[Moved:] Personal argument

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 13 Aug 2009 04:58

I've bolded a few things, and I will connect the dots at the end, but this should be pretty clear even without me doing this.

Jeremy wrote: 4. Because you needed the money so quickly, I did a Western Union Transfer. I'm fully aware that this was not ideal, but that was the only way you could get the money.

5. All of this cost me about $400, which I personally paid, because it was my responsibility. .

Jeremy on November 17th 2005 wrote:I was charged about $400 total in expences due to the
bounce,... so I've split the fees in half.

Search your gmail Jeremy. Yes, you were charged $400. Yes, it was your responsibility to pay the fee. No, you did not personally pay it. You charged me $200 for the transfer and took it out of my paycheck, even though I never agreed to that. That is why I wrote:

C-Fan wrote: Oh, and if you ever feel like paying me the $200 you took out of my Nestle paycheck without my consent, my paypal is kensomolinos at yahoo.

You yourself, as recently as yesterday admit that the transfer fees were your responsibility. And we both have email records showing that you made me pay for half of them, without my consent. Pay me the money you owe me, and you'll never hear from me again.

And for emphasis:

C-Fan wrote:my paypal is kensomolinos at yahoo.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 05:51

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 13 Aug 2009 06:25

Jeremy wrote:Whatever, I can't remember the exact details of something that happened 4 years ago.

Gmail has this really cool feature where you can search your old emails. You should check it out. That way, when you are about to say something like "it cost me $400 and I personally paid for it because it was my responsibility," you can go back to the original emails and see that that wasn't the case.

I think it's pretty interesting that this is all coming up in the same thread where Matt is paying you to leave modified. Let's look at the situations in parallell and see if we can spot any hypocrisy.

1. I rendered a service (coming to Australia to do footbag demos), with the understanding I'd get paid.
2. By your own admission, you didn't pay me the full amount.
3. You are still unwilling to pay me the money you owe me.

Does this mean Matt can go back on his word and underpay you for leaving modified? Can he send you 7 bags instead of 10, and you'll leave modified? Or are you the only one who is allowed to rip people off? Can Matt send you like, 6 bags, and then respond: "whatever. I worked really fucking hard to stitch bags for you, blah blah."

You're such a hypocrite Jeremy. Less than 24 hours ago in this very thread you admitted that it was your responsibility to cover the costs of paying me, and when I come to you with emails that you wrote which show you passed $200 of the cost onto me without my consent, all you can say is "whatever"? You owe me money and you know it. If you're going to be a dick and call out Matt Cross' bluff for 10 bags, then I'm calling you out on not paying me. You know my paypal. Put your money where your mouth is.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 06:32

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 13 Aug 2009 07:08

I have all the emails from our interactions in my gmail, so I can prove that the following is all false.

Jeremy wrote:
I tell Ken the specific details I need to transfer money to a foreign account.

No, you didn't tell me you needed the address. That was your mistake, not mine.

Jeremy wrote: He doesn't give me those details.

I gave you every bit of information you requested. It's all in the email record.

Jeremy wrote:I call him and tell him that I need more information and that my bank doesn't think it will work.

He tells me to go ahead with it anyway.

This never happened. There is nothing in the email record showing this.

Jeremy wrote:I do, and the process of getting money to him ends up costing me $400.

I pay half of that and take half out of the money he is owed.

This did happen, and without my consent.

The fact is you lured me to Australia with the promise that I'd get paid enough to cover the cost of a plane ticket, and at least feeding myself while I was over there. Once I arrived in Australia, you told me I'd get paid a lot less. The entire time I was in Australia, I wasn't paid a cent. I flew home without getting paid. When I finally did get paid, you took money out of my fee without my consent. All of this is fact, and even a sophist like yourself can't refute any of it.

Like I said before, if you're going to threaten people (Matt Cross) for not putting his money where his mouth is, then you need to do the same, or else you're a hypocrite.

You have my paypal address.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 07:40

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 07:47

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 07:51

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 07:52

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 13 Aug 2009 09:24

Jeremy wrote: and I'm not discussing this further. *ignore*.

...and then you proceed to make 3 more posts in a row.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Aug 2009 10:14

This thread is a massive fail.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Aug 2009 10:15

I think I'm having an allergic reaction

Zjeezy · Post by **Zjeezy** » 13 Aug 2009 14:58

This may sound weird, But this thread makes me want to go to Australia and meet Jeremy

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 16:23

Well you're always welcome to come visit. I'm always happy to put up footbaggers and to show them around Hobart and help them as much as I can in planning their time here. Now that I'm back at university full time I have plenty of time to show people around etc. I've also moved so that I'm a little further away from the middle of the city (about 15 minutes on the bus) but 2 minutes walk from the beach, which is not that great at the moment, since it's been raining basically since March, but will probably be a lot better in summer (which is your winter).

Texta · Post by **Texta** » 13 Aug 2009 16:28

Jeremy wrote:Call a fucking lawyer or whatever. Your version of events is completely different to what I recall, and I'm not discussing this further. *ignore*.

Lol. Dummy spit. If only all the world's problems could be solved by burying your head in the sand. On the other hand, I wonder if Jeremy has ever solved a problem by doing anything other than rage quitting.

Ken, if you do actually want to consider your legal options I can give you the details of some good Law Firms.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 13 Aug 2009 18:32

So who was right in the end? Ken or Jeremy?

Jeremy's emails just posted seem to suggest he did what he had to to get the info out of Ken and he wasnt forthcoming, and therefore copped the fee.
Personally I'd have asked before taking the $200, but i def would have felt entitled to it and hated on you if you hadnt given me $200.

Im very honestly not interested in sides here, its just both seem totally convinced of their version of events and im interested to know what the verdict is...

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 13 Aug 2009 18:38

edit stupid comment

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Aug 2009 19:59

I've edited out a bunch of my posts in this topic. It was obviously a mistake for me to respond to Ken at all. I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't discuss this issue in public. Of course you're free to do whatever you like, but I can't see any benefit for anybody in doing so. Even if everybody thinks I'm right and Ken's wrong, I can't see how that would make the situation any better. The real shame was that we didn't discuss the issue to any significant detail when it actually happened. I only received one email from Ken after the transaction and the tone was significantly different to now. 4 years later with no discussion means that really nothing new is going to be added to the discussion to change either my opinion or Ken's.

I'm not sure it's an issue of right and wrong and I don't know what can be done to resolve it. It seems to me that other people discussing this issue or taking sides can only really be detrimental to their relationships with either of us, and to this forum and this is really something that should have remained between Ken and I. I obviously have no control over his behaviour, or anybody else's other than my own, and so I think the only good decision I can make here is to not participate in this kind of discussion. Reading over the posts, I think it just makes everybody involved look bad, no matter which of us is right.

I'm going to go listen to My Chemical Romance and cut "I am a misunderstood teenager" onto my arms or something instead.

h0ag3yb3atZ · Post by **h0ag3yb3atZ** » 13 Aug 2009 20:39

Props. This topic has it all, Bribery, deceit, corruption, sleaze.

I am thoroughly entertained, please keep it up all.

Texta · Post by **Texta** » 13 Aug 2009 22:21

King Monkey wrote:So who was right in the end? Ken or Jeremy?

Jeremy's emails just posted seem to suggest he did what he had to to get the info out of Ken and he wasnt forthcoming, and therefore copped the fee.
Personally I'd have asked before taking the $200, but i def would have felt entitled to it and hated on you if you hadnt given me $200.

Im very honestly not interested in sides here, its just both seem totally convinced of their version of events and im interested to know what the verdict is...

It certainly could be legitimate to reduce a payment to cover unavoidable administrative costs, but the ultimate question for the Courts would be whether the costs were unavoidable.

I think you can make a pretty good argument that at least the first bounce was completely avoidable. Jeremy's emails say that he's holding off on making the transfer on the advice from the bank that it will probably bounce and then for no apparent reason he goes ahead with it anyway. Unless there's more evidence to explain why he did that, it's hard not to see that as a cost he should have worn himself.

However, I think if Ken was requesting the money quickly and Western Union was the quickest way to do it and he was unable to provide other details to facilitate another method of transfer then the associated cost of that transfer should be born by Ken.

At the same time, I would question whether Ken had the appropriate Visa when he came here. If he had a tourist or visitor Visa and didn't declare the work he was doing then the associated criminal proceedings he might find himself facing probably do not justify pursuing legal action irrespective of his possibility of success.