Jul 4, 2022 9 min read

Rinse & Repeat: Is Rob Tidy A Scammer? 🤭

Can you keep a secret? Shhhhh

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information discussed below is a personal honest opinion that has been developed as a result of both research of publicly discoverable information and conversations with people involved in the matter. Take this as an honest personal opinion and form your own opinions based on the arguments and points presented below and your own critical thinking.

Well, it has been a while since I've posted here due to a few different factors.

The first is that I have been having a pleasant vacation over in the Exumas, well more specifically in Big Major Cay, and the second is that it is rather exhausting trying to keep track of all the misdoings of Robert Colin Tidy AKA Mr Zipett AKA Big Daddy.

I got a nice picture of Rob whilst on vacation though...

So what has Mr Tidy been up to whilst I've been away from the Bat-Signal?

Well, I can tell you this much... I have been receiving quite a few emails from people who've been mistreated by Big Daddy.

If you haven't already, please get up to date on Robert Colin Tidy's endeavours here:

Let's reflect on the news (As per the emails I've received)

Let's start with Big Daddies declaration of SUCCESS in the court of law, against the terrible devil woman Caroline.

First Paragraph: Rob claims he won a court case against Black Tie, that the truth prevails and the judge did a good job.

Second Paragraph: Rob claims that this 'win' proves he was RIGHT and TRUTHFUL all along.

Third Paragraph: Rob announces the release of a 73-page court document (We will look at that shortly)

Fourth Paragraph: Rob claims this 'win' proved wrong people who have doubted him.

Sixth Paragraph: Rob takes the opportunity to cry that he is the victim in all this (In a very Big Daddy-like fashion)

Now I have been informed by some people involved on the ground floor that Rob is claiming that Caroline has to pay his costs and also the original fraudulent loan amount of ~$200,000.

Rob allegedly claims these funds will be distributed back to token holders who wish to get a refund - sheesh, he is such a saint 🥳

Yet is this true at all?

After a little review of the 73-page court document the following facts are clear:

Rob sold tokens privately instead of through the official Black Tie company as agreed upon, then sent those funds to Black Tie labelled as a loan (Based on conversations with people close to Rob, he marks many transactions as LOAN for "Tax Purposes"... Queue Dr Evil's "Riiiiiiiiiiiight")
Rob is claiming that commissions paid to sales staff, for the sale of tokens, constitute a loan to the company Black Tie - when in reality, these are funds that rightfully should have gone to Black Tie if Rob wasn't unconscionably siphoning funds into his own bank account.
Rob claims he advanced Blacktie $120,000 for the purchase of 3M DOTALK tokens, but Blacktie never transferred the tokens (This is remarkable because DOTALK is Robs bum-chum Reno's token and not something that was under the control of Blacktie)
Rob claims he sent $34,000 to Blacktie to purchase 84,000 Zipett Coins (Once again, Rob had millions of tokens in founders supply, it is illogical that he'd pay for more)
Caroline's counter-claim is that all monies paid to Rob were based on a consulting agreement for the sale of tokens, not for the settling of loans.
Rob leans on the fact that Black Tie had amounts owed to him marked as LOAN ACCOUNT on their books as evidence of a loan, however with a broader understanding of Rob's personality and previous trends of transactions marked as LOANS, it wouldn't be hard to imagine Rob having a tantrum if Caroline refused to label it a loan account, ergo, it is put in the too-hard box and them giving the man-child what he wants to not stifle progress.
Further into the court document Rob again claims that $34,000 sent to Black Tie for the purchase of Zipett tokens constitutes value in the total owed to him by Black Tie - something we mentioned above is illogical and clearly a lie (Specifically: Balance sheet $311,375 + Zipett Token Buy $34,000 - Mercedes Benz $120,000 = $225,375 owed to him from BT)
Surprisingly, it seems that Black Tie did not push forward with s 459G (genuine dispute) and s 459J(1)(a) (substantial injustice) issues, which means these angles were not considered by the judge at all. (My interpretation is they were relying on it just being set aside due to technical reasons (nullity/defective) and then created their own technical issue by not annexing the SEPA - which strikes me as a lack of judgment on Black Ties behalf)
Further in the document remarks are made around a consultancy agreement (Partnership) between BT and Big Daddy, and the absence of a loan agreement.
Also mentioned are SMS messages between Rob and Caroline in which Rob used the term LOAN and Caroline didn't correct him - once again if you know Rob's character and history, you know that you pick your battles and ignore 95% of what he says as it is typically nonsense - the judge has no knowledge of Rob's character or history and even comments no interest in 'exploring deeper'.
In cross-examination, Caroline is pushed on why BT have a loan account with Z4LIFE and her response is that it was a holding account for shared token sales and she admits that BT labelled items incorrectly in their accounting software. (One interpretation here is that Caroline does not want to admit she just allowed Rob to dictate the labelling of the account in BT's accounting software to avoid conflict)
Worth mentioning again is that word along the grapevine is that Rob tells people he would mark payments as LOANS for TAX BENEFITS, meaning that Rob has a pattern he sticks to. (If you've followed my articles you already know that Rob Tidy is as predictable as the sunrise with his habits and patterns of behaviour)
The judge rejected BT lawyers request that Rob specify what the alleged loans were for instead of claiming a full sum (ie $225,375).
At one point, in the same line of QnA's, Rob denies receiving $40,000 a month as a sales retainer from BT, but then sheepishly admits to receiving $1200 a day to cover his expenses to generate sales - sounds like a sales retainer. (Sales that went into his account to then be 'loaned' back to BT - imagine getting paid to do sales and then 'loaning' those funds back to the company paying you to generate sales 🤯)
In this section, Rob is claiming there never to be a partnership between BT and himself (Z4LIFE), yet in response to the questions around the $40,000/mth sales retainer Rob states "I paid well above the $45,000 that was agreed because we went into a full partnership."
The judge notes this was "intriguing" but dismisses it as an accidental slip of the tongue. (No, that was Rob accidentally being honest, your honour)
The importance of accepting/denying a partnership is that if there is an accepted partnership, that means monies owed between parties are assessed and dispursed only after the formal dissolution of said partnership.
BT Lawyer states: If there was a dissolution of a classic partnership here, there may be money instantly flowing from Z4Life to Black Tie, or half of what was owing from Black Tie to Z4Life might be immediately returned to Black Tie. You would have this complex division of assets. None of that has occurred, of course. I mean, I would go even further and say it would be entirely [in]appropriate for one partner to serve a statutory demand on another partner in the course of a dissolution of a partnership until everybody knew what the position was on the accounts.
Due to variously alleged reasons (ie misleading address from RT), BT lawyers failed to attach the required SEPA notice in the required 21 days, which, as stated in the document: failure to annex the SEPA notice was fatal.

Overall Takeaway

Based on the information contained in the 73-page court document and my broader knowledge of Rob Tidy's personality and past behaviour, my interpretation is:

It is likely that there was an original loan amount (Possibly the $85,000 mentioned in the document) however it appears evident that Rob Tidy inflated the original loan amount via false claims (eg Zipett token purchase) and funds generated from selling Zipett tokens and then sending the funds to BT labelled as a LOAN.
The core point here, from my perspective, is that if RT sold tokens and the funds went into his bank account instead of BT's account, and he then "loaned" those funds to BT, in effect, he was 'loaning' funds to BT that should be their funds already due to the funds coming from token sales. (Imagine loaning someone their own money and trying to claim that they then owe that back to you - welcome to Rob "Big Daddy" Tidy's world)
My sense is that BT doesn't wish to pay Rob any amount, on the grounds of his indiscretions, the reputational costs that have come from being involved with him, the financial losses from him breaking operating agreements and doing shady back-door deals, and principally from a moral perspective due to Rob's character and behaviour towards BT and others.
Based on conversations with victims, the amount of money that Rob siphoned out of the company via back-door token sales is in the $ millions, which lays the ground for a case of costs and damages that far exceeds any authentic loan claim he actually possessed.
The judge treats the 'lack of clarity' in regard to the partnership agreement between RT and BT as significant, however, treats the 'lack of clarity' regarding the loan account as insignificant - a clear double standard.
Failure to annex the SEPA notice was 'fatal' to BT's case and core grounds for the case being dismissed.
An interesting point, somewhat detached from the case at hand, is that the document clearly highlights Rob Tidy shadow directing Jim Boxell (Still and always) which is interesting because Rob only recently come out of bankruptcy.

In conclusion

During the time I've been gone, it looks like Big Daddy has been travelling all around the world, flying first class, staying in fancy hotels, eating expensive meals each night, paid for from investors buying worthless Zipett tokens - as always, flashbacks from 2017/18 anybody?

Now it is quite remarkable to discover that Rob Tidy, the self-proclaimed BILLIONAIRE, just has no money to keep building the ZIPETT LEGACY...

Thanks to the anonymous person who sent this screenshot through 🥳

So not only has the amount of money Rob claims is owed to him by Caroline risen from $85,000 in the beginning, then to $200k in the court case, to now allegedly $800k, but he also has a lack of funds and needs the community to pitch in and HELP.

If everyone HELPS then he can have the Zipett ready within 2 weeks! (Spoiler: There are people from 2017 still waiting for Rob to produce something of value)

It is clear this man-child has no shame and is committed to sucking every cent out of people around him.

Let this be just another warning, do your due diligence and if things seem a bit off, don't let a fancy-looking watch and big talk lull you into a false sense of security - that's how people like Rob continue to operate.

With love of tacos,

Debunk El Funk

Ps if you have a story or you're a victim of Tidy, feel free to email me: debunk_el_funk@protonmail.com