Quote:
Originally Posted by Suit
By playing he is representing that he is playing fairly.
Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Explain how what he did doesn’t match the definition of fraud. He is deceiving everyone at the table for financial gain. It’s black and white.
You are assuming all deception is criminal or wrongful. People deceive otehrs for financial gain all the time. If the courts had to sort all that out they'd be overwhelmed. It's part of the human condition.
You have to show that he represented he was playiing fairly. You haven't. Just sitting in a game with no rules posted in a public business doesn't mean you suddenly are legally required to adhere to accepted notions of fairness. Think about what that would mean for our court system. Would pretending to be drunk or bad at poker not be allowed? Should we rely on the courts to decide that if some police officer decides that he agrees with a little old lady whose money was taken away from her at the casino by an evil poker player? So much for freedom.
If anyone is guilty of fraud for representing the game was fair it was the casino which, if these allegations are true, dropped the ball in a major way and, if not true, still seems to have treated security regarding this RFID feed very poorly.
If a casino cannot force a player who is all in from picking up chips and leaving with them because he didn't push them forward, then how can the police arrest the same player for fraud for not 'playing fairly'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jal300
if I was to take an educated guess, the inclusion of fraud is possibly more aimed at Stones than MP. I suspect they are alleging that Stones was potentially in on it (I'm speculating here); if that were to be true, then there is certainly a fraud element as it relates to Stones and the duty of care they have to the players on their live stream that could constitute defrauding the players.
I agree and would add that it also may apply to any Stones employee and, perhaps, since MP was so much a part of the stream and participated in the booth promoting the stream that, therefore, he promoted the game that way (eg NOT only because he sat and cheated).
Let's be clear, MP was not included because they think he has any value as a defendant that can pay, only as a defendant that can illustrate the guilt of the real target of this suit: the casino. If there was no liability for Stones, the lawyers don't take this suit except pro bono.
Last edited by inmyrav; 10-13-2019 at 05:23 AM.