Is this thread for real? (AInc has <$100)

[T_Bone]

Yep, it was LAST July ("between may and july" -Bill McEwen) that employees stopped getting paid, and it was last year they were forced from their offices...

Now that we know when the employees wern't getting paid, we know that the CAM crap happened during a time when they had no money. They had already stopped paing employees.

It's very clear now that they were quite literally "Gambling" with money customers sent them. They only intended to fullfill their commitments *IF* they gambled and won. At least with an illegal financial pyramid scheme you know you're at risk... Amiga never disclosed the fact they would be spending the customers money on other things while waiting to get "lucky" to fullfill those obligations.

That's really slimey. I sympathise with their position before the CAM issue, but they really pulled a fast one on everyone who trusted them.

I wonder if I put an ad on the net claiming I'll sell a generic coupon for $50, and the cost is $50 up front, and then went to Las Vegas instead of sending the coupons, hoping to come out ahead, if I'd be criminally charged if I lost the money? "But your honor, I fully intended to honor the coupons if I won!"

Disgracefull. :-(

[T_Bone]

edit: Like I said somewhere, Amiga doesn't know the difference between an "investor", who's investment can be risked, from a "customer", who's money is taken in exchange for product or service, without being exposed to "risk." It's quite clear from what we know now, that they fully intended the customers money to be gambled and exposed to risk.

They do not deserve anyones business. At least the INVESTORS *KNOW* about the risk, there's simply NOT ONE excuse for exposing CUSTOMERS money to this risk, under the guise of normal sales.

If it's a risk, it should be disclosed beforehand as an "investment". Anything else is FRAUD. :-x

The more I hear about the specifics, the madder I get. I should just stop reading about them once and for all. :-(

[T_Bone]

> The fact that he spent so much time on (3) suggests he is
>  actually concerned that a counterclaim/sue might succeed
> and wants to limit the damages by getting Bill McEwan to
> agree that the damages in general are limited.

Actually I got the impression he spent alot of time on (3) because it was a circular arguement.

Of course the lawyer is going to address the countersuit, he   wouldn't be much of a lawyer if he didn't.

The only fear I sensed in that round was in Bill, ####ting his pants at the clause being read to him. If Bill had good reason to believe Amiga DID have reason to ask for money, shouldn't that reason been the answer to the question, rather than his "Yes, er, well, no, I mean, maybe, you never know, anything can happen in court" answer?

[T_Bone]

> Who was talking about fear?

You, but you called it "Concern." :-D I prefer to describe emotion in it's primal form. "Afraid", "Concerned", makes little difference. In this context it's the same thing.

> You are the one who brought this one up, I don't think fear is
> a good thing to read into anything.

Well, that goes for "Concern" too. It's quite possible that a signed agreement capping damages, is relevant when being countersued for damages. Hell, I would have danced on it too. What better defence for liability is there, than a signed document relinquishing liability?

> I think Bill McEwEn was deliberately avoiding answering
> the question.

Obviously, his countersuit wouldn't make much sense if he had answered "Yes. Thendics liability is capped at $0, according to our contract"

That doesn't mean that Thendic believes they'll lose the case or is afraid/concerned... the countersuit isn't mutually exclusive to the suit. It's not impossible for both the suit and the countersuit to be found valid, and even win, indipendantly of each other.