Attorney discussion thread

[antifoil]

I am going to put this in this sub forum because 1. I want this to be a serious legal discussion of the issues relating to off shore and specifically to the cory situation and 2. I feared it may get lost in the other thread about the dispute.

Let me start off by saying I have not watch the Justin7 video and have a rough understand of the facts from reading post over at the Rx regarding this matter as the statically probability discussion wouldn't be relevant to our discussion other than as it relates to expert testimony.

Assuming this is all governed by U.S. law. Also, i am not familiar with the U.S. law regarding the legality of playing games of chance at off shore casinos.

First, my issue with the mediation process done by the mediator in the dispute is cory would be required to take a polygraph in order to have a verdict rendered in his favor. Of course, in the Amercian jurisprudence system no one is required to take take a polygraph and have it admitted as evidence unless both side agree to do such.

Second, the issue of the anonymous expert witness. He was neither allowed to be cross examined by the opposing party, nor was cory allowed to present an expert witness of his own to rebut the claims made by anonymous expert and perhaps examine the data differently.

Next, could cory or, for that matter, anyone bring a suit against a offshore book in Costa Rica. Would the book be subject to the United States jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction. Under federal law, could this case be held federally based on diversity jurisdiction? It appears to met the first requirement of citizenship diversification. However, the amount of the suit would have to exceed 75,000. Could this be achieved by adding in attorneys fees and some punitive damages for destroying his reputation in the lets call it the "off shore book community".

Personal jurisdiction. According to wiki:


Courts have struggled with the Internet as a source of minimum contacts. Although not determinately established by the Supreme Court, many courts use the Zippo test,[10] which examines the kind of use to which a defendant's website is being put. Under this test, websites are divided into three categories:

1. passive websites, which merely provide information, will almost never provide sufficient contacts for jurisdiction. Such a website will only provide a basis for jurisdiction if the website itself constitutes an intentional tort such as slander or defamation, and if it is directed at the jurisdiction in question;
2. interactive websites, which permit the exchange of information between website owner and visitors, may be enough for jurisdiction, depending on the website's level of interactivity and commerciality, and the amount of contacts which the website owner has developed with the forum due to the presence of the website;
3. commercial websites which clearly do a substantial volume of business over the Internet, and through which customers in any location can immediately engage in business with the website owner, definitely provide a basis for jurisdiction.

In my estimation, the courts would have personal jurisdiction over the offshore book because it would met the minimum contacts. At the least, EZ would be under number 2 and probably number 3.

Finally, could service be processed on the offshore book. It seems service could be processed through the mail as most U.S. jurisdictions allow process to be sent by the mail to other countries unless those countries have objected through the Hague which Costa Rica has not done.

Thoughts?

[Justin7]

Antifoil wrote:

1. First, my issue with the mediation process done by the mediator in the dispute is cory would be required to take a polygraph in order to have a verdict rendered in his favor. Of course, in the Amercian jurisprudence system no one is required to take take a polygraph and have it admitted as evidence unless both side agree to do such.

Your are correct. The mediation/arbitration/whatever you want to call it was little more than a kangaroo court.

2. Second, the issue of the anonymous expert witness. He was neither allowed to be cross examined by the opposing party, nor was cory allowed to present an expert witness of his own to rebut the claims made by anonymous expert and perhaps examine the data differently.

Same answer as #1.

#3 Next, could cory or, for that matter, anyone bring a suit against a offshore book in Costa Rica. Would the book be subject to the United States jurisdiction.

He could bring a suit in Federal court. He could request punitive damages, getting the amount in dispute above the diversity amount requirement (I think; I haven't actually looked up that nuance). A website doing business with players in Florida (where Cory resides), issuing payouts to players there, sending marketing materials there, and taking deposits there would probably be sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

4. Finally, could service be processed on the offshore book.

Yes. I wouldn't do it by mail. There is a different procedure to serve a foreign corporation. It is costly, and takes longer.

2 problems with suing them though. First, the "gambling contract" is unenforceable, as it is arguably illegal. Second, the judgment would be in the U.S. That would be worthless. He could try to enforce it in Costa Rica, but their courts are notoriously slow. By the time enforcement made any progress, the defendant could move assets and rename itself. You can do this for years in second and third world countries. There are lawyers that specialize in asset protection with these types of strategies.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Who is Cory? And what is this all about?

[Justin7]

Who is Cory? And what is this all about?

EZStreet dispute. He is the player that got mugged out of 46k.

[jgilmartin]

Who is Cory? And what is this all about?

Long story, but if you watch these two videos by Justin, you will get the gist of it:

[MonkeyF0cker]

Ok. Thanks, guys.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Wow. What a joke. One of these days, someone is gonna end up dead over something like this. I'm not sure how these rogue operations are permitted to exist.

[antifoil]

the being able to get the sum after a judgment slipped my mind and i have no knowledge of costa rica courts.

but with regard to the "gambling contract", how about attacking it a different way. the money in the offshore account would be a bailment which must be the case with money a player deposits before making a bet. this could bring it into tort law there would be no need for contract law to apply.

[Justin7]

the being able to get the sum after a judgment slipped my mind and i have no knowledge of costa rica courts.

but with regard to the "gambling contract", how about attacking it a different way. the money in the offshore account would be a bailment which must be the case with money a player deposits before making a bet. this could bring it into tort law there would be no need for contract law to apply.

He could probably recover the deposits under that theory.

[Dark Horse]

I doubt Cory would win his case in a court. He was stiffed by the book in question, but he himself stiffed multiple books in the past with chargebacks. SBR approached this case as being separate from the player's history, but would that also happen in court? Just as books have histories, the same goes for players. If I were in a jury I would definitely want to know the amount Cory charged back in the past. If histories no longer counted, then a D book would be reliable as soon as they paid a player.

A court situation would go into the history of the book, as well as the history of the player. Justin has mentioned in the other thread that the book has no additional history of stiffing, but that the player does... (Objection, your honor! Sustained. The jury should ignore that information...)

Without knowing the ********** history, I would 'judge' that the book had to pay up, but the recipient would be some good cause. A player that does chargebacks can go all in with every bet, and build a nice bankroll in the process without ever putting his own money on the line. That is not a gambler, to be judged by a jury of his peers, but a thief. Why would a judge reward him down the line for playing with a stolen bankroll?

[MonkeyF0cker]

I doubt Cory would win his case in a court. He was stiffed by the book in question, but he himself stiffed multiple books in the past with chargebacks. SBR approached this case as being separate from the player's history, but would that also happen in court? Just as books have histories, the same goes for players. If I were in a jury I would definitely want to know the amount Cory charged back in the past. If histories no longer counted, then a D book would be reliable as soon as they paid a player.

A court situation would go into the history of the book, as well as the history of the player. Justin has mentioned in the other thread that the book has no additional history of stiffing, but that the player does... (Objection, your honor! Sustained. The jury should ignore that information...)

Without knowing the ********** history, I would 'judge' that the book had to pay up, but the recipient would be some good cause. A player that does chargebacks can go all in with every bet, and build a nice bankroll in the process without ever putting his own money on the line. That is not a gambler, to be judged by a jury of his peers, but a thief. Why would a judge reward him down the line for playing with a stolen bankroll?

How do you ********** ** deposits?

[antifoil]

motion in limine for the ********** evidence as it is not relevant in this matter because he paid in cash so the prejudicial value would far outweigh the probative.

but none of that matters if you go for the bailment argument. his character is not part of the element of a tort so it doesn't matter. a offshore book would have to hope for jury nullification where they just give it to the book based on him being a bad guy.

[Dark Horse]

The burden of proof is on the player to show that this is his money, and not a BR stolen through chargebacks. Unless you wish to isolate this case from his history. It is ironic that the original topic has the term 'whitewashing' in the title, because the player seems to have successfully whitewashed his stolen money with these cash deposits.

Of course, the book is still stealing. Doesn't change the fact that they stole from a known and admitted thief. It's funny to me how easily this is brushed aside, where in other cases of players admitting chargebacks posters jump all over such cheaters. Let the book pay the money to some good cause. This cheater doesn't deserve the support of honest players.

Let's say I deposit 20K at a number of books. I bet half the money on team A, and the other half on the opponent. I do chargebacks for the losing bets, and withdraw my winnings. Repeat. At a certain point I start making cash deposits. Now the money is actually at risk, but it is stolen, so I still have nothing to lose. Sure enough, I run into a book that refuses to pay me. Now I turn to SBR, where people who normally are highly critical of players who do chargebacks are all too willing to help me out.

Is it fair to include the history? I think so. Cory volunteered the information that he did chargebacks in the past, so that is part of this case. 'Vegas rules'.

[antifoil]

yeah they could make a counterclaim if he did a ********** against EZ, but still the element would be different for each issue. the jury wouldn't have instructions about chargebacks in the bailment instructions. yes EZ could recover a sum against the chargebacks. however whatever happened to other books would not be at issue in this case as they are not a party. a jury couldn't award EZ a sum for all the chargebacks he did against other books.

an attorney could argue EZ waived the right to that ********** claim by not taking the cash but letting the player use it to play with at the book as a bailee.

[Justin7]

The burden of proof is on the player to show that this is his money, and not a BR stolen through chargebacks.

Wrong. 1. If he deposited it, it is presumed his. 2. Even if he deposited someone else's money, it is his. That person could then sue Cory.

Unless you wish to isolate this case from his history. It is ironic that the original topic has the term 'whitewashing' in the title, because the player seems to have successfully whitewashed his stolen money with these cash deposits.

Of course, the book is still stealing. Doesn't change the fact that they stole from a known and admitted thief. It's funny to me how easily this is brushed aside, where in other cases of players admitting chargebacks posters jump all over such cheaters. Let the book pay the money to some good cause. This cheater doesn't deserve the support of honest players.

Let's say I deposit 20K at a number of books. I bet half the money on team A, and the other half on the opponent. I do chargebacks for the losing bets, and withdraw my winnings. Repeat. At a certain point I start making cash deposits. Now the money is actually at risk, but it is stolen, so I still have nothing to lose. Sure enough, I run into a book that refuses to pay me. Now I turn to SBR, where people who normally are highly critical of players who do chargebacks are all too willing to help me out.

Is it fair to include the history? I think so. Cory volunteered the information that he did chargebacks in the past, so that is part of this case. 'Vegas rules'.

Cory's reputation would matter when there is a disagreement of fact. If the case came down to a dispute over a conversation, and there was no way to prove what was said, his reputation would matter greatly. The only factual disputes in this though were completely provable or refutable by game logs in EasyStreet's possession. If Cory didn't say a single word, EasyStreet didn't prove its case. Consequently, Cory's lack of credibility doesn't matter.

[Dark Horse]

EZstreet is at fault. No disagreement there.


It's rather risky to exclude the ********** history. There's always the possibility that this Cory character is part of a group of players who scam the offshore industry with chargebacks. I've seen stranger things on this forum. Of course, there is no official court case, so the decision to investigate the book, but not the player, is not based on any prescribed rules. Why not investigate both with the same scrutiny? If there are groups of bonus scammers, we may as well assume that their are groups of ********** scammers. They could do a lot of damage, that possibly could affect many players. Why not look into that?

[Justin7]

EZstreet is at fault. No disagreement there.


It's rather risky to exclude the ********** history. There's always the possibility that this Cory character is part of a group of players who scam the offshore industry with chargebacks. I've seen stranger things on this forum. Of course, there is no official court case, so the decision to investigate the book, but not the player, is not based on any prescribed rules. Why not investigate both with the same scrutiny? If there are groups of bonus scammers, we may as well assume that their are groups of ********** scammers. They could do a lot of damage, that possibly could affect many players. Why not look into that?

When I review cases, the standard I use is: "How would a U.S. Court rule, if gambling contracts were legal and enforceable?"

There was never proof submitted that Cory was a scammer (although he admitted he has had some "issues"). But what if there were? What if EZ could show that Cory had stolen more than 46k via chargebacks from other books? How would that change a U.S. Court's opinion on this dispute? It wouldn't. This dispute is only between Cory and EZ. In theory, another book could file a claim against Cory and get involved in this. If a single book had been stuck for 10k by Cory, I imagine they would do that. But with what we have in front of us, no proof of Cory's history of chargebacks would affect this outcome.

[Dark Horse]

In theory, another book could file a claim against Cory and get involved in this. If a single book had been stuck for 10k by Cory, I imagine they would do that.

In theory, Cory could be part of a group that is responsible for 1000 chargebacks of 1K each. None of the affected books might be interested in filing a 1K claim. And many honest players might be affected by such scams.

I understand this is not what the EZstreet case is about. It's just something that bothers me in relation to this case. The idea of helping a thief.

[Justin7]

In theory, Cory could be part of a group that is responsible for 1000 chargebacks of 1K each. None of the affected books might be interested in filing a 1K claim. And many honest players might be affected by such scams.

I understand this is not what the EZstreet case is about. It's just something that bothers me in relation to this case. The idea of helping a thief.

Justice is blind. Between these 2 parties, EZStreet is the thief.

While I understand why you dislike the entire dispute, there must be black and white rules on how disputes are resolved. Under those rules (U.S. contract law), if Cory were indebted to others, it does not affect this.

[Dark Horse]

Justice is blind. Between these 2 parties, EZStreet is the thief.

While I understand why you dislike the entire dispute, there must be black and white rules on how disputes are resolved. Under those rules (U.S. contract law), if Cory were indebted to others, it does not affect this.

Understood.

On a sidenote, I prefer the self-regulation of offshore gambling over US law (which can be bought, and consequently (?) considers offshore gambling illegal). In this case the scammer was scammed, and the scamming book may never recover from its damaged reputation. Somehow I find it hard to find injustice in that.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Understood.

On a sidenote, I prefer the self-regulation of offshore gambling over US law (which can be bought, and consequently (?) considers offshore gambling illegal). In this case the scammer was scammed, and the scamming book may never recover from its damaged reputation. Somehow I find it hard to find injustice in that.

Right. Obviously, self-regulation can't be bought either.

Love,
theRx

Unreal.

[Dark Horse]

You're a beneficiary of a concept you don't understand.

[MonkeyF0cker]

LOL. Obviously. You have all the answers, DH.

By the way, 99.9999% of my wagers are made in a highly regulated sports wagering environment (Las Vegas). You can have your scamming sites. I'll take my virtually guaranteed payouts, ability for arbitration, and bought and paid for US regulation over them any day of the week. I can make my wagers without one worry about getting paid. Can you?