Commentary: Did Tim Kee unmask himself in Sancho counter-attack?

[elan]

Tim Kee got loads of good press in Wired868. So when did I start with a closed mind against him?
It was Wired868 that he announced his initial campaign intentions to. In fact, Tim Kee and Sheldon went into power with excellent relations with the site and both gave their first interviews to Wired868.
So you speak from a place of ignorance there Football Supporter. You or anyone else is free to disagree with my interpretations of his time in office. That is fair. But to say I have dealt with the present executive with a closed mind is foolish.
I can put a tonne of positive stories done by Wired868 right now on the current TTFA chiefs.
Like I said, I respect anyone's right to disagree. But the truth is I have always gotten on well with Tim Kee and Phillips. I am just unimpressed with several important things that happened during their respective reigns.
I have no master and I am free to speak my mind. And I exercise that right when I think the time is appropriate.

You are blind to your own bias.  I thought it was a very good installment in what has been a series of hatchet jobs.  You accuse FS of "speaking from a position of ignorance" but at every turn you have ground the axe for the TTFA.  You are ignorant to the legal underpinnings of Tim Kee's position, calling "unethical" his suggestion that bankruptcy was (and remains an option), by your biased, uninformed reasoning, everyone who files for bankruptcy is guilty of unethical behavior. 

When one's liabilities outstrips one's assets, particularly where debt is concerned, bankruptcy is a remedy provided for by law and society.  Few would argue the fact that the TTFA lacks the assets/funds to pay the debt, making bankruptcy a perfectly reasonable response.  Sancho's verbal riposte was just him "venting"... but Tim Kee's response is dripping with all kinda contempt and condescension... to hear you tell it.  To your credit you never really made much of a pretense at being impartial.

But Bakes, all Sancho said is that they did not get the money as promised and that they will be going back to court. That they did not appreciate how Fuentes (TTFA Media officer) portrayed them to the public.

Whereas, Tim Kee laid out a whole diatribe and what seems to be a very thinly veiled unethical financial scheme. Tim Kee also showed the type of steps he is willing to take to deal with situations that he deems an unnecessary pain.

[asylumseeker]

I really can't believe the flow-back from this - his arguments were sound and reasonable, and it's clear in a commentary piece you either agree with the conclusions and logical steps or you don't, but sheer effort to defend his position and provide evidence proves this is no hatchet job.

Bakes for a somewhat logical poster your position smacks of a knee-jerk reaction. His points on bankruptsy are sound - you might have the right to do something but that doesn't make it ethical, and his argument is that it would be entirely unethical. You disagree on that, but you go further and accuse him of bias? It's an opinion piece for one, so the question isn't so much bias (what is an opinion piece but coming on one side or the other on a contentious issue?) but whether his position is supported.

Also, too much commentary? Really? In a country where the powerful are never challenged enough, you'd rather have 'news' (two-a-penny for prevalence) than some reasoned debate or argument on that news?  You lack ambition Sir

Come again?!  You sure that is what you want to state?

Rights aren't necessarily ethical - rights are granted/demanded by governments/powers. You might, for example, have the right to kill an intruder even if they have no weapon, but the ethical nature of that is not clear-cut.

Another example: the head of a charity might have the right to claim a 6 or 7 figure salary, but I imagine most people would consider that unethical to divert funds in the charity in such a way

You're all over the place.  Armour up.

[Bakes]

But Bakes, all Sancho said is that they did not get the money as promised and that they will be going back to court. That they did not appreciate how Fuentes (TTFA Media officer) portrayed them to the public.

Whereas, Tim Kee laid out a whole diatribe and what seems to be a very thinly veiled unethical financial scheme. Tim Kee also showed the type of steps he is willing to take to deal with situations that he deems an unnecessary pain.

Tim Kee don't need me to defend him, but some ah allyuh like allyuh deliberately going out of allyuh way to cast the man and what he said in a negative light.

di·a·tribe
ˈdīəˌtrīb/Submit
noun
1.
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.

I did not hear a "forceful and bitter attack" against anyone by Tim Kee.  He responded directly to questions, explaining the TTFA's side of the story.  Where was this "diatribe" that I missed?  I understand why Sancho might feel like the TTFA was trying to put the blame on them for taking money earmarked for development, but I still disagree with his conclusion that such was the case.  I say I understand, because given the history of acrimony between the two sides, it is understandable that when one sees anything resembling an attack, one feels compelled to go on the offensive.  But looking at the situation objectively, he overreacted, in my mind.  Again though, I'd have to see/hear Fuentes' comments in context before making any conclusive statements as to his intent.

As for the "thinly veiled unethical financial scheme" you allude to, I'm not sure if you're referring to the payments from FIFA or not, but there's nothing "unethical" about it.  All of a sudden allyuh throwing around that word, I have to wonder if allyuh really know what it means?  For beginners, is FIFA's money... if they want to say this is for "development", but go ahead and spend it however you see fit, that isn't unethical.  It's not the most sound business practice, but "unethical"? Come on. 

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Rights aren't necessarily ethical - rights are granted/demanded by governments/powers. You might, for example, have the right to kill an intruder even if they have no weapon, but the ethical nature of that is not clear-cut.

Another example: the head of a charity might have the right to claim a 6 or 7 figure salary, but I imagine most people would consider that unethical to divert funds in the charity in such a way

Your examples are incomplete and therefore lack logic.  In example 1 unless you know for sure that the person isn't armed then there is no ethical question to be answered.  If an intruder is in your home do you automatically assume they are unarmed and without intent to hurt you or anyone else in your home?  How do you go about knowing whether they are armed or not?  Are you a trained marksman that can target the knees with accuracy so as to take them down without killing them?  In example 2 it happens all the time and in many instances there are alternative sources of funding to cover salaries.  The ignorant however once learning a directors salary will rail and moan without taking even a moment to try and understand how it is they can afford to take home such a salary.  So both examples are shortsighted and really don't help to make the point you are trying to arrive by.  I do get what you are aiming at but you haven't really done a good job tying things together.

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

[Bakes]

Bakes always talk about bias, but more and more he's showing his bias.  something he takes less into consideration. Watch how he will deal with this thread here on out.

So what exactly is my bias Elan?  For 7 years I have been arguing the players cause on this site... I was the first man to argue that Jack's verbal promise was enforceable and that they should take the TTFF to court.  I was the first one on this site arguing that separate from suing the TTFF that Townley needed to add Jack to the suit, which he did not do... now Sancho and them bitching about the TTFA not suing Jack, something which is completely impractical at this juncture.  So explain to me Elan... what is my bias?

[Bakes]

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

This is the thing I don't understand with Lasana and his crowd calling this unethical... lol.  These fellas clearly don't know what they're talking about.  In fact, from a business standpoint, Tim Kee is doing the TTFA a huge disservice by pursuing a route that is more financially arduous for the organization.  I'm actually surprised that FIFA didn't just instruct them to declare bankruptcy instead of trying to help them on the sly.

[elan]

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

This is the thing I don't understand with Lasana and his crowd calling this unethical... lol.  These fellas clearly don't know what they're talking about.  In fact, from a business standpoint, Tim Kee is doing the TTFA a huge disservice by pursuing a route that is more financially arduous for the organization.  I'm actually surprised that FIFA didn't just instruct them to declare bankruptcy instead of trying to help them on the sly.

Yes there is a hidden Cache of funds. That's the whole problem. This has been shown time and time again. However, the TTFA has refused to make any attempt to the access these funds.

[elan]

Sancho should tell Tim Kee to take the next payment owed to them and pay lawyers to take JW to court. I promise Tim Kee still will not take JW to court.

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

This is the thing I don't understand with Lasana and his crowd calling this unethical... lol.  These fellas clearly don't know what they're talking about.  In fact, from a business standpoint, Tim Kee is doing the TTFA a huge disservice by pursuing a route that is more financially arduous for the organization.  I'm actually surprised that FIFA didn't just instruct them to declare bankruptcy instead of trying to help them on the sly.

Yes there is a hidden Cache of funds. That's the whole problem. This has been shown time and time again. However, the TTFA has refused to make any attempt to the access these funds.

I assume you mean JW right?  Where are they getting the monies necessary to legally pursue this  "hidden cache?"  You believe lawyers taking on such an endeavor are going to be willing to wait until after the case is over to get paid?

[Bakes]

Sancho should tell Tim Kee to take the next payment owed to them and pay lawyers to take JW to court. I promise Tim Kee still will not take JW to court.

I always love how the average John Q. Public love to talk about suing people... allyuh have no idea the time and cost it will take, especially in Trinidad.  FS was popping the same shit "it wouldn't be that expensive all the evidence done there already."

[Tiresais]

I really can't believe the flow-back from this - his arguments were sound and reasonable, and it's clear in a commentary piece you either agree with the conclusions and logical steps or you don't, but sheer effort to defend his position and provide evidence proves this is no hatchet job.

Bakes for a somewhat logical poster your position smacks of a knee-jerk reaction. His points on bankruptsy are sound - you might have the right to do something but that doesn't make it ethical, and his argument is that it would be entirely unethical. You disagree on that, but you go further and accuse him of bias? It's an opinion piece for one, so the question isn't so much bias (what is an opinion piece but coming on one side or the other on a contentious issue?) but whether his position is supported.

Also, too much commentary? Really? In a country where the powerful are never challenged enough, you'd rather have 'news' (two-a-penny for prevalence) than some reasoned debate or argument on that news?  You lack ambition Sir

Come again?!  You sure that is what you want to state?

Rights aren't necessarily ethical - rights are granted/demanded by governments/powers. You might, for example, have the right to kill an intruder even if they have no weapon, but the ethical nature of that is not clear-cut.

Another example: the head of a charity might have the right to claim a 6 or 7 figure salary, but I imagine most people would consider that unethical to divert funds in the charity in such a way

You're all over the place.  Armour up.

Telling me this doesn't help - where is the confusion?

[Tiresais]

Rights aren't necessarily ethical - rights are granted/demanded by governments/powers. You might, for example, have the right to kill an intruder even if they have no weapon, but the ethical nature of that is not clear-cut.

Another example: the head of a charity might have the right to claim a 6 or 7 figure salary, but I imagine most people would consider that unethical to divert funds in the charity in such a way

Your examples are incomplete and therefore lack logic.  In example 1 unless you know for sure that the person isn't armed then there is no ethical question to be answered.  If an intruder is in your home do you automatically assume they are unarmed and without intent to hurt you or anyone else in your home?  How do you go about knowing whether they are armed or not?  Are you a trained marksman that can target the knees with accuracy so as to take them down without killing them?  In example 2 it happens all the time and in many instances there are alternative sources of funding to cover salaries.  The ignorant however once learning a directors salary will rail and moan without taking even a moment to try and understand how it is they can afford to take home such a salary.  So both examples are shortsighted and really don't help to make the point you are trying to arrive by.  I do get what you are aiming at but you haven't really done a good job tying things together.

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

Firstly, the logic isn't faulty - if it's incomplete it's incomplete, you've misunderstood what logic is. I have to say that it seems you've purposefully missed the point - are you arguing that all rights are ethical? My general point is that rights are a separate concept to ethics, and that the former does not imply the latter, do you disagree on this?

You accuse me of ignorance, what am I ignorant of? Why do people so quickly jump to insults and arguments when we differ in opinion? My position consists of the following;

1) The TTFA, and TTFF, are both representative bodies, representing FIFA's sanctioned body for organising Trinibagonian football. These/this is the only recognised body by FIFA, no international football can take place officially without their sanction.

2) The TTFA and TTFF, as far as I know, are separate legal entities, meaning that the debts of one are not legally transferable to the other. In this sense, the TTFA could declare bankruptcy, the debts would be null and void, and set up a new body, TTFFA (for arguments sake) that fulfils all previous roles of the TTFA but without the commitments or liabilities, and access the same source of funds with the same board and same individuals as before. This is a right with countries recognising limited liability companies. Moreover, this means that the new administration did not need to honour that debt and that is commendable.

3) The players have a right to receive payment for their services. These are 8 years overdue

As I've tried to make clear before I recognise entirely the opinion that they shouldn't have to honour these debts since they're basically bankrupt and they should declare this and move forward. We differ - I think the threat of bankruptcy is a power play and I think these players have a right to payment. This is not a clear-cut position, as some here have tried to make out, but one in which we can both have a reasonable position - so why are people getting so angry?

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Rights aren't necessarily ethical - rights are granted/demanded by governments/powers. You might, for example, have the right to kill an intruder even if they have no weapon, but the ethical nature of that is not clear-cut.

Another example: the head of a charity might have the right to claim a 6 or 7 figure salary, but I imagine most people would consider that unethical to divert funds in the charity in such a way

Your examples are incomplete and therefore lack logic.  In example 1 unless you know for sure that the person isn't armed then there is no ethical question to be answered.  If an intruder is in your home do you automatically assume they are unarmed and without intent to hurt you or anyone else in your home?  How do you go about knowing whether they are armed or not?  Are you a trained marksman that can target the knees with accuracy so as to take them down without killing them?  In example 2 it happens all the time and in many instances there are alternative sources of funding to cover salaries.  The ignorant however once learning a directors salary will rail and moan without taking even a moment to try and understand how it is they can afford to take home such a salary.  So both examples are shortsighted and really don't help to make the point you are trying to arrive by.  I do get what you are aiming at but you haven't really done a good job tying things together.

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

Firstly, the logic isn't faulty - if it's incomplete it's incomplete, you've misunderstood what logic is. I have to say that it seems you've purposefully missed the point - are you arguing that all rights are ethical? My general point is that rights are a separate concept to ethics, and that the former does not imply the latter, do you disagree on this?

You accuse me of ignorance, what am I ignorant of? Why do people so quickly jump to insults and arguments when we differ in opinion? My position consists of the following;

1) The TTFA, and TTFF, are both representative bodies, representing FIFA's sanctioned body for organising Trinibagonian football. These/this is the only recognised body by FIFA, no international football can take place officially without their sanction.

2) The TTFA and TTFF, as far as I know, are separate legal entities, meaning that the debts of one are not legally transferable to the other. In this sense, the TTFA could declare bankruptcy, the debts would be null and void, and set up a new body, TTFFA (for arguments sake) that fulfils all previous roles of the TTFA but without the commitments or liabilities, and access the same source of funds with the same board and same individuals as before. This is a right with countries recognising limited liability companies. Moreover, this means that the new administration did not need to honour that debt and that is commendable.

3) The players have a right to receive payment for their services. These are 8 years overdue

As I've tried to make clear before I recognise entirely the opinion that they shouldn't have to honour these debts since they're basically bankrupt and they should declare this and move forward. We differ - I think the threat of bankruptcy is a power play and I think these players have a right to payment. This is not a clear-cut position, as some here have tried to make out, but one in which we can both have a reasonable position - so why are people getting so angry?

How de hell an incomplete thought could be logical when all the dots cannot connect?  You musse have ah special kinda brain oui lol.  I am not arguing that all rights are ethical because that was never my contention to begin with.  However rights by themselves cannot be unethical.  When accompanied by mitigating circumstances that can render how one chose to exercise that right to be perceived as such, then and only then can ethics/ moral approach be questioned.  I may have the right to kill a trespasser on my property, however if said individual was only attempting to pass through my yard as a means of a shortcut (that I already know occurs) and not attempting to get into my home then it would be wrong if I killed him (still not illegal unless it can be proven that I knew he was unarmed and not a threat to me and my family).  Now see the difference in detail and how it was laid out to properly illustrate how I abused my right in the situation?  Do you understand the difference and why your examples failed?  I hope you do because I eh have patience fuh teaching grown folks comprehension and logic.

Your understanding seems faulty.  While they bear 2 different names the rights and responsibilities were transferred from one to the other and now back to the original organization.  So with that in mind the TTFA succeeding the TTFF does not absolve them of the responsibilities and liabilities of the past administration.  The TTFA however was understood from the very beginning of its return to the forefront to be in dire need of funds.  As such it would have been the prudent thing to do if they elected to file for bankruptcy as they are in fact the definition of a bankrupt entity.  So again there is no ethical question to be answered.  RTK is actually (despite trying to do a good deed) mismanaging the TTFA by not filing.

The players have a right to their monies without question.  No debate there.  This approach cannot and wiil not yeild anything satisfactory though.  And for those who feel as if the TTFA should go after Jack you may have a valid point, but the TTFA shouldn't be going after Jack in order to satisfy this debt, they should be going after him to recoup what is rightfully theirs.  The players goofed when they did not add Jack to the matter in it's most recent iteration in the courts in T&T.  When initiating a law suit it is wise to include everyone who can be perceived as liable and have the court decide who should be dismissed from the action.  They shouldn't only have sued the TTFF and rely on or hope the TTFF add JW as a third party, they should have done that themselves.

Who's angry?  BTW I didn't call you ignorant.  See what ah mean about comprehension fella?

[Tiresais]

Rights aren't necessarily ethical - rights are granted/demanded by governments/powers. You might, for example, have the right to kill an intruder even if they have no weapon, but the ethical nature of that is not clear-cut.

Another example: the head of a charity might have the right to claim a 6 or 7 figure salary, but I imagine most people would consider that unethical to divert funds in the charity in such a way

Your examples are incomplete and therefore lack logic.  In example 1 unless you know for sure that the person isn't armed then there is no ethical question to be answered.  If an intruder is in your home do you automatically assume they are unarmed and without intent to hurt you or anyone else in your home?  How do you go about knowing whether they are armed or not?  Are you a trained marksman that can target the knees with accuracy so as to take them down without killing them?  In example 2 it happens all the time and in many instances there are alternative sources of funding to cover salaries.  The ignorant however once learning a directors salary will rail and moan without taking even a moment to try and understand how it is they can afford to take home such a salary.  So both examples are shortsighted and really don't help to make the point you are trying to arrive by.  I do get what you are aiming at but you haven't really done a good job tying things together.

Now help me understand what exactly would make filing for bankruptcy unethical in this situation?  Is there a belief that the TTFA have a hidden cache of funds and are deceiving us all into believing they are broke?  And in so doing would they then use such a filing as a means to get creditors of their backs even if the can afford to pay them?  To say that the notion of questioning the ethics of such a move isn't biased given the information we all on this site have is beyond ignorant fella.

Firstly, the logic isn't faulty - if it's incomplete it's incomplete, you've misunderstood what logic is. I have to say that it seems you've purposefully missed the point - are you arguing that all rights are ethical? My general point is that rights are a separate concept to ethics, and that the former does not imply the latter, do you disagree on this?

You accuse me of ignorance, what am I ignorant of? Why do people so quickly jump to insults and arguments when we differ in opinion? My position consists of the following;

1) The TTFA, and TTFF, are both representative bodies, representing FIFA's sanctioned body for organising Trinibagonian football. These/this is the only recognised body by FIFA, no international football can take place officially without their sanction.

2) The TTFA and TTFF, as far as I know, are separate legal entities, meaning that the debts of one are not legally transferable to the other. In this sense, the TTFA could declare bankruptcy, the debts would be null and void, and set up a new body, TTFFA (for arguments sake) that fulfils all previous roles of the TTFA but without the commitments or liabilities, and access the same source of funds with the same board and same individuals as before. This is a right with countries recognising limited liability companies. Moreover, this means that the new administration did not need to honour that debt and that is commendable.

3) The players have a right to receive payment for their services. These are 8 years overdue

As I've tried to make clear before I recognise entirely the opinion that they shouldn't have to honour these debts since they're basically bankrupt and they should declare this and move forward. We differ - I think the threat of bankruptcy is a power play and I think these players have a right to payment. This is not a clear-cut position, as some here have tried to make out, but one in which we can both have a reasonable position - so why are people getting so angry?

How de hell an incomplete thought could be logical when all the dots cannot connect?  You musse have ah special kinda brain oui lol.  I am not arguing that all rights are ethical because that was never my contention to begin with.  However rights by themselves cannot be unethical.  When accompanied by mitigating circumstances that can render how one chose to exercise that right to be perceived as such, then and only then can ethics/ moral approach be questioned.  I may have the right to kill a trespasser on my property, however if said individual was only attempting to pass through my yard as a means of a shortcut (that I already know occurs) and not attempting to get into my home then it would be wrong if I killed him (still not illegal unless it can be proven that I knew he was unarmed and not a threat to me and my family).  Now see the difference in detail and how it was laid out to properly illustrate how I abused my right in the situation?  Do you understand the difference and why your examples failed?  I hope you do because I eh have patience fuh teaching grown folks comprehension and logic.

Your understanding seems faulty.  While they bear 2 different names the rights and responsibilities were transferred from one to the other and now back to the original organization.  So with that in mind the TTFA succeeding the TTFF does not absolve them of the responsibilities and liabilities of the past administration.  The TTFA however was understood from the very beginning of its return to the forefront to be in dire need of funds.  As such it would have been the prudent thing to do if they elected to file for bankruptcy as they are in fact the definition of a bankrupt entity.  So again there is no ethical question to be answered.  RTK is actually (despite trying to do a good deed) mismanaging the TTFA by not filing.

The players have a right to their monies without question.  No debate there.  This approach cannot and wiil not yeild anything satisfactory though.  And for those who feel as if the TTFA should go after Jack you may have a valid point, but the TTFA shouldn't be going after Jack in order to satisfy this debt, they should be going after him to recoup what is rightfully theirs.  The players goofed when they did not add Jack to the matter in it's most recent iteration in the courts in T&T.  When initiating a law suit it is wise to include everyone who can be perceived as liable and have the court decide who should be dismissed from the action.  They shouldn't only have sued the TTFF and rely on or hope the TTFF add JW as a third party, they should have done that themselves.

Who's angry?  BTW I didn't call you ignorant.  See what ah mean about comprehension fella?

The last line of the post I quoted implies that I am ignorant.

On the matter of rights and ethics, ...rights by themselves cannot be unethical is clearly false, unless you're working from a different definition of 'rights'. Possible we are - I am talking about legal entitlements, so possible you're talking about rights that also imply morals?

Rights, in the legal sense, clearly can by themselves be unethical as they are determined by governments and judiciaries. The famous quote "Everything the Nazi's did was legal" pretty much sums up this issue. Thus, having the right to carry out an action does not make it ethical. You were being pedantic with my examples and you know it - there are ethical and moral positions that still state it's immoral to kill anyone even if they are going to hurt you (Pacifism), as ethics and morality are applies by individuals and are subjective. Accusing me of "a special kind of brain" is an insult you don't need to jump to - if this is born of anger, please calm down, if not, please have some manners.

The last paragraph is the big difference really and I can definitely understand and respect your position on that. I believe the act of going to court to pursue the money sets a precedent that could be beneficial in the future, and is reasonable given the situation. You're probably right about Jack - don't have the legal knowledge to understand that aspect.

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Ah go ha some manners just because yuh ax nicely lol.  Just fuh clarity I wasn't implying anything.  I directly stated that given all the info we have here and how detailed it has been, to take a position questioning the ethics of TTFA filing for bankruptcy is beyond ignorant.  So the position not the individual ok. 

As for the last paragraph, the real problem TTFA has is that they don't have $$ and therefore have no means by which to pursue any course of action in court to recoup funds from JW.  Back to square one lol. 

[Tiresais]

Ah go ha some manners just because yuh ax nicely lol.  Just fuh clarity I wasn't implying anything.  I directly stated that given all the info we have here and how detailed it has been, to take a position questioning the ethics of TTFA filing for bankruptcy is beyond ignorant.  So the position not the individual ok. 

As for the last paragraph, the real problem TTFA has is that they don't have $$ and therefore have no means by which to pursue any course of action in court to recoup funds from JW.  Back to square one lol.

"To say... is beyond ignorant fella" - say, a verb, requires an individual to carry it out, and is the subject who is 'beyond ignorant'.

Sadly agreed on the last paragraph.