OMG where to begin.

Let's take this one at a time.

1) I refuse to transfer it to "a loan with interest" because a) I don't want more money, I want what's owed and b) I find it insulting to have someone who stole money suggest "let's call it a loan and I'll pay interest". A loan is when you ask someone for money and they agree to give it to you. This was not a loan, it was theft.

2) You must have a severe reading comprehension problem, because I've told you at least 20x now that you are free to sell the debt if you can find a buyer, and I never, not once, refused to give you a reference. I refused to LIE to another backer.

You want to question my motivation, but it's very simple: To get my money ethically if I can, to protect the community if I can't. Since a) isn't possible, we're currently on b).

3) The stake was less than six months, as can easily be confirmed by reading the PS transaction log. The first $400 transfer was on 12/4/10.

3) Excuse me while I laugh - the suggestion that I never had to top you off was amusing to me. Again, check the PS transaction report. I topped you off numerous times. Yes, the stake was in profit by a few hundred, but given your theft of the stake roll, I finished down.

4) I never gave you permission to withdraw stake money. You could do what you want with your profits, but the stake money was for poker only.

5) I can prove your figures wrong about the "any top off were from profit" right now. I sent you $400 to start. You sent back $150 (presumably a chop). I then sent you $500, presumably when you needed a full reload.

So whatever magic math you are using, it doesn't even match the actual, physical evidence I've provided in this thread of the PS transaction logs between us.

You claim you want to give me my money. That's easy then - give me my money! You claim you want arbitration. So fine, let's get do an arbitration. You'll need to escrow $900 with whomever we select.

You know you owe $900. Forget the emails from 2011, you admit as much in the emails from last week. Do you honestly expect everyone to think that you just randomly mentioned that amount over and over in your pleas to coerce me into lying to a new backer for you because it isn't what you know you owe?

You have admitted you lied to me and stole from you. You vacillate between begging, feigning indifference, and threatening and insulting me. Your own posts are a hodgepodge of contradictory statements and things I've pointed out are demonstrably false, including your bizarre and hilariously easy to disprove statement that I was modded during the stake, immediately changed things in my favor, and you were too scared to do anything about it because of the might power of my green name.

Furthermore, you admit in your posts that you had more than $900 in the PS account when BF hit.

Once you cashed that check and used it instead of giving it to me, it was theft. I don't care what magic math you were using, or what label you give to the money (stake roll, MU, profit, stipends). You owe me that money. You admit you owe me that money. But instead of doing the right thing, you did exactly the opposite, and now you'll say pretty much anything to try to justify that action.

Total amount sent by me to him during the stake - 3585

Total amount sent by him to me during the stake - 3105.17

If subtract $900 from the amount sent by me as stake money, you get 2685, meaning there was a total profit of 420.17 for the stake, but I lost money given that he stole the stake roll.

Just, you know, for some actual facts backed up by the PS transaction numbers. Also since Jeff has played the "she made money on the stake so why she mad" line, which is obviously absurd (it doesn't matter if he made me $10k, the stake money was still stake money and was never his) but nevertheless he seems to think that I finished ahead during this fiasco, and given I don't have my $900 that's factually false.

Not that facts appear to matter much to him. Dat magic math tho.

For the record, I included all transactions, even though I don't recall for certain all transactions were stake related. I think there's an outside chance one or two of the smaller transactions were from purchasing shares, but I can't remember for sure. I know both of us bought and sold MP action during the stake and I have a very hazy recollection of a conversation about one of us purchasing part of the other, but I can't claim to be even close to 100% sure about this. So I included all the PS transactions as stake related and included this caveat.

I've never heard of the same county restriction and didn't see one on MD's small claims website. So I'd imagine typical jurisdiction considerations would work here.

The guy seems to have the money when he wants to, plus you can do a lot more with a judgment than you can with empty words on an internet forum.

With respect to SoL, to quote the Big Lebowski, "New **** has come to light, man," so I think it'd be fine. (Shoot me a PM if you want to discuss in more detail.)

yeah, I'm done because she's not listening at all

if she wants to prove I owe her fine go ahead, she needs a sharkscope subscription so she can parse the data in weeks, then every time it's profit above 100 we chop 50, above 200 we chop 100, if she wants to go down that road, I will go back to my emails to figure out when the chop protocol changed. We adjusted it to 30 and 60.

but she agreed to the terms and I don't really want to go through the data again, I came up with all the numbers on a laptop that blew up since then, plus I really didn't think it mattered because I was going to try and get the the full amount makeup + profit just to keep it from getting to this

she is conveniently forgetting the terms of the original deal as well as the terms of the secondary deal

I've done all I could, short of paying, which I don't think I have to and can't afford anyway.

If you guys need any more from me let me know. If not, I've presented my case. Before poker I was a data analyst, so I'm a stickler for accuracy. I'm confident the 235 number is correct.

All she has as evidence is one email where I said I thought I owed her an amount that turned out to be wrong when I did the analysis.

I will pay her the 235 as soon as she drops all claims against me, including the deletion of this thread. I think that's more than fair. I"d have paid her this a long time ago if I thought it would end the matter, but I was sure she was going to do this, so I didn't pay.

Jeff Bennett of Maryland is a thief and a poker stake scammer.

Why do you think you get to make up all the rules?

Your use of the word "fair" is laughable.

You have gone back and forth between saying you are going to pay her and then saying she won't receive a cent from you.

I wasn't a big fan of Sgt RJ before this thread but the way she has handled herself while dealing with a person like you has changed my opinion of her.

This thread should never be deleted.

Jeff Bennett is a thief.

Jeff Bennett is a scammer and a thief.

Jeff Bennett of Maryland is a scammer, thief, and scumbag.

Do not stake Jeff Bennett in poker. He is a known thief and scammer.

I won't do it but if she wants to do it I can provide all of the transaction histories, plus the date of the change.

You actually haven't done anything, let alone paying me.

You have yet to produce a single chart or set of numbers or anything. Now admittedly, I didn't keep records, but at least I got the PS transaction history, which refutes several of your statements, including:

1) That the stake was longer than a year. It was under six months

2) That I never had to top you back off. I did, multiple times.

3) That if I did have to top you off, I wasn't reaching into my own pocket, but into profit from the stake. I had to give you $1K after the initial $400 stake/$150 profit split (two $500 reloads), so I initially invested over $1.2K before you started turning a profit.

4) That I finished up on the stake even with your theft. Total profit from the stake was $420. With your theft of the stake money, whether it's $900 or $950, your interaction with me resulted in a net loss SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF YOUR THEFT OF THE STAKE MONEY AFTER BLACK FRIDAY.

Further, you've admitted multiple times that you owe me at least $900. Your own emails prove the debt.

Jeff Bennett Maryland Thief

So, I'm by no means an expert on staking, but I've read everything cause I was in an airport and bored.

It seems to me there is no disagreement about the total amount of the staked money ($900 being agreed on more or less) The difference comes in when attentionnoone claims that $635 of it amounts to makeup, and for that reason is not "owed" as part of returning the stake money.

What is confusing about this supposed agreement is you (attentionone) keep saying things like "if we profit 100 we chop 50" and etc, and it appears you are claiming the disagreement is about that. But chopping up profits should have no impact on the stake money. It's profit made over and above the stake bankroll, right? So it seems to be irrelevant. What is relevant is if you were cashing out bits and pieces of the stake roll periodically regardless of profit, and counting it as though it were a loss (i.e goes to makeup)

I think just about anyone would consider such an arrangement to be pretty bad for the staker. It's not a stake at that point, it's more or less an interest free loan. Makeup is about money lost playing poker on the stake. I've never heard "makeup" used to refer to "I used the money for something else"

In any case, all of the analysis on what money was cashed out when (all the chops and all that) appears to be entirely irrelevant to me. It's only a question of whether or not there was an agreement for attentionnoone to borrow the stake money for personal expenses and pay it back via makeup

No, never. I never would have provided him with an interest free revolving door of credit.

He says otherwise, and neither of can actually prove our side on this. I don't even know if a stipend of this sort would be standard - I don't think it is, but I don't know for sure.

I contend this is irrelevant as well, though. He had to get out of MU. While I think it's entirely reasonable that someone be given time, given the way the stake was interrupted by BF, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that this money shouldn't have been repaid at some point, particularly when he had every dime in his PS account and didn't have to reach into his own pocket to repay it. He only had to do the right thing - wait until PS paid out, then give me everything I was owed.

Second, I think people should evaluate who is just more honest in general here. I have no motivation to lie about this. I letf the issue alone for over two and a half years, and my number for what was due ($950) hasn't changed during that time.

I only asked two things. Literally, two things post BF. That he keep in touch with me, and that he set up a payment plan. Note that both these things were asked specifically after he told me that he had taken the PS check he was sent and used it for rent because he degened away the rest of his role in 888, and he had intended that money to be for his rent, so he used the PS check for his rent/bills instead.

He claimed to keep immaculate records, and he himself believed the number to be ~1K around BF. He never said "woah wait, your number doesn't sound right, let me run the numbers." He said "yep" and agreed to give me the money when PS payed out, then played his usual "woe is me I'm broke and needed the money to survive" card.

I don't know how I could have been more reasonable here. By his own admission, he stole the stake money within the month or roughly that after BF, and at that time, I asked for those two things. I didn't pressure him for the money. I didn't start telling everyone he was a scumbag. I believed he was just in a hard spot, and that he would make it right in time.

Clearly I was wrong about that.

Crap, I completely forgot that you had provided a transaction history. Here's what you posted earlier:

So when I pop this into a spreadsheet, I come up with -$479.33.

I can't see any reason why, if that transaction history is correct, that wouldn't be the absolute minimum that RJ is owed at this point. If the stake came out at a profit, as JB has claimed multiple times, RJ would be owed the $479.33 plus any profit the stake made.

JB, is there a reason this would be incorrect, and/or do you dispute this transaction history? I'm just basing those figures off the transaction history RJ has supplied, so please let me know if there are any errors.

Right, that's what I would've thought as well.

Yeah I don't know anything about how makeup is handled when stakes end. His position is (as nearly as I can tell) that it is not owed. You have been clear your stance is that the stake cannot end in makeup, although I also assume that normally entails an obligation to play to make it up which BF would make problematic.

Either way though one would expect an obligation to repay, so I take your point. It has been 3 years.

No, I'm owed the $900 (see, I'm even willing to drop the $50, because whatever at this point), because that was stake money.

But yeah if you add 420 (the profit) and 480 (the in vs. out differential from the PS transaction report) you get $900, which is what he owes.

Just to be clear, what you're saying here doesn't contradict what I said - it's just adding more information that of course can't be supported by the transaction history, but only by a reconciliation of the profit/loss of the games played.

Yeah, I just don't want him to latch onto your number as a possible one I'd be willing to settle for (unless that was somehow what arbitration decided).

And the amount of the stake can't be supported by the transaction history, but we only disagree by $50 on this score (I say $950, he says $900, and I'm willing to use $900) so I think that while this number can't be proven by an outside source from either enough it's safe to treat as "fact" for the purposes of this discussion.

the cashout protocol was as follows

$100 split 50/50 in weeks profit $100-199
$200 split 50/50 weeks in profit $200+

the deal was open ended, split of the total profits over the life of the stake

no leaving in makeup

when this analysis exonerates me, I think SGTRJ should be de-modded and have revoked marketplace privileges

I offered to carry the makeup forward for 3 years. I left it as an asset to her, for three years.

According to this, I don't owe her anything but MU, which has expired.

She has already admitted to this deal in the thread and she's also said she had some of my marketplace action, when records will show she did not

She could have asked dozens of people in the forum to help her check my numbers. She could have paid a consultant. Instead she began baseless accusations. She must be de-modded immediately.

.

and yet I was nice enough to carry the makeup forward for her. Making the BF thing a win win for both of us. I don't know why she wouldn't use it. She had my makeup as an asset for 3 years because I gave it to her. I didn't have to because BF was out of my control. She was always welcome to figure out what part of the total profit was still makeup, and I was continuing to honor the MU, FOR 3 YEARS

Everyone in the staking business knows that MU was dead after BF, except SGTRJ doesn't think that standard rule doesn't apply to her. I advise everyone to stay away from doing business with her.

by the way, I don't dispute any date that was provided by RJ but she did not have any of my tournament action from the date I first started selling action which she can find in the MP.

After the analysis is done I consider all MU to be expired. Profit will be paid out if there is any.

Another stipulation of this deal is that she doesn't owe me money, because it's capped at 0. I didn't expect BF either so there I assume no refund comes to me.

I don't see how this affects anything whatsoever. Cashing out of profits in no way affects things that I can see. There's still the initial stake to be dealt with. You do understand that when you are staked, the stake belongs to the staker, and is owed back to them when the deal is over, right? Am I missing something?

In that case, I would think what you owe to RJ would be the $479.33 plus her share of any profits. But if I've made an error, please let me know and explain it as thoroughly as you can.

I have no opinion on which one is living in a bizzaro-staking world here, but this ^ is an incredible statement.

you are not missing anything. you can take that information along with dates provided by SGTRJ and calculate how much of the total chop of the stake is actually make up, everything else is irrelevant.

You will find that all of it is makeup which I allowed her as my backer to carry forward out of loyalty. She could have continued to stake me live if she wanted it. She could have bapped with it. She always had 900 credit on my poker play. She still had it up to 4 days ago.