(Topic ID: 203700)

deeproot Pinball thread

By pin2d

6 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 33,570 posts
  • 1,149 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 54 minutes ago by blueberryjohnson
  • Topic is favorited by 309 Pinsiders
  • Topic is sticky in its sub-forum

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

pasted_image (resized).png
PXL_20240411_062859517 (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
IMG_2583.gif
pasted_image (resized).png
deeprootcapital-401-2024.04.01.pdf (PDF preview)
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png

Topic index (key posts)

360 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 10 items. (Show topic index)

There are 33,570 posts in this topic. You are on page 669 of 672.
10
#33401 3 months ago

Hot off the presses:

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png
14
#33402 3 months ago

This ruling is exceptionally difficult for me to summarize since the judge spends a lot of time going through the individual claims and the specific sections of the law that would be applied to each claim. This is some really nitty gritty securities law stuff.

But in summary:

There are two groups of charges: (1) violations of the Antifraud Provisions (Counts I–IV)); and (2) violations of the Advisers Act (Counts V–VI)

For each group of counts the judge lays out the following:

1. Facts that are undisputed (for example: this specific type of fraud had to have occurred via mail or courier - nobody is disputing that - or something serious like "It is undisputed, however, that the PPMs failed to disclose that investor funds could be used to repay investors outside of the Funds, including four funds established by Defendant before 2016.")

2. Facts that the judge cannot rule on as a matter of law because there is a material fact dispute (example: Robert is relying on "advice of counsel" as a defense and there is conflicting testimony between Robert and his securities lawyers about what was said ) - these disputes are to be left to "the jury {who} charged with the task of determining whether full disclosure was made to the attorney which ultimately will affect whether Defendant was in good faith when he sought legal advice.” "

3. Facts that the judge rules for as matters of law like "On the other hand, the Court concludes that both Defendant’s undisclosed diversion of $3.8
million from investors to earlier Debenture Funds’ investors and his diversion of $1.3 million for personal expenses do constitute deceptive schemes or acts for the purpose of establishing scheme liability."

For the 1st group of charges (fraud):

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

That's not enough to find to rule in favor of one party or another - the jury has to make some rulings:

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

This all deals with "scienter" - that is, the mental state of the person committing the acts. In the coming jury trial the SEC will need to prove that Robert "more likely than not" acted with negligence or intent to defraud. This is not a criminal trial so the SEC only has to make the jury be 51% sure (instead of 99% as in a criminal trial).

For the 2nd group of charges (violations of advisors act):

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

Also lol:

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

"I can't have committed fraud, I wasn't stealing enough!"

15
#33403 3 months ago

So to further summarize:

It is easier to be found in violation of the "Advisors Act of 1940" than it is to be found in violation of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act. As an investment advisor you only need to be negligible and not acting with malice.

What does it mean to be found in violation? From https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/defending-against-fraud-allegations-in-7758404/:

1. Penalties in SEC enforcement cases can include temporary or permanent injunctions (i.e. a prohibition on acting as an investment adviser), as well as monetary penalties ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars.

2. We know that there is a possible criminal case here which means that "In cases involving apparent knowing and intentional violations of Section 206, the SEC may choose to refer the matter to the DOJ for criminal prosecution. Section 217 of the Investment Advisers Act imposes criminal fines of up to $10,000 and up to five years of federal imprisonment for each individual violation of the statute—including (but not limited to) violations of Section 206. Since Rule 206(4) defines certain prohibited conduct under Section 206, violations of the Rule can lead to criminal prosecution as well.

13
#33404 3 months ago

Nice work sifting through and summarizing complex stuff Inside

Additionally, the summary judgment ruling includes decisions on 10+ objections by the defense to proposed evidentiary introductions for the trial by the SEC. The judge ruled against every one of these objections. And to my eye, some of the explanations for the specific overrulings read as though the judge is not impressed and perhaps somewhat annoyed by the arguments and actions of counsel for the defense.

Excerpts from some of these decisions:

Screenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.24.27?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.24.27?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.25.18?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.25.18?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.26.05?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.26.05?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.26.42?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.26.42?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.27.08?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.27.08?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.29.19?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.29.19?PM (resized).png
11
#33405 3 months ago

Here are the six categories of challenged PPM misstatements and omissions referenced in excerpts Inside included. I think they do a good job of laying out the various ways that the SEC asserts investors were misled by the contents of the PPMs.

Screenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.41.36?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-01-11 at 10.41.36?PM (resized).png
#33406 3 months ago

Some notes regarding the court's ruling on summary judgment for each category of misrepresentation

1. Material Misrepresentations and Omissions in Violation of Section 17(a)(2) and Rule
10b-5(b) (Counts I–II)

Numerous examples from the defendant about how the PPMs never said the funds would own life insurance policies, just that they'd invest in them. And so Robert wasn't being misleading by never having the funds own any life insurance policies and instead having those policies bought and owned by an entity for which he is the sole owner (Policy Services)

Judge says defense keeps going on and on with this word game, but it's BS because it doesn't hold water when they don't even try to explain away other stuff the PPMs say that amount to basically the same thing, like that the funds would acquire or buy life insurance policies. So the judge finds in the favor of the SEC that there was misrepresentation.

However, the judge agrees that it is unclear if those misrepresentations had an impact on the investors, in part because none of them said that said misrepresentation was of material impact to their decisions. So judge says that it will be up to the jury to determine if the misrepresentation was material or not.

10
#33407 3 months ago

Category Two: Marketing Documents Failed to Disclose that Mueller Previously Sold off
Fractional Shares of the Insurance Policies

The matter here is that the PPMs didn't let investors know that Robert was also selling off shares in the purchased policies to other investors outside of the funds.

The defense first says it doesn't matter because the PPMs never claimed the funds would own the policies, so can't mislead by omissions investors about something they wouldn't partially owned.

The judge reiterates the word game the defense is trying to play regarding the funds not owning policies is BS, so that argument has already been struck down.

However, he also says he is not able to rule at the summary judgment stage whether what the defendant represents as disclosures about others also owning a share of the purchased policies qualifies as misrepresentation and whether it would be material. So the jury will decide those things at trial.

10
#33408 3 months ago

Category Three: Marketing Documents Falsely Stated the Funds Would Invest At Least 50% of
Assets in Life Insurance Policies

SEC asserts material misrepresentation because defendant only spent 18.2% of the $66 million (around $12 million) on life insurance policies with the rest of going to pinball companies and cruises and other bullshit. Per the SEC, even giving the benefit of the doubt to be as liberal as possible with non-policy spending per the PPM terms, Robert would have been obligated to spend $28.6 million of the $66 million on policies, which is more than double what he actually spent.

The defense doesn't agree with these calculations and says the PPMs don't spell out the methodology. They have their own methodology they claim is supported by the PPMs where only $12 million would have to be spent on policies, which it was so Robert acted a-OK.

Because each side puts forth differing explanations for spending requirements as defined by the PPM, Judge will let the jury decide who's right on this matter too.

10
#33409 3 months ago

Category Four: The PPMs Falsely Stated the Funds Purchased Shares or Other Interests in the
Affiliated Companies

SEC contends a material misrepresentation because, though Mueller definitely transferred money brought in through fund investors into other businesses like deeproot pinball, there is no evidence the funds received any consideration for those outlays. That is, they didn't gain any ownership of the affiliated companies; they just funded them without benefit.

Defense says the PPMs didn't say the funds would get any ownership in other companies. Rather, that they'd invest in them and receive class b shares. The Judge says it's undisputed that no class b shares were acquired either, so that's obviously a misrepresentation. However, like another of the previous items, the judge isn't able at summary judgment to determine if it's a material misrepresentation. There is documentation to indicate that 40% of profits from the affiliated companies would come back to the fund. So that's something, even if it's not the specific renumeration stipulated in the PPMs.

The defense puts forth some additional technical claims that suggest investors were in line to get something out of the investments in affiliated companies, which the SEC disputes. These elements will also form parts of the materiality matter the jury will decide at trial for this category of misrepresentation.

12
#33410 3 months ago

Category Five: The PPMs Falsely Understated the Amount the Funds Would Invest in the
Affiliated Companies and Spend on Operating Expenses

The SEC says the PPMs indicate Robert could only spend a max of $37.8 million on operating expenses and affiliated companies, and since he actually spent $50.1 million [editor's note - thinking about this for the first time in a long time, just how ridiculous is that?] that's misrepresentation.

The defense says they don't agree with a bunch of the ways the SEC's calculations were done. For example, grouping operating expenses and affiliated companies together rather than segregating them, and categorizing particular payments of $1.8 million and $5 million as falling into either of these categories. In total, the defense says $22 million of the SEC's claimed $50.1 million is wrong and so shouldn't count toward the two indicated categories.

The SEC says that the defense failing to explain how that $22 million was actually spent represents a failure to carry its burden to demonstrate there is a material dispute (which is what has to be achieved to avoid summary judgment). The court disagrees, and so the jury will decide if too much cash went toward operating expenses and pinball/gold mining/minor league soccer teams/etc bullshit.

The court says it is also unclear how/when the value of the fund should be assessed for proper calculations (whether at face value, cost basis, or some other way). So the jury will here competing arguments over the right way to calculate this stuff at trial and factor that as well into their decision on this category.

13
#33411 3 months ago

Category Six: Marketing Documents Failed to Disclose that Mueller Used the “Company
Advance” to Make Ponzi-Like Payments

The SEC says the PPMs didn't have clear enough disclosures to indicate that payments from new investors could be used to pay old investors. The SEC provides an accountant affidavit saying $1.8 million was spent on payments like these, and so we've got a Ponzi scheme.

The SEC also says Robert misled investors in a letter explaining why they had not received payments they were supposed to [editor's note: oh yeah, remember that dizzy doozie? Yikes].

Lastly, the SEC points out that even after deeproot employee Scott Allen wrote in his resignation letter that the having robbing peter to pay paul ponzi-looking behavior be the only way to keep the fund running made him uncomfortable, Robert didn't amend the PPMs to more explicitly make clear that money from some investors could be used to pay others. So the SEC says this is a material omission.

The defense counters that the PPMs says sometimes they might not have the cash to make monthly payments. It also says another guy who was the business development director was under the impression from the PPM it was cool to pay investors with other investors, and that he didn't think what they were doing was Ponziing. And they say that some other guy also said he thought it was cool (though the SEC objects and doesn't think that guy said that).

The court rules that the defense has put forth sufficient material fact issues that the jury should decide this instead of the judge at summary judgment.

However, the judge says it is not in dispute that the funds failed to advertise that monies could be used to pay out people outside of the funds (which I guess is something else Robert was doing). SEC affidavit found $3.8 million for that. So the court finds in favor of the SEC that this was an omission.

The court also finds this omission was a matter of law, and that no reasonable person would not be all like whatever about 5% of the total of the fund flying away with no return as not being an important investment consideration. So the court finds as a matter of law that the defendant made a material omission by not disclosing payments for stuff outside the funds could be made with fund money; and the jury will decide whether it's a material omission that other investors were paid with investor money.

And that's enough for me for now. This covers through page 33 of 50. Next we would get into the details of scienter stuff Inside summarized earlier.

10
#33412 3 months ago

You’ll be Dr Blueberry Johnson Esquire by the end of this

#33413 3 months ago

Thank you to Blueberry and Inside for all your work so the rest of us can play along.

Also, it would be interesting to end up on the jury for this fiasco, if and when it goes to trial. It would be mostly (I think) terribly boring with brief periods of hilarity when the defense presents its ridiculous arguments about how using money for personal expenses and a (hilariously poorly run) failed pinball company were completely legitimate under the advertised terms of the investment fund.

#33414 3 months ago

Great work! And thank you for doing this.

So... the jury trial now comes down to, he did bad things, but did he mean to?

#33415 3 months ago
Quoted from sgtski1978:

Great work! And thank you for doing this.
So... the jury trial now comes down to, he did bad things, but did he mean to?

Some of the jury trial will be did he do bad things and did the bad things have a material impact. Some of it will be he did bad things, but did it have a material impact. I need to read the scienter stuff more closely to see how that comes into play with the jury before I'm comfortable communicating my understanding of it. But inside or anyone else who already gets it can do that first.

I also want to double check this, but I think we may be burying the lede here in that, for the first time, there are some legal decisions that have been made that basically equal Robert has lost on those particular things (appeals withstanding?) and all that's remains is what penalties he will face for those misdeeds. Most of the judge's decisions relate to how various matters will be evaluated in the trial. But a couple are I can decide x at the summary judgment stage and I am finding that Robert defrauded people or what have you, end of story.

If the above is the case, then this is a significant development in this long saga. The first time a body with power has decided Robert definitively did particular bad things, with his particular punishment for those bad things TBD.

Legal eagles, am I right about this?

#33416 3 months ago
Quoted from sgtski1978:

So... the jury trial now comes down to, he did bad things, but did he mean to?

Well, one time he spoke harshly to me on Pinside. And don't forget how he traumatized Ben Heck.

#33417 3 months ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Some of the jury trial will be did he do bad things and did the bad things have a material impact. Some of it will be he did bad things, but did it have a material impact. . .If the above is the case, then this is a significant development in this long saga. The first time a body with power has decided Robert definitively did particular bad things, with his particular punishment for those bad things TBD.
Legal eagles, am I right about this?

Preliminary, you and Inside have each done a remarkable job analyzing court filings.

As a lawyer who happens to be an Eagles fan, I suppose that I qualify as a legal Eagle. I hope that my contribution is more meaningful than my team's pathetic performance these past weeks.

Pretrial rulings, including summary judgment, do indeed constitute what is called "law of the case." Those evidentiary and substantive rulings carry over into the trial. A jury or other factfinder is bound by those rulings.

A party can typically appeal rulings to a higher court after the verdict/judgment (or request reconsideration by the trial judge during the proceedings). Interlocutory appeals to a higher court in advance of the case's conclusion is a possibility, albeit a rare occurrence.

Again, I'm really impressed with blueberryjohnson and Inside. It's uncommon for a layperson to navigate through the arcane terms of the legal landscape and arrive at the correct destination. Yet, you guys are accomplishing that task time and again. You're rendering a law degree irrelevant, gents.

#33418 3 months ago
Quoted from ZNET:

As a lawyer who happens to be an Eagles fan, I suppose that I qualify as a legal Eagle. I hope that my contribution is more meaningful than my team's pathetic performance these past weeks.

403765574_876339380515815_4670370081257223759_n (resized).jpg403765574_876339380515815_4670370081257223759_n (resized).jpg
#33419 3 months ago
Quoted from Mr68:

[quoted image]

Philly is going to need some divine intervention on Monday night. I'm not sure whether angels even have the power to right this team's disjointed course.

The Eagles rarely conduct any pre-snap motion to allow Hurts to identify whether the defense is in man-to-man or zone coverage. The defense is beyond anemic.

As a Philly fan, these past 6 weeks, it's been more fun watching streams of Thunderbird pinball gameplay than watching the Birds implode.

Screenshot_20240112_175938_Chrome (resized).jpgScreenshot_20240112_175938_Chrome (resized).jpg
#33420 3 months ago

I'm curious how the summary judgement plays into any DOJ investigation.

20
#33421 3 months ago

Looks like Mueller is back on the menu, boys!

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png
1 week later
#33422 84 days ago
SEC-139-2024.01.25.pdfSEC-139-2024.01.25.pdf
#33423 84 days ago

Can this can get kicked any further down the road?

#33424 84 days ago
Quoted from sgtski1978:

Can this can get kicked any further down the road?

It says conflict with criminal trial. Did I miss something?

#33425 84 days ago
Quoted from Roostking:

It says conflict with criminal trial. Did I miss something?

Doesn't necessarily mean a Mueller criminal trial

#33426 84 days ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Doesn't necessarily mean a Mueller criminal trial

Ah true... Shoot!

#33427 83 days ago
Quoted from sgtski1978:

Can this can get kicked any further down the road?

Sadly yes, and it likely will

#33428 83 days ago
Quoted from Inside:

Looks like Mueller is back on the menu, boys![quoted image]

HAH, play on the lord of the rings ORC scene. Well played.

1 week later
10
#33429 75 days ago

Ready your calendars

SEC-140-2024.02.05.pdfSEC-140-2024.02.05.pdf

Screenshot 2024-02-05 at 7.56.45?PM (resized).pngScreenshot 2024-02-05 at 7.56.45?PM (resized).png
3 weeks later
#33430 54 days ago

Is this the sort of trial that may have a stream so we can watch it? If so can someone post it?

#33431 54 days ago
Quoted from nate1981s:

Is this the sort of trial that may have a stream so we can watch it? If so can someone post it?

some of the hearings are public, which is how I got a copy of Bobby Mueller pleading the fifth (one of about four hundred times he would plead that day)

#33432 52 days ago

Bankruptcy marches on. Judge approves a shit ton of stuff described in a host of exhibits, but the exhibits were not attached?

deeprootcapital-321-2024.02.27.pdfdeeprootcapital-321-2024.02.27.pdf
2 weeks later
#33434 37 days ago

Shouldn't the hearing transcript be released by now? I dont see it on CL...

#33435 36 days ago

Breaking deeproot news: blueberryjohnson and benheck broed out at TPF. Story developing...

#33436 35 days ago
Quoted from sgtski1978:

Shouldn't the hearing transcript be released by now? I dont see it on CL...

CL needs someone poking the docket on that entry while having the RECAP extension active to get it to appear. it doesn't know of docket changes otherwise

#33437 34 days ago
Quoted from masterX244:

CL needs someone poking the docket on that entry while having the RECAP extension active to get it to appear. it doesn't know of docket changes otherwise

I recall some doc a while back saying a bunch of stuff could be disclosed after some amount of days of requested of the clerk and the parties don't move to block it. So someone should do that (I've been traveling all month without a computer and don't feel like digging in from my phone).

#33438 28 days ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

I recall some doc a while back saying a bunch of stuff could be disclosed after some amount of days of requested of the clerk and the parties don't move to block it. So someone should do that (I've been traveling all month without a computer and don't feel like digging in from my phone).

Good to finally meet you at TPF! Got to meet Chris Turner too.

#33439 28 days ago
Quoted from benheck:

Good to finally meet you at TPF! Got to meet Chris Turner too.

I know you loved me, but what did you think of Turner?

12
#33440 28 days ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

I know you loved me, but what did you think of Turner?

He seemed pretty normal. Not crazy like Robert was. He said he understood why we all thought it (his buyout) looked fishy.

#33441 28 days ago
Quoted from benheck:

He seemed pretty normal. Not crazy like Robert was. He said he understood why we all thought it (his buyout) looked fishy.

My conversation with Chris the year before at TPF kind of sealed the deal for me. I liked him and we talked about many things including the rumors, speculation and gossip.
At one point I jokingly told Chris that his arms weren't nearly as hairy as Pinside had described.
He smiled at me and said, Yeah, what was that all about?

#33442 28 days ago
Quoted from Mr68:

My conversation with Chris the year before at TPF kind of sealed the deal for me. I liked him and we talked about many things including the rumors, speculation and gossip.
At one point I jokingly told Chris that his arms weren't nearly as hairy as Pinside had described.
He smiled at me and said, Yeah, what was that all about?

Turned out he was a fan of mine from way back so he was prettt excited to chat. He also resembled a friend of mine so I guess that felt more approachable too.

It's funny was in TSA line Friday morning and there's this big ad mural on the wall. One of the doctors on it has crazy eyes. This kid tells his dad "this guy looks crazy dad!" and the dad is like "yeah he does" and I chimed in "It's the crazy eyes. Never trust crazy eyes" see also Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos)

Point being, Chris didn't have crazy eyes

#33443 27 days ago

Wait did y’all not do any investigative journalism and ask Chris why he was the stalking horse bidder on the life insurance policies? I dunno no offense but it sounds like he flattered the crap out of you guys. Yeah surprise con artists tend to be personable. I still don’t get how someone who had zero pinball experience all of the sudden is throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into pinball. It still doesn’t sit right with me and I can’t believe the face-turn he’s taking in this community.

#33444 27 days ago
Quoted from Richthofen:

Wait did y’all not do any investigative journalism and ask Chris why he was the stalking horse bidder on the life insurance policies? I dunno no offense but it sounds like he flattered the crap out of you guys. Yeah surprise con artists tend to be personable. I still don’t get how someone who had zero pinball experience all of the sudden is throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into pinball. It still doesn’t sit right with me and I can’t believe the face-turn he’s taking in this community.

I talked with him at length about this over a year ago

1 week later
#33445 19 days ago

Have not yet reviewed. Hopefully interesting. No fooling.

SEC-137-2023.12.04.pdfSEC-137-2023.12.04.pdf
#33446 19 days ago

I don't get the impression Bob's lawyers have coherent arguments outside of 'it's the SECs fault.' They really want to convince the jury it would have been fine if the SEC hadn't gotten in the way. But they cant, so...

#33447 19 days ago
Quoted from sgtski1978:

I don't get the impression Bob's lawyers have coherent arguments outside of 'it's the SECs fault.' They really want to convince the jury it would have been fine if the SEC hadn't gotten in the way. But they cant, so...

he would have... He robbed ̶p̶e̶t̶e̶r̶ retirees, to pay ̶p̶a̶u̶l̶ payroll, to finance car wash, to buy house in Hawaii. It's called quad business practice.

#33448 19 days ago

Poor Steve still being dragged into this

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

The judge basically doesn't want to hear the "but it was a real pinball company excuse" although I would personally love to hear those arguments. But really their whole defense is we were going to make it if it wasn't for that pesky SEC pointing out we weren't using the investment money as we were supposed to be.

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

Goonies officially confirmed (I guess)

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

teehee

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

But he didn't donate to charity. You'd know they would be bringing it up if he actually did

Another one of Robert's defenses seems to be sticking it to one of his former legal counselors

pasted_image (resized).pngpasted_image (resized).png

K. off to a meeting now

#33449 19 days ago

Judge doesnt appear to be buying it.

#33450 19 days ago

Judge was absolutely not buying it and Bob's attorneys have no other defense. Even at the end, I get the impression the judge was really trying to press for some sort of settlement because he doesn't believe this is going to end well for Bob. The defense argument that the big bad SEC ruined it all is nullified by the orders. To me, there's no case here anymore. Even their witness list gives the impression their grasping at straws hoping to somehow show it was something it's clearly not.

Promoted items from Pinside Marketplace and Pinside Shops!
From: $ 8.99
Cabinet - Other
NO GOUGE PINBALL™
 
From: $ 1.49
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Daddio's 3D Printed Mods
 
$ 649.95
Lighting - Led
Pin Stadium Pinball Mods
 
Hey modders!
Your shop name here
There are 33,570 posts in this topic. You are on page 669 of 672.

Reply

Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/twip-is-deeproot-the-next-misadventure-or-a-pinball-revolution/page/669 and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.