Quote from: klondike_bar on May 21, 2016, 02:37:21 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on May 20, 2016, 08:27:12 PM

Quote from: grn on May 19, 2016, 05:25:13 AM

Why do we need to see an invoice from anyones solicitor? This is private information.

We need to see the invoice to see if dogie was lying or not when he stated that the lawyer was paid "up front"! Apparently he can't back up his statement. Maybe there are other statements that he usually pulls out of his ass, but we don't know. We do know that he refuses to show any tangible proof so that makes it a lie in my eyes. By the same judgement he can say that he is being owned $1000 or $1M!

Quote from: Finksy on May 19, 2016, 03:36:42 PM

What lies are you referring to, or are you just here for the pictures and shillfest?

Are you really reading all the posts here? We have 2 lies until now:
1) The posted receipt from dogie was first for "court fee and security of funds" which was later edited to "court fee...";
2) dogie stated that the lawyer was paid "up front", but refuses to prove it. While dogie could clear up this issue very fast he refuses to do so. Just like Craig Wright refuses to really sign a message with the genesis block's address while stating that he is really Satoshi...

I used to respect you on here, but this is just going deep south crazytown.

Dogie doesnt need to prove shit to you, or spondoolies. He just has to prove it in court (which bitcointalk clearly is not). The fact he removed 3 words from a post is you grasping at straws to somehow discredit him when theres a huge amount of proof that spondoolies owes him and others money for referrals/commissions. (again, spondoolies-tech must have been drunk when they throught 5,10,15% commission tiers were a smart idea, because that probably was the entire profit margin (or more) on producing the SP3x/SP20 product line)

I mean, who the fuck cares if dogie pays his lawyer up front? What do you have to gain by him proving it, and what does he have to gain by proving it? If anyting, it just provides spondoolies more ammunition to fight his claim in court, and witholding sensitive information is a smart move.

Quote from: RoadStress on May 20, 2016, 08:27:12 PM

We do know that he refuses to show any tangible proof so that makes it a lie in my eyes. By the same judgement he can say that he is being owned $1000 or $1M!

Are you kidding? hes not trying to sell you something, he has no need to prove shit to you. Unlike SP-Tech, who maintained for months that an SP50 was in the works, and used that lie to bolster the BTCS share price by nearly 30% before they sold off and declared bankruptcy (royally screwing over BTCS and shareholders in the process).

+1,not a fan of dogies...but you made MY point for me klondike_bar Wink