Corey up to no good again, this time at Heritage. Hits 2 Royals and is owed 43K

[Justin7]

Are you telling me that if the account had been down a significant amount of money, that you would still be fully refunding the deposits?

Let's try contracts.

Can the person who fraudulently induces a contract later try to void a contract?

Can a person who fraudulently multi-accounted later try to void the losing play?

Monkeylawyer, how would a court rule on these? How would other jurisdictions rule on these?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Let's try contracts.

Can the person who fraudulently induces a contract later try to void a contract?

Can a person who fraudulently multi-accounted later try to void the losing play?

Monkeylawyer, how would a court rule on these? How would other jurisdictions rule on these?

How would Las Vegas rule, Justin? We all know already. You can stop the charade.

[Justin7]

How would Las Vegas rule, Justin? We all know already. You can stop the charade.

You tell me. Can you find a single case like this? Remember, this isn't just a random person walking into a casino. This is a random person, who was banned, signing a contract. Declaring a new name and ID.

How would Las Vegas rule on this? Do you have any cases on point where (for the sake of argument) 1. Fraudulent ID was shown, and 2. The Sportsbook/casino would not let the player play, but for the fraudulent ID? The Monte Carlo case didn't have the second fact (although the dissent addressed it partially).

[MonkeyF0cker]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1458113.html

[shari91]

If you can show me where in that Iowa law the casino gets to keep the winnings, you have an obscure law in a completely irrelevant gaming market that agrees with your side of the story. Unfortunately, the casino in Iowa does not get to keep the money either.

This is not solely directed at you as I'm pretty sure a couple of others have claimed this as well... but where are you getting this from re the Iowa case? What you've stated is simply not true. The Supreme Court of Iowa absolutely agreed with the district court that the casino was able to keep the winnings. The casino voluntarily donated his winnings once they confiscated them.

This is from the Iowa Supreme Court judgement:

"In it's denial of this motion, the trial court addressed the legal question of whether Prairie Meadows has the authority to confiscate winnings from patrons that are involuntary banned from its premises. The court concluded it did stating: "Once a person is banned from a facility, it is not within the rules for the person to be present or to gamble at the facility. All promises, agreements or contracts that arise from wagers or bets are void unless the wager is authorised under Chapter 99F (regulating gambling facilities in Iowa). A person who is excluded from a facility under the rules of the Racing and Gaming Commission would not hold a legally binding agreement with a gaming facility for the payment of the winnings. Therefore the facility would not be required to pay winnings to such person."

"Because we find that Prairie Meadows had the authority to withhold winnings from a person who had been involuntary excluded from the gambling facility, we affirm the district court's entry of judgement in favour of Prairie Meadows and dismissal of Blackford's conversion claim."

[MonkeyF0cker]

You tell me. Can you find a single case like this? Remember, this isn't just a random person walking into a casino. This is a random person, who was banned, signing a contract. Declaring a new name and ID.

How would Las Vegas rule on this? Do you have any cases on point where (for the sake of argument) 1. Fraudulent ID was shown, and 2. The Sportsbook/casino would not let the player play, but for the fraudulent ID? The Monte Carlo case didn't have the second fact (although the dissent addressed it partially).

Uhh. What? Why exactly do you think a fraudulent ID was used then? Shits and giggles?

[Justin7]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-suprem...t/1458113.html

We have discussed that one.

1. Chen wasn't banned/trespassed
2. Chen didn't have a written contract with Monte Carlo
3. Chen didn't misrepresent his name before his first hand.

Any other cases?

[Justin7]

Uhh. What? Why exactly do you think a fraudulent ID was used then? Shits and giggles?

did you read the opinion? The majority held that since the casino allowed him to play before looking at his ID, there was no detrimental reliance.

[shari91]

Forgot to add - they donated his winnings before this even saw a courtroom.

[Optional]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-suprem...t/1458113.html

The false ID scenario there is not relevant, as the casino did not require ID to play whilst Heritage does.

But the decision about proximate cause being solely the players skill seems to be basically saying Casino bans have no enforceability.

[MonkeyF0cker]

This is not solely directed at you as I'm pretty sure a couple of others have claimed this as well... but where are you getting this from re the Iowa case? What you've stated is simply not true. The Supreme Court of Iowa absolutely agreed with the district court that the casino was able to keep the winnings. The casino voluntarily donated his winnings once they confiscated them.

This is from the Iowa Supreme Court judgement:

"In it's denial of this motion, the trial court addressed the legal question of whether Prairie Meadows has the authority to confiscate winnings from patrons that are involuntary banned from its premises. The court concluded it did stating: "Once a person is banned from a facility, it is not within the rules for the person to be present or to gamble at the facility. All promises, agreements or contracts that arise from wagers or bets are void unless the wager is authorised under Chapter 99F (regulating gambling facilities in Iowa). A person who is excluded from a facility under the rules of the Racing and Gaming Commission would not hold a legally binding agreement with a gaming facility for the payment of the winnings. Therefore the facility would not be required to pay winnings to such person."

"Because we find that Prairie Meadows had the authority to withhold winnings from a person who had been involuntary excluded from the gambling facility, we affirm the district court's entry of judgement in favour of Prairie Meadows and dismissal of Blackford's conversion claim."

Like I said, even if that law COMPLETELY supports Heritage 100% down the line, we're talking about Iowa. Since when are we valuing the gaming regulations for a podunk racetrack casino in the middle of a cornfield over those of Las Vegas?

I don't know the details of the case nor do I care. It's Iowa.

[MonkeyF0cker]

did you read the opinion? The majority held that since the casino allowed him to play before looking at his ID, there was no detrimental reliance.

When does Heritage ask for ID?

[Justin7]

The false ID scenario there is not relevant, as the casino did not require ID to play whilst Heritage does.

But the decision about proximate cause being solely the players skill seems to be basically saying Casino bans have no enforceability.

If they didn't check his ID, what other cause could there be?

If 1. you are banned 2. you lie about your name 3. they let you in, only because you lied
Your misrepresentation is why they entered the contract.

Ergo, A. This misrepresentation was one of several proximate causes of the damages; and B. There could be no assent to the contract with the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Seriously, is this hard to understand? I understand that everyone wants a license to beard. We all want to play at SIA with 20 accounts. I understand this. But seriously, show some law on point. Anywhere, not just US. If you have some LGA opinion on point, share it. But please, read it before you share it.

[Justin7]

When does Heritage ask for ID?

The fraudulent misrepresentation -- using a different name -- happened at signup, before the first hand. The ID was just an affirmation of the first fraud.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If they didn't check his ID, what other cause could there be?

If 1. you are banned 2. you lie about your name 3. they let you in, only because you lied
Your misrepresentation is why they entered the contract.

Ergo, A. This misrepresentation was one of several proximate causes of the damages; and B. There could be no assent to the contract with the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Seriously, is this hard to understand? I understand that everyone wants a license to beard. We all want to play at SIA with 20 accounts. I understand this. But seriously, show some law on point. Anywhere, not just US. If you have some LGA opinion on point, share it. But please, read it before you share it.

Show me one precedent where any casino in Las Vegas has had a license to confiscate. ONE. This case is as close as it gets and was ruled in the player's favor. So why is the onus of precedent on the player? IT'S NOT!!!!!!! He's the one being stolen from.

[shari91]

Like I said, even if that law COMPLETELY supports Heritage 100% down the line, we're talking about Iowa. Since when are we valuing the gaming regulations for a podunk racetrack casino in the middle of a cornfield over those of Las Vegas?

I don't know the details of the case nor do I care. It's Iowa.

You don't know the details, say you don't care but you directed a post to Heritage presenting a completely incorrect statement as fact about this specific case.

Can't say I follow your line of thinking here but it's all good.

[MonkeyF0cker]

You don't know the details, say you don't care but you directed a post to Heritage presenting a completely incorrect statement as fact about this specific case.

Can't say I follow your line of thinking here but it's all good.

Heritage brought up that silly case. Not me. I presented it as fact? How? I'm pretty sure that it was prefaced with "IF."

It's grasping at straws at the VERY best.

[Justin7]

Show me one precedent where any casino in Las Vegas has had a license to confiscate. ONE. This case is as close as it gets and was ruled in the player's favor. So why is the onus of precedent on the player? IT'S NOT!!!!!!! He's the one being stolen from.

If you want the Nevada case to be precedent, could you at least read it, and accept what facts are required for it to set a precedent?

The court held in favor of the player because he played before representing who he was. How would the court rule without that fact? Who knows, that is a different case. Iowa...

[MonkeyF0cker]

Justin, please show US one SINGLE case where a Las Vegas casino has had the authority to confiscate winnings from a player because he used fraudulent identification and was trespassed and/or backed off.

Iowa is not Las Vegas.

[Optional]

If they didn't check his ID, what other cause could there be?

If 1. you are banned 2. you lie about your name 3. they let you in, only because you lied
Your misrepresentation is why they entered the contract.

Ergo, A. This misrepresentation was one of several proximate causes of the damages; and B. There could be no assent to the contract with the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Seriously, is this hard to understand? I understand that everyone wants a license to beard. We all want to play at SIA with 20 accounts. I understand this. But seriously, show some law on point. Anywhere, not just US. If you have some LGA opinion on point, share it. But please, read it before you share it.

I think you may have misunderstood me.

I was agreeing that Heritage 'detrimentally relied' on the incorrect signup name.

And I also agree that that SHOULD be seen as part of the proximate cause... but the problem we both have with that thinking is the Chen decision Monkey posted a link to.

The part I remain confused about in the Chen decision is how the "and that the misrepresentation proximately caused damages" test seems to render moot the previous 3 tests... and by extension makes it impossible for a Casino to enforce a ban.

ie: the law, or that judges interpretation of it, seems a little loopy!

[shari91]

Heritage brought up that silly case. Not me. I presented it as fact? How? I'm pretty sure that it was prefaced with "IF."

It's grasping at straws at the VERY best.

I'm actually the one who initially brought up that case in response to a question from wrongturn so direct it at me if you must.

[Justin7]

The part I remain confused about in the Chen decision is how the "and that the misrepresentation proximately caused damages" test seems to render moot the previous 3 tests... and by extension makes it impossible for a Casino to enforce a ban.

ie: the law, or that judges interpretation of it, seems a little loopy!

Would damages have occurred, but for the misrepresentation? In the Chen case, they dealt to him before the misrepresentation. Consequently, the majority ruled that this was not a proximate cause. The dissent noted that it was a proximate cause to the extent that he could buy in for more than 10k (when he produced a fraudulent ID).

Compare to here. The player enters a written contract (T&C). The term requiring your name is not just unique, it is expected. If the player entered the name of the beard, would she have received a single hand (or been able to deposit)? Probably not. In this case, unlike the Chen case, the player misrepresented an identity before the first hand was dealt.

[chilidog]

Has Cory admitted that he was controlling his mother's account? If not, how has Heritage proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Cory was using the account?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Would damages have occurred, but for the misrepresentation? In the Chen case, they dealt to him before the misrepresentation. Consequently, the majority ruled that this was not a proximate cause. The dissent noted that it was a proximate cause to the extent that he could buy in for more than 10k (when he produced a fraudulent ID).

Compare to here. The player enters a written contract (T&C). The term requiring your name is not just unique, it is expected. If the player entered the name of the beard, would she have received a single hand (or been able to deposit)? Probably not. In this case, unlike the Chen case, the player misrepresented an identity before the first hand was dealt.

What do you mean PROBABLY not? That's your ENTIRE CASE!!!!!

Are you telling me that you don't know for certain?

[MonkeyF0cker]

One case in Las Vegas, Justin. One.

I'm waiting.

You can't tell me that there hasn't been a single case in Las Vegas where fraudulent ID was issued to gamble.... Do you know how many minors gamble here every day?

One case where the casino was justified in confiscating winnings.

[cloverfield]

This thread has truly turned into the SBR sewer

[shari91]

Reading this thread reiterates to me that trying to pull dodgies on books or casinos probably won't end well if you're busted. Remember that kid that won a million dollar jackpot at Caesars but they refused to pay because he was underage and the court ruled in Caesars favour so his family actually ended up in the hole because of legal fees? Just seems so not worth it to even bother with any of this stuff.

[shari91]

One case in Las Vegas, Justin. One.

I'm waiting.

You can't tell me that there hasn't been a single case in Las Vegas where fraudulent ID was issued to gamble.... Do you know how many minors gamble here every day?

One case where the casino was justified in confiscating winnings.

haha I just saw you posted about minors as I was talking about Caesars keeping that kid's million bucks. Too funny.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Justin, do you know what happens when a minor is found gambling at a casino? The casino gets fined.

They don't get a freeroll. They get fined.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nevada-gaming-board-kiddie-gamblers-vegas-20120727,0,4816718.story

[Optional]

Would damages have occurred, but for the misrepresentation? In the Chen case, they dealt to him before the misrepresentation. Consequently, the majority ruled that this was not a proximate cause. The dissent noted that it was a proximate cause to the extent that he could buy in for more than 10k (when he produced a fraudulent ID).

Compare to here. The player enters a written contract (T&C). The term requiring your name is not just unique, it is expected. If the player entered the name of the beard, would she have received a single hand (or been able to deposit)? Probably not. In this case, unlike the Chen case, the player misrepresented an identity before the first hand was dealt.

Thanks for bearing with me. I understand now.

My confusion arose from reading this line to mean that misrepresenting your identity would NEVER be considered a proximate cause.

Chen contends that the Monte Carlo is unable to show either that it detrimentally relied on Chen's false passport or that Chen's misrepresentation was the proximate cause of the Monte Carlo's damages.   We agree.

[Justin7]

What do you mean PROBABLY not? That's your ENTIRE CASE!!!!!

Are you telling me that you don't know for certain?

Of course I don't know for certain; this fact wasn't contested!

This is an issue of fact. If the player wants to challenge it, she is welcome to. Oh wait, she quit before she could! But as I stated earlier, there are situations where a player could win, even if there were bearding. If she challenged Heritage on this point, I would question them on this issue. But, we never got to whether the player challenged that (or how to address that).

[Justin7]

Justin, do you know what happens when a minor is found gambling at a casino? The casino gets fined.

They don't get a freeroll. They get fined.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,4816718.story

MonkeyF0cker,

Your article says nothing about a free-roll, the confiscation of winnings, or payment of winnings. This article stands for nothing related to this case. Time and time again, you are citing things that you haven't read. If you are going to claim an article or case says something, at least make sure it says what you claim.

[MonkeyF0cker]

misrepresenting your identity would NEVER be considered a proximate cause.

It probably never would be. You're ID'd for age. Not against the Griffin book.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Of course I don't know for certain; this fact wasn't contested!

This is an issue of fact. If the player wants to challenge it, she is welcome to. Oh wait, she quit before she could! But as I stated earlier, there are situations where a player could win, even if there were bearding. If she challenged Heritage on this point, I would question them on this issue. But, we never got to whether the player challenged that (or how to address that).

Wait. She quit? But they're using an "industry expert" in another arbitration? WTF.

[Justin7]

Wait. She quit? But they're using an "industry expert" in another arbitration? WTF.

Yeah, WTF. What do you do when someone brings a complaint, quits when bad facts come out, then asks for another arbitration? WTF.

In 6 years of dispute handling, I have never seen a player refuse to give up easy info on a (potentially) 43k dispute.

The only thing more ridiculous is watching all the lawyer wanna-be's trying to make legal arguments that don't have a clue on how to read an opinion. For those wanna-be's, I'd suggest they learn about ILAC before spewing more unrelated cases or links. They should Google "ILAC reading law" to get a clue.