The Shadowrun Situation

[Kaelik]

Hey Cent whatever.

You are retarded, stop ruining my thread.

Hey Tarq. Stop posting stuff that has nothing to with anything, and address the fact that LLCs cannot add owners after creation, but multiple people claim to be owners that bought into the company after creation.

[Taharqa]

Hey Tarq. Stop posting stuff that has nothing to with anything, and address the fact that LLCs cannot add owners after creation, but multiple people claim to be owners that bought into the company after creation.

To my knowledge, the only person we have on record claiming to be an owner after its initial creation is Ken Horner. He is on record as being unconcerned with the situation. Given that he is more knowledgeable about whatever business transaction transpired to give him partial ownership than you, me, or Frank, I don't see any reason to question him.

This isn't to say there aren't other "owners." At the very least, we know there are at least 12 creditors, some of whom are probably investors, if not owners. But no one else has come forward and claimed that they were swindled into believing they had ownership when they didn't. Frank has made some vague references without naming names, but thats it.

[Stahlseele]

Loren Coleman and Randall Bills really do feel that they "are" Battletech. Randall Bills said that he was the "Messiah of Battletech" and that without his approval, fans of the world and game would abandon it as apostate and the entire franchise would crash and burn. I do not believe this is the case, but I do believe that if, as is very likely, those guys get pried free from Battletech, that he will carry through on his threat and tell everyone that the new Battletech "does not count" and is made by people who have no business doing so. He has something of a cult of personality over on the Battletech side, though I suspect nowhere near as much as he thinks he does.

That being said, I doubt that anyone making new material in 8 months is going to want to touch the direct creations of Randall or Loren except possibly to have them shot in the face by new characters to show how badass they are.

The best thing they could do is reset the timeline back to Grave Covenant and do the whole thing after that RIGHT.

Also, nobody in Germany ( at least in the north, where the mayority of the German MechForce members are ) gives a shit or knows much of anything about Randall Bills.

As for Omi, I kinda wanted it to end with Victor retiring, taking Omi to some planet in the Davion outback along with the Comstar folks that had followed him and sliding into happy obscurity. The Jihad just smacks too much of 40K to be honest.

Victor and Omi retiring would have been a very nice finish for their stories.

And the fucking Jihad is the second most idiotic plot development in BattleTech fiction, after Victors other sister handing over the Davion half of the FedCom to Katherine, because there were "bad polls". :razz:

Where the hell did Word of Blake get fleets upon fleets of Warships from? Where did the get tons of regiments of Mechs from? Were all the intelligence assets of the different factions putting their thumbs in their asses for several years?

*nods* all good points. also, most people in northern germany don't seem to care about MWDA at all . . probably exactly because of this kinda bullshit . . in battletech, all factions are, as in WH40K, just looking out for their own good. with a few and far in between nice people who really do want to try and make things better for the rest of mankind . . these are their stories. and they die. or have their families killed. because they meddled in someone elses business. it's sadly the most fitting thing to do . . WH40K is just so over the top about it all, that it gets silly. If they toned it down, it would go from grimdark! to serious game.
but then it would not be WH40K anymore either. just like a happy end would not be battletech anymore i'm afraid. In Battletech, the universe is at war. that's the whole premise. if the war is over, then battletech is over. happy endings are something that can be done in shadowrun on occassion, but even there most are not quite as happy as you would think . . Also, everything south of the elbe is bavaria, not germany *nods and runs off to bed to hide and sleep in*

[Juton]

As for Omi, I kinda wanted it to end with Victor retiring, taking Omi to some planet in the Davion outback along with the Comstar folks that had followed him and sliding into happy obscurity. The Jihad just smacks too much of 40K to be honest.

Victor and Omi retiring would have been a very nice finish for their stories.

And the fucking Jihad is the second most idiotic plot development in BattleTech fiction, after Victors other sister handing over the Davion half of the FedCom to Katherine, because there were "bad polls".

Where the hell did Word of Blake get fleets upon fleets of Warships from? Where did the get tons of regiments of Mechs from? Were all the intelligence assets of the different factions putting their thumbs in their asses for several years?

I really began to hate Victor with operation Bulldog, he went from being dumb in politics to being some shrewd schemer. I think a previous writer must have set up the FedCom fracture then left because they kind of changed the tone from Victor being kind of dumb to him being saintly and Katherine becoming some vile bitch-queen. I really wish Victor had died before or during the Jihad because he keeps on trying to be awesome, except he's not because he comes off a some wankerish Mary-Sue.

I believe the old heads at FASA had some plan to do the Jihad, and could have pulled it off competently before WizKidz got a hold of the property. Battletech right now is a prequel to MWDA, and all prequels suck because you know how they are going to end.

As for how the WoB pulled it off, well they subverted the FWL and ComStar which between them controlled nearly all communication and the largest fleet in the inner sphere. Seriously like 2/3rds of the Free World's League military defected, which I found kind of ridiculous. The also used various fronts to hire mercenaries to act on their behest unknowingly. With a bit of foreshadowing, good writing and not knowing how it was going to fucking end it could have one hell of a roller coaster. But now it's not and I'm waiting for the time line to catch up with MWDA so they can finally do something new.

[Fuchs]

BT ended for me after the attack on the Clan homeworld.

[magnuskn]

*nods* all good points. also, most people in northern germany don't seem to care about MWDA at all . . probably exactly because of this kinda bullshit . . in battletech, all factions are, as in WH40K, just looking out for their own good. with a few and far in between nice people who really do want to try and make things better for the rest of mankind . . these are their stories. and they die. or have their families killed. because they meddled in someone elses business. it's sadly the most fitting thing to do . . WH40K is just so over the top about it all, that it gets silly. If they toned it down, it would go from grimdark! to serious game.
but then it would not be WH40K anymore either. just like a happy end would not be battletech anymore i'm afraid. In Battletech, the universe is at war. that's the whole premise. if the war is over, then battletech is over. happy endings are something that can be done in shadowrun on occassion, but even there most are not quite as happy as you would think . . Also, everything south of the elbe is bavaria, not germany *nods and runs off to bed to hide and sleep in*

Eh, we probably know each other, since I also live in Hamburg.

And while I agree with you that in BattleTech war never ends, at least some characters should have a happy retirement. Especially Victor. Because a.) the guy was put through the wringer quite severely and deserved some peace and b.) because he really had conquered it all... there was no real other place for him to go, after the Clans got pacified. But, eh, they kept him around until Dark Age. Unnecessary.

I really began to hate Victor with operation Bulldog, he went from being dumb in politics to being some shrewd schemer. I think a previous writer must have set up the FedCom fracture then left because they kind of changed the tone from Victor being kind of dumb to him being saintly and Katherine becoming some vile bitch-queen. I really wish Victor had died before or during the Jihad because he keeps on trying to be awesome, except he's not because he comes off a some wankerish Mary-Sue.

I believe the old heads at FASA had some plan to do the Jihad, and could have pulled it off competently before WizKidz got a hold of the property. Battletech right now is a prequel to MWDA, and all prequels suck because you know how they are going to end.

As for how the WoB pulled it off, well they subverted the FWL and ComStar which between them controlled nearly all communication and the largest fleet in the inner sphere. Seriously like 2/3rds of the Free World's League military defected, which I found kind of ridiculous. The also used various fronts to hire mercenaries to act on their behest unknowingly. With a bit of foreshadowing, good writing and not knowing how it was going to fucking end it could have one hell of a roller coaster. But now it's not and I'm waiting for the time line to catch up with MWDA so they can finally do something new.

Well, we obviously disagree on Victor ( I like ultra-competent characters, what can I say? Phelan and Kai are some of favourites, too. ), but I agree that the Jihad was a bloody unlogical mess. And as I said before, were all the intelligence agencies sleeping? Oh, well.

My personal hope is that the new owner looks at the mess and wipes the slate clean... probably the best point would be the defeat of the Clans as Fuchs says below.

But since most publisher won't want to "upset the balance" or whatever, we'll probably get a time-jump after Dark Age.

BT ended for me after the attack on the Clan homeworld.

That'd be an excellent jumping-off point... after the expedition returns it just gets silly with that handover of the Davion half of the FedCom to Katherine.

You know what I would have wanted most? Well, besides Omi not dying, that is. More Camachos Caballeros novels. I miss Cassie Suthorn and the rest so much. <sigh>

[Kaelik]

To my knowledge, the only person we have on record claiming to be an owner after its initial creation is Ken Horner. He is on record as being unconcerned with the situation. Given that he is more knowledgeable about whatever business transaction transpired to give him partial ownership than you, me, or Frank, I don't see any reason to question him.

This isn't to say there aren't other "owners." At the very least, we know there are at least 12 creditors, some of whom are probably investors, if not owners. But no one else has come forward and claimed that they were swindled into believing they had ownership when they didn't. Frank has made some vague references without naming names, but thats it.

Except of course, that under US LLC law, there is a 100% chance that Ken Horner is not an owner.

And therefore, if he thinks he is, he is being swindled. He does not have more knowledge than you, Frank or I, (well, maybe you, since you managed to read that new owners cannot join an LLC after creation an ignored it) because he is not a lawyer, and does not get to decide that the law is different than it is.

So yes, Ken Horner is not an owner, of that we can be nearly 100% certain.

Ken Horner is being told by someone he is an owner. That we can be nearly 90% sure of.

That person is probably Loren Coleman, one way or another.

So yes, it looks like Ken Horner is being lied to by Loren Coleman. Game over.

Now either shut up and go home, or actually address the salient point, IE, LLCs cannot have new Owners added after creation according to the fucking law.

[Smeelbo]

As far as "Frank's Agenda" is concerned, from personal knowledge I can say with nigh certainty that he has but one actual agenda:

Become a physician, and work for Doctor's Without Borders.

Frank hates thieves, especially those who steal from workers, and nothing else is required to explain his interests and actions in this matter.

Smeelbo

[Taharqa]

Except of course, that under US LLC law, there is a 100% chance that Ken Horner is not an owner.

And therefore, if he thinks he is, he is being swindled. He does not have more knowledge than you, Frank or I, (well, maybe you, since you managed to read that new owners cannot join an LLC after creation an ignored it) because he is not a lawyer, and does not get to decide that the law is different than it is.

How absurd. My point is that you don't know the exact terms of Ken Horner's arrangement with IMR/CGL. Whatever that arrangement is, he has indicated that it is not problematic in his view and that he is satisfied with the situation.

Admittedly, if the law is as you say it is, then something else is going on here, but there could be lots of explanations for that besides "he is being lied to." What is clear is that the only observable data point we have on the subject has publicly declared that he was not swindled. That is not really a strong argument for your position.

[Kaelik]

How absurd. My point is that you don't know the exact terms of Ken Horner's arrangement with IMR/CGL. Whatever that arrangement is, he has indicated that it is not problematic in his view and that he is satisfied with the situation.

Admittedly, if the law is as you say it is, then something else is going on here, but there could be lots of explanations for that besides "he is being lied to." What is clear is that the only observable data point we have on the subject has publicly declared that he was not swindled. That is not really a strong argument for your position.

My point is that if it's illegal for him to be an owner, and he claims to be an owner, and he claims to be okay with the situation:

He's actually wrong about something. He's not an owner, he thinks he is.

There's an easy solution to this issue. If he was swindled, he may not be aware of the fact that he is not an owner, so he may be okay with his mistaken impression of the situation.


"A guy who is not an owner, but claims to be an owner, doesn't think his ownership is taken away."

Is not an argument for "Loren Coleman has not mislead anyone." It is actually directly an argument for "Loren Coleman has mislead someone."

[Taharqa]

There's an easy solution to this issue. If he was swindled, he may not be aware of the fact that he is not an owner, so he may be okay with his mistaken impression of the situation.

Thats one possible solution, among many.

On another note, how do you explain this?

http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/700351.pdf

IANAL, but that would seem to contradict your claim that LLC's cannot add members.

[Crissa]

Taharqa, there's no evidence the Colemans have ever done that.

Hence the either or. Either he defrauded the investors, or he defrauded the government. Because it's been years since the first 'share' or partial ownership was purchased from them, and no such documents have ever been filed.

Basically, that document rebuilds the LLC from one set of owners to a new set of owners. Unlike a corporation with shares which may be just bought and sold as investments. Different laws, different tax liabilities.

-Crissa

[Taharqa]

Taharqa, there's no evidence the Colemans have ever done that.
-Crissa

Just curious, have you actually looked for evidence, or are you talking out of your ass?

[TheFlatline]

So lets get back to your evidence, the. The court documents have already been discussed, and going from "the members" to "the owners" to "the only owners" to "stock swindling" is, lets just say, overreaching.

I have no idea what you mean to show by reference to the audit. How exactly does that demonstrate stock swindling by Loren Coleman?

Weeeeellllll....

It makes a definitive, collective statement.

"Ah-ha!" you exclaim. "The word 'the' being added in is clearly just a typo, since there's more than one owner!"

Well, that argument perhaps would hold merit but...

https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/dolprod/bpd ... ID=2121855

Washington State lists the Colemans as the only governing people. In a corporation, this refers to the board of directors. In a partnership, it refers to the partners (aka the owners). In an LLC, it refers to the owner/owners of the LLC.

So the state of Washington officially states the only two people in charge of IMR are the Colemans. Catalyst is just a DBA, and is literally a single sheet of paper saying that IMR=CGL.

This is also backed up by the secretary of state.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_deta ... =602309999

"But!" you object "an investor/partner in an LLC isn't listed as a member of the 'governing people'"

True, true, but someone like Bill is in a nebulous area. I'd have to see some more of the documentation directly from the founding of the LLC to make a judgement call, but one thing is for sure:

As far as the state of Washington is concerned, *only* the Colemans have *any* authority concerning IMR. There are no other people listed.

I haven't played with Washington's system. It *might* list *all* the owners/partners, but I'll err on the side of caution and only make definitive statements for what I can prove.

[TheFlatline]

To my knowledge, the only person we have on record claiming to be an owner after its initial creation is Ken Horner. He is on record as being unconcerned with the situation. Given that he is more knowledgeable about whatever business transaction transpired to give him partial ownership than you, me, or Frank, I don't see any reason to question him.

This isn't to say there aren't other "owners." At the very least, we know there are at least 12 creditors, some of whom are probably investors, if not owners. But no one else has come forward and claimed that they were swindled into believing they had ownership when they didn't. Frank has made some vague references without naming names, but thats it.

If you read my post, you'll see that as far as the State of Washington is concerned, Horner might *not* be an owner. Or at least, an owner with any pull.

That being said, the original statement from like 5 pages back where you intoned that the lawyer writing that the Colemans were "the members of IMR" was a typo is, ultimately, bullshit. The Colemans *are* the sole governing members of IMR.

And now I have to take you to task. You've been talking out your ass with conjecture this entire weekend. It seriously took me 5 minutes on Google to find the information I wanted. You're asking us for proof, and yet are unwilling to do *any* of the footwork on your own.

What.
The.
Fuck?

[virgil]

Taharga does seem to be relying on the fact that since victims like Horner aren't up in arms, then there must not be any wrongdoing in that regard; when it's more likely that they either are more calm about it or don't fully understand what's been done to them, which is understandable since this legal stuff isn't exactly a transparent process.

[martian_bob]

This thread is a lot more fun to read with Taharqa on your ignore list.

[Maxus]

This thread is a lot more fun to read with Taharqa on your ignore list.

So I've noticed for the past couple of days.

[Centurion13]

And now I have to take you to task. You've been talking out your ass with conjecture this entire weekend. It seriously took me 5 minutes on Google to find the information I wanted. You're asking us for proof, and yet are unwilling to do *any* of the footwork on your own.

What.
The.
Fuck?

Erm... at the risk of sounding retarded (again), this is very much what I've been bellyaching about. We were talking about the current events. Or Frank and some of the others were. It's why I came here to begin with.

Then this fellow jumped in and suddenly we're all over the road. And he won't answer direct questions and he tries to discredit you when that fails....

Sorry, just not used to trolls... or whatever that guy is. And my sincere apologies if I've contributed to the mess.

Cent13

[Username17]

The word is Concern Troll.

The idea is that rather than simply come in and flame people, you walk in and pretend to be "helpful" by saying that you have "concerns." So you start suggesting that people shouldn't say something because they don't have enough evidence, or it would be mean, or it would be counterproductive, or whatever. Rather than simply telling people to shut up because they are *%^&s, you tell them that they should play nice and censor themselves. Thereby ceding the argument to the other side. Because of your concerns.



-Username17

[crizh]

Thanks for the link Frank, that has made reading this thread make a lot more sense.

Funny it's almost like someone turned the light on and I suddenly realized that I was sitting in the dark.

It reminded me just how much I despise rhetoric or any other technique for manipulating a debate to steer it away from the truth.

[Centurion13]

Thanks, Frank.

Huh! That one made me think long and hard whether or not I'm coming across as a Concern Troll.

I decided not, because I usually voice my 'concern' and then STFU. Usually. But it's been close a couple times. And I think I have said enough about Frank on my blog - gonna give that a rest, too.

Ehh. Something else to watch out for...

Cent13

[Taharqa]

Flatline, that document has been linked already in a couple of places. So, I am well aware of it. I do applaud your decision in the initial post there to stick to what you thought you knew and not overreach, but then you kind of spoiled that in the post exactly below it.

I know virtually nothing about corporate law or how an LLC is governed and/or operated. Thus, I have no way on my own of knowing what that document means. I am happy here to acquiesce to someone with more knowledge, but it would appear that is not you. A couple of lawyers on the dumpshock boards have interpreted it, and not at all in the way that you are suggesting. I apologize for bringing in outside quotes, but its all very relevant.

First, let me start off with this from one of those individuals (Octopii)

And for the record, I hope catalyst loses the license. I'm not super enthused with 4th ed, and I can't abide a thief.

He also says this

With an LLC, depending on structure, there are two types of members: managing (as you mentioned) and non-managing. Non-managing members don't have say in the day to day activities of the LLC. This makes sense business-wise, as LLC's are generally formulated to let one skilled person and money people form a business together. The money people often don't want to have a say in the day to day operations; if they did, they'd wouldn't invest in the skilled person's business, they'd just form their own and hire the skilled person as a manager. So, depending on the operating agreement, the non-managing members may meet once a year, or not at all, or whenever.

and then there is this from another lawyer (urgru):

Or, people with some experience haven't made the mistake of conflating "controlling people" with "the members." You're citing to something that in no way purports to lay out the complete membership of the firm, nor are "controlling" members the only members who matter in the eyes of the state. The state certainly taxes the other members, allows them to vindicate their legal rights in court, and so on.

Are they right? I don't know, but their credentials and, at least in the case of octopii, their objectivity are a good deal more established than yours.

Now, the very limited information I do know about LLCs is that they allow for great flexibility in the way that the governance structure is set up. We don't know how that structure is set up for IMR/CGL. Is it just possible that this entire kafluffle is about people being overly pedantic about terms like members, owners, partners, investors, etc. that have been tossed about on forums in a colloquial sense? At this point, based on the available evidence, that is where my money is.

To Frank and others, calling me a "troll" is just a tactic to marginalize an opposing point of view. And if I am a troll, I am hardly a concern troll, because I don't share the point of view of most of the posters on this thread. Rather, I consider them to be paranoid nutjobs, some with rage issues.

[Username17]

Taharqa, you are a concern troll. You claim to share our passion for truth and justice, but you really obviously don't. When a lawyer says something you don't like, such as when Fuchs told you point blank that the word "the" means exactly the same thing in Law as it does in natural Englih, you dismiss him. When a business man says something you don't like, such as when Flatline told you that you can't add people to an LLC's ownership without filing some fucking paperwork, you dismiss him. And when someone who does have insider information says something you don't like, such as pretty much everything I've ever said about anything, you dismiss that too. And you tell us that we all haven't dug deeply enough, that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, that you are concerned. Because you're a concern troll, and that is how it works.

Well you know what? Fuck you.

You ask if we've dug deeply enough to find the paperwork that was supposed to be filed to add owners to the IMR LLC, that was in turn supposed to be filed more than a dozen times in the last five years? Yes. Actually we have. That paperwork doesn't fucking exist, because Loren Coleman never filed it. People were offered buy-ins to the company, and Loren never registered them as owning... anything. That's fraud.

Granted, it's not what that particular court case is about, but it's still fraudulent. And it pisses me off.

But that's not really the point. The point, Taharqa, is that you're a liar. You claim to be an objective truthseeker, but you aren't. You're a political hatchetman, and the only thing you are doing is casting aspersions on people who are actually providing information on the current situation in the guise of an objectivity you have no intention whatsoever of actually acting upon. So kindly: fuck off.

-Username17

[BeeRockxs]

Taharqa, you areWhen a lawyer says something you don't like, such as when Fuchs told you point blank that the word "the" means exactly the same thing in Law as it does in natural Englih, you dismiss him

That's a typical Frank statement. Presenting stuff as fact that, at first glance, might be so, but should be looked at again.
You neglect to mention that Fuchs is neither a native english speaker, nor a lawyer in the US.
So I very much trust a native speaker that is also a lawyer in the US quite a bit more about a legal interpretation of the word "the".
It's also nice to see who first goes down to a personal, insulting level.