Chuck Bobbit update

[Fatboy]

Scott is right, these days you got to make sure the $$$ is there if your a player who has a chance to win the tournment, yu litterly have to make the tournment director post the $$$, there have been some bad things happen this year in big tournments, like players getting installment payments after they won a tournment, like the one were discussing here. Its a shame, pool is so poor as it is and then to fade not getting paid is just too brutal. You know its bad when promoters have to get investors to pay off last years winner and run a ponzi scheme on his investors/advertizors.

 

[Dawgie]

This subject ran on another thread a few months ago.

In this thread it was stated that Bobbit had the money. Maybe and maybe not. More details are needed to determine this.

Apparently he sold some tables to raise the money to pay some of the players. Did CB owe money on these tables he sold? In the earlier thread there were comments that he encountered some problems with a hotel he had booked/reserved. Most hotels don't lift a finger for any type of event without a deposit. Did he lose his deposit? CB must have had some advertising and promo. expenses. Did he run this tournament alone or did he have some employees? Who if anyone checked to insure that the prize money was available and accessible? How much did he pay out to the lower ranked players? Were the payouts guaranteed, if so how?

 

[smokey]

hi jay:

1. Collected $24,000 in entry fee money. 60 times $400.
2. Did approx. $12,500-15,000 at the gate.
3. Sold over $5,000 in raffle tickets (for a diamond table that he wrote a bad check on).

He did pay out approx. $17,500 of the prize money in cash to the lower finishing players. As you can see, there is a lot of money unaccounted for. That's what I'm talking about! Kapeche?

i am shocked!

i thought he didn't even cover his costs when i wrote my first post here on this thread.

then i read what you said: he HAD all the payout money. and that alone caused me to apologize to you & av8.

but what you are saying here is really criminal beheavior on his part [i really didn't know this before].

it is unbelievable to me that chuck did this. being old (in my case) doesn't keep me from being naive sometimes.

in the end; i hope you get "All" the money "Including Interest"!!!!

thanks for your very clear post to set me straight. there is [almost] nothing more i detest than dishonesty/thievery.

i hope you get all that is due,
smokey

 

[Scott Lee]

The tables were purchased new from Mark Griffin/Diamond, at wholesale, and were paid for. Mark bought them BACK from Mr. Bobbit, at the same price they were purchased for (this is after they had already been used at Alexanders for years...so he lost money on them), so that the players could get paid part of what they were owed. Once again, showing how generous Mark is, and how he has the players' best interests at heart.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Apparently he sold some tables to raise the money to pay some of the players. Did CB owe money on these tables he sold? ?

 

[Rick S.]

I just heard this weekend from a very reputable source that Chuck has also lost his house.

The guy simply got in over his head, with no intentions of defrauding anyone. It just turned bad.....real bad.

This one event has ruined his life...losing his business, and now his house.

I feel for the guy..(as well as the people owed $$$)

He has sponsored MANY tournaments over the years here in Az. With all of them running smoothly, absolutely 0 problems.

I do think he's a man of his word, and will make good on the $$$ ASAP. (Which is kind of hard to do when your homeless, and jobless) Give the guy a little time.........

 

[Bigtruck]

Your guide....

I just heard this weekend from a very reputable source that Chuck has also lost his house.

The guy simply got in over his head, with no intentions of defrauding anyone. It just turned bad.....real bad.

This one event has ruined his life...losing his business, and now his house.

I feel for the guy..(as well as the people owed $$$)

He has sponsored MANY tournaments over the years here in Az. With all of them running smoothly, absolutely 0 problems.

I do think he's a man of his word, and will make good on the $$$ ASAP. (Which is kind of hard to do when your homeless, and jobless) Give the guy a little time.........

If you go through life guided by your feelings you will have many heartaches!

If you think about what happened and the timeline, It appears he was in trouble in his business and with his mortgage before the event. I think he knew he could generate a substantial chunk of cash with a large venue like this and no one would question him because of his record. He took the money and ran.

There are many in prison today that "I feel for", but I think they deserve to be where they are.

Chuck is clearly NOT a man of his word! Just ask Jay.

Ray

 

[ShootingArts]

I heard a different story

Scott,

I heard a considerably different story from someone close to the source. The version that I heard was that Mark bought the tables at fair market value and they were leased out at the time generating income. Mark still did a very good thing to help the players but he shouldn't have gotten hurt on the deal himself while Chuck lost the income from the tables and so did come out behind in the transaction.

Several things don't make sense looking at the whole situation. Either Chuck is absolutely the dumbest crook I have ever heard of or his intentions were good.

Why write checks if he wasn't hoping to cover them kicking a civil matter up to a criminal matter?

Why sign promissory notes without having the other person sign them also?

If he intended to just take the money and run why sell tables that were producing income and let the money go directly to the players?

The whole situation doesn't add up to me if Chuck is really the con many people credit him with being!

Hu

(Scott I'm not really pursuing you, seems we are posting on the same topics this morning! )

The tables were purchased new from Mark Griffin/Diamond, at wholesale, and were paid for. Mark bought them BACK from Mr. Bobbit, at the same price they were purchased for (this is after they had already been used at Alexanders for years...so he lost money on them), so that the players could get paid part of what they were owed. Once again, showing how generous Mark is, and how he has the players' best interests at heart.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[jay helfert]

I just heard this weekend from a very reputable source that Chuck has also lost his house.

The guy simply got in over his head, with no intentions of defrauding anyone. It just turned bad.....real bad.

This one event has ruined his life...losing his business, and now his house.

I feel for the guy..(as well as the people owed $$$)

He has sponsored MANY tournaments over the years here in Az. With all of them running smoothly, absolutely 0 problems.

I do think he's a man of his word, and will make good on the $$$ ASAP. (Which is kind of hard to do when your homeless, and jobless) Give the guy a little time.........

If his life is "ruined" Rick, it was not because of this tournament or it's outcome. I believe he used the money he made off this tournament to pay some past due bills. That's my educated guess.

He did sell the tables at "market price" to Mark Griffin. Scott had the wrong info here. As to why he sold them, he was forced to, because of the threat of going to jail otherwise. Seems to me he operates on the same set of principles as KT. Pay only if you have to! And then pay only what you must.

I am not naive to the ways of this world and will call a spade a spade when I see it. If some find that objectionable, I'm sorry. But I won't be altering my course any time soon.

Oh and for Hu, most criminals are DUMB! I don't think he thought any further ahead then to give these guys checks and send them on their way. He knew he could stall them for a few weeks this way, and he did! I don't think he really had a plan, other than to get his hands on some dough. He USED the pool players plain and simple. And me!

 

[BRKNRUN]

Scott,

I heard a considerably different story from someone close to the source. The version that I heard was that Mark bought the tables at fair market value and they were leased out at the time generating income. Mark still did a very good thing to help the players but he shouldn't have gotten hurt on the deal himself while Chuck lost the income from the tables and so did come out behind in the transaction.

Several things don't make sense looking at the whole situation. Either Chuck is absolutely the dumbest crook I have ever heard of or his intentions were good.

Why write checks if he wasn't hoping to cover them kicking a civil matter up to a criminal matter?

Why sign promissory notes without having the other person sign them also?

If he intended to just take the money and run why sell tables that were producing income and let the money go directly to the players?

The whole situation doesn't add up to me if Chuck is really the con many people credit him with being!

Hu

(Scott I'm not really pursuing you, seems we are posting on the same topics this morning! )

Didn't I read that he personally cashed out at least one of the checks ???

If that is true, I wonder why would he have done that if he knew the checks were no good or intended to bilk the players?

 

[jay helfert]

Didn't I read that he personally cashed out at least one of the checks ???

If that is true, I wonder why would he have done that if he knew the checks were no good or intended to bilk the players?

He cashed one check for Rob Saez. Good move by Rob! He may have smelled something, but I suspect he just wanted the money RIGHT NOW! He knew Chuck was sitting on a wad of cash right then. What happened to that wad, nobody knows except Chuck. One thing for sure, it didn't make it to the bank!

 

[watchez]

There is an acronym used when someone has financial troubles and goes from having money to having none, giving the reason for it

D rugs
A lcohol
W omen
G ambling

 

[Nostroke]

Scott,

I heard a considerably different story from someone close to the source. The version that I heard was that Mark bought the tables at fair market value and they were leased out at the time generating income. Mark still did a very good thing to help the players but he shouldn't have gotten hurt on the deal himself while Chuck lost the income from the tables and so did come out behind in the transaction.

Several things don't make sense looking at the whole situation. Either Chuck is absolutely the dumbest crook I have ever heard of or his intentions were good.

Why write checks if he wasn't hoping to cover them kicking a civil matter up to a criminal matter?

Why sign promissory notes without having the other person sign them also?

If he intended to just take the money and run why sell tables that were producing income and let the money go directly to the players?

The whole situation doesn't add up to me if Chuck is really the con many people credit him with being!

Hu

(Scott I'm not really pursuing you, seems we are posting on the same topics this morning! )

Thats pretty much how I see it. Id bet 5 thousand it was not a deliberate thief job but of course thats stupid cause there is no way of really knowing.

At anyrate, if he has hidden money from this event, a surplus that is, then he should be pursued til his dying day.

If he really is busted, lost his house, business and tables etc, then anyone not living on the street should leave him alone IMHO.

 

[BRKNRUN]

He cashed one check for Rob Saez. Good move by Rob! He may have smelled something, but I suspect he just wanted the money RIGHT NOW! He knew Chuck was sitting on a wad of cash right then. What happened to that wad, nobody knows except Chuck. One thing for sure, it didn't make it to the bank!

You are right..it was a good move by Rob.

But that does not really answer the question...Why would he have cashed the check if his intentions were to bilk the players?

Jay..I am not trying to downplay your position or the players position or the situation in general.

I understand your position and exactly what you are trying to protect. Regardless of the outcome I think you have done that and more. I don't blame you at all for following up on this situation.

I hope in the end this gets resolved for everyone....

 

[Nostroke]

There is an acronym used when someone has financial troubles and goes from having money to having none, giving the reason for it

D rugs
A lcohol
W omen
G ambling

That's right on the money. DAWG has brought many a man down hard and pretty fast.

 

[PETARD]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Unfortunately, you can't go around putting liens on people's homes.

Liens are generally available to protect the interersts of building contractors and governmental taxing authorities. And filing a lien, if the law provides that you can do so doesn't necessarily mean that the home will be sold. Liens just establish a right to receive proceeds of sale if one ever takes place.

In civil matters, you need to file a lawsuit and then get a judgment at which point you can force the sale of the loser's property in satisfaction of the judgment and it helps to have a lien that has priority in that sale.

In this matter, since there were checks written and promises broken there are both a civil and possibly criminal aspects.

Jay is a big boy and will do his own research and get competent legal advice, but if it was me, I would go the civil route since civil fraud is what is called an "intentional tort" that opens the door to punitive damages in any amount that the jury might find appropriate.

Writing bad checks and lying about restitution is the kind of behavior that piss jurors off and motivate them to hand down large awards.

Plaintiff's attorney fees can also be awarded and likely would be in a case like this.

I would only to the criminal route if I knew the bad guy had no assets and that suing would therefore be a waste of time.

Having said all the above, a civil suit could force Bobbitt into bankruptcy in which case most causes of action would be extinguished. But fraud might survive a bankruptcy filing.

Just my $0.02 as a non-lawyer.

Regards,
Jim

JIM, POSTAGE HAS GONE UP; FURTHER EVIDENCE JAY NEEDS THE COLLECTION GURU; WHERE IS THAT FAT ASS WHEN YOU NEED HIM/HER?

 

[ironman]

If it was sanctioned by the UPA they should pay.

It didn't cost them anything. Whay would they be concerned?

You are though, heard loudly and clearly.

 

[av84fun]

Hu, I know for a FACT that it is very difficult to get the DA/SA to actually prosecute (as opposed to sending a stern letter which is typically the first step in such cases). They know they have to prove INTENT...to a JURY...most of whom live from paycheck to paycheck too.

I was the founder of a company that owned 24 Jiffy Lube centers in Chicago and we got about 10 billion bad checks. One was written on an account that was CLOSED for a year...but the SA said the lady will cry on the stand, act stupid and swear that she just had made a mistake.

I responded that we could prove that she had NO OTHER checking account at the time....NONE...and the SA said that they would not prosecute the case anyway...."Because we don't like to lose." That is an EXACT quote.

Mr. Bobbitt will just testify that his life was in a shambles, he hadn't balanced his check book in months, was depressed and suicidal...thought he held a winning lottery ticket and was pretty sure that his great grandmother's neice was going do die soon and leave him a fortune.

Here's the world according to Garp. Write hot checks to a governmental agency and go to jail. Write them to private citizens and all of a sudden the prosecuters think it's a civil matter.

Besides, if he truly is broke, then putting him in jail isn't going to buy any pork chops for anyone.

Better, by far, IMHO, to sue for actual and punitive damages...get a judgment that will likely include MORE than actual damages because punitive damages are available if fraud is proven and will last for X number of years depending on state law.

Then hope he recovers financially at some point so there would be something to chew on.

Even if he files bankruptcy, it is likely that the award for fraud would NOT be discharged.

And the heat will go WAY down with the SAs when they find out that 70% restitution has already been made. They will say, "Hell, that's better than what we would have gotten you in a plea bargain!"

Besides, for a first offender with a sob story, he would likely only get a few months in the slam...if not probation from the get go. So all you end up with is a convicted felon who can't get a decent job...can't get a passport...can't vote and can't own a gun. Not a big win AFAIK.

All IMHO, but this ain't my first rodeo in chasing hot check artists. In Chicago, we used to call bad checks "Readers...Checks only good for reading."

Regards,
Jim

Scott,

I heard a considerably different story from someone close to the source. The version that I heard was that Mark bought the tables at fair market value and they were leased out at the time generating income. Mark still did a very good thing to help the players but he shouldn't have gotten hurt on the deal himself while Chuck lost the income from the tables and so did come out behind in the transaction.

Several things don't make sense looking at the whole situation. Either Chuck is absolutely the dumbest crook I have ever heard of or his intentions were good.

Why write checks if he wasn't hoping to cover them kicking a civil matter up to a criminal matter?

Why sign promissory notes without having the other person sign them also?

If he intended to just take the money and run why sell tables that were producing income and let the money go directly to the players?

The whole situation doesn't add up to me if Chuck is really the con many people credit him with being!

Hu

(Scott I'm not really pursuing you, seems we are posting on the same topics this morning! )

 

[ShootingArts]

bad checks

Jim,

It varies vastly with the DA where you are at. A couple of parishes I lived in writing a bad check was right next to an ax murder and the people made restitution before receiving sentencing! No restitution meant real jail time as in over a year inside. Even with restitution they faced a heavy fine and often a short sentence. Repeat offenders were going to jail long enough to think about it. Other places it depends on the mood the DA is in, the information you have, and the record of the writer.

I have dealt with bad checks for about forty years. Oddly enough when I owned an auto salvage I got the fewest bad checks. That was where the DA was very aggressive behind bad check writers and I got two or three a year normally. A phone call usually sent the owner dashing over to correct the problem.

I had three checking accounts myself and my road account was low on funds so I made a deposit into it. Six checks bounced in one deposit, absolutely unheard of in years of doing business there. When I closed the gate that evening I stuck a .357 in my hip pocket and went collecting on my own. Everyone I found paid up!

Hu

Hu, I know for a FACT that it is very difficult to get the DA/SA to actually prosecute (as opposed to sending a stern letter which is typically the first step in such cases). They know they have to prove INTENT...to a JURY...most of whom live from paycheck to paycheck too.

I was the founder of a company that owned 24 Jiffy Lube centers in Chicago and we got about 10 billion bad checks. One was written on an account that was CLOSED for a year...but the SA said the lady will cry on the stand, act stupid and swear that she just had made a mistake.

I responded that we could prove that she had NO OTHER checking account at the time....NONE...and the SA said that they would not prosecute the case anyway...."Because we don't like to lose." That is an EXACT quote.

Mr. Bobbitt will just testify that his life was in a shambles, he hadn't balanced his check book in months, was depressed and suicidal...thought he held a winning lottery ticket and was pretty sure that his great grandmother's neice was going do die soon and leave him a fortune.

Here's the world according to Garp. Write hot checks to a governmental agency and go to jail. Write them to private citizens and all of a sudden the prosecuters think it's a civil matter.

Besides, if he truly is broke, then putting him in jail isn't going to buy any pork chops for anyone.

Better, by far, IMHO, to sue for actual and punitive damages...get a judgment that will likely include MORE than actual damages because punitive damages are available if fraud is proven and will last for X number of years depending on state law.

Then hope he recovers financially at some point so there would be something to chew on.

Even if he files bankruptcy, it is likely that the award for fraud would NOT be discharged.

And the heat will go WAY down with the SAs when they find out that 70% restitution has already been made. They will say, "Hell, that's better than what we would have gotten you in a plea bargain!"

Besides, for a first offender with a sob story, he would likely only get a few months in the slam...if not probation from the get go. So all you end up with is a convicted felon who can't get a decent job...can't get a passport...can't vote and can't own a gun. Not a big win AFAIK.

All IMHO, but this ain't my first rodeo in chasing hot check artists. In Chicago, we used to call bad checks "Readers...Checks only good for reading."

Regards,
Jim

 

[BRKNRUN]

Hu, I know for a FACT that it is very difficult to get the DA/SA to actually prosecute (as opposed to sending a stern letter which is typically the first step in such cases). They know they have to prove INTENT...to a JURY...most of whom live from paycheck to paycheck too.

I was the founder of a company that owned 24 Jiffy Lube centers in Chicago and we got about 10 billion bad checks. One was written on an account that was CLOSED for a year...but the SA said the lady will cry on the stand, act stupid and swear that she just had made a mistake.

I responded that we could prove that she had NO OTHER checking account at the time....NONE...and the SA said that they would not prosecute the case anyway...."Because we don't like to lose." That is an EXACT quote.

Mr. Bobbitt will just testify that his life was in a shambles, he hadn't balanced his check book in months, was depressed and suicidal...thought he held a winning lottery ticket and was pretty sure that his great grandmother's neice was going do die soon and leave him a fortune.

Here's the world according to Garp. Write hot checks to a governmental agency and go to jail. Write them to private citizens and all of a sudden the prosecuters think it's a civil matter.

Besides, if he truly is broke, then putting him in jail isn't going to buy any pork chops for anyone.

Better, by far, IMHO, to sue for actual and punitive damages...get a judgment that will likely include MORE than actual damages because punitive damages are available if fraud is proven and will last for X number of years depending on state law.

Then hope he recovers financially at some point so there would be something to chew on.

Even if he files bankruptcy, it is likely that the award for fraud would NOT be discharged.

And the heat will go WAY down with the SAs when they find out that 70% restitution has already been made. They will say, "Hell, that's better than what we would have gotten you in a plea bargain!"

Besides, for a first offender with a sob story, he would likely only get a few months in the slam...if not probation from the get go. So all you end up with is a convicted felon who can't get a decent job...can't get a passport...can't vote and can't own a gun. Not a big win AFAIK.

All IMHO, but this ain't my first rodeo in chasing hot check artists. In Chicago, we used to call bad checks "Readers...Checks only good for reading."

Regards,
Jim

Wow!!!!....I think I might have left the "Jiffy Lube" part out and just said I owned 24 centers.

I have been to a Jiffy Lube once.......just once.......they tried and failed....then I did some quick online research and found that I was not the only one to have such an experience...

 

[Ken_4fun]

Wow this is depressing

Hu, I know for a FACT that it is very difficult to get the DA/SA to actually prosecute (as opposed to sending a stern letter which is typically the first step in such cases). They know they have to prove INTENT...to a JURY...most of whom live from paycheck to paycheck too.

I was the founder of a company that owned 24 Jiffy Lube centers in Chicago and we got about 10 billion bad checks. One was written on an account that was CLOSED for a year...but the SA said the lady will cry on the stand, act stupid and swear that she just had made a mistake.

I responded that we could prove that she had NO OTHER checking account at the time....NONE...and the SA said that they would not prosecute the case anyway...."Because we don't like to lose." That is an EXACT quote.

Mr. Bobbitt will just testify that his life was in a shambles, he hadn't balanced his check book in months, was depressed and suicidal...thought he held a winning lottery ticket and was pretty sure that his great grandmother's neice was going do die soon and leave him a fortune.

Here's the world according to Garp. Write hot checks to a governmental agency and go to jail. Write them to private citizens and all of a sudden the prosecuters think it's a civil matter.

Besides, if he truly is broke, then putting him in jail isn't going to buy any pork chops for anyone.

Better, by far, IMHO, to sue for actual and punitive damages...get a judgment that will likely include MORE than actual damages because punitive damages are available if fraud is proven and will last for X number of years depending on state law.

Then hope he recovers financially at some point so there would be something to chew on.

Even if he files bankruptcy, it is likely that the award for fraud would NOT be discharged.

And the heat will go WAY down with the SAs when they find out that 70% restitution has already been made. They will say, "Hell, that's better than what we would have gotten you in a plea bargain!"

Besides, for a first offender with a sob story, he would likely only get a few months in the slam...if not probation from the get go. So all you end up with is a convicted felon who can't get a decent job...can't get a passport...can't vote and can't own a gun. Not a big win AFAIK.

All IMHO, but this ain't my first rodeo in chasing hot check artists. In Chicago, we used to call bad checks "Readers...Checks only good for reading."

Regards,
Jim

Jim -

I am one of the most boring guys you will ever meet. I pay my bills and owe nobody a dime.

I didnt have a clue that this was so widespread and common.

Sickening isnt it?

Ken