And just to clarify, everyone, I think overall discussion of how pocarr does things is fine in this thread; there's been quite a bit of that already. Hopefully we can continue to keep that part respectful. I just think that when we got into the minutiae of company registration, taxes, etc., we were going down a needless road.

LOL, thanks. But much respect to he who I was responding to who had already deleted that post before I finished my response; I deleted mine and sent to him privately and we're working it all out.





Nothing personal meant (or taken), as always.

^^

Am pretty close to this and lost my head a bit in the last few posts admittedly still stand by what i said earlier especially that pocarr is the only stable this would of happened with. So unrealistic to expect 100% of all makeup back for any reason and under any circumstances. You are dealing with human beings not robots.

Still think he owes zero after everything that has been done and said and pocarr turning down 2 reasonable offers.

However going forward if you want your contracts to be cast in stone that no matter what pocarr always gets repaid unless you terminate the agreement then please stipulate it clearly. Stating a player must play 200 games a month forever until makeup is cleared and if they have the audacity to want to stop playing poker they owe the full amount while technically correct is a pretty sneaky way of saying we never want to risk a cent of our money.

Just state clearly

Unless the agreement is terminated by backer full makeup and sbr is always owed. That is basically what you want right without coming out and saying it directly. Then when people violate this agreement (sure alot will still sign it) you can post here and everyone will be on your side as you made the terms crystal clear.

Oh and regardless of what gets paid back here the website should still be taken down for legal reasons.

I think this need to be a sticky thread to warn/protect potential horses. Like a warning on cigarettes. You cannot fine print this or hide it in clause 28-1(a) in your contract. It is very deceptive if you don't follow industry standard.

I will simplify it for your he doesn't have to pay it back cos it's not a legal binding contract in the eyes of the law you can harp on saying this and saying that but that is fact.
Morally well that's down to the individual and is morals . But personally if I not playing poker I would not pay a cent back . If I was I would offer to continue the agreement but I would expect to be put on games big enough to get out of MU. I would not grind away like a slave with no real chance of getting out .

I appreciate that. It's not like some of us simply disagreed with you, it's that we didn't understand your complicated reasoning, so it's nice of you to dumb it down for us simpletons.

Ah OK, I thought this was just your opinion, but now that you've said it's a fact, I guess it must be true.

Out of curiosity, where did you get your law degree?

i love bobo snark, don't get to see it very often but when you do it's gold.

Bobo was calling my intepretation 'an opinion'. Though i do have a lawdegree and i did look up articles.

I am not college educated or got a fancy degree . It don't make you a better man because you can write better . Prove that the contract is legaly binding and that any court would take it serious , No you can't and the reason this whole thread is active is because Pocarr knows that ,and would never take this line of action if it was because the way they gone about things would prob ruin any chance of getting a result . So you can try and put me down all you like but the FACT is the contract is not worth the paper written on . And Pocarr just blew any chance of getting any money back by the way they have acted .

Why does alex keep updating the do not trust site and not update us in the thread of the changes

Cmon Bobo its incredibly obvious that the contracts have no standing in law in any jurisdiction. If they did then they would sue marcin for $24k wouldn't they and have no need for this thread. Tinnion and Marcin are in the same country so would be a simple case of going to the small claims court showing the contract and that would be the end of it. Not to say they aren't entitled to try and retrieve their funds but that is between the 2 parties and should all be done in private.

Regarding the thief/dishonesty websites.


Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data.
Under EU law, personal data can only be gathered legally under strict conditions, for a legitimate purpose. Furthermore, persons or organisations which collect and manage your personal information must protect it from misuse and must respect certain rights of the data owners which are guaranteed by EU law.
Every day within the EU, businesses, public authorities and individuals transfer vast amounts of personal data across borders. Conflicting data protection rules in different countries would disrupt international exchanges. Individuals might also be unwilling to transfer personal data abroad if they were uncertain about the level of protection in other countries.
Therefore, common EU rules have been established to ensure that your personal data enjoys a high standard of protection everywhere in the EU. You have the right to complain and obtain redress if your data is misused anywhere within the EU.
The EU's Data Protection Directive also foresees specific rules for the transfer of personal data outside the EU to ensure the best possible protection of your data when it is exported abroad.

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/

So feel free to explain what strict conditions pocarr adhere to that gives them the right to compile personal data and use it in this way. Also explain the legitimate purpose you have for compiling all this information and exposing it, not sure blackmail is covered.

This thread and that website have no business being on the internet under law.

Maybe Brazilians don't have this level of personal protection so i advice you concentrate your efforts there. Additionally where have any of these thief's you have outed been convicted in a court of law for theft?

Lost a $50 bet by posting this but i imagine when people wake up to the multitude of laws you are breaking regularly it will cost pocarr much more.

The Websites made clearly breach UK data protection laws, and if as stated earlier in the thread it contained photos of passports and driving licenses or the numbers of such it would be considered a serious breach of the law. You dont have to have a solicitor to sort these things out in the UK, you can go to ;

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection/t...protection-act

and here

https://ico.org.uk/concerns/search-results/

Also i would think most solicitors specializing in claims would be happy to take a case against the issuer of the sit

This thread really does make me doubt my perception of the staking industry, despite previously entering into multiple staking deals, both as the Player and Backer. My belief was always that the risk is on the Staker. The Backer takes the financial risk on the belief that the Player is winner in the games agreed upon. I consider this to be the same as an Investment, rather than a Loan

Let me pose a very simple hypothetical Staking situation.

- Player and Company enter into a Staking Arrangement
- Player, regardless of initially being a winner or loser, begins to lose

My belief in this situation is that

- Player accumulates Makeup, and cannot profit until Makeup is repaid.
- Player cannot simply drop the backing deal and start another. That is Freerolling the agreement.
- Backer cannot simply request all lost funds back. This is would indicate agreement was a Loan, not an Investment, and thus also is Freerolling the agreement.

So before we even get into a hypothetical dispute, is this understanding flawed?

Can't say i agree with this either refer to clause 25 in the contract

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=162

Should Company be forced cut Player due to a breach of this agreement, all makeup and starting balance is still owed to the company. Should these not be paid a roller site similar to xxxisathief will be created.

Notice the capitalisation of one company but not the other looks very well prepared.

So with this blanket clause it gives the Company full rights to do whatever they want if Player breaches one of 20 plus clauses.

Seems Pocarr posting illegal websites, breaching multiple data protection laws and possibly criminal laws if including passports or similar documents gives player more than enough reason to consider the agreement null and void. Don't contracts have to be fair and equitable and not totally one sided regardless of whether both parties signed them or not.

where's my money

Not paying you can't wait for the USICisatheif website being put up when i move to Thailand over this $50 i lost.

scumbaf

Hey alex/Pocarr


you are welcome for the suggestion of having the full timeline of events on those sites. I can see you took my idea (since no one else publicly suggested it) of posting a timeline of events.
FYI you still have a lot of holes in that http://www.donottrustmarcinmilde.com/
Website. But i am not going to help you close those up

i know one way pocarr can close all the holes on that site

My pokerstars screen name is on one of those emails delete it please.

Also if i am reading the email chain correctly it clearly states the loan was repaid.

Seems the site has been taken down. Now please remove my username from this thread in this post. Think we can all agree i don't deserve to have my pokerstars name mentioned in this thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=129

Grim yes sounds right although there's a diffence between quitting the deal and quitting the deal as well as poker

where did the site go

Hi Everyone,

We appreciate the feedback and genuinely look to improve every day. We decided to speak with two independent lawyers and get two opinions.

We're going to post what we got as feedback so that the community and other stakers know what that was.

The cliffs are that the websites if 100% true, are legal, however they do expose the creator to a potential lawsuit. The two main avenues such a site would create exposure are defamation and harassment.

To prevail in a case for defamation, the plaintiff must prove that statements are false.

Harassment is typically defined as stalking which these websites do not fall under, however the courts are currently broadening - not restraining - the scope of harassment.

Action against a site creator would be weak, but could be time consuming to defend.

We were advised to omit screenshots of discussions, and remove photos not taken in public.

For the time being we are deleting all websites until we have a better idea of what we want to do. They may go back up in the near future. Everything on all sites has always been 100% true, but we want to make sure everything is in order before we continue with this direction.

We're exploring other avenues as it's important for everyone in the MTT community that someone backed can't just exit an agreement and owe nothing. We could certainly use help with coming up with alternatives.

Yeah, looking back I see you very clearly said that in your first post. I was probably being a nit over your language in the second post; my apologies.

I have never once put you down or said anything about your writing. You might be a great and extremely intelligent guy; I have no idea. The issue I'm taking is with you continually stating that the contract is void, and emphasizing over and over again that this is a fact - I see you've done it yet again in this post. Just because you strongly believe something doesn't make it a fact. Putting fact in bold letters doesn't make it more true. And calling your opinions facts doesn't make your points any more convincing.

But I fear I'm derailing the thread now with this argument, so I'll do my best to stop responding to your incorrect assertions, as I think I've made my point fairly clearly now. I probably would've skipped this one as well if you hadn't started (also incorrectly) suggesting that I was putting you down in some way.

This is a pretty ridiculous way to conclude that their contract has no legal standing. It might not, but if it did, why would they want to spend money on a lawsuit as their first step when they have other avenues that cost them very little?

thanks for the info
(did the two lawyers have any difference in 'opinion'?)

That was far from the only reason seems rather silly to accept anything less than 100% if it is binding never mind Tinnion being quoted as saying they are fully aware it would never stand up in court maybe you missed that bit.

Yes thanks for the information as well. Just getting information from lawyers from Canada/USA wherever you are based is not going to be much use when you have to comply with the law in the country of the 2nd party as well. European Law is vastly different to North American as im sure you will be aware.

If you could also remove my pokerstars username from posts 129/132 in a reasonable timeframe i would appreciate it.