Russ Boyd $50K HORSE entrant

[Pokeraddict]

Why is it not OK for someone who had $55,000 stolen from them by an online poker room owned by a semi pro to post every 6-12 months about it but all this WPEX spam is OK?

I think MS Sunshine is being too nice about it. It is a shame that searching his name does not bring up any of these stories. I bet much of the poker community knows nothing about it. I would have thrown together a sucks.com site with my story and others and SEO'd it to show right below his blog on searches. I also would make sure I was in tournaments he was in and not drop it. I'm sure there are many people out there that would have had him capped over $55,000.

I do not see why MS Sunshine's posts are not OK, it is a much nicer approach then I would have had and most anyone else in the same shoes.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick and effin tired of this new morality bs! Being right is not getting caught? Being wrong is getting caught?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wholeheartedly concur with this.

Morality is not absolute. We're here on a gambling forum and as we all know there are plenty of people who believe gambling is immoral.

That said, outright theft is going to violate the morals of anyone who has any morals whatsoever. If there are extenuating circumstances it might be the lesser of two evils. If I had to steal to feed my children (if I had any) then I would do it without a second thought.

I'm not an expert on the whole pokerspot thing but it doesn't sound to me like there are any kind of extenuating circumstances that would justify outright theft. He had unexpected business troubles which is certainly understandable, many businesses do. Having unexpected business troubles is not justification for theft. Declare bankruptcy if you have to but don't take customer money and use it for business expenses.

Further, if you get tired of posts about how Russ Boyd is a thief then you can avoid them pretty easily.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a personal debt for Dutch. .....

[/ QUOTE ]

....What leads you to believe that this is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

business 101

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would not be a peronal debt if the company's assets were sold to pay the creditors. Russ Boyd chose to keep the company's assets for his personal use. I think that make the debt his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, business 101 - learn what a corporation is, and you'll understand who owns the debt. This is not a defense of Boyd - who clearly screwed up - it's just a matter of getting facts straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever got around to business 102, and business 103, you'd have learned that there are any number of reasons why Boyd might still have been liable on that debt, and, indeed, based on the facts of this case, it sounds like he would be liable, at least under U.S. law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm waiting to be clued in on the "any number of reasons", and "the facts in this case ..." that make him liable. I see a lot of assertions like this, but nothing in the way of facts. Do you have anything to add that's not out there in public? Unfortunately, the public info doesn't support your case.

Let me agree with you that Russ Boyd sucks. He's an incompetent dunderhead businessman-wannabe who completely blew a once-in-a-lifetime mega-opportunity. And when the fit hit the shan, he sure didn't think first of his customers or his personal integrity.

Let me say it again, clearly: Russ Boyd sucks. Don't put any money in his new business. Don't give him a credit card. Don't rent an apartment to him without 6 months' rent cash upfront. Don't introduce him to your sister. Don't lend him your power saw. If he starts a new enterprise, get right out in front and demand restitution for your friends. If he makes any money, hound him until he pays (because he offered to). Call your friends! Call ESPN! Send emails! Blog your butt off! Let the world know that he sucks!

Now, with that point clear, how about you inject some meat into this conversation? Almost always, a business goes belly-up due to plain old-fashioned incompetence. This could be the exception. But we'll never know ---- until we hear your argument. What is it?

Show us the facts Jack. "Russ Boyd Sucks" is not a liability argument.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost always, a business goes belly-up due to plain old-fashioned incompetence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't invested money that was lost because a business went bankrupt. This is akin to one of those self store places selling off the contents of the storage containers to pay their operating expenses. It's theft, pure and simple.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a personal debt for Dutch. .....

[/ QUOTE ]

....What leads you to believe that this is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

business 101

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would not be a peronal debt if the company's assets were sold to pay the creditors. Russ Boyd chose to keep the company's assets for his personal use. I think that make the debt his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, business 101 - learn what a corporation is, and you'll understand who owns the debt. This is not a defense of Boyd - who clearly screwed up - it's just a matter of getting facts straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever got around to business 102, and business 103, you'd have learned that there are any number of reasons why Boyd might still have been liable on that debt, and, indeed, based on the facts of this case, it sounds like he would be liable, at least under U.S. law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm waiting to be clued in on the "any number of reasons", and "the facts in this case ..." that make him liable. I see a lot of assertions like this, but nothing in the way of facts. Do you have anything to add that's not out there in public? Unfortunately, the public info doesn't support your case.

Let me agree with you that Russ Boyd sucks. He's an incompetent dunderhead businessman-wannabe who completely blew a once-in-a-lifetime mega-opportunity. And when the fit hit the shan, he sure didn't think first of his customers or his personal integrity.

Let me say it again, clearly: Russ Boyd sucks. Don't put any money in his new business. Don't give him a credit card. Don't rent an apartment to him without 6 months' rent cash upfront. Don't introduce him to your sister. Don't lend him your power saw. If he starts a new enterprise, get right out in front and demand restitution for your friends. If he makes any money, hound him until he pays (because he offered to). Call your friends! Call ESPN! Send emails! Blog your butt off! Let the world know that he sucks!

Now, with that point clear, how about you inject some meat into this conversation? Almost always, a business goes belly-up due to plain old-fashioned incompetence. This could be the exception. But we'll never know ---- until we hear your argument. What is it?

Show us the facts Jack. "Russ Boyd Sucks" is not a liability argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do apologize that I do not have the time right now to further expand upon the many ways that corporate shareholders or managers can be held liable for the debts of a corporation, however if you would like to learn more, a good starting place would be HERE

Note also that I did not say Dutch Boyd WAS Definitely liable, just that he COULD BE Liable, in response to your assertion that, "Anyone who has taken business 101 knows that he CAN'T be liable." (You made an absolute statement, and your absolute statement was incorrect).

You're right, I would need all the facts of the case, and clearly, I don't have that because everything is word of mouth, thirdhand or fourth-hand. I merely asserted, that there are several different bases upon which Boyd COULD be liable. That assertion is correct.

Edit: I'm also assuming here that Boyd's company was organized as a corporation, if it wasn't, than its even easier to go after Boyd as being personally liable, especially in light of the fact that appears to have committed fraud.

Edit: Also, in the U.S. at least, the only types of companies in which an owner is shielded from personal liability, are corporations, and some specific types of limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships. In all other regular businesses, the owners ARE personally liable for the debts of the business.

[RR]

To this day Russ Boyd owns www . pokerspot . com Well I don't know if you can own a URL, but it is registered to him. He didn't go belly up in that he still has the pokerspot assets (well he kept them, I doubt the software is worth much 5 years later).

[SackUp]

wow.

is the more hate for boyd or amongst 2+2ers?

Hilarious.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a personal debt for Dutch. .....

[/ QUOTE ]

....What leads you to believe that this is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

business 101

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would not be a peronal debt if the company's assets were sold to pay the creditors. Russ Boyd chose to keep the company's assets for his personal use. I think that make the debt his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, business 101 - learn what a corporation is, and you'll understand who owns the debt. This is not a defense of Boyd - who clearly screwed up - it's just a matter of getting facts straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever got around to business 102, and business 103, you'd have learned that there are any number of reasons why Boyd might still have been liable on that debt, and, indeed, based on the facts of this case, it sounds like he would be liable, at least under U.S. law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm waiting to be clued in on the "any number of reasons", and "the facts in this case ..." that make him liable. I see a lot of assertions like this, but nothing in the way of facts. Do you have anything to add that's not out there in public? Unfortunately, the public info doesn't support your case.

Let me agree with you that Russ Boyd sucks. He's an incompetent dunderhead businessman-wannabe who completely blew a once-in-a-lifetime mega-opportunity. And when the fit hit the shan, he sure didn't think first of his customers or his personal integrity.

Let me say it again, clearly: Russ Boyd sucks. Don't put any money in his new business. Don't give him a credit card. Don't rent an apartment to him without 6 months' rent cash upfront. Don't introduce him to your sister. Don't lend him your power saw. If he starts a new enterprise, get right out in front and demand restitution for your friends. If he makes any money, hound him until he pays (because he offered to). Call your friends! Call ESPN! Send emails! Blog your butt off! Let the world know that he sucks!

Now, with that point clear, how about you inject some meat into this conversation? Almost always, a business goes belly-up due to plain old-fashioned incompetence. This could be the exception. But we'll never know ---- until we hear your argument. What is it?

Show us the facts Jack. "Russ Boyd Sucks" is not a liability argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do apologize that I do not have the time right now to further expand upon the many ways that corporate shareholders or managers can be held liable for the debts of a corporation, however if you would like to learn more, a good starting place would be HERE

Note also that I did not say Dutch Boyd WAS Definitely liable, just that he COULD BE Liable, in response to your assertion that, "Anyone who has taken business 101 knows that he CAN'T be liable." (You made an absolute statement, and your absolute statement was incorrect).

You're right, I would need all the facts of the case, and clearly, I don't have that because everything is word of mouth, thirdhand or fourth-hand. I merely asserted, that there are several different bases upon which Boyd COULD be liable. That assertion is correct.

Edit: I'm also assuming here that Boyd's company was organized as a corporation, if it wasn't, than its even easier to go after Boyd as being personally liable, especially in light of the fact that appears to have committed fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your response & would add.....businesses are governed by the laws of the state/country within which they were formed.

In this case, we are talking about a system of law in a foreign country, so at best, without specific working knowledge of that system, we're all chasing our tails.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your response & would add.....businesses are governed by the laws of the state/country within which they were formed.

In this case, we are talking about a system of law in a foreign country, so at best, without specific working knowledge of that system, we're all chasing our tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is true of course, and why I added the caveat "under U.S. law." I'm assuming this was based in an English Common law country with similar laws to those of the U.S regarding corporations and partnerships, but if not, then all bets are off.

Edit: But even if this is not the case, there are still other causes of action concievably available against Boyd, even if you sued him in the U.S., on theories of fraud, etc. (It would be possible to get American Jurisdiction over this through a long-arm statute).

[adanthar]

hey can someone summarize the last three pages of this thread, tia