Timberly said:
I was speaking on behalf of the player's task force in my post. And no, I was not the 'spokesperson' but I did talk to the 'spokesperson' and this was their concensus. I was merely the gatekeeper.
The Checks
- Thread starter Eydie Romano
- Start date
I was speaking on behalf of the player's task force in my post. And no, I was not the 'spokesperson' but I did talk to the 'spokesperson' and this was their concensus. I was merely the gatekeeper.
READ THIS!
PLAYERS Here's the deal.
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.
Its your call....
PLAYERS Here's the deal.
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.
Its your call....
NYC Dude...<<<we were informed yesterday that as long as kt and the ipt is actually paying, and continues paying, then the status quo is in effect.>>
He didn't say who informed him of that...possibly it was a large group of players who said they didn't want to take legal action as long as they were getting paid SOMETHING. That, of course, would be their decision to make.
But the INFERENCE, supported by other of his remarks, is that he got that information from lawyers.
IF that is so...and IF that advice was based on LEGAL MERIT and NOT such issues as cost and time that I have commented on...and agree with...then he has gotten VERY bad advice.
No one needs to be a lawyer to understand that if everyone could enter into contractual relationships...default on their promises...and then avoid suit by making partial payments...then the wheels of commerce in this country would come to a schreeching HALT.
Since a huge percentage of comments on this matter have been speculative and guesswork...fair is fair so here's mine. I think there are two possibilities.
1. The Dude...after suggesting that he was going to ride in on his trusty steed and get the players paid in full "PLUS a pound of flesh.." either thought he could get lawyers to do that for free or BADLY misapprehended the time and expenses involved...but after being educated on that matter, decided that he wouldn't launch the CHARGE after all.
2. The players themselves...at least the ones he cares about and listens to, told him that because of the partial payments, and because of the time and expense of litigation...they just didn't want to go there (which is fine...and actually not a bad call given the HUGE amount of time and money they would have to risk in prosecuting a lawsuit)
But, if #2 is correct...then Randy should have worded his recent remarks VERY differently because they convey the notion that there is a legal impediment because of the partial payments...which is a statement that contains ZERO legal merit.
But just for fun...here are a few Blasts from the past from the Dudester.
11/4
This will be my last post on here for sometime, for various reasons.
I have always been an avid fan of pool, and its players.
Ultimately, though, i dont have much in common with the majority of it's fans, and quite recetnly some forum members here have really rubbed me the wrong way. I dont tolerate that in my everyday life, i wont tolerate it here.
I will help the players get paid what they are owed, PLUS a pound of flesh. Beyond that, i have lost interest.
(emphasis added...and that was just 10 days ago)
______________________________________________________________________
11/8
HOLD ON FOLKS, SOME VERY INTERESTING NEWS WILL BE MADE PUBLIC. I GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL BE THE FINAL STRAW.
To which Smorgas replied..."DON'T MAKE ME SEND LASSIE.....Again ! "
LOL...Looks like it WAS Lassie!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
Jim
He didn't say who informed him of that...possibly it was a large group of players who said they didn't want to take legal action as long as they were getting paid SOMETHING. That, of course, would be their decision to make.
But the INFERENCE, supported by other of his remarks, is that he got that information from lawyers.
IF that is so...and IF that advice was based on LEGAL MERIT and NOT such issues as cost and time that I have commented on...and agree with...then he has gotten VERY bad advice.
No one needs to be a lawyer to understand that if everyone could enter into contractual relationships...default on their promises...and then avoid suit by making partial payments...then the wheels of commerce in this country would come to a schreeching HALT.
Since a huge percentage of comments on this matter have been speculative and guesswork...fair is fair so here's mine. I think there are two possibilities.
1. The Dude...after suggesting that he was going to ride in on his trusty steed and get the players paid in full "PLUS a pound of flesh.." either thought he could get lawyers to do that for free or BADLY misapprehended the time and expenses involved...but after being educated on that matter, decided that he wouldn't launch the CHARGE after all.
2. The players themselves...at least the ones he cares about and listens to, told him that because of the partial payments, and because of the time and expense of litigation...they just didn't want to go there (which is fine...and actually not a bad call given the HUGE amount of time and money they would have to risk in prosecuting a lawsuit)
But, if #2 is correct...then Randy should have worded his recent remarks VERY differently because they convey the notion that there is a legal impediment because of the partial payments...which is a statement that contains ZERO legal merit.
But just for fun...here are a few Blasts from the past from the Dudester.
11/4
This will be my last post on here for sometime, for various reasons.
I have always been an avid fan of pool, and its players.
Ultimately, though, i dont have much in common with the majority of it's fans, and quite recetnly some forum members here have really rubbed me the wrong way. I dont tolerate that in my everyday life, i wont tolerate it here.
I will help the players get paid what they are owed, PLUS a pound of flesh. Beyond that, i have lost interest.
(emphasis added...and that was just 10 days ago)
______________________________________________________________________
11/8
HOLD ON FOLKS, SOME VERY INTERESTING NEWS WILL BE MADE PUBLIC. I GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL BE THE FINAL STRAW.
To which Smorgas replied..."DON'T MAKE ME SEND LASSIE.....Again ! "
LOL...Looks like it WAS Lassie!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
Jim
Eydie...I don't understand your need to use such large type...we can all read your views without it.
But with respect, your views are wrong. The matter ALREADY IS a "contract case." If there was no contract there is no duty for him to pay AT ALL!
And FRAUD IS NOT DISCHARGABLE IN BANKRUPTCY IN ANY EVENT. If any suit against KT/IPT were to chase him into bankruptcy court, there would be an Automatic Stay of all other litigation but then the creditors can move for the court to LIFT the Automatic stay so that actions arising out of matters that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy can proceed.
Here is a quote from a respected law firm on this topic.
A creditor may challenge the discharge of a debt in bankruptcy if the creditor believes the debt was incurred by fraud.
In the credit card context, that usually means that the creditor alleges that either the card was obtained by using false information, or, more frequently, that the use of the card by the debtor was fraudulent.
Just claiming that the debt was incurred by fraud is not enough to except the debt from discharge: the creditor must present facts that prove fraud at trial.
http://www.moranlaw.net/badgesoffraud.htm
Then you suggest that by cashing the checks, the players are agreeing to the terms in the letter...Eydie...there ARE no terms...at least none that are not in DIRECT conflict with each other and therefore unenforceable.
In one sentence he says point blank...the players will get paid in full and I quote....:You will be paid the full amount of your winnings for the World Open collectively equaling $3 Million."
In several other sentences, he hedges. But the players get to rely on ALL the promises in the letter...KT can't pick and choose which ones will be imposed on him.
And in ANY event...the notion that the players cannot protect themselves...even from that...by writing endorsement language protecting their rights is something I would appreciate your sending me a citation of case law to review.
Regards,
Jim
But with respect, your views are wrong. The matter ALREADY IS a "contract case." If there was no contract there is no duty for him to pay AT ALL!
And FRAUD IS NOT DISCHARGABLE IN BANKRUPTCY IN ANY EVENT. If any suit against KT/IPT were to chase him into bankruptcy court, there would be an Automatic Stay of all other litigation but then the creditors can move for the court to LIFT the Automatic stay so that actions arising out of matters that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy can proceed.
Here is a quote from a respected law firm on this topic.
A creditor may challenge the discharge of a debt in bankruptcy if the creditor believes the debt was incurred by fraud.
In the credit card context, that usually means that the creditor alleges that either the card was obtained by using false information, or, more frequently, that the use of the card by the debtor was fraudulent.
Just claiming that the debt was incurred by fraud is not enough to except the debt from discharge: the creditor must present facts that prove fraud at trial.
http://www.moranlaw.net/badgesoffraud.htm
Then you suggest that by cashing the checks, the players are agreeing to the terms in the letter...Eydie...there ARE no terms...at least none that are not in DIRECT conflict with each other and therefore unenforceable.
In one sentence he says point blank...the players will get paid in full and I quote....:You will be paid the full amount of your winnings for the World Open collectively equaling $3 Million."
In several other sentences, he hedges. But the players get to rely on ALL the promises in the letter...KT can't pick and choose which ones will be imposed on him.
And in ANY event...the notion that the players cannot protect themselves...even from that...by writing endorsement language protecting their rights is something I would appreciate your sending me a citation of case law to review.
Regards,
Jim
av84fun said:
Listen Jim,
YOU are not a lawyer and you are ffrcking clueless. We have spoken with several Harvard educated attorneys today, and this is their findings. So with that said Jim, STFU!
There are obviously two differing opinions here as to what the law states. I would imagine that there are more than two different ways to read any law and it is a prime example of why the players need to consult with an atty themselves before they do anything. If they don't do this prior to cashing any checks, then they can only blame themselves if they lose the right to go back pursue action later.
Mike
Mike
That comment is atrociously offensive TimberlyTimberly said:Linda, just get a job with the IPT and be done with it.
IMO Linda is one of few who remains balanced and who provides information to help people assess the situation. She is someone of integrity who is trusted by people on both sides of the fence. We need such fine representatives / contributors.
Colin
I don't see how every player contacting a lawyer is going to be very helpful. Except to reduce each player's personal wealth.AzHousePro said:
Asking 100 lawyers is like asking 100 doctors. You're likely to end up with a range of differing opinions.
Surely each lawyer won't take the time to read through all the evidence. Surely they won't each start a case for each player.
If there is to be legal advice given, or action taken, then it should come from the best possible lawyer representing the players collectively.
But this, seek you own legal advice, just sounds like a legalese cop out, such as the seek medical advice before use.
I won't be seeking an attorney. Heck, I doubt I'd find one in China that could help me if I had a million to spend.
I, like many, are relying on the advice given here. It's probably better than most will get from their attorney. Yet the opinions vary. That's the legal system.
Colin
Colin Colenso said:That comment is atrociously offensive Timberly
IMO Linda is one of few who remains balanced and who provides information to help people assess the situation.
Colin
If you would have said optimist or she's just hoping for the best I could agree. But balanced? No way...
Eydie...<<YOU are not a lawyer and you are ffrcking clueless.>>
Sorry that you have resorted to personal insults. Your business though. Are YOU a lawyer Edyie??? I have CONSULTED with counsel as well...so you and I are on EXACTLY equal footing...with the exception that I imagine that I have been involved with FAR more legal experience than you.
With all due respect to your Harvard Educated lawyers...I don't think they would tell you that they are infallible or have never lost a case so simmer down.
Nor is there any guarantee that you are reflecting their advice EXACTLY correctly. But if you are...and if their opinion is that:
1. Accepting a partial payment for a debt...in and of itself...extinguishes the remaining balance...then just ask them to give you what is called a "case cite" on that point and post it here or send me a PM.
2. A claim of fraud would be abandoned if there is deemed to be a contractual relationship between the players and the IPT and the IPT files bankruptcy. Again, please have them cite a SINGLE case that stands for the proposition.
So, instead of name calling, why don't we deal with the legal issues themselves as a learning process for all concerned. I would be happy to send you a check for payment to your Harvard lawyers for $300.00 simply for providing those citations.
But just to suggest in advance that I have SOMETHING of a frickin clue...here is the LAW
Title 11 United States Code @ 523
(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—
(2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by—
(A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;
(B) use of a statement in writing—
(i) that is materially false;
(ii) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;
(iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and
(iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive;
Sorry that you have resorted to personal insults. Your business though. Are YOU a lawyer Edyie??? I have CONSULTED with counsel as well...so you and I are on EXACTLY equal footing...with the exception that I imagine that I have been involved with FAR more legal experience than you.
With all due respect to your Harvard Educated lawyers...I don't think they would tell you that they are infallible or have never lost a case so simmer down.
Nor is there any guarantee that you are reflecting their advice EXACTLY correctly. But if you are...and if their opinion is that:
1. Accepting a partial payment for a debt...in and of itself...extinguishes the remaining balance...then just ask them to give you what is called a "case cite" on that point and post it here or send me a PM.
2. A claim of fraud would be abandoned if there is deemed to be a contractual relationship between the players and the IPT and the IPT files bankruptcy. Again, please have them cite a SINGLE case that stands for the proposition.
So, instead of name calling, why don't we deal with the legal issues themselves as a learning process for all concerned. I would be happy to send you a check for payment to your Harvard lawyers for $300.00 simply for providing those citations.
But just to suggest in advance that I have SOMETHING of a frickin clue...here is the LAW
Title 11 United States Code @ 523
(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—
(2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by—
(A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;
(B) use of a statement in writing—
(i) that is materially false;
(ii) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;
(iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and
(iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive;
T
Timberly
Guest
I'm sorry that you found the comment offensive, as you know, it wasn't directed at you.Colin Colenso said:That comment is atrociously offensive Timberly
IMO Linda is one of few who remains balanced and who provides information to help people assess the situation. She is someone of integrity who is trusted by people on both sides of the fence. We need such fine representatives / contributors.
Colin
As for Linda remaining "balanced", I would've agreed with you a month ago. I recall a day a few weeks ago where Linda came on here and made a passionate and firm well stated post about having talked to a lawyer and how the actions of the IPT have been unacceptable. I even left her rep points telling her that her post was firm, to the point, and well stated.
Enter a call from Deno...
That very day, shortly after making the first post, after all the well known lies the IPT had already given the players about the status of the checks, she came on here and not only sang the praises of the IPT but actually encouraged people to spend $2000 to play in the qualifiers. Sorry, but that did it for me. She did a complete flip flop all because Deno called her with "good news", even though they had done nothing but lie to all of you since the Reno event ended.
She says she's been accused by both by sides as being a "mole". If that's the case, IMO she gave both sides reason to think that.
Last edited:
av84fun said:
Jim,
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point a little.
You can argue finer points of law, but without the contract and a lot of evidence you can't prove fraud. I'm not a lawyer either, but I have been involved in litigation and studied law while completing my graduate work. In my experience, you are correct that fraud can't be waived or discharged, but I don't think the recommendation Eydie is making hinges solely on the fraud aspect.
First, you have to determine the legal framework for the relationship between the IPT and the players. To do that you have to examine all statements and promises made, any contracts that may have been signed and in the absence of contracts, weigh the intentions and verbal agreements between the parties.
It could be that after examining all those documents (which neither you nor I are privvy to) the lawyers decided that the current legal relationship (or absence thereof) was such that it could be changed (or created) by acceptance of the payment arrangements. Knowing that fraud will be very hard to prove, the legal counsel could have determined that the safest course for players is to not cash the checks right now.
You are the only person I've seen who is absolutely certain that there is legal proof of fraud in this case. So it would be risky for players to assume that a fraud conviction/finding is a foregone conclusion and base their actions accordingly.
Cheers,
RC
Who is the spokesperson, and on whose behalf are they speaking?Timberly said:
What is the task force for that matter?
Have they sought, or do they have the player's support for their task?
And has that task been defined?
Colin
Linda may be gullible, overly trusting or panglossian at times.... I suspect to a similar degree as myself.Timberly said:
But anyone who seriously pegs her as a mole, is either uninformed, unintelligent, or simply a political hack imho.
Colin
Hey, I Looked It Up, What'd You Think /
I'm saving others the trouble of doing a search..... imo
Panglossian
adjective
Expecting a favorable outcome or dwelling on hopeful aspects: optimistic, roseate, rose-colored, rosy, sanguine. Informal: upbeat. Idioms: looking on the bright side, looking through rose-colored glasses. See; HOPE
Doug
Colin Colenso said:
I'm saving others the trouble of doing a search..... imo
Panglossian
adjective
Expecting a favorable outcome or dwelling on hopeful aspects: optimistic, roseate, rose-colored, rosy, sanguine. Informal: upbeat. Idioms: looking on the bright side, looking through rose-colored glasses. See; HOPE
Doug
NYC cue dude
Banned
colin, please check your email. (not pm)
rg
rg
T
Timberly
Guest
I would not feel comfortable answering anymore in depth as it is not my place to do so.Colin Colenso said: