Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.
EDIT
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3782916#msg3782916
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.
EDIT
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3782916#msg3782916
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.
Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...
Jon claims that the shares Ken is holding did not belong to WeEx but to himself, as a natural person.
If this was IRL, his personal funds are simply off-limits.
That's irrelevant considering the parties involved, though. When i was a kid, my friend had a band called Cop Shoot Cop. This is sort-a like that - Crook Rob Crook
Well then Jon first of all needs to prove the shares didn't belong to we-ex but to himself, and then secondly needs to defend an accusation of joint and several liability, which would probably float through like a warm summers breeze. Especially considering weex was basically operating outside of the law.
If Jon wants to sell the shares so he can refund weex customers then... well... he is blurring the lines himself.
Finally, Jon can't afford to take ken to court... and if he can, he should be refunding weex customers as a priority.