And I cannot simply tell the government "he did something illegal here, let me look into his books!", but I can only CLAIM he did that, sue him and then government will look into that.
iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.
- Thread starter ckblackm
- Start date
comradekingu
Glowing ember
ED puts his numbers out, because he is only liable for his part, same as the postal office is doing theirs to deliver things . In any event, he knows he can deliver, and if something fails elsewhere, its not in his interest to shy away from it. With ED not being a integral part of this ordeal, the question becomes,
If the premise is based on a lie, you cant just settle for a partial refund.
If that was the case, we just struck upon a huge loophole here. Sell something that you (for the case of argument) have no intentions of delivering, under false premises, keep shadowing the issue, and then when the dust settles, pay back parts of it, and then call your cut profit.
There _must_ be a way to take action against that legally.
Or as the case may be, that a company was made just to shift money from one part to the other. Limited surely doesnt translate to (inverse) reverse laundring of money? Turning it over to a party you have no liability for. As opposed to the money being in an illegal state to begin with, and then shifting it over to someone who pretends it came from somewhere else.
Can craig tell lies because his company isnt liable for the money? Does the liability of money dissapear once its out of links hands?
If so i would think that it should be made very clear, beforehand. Also, if craig has a company involved and is one of the creators of the project at the place it is sold, surely he must have _something_ to do with it legally.
It is my understanding that its illegal to put up storefront companies and shift money around to avoid liability.
My personal two cents is that you can follow the money, and listen for the silence.
Edit: AFAIK the only thing kickstarter says is that you should trust the creators based on how kickstarter is a public thing, and it would look bad for their persona if they didnt deliver. In Norway every single practice i described is illegal.
I should think its the backers and Links position to sue for ICP2
I know its the customers job at this point to sue openpandora ltd.
What makes this different is that maybe the backers only option is to push link, which means he must follow suit and turn a court claim onto craig.
For link i can only advice to play with open cards. I dont think he has much to fear if he does that, but i know he will get the same end of the stick if he doesnt.
If the premise is based on a lie, you cant just settle for a partial refund.
If that was the case, we just struck upon a huge loophole here. Sell something that you (for the case of argument) have no intentions of delivering, under false premises, keep shadowing the issue, and then when the dust settles, pay back parts of it, and then call your cut profit.
There _must_ be a way to take action against that legally.
Or as the case may be, that a company was made just to shift money from one part to the other. Limited surely doesnt translate to (inverse) reverse laundring of money? Turning it over to a party you have no liability for. As opposed to the money being in an illegal state to begin with, and then shifting it over to someone who pretends it came from somewhere else.
Can craig tell lies because his company isnt liable for the money? Does the liability of money dissapear once its out of links hands?
If so i would think that it should be made very clear, beforehand. Also, if craig has a company involved and is one of the creators of the project at the place it is sold, surely he must have _something_ to do with it legally.
It is my understanding that its illegal to put up storefront companies and shift money around to avoid liability.
My personal two cents is that you can follow the money, and listen for the silence.
Edit: AFAIK the only thing kickstarter says is that you should trust the creators based on how kickstarter is a public thing, and it would look bad for their persona if they didnt deliver. In Norway every single practice i described is illegal.
I should think its the backers and Links position to sue for ICP2
I know its the customers job at this point to sue openpandora ltd.
What makes this different is that maybe the backers only option is to push link, which means he must follow suit and turn a court claim onto craig.
For link i can only advice to play with open cards. I dont think he has much to fear if he does that, but i know he will get the same end of the stick if he doesnt.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is, Craig intended to deliver, it was just a whole misorganization.
You need to PROVE you're guilty - and that is the hard thing.
It's not illegal to pay yourself wages.
It's not illegal to buy a car for a company.
It's not illegal to buy stuff like a 3D printer for a company.
It would be illegal to put that stuff into your own private property though, but I'm not sure that happened.
It's NOT illegal to be unable to finish the production because of unforseen issues.
He can prove he couldn't finish the production as planned, as e.g. the nubs are not available anymore (the manufacturer will confirm this).
So that would be an issue.
I'm definitely not siding with Craig, but doing something that works here is not easy.
He is pretty smart in that area, and you are not guilty unless proven...
You need to PROVE you're guilty - and that is the hard thing.
It's not illegal to pay yourself wages.
It's not illegal to buy a car for a company.
It's not illegal to buy stuff like a 3D printer for a company.
It would be illegal to put that stuff into your own private property though, but I'm not sure that happened.
It's NOT illegal to be unable to finish the production because of unforseen issues.
He can prove he couldn't finish the production as planned, as e.g. the nubs are not available anymore (the manufacturer will confirm this).
So that would be an issue.
I'm definitely not siding with Craig, but doing something that works here is not easy.
He is pretty smart in that area, and you are not guilty unless proven...
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
As far as the kick starter is concerned it is not the same as a business. Again, its not a store for preordering hardware. His Pandora business that he did basically the same thing on, that was a business for preordering hardware. But businesses go belly up all the time, cut their losses and debt disappears at the expense of the unfulfilled customer orders. How the liquidation and paying debts are concerned, liability and to what extent the owner is held responsible is depending on the classification of the company. I don't know which one you are arguing against, the kick starter situation seems obvious that it was a failed startup that a fair portion of people got screwed on and hopefully something will be refunded. The Pandora seems a little more complex, he did sell hardware, and deliver some units, he ultimately failed but it wasn't a scam from the beginning or else nobody would have seen anything ever. One answer is clear though, he sucks at running a business. I don't think anything intentionally criminal went down, I wouldn't even call it a scam for the reasons posted.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
SNESFAN: http://pandorawiki.org/Openpandora_Ltd was that way from the very beginning. One amount of fund went to cover another. Nothing was ever done right. You can take legal action against openpandora ltd now if you want, and the company is legally responsible. Where the answers for the icp2 kickstarter, i dont know, and im not a backer. You dont have the option to assume anything about the icp2 kickstarter, because for all intents and purposes, it is a scam, untill proven otherwise.
If i take your money, its the second i take it that its stolen, not based on whatever could be the case. As long as there isnt any answers, thats how criminals operate. Having a company to do it in any sort of fashion, does not remove you from the laws governing society any less.
I sense a pattern here, and im very sure that if you accept good faith, it will be violated again and again in no way ever having anything to do with law. Do the exact opposite, assume fraud and take legal action.
Discussion:
From what i read here craig rothwell stated things were ready that werent ready, that is a false premise. Also he promised openness in a video, which quickly ended once the money was secured.
For the case of argument, intentions there are irrelevant. I should think its whoever is liable, to account for how things went down.
However much is in the clear suggests illegality. I should think whatever isnt is the answer to something much more disturbing.
What makes it illegal for the project to just miss their delivery date (which happened) and continually feed itself the money raised as wages?
Is the car bought with funds for the icp2 kickstarter. What on earth does a car have to do with whats agreed upon? You cant just enrich yourself with something used for private errands on behalf of a company with borrowed money.
If a 3d printer is bought as a company asset, does that 3d printer specifically not belong to the backers, as its their project, and their money? If the company is done with and the printer is at craigs house, thats craigs printer.
How do the backers know that its unforeseen issues, not even mweston knew what was going on, and he was making the firmware. And he was told to lay off it way before anyone else got wind of anything being wrong.
If it can be proven, its a case of does the project have access to the details of how, because it seems at this point, craig, and to a lesser degree link, are not interested in providing details. For which we can only assume there is a very good or bad reason, depending on how you see things.
TL;DR Answers now. Legal action to get them if not provided. Free parenting does not work, its been tried in this case, and it failed.
If i take your money, its the second i take it that its stolen, not based on whatever could be the case. As long as there isnt any answers, thats how criminals operate. Having a company to do it in any sort of fashion, does not remove you from the laws governing society any less.
I sense a pattern here, and im very sure that if you accept good faith, it will be violated again and again in no way ever having anything to do with law. Do the exact opposite, assume fraud and take legal action.
Discussion:
From what i read here craig rothwell stated things were ready that werent ready, that is a false premise. Also he promised openness in a video, which quickly ended once the money was secured.
For the case of argument, intentions there are irrelevant. I should think its whoever is liable, to account for how things went down.
However much is in the clear suggests illegality. I should think whatever isnt is the answer to something much more disturbing.
What makes it illegal for the project to just miss their delivery date (which happened) and continually feed itself the money raised as wages?
Is the car bought with funds for the icp2 kickstarter. What on earth does a car have to do with whats agreed upon? You cant just enrich yourself with something used for private errands on behalf of a company with borrowed money.
If a 3d printer is bought as a company asset, does that 3d printer specifically not belong to the backers, as its their project, and their money? If the company is done with and the printer is at craigs house, thats craigs printer.
How do the backers know that its unforeseen issues, not even mweston knew what was going on, and he was making the firmware. And he was told to lay off it way before anyone else got wind of anything being wrong.
If it can be proven, its a case of does the project have access to the details of how, because it seems at this point, craig, and to a lesser degree link, are not interested in providing details. For which we can only assume there is a very good or bad reason, depending on how you see things.
TL;DR Answers now. Legal action to get them if not provided. Free parenting does not work, its been tried in this case, and it failed.
Last edited by a moderator:
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
OK, so we are talking about the kick starter. I agree the rules regarding an owner of a company paying himself his own wage seems imbalanced. I would even go as far as to say there needs to be a clause for such sized businesses that the company can't take a loan out and then dissolve the company. If such a thing already exists, then this would fall under the same category. I have a friend that owns a llc in america and when he was doing very poorly financially his business took out a laon which he personally lived off of. He eventually got back on his feet and his company is repaying that debt. I don't know what would have happened if he was unable to pay that debt. He had little personal assets to repay that debt if forced to liquidate personal property. That debt would have just gotten eaten by the bank I suppose and he as an individual was the only benefit from that loan.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Banks arent dumb, they compete on being smart. Smart in that sense is being cynical.
Galaxis
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 318
If I read the Kickstarter rules correctly, the company that organizes a campaign is liable for the delivery of the rewards. That step is easy to trace. I'd see Craig's company as a supplier to that organizing company - and it failed to deliver any goods. That's not a problem of the kickstarter participants though - Craig's company is not their contract partner.
Participants would have to go after the organizing company (which in turn would have to get at it's failed supplier). I understand the organizing company has been dissolved already, so it's a right mess from there...
Participants would have to go after the organizing company (which in turn would have to get at it's failed supplier). I understand the organizing company has been dissolved already, so it's a right mess from there...
Well, yes and no.
Craig is very very smart when it comes to avoiding personal issues.
He could always say "The product was ready without the LEDs, but people decided they want backlight. That caused more issues than expected, lead to delays and costs and finally not all parts (nubs) are available anymore".
For a law-suit, that would be a pretty good and understandable explanation.
No. Delays in companies are not illegal, unless someone can prove you KNEW it wouldn't work out in that timeframe and lied to them.
But how to prove that, when changes like the LED lighting occured, is not easy.
Of course paying wages is not illegal, unless it's something way too high.
A car can be used to visit companies and make sure the production works flawlessly.
A car is one of the items that's a pretty standard item for a company.
No, the printer does not belong to the backers, nor do any other tools or assets that are bought as they are needed for the production (case mold, prototypes, etc.)
The only thing that belongs to the backers legally is the final product or a refund.
The only way to get one of those is a lawsuit.
They don't but unfortunately there's no legal reason they need to as well.
A company is NOT liable to tell about any internal issues they have.
Yes, I agree we need to get more details from Craig, but based on my experience, we won't get them.
And the only way to force him to get more details would be via a lawsuit, which will take a lot of time and money
DisgruntleElf
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 339
You could alert the tax man to the ICP2 Kickstarter project and that you suspect that Craig is not declaring the money on his taxes. You may also point to all the Pandora donations that he has received over the years and believe that he also has not declared any of this on his taxes. If you can't get your money back why not make his life miserable with a tax audit.
Neither is theft and dishonesty.
darkborn
Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 455
OMFG. You're not serious, aren't you?
We are not talking about Guantanamo here. Craig took thousands from thousands, including ED. Lawsuit costs money, but tax audit is "not a nice thing to do"?
"Making his life miserable" was just an expression; it means force him somehow to make "his magic" more public.
So much about morality.
At least, tax services are little bit more responsible then Mr. Rothwell. They will probably answer at additional questions about specific case from (to) interested, involved party.
And if they find pattern for annomalies, I am sure that whole case will be forwarded to court.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hồng Thất Công
Đả Cẩu Bổng Pháp
In my birth country it's the opposite - You are guilty until proven innocent . Sometimes it's what you need to deal with a guy like Craig. But hey, it's different in a "free" society.
. Sometimes it's what you need to deal with a guy like Craig. But hey, it's different in a "free" society.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Wasnt the actual quote "production ready" I have no great insight into the project, but without firmware, and a case, i dont see how leds matter.
For things keymat, was there even a non-translucent keymat available to back up said claim. I remember from discussion global rgb led shortage being the butt of a joke which didnt explain how mweston saw things.
Certainly between the video, the quote, and how matters turn out, smart is not the word to use concerning personal affaires signed craig rothwell.
I know enough about law to know there has to be something to sue for here, if nothing but merely the possibility of fraud, which is down to information.
It doesnt take a miracle to understand link benefits from openness. It wont blow over, and it will hurt his reputation if this keeps on for longer.
Money and time is available aplenty, i want craig rothwell barred from ever owning a company again. That would be what i call justice, hope international trade law(suits) agree. Lawsuits are for this purpose, and presuing justice is what an ombudsman does at this point. All details, in the open, where they belong.
The term "cowboy builder" is very much how craig operates. Doesnt know what hes doing, charges in full, does shoddy work of it, charges more to finish. Starts new projects to fund old ones, etc etc.
TL;DR its been discussed enough. If anything is unfruitful its more of the same. Post legal info or follow up on the hitherto unknown info or legal cases.
For things keymat, was there even a non-translucent keymat available to back up said claim. I remember from discussion global rgb led shortage being the butt of a joke which didnt explain how mweston saw things.
Certainly between the video, the quote, and how matters turn out, smart is not the word to use concerning personal affaires signed craig rothwell.
If that was the case, why doesnt every company set up strawcompanies, lie about transparency and eat whatever promises they made in terms of personal expences, not give any info, and pretend that is ok? The list goes on and on. And no, time to transparancy is not a valid concern at this point. Beyond that all bets are off anyways. You cant apply common sense or legality when the premise dictates you forget about them.
I know enough about law to know there has to be something to sue for here, if nothing but merely the possibility of fraud, which is down to information.
It doesnt take a miracle to understand link benefits from openness. It wont blow over, and it will hurt his reputation if this keeps on for longer.
Money and time is available aplenty, i want craig rothwell barred from ever owning a company again. That would be what i call justice, hope international trade law(suits) agree. Lawsuits are for this purpose, and presuing justice is what an ombudsman does at this point. All details, in the open, where they belong.
The term "cowboy builder" is very much how craig operates. Doesnt know what hes doing, charges in full, does shoddy work of it, charges more to finish. Starts new projects to fund old ones, etc etc.
TL;DR its been discussed enough. If anything is unfruitful its more of the same. Post legal info or follow up on the hitherto unknown info or legal cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
You scare me, man. You're suggesting that the only reason you can fathom someone wouldn't be a complete dick and scam the masses is because the law prevents it.
crazyhorse
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 366
Where does he say that's the only reason he can fathom? You're putting words in other people's mouths.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
I actually meant companies are a legal entity, governed by laws. To the effect of seperating the idea of companies from what illegal ventures entail.
Last edited by a moderator:
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
I have been blessed with an uncommon trait known as "logic". Someone can make two or more statements joined by a common theme and I can magically deduce the common things in those two statements. For example, someone can say "plants need water" and "there is no water in the desert" and I can, by the miracle of the mind, deduce that the person is saying that plants cannot grow in the desert. They didn't actually say that plants couldn't grow in the desert, but somehow that knowledge is apparent all the same. Amazing!
comradekingu stated
This is an argument by negation: if A is true then B must also be true, but since B is not true A cannot be true either. QED.This can also be written as "if B is not true then A cannot be true either" or "if not B then not A": if there exists even one company that is not lying and cheating then it cannot be legal. The logical progression is that the only reason companies would be honest is if they were legally obligated to be.
What a sad world it would be if human beings were unable to figure stuff out for themselves and the only truths were those that were explicitly stated.
Similar threads
