My time at Core Media they were turning a nice profit.

You know what I miss? The days when people who worked in media knew the difference between assertion and proof.

It wasn't that long ago, as the crow flies. Once upon a time journalists and people associated with media organizations recognized that simply saying a thing didn't make it true. That a certain healthy level of skepticism made for a better understanding of the world. That if they wanted to make an extraordinary claim, they needed to back it up with independently verifiable facts and if they didn't -- well, they should expect not only other journalists but the general public to call them out on their laziness or their disingenuity.

Core Media has made a claim. They have made a naked assertion, and they've done so in a way that was half-assed if we even take the most charitable interpretation. Their documentation of a quite severe and significant accusation is non-extant and they don't seem to have either the talent nor ability to do better.

Now comes you, who likewise has made assertions but which carry no actual substance or independent verifiability. You don't even make the scantest attempt to, which is kind of sad given that you could have easily linked to some sort of business documentation provided on an Australian public server to support your contention. I have no way to independently verify anything you say, and my direct, observational experience of something I directly and sensibly referenced provided by them and which anyone can go look at was not meaningfully rebutted.

You might begin to sense that I sniff a great air of bullshit emanating from your general direction. I have no reason not to say so directly because I'm pretty sure no cryptocurrency publication of any repute would be able to afford my services anyway, so I lose nothing by calling it out.

You may say that the was a bad entrepreneurial error for an internet company, however during my time at Core Media even I had great admiration for Lori and I would have done the same.

No, any sensible person would look at what is suggested to have happened and know that what we're talking about is not "entrepreneurial error," but radical business idiocy, and that's if we take them and you entirely at your word. You mean to tell me that a small company of some knowledge allowed an international employee with no defined or stated position be in possession of, and I quote, "a lot of cash" as you put it and "tens of thousands of dollars from our company accounts" if we quote directly from their account (which are pointedly not the same things at all), and -- further quoting -- "we have decided not to enforce legal action as this would shine yet another ‘bad light’ on the ecology"?

I disbelieve. Oh, look, a natural 20.

That's inherently unbelievable, and frankly I don't believe either of these statements. No company of reasonable business people would put themselves in that situation and if by some confluence of idiocies they did, they'd be far more interested in pursuing a legal case for that kind of significant money in order to protect their reputation as fair dealers and solid business-folk than the abstract "ecology." They would, if nothing else, be deeply beholden to their investors to cover their own asses as directors. Even in a place as behind-the-times as Australia, directors of a company have a legal responsibility to protect the investors' interests. The Corporations Act of 2001 is a cruel mistress.

Is it cash or was it access to accounts? Was it a big deal, or something Core Media investors are going to be expected to eat without recompense? Was it illegal or just made up? Why is an ex-employee of the company carrying water for them when they should be at least responsible for being forthright with the public and investors?

But here's the capper. Here's the one thing anyone running flack for a company making a grand larceny threat against someone should never say:

Now it is up to her to prove she didn't steal the funds.

No. Not even in the retrogressive wilds of Australia, the far north reaches the Canada, nor the darkest bar in Glascow is Commonwealth law so blinkered or so stupid. You do not get to make the accusation that someone has engaged in active, significant, larcenous criminal behavior with no proof and no decent argument, and then say "it's on them to prove they didn't do it."

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. And it is by dropping to that level of statement that you seriously repudiate any seriousness that someone with an actual interest in this affair might grant you.

You and Core Media are the ones who are making an extraordinary claim. You are making an extraordinary international criminal claim. Neither you nor CM are behaving in a way which leads me to believe that you're telling the truth. CM in particular is behaving in a way which actively causes me to doubt their claim.

If this was being done by an organization in the US, there would be significant grounds for the investors of CM to sue for criminal mismanagement and liability, and Lori to bring suit for defamation. Personally, I don't think it would be worth the effort, but it would certainly be possible. It still may.

If there was any real concern about "shining another bad light on the ecology," CM would be far more circumspect about making such claims and would advise anyone who wanted to support them in such matters to be equally as circumspect. They are perfectly comfortable depicting themselves as incompetent judges of character and sporting a market inability to hold onto their investors' money, but Hades forfend that they actually pursue criminal charges against what we are told is tens of thousands of dollars of embezzlement by an employee for fear of looking bad.

Nothing about this claim makes sense or stands up. If anyone takes it seriously, that's a reflection of their own gullibility more than anything else. You are definitely doing no service.