Using a lawyer to put pressure on James McCarthy I can understand.
Breaking contracts and changing the rules of the game while playing not.
Topic: Should Giga be tagged as a scammer? - page 8. (Read 17477 times)
Gigavps == gigascammer 
If I'm scamming then why did I send certified mail to get the lists? If I'm scamming then why do I hold 100% of the coins, over 3,500 at this point, to pay out per the 5Mh/s contract. If I'm scamming, they why I am asking for people to verify their claim so I can pay them?
Not one person in this thread as quoted anything I wrote in my previous posts and has taken issue with it. I'll quote it for you, so you can read it again.
To the bitcoin community:
We are all in the very unenviable position of riding in the wake of the aftermath of James McCarthy. I have been placed in a very bad spot in this wake, and my only goal is to protect and serve Gigaminers as I have over the last half year.
I would like to point out that I am the only asset issuer on GLBSE, as far as I am aware, who is trying to move forward and abide by all the laws of local, state, federal and international law. I am the only asset issuer, as far as I am aware, to hire legal counsel and to send via certified mail, a demand letter to James McCarthy after multiple unanswered emails and phone calls. I am fairly confident that the asset lists only started arriving once the letter was received.
Further more, how exactly would you like me to handle situations where claims are made against gigamining that are not in the list provided from GLBSE? Should I and all Gigaminers just keep trusting nefario? This is the exact reason to have a claims process in the first place. Nefario is withholding information for a mistake he made, Gigaminers should not have to suffer because of Nefario's mistakes any longer.
I have received claims for over 10% of Gigamining that are NOT on the lists given to me by GLBSE. This is a significant percentage and it warrants the claims process.
Finally, what should happen if I pay the wrong individual a large amount of the held coins? Guess what, I'm still on the hook according to the law. It is only right to protect the interests of all Gigaminers by making sure I have legal recourse should such a situation occur.
I hope it is clear that I am only trying to clean up and move forward from the situation at hand.
Best regards,
James
We are all in the very unenviable position of riding in the wake of the aftermath of James McCarthy. I have been placed in a very bad spot in this wake, and my only goal is to protect and serve Gigaminers as I have over the last half year.
I would like to point out that I am the only asset issuer on GLBSE, as far as I am aware, who is trying to move forward and abide by all the laws of local, state, federal and international law. I am the only asset issuer, as far as I am aware, to hire legal counsel and to send via certified mail, a demand letter to James McCarthy after multiple unanswered emails and phone calls. I am fairly confident that the asset lists only started arriving once the letter was received.
Further more, how exactly would you like me to handle situations where claims are made against gigamining that are not in the list provided from GLBSE? Should I and all Gigaminers just keep trusting nefario? This is the exact reason to have a claims process in the first place. Nefario is withholding information for a mistake he made, Gigaminers should not have to suffer because of Nefario's mistakes any longer.
I have received claims for over 10% of Gigamining that are NOT on the lists given to me by GLBSE. This is a significant percentage and it warrants the claims process.
Finally, what should happen if I pay the wrong individual a large amount of the held coins? Guess what, I'm still on the hook according to the law. It is only right to protect the interests of all Gigaminers by making sure I have legal recourse should such a situation occur.
I hope it is clear that I am only trying to clean up and move forward from the situation at hand.
Best regards,
James
Gigavps == gigascammer
If the contact info is not provided... should probably post in this thread. ;p
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--127437
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1353074
http://gigamining.com/claims.html
Yes, but with that he's arguing for a change in the way courts view the balance between the right to a defense and untruthfulness. But I think it's along the lines of "this stuff is kind of hard, why don't we just say anything goes." Imo, anyone dissatisfied with the current Gigamining information request should ask for direct lawyer contact info and, if provided, send a certified letter outlining your issues. If the contact info is not provided... should probably post in this thread. ;p
http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/19/the-ethics-of-letting-a-lying-defendant-testify/
At least in English common law countries you are directed to not facilitate knowingly deceiving the court. Of course there will be lawyers who don't follow the directives also ones that are very careful to keep themselves as much in the dark as possible regarding the veracity of certain clients/witnesses/statements.
"It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie)." - This is not grey, this will get a lawyer in serious trouble if it can be proven they facilitated deception of the court.
As for a client testifying dishonestly and in a way known to their counsel, they have to let them take the stand but they'd need to not get involved in their questioning. Given how this would appear to the court the usual result is either the client doesn't testify, the defense counsel withdraws, or an unscrupulous counsel throws ethics out the window and participates in the dishonesty.
- In regards to this aspect of the thread, it is unethical to ask people to certify statements you know to be false. The lawyer involved may be carefully keeping themselves enough in the dark to still use such documents though. Conversations a long the lines of "Well, if your agreement is A-B-C that would be bad for you but if your agreement was actually X-Y-Z that would put you in the clear. Oh and btw, I'll need certified documents describing the actual agreement you have with these people."
At least in English common law countries you are directed to not facilitate knowingly deceiving the court. Of course there will be lawyers who don't follow the directives also ones that are very careful to keep themselves as much in the dark as possible regarding the veracity of certain clients/witnesses/statements.
"It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie)." - This is not grey, this will get a lawyer in serious trouble if it can be proven they facilitated deception of the court.
As for a client testifying dishonestly and in a way known to their counsel, they have to let them take the stand but they'd need to not get involved in their questioning. Given how this would appear to the court the usual result is either the client doesn't testify, the defense counsel withdraws, or an unscrupulous counsel throws ethics out the window and participates in the dishonesty.
- In regards to this aspect of the thread, it is unethical to ask people to certify statements you know to be false. The lawyer involved may be carefully keeping themselves enough in the dark to still use such documents though. Conversations a long the lines of "Well, if your agreement is A-B-C that would be bad for you but if your agreement was actually X-Y-Z that would put you in the clear. Oh and btw, I'll need certified documents describing the actual agreement you have with these people."
Your last paragraph pretty much explains what I was referring to when I said "It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie". The greyness arises from the degree of knowledge they need to have to treat something as lie which they can't then elicit. The lawyer may be certain that the defendant is lieing through his teeth - but without that knowledge being grounded in established facts they are entitled to proceed as though they accepted it as truth. Without that, people who were "obviously guilty" (by which I mean their account is such that noone hearing it believes it to be true) couldn't get legal representation.
Just being sure that they're lieing doesn't make it a lie for the purposes of eliciting false testimony - there needs to be a more solid grounding for that belief. And that's where it becomes very grey.
Decent read at the link you posted by the way - he also seems to think it's a pretty grey area and ends up advocating a position contrary to your argument: that you treat testimony you know to be false (from the Defendant only - other witnesses the same issues don't arise) exactly the same as you would evidence you believed to be true.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/19/the-ethics-of-letting-a-lying-defendant-testify/
At least in English common law countries you are directed to not facilitate knowingly deceiving the court. Of course there will be lawyers who don't follow the directives also ones that are very careful to keep themselves as much in the dark as possible regarding the veracity of certain clients/witnesses/statements.
"It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie)." - This is not grey, this will get a lawyer in serious trouble if it can be proven they facilitated deception of the court.
As for a client testifying dishonestly and in a way known to their counsel, they have to let them take the stand but they'd need to not get involved in their questioning. Given how this would appear to the court the usual result is either the client doesn't testify, the defense counsel withdraws, or an unscrupulous counsel throws ethics out the window and participates in the dishonesty.
- In regards to this aspect of the thread, it is unethical to ask people to certify statements you know to be false. The lawyer involved may be carefully keeping themselves enough in the dark to still use such documents though. Conversations a long the lines of "Well, if your agreement is A-B-C that would be bad for you but if your agreement was actually X-Y-Z that would put you in the clear. Oh and btw, I'll need certified documents describing the actual agreement you have with these people."
At least in English common law countries you are directed to not facilitate knowingly deceiving the court. Of course there will be lawyers who don't follow the directives also ones that are very careful to keep themselves as much in the dark as possible regarding the veracity of certain clients/witnesses/statements.
"It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie)." - This is not grey, this will get a lawyer in serious trouble if it can be proven they facilitated deception of the court.
As for a client testifying dishonestly and in a way known to their counsel, they have to let them take the stand but they'd need to not get involved in their questioning. Given how this would appear to the court the usual result is either the client doesn't testify, the defense counsel withdraws, or an unscrupulous counsel throws ethics out the window and participates in the dishonesty.
- In regards to this aspect of the thread, it is unethical to ask people to certify statements you know to be false. The lawyer involved may be carefully keeping themselves enough in the dark to still use such documents though. Conversations a long the lines of "Well, if your agreement is A-B-C that would be bad for you but if your agreement was actually X-Y-Z that would put you in the clear. Oh and btw, I'll need certified documents describing the actual agreement you have with these people."
They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding.
This is patently untrue. You can verify it very easily: go kill someone, call up your lawyer, tell them you've killed the someone and see if he stands up in court and says "Your Honor...he has told me he killed X".
ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told.
Who the hell told you this? If things actually worked that way we'd have a simple test now wouldn't we.
Nice selective quoting you tried there missing the entire point being made which was your lawyer cannot be compelled to incriminate you even if you have confessed to them but they cannot knowingly allow you to commit perjury. I don't know where your at but where I am lawyers are not permitted to lie to the court or knowingly allow lies to be told to the court.
It's not quite that simple. If lawyers in a criminal case couldn't allow their clients to lie then they'd be unable to represent anyone who wanted to plead Not Guilty but had admitted to committing the offence.
In fact, when it comes to the Defendant themselves, the lawyer MUST let them lie under oath if they insist on doing so: however the lawyer can't assist in supporting statements they know to be untrue (so they'd ask for the evidence in narrative form, not ask questions about it, and avoid reference to it in their closing arguments). You see there's two competing factors - on the one hand lawyers aren't supposed to elicit false testimony, on the other hand ALL defendants (even ones who tell their lawyer that they intend to lie) are entitled to effective counsel.
If a defendant tells their lawyer (in a criminal case) that they intend to lie then in general what will happen is this (assuming the lawyer is playing by the rules). The lawyer will advise them against it, explain that it's agianst the law, explain the consequences (potential further charges/longer sentence) if it's subsequently established that they lied. If the Defendant still insists that they want to lie then the lawyer MAY try to withdraw from the case (and is obliged to do so if they haven't yet agreed to represent the Defendant) but depending on them timing that may not be an option. The lawyer MAY ask the Defendant to sign a statement they've chosen to act against their counsel's advice after being advised otherwise. Then the lawayer would let the Defendant give their false testimony - but be careful not to act themselves so as to give the lies extra credibility.
It's a very grey area - but for certain a lawyer can usually elicit evidence even when they're certain it's a lie (and, in some cases, even when the defendant has TOLD them it's a lie). And they can never prevent a Defendant from lieing or tell open court that the Defendant is lieing - they can either withdraw from the case (not practical once the trial has started, usually) or avoid supporting the lies. If you're ever on a jury and the Defendant's lawyer asks him to give evidence in narrative form (i..e "tell the jury what happened" rather than asking specific questions) then it's a fair bet that the Defendant has told the lawyer he is going to lie - and the lawyer is avoiding asking the usual specific questions so as to avoid any risk of being guilty of eliciting false testimony. That will be confirmed for you when, in his summing up, the Defendant's lawyer doesn't mention things stated by the Defendant which you'd think would be important (the lawyer can't argue them in a closing statement if he knows them to be false).
You may then think - well how can the lawyer make a closing argument at all if he knows the defendant did it? The answer to that is simple - the closing argument is about whether there's sufficient evidence to support a conviction, not actually about whether the Defendant committed the offence or not (the two things are inter-twined but are actually different). The lawyer can still argue that the Defendant should be acquitted (which they may believe) - they just can't state that the Defendant is innocent (which they know to be untrue).
None of which has anything to do with a civil matter. Except - a lawyer does NOT investigate whether what his client tells him is true or not. That's not his responsibility - even if he believes it is likely to be untrue. He is only prevented from allowing his client to say something if he comes into knowledge grounded in material facts that it is a lie - and lawyers can generally avoid that by avoiding questions/topics which could lead them to knowing (in a meaningful sense) that their client was lieing. Lawyers are NOT unbiased - they aren't meant to be.
If a lawyer says something on behalf of a client that does NOT mean the lawyer necessarily believes it to be true. At best it means they don't know with certainty that it's a lie. So long as their client claims it's true (and the lawyer hasn't accidentally stumbled over totally convincing evidence that it's a lie) their belief of whether it's true or not is totally irrelevant. It's not their role to determine truth, it's their job to assist ONE side in the dispute.
If lawyer's really did (or were legally compelled to) only tell the truth/allow the truth to be told then you wouldn't need one each in a dispute (or a judge/jury) - you'd just both send your information to one lawyer and he'd tell the truth about who was right. At root that argument fails because the truth isn't necessarily easy to determine - and it's absolutely NOT a lawyer's job to do so.
Quit the talk, it is all obvious.
SCAMMER TAG, it is time for action theymos.
SCAMMER TAG, it is time for action theymos.
They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding.
This is patently untrue. You can verify it very easily: go kill someone, call up your lawyer, tell them you've killed the someone and see if he stands up in court and says "Your Honor...he has told me he killed X".
ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told.
Who the hell told you this? If things actually worked that way we'd have a simple test now wouldn't we.
Nice selective quoting you tried there missing the entire point being made which was your lawyer cannot be compelled to incriminate you even if you have confessed to them but they cannot knowingly allow you to commit perjury. I don't know where your at but where I am lawyers are not permitted to lie to the court or knowingly allow lies to be told to the court.
It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK
It really has little to do with the common law. That's how lawyers work in civil systems too, that's how they worked in the old Roman empire, it's how they worked in the Republic and in Athens and generally speaking, it's how a lawyer works. A lawyer is a hireling with a job to do, not some charity for the public good.
To the more general point: I think what you're arguing against is ultimately the basic understanding of the random nitwit that he has no clue as to how the world works, and as such once people with an actual clue get involved it's about time to stfu. Sort of like saying "an adult advised me!" among preschoolers. Sure an adult is not here nor there as to whether the advice is sound, in principle. In practice, at least he's not 5.
but I'll also re-iterate that I do not believe Theymos should be involved in the scammer tag proceedings. I believe there's a fairly clear conflict of interest.
FTR, what is the conflict?
And at the rate things are going scammer tags will prolly just get phased out, the mods lack both the training to handle the ever-increasingly complex arguments brought and the drive to even bother, on top of which the constant haranguing which necessarily comes with the territory is wearing everyone thin.
Sooner or later we'll have to have some sort of court set-up, and the logistics of that are staggering.
They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding.
This is patently untrue. You can verify it very easily: go kill someone, call up your lawyer, tell them you've killed the someone and see if he stands up in court and says "Your Honor...he has told me he killed X".
ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told.
Who the hell told you this? If things actually worked that way we'd have a simple test now wouldn't we. In other news:
Quote
A state bar association has suspended the license of a lawyer for making truthful statements in court filings.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/telling-truth-costs-lawyer-her-license.html
(Yes, obviously it's different in civil proceedings. A lawyer who knowingly allows a civil defendant or any witness to give false testimony can be disciplined and even lose the right to practice law. A lawyer who doesn't allow a criminal defendant who insists on lying under oath to claim his or her innocence will be disciplined. Your using of the wrong example would seem to indicate you don't know what you're talking about.)
i dont see another way for him to be sure to pay his investors.
what about this: tell gigavps to donate all bonds which are not claimed in february. if he say yes: there is no reason left for a scammer tag.
what about this: tell gigavps to donate all bonds which are not claimed in february. if he say yes: there is no reason left for a scammer tag.
According to the claims page these are not investments anymore rather a leasing type of arrangement, changing those terms is a scam. The process of claims as I have said before requires these bond holders to perjury themselves on a legal document, a criminal offense most places, to get their funds back. This is hardly the actions of man trying to help his investors rather one of a man trying to cover his own ass from the shit he has got himself into.
Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased. They aren't. They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public). It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).
And you seem to have drank the kool aid on lawyers being lying weasels only out for them and their clients selves. Lawyers are required in the systems you speak of to use every legal means possible to protect their clients interests. They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding. Now they cannot be compelled to tell anything a client has told them but they cannot once knowing a fact from a client present anything to lead the courts/legal system to believe any different. ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told. What they can and will do when a client has told them of their guilt is try to show the evidence presented against their client in the worst possible light to introduce doubt as its a beyond reasonable doubt evidence test in the systems you cite not the truth involved in its application of this test that is the goal.
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.
You're another one getting confused over the role of lawyers. They aren't magical beings, they don't act in the interest of some wider good, they aren't trying to be fair to all parties. They're paid to give advice to someone on how best to protect that person's own interests.
When someone says "My lawyer advised me to do X" you need to read it as "My lawyer told me that doing X would gain me personally more benefit than not doing X". You shouldn't read it as "Doing X is right" or "Doing X is fair to those I dealt with" or "doing X is 'good'". A lawyer's responsibilities are to their client (though they DO have to follow certain rules - but many of those are easily side-stepped), not to the public at large.
Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased. They aren't. They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public). It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).
Following a lawyer's advice is neither here not there when it comes to getting a scammer tag. Or do you believe scammers can't hire lawyers? Anyone can have a lawyer - and that lawyer will (if a decent one) give them advice on how best to protect their interests. That act (having a lawyer) doesn't make them any more (or less) guilty of scamming than they would have been had they not had a lawyer.
i do not own any gigamining shares (glad i sold them fast enough).
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.
if giga would use your coins to pay his lawyer: scammer
asking for documents just to make sure nobody can sue him: no scammer tag
its a tradegy that we live in a world of bureaucrats which needs signed documents which costs money. but that is not gigavps' fault.
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.
if giga would use your coins to pay his lawyer: scammer
asking for documents just to make sure nobody can sue him: no scammer tag
its a tradegy that we live in a world of bureaucrats which needs signed documents which costs money. but that is not gigavps' fault.
The issue is that he had no problem taking the coins without a lawyer, but doesn't want to give them back without a lawyer, and that he knows this will price out a lot of small investors.
i do not own any gigamining shares (glad i sold them fast enough).
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.
if giga would use your coins to pay his lawyer: scammer
asking for documents just to make sure nobody can sue him: no scammer tag
its a tradegy that we live in a world of bureaucrats which needs signed documents which costs money. but that is not gigavps' fault.
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.
if giga would use your coins to pay his lawyer: scammer
asking for documents just to make sure nobody can sue him: no scammer tag
its a tradegy that we live in a world of bureaucrats which needs signed documents which costs money. but that is not gigavps' fault.
I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.
Personally I believe the scammer tag is premature. If Giga listens to his bond holders he can still right the ship fairly easily, and there is reasonable evidence that we have the lists in the first place largely due to Giga. If he fails to make good on the original contract within a reasonable amount of time, then by all means, it's a scammer tag.
However... having a GLBSE owner/shareholder/nefario screwee making the determination seems like it could be an issue, no? No one is ever going to believe that you made the determination impartially.
Cheers.
Jump to: