Quote:
Originally Posted by Monorail
I'm speaking to US law and the decisions published, which I know well. Go ahead and enumerate the "many" other comments that are "completely wrong." I'll wait.
First, your claim was that "no court" had called it cheating. That is not correct. EVERY court that has heard this case has determined it was cheating, although Judge Hillman arrived at his decision without having to call the cheating, cheating! With respect to my comments since many comments posted ITT include the UK case I assumed you were including "ALL" courts as part of the "NO court" that have ruled on the case. If you want to talk only about US courts the discussion narrows because only one US court has heard the case.
With respect to my post wherein I indicated many of your comments as to the application of the law are incorrect, I apologize. I meant the post to address the many comments ITT that are misstating or misinterpreting the law and the courts decision and not specifically your comments. Most of the errors are NOT from your posts.
However, I will take a minute to address your claims as to was "cheating" involved. You wrote:
"It's not cheating, and using the word 'cheating' is a gross distortion of what this or the unshuffled deck cases are all about. In both cases, the court's reasoning was that the casino was offering an unauthorized game. In the Ivey case it was because the deck was marked."
I think often interpreting legal decisions is a lot like understanding Chinese Algebra when you don't understand Chinese. Judges spend a lot of time and effort crafting civil decisions that provide the aggrieved party with the relief they deserve all while protecting the decision from assault by the losing party on appeal.
Judge Hillman wrote in his opinion that
"Ivey and Sun's view of what constitutes a 'marked card' is too narrow. Such an interpretation would undermine in a fundamental way the purpose behind the regulatory ban on marked cards ... a physical act is not necessary to alert a player surreptitiously of a card's value."
You are one of the people ITT that actually seem to understand that this part of the decision renders the defendants actions as having defacto MARKED the cards.
If you mark cards in a card game you are cheating. When you use those marked cards in a game you are cheating! You can not use marked cards in a game and not be cheating. There cannot be any rational argument to those statements can there? If you have another way to describe marking cards and using the knowledge gained from marking the cards to win at a casino game I'd love to hear it.
In this case Judge Hillman judiciously decided he did not have to call Ivey an actual cheat in order to make the aggrieved party whole. But, if you read the decision carefully you will note the Judge's conclusion that Ivey's actions broke "the rules" of gaming. For me, and almost any rational person not invested in the it's us against them casinos nonsense, that is cheating. If you break the rules by using a marked deck you are cheating.
Clearly, Ivey didn't break the "rules of baccarat". Every hand was played according to the rules of baccarat. But, every hand was also played with a marked deck, marked by Ivey, that provided him with information he was not allowed to have. Ivey used that information to win. That is cheating!!!
Hillman ruled that Ivey and Sun violated their obligation under the state Control Casino Act to provide the casino with a fair "gaming experience."
Here the Judge clearly writes that Ivey and Sun had an obligation to play the game under the guidelines, read LAWs or Regulations, of the Control Casino Act and that they did not meet that obligation. Why? Because they marked the deck and used the information to win. That is cheating.
“Ivey and Sun, and perhaps others, view their actions to be akin to cunning, but not rule-breaking, maneuvers performed in many games,” Hillman added. "Even though Ivey and Sun’s cunning and skill did not break the rules of baccarat, what sets Ivey and Sun’s actions apart from deceitful maneuvers in other games is that those maneuvers broke the rules of gambling as defined in this state."
Here Hillman rules that Ivey and Sun's "manueuvers" that marked the deck broke the rules of gambling in New Jersey. They did. They broke the rules by marking the deck and using the marked deck to win. That is cheating.
So, at least to me, it is unsupportable, as a matter of law, that you claim there "was no cheating". There was. Ivey cheated and he got caught. Judge Hillman's decision makes that especially clear when he ordered Ivey to pay the casino back the monies he won by cheating.
Both sides have asked Judge Hillman to make his decision final so that the case can move on to the 3rd Circuit COA. It is my opinion this appeal will go nowhere. Judge Hillman's decision is crafted so as to prevent attack on appeal. It is interesting and important to note that none of the facts of the case are in dispute. This case was settled without argument or hearing beyond court filings. For me, this makes the likelihood of a successful appeal even more remote.