Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is definitely Fraud and not a civil matter since everything is fake about them. Especially when they are illegal immigrants and have no valid status.
I don't think civil court or lawyer can help resolve this matter but perhaps gov. Fraud investigation or Immigration Canada might do something about it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just tried calling and it said "Y Max Communications".
Apparently it was Voice over IP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A scammers' favorite phone service


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/protection/fraud/report.asp

This link might be helpful if you want those two lovelies get caught for either staying in Canada illegally or their scam.

 Goblini wrote:
This is definitely Fraud and not a civil matter since everything is fake about them. Especially when they are illegal immigrants and have no valid status.
I don't think civil court or lawyer can help resolve this matter but perhaps gov. Fraud investigation or Immigration Canada might do something about it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just tried calling and it said "Y Max Communications".
Apparently it was Voice over IP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A scammers' favorite phone service


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/protection/fraud/report.asp

This link might be helpful if you want those two lovelies get caught for either staying in Canada illegally or their scam.

I definitely agree that it's fraud, and thus not a civil matter. I'm unclear if you are pointing that out because you misread what I wrote in my post, or just re-confirming it in agreement with what I wrote.

Edit: Ok, it's late and I'm not reading things properly. Ignore above. Time for bed.

I was reconfirming that it is fraud but not a lawyer's matter.

 Goblini wrote:
I was reconfirming that it is fraud but not a lawyer's matter.

It can be both, you know.

In terms of civil litigation, Kickstarter's terms of service could potentially be helpful to backers seeking restitution, though probably not in this case as the changes were not made until recently.

Kickstarter's terms of service would, unless I am mistaken, essentially be part of the agreement between a backer and a project creator. Because projects are subject to approval by Kickstarter, and ostensibly must meet Kickstarter's terms of service, both backers and project creators have a reasonable expectation that the project will conform to Kickstarter's terms of service. In this sense, any violation of Kickstarter's terms of service could, I suppose, be viewed as a violation of the agreement between the backer and the project creator.

For example, although making a material misrepresentation is already a no-no when negotiating a contract or terms of sale, Kickstarter has written that into its terms of service, and specified that the 'window' within which a material misrepresentation violates the terms of service is any time during the campaign.

Has anyone identified any demonstrable material misrepresentations made during these Kickstarter campaigns? Another tack might be to bring any identifiable material misrepresentations to Kickstarter's attention and demand restitution.

Weeble, you are totally right. I did not think of it at all.

Nergal made a comment saying that Kickstarter will look in to the case nice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope Backers' concerns get resolved as well as Kickstarter put end to ADW's scam that caused more than enough damage on everyone who got involved.

Yet again small minced scammers fail to see the bigger picture.

ADW could have smirked behind their masks while raking profit in from a legit release of what could have been 3 KS'd projects with momentum for future business and releases>

ALONG with hobby good will.

Thinking they are smarter than they actually are has probably cost ADW in its various guises a lot lot more than they get in these wonderful little cons.

Can Ouze not work on a Prehistoric Flying Assault Butts kickstarter to show em how its done? (give the community what it wants )

I've been lurking for awhile, but am finally joining. I'm hoping to have some more dirt on ADW later today.

I believe the KS was the smaller part of the scam. I think they were getting money from someone else (investors? museums?)

For misrepresentations: I know it was asked I believe in the sea monsters KS if the evergreen entertainment led my dina walker was the same evergreen entertainment led by Dina Walker who failed to produce the movie Resonant, who apparently took preorders for that movie and then we have reports of people not receiving those DVDs.

Lars replied that they were different.

I don't have time to look up the exact quote, but I know it is there, and we all know that these two companies are the same.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Can Ouze not work on a Prehistoric Flying Assault Butts kickstarter to show em how its done? (give the community what it wants )

I've managed that project quite horribly (still fulfilling it!), so that's probably a bad idea.However the butt-related miniature niche is wide open for anyone else who would like to try.

Here is how Kickstarter has removed itself from all action regarding ADW and backers. This is from their old terms of use that both projects fall under.

Kickstarter is a platform where Project Creators run campaigns to fund creative projects by offering rewards to raise money from Backers. By creating a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Project Creator are offering the public the opportunity to enter into a contract with you. By backing a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Backer accept that offer and the contract between Backer and Project Creator is formed. Kickstarter is not a party to that agreement between the Backer and Project Creator. All dealings are solely between Users.

Kickstarter is not involved in the project at all according to these terms. They will not go to bat for any backer even if the project turns into a fraud case like this one. The odd thing is that just under the above statement you find this bullet point:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

That sounds great until you get to the bottom of that section of the TOS. There you find this gem:

Kickstarter is under no obligation to become involved in disputes between any Users, or between Users and any third party arising in connection with the use of the Service.

As well as this:

You release Kickstarter, its officers, employees, agents, and successors in rights from claims, damages, and demands of every kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, arising out of or in any way related to such disputes and the Service.

The short story is if someone makes an awesome project with a vapor company under a false name they can just disappear after getting their funds, and Kickstarter has no responsibility to find them or get any of the money back at all. You are screwed.

A few caveats to those Kickstarter Terms of Service.

First, a civil exculpatory clause should not impact criminal liability.

Second, Kickstarter says that it is not obligated to become party to a dispute between a backer and a project creator. This does not mean Kickstarter cannot choose to involve itself, which the company may be motivated to do if it is facing loss of goodwill due to bad press. Kickstarter may also voluntarily do something that makes it a party to the contract.

Third, such exculpatory clauses are not silver bullets that hold up in all circumstances. For example, gross negligence can defeat an exculpatory clause. Plaintiff lawyers have to contend with exculpatory clauses all of the time. Just Google "how to beat an exculpatory clause" and you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits.

In a dispute between a backer and a project creator, it seems reasonable to me to view Kickstarter as a third party to the contract under the terms of service, assuming an arms length transaction between the backer and the project creator. However, once Kickstarter begins to get directly involved with the way information is communicated to backers, such as by deleting the project creator's comments, I would think the waters start to get murkier.

Ergo:

So, Kickstarter, you claim to not be a party to the contract between myself and the project creator. Yet without my knowledge you limited my access to information being communicated to me by a party to that contract while it was being negotiated.

It seems to me that once you start down a road like that a boilerplate exculpatory clause is at least able to be challenged.

 Thes Hunter wrote:
For misrepresentations: I know it was asked I believe in the sea monsters KS if the evergreen entertainment led my dina walker was the same evergreen entertainment led by Dina Walker who failed to produce the movie Resonant, who apparently took preorders for that movie and then we have reports of people not receiving those DVDs.

Lars replied that they were different.

I don't have time to look up the exact quote, but I know it is there, and we all know that these two companies are the same.

Was it this one you meant, from the Sea Monster comments:

estrus on September 7 wrote:Say, is this the same Dina Andrews:
http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24207

Creator Dina Andrews Walker on September 7 wrote:_Lars_

been addressed already, estrus
no relation.

For misrepresentation, wouldn't almost anything do (I'm not exactly sure what the term entails)? Like for example this quote that I also noticed in the Sea Beasts comments:

Creator Dina Andrews Walker on September 9 wrote:Also, of note: some of your concerns I address directly on this KS.

1. There is a 100% money back guarantee if we are late in delivering
2. There is a 100% money back guarantee if you do not like the sculpts
3. My team will have all of the Sea Monster sculpts completed before the end of the month.

I am shocked that Kickstarter isn't being more aggressive in dealing with ADW's use of Kickstarter resources to track down and harass Kickstarter backers!

Thanks as usual to Weeble for the legal viewpoint. I, in no way, am claiming to fully understand all the legal issues involved here. I am, however, reading the TOS and thinking that Kickstarter could simply say "We had no idea, and we aren't getting involved. Take it up with ADW."

However, to Weeble's point, things could be very different when they start messing with posts and such. We'll just have to wait and see.

Trodex those are exactly the quotes I was thinking of. And I think the more double statements, and misrepresentations we document, the better the case is.


Like having the one post about the money back guarantees and then the messages where they say there is a no refund policy.

Shows they say one thing before they get the money, and another when they get it.

A material misrepresentation is going to be any alteration, ommission, or obfuscation of a fact that would influence a party's view of the contract or its terms.

For example, if I would not enter into an agreement with someone who has been linked to seemingly fraudulent behavior in the past, misrepresenting that information would be material to the contract.

Basically, you can lie about whatever you want so long as it has no bearing on the contract. If you misrepresent something that is related to our agreement or my perception of the agreement, then it is a problem. So far as I understand.

weeble1000 wrote:
A material misrepresentation is going to be any alteration, ommission, or obfuscation of a fact that would influence a party's view of the contract or its terms.

For example, if I would not enter into an agreement with someone who has been linked to seemingly fraudulent behavior in the past, misrepresenting that information would be material to the contract.

Basically, you can lie about whatever you want so long as it has no bearing on the contract. If you misrepresent something that is related to our agreement or my perception of the agreement, then it is a problem. So far as I understand.

Agreed. ADW states they are an above board miniatures start up with an idea they are pitching through Kickstarter. Kickstarter says OK create a project. ADW is found out to be a fraud. Where does this leave Kickstarter?

Kickstarter says the contract is between the creator and backers, so they have no obligation to either party, right? If ADW dissolves itself, and "Lars" or whomever goes underground who is left to take responsibility? Not Kickstarter, they got "cheated" like everyone else by not knowing who they were dealing with. Now the backers are back to square one.

Except Kickstarter didn't get cheated. They got their percentage of the pledge total.

 CptJake wrote:
Except Kickstarter didn't get cheated. They got their percentage of the pledge total.

Your'e right they did get their percentage. I used the word "cheated" only to indicate the line of reasoning they could use if this whole mess ended up in court.

OK. Any case being made against Kickstarter will never hold. Since we use their service and have agreed to it then their hands are washed of any legal action.

Ever look at the Areal kickstarter? Backers had been screaming, SCREAMING scam for the entire 30 days that ks ran. This is like easily a thousand people at least, backers and not that kept reporting and sending messages to ks that it was a scam, the guy whose name was under the ks was under trial for fraud for Pete's sake and ks okayed the ks anyway. Various gaming news outlets were reporting it and do you know what finally got that ks canceled on it's VERY LAST DAY? The creator backed themselves for over ten grand to get the project to fund.

That's it. This happened before the change

Kickstarter doesn't care.

Here is the headquarters for Weaver, Chester, and Tweed!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1dod8eymsbdol8/Screenshot%202014-09-26%2013.15.42.png?dl=0

Kajamo wrote:
Round 3 with Kickstarter. By the way, these are not automated responses, someone is typing them.

"Hi XXXXXXXX,

Our policy is not to comment on actions taken against users or projects, nor to comment on the status of a project overall - that part is in the hands of the creators themselves. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I appreciate you letting us know about this situation."

So, my final (hopefully) response:

"Ok, I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Apparently backers are not considered stakeholders in these projects.

I request to be removed from this project. I will deal with the money issue on
my own. I just want my name removed, and the abusive creators of this project to
no longer have the ability to email me. "

Let's see where that goes. The way I phrased it I doubt they will turn me down, it would be difficult to be the enablers of abuse.

Round 4: Kickstarter said "We're unfortunately not able to remove backers from projects, but you can unsubscribe to updates from this project via the Notifications tab of your Account Settings."

So I have responded that if I do that, will they be totally unable to communicate with me, or is that just for updates?

Wow, who knew it was so hard to remove yourself from an abusive situation.

A creator can remove you as backer from a project after it has funded but KS themselves can't? seems hard to believe.

I have been removed from a project post funding when the creator decided they couldn't fulfill the project and everyone was refunded (KS issued the refunds). Others have been removed from projects by the creator post funding.

https://m.facebook.com/hearthstoneminiatures


BLOW YOUR MINDS!

Wonder how much they'll cost, I wouldn't mind the Elasmotherium and that armadillo thing. I'm too lazy to go find its real name right now

nevermind

MissMelons wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/hearthstoneminiatures


BLOW YOUR MINDS!

Good news for the ones who really liked those initial sculpts (assuming this is an actual company and the Scott in question isn't "Scott Lantry" )

Anyone familliar with this company 'Hearthstone miniatures'?
I can't seem to find any homepage and they don't even show up on regular facebook, just that m.facebook page MissMelons links to. (I'm really not very Facebook savvy to it may well just be me that have a hard time navigating it).

I would be incredibly wary about this one. A lot of his facebook comments sound like ADWs original statements on growing their company.

He's a regular on the Reaper forums and I trust him =) Granted, you just have my word on that though haha

this is the regular facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hearthstoneminiatures?fref=nf

MissMelons wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/hearthstoneminiatures


BLOW YOUR MINDS!

Ugh. I'd kinda hoped those things would disappear with this whole brouhaha.