Gambling addict turns into a Saint for Gamblers
Regardless of how one feels about her lawsuit, she is the perfect person to bring it -- young, female, attractive, intelligent, well-spoken, and with a good career before her addiction ruined her life. However it turns out, I wish her the best.
but I fear it will be settled before it gets to trial, with confidentiality requirements and everything swept under the rug.
Neko
Her license to practice law was revoked, she won't be living the lifestyle she's accustomed to and this is the only way she'll get thousands of dollars to keep up her rich lifestyle. I don't feel bad for her. It's about personal responsibility.
It's really a drama about human nature. We all try to get what we want regardless of the cost or the embarrassment that could be involved.
.jpg)
I'm not sure how much sympathy I can give her. If she takes it to the jury, I hope she wins and wins a lot. Not for her sake or the attorneys that will get a huge chunk. The only way the casino industry will stip doing this is if they know there's a possible reprecution. People wear depends at slot machines so they don't have to give up their machine for crying out loud! This lady passed out at the table or playing for many days at a time. And it's okay to let them play until they wake up and take responsibility!? They're sick, not irresponsible.
She definitely needs to take responsibility from here forward, but so do the casinos. All APs should keep this in mind when entering a casino. Go in there with the right mental attitude. Don't play marginal games, play tired etc... Always go with your best game. These places deserve to lose all we can win. Whether or not you like this lady, the house is doing this to many many people. Remember that each time you play!
... and Len lost and so will she.
Cobbson
Well said Bear. I hope Arelia has some better luck in court than what she received in the crooked deals she usually experienced at the hands of several casinos' management executives. Hopefully, if something good comes out of her case, I hope it could be that finally, there could be some clear guidelines as to the 'duty of care' involved for a casino and an addicted gambler; or for that matter, anyone foolishly regularly gambling large sums of cash. Has that cash been legally acquired? If not, does, or should, anyone else care? If a BJ player is beginning to doze off at the table after a marathon session, the least the management could do would be to provide a comfy fold-up sleeper, perhaps out of sight in the pit? (just kidding with that one)
In her case, several times, the main lawsuit casino even sent limos to collect her and take her to her comped room. They knew she was a lawyer and they'd known, for some months, that she had a 'problem' but still they continued to milk her for all they could suck out of her. I am no lawyer but some of these suspect casinos in this case seem to have a case to answer; if not legally, certainly morally.
Without a doubt there is a foul stink emanating from the executive offices of certain casinos.
Christian Hainz won US$ 664,461.06, and his case has set favorable precedent for addicted gamblers. It all comes down to how jurors are selected. His lawyer Gunter Huainigg probably had done a great job in jury selection. Lets' take the following as a scenario. What's the outcome of Arelia's case if these jurors are selected in the trial:
PRO-POSTERS
LVBear584
Neko
Neutron Bomb
snapper
Me
vs
CON-POSTERS
Nat
doppelganger
Gorgon
BJayCobbson
You may google Hainz' case for more info & details.
Is there a law that says a casino must restrain a person from gambling? What is the legal basis for her lawsuit? Should compulsive shoppers sue Macy's or QVC? Should compulsive eaters sue restaurants or supermarkets? Should anorexics sue Barbie and fashion magazines?
The fault lies with the addict, not with the businesses.
I noticed she joined Gamblers Anonymous. I wonder if she will sue them after she becomes addicted to 12-step programs.
In her case, several times, the main lawsuit casino even sent limos to collect her and take her to her comped room.
She gets free stuff and she is complaining? If she wins, does this mean casinos won't give comps anymore for fear of lawsuits? Be careful what you wish for.
....not under the jurisdiction of New Jersey, USA, as both the Tose/Sands case and our discussion of the present case will be decided. The Hainz case seems exactly like the young ladies, but Noo Joisye is Noo Noisye.
I wish her luck and a slice of Taylor Porkroll,
Cobbson
These days in most civilised countries, there are laws designed to prevent those inebriated from being served more alcohol, for obvious reasons. Those who serve an inebriated patron risk incurring a penalty under umbrella 'care of duty' laws, which we finally have, after decades of evolution. But that is alcohol. Now we finally move on to another of the 7 deadly sins: gambling.
Until now, 'care of duty' has been a subject that casino management has usually called for their security people to manage. If Panama Rick and some others here had their way, the casino executive-protectors/lovers that they seem to be, would have dealt with Arelia's case simply and quickly; if she has run out of cash to lose, grab her, her snickers bars, her BS addiction stuff and throw her out, NOW. So what if she has been sitting in the same chair for 3 days/nights and gambling like a maniac, with no food or sleep. We provided the nice chair for her to sit on for however long she wants, (so long as she keeps losing!) End of story!
Fan2008's insightful idea may prompt yet another John Grisham novel about jury selection. Maybe she won't win her case 100% but the abysmal behaviour of some casino management in her case surely warrants maybe 40% of the final action award? If I was on her jury, I'd go with a lot more that that!
If Panama Rick and some others here had their way, the casino
executive-protectors/lovers that they seem to be....
They give me free rooms, food, and shows, and all they want in return is for me to try to beat them. What a country!
Deep Throat leaked this (unsigned) memo to me. I cannot vouch for its authenticity, but see what you think.
MEMO TO: W.E. Stitchem-Goode, Lawyers Inc.
FROM: W.E. Gottum Casino Chain Inc.
RE: Some broad is trying to stiff us. Stop her. And, at the same time, get even with LV Bear somehow.
Jack,
As we discussed on the phone, your extorbitant bill quote for these two little jobs is way over at $3M. We here have agreed to 3/4 of a M. Take it or leave it. Remember, one of us may have a Friend in the Mob. Here is a list of why you guys are required, damn it. Make sure you put your press release in your usual lawyer-speak that only other hot-shot lawyers and dumb judges understand.
1 We are not a charity.
2 Our sole purpose of existence is to make money.
3 Our other sole purpose is to our shareholders, damn it.
4 Our sole purpose is to make as much money as we can from all the idiots who come in here to play our stupid biased games. Our right to do this is enshrined in the Constitution. Find the right amendment and make a big deal about it.
5 Idiots who come in here with money, thinking they are going to get something for nothing from our stupid biased games are sadly mistaken. This is also probably covered in the Constitution. Find it. Make a big deal about it.
6 We pay a large staff here as little as possible, in the hope that the odd idiot that does miraculously win something will tip staff, that always seem to be complaining. See if there is something in the Constitution that will allow us to tax all idiots' winning bets $1 as a staff toke so it will look like we are paying them more.
7 We provide a plush venue, with expensive chairs and tables, all free to all. Find out if that broad thinks that she actually fell asleep in our chair. This could be an important point in our favor.
8 Make a big deal about the 14 snickers bars she got for free, AND I checked, it was 15 glasses of orange juice over 3 days. And the broad claims she had no food! Does she know how much is a snickers? I think you could make a big deal about that too.
9 We are not a charity.
10 Idiots have a right to lose as much money as they can, for as long as is humanly possible on our stupid biased games. This right must be in the Constitution somewhere. Find it quick and make a big deal about it.
10 We are not a charity. We are here for the sole purpose of...
I think that about covers it. Oh, one other thing Jack, boyo. Make sure there is no deep throat that sees this. Remember, one of us may have a Friend in the Mob.
And why is Arelia intitled to 1 cent from actions she performed on her own free will?
Thank you for asking again, Panama but like I said, I'm no lawyer.
When I next make an appointment ($150 hour) I will mention your question and give them some free advice first, like: 'There is gotta be something in the Constitution that covers something they did wrong... One of us may have...'
NB
Thanks goodness that NOT all news are bad. Avelia uses Youtube to tell her audiences how devilish casinos have destroyed her life. On the other hand, Henry uses Youtube to tell his audiences how a healer has restored eyesights, hearing, and health of the blind, the deaf, & the sick. The healer has even cured the addicts (Smokers, gamblers, etc...)
I watched half this clip and had enough, made me sick. We have a similar lawsuit in the works in Canada, where a Casino is being sued for millions, as the person asked to be banned, but was allowed in anyway. An important question is what is REASONABLE for casinos to do to track losses and monitor play and ban people, given the number of people walking into Casinos every day. Hey, maybe they will see me as a "gambling addict" at my local casino, and bar me, since I am there every week (or should I tell them about the $40K I took from them in advantage play over the last 5 years and put their minds at rest, that I will not sue them).
These people with these lawsuits keep holding up the liquor/alcohol analogy. I don't see anyone suing our Liquor Control Board (that's what we have in Canada) by families of people killed in various ways by alcohol bought in their stores. The bottom line that it's society's problem and the individuals, NOT the fault of the 'businesses' nor their responsibility to potect people from themselves, and from consequences they could reasonably have predicted themselves.
FrankD.
