract? In what alternate universe is this ever the case?

Yeah that's a whole lot of crazy if you ask me...

I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are delusional. You posted a log that *very* clearly shows the complete opposite of this.

Aug 10 08:06:54   hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21   I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39   that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58   you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00   back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57   back
Aug 10 08:10:17   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you

In fact, you argued yourself that the contract was based on Patrick's business model:

Quote

That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened.

The difference between our positions comes from the fact that you hold Patrick 100% responsible for this mistake while I hold both parties roughly equally responsible for it.

Quote

500 BTC capital
+ 1% per week until the date of full repayment. Currently this is 14 weeks (since August the 10th), or 74.7371065 BTC
+ .01 BTC per word of my posts in this thread. Currently this is 3935 words = 39.35 BTC
+ Treble damages (punitive).

Total sought (if discharged today): 1842.2613195 BTC.

You really are delusional.

The two last paragraphs only shows how very desperate you are. In the first paragraph you said that you would "not even going to respond to" me "directly". But then you proceed to respond to me directly with an ad personem argument in a last effort to instigate humiliation. You completely failed. I known who I am, where I come from and what I understand.

Whatever you write about my character, this will not change the fact that you did not require a signed contract to secure your end of the deal.


If Patrick's business model did not have any relevance to the mutual agreement, why did you choose to invest in Patrick's business model?


You do not have a contract which specifies such obligations. You will have to settle an agreement with Patrick before you pretend he will accept your terms.

What "everyone knows" is irrelevant to this discussion.


The contract does not involve Patrick's "business model".


Nobody asked you.

For the record, the sought compensation is detailed below:

500 BTC capital
+ 1% per week until the date of full repayment. Currently this is 14 weeks (since August the 10th), or 74.7371065 BTC
+ .01 BTC per word of my posts in this thread. Currently this is 3935 words = 39.35 BTC
+ Treble damages (punitive).

Total sought (if discharged today): 1842.2613195 BTC.


Review the bolded part below:


Augustocroppo: you're so far out in left field I'm not even going to respond to you directly (other than to state for the record that you're an idiot).

Please stop for a moment and consider this: just the fact that you can sort-of read the letters in a book or on this screen does not, by itself, guarantee you understand what they mean. You, personally, do not. This is a failure on your part, due jointly to a defect of your brain (you, unlike other people, lack that important quality called intelligence, being stupid, ie, your brain does not quite work well, much like an old beat up Honda Civic for instance does not run smoothly) and a fault of your parents, who either didn't bother or could not afford to educate you properly. You are simply a deficient human being, unfit for human intercourse over a certain level of complexity. What is going on here, and around Bitcoin in general, and around the Internet in many cases is far, far past the level of complexity your inferior intellect and your lacking education can efficiently handle.

A better use of your time would be to find a floor to wash somewhere. At least that way the net result of your effort would be a clean floor rather than nothing at all.

This is called the parol evidence rule. It is important to remember three things:

1) The parol evidence rule only applies to things that occurred *before* the contract was reduced to writing. The logic is that if the parties intended their previous agreements or terms to be part of the final agreement, they would have included them in that final agreement. This can't apply to subsequent acts. (Though if the contract specifically states how the contract may be modified, this is usually enforceable.)

2) The parol evidence rule does not apply to evidence of fraud, mistake, or other ways to invalidate the contract. These are not forms of extrinsic evidence seeking to modify terms of the contract, and so are not restricted by this rule.

3) The parol evidence rule only applies if the written agreement appears to have been intended by the parties to encompass their complete agreement. This is why many contracts specifically state that they are the entire agreement.

Now you are pretending that a signed contract cannot determine if the mutual agreement was changed or not. In case you do not know, contracts are signed to avoid any party to append additional obligations that were not part of the mutual agreement. If you were wise enough to read the book I recommended to you, instead to spell out your arrogance, you would find this:

The only information needed to know that Patrick had significant Pirate exposure was the basic methodology of his business (bitcoin loans at high interest rates) and the existence of Pirate. You can search the posts to this forum and you'll see many people arguing, from just that information, that he had to have significant Pirate exposure. The transcript, and common sense, shows that those who loaned to Patrick knew that he was loaning the money back out. Obviously, the interest rate couldn't have been lower. And everyone knew that Pirate exists.

Without their mutual erroneous belief that Patrick's business model was sound, the contract would never have occurred. Of course, I agree this doesn't mean Patrick gets to keep all the money. Some equitable solution to share the harm would have to be found.

I think everyone can agree that Patrick should pay at least 40% over three years. That's *ridiculously* generous to him. That's why I've said that if he isn't committed to, and on track towards, paying at least that, he definitely deserves a scammer tag.

This is faulting Patrick for not doing the impossible. Please learn something from the Pirate fiasco -- there is no way to provide high returns at low risk. Patrick's belief was obviously wrong and was shared by those who loaned him money. They both made precisely the same mistake.

There will always be Patricks, Hashkings, and Pirates. We'll never stop that. If nobody holds the people who paid them to screw the community over accountable, this will never end.

+1

Using your example...

Patrick is assuring the person paying for the paint job that the house is 1,200 square feet after measuring it himself.  The house turns out to not be 1,200 square feet.  It is PATRICK'S fault that the house is not 1,200 square feet, because HE was the one in the position to ensure the house was 1,200 square feet.

It is NOT a common mistake, because those investing in Patrick had no choice of who to invest in, nor did they have any way to verify that they were not PPT's.  Patrick was the ONLY one in that position, and he gave people false information.  Sure, he didn't know it was false information at the time, but it is on him that the information ended up being wrong.

To revise your example:
A: I have no idea how big my neighbor's house is, but I want you to paint it.
B: I measured it, and it is 1,200 square feet.  I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
B: Whoops - turns out you owe me $5,000, because I asked the home owner how big it was, and they said it was only 1,200 square feet.  Turns out it's actually 2,400.
A: No.  Just, no.

And Patrick made the mistake of trusting the people he loaned money to. Same mistake.

Right.

That's not true. They could have imposed any restrictions they wanted to on how the funds were invested. And they chose to invest with Patrick.

He didn't offer a risk-free contract. He stated that he believed he had sufficient diversity in his loans to cover a Pirate default.

Right, but in this case that was after both parties agreed that he had sufficient diversity to cover a Pirate default. If two people agree on X and then agree "therefore Y", if X turns out to be false, they didn't actually agree on Y. Read the transcript:

Aug 10 08:06:54   hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21   I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39   that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58   you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00   back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57   back
Aug 10 08:10:17   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you
Aug 10 08:11:02   do you mind id'ing with gribble ?

Both parties agreed that Patrick's loan portfolio was significantly free from correlated risk. Patrick concluded, based on that agreed fact, that he would have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. However, Patrick's loan portfolio was not significantly free from correlated risk, and thus he didn't have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. The parties never discussed what would happen if the portfolio had significant correlated risk -- it was something neither party considered.

For example:

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I'll paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A is responsible.

B: I measured your house, it's 1,200 square feet. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, B is responsible.

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I know, I measured it. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
-
Common mistake. If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A and B are jointly responsible.

This is like the last case. Both parties, with sufficient information to realize otherwise, concluded that the loan portfolio was free from correlated risk. Patrick's agreement was based on that shared mistaken conclusion.