Possible solution for Chuck Bobbitt?
- Thread starter Garth Bair
- Start date
No call back yet
I tried to contact Chuck today, but I wasn't able to get him on the phone. That wasn't really surprising as I'm sure he's getting plenty of phone calls from other people as well; and may be dodging them all. I left a message on his voicemail along with my home phone and cell phone numbers, and a brief explanation of why I was calling. So far, I have not heard anything back. It is disappointing, but not that surprising. I'm not sure what this means, but I still won't accept it as proof of guilt. In this country, every person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But even if Chuck is proven guilty in the end, I will still not use that as an excuse to call him terrible names. I wouldn't do it to any of you, and I won't do it to him. That kind of behavior is just not right.
Roger
I tried to contact Chuck today, but I wasn't able to get him on the phone. That wasn't really surprising as I'm sure he's getting plenty of phone calls from other people as well; and may be dodging them all. I left a message on his voicemail along with my home phone and cell phone numbers, and a brief explanation of why I was calling. So far, I have not heard anything back. It is disappointing, but not that surprising. I'm not sure what this means, but I still won't accept it as proof of guilt. In this country, every person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But even if Chuck is proven guilty in the end, I will still not use that as an excuse to call him terrible names. I wouldn't do it to any of you, and I won't do it to him. That kind of behavior is just not right.
Roger
Roger Long said:
I'm trying to find where anybody called him any other name but Chuck Bobbitt, and can't. Why did you bring that up? Maybe you're telling on yourself.
... deleted ... It wasn't that funny after all ... seems nobody remembers Lorena Bobbitt ...
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Jay "Intent" is not related to the number of checks, it can be one or a thousand checks. I know guys who did alot of time in the joint over one check. The standards to prove intent have absolutly nothing to do with how many items or victims there are in a act of fraud, and fraud is what brings on criminal charges that eventually leads to time. Its not as simple as you make it out to be. We'll talk about it when we see each other. I am by no means supporting what Chuck did or discouraging you from taking action, i'll do my best to help you. Like I said we'll talk,
Fatboy said:
Fatboy...with respect, you are only partially correct.
The determination of fraud is a "facts and circumstances" matter. While you are correct that the number of checks, in and of itself, does not necessarily establish and intent to defraud, neither is it "not related" as you suggest.
As you have noticed, I have suggested repeatedly the very high hurdle there is to establish fraud beyond a reasonable doubt and have given real life but nevertheless preposterous examples of where those who have passed bad checks to me or my company have skated.
Remember what the prosecuters must remember. Juries don't always issue verdicts based solely on guilt or innocence. Often, they rule based on emotion and what they deam to be RIGHT...regardless of guilt or innocence.
Not one juror in the O.J. murder trial had any doubt that he was guilty. But for reasons that are abundantly obvious, they acquitted him.
Less dramatically, if $300.00 is the threshold for felony theft (writng bad checks is essentially theft by conversion) but put a single Mom with AIDS and an HIV positive child on the stand for writing a bad check to some multi-billion dollar company like Walgreen...when the money was spent on food and school supplies, see if you will get a conviction.
All I am saying is that writing THAT many checks for THAT much money does not paint a pretty picture for Mr. Babbitt and would certainly be weighed in the balance by both the prosecuter's office and possibly a jury.
Regards,
Jim
jay helfert said:
I read in another thread where someone illuded to the possibility that Roger Long and Chuck were one and the same, but Let me assure you, this is not the case.
I know both individuals peronally. Im not going to offer my opinion here other than to say that if anyone is insinuating that Chuck Bobbit is posting under the name of Roger Long, this is absolutely not the case.
If this was not the insinuation, than i appologize for getting the wrong impression of the post.
Chuck
jay helfert said:
Jay,
I'm sorry if I confused you. Certainly, no one in this thread has called Chuck any names. I was refering to some of the name calling that's gone on in a couple of the other threads. A few of the names I've read are: "scum," "scumbag," "crook," and "MF." I also seem to remember "jerk", but I'm not sure exactly where it was now. Again, those names didn't come from you, or any of the other posters in this particular thread. I guess my concern is this: now that I seem to be "on the outside looking in" as far as Chuck goes, I don't want to catch myself getting all irate about it and start calling him names. It would be pretty hypocritical, and very unprofessional, of me to do that. Wouldn't you agree?
Anyway, that's all I was trying to say.
Roger
Roger Long said:
Mr. Long...as others have commented, coming to the defense of a friend is often a noble thing to do.
But, there is one important fundamental. The issues in which the friend is embroiled must be defensible.
If they are not, then what appears to be noble on the surface is actually a position that suggests "I don't care what havoc my friend has created for YOU...because I don't care about YOU...I just care about my friend."
All of a sudden, nobility becomes a personal selfish interest.
If people do wrong, they and their friends need to man up and admit it and take their medicine.
Fine to support your friend personally...be a shoulder to cry on...loan him money for his legal defense...whatever.
But it is objectionable...to me at least...for you to suggest that those who have been critical of his behavior ought not to express their disgust...because public animosity expressed to wrongdoers is one of the most potent deterrents to abhorent behavior.
So far, no one has offered a reasonable excuse for the FACT that the man wrote the checks and handed them to people who trusted that the money was there when he knew it was not.
If you are aware of any circumstance that led him to believe that the checks were good when he gave them out, then I for one, would be delighted to hear it.
If you are not aware of any such circumstance, then your pleas to have the criticism cease is inappropriate for the reasons I cited above.
The whole notion of..."My country (or friend)...right or wrong" is a grossly twisted notion...and one that got Germany and Japan in rather a lot of trouble a half century ago, if I recall correctly...and frankly, the United States more recently IMHO.
Personally, I think having pillories in the days of old was quite a good idea. There are quite a few people at whom I would like to have chucked a few rotten tomatoes!
And the custom (past or present) in some Arab nations of cutting off the hands of thieves is a GREAT idea. I understand that when the ax is about to fall, the thief is told..."You will never steal with this hand again and by God, that is a fact.
And the result? The violent crime rate in Saudi Arabia is ONE SIXTH that of the U.S. So while some people cry about criminals getting their hands cut off, I'll cry for the people killed by the hands that are NOT cut off...and I'll have to cry six times more often.
Regards,
Jim
Chucklez65 said:
I have one question. CHUCK who?
Roger Long said:
Roger, with all due respect I think you are digging yourself a deeper hole with each post. Again, why would you relate the "name calling" that has gone on in other threads to this thread? I'm sorry, but I don't make the connection.
Fact
I know for a fact that people have allowed "friends" to post using their sign on. I believe there IS a Roger Long. I just doubt that he is the one making these posts.
Chuck- Just man up and make this right. Quit trying to spin the general consensus. The longer you are silent or disguised, the more your guilt becomes the only conclusion.
Ray
I know for a fact that people have allowed "friends" to post using their sign on. I believe there IS a Roger Long. I just doubt that he is the one making these posts.
Chuck- Just man up and make this right. Quit trying to spin the general consensus. The longer you are silent or disguised, the more your guilt becomes the only conclusion.
Ray
jay helfert said:
Jay,
I have done my best to state my position here, but you're still not making the "connection." Please let me try to explain one more time, and then I will have to move on with my life.
The connection is this: In an earlier post (in this thread) Garth wrote, "Roger Long...please talk to YOUR friend Chuck." It was the "YOUR" in caps that sent a strong message. It seemed to imply that I am the last friend Chuck has in this world. Could that be correct? If it is, it's very sad.
Now I have not attempted to defend Chuck Bobbitt's actions (I am not a defense attorney). But I haven't tried to pre-judge him, either, as most people in these forums have done. His guilt, or innocence, can only be determined by a court of law. Yes, I know there is very strong evidence that the man has wronged a lot of people, and I'm sorry for that. But I've also seen a man (Chuck) destroy his own life, and I'm sorry to see that, too.
It should be quite obvious to everyone reading the threads on Chuck Bobbitt that my position in this matter is not a popular one. And that's okay; I knew what I was in for when I jumped into the middle of this. But let me say this: I will not apologize for looking for the good in every person; it is always my Christian belief and conviction to do so. (I might not always find the good, but I will always look for it first.) I will also not apologize for not jumping on the band wagon of popular public opinion, if doing so might only contribute to further damage being done all around. Now if that's what you want to call "digging a deeper hole," then, yes, I'm guilty.
I hope this helps.
And now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to try and catch up on some work.
Your Friend (too),
Roger
Roger Long said:
This is what saddens me the most.
Yes, I feel very bad for Jay and the players losing monies out of their pocket to attend this event.
I also see a man whose life may be permanently changed for the worse, all because he wanted to please the pool community and did not listen to reason when warned to not move forward. For this grave error, he may never recover. I do hope the players and Jay get paid what they got coming.
To the 23-year-old twit from Virginia, you don't even have a clue about the history of pool, this tournament, and the bullies on AzBilliards forum.
JAM
Roger Long said:
Even good people do bad things sometimes. But now is the time to make amends, and not duck his responsibility to the players, who traveled great distances at great expense, to demonstrate their unique abilities at the game we love. I am not convinced for a minute that he cannot raise the funding required to make things right. As far as his guilt or innocence, that will be up to a court of law to decide what should happen next. One thing that is not in question though is that CHUCK WROTE BAD CHECKS TO SEVERAL PLAYERS, MYSELF AND AT LEAST ONE SUPPLIER.
So far he has chosen not to offer any restitution, and continues to carry on his life in a relatively normal fashion. You see Roger, many people who live in the Phoenix area are communicating with me on a regular basis. By the way Roger, that's a pretty tenuous argument that somehow Garth's comments had all these "implications". And how that relates to "name calling" still baffles me. You aren't the only one who has been in communication with Chuck.
Are you sure you're not Chuck doing a little damage control? Something is fishy here and I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe he is "suggesting" to you what to write.
Last edited: