RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[caruso]

So: based on the evidence of the tape, Hampton appear to be guilty of Criminal Solicitation.

[islandmaan]

Can we at least agree on these two points:

1. A bot does not alter the chance to win or lose it just speeds up the play of the game (and possibly allows perfect play which is no crime).

2. If a bot was used anyways it should be easily enough to look at the logs and see how many hands were played over a period of time and see if a human being could possibly do it.

If it would be physically impossible to play the hands shown than that is proof of a bot. I get the feeling this proof is not available or it would of been put forward straight away.

Finally I would throw out the entire recorded conversation as it is sleazy and should not of taken place in the first place. If Hampton's truly has proof of a bot, which is against the rules, then they should refuse to pay, cancel the account and say have your lawyer call our lawyer event over.

Does anybody see any flaw in this position?

Brian

[SFeagleAgain]

Hi there caruso! First of all, only a judge or jury can determine what they are or are not guilty of. You have to listen to the tape and make your own determination. They are still assumed innocent until proven guilty. Although the tape is not admissible in court (except under what the court could determine as extenuating circumstances), I think it tells its own tale. It is WAY past sleazy. I do agree that a bot and a human could perform the same function, as would any thinking person. The only difference would be speed and consistency of play. But Hampton has not shown any evidence that this player has used a bot and indeed, the tape that they have made available to the public proves to ME that they have nothing that proves that he did use a bot. Otherwise, they would be posting records all over the net to prove it and would not feel the need to have management try and coerce a confession out of pirate.

[spearmaster]

Being incredibly stupid is not a criminal act. Soliciting a crime is.

LMAO - you nailed it That's about as concise a summary of this case as one can make...

[hhcfreebie]

Originally Posted by SFeagleAgain

I suspect there would be some "ass-blistering" sidebars involved and also an ethics investigation for the legal counsel. Mind you, the tape would never be made public to a jury, however, it would most likely be heard in chambers, which would, of course, influence what a judge would, or would not, allow in trial. Being incredibly stupid is not a criminal act. Soliciting a crime is. And from what I heard on that tape, that is exactly what happened here. There was not even a feeble attempt to cover up the intentions.

Well said.
I suggest we forget the tape even exist and start anew.
If the casino can present solid evidence of the bot, casino can refuse to pay based on their own terms. No matter how stupid this term is, the players agreed it when he signed up. If he is not happy then he can find a lawyer to fight for him.
However, if the casino cannot present any solid evidence, then they should pay up. Sadly I don't think they are willing, nor capable of doing the right thing. I guess the player might still need legal help to secure his winning.
Just my 2 cents.

[sirius]

I got a private message from Pc21 yesterday with the subject "TADAH" and the simple message "You got it." It wasn't a reply to anything I sent him and I'm not sure what he means.

[SFeagleAgain]

Since Hampton themselves put the recording on their website, forgetting it exists is no longer an option. They put their reputation and credibility on their website for all to see. This tape, if nothing else, is a statement of Hampton's professionalism (or lack thereof), their social conscience (or lack thereof), and their values and working ethic (or lack thereof). It was not a good move on their part to make the whole recording available for all to hear. Does "character witness" spring to mind? This is basically what they have presented.

[caps]

With all due respect, SFeagle, of course the tape would be published to the jury, if the case were tried to a jury. In a civil action against Hampton in a US jurisdiction (with, say, the Pirate seeking recovery of amounts owed under contract or tort theories), Hampton or RTG would raise, as a defense, the contention that Pirate had violated their terms and conditions through the use of a robot. Hampton absolutely would rely upon the tape, and upon any other evidence they might have (if any). The question at trial would be whether the conversation on the tape, together with any other evidence offered at trial, suggests by a preponderance of the evidence (or, quantitatively, by more than a 50% probability) that the Pirate had used a robot. If Hampton were to make the tape an important part of its defense, it would have the right to publish the tape to the jury (might be a bad decision, but . . .). Assuming any hearsay objections could be overcome (though it seems to sound like an admission against interest of the Pirate), it almost certainly would be admissible in any trial, and quite probative of the central question -- did the Pirate use a robot? Folks have offered differing views on how a factfinder might come out on the question, and I really don't know -- I waffle. But the tape almost certainly be the centerpiece of any civil proceeding.

As for "entrapment," it's not "illegal," at least in most US jurisdictions. Entrapment is actually a criminal concept, and is in most instances raised by a criminal defendant who is seeking to establish that, but for the "entrapping" conduct of law authorities, he/she would not have engaged in the criminal conduct at issue (and should thus be acquitted). It rarely comes into formal play in a civil context -- though, in response to Hampton's use of the tape in a civil collection action, I can imagine that the Pirate would point out the supposed "entrapment" as a reason to dismiss the probative value of the recorded conversation. But the entrapment would go the evidentiary weight, or value, of the conversation -- it wouldn't represent an absolute of any kind in a civil context.

Now, the criminal authorities might well be interested in Hampton's side of the conversation, in that it does seem to represent a solicitation to join a criminal conspiracy to defraud other casinos. The conspiracy never actually took off, but the expression of an intent to form one certainly seems to be present.

[amandajm]

As my gut feeling has no relevancy I must say that Steph makes a whole lot of sense to me. The way she writes it even I understand. If I were a juror....

Mr Myers - fair is fair now, you need to get a deal sorted and soon. You just know this is not going away, no matter where you were brought up or how tough it was. 1.3 million overrides where you are from or what you usually do there.

[amandajm]

Caps - the player would win though would'nt he?. Thats important to me as the legalese is confusing when you make some sense against to be honest. Steph hit the nail on the head no?