That's just, like, your opinion, man.

There is not a doubt in my mind that if Tomas worked harder he could have seen the whole 4k. I can say for a fact had this thread never existed, and both parties used me as an arbitrator which I *know* Zach would have agreed to, I would have definitely tried to broker a deal where Tomas gets the whole 4k eventually regardless of tax burden. I just think this smear campaign just easily took 4k+ out of Zach's hyde, and Tomas now needs to settle for his pound of flesh as his payment.

There are people in this thread who want to contact Zach's employers, post his picture on the street as a scammer, parade our pictures and private information around for people to do god knows what with. I'm sorry, the debt has been paid.

So in the example above with the furniture it is not theft right? I'm not a lawyer so maybe legally it would not be charged as theft, but when I buy ftp I am paying my money now for the ownership of his ftp money. The money in his ftp account would now be mine so him not giving me MY money for whatever reason would constitute theft in my non-lawyer opinion and I don't think it's misrepresentative to call it theft.

In a vacuum, what would you call a person who does that? We are making the assumption that the person in said vacuum is not somebody you feel the need to ruthlessly defend in the face of reason and years of standard protocol in a community?

kartinken best troll

Okay, 200 Zach posters printed. They will be up in September

It says Zachary Parker is a scammer/thief, never trust him. Has his pic on it as well as my email in case anyone's interested in details.

Guys,

Calm down.. Tomas just didn't work hard enough to get his money. just asking for the money owed to you is not good enough. You have to jump through hoops and contact his friend to broker a deal and then eventually you get your money with 0% interest.

this dude is just as scummy as his scamming best friend.



Sent from my SM-G900V using 2+2 Forums

You can't actually be serious about this?
If you're serious I think you just destroyed the last perceived shred of ability to effectively reason and evaluate written word that anybody might have thought you possessed.

Do I need to directly quote all the instances where Tomas offered to take it to an arbitrator and Zach refused, using the term "non-negotiable"?

When you say you *know* Zach would have done something that he blatantly refused to do in writing, it discredits the rest of the **** you've written in this thread about how great of a guy and totally not a scammer/liar he is.

Dude, I never said it wasn't wrong or dishonest. Just not theft.

Apparently Tomas did not satisfy the "work hard" clause to receive the money he's entitled to. This must have also been discussed at the same time when Tomas agreed that Zach could use his money to pay taxes.

lmfao

Tomas didn't have to look at it in a vacuum, he had plenty of other roads to take before this one. In his mind he wasn't getting the money back, so he did the most damaging thing he could feasibly do, and did out-of-line damage as though he were not getting the money. If Zach has to deal with the consequences levied for not paying, why should he then be expected to pay? It makes no sense to me. Tomas was owed 4k, and this is how he chose to settle it.

I have been around poker for awhile and seen a lot of people hit highs and lows. The common variable is how they act when they have money. When people have money they are all the most generous wonderful awesome [insert more praise adjectives] people. What shows true character is how they act when they're broke.

Zach was clearly not trying to outright scam, he would have just sent nothing, but he still thought it was OK to hold someone else's money hostage because he was broke (and potentially in debt). Just this simple fact means this thread was necessary.

As you saw from the "post of the thread", legal action in the poker world is not usually feasible. So we have to rely on policing ourselves. While you are correct it is important to not go on witch hunts, I don't believe this is such an example. The op clearly laid out the facts and if I am going to judge Zachary parker I am going to read the entire thread which includes his and your responses. If you truly think Zach is in the right you should work with Zach and the op to find unbiased arbitration and escrow 4k to them. This would almost certainly be acceptable to the op which proves you characterizing it a witch hunt is completely false. But barring that, this will never see a jury of Zach's peers and since it is Zach that is preventing that from happening, this thread is acceptable. I know he is the type of person that will use my money for other debts and I know that if I attempt to collect publicly, his friends will convince him that this means he can keep my money for good. And that is why this thread is important and should remain up for all to see. Not for the sake of the op, but for the sake of future people who may have dealings with Zachary Parker so they know what could potentially happen to them.

Edit: the arbitration would consider whether this thread was enough damage for nonpayment as well

There are people Zach would have listened to on this issue. Tomas claims he went to several and they didn't want to get involved, but I have no specifics on that. I am close to Zach's crew from Thailand, and lived there myself for 4 months. Had Tomas contacted me and presented me with this, I absolutely would have and could have gotten negotiations going. Is that a lot of work to settle a misunderstanding? Yes. It still doesn't mean it's ok for him to instead go this route. He had to know the results of posting this.

1. What were/are the "roads" he had to recover his money?
2. Wasn't it reasonable for him to assume he wasn't getting his money back considering the "non-negotiable" terminology Zach used and the fact that he said he was blocking all contact with him immediately after Tomas asserted his expectation that he would get the agreed upon amount?

solid post zachvac +1

We all know what happened and no amount of bs in this thread will change that.
Zach made a mistake. He forgot/ignored that he owed taxes. All he could think about was getting some value for his frozen FTP account balance. I'm sure, when he made the deal, he fully intended to pay the whole 16k.
When the payout time came, he was broke and on top of that he hadn't paid his taxes and was in arrears.
He saw OP as an easy target. The thought of 16k passing through his broke hands was too much and the 4k would get get him out of a hole. To hell with OP, he thought.

kartinken, you make no sense, sorry. Hard to believe you're not just trolling.

Not to mention even after Tomas goes through everything and potentially wins his civil suit; Zach can simply appeal after the verdict and they will have to do it all over again. Often in a higher and more expensive court.

A positive side effect of posts like this is that it outs other associated scumbags and not just the original one referred to by the op.

So you agreed with him to settle at 12k and immediately after being paid you reneged on that agreement and continued pursuing the last 4k?

It is odd that you could ever consider your statements and Zach's actions anything but high handed and wrong. Thomas ships money to Zach. He sits through all the FTP drama, probably thinking several times he's getting zero. Then DOJ pays out, and he's getting his money. Except your buddy refused to pay out $4k of what he owed, and as the undisputed communication says he refused arbitration and says it is "not negotiable". Since he has the check, he has all the power. OK, Thomas looks into legal action and then goes to 2+2. You consider this wrong and conveniently get to decide what the price is for his wrong actions. What price? Exactly the $4k Zach refused to pay.

It leads to a few questions. You think Thomas should have tried harder. The hardest I've ever had to work to get money from an honest person was to send a receipt. Your buddy's statement that he was done talking was a negotiation? An ethical person doesn't do this with money owed.

Why do you get to penalize Thomas? In your world you just get to decide how much he should pay? Also, why is it the victim's job to shut up. You said that Zach would have paid out, but clearly he needed some push. If not public shaming, then what. Again, Zach has or had all of Thomas's money. What options did Thomas have to avoid unilateral action from your side. His OP was really polite and left the door open to say "no, I was wrong. He's paying monthly."

You've already stated that Zach's employers have been informed and won't care. You claim his reputation is already damaged, and he's already charged Thomas a $4k penalty for outing the situation. Why are you mad at this point? You discounted the forums in your first post.

Every scammer we've seen has threatened the victim, claimed his continued nonpayment is retribution for shaming, and has thrown up various smoke screen stuff (these other nvg trolls actions now excuse my nonpayment). You think Zach isn't a scammer or thief? He seems to be wrong with the facts. The statements you're making on his behalf follow the classic patterns. Don't trust my take? Talk to Schneids.

So when he had the gun to your head you agreed to give him your wallet but after your life was spared you reneged on that agreement and continued pursuing your wallet back?

New post of the thread.

So Tomas's extenuating circumstances matter, but Zach's don't?