Fernando “Jnandez” Habegger has posted particulars of his authorized battle with Doug Poker and Upswing Poker. [Image: Shutterstock.com]
The drama continues
Charlie Carrell opened a can of worms when he went after Doug Polk final week. After he attacked Polk over the Matt Berkey feud, Polk took the bait, responding to Carrell’s consideration seize and asking him to call “one lie.” Polk triggered a Streisand impact.
claimed that Upswing and Habegger went to courtroom and Habegger took Upswing to the cleaners
Carrell then launched a video alleging that Polk and his firm, Upswing Poker, mistreated certainly one of its coaches, Fernando “Jnandez” Habegger. He additionally claimed that Upswing and Habegger went to courtroom and Habegger took Upswing to the cleaners.
Polk’s detailed response to Carrell’s allegations denied lots of the accusations and claimed partial victory within the courts.
This rubbed Habegger the unsuitable approach, at which level he entered the fray:
Habegger strikes again
Habegger promised receipts in “the following 72 hours” and up to now, he has delivered.
Over the course of three lengthy Twitter threads, Habegger addressed Polk’s claims line by line, steadily backing up his statements with display screen caps from the courtroom instances, conversations, emails, and boards.
You possibly can inform Habegger spent a while coping with this situation.
The primary of Habegger’s threads addresses the preliminary arbitration case. The second tackles every of Polk’s latest claims about Habegger, made in response to Carrell’s video. The third addresses Habegger’s defamation counterclaim in opposition to Polk.
The story based on Habegger is that after he stop Upswing, he and the corporate went to arbitration over a pay dispute. Upswing made a sequence of claims which had been thrown out and was compelled to pay $17,389.37 in “contract damages” plus authorized charges totaling $150,215.50.
Habegger then took Upswing to courtroom over defamation, although he misplaced.
In his third thread, Habegger lays out what his defamation case was, detailing why “in [his] opinion, Upswing did unfold lies and/or false characterizations.”
Based on Habegger, these embody Polk calling an unambiguous termination clause a “loophole” (it wasn’t), claiming that Habegger had a non-compete (he didn’t), and that he was a enterprise accomplice (he was a freelancer).
Once more, he supplies screenshots and quotes.
Habegger ended the third thread with a promise that “all of the lies wouldn’t slot in 50 tweets and we must proceed one other day.”
His responses have utterly sidelined Carrell and, on the time of writing, Doug Polk has but to reply to Habegger’s Twitter feed. In consequence, we must wait and see what Polk and Upswing’s website of the story shall be.