Recent article about the Ivey/Borgata saga

[Three]

I will defer to the one with legal training but, unless I am mistaken the judge said that Ivey and Sun's action resulted in created a marked deck. He said there was 2 violations of the legal code governing gambling by Ivey et al and his decision was based on a third line of reasoning that didn't revolve around either of the illegalities he cited. It seemed to me that the way his decision was written that Ivey et al would just have to pay back the money but if they continued to pursue it to a higher count and the judge ruled based on the illegalities as well that Ivey et al would likely face charges for the illegality. Often decisions are based on the best justice and the least cost to the state in time and expense in court rather than by actual guilt or innocence. This are plead down or judges decide to act on lesser charges so their penalty rendered is close to what they feel is justice rather than the ruling indicate an accurate assessment of guilt or innocence. I now defer to the distinguished council for comments on this post.

[Norm]

But I will share that I fail to see the relevancy of your fallacy

Just joking.

[bigplayer]

Dreadful article:

It simply ignores the indisputable fact that Ivey
and Sun cheated via dealer collusion "touching"
the cards, for the sole purpose of sorting them.

Nonsense. The casino voluntarily chose to violate procedures. The dealer spun the cards with full knowledge of and permission of the pit boss. It's never been up to the players to protect the casino from itself or to fix violations in procedure. It's not up to the player to know gaming regulations or to keep the casino compliant. It's up to the casino.

What's going on here is Borgata (and other casinos) are taking a free roll against Ivey. If he would have lost they would have said nothing and kept his money. If Ivey had sued to get his money back he would have been laughed out of court. Even the judge stated clearly that Ivey broke no laws and didn't cheat in any manner.

[Frank Galvin]

I will defer to the one with legal training but, unless I am mistaken the judge said that Ivey and Sun's action resulted in created a marked deck. He said there was 2 violations of the legal code governing gambling by Ivey et al and his decision was based on a third line of reasoning that didn't revolve around either of the illegalities he cited. It seemed to me that the way his decision was written that Ivey et al would just have to pay back the money but if they continued to pursue it to a higher count and the judge ruled based on the illegalities as well that Ivey et al would likely face charges for the illegality. Often decisions are based on the best justice and the least cost to the state in time and expense in court rather than by actual guilt or innocence. This are plead down or judges decide to act on lesser charges so their penalty rendered is close to what they feel is justice rather than the ruling indicate an accurate assessment of guilt or innocence. I now defer to the distinguished council for comments on this post.

Civil claims do not get plead down, like criminal charges. While the Court held that Ivey and Sun's actions (my comment -actually effectuated with the complicit permission of the casino) violated NJ's gambling laws, he was not called upon, nor empowered to adjudicate any alleged criminal culpability. Remember, the US attorney for NJ was not prosecuting Ivey or Sun for criminal misconduct. This was the casino's civil lawsuit.

Civil case closed (pending appeal). Any criminal proceeding is unlikely to ever see the light of a courtroom, never mind a grand jury.