THE BLACK HAND FORUM

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:33 pm No problem, man haha. I'm sure Jmack might take a payment plan.

Cheech wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:39 pm

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:33 pm No problem, man haha. I'm sure Jmack might take a payment plan.

Post of the thread. Good one!!

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:33 pm No problem, man haha. I'm sure Jmack might take a payment plan.

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:27 pm Someone from New Zealand was saying he doesn't have real life experience with this stuff and has a certain understanding based on what he's read, was asking questions with an open mind, and got a hostile response that put words in his mouth and belittled him. He wasn't arguing against you or claiming to be an expert. You enjoy explaining this stuff and have explained it for me on the phone, which I appreciated, so instead of attacking him, simply explaining it would benefit him and everyone.

I know that you're a good guy but just reel it in, brother. I like having you on here.

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:06 pm

Cheech wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:03 pm

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:58 pm No reason to be mean-spirited to someone genuinely trying to figure this out, especially Gohn who is very clearly saying he doesn't know and appreciates your responses. We all appreciate your bookmaking knowledge but you have no business acting out toward him.

Grown men are talking. I’ll let you know when we need you.

Why don't you go find another fraudulent internet "street guy" to be your new father figure, you fucking Connecticut trashbin.

Cheech wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:03 pm

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:58 pm No reason to be mean-spirited to someone genuinely trying to figure this out, especially Gohn who is very clearly saying he doesn't know and appreciates your responses. We all appreciate your bookmaking knowledge but you have no business acting out toward him.

Grown men are talking. I’ll let you know when we need you.

B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:58 pm No reason to be mean-spirited to someone genuinely trying to figure this out, especially Gohn who is very clearly saying he doesn't know and appreciates your responses. We all appreciate your bookmaking knowledge but you have no business acting out toward him.

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:56 pm

Cheech wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:49 pm

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:42 pm Thanks for letting me off the hook Cheech, I'll finally be able to sleep comfortably at night.

Oh and by the way, this from the very case you cited. The case which you called "the most important sports betting document out besides the Perna Operation Heat doc" (let's not forget the Perna doc also mentioned gamblers being charged exhorbitant interest rates too).
And yet I'm still not disagreeing with you, since you've "lived that life" that I "could never live", so I'm sure this is just another one of the "exceptions to the rule" as you put it.

Thats a way to tack on a charge. Did you read the numerous exchanges they cited. All of the exchanges said they would take less or a payment plan. It actually proves the opposite. They took less money. Any money they take is considered exorbitant. Thats not actually what happens. But believe what you will. You can keep telling me about my life and what I know.
Why dont you tell everyone where youre from?

I'm from New Zealand. Currently living in Mexico. I'm not sure why you write "Why don't you tell everyone where you're from?" as if I'm embarrassed about it. And from my far-removed life thousands of miles (we use kilometers over here) away from New York, I've also read documents discussing payment plans. Oftentimes, they involve a sit-down after the debtor reaches out to an organized crime member. If I cite examples, I run the risk of invoking another: "Cite all the evidence you want, I've LIVED this life. WE ARE NOT THE SAME."

Cheech wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:49 pm Any money they take is considered exorbitant. Thats not actually what happens. But believe what you will. You can keep telling me about my life and what I know.

Is it not a bit disingenuous to send a document to prove your point, and then say; "No, the document's wrong, that's not actually what happens"?
Here is the line:
"In addition, the agent or sub-agent often tacked exorbitant amounts of interest onto these debts." They're not referring to the gambling debts themselves as exorbitant, they're referring to the interest. If this document is wrong and prosecutors are lying, why post it in the first place?