Quote from: hacksmash on August 31, 2016, 12:29:53 AM

Quote from: auden on August 30, 2016, 05:31:35 PM

requiring them to appear in a court of law is no waste of time - that in itself is a worthwhile outcome even if no money is recovered - they must understand that they cannot operate this way without any consequence - - - some people will simply not put up with this...

>>> they should not make commitments they simply cannot meet

>>> if they say they will do XYZ by a specific date =======> then they should do XYZ by that specific date

>>> if they cannot pay dividends, then they simply SHOULD NOT DECLARE dividends

These are really very simple concepts and very basic principles...

If they declare dividends to be paid on a date and then they don't pay dividends as declared, then that is FRAUD

I am not afraid to say that word, because that is what it is: FRAUD!! FRAUD!! FRAUD!!!

They have until Friday until I take action - - - I will not be selling any shares at all, AND I will look into getting them to answer in a court of law and pursuing this to full extent of law, even if cost to me is more than ten times what i paid for the ambercoins - - - that is my right

ummm ... none of your 3 >>> points are illegal as far as I can tell.
If that is the basis of you total claim, no court will entertain your 'frivolous suit'.

good luck

None of his points are necessarily illegal but they are potential evidence of a fraud. A lawsuit of this nature is not frivolous based on the complaints. It is only frivolous because it will amount to nothing in teh way of restitution for AMBER holders. What can happen if legal action is taken is something called "discovery". This is where lawyers can request documents, emails and other communications to see if this actually is a fraud. Not paying dividends is not a crime but there are procedures a company must follow when declaring dividends. If AMBER never intended to pay these dividends even though they promised them to shareholders, that is fraud and it is illegal. This is the kind of thing that would be "discovered" during the legal process.

Again, look to the Cryptsy example. Cryptsy made statements about hacks and theft of currencies. During the investigation, investigators will determine if that is fact or false. They will also find out if Big Vern intended to run off with deposits.

I have no idea what AMBER is doing or intended to do but its clear to me they have repeatedly said one thing and not done it. At some point shareholders have a right to know exactly what's going on.

A lawsuit would establish he fact, but I have to warn whoever gets involved, its going to be timely and expensive for both parties. It would be better to report this company to the proper authorities and let them handle it, if they choose to.