RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[cipher]

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.

CAPS, please your talking about a tape that's clearly a solicitation of conspiracy on the part of HAMPTON CASINO and you think that any court and I repeat any court here in the United States is going to allow that to be put before a civil jury? That's not going to happen here in the United States plain and simple. I don't know where your from but that will not happen in the United States.

Cipher

[mary]

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?

If it went to a jury, it's difficult to say. We all bring some kind of background knowledge to this, and you can see that opinions range from 100% obvious that Pirate is crook to 100% obvious Hampton should pay to 100% they've both made incriminating statements in phone calls and I don't know what should happen.

Members of a jury would not know very much about gambling online, robots, programming, game odds and the like; the phone calls sound like episodes from a radio drama about Vegas back in the days when the Mob ran it.

I know! Both parties should take it to Court TV and propose it as a reality show. Court shows are hot right now, casinos shows are hot right now, reality shows are hot right now. "Internet Court" "The Cases Too International, Too Cutting Edge For Courts to Handle"

[SFeagleAgain]

First off, caps, I appreciate your stance in this and understand a lot of your argument. However, entrapment is indeed illegal in most states. However, by legal definition, it does refer mostly to law enforcement. In a civil case, perponderance of the evidence in the basis that is applied. In a criminal case however, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is applied. When Hampton made that phone call, they put this in a whole new arena. Since it sounds as though you have read up on the issue, caps, you should also know that gambling debts do not fall under contract or "tort" law. IMO, this tape is far more damaging to Hampton than it is to pirate as they were trying to coerce or force a confession from him that a robot was used. Most of what was said was "suggested" to pirate and not offered of his free will. They even asked him how much he wanted for the program. Listen carefully to the pause after Hampton skirted the issue. I honestly believe after listening to it that pirate was dumbfounded and that is where the silence is so telling. The recording itself would actually not have much bearing on whether or not he used a robot because of Hampton's behavior. The player logs would be used instead for this. Why have they not surfaced proving his use of a robot? They would be the only true test of use of a robot or not. This would be a question that would be raised. The tape would be best used in a criminal trial for solicitation of a crime. That is where it is far more damaging and incriminating. This tape would have little bearing in a collection action. The problem for RTG lies in that they are located in the states. I cannot imagine RTG being too pleased with Hampton's actions thus far.

Mary, in a criminal proceeding, Hampton would have a lot of explaining to do, plain and simple.

[caps]

Cipher-

I'm from the US, and there is absolutely no doubt but that if Hampton wanted to rely upon the tape as a defense in a civil action brought by Pirate, it would be made available to the jury (or to the Court, if the matter weren't tried to the jury). It might be a very stupid move -- the tape certainly does suggest an effort to solicit a potentially criminal conspiracy -- but that's not a reason for the Court to exclude its submission to the jury, if that's what Hampton felt it needed to establish its defense. It might come back to bite Hampton in the ass, but that's Hampton's call. I may be a punk, but I do know this stuff.

Amandajm-

Would the player win? As Mary says, who knows? It would be a function of how the factfinder (whether the jury or the judge) reacts to the facts. It's all pretty smelly, so one can imagine the factfinder, confronted with all of this, wishing a pox on everyone's house.

SFeagle-

I'm not sure I agree with you that entrapment is "illegal." It's a limited defense to certain types of criminal prosecution, but I tend not to think that it's a separate criminal offense, or that it's a tort that gives rise to independent civil liability. In a civil context (that is, Pirate suing Hampton to recover the money), the fact that the guy may have been hornswoggled into saying what he (apparently) said goes much more to the weight (or evidentiary significance) of the evidence. (And your observations about the "pregnant pause" and all that are precisely the sorts of things a factfinder would evaluate in thinking about what the tape really means.) But I can't quite see how it's "illegal" as entrapment (though I suppose there may be a stray jurisdiction out there where it's an independent evil). Granted, the remarks on tape may also represent a form of conspiracy, or solicitation, but that's something separate and apart from the entrapment, and would fall very clearly on the criminal side of things. A prosecutor may not be interested in it because nothing actually seems to have happened, but it presents an interesting set of predicate facts.

As for the existence of a civil cause of action against someone here (Pirate v. Somebody), while many jurisdictions obviously don't recognize the existence of an enforceable obligation arising from a gambling "contract," there are a number of other ways to skin a cat -- fraud, various types of civil conspiracy and other torts. I have no doubt that a creative plaintiff's lawyer, with access to all of the relevant facts, would be able to develop a variety of theories. That's not to say the plaintiff would win, but I bet the theories would get off the ground.

Finally, did I detect a stab (successful) at humor about all of this in Mary's post? Heaven forbid.

[cipher]

[QUOTE=caps]Cipher-

I'm from the US, and there is absolutely no doubt but that if Hampton wanted to rely upon the tape as a defense in a civil action brought by Pirate, it would be made available to the jury (or to the Court, if the matter weren't tried to the jury). It might be a very stupid move -- the tape certainly does suggest an effort to solicit a potentially criminal conspiracy -- but that's not a reason for the Court to exclude its submission to the jury, if that's what Hampton felt it needed to establish its defense. It might come back to bite Hampton in the ass, but that's Hampton's call. I may be a punk, but I do know this stuff.

I'm sorry CAPS, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. But I totall disagree with your assessment.

"nothing actually seems to have happened"

Nothing short of this individual being out $1,300,000.00 plus. That's a lot of money CAPS.

[caps]

Yeah, well, OK. You can disagree, but I'm right as a matter of law. The tape of the conversation almost certainly would be admissible in a US legal proceeding (or at least the part of the conversations that both parties recorded), any way you slice it.

And if you read it right, my "nothing seems to have happened" statement was a reference to the fact that Hampton's apparent solicitation to engage in a conspiracy to bamboozle other casinos doesn't seem actually to have produced that conspiracy, as no effort was made to defraud other casinos. You miss the point.

I know $1.3M is in play. But maybe the player doesn't deserve it, because maybe he cheated.

[cipher]

Yeah, well, OK. You can disagree, but I'm right as a matter of law. The tape of the conversation almost certainly would be admissible in a US legal proceeding (or at least the part of the conversations that both parties recorded), any way you slice it.

And if you read it right, my "nothing seems to have happened" statement was a reference to the fact that Hampton's apparent solicitation to engage in a conspiracy to bamboozle other casinos doesn't seem actually to have produced that conspiracy, as no effort was made to defraud other casinos. You miss the point.

I know $1.3M is in play. But maybe the player doesn't deserve it, because maybe he cheated.

All right, now you're hedging!! with statements such as "The tape conversation almost certainly would be admissible in a U. S. legal proceeding" or...

at least the part of the conversation that both parties recorded. What kind of a consiglieri would you make, hedging like that?

[caps]

LOL -- a far better better one (punk though I may be) than I'm guessing will actually end up handling this squabble.

No lawyer worth his salt would ever guarantee anything about anything (though a lot of lawyers do, and a lot of gullible clients lap it up). The tape absolutely ought to be admissible. But some judges are dumb, or drunk, or lazy or result-oriented. You can account for the law, but not for the judge.

And my point about "at least the part of the conversation" doesn't relate to what you were talking about. You said that the tape would never go to a jury because it includes Hampton's apparent solicitation. That's wrong. My caveat relates to the fact that, in some US jurisdictions, it is illegal for one party to tape a telephone conversation without the other party's knowledge. In that instance, the taping party would not be able to use the unilaterally recorded tape to its advantage in litigation. But when both parties taped the conversation (or a part of the conversation), then both parties clearly intended for the conversation (or at least the jointly-taped portion) to be captured, so I would expect this prohibition not to apply.

[gamblinboi]

wow, way to swing this conversation way off into some legal meanderings consisting of "i'm not a laywer, but I THINK..." yada yada. GET BACK ON TOPIC FOLKS!

Hampton's won't give us any SOLID proof that the player cheated. They insist on this ridiculous tape which REGARDLESS of what it says, is BESIDES the point. IF they have proof that the player cheated, SHOW IT. PROVE IT. Don't give us nonsense tapes, GIVE US HARD FACTS and EVIDENCE. The tape has ONLY served to get everyone OFF of the fact that Hamptons refuses to provide any REAL proof.

For what it's worth, IMO this casino will not pay up. They cheated me out of a MEASLY $100 by making up various nonsense so as to void my winnings. They won't even answer my email about that (as sent to the HamptonCasino guy) here. Whatever this pirate guy did, got lucky or cheated (imo there's no proof of the latter been shown yet), he did it at the WRONG casino cuz Hamptons is full of it.

[STING]

Hi Folks,

This is my first post here.

First off, I would like to start by saying I’ve know Ron of Hampton for a few years now and my own experience with him has always been positive. He’s always had a strong presence in Casino Times News when I was Managing Editor there and back when my site was hit by denial of service attacks in July of last year, Ron was very instrumental in helping me set up with another hosting company. Of course I have nothing but respect for many of the folks here. I’ve known an admired people like Jetset and Spearmaster for many years now.

I have a tough time believing that Ron would deliberately screw anybody from a personal standpoint and at the same time I can’t ignore the fact that there are intelligent player’s advocates suggesting his actions are completely intolerable. So essentially I am left questioning how we’ve ended up in this fine mess without taking away arguments from either side.

From where I stand, there is no denying both parties handled this matter dreadfully. I might be mistaken here, but it seems to me that the player knew of this website’s existence (CasinoMeister) before making his phone confession and I know that Hampton (and Ron) certainly knew of this site’s existence. Sites like Casinomeister are in place to handle these matters (granted this one is in a league all its own) before they get to the point where we are at now. Everything else, in my opinion, is secondary.

My question then becomes, Why did neither of these parties consider approaching Bryan Bailey or any one of a number of online casino advocates prior to mishandling this matter on their own?

As things stand now, the player will not be paid the $1.3 million as his confession is right on tape, and while I realize the possibility of intimidation leading to a false confession, there is simply no need to do so with folks like Bryan here for the players. Unless the player was not aware of this site’s existence, there is no excuse as to why he would have made a false disclosure. He did so after an initial phone conversation. Instead of calling Ron back, he should have contacted Bryan. I get the impression (especially since the calls were taped by the player) that he was more focused on dragging Hampton’s name through the mud through the enlisting of other forum members than he was using this site for its intended purpose – that is RESOLVING THE MATTER BEFORE IT ESCALATES. Neither Bryan, Myself or anyone else for that matter can force Hampton Casino to pay the guy as their whole argument now hinges on the fact that he admits to using a robot, thus violating their published company policy, irrespective of how that confession was derived (I don't believe their is a dispute related to whether or not that specific policy appeared on the Hampton site at the time).

By the same token, the online casinos must do their best to avert this type of negative publicity. Questioning the authenticity of a $1.3 million dollar win is not your every day run of the mill dispute. Companies like Hampton do not need this type of a black eye. The top companies in this industry need to work closely with respected “watchdog” sites and consult with them regularly. The argument that Hampton Casino acted arrogantly here certainly holds water.

The point I’m getting at is that sites such as Casino Meister need to be utilized more properly. From a players perspective, coming onto the forum and complaining AFTER a confession is made serves no purpose. Likewise, from the online casino’s perspective, offering the stance that the player made a confession only after baiting him along during a half hour phone conversation serves no purpose either and is not likely to win over many supporters.

Sites like this need to be utilized from the onset immediately upon determination of a dispute…….otherwise there will be no winners when all is said and done. If ever there was a case study on how NOT to handle an online gambling payout dispute, this would be IT.

Both the player and the casino made their own bed and now they have to lay in it.