Just In from Chicago Attorneys Regarding YOUR Check

Eydie Romano

Eydie Romano

Finally Retired!
Silver Member
IF you cash your check it becomes a "Contract Case" which is dismissible in bankruptcy court.

If you don't cash it, you have a chance to prove fraud and collect the entire amount. By cashing your check, you are agreeing to the terms in the letter, and IF he does not follow through with the terms in the letter, he can bankrupt

It's YOUR CALL!!!!!

If you don't plan to cash your check, email me.
 
Getting A Big fluffy Pillow for My BUTT !!!

Uh-oh ! munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, sip, sip, sip, munch.... MUNCH
Doug
( settling in for the winter )









.
 
Last edited:
If the players Don't cash their checks and can prove fraud...what if he files BR and/or has no money in the IPT account? Won't the players be out the 11% they could of had plus lawyers and court costs and still get no money? Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
If the players Don't cash their checks and can prove fraud...what if he files BR and/or has no money in the IPT account? Won't the players be out the 11% they could of had plus lawyers and court costs and still get no money? Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Johnny, this is exactly the position that KT wants to place the players in.
He wants them to cash the checks, that's why he sent them out.

But if fraud IS proven, the he can be held personally and criminaly liable. Comes down to an emotional, business decision.

This is KT's stock and trade, getting the better of everyone who gets involved with him and avoiding the law.

Gee, this guy is really good!!

Jim
 
jimmyg said:
Johnny, this is exactly the position that KT wants to place the players in.
He wants them to cash the checks, that's why he sent them out.

But if fraud IS proven, the he can be held personally and criminaly liable. Comes down to an emotional, business decision.

This is KT's stock and trade, getting the better of everyone who gets involved with him and avoiding the law.

Gee, this guy is really good!!

Jim
Click to expand...
So if fraud is proven he can be made to pay with his own money or things of value? Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
So if fraud is proven he can be made to pay with his own money or things of value? Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Not 100% positive, but I believe so.

Jim
 
A few thoughts here:

If KT does backrupt, he'd have 1,000+ members of the pool community doing what they can to exact some form of retribution / compensation. Not something anyone would want, particularly KT I imagine.

If it took this long to get a clear legal ruling on something as simple as checks, then what chance would we have of actually winning a fraud case? (Maybe I've watched too much TV, but seems a legal team would need to move a lot quicker than this).

The US legal system is down the tubes.

I think there are incentives in place for KT to keep this thing going. If only to find someone to sell it to. I doubt that this payment is just a legal manoevering to prevent fraud suits. But I could be wrong.

If KT were really so good at working people, he would have got in a lot more qualifiers, sold a lot more tables etc. After all, isn't it selling things where he's made most of his money?

So why assume now that his only logical move is to bankrupt the biz? I want serious responses to that question.

I imagine most will cash their checks anyway, so we'll soon find out. A bird in the hand being worth what it is and all.

Colin
 
Ok, now a serious question for you guys.

It seems to me that the original 150 card holders have a case for fraud. This has many points, but lets assume that that is a given.

Wouldn't those who were not card holders, have a seperate case for fraud or is that the reason Deno got so pissed at Eydie for terming the Chicago events cancelled instead of postponed? May be a dumb question, if so, go ahead and cut me up.
 
Colin...<<Colin...<<If it took this long to get a clear legal ruling on something as simple as checks, then what chance would we have of actually winning a fraud case?>>

EXACTLY Colin.
 
ironman said:
Wouldn't those who were not card holders, have a separate case for fraud or is that the reason Deno got so pissed at Eydie for terming the Chicago events canceled instead of postponed? May be a dumb question, if so, go ahead and cut me up.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that Deno made it a point to tell Eydie (while he was chastising her for using the word "Canceled") that one must be careful in the wording they choose when making announcements. Ironman, I've often wondered since then if what you've mentioned might have something to do with that. This isn't KT's first rodeo and he knows what move to make and how to word things in order to keep himself in the "clear" even if he's clearly wrong.

Johnnyt said:
So if fraud is proven he can be made to pay with his own money or things of value? Johnnyt
Click to expand...
That is what two different people have been told by two different lawyers that I know of.
 
Colin Colenso said:
A few thoughts here:
(snip)

If it took this long to get a clear legal ruling on something as simple as checks, then what chance would we have of actually winning a fraud case? (Maybe I've watched too much TV, but seems a legal team would need to move a lot quicker than this).

The US legal system is down the tubes.

I think there are incentives in place for KT to keep this thing going. If only to find someone to sell it to. I doubt that this payment is just a legal manoevering to prevent fraud suits. But I could be wrong.

.....................

I imagine most will cash their checks anyway, so we'll soon find out. A bird in the hand being worth what it is and all.
Click to expand...

Colin, as usual you are the voice of reason. It seems to me that a fraud case would be long, expensive and quite hard to prove. On the surface - which is all I know about - it's a business plan that didn't work out, compounded by KT's wishful thinking stated as fact (sold for 150 million, pop the champagne, etc) and outright lies (Fed Ex problems, etc.).

I think many of us, including me, have been inclined to believe the worst (fraud, pyramid scheme) because of KT's reputation, past legal troubles, and obvious finger-in-the-dike lies (fibs, as he would see it). But, standing back, it looks like the big story here is that he overestimated the popularity of pool. I guess Mike Sigel is a pretty good hustler.

But, to quote you, I could be wrong.
 
av84fun said:
Colin...<<Colin...<<If it took this long to get a clear legal ruling on something as simple as checks, then what chance would we have of actually winning a fraud case?>>

EXACTLY Colin.
Click to expand...
The checks JUST arrived yesterday afternoon... can't make a "legal ruling" on them without knowing how they're presented/worded, can you?
 
20 hours is pretty good turn around time if you ask me.

The attorenys wouldn't make a recommendation until they saw the EXACT terms of payment offered by the ipt.

This can be independently verified by linda, (rackmuckser), as i told her on friday that we were awaiting "offical" word from the attorney's and we would have that monday or tuesaday, the day the checks were arriving.

It's just that simple.

rg
 
Not to butt in, but...

First off, this is just my personal observation. Anyone with a real stake in this should talk to their OWN attorney.

I don't see how cashing or not cashing a check fundamentally changes the nature of any claims the players might have. What cashing it does do is put money in their hands they may never otherwise see.

Even before the checks came, this was a "contract case." The players played for the promise of payment, which up to now has been breached (and still is for the rest of the money promised). It was only fraud if there was never an intention to pay the amount promised.

Now there is a "new" promise to pay, this time in installments. If future payments are not made, it's still a breach of contract. Again, it's only fraud if there is no present intention to make the future payments.

Proving fraud in court is a very difficult -- and very expensive -- proposition. Believe me on that -- whether in a bankruptcy context or a regular civil suit.

If it was me, I'd take every penny that's paid voluntarily in a heartbeat. But that's just me.
 
NYC cue dude said:
20 hours is pretty good turn around time if you ask me.

The attorenys wouldn't make a recommendation until they saw the EXACT terms of payment offered by the ipt.

This can be independently verified by linda, (rackmuckser), as i told her on friday that we were awaiting "offical" word from the attorney's and we would have that monday or tuesaday, the day the checks were arriving.

It's just that simple.

rg
Click to expand...
I knew about the checks being received via my own poor connections a good 12 hours before news of it arrived on these boards.

Granted the lawyers needed to check the statement that came with the checks, but there has been discussion on the legal ramification of checks being received and cashed here for weeks, yet this is the first time we have been presented with the opinion given today.

Surely it would have been a good idea for players to know the possible ramifications before they had time to cash their checks.

I'm not just saying this to throw a cat amongst the pidgeons. Just pointing out why I think information is slow coming and in short supply.

The recent announcement is also not really advice. It doesn't advise the players which route they would be better off taking.

All information and opinions that are intended to assist is appreciated. But most of us are still in need of more detailed advice.

Colin
 
If the intent is to prove fraud then why hasn't anyone filed charges? Fraud is after all a criminal act isn't it?

In the absence of a criminal act isn't this a contract case anyway? Shouldn't the district attorney or a Justice Department attorney be pressing charges if someone really thinks that the players have been defrauded?

So the buring question is - is this a criminal case or not?
 
Johnnyt said:
So if fraud is proven he can be made to pay with his own money or things of value? Johnnyt
Click to expand...

This is correct. If they prove fraud, it is NOT covered by bankruptcy. He would be personally responsible for the money's owed to not only the players, but the other outstanding bills he has in this business.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top