Man Sues Casino Over Losses

[Platapus]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21113395/detail.html

Man Claims He Lost $673,854

DETROIT -- A local man attempts to sue Motor City Casino after he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Italo Mario Parise, 61, said he no longer gambles, but over the past few years he has lost $673,854 playing cards, slots and gaming tables.Parise said he is trying to recover some of his losses and believes he was brainwashed by the casino to keep coming back. Parise's attorney, Frank A. Cusumaro claims under Michigan law, a casino should stop a gambler when he is down.The law Cusumaro is stating, Gaming: Action By Loser has been on the books since 1961.In Parise's lawsuit, he claimed the casino should have known of his enormous financial losses and never made any attempt to stop him."The visceral reflex, response is who can someone expect to get the money back that they gambled? However based on the statute we believe it is in fact a viable claim", said Cusumano Parise went before Judge Michael Sapala in Wayne Circuit Civil Court on Friday.

Sapala threw out the case ruling Parise could not recoup the money.

"Obviously, this is very disappointing," said Cusumano."We are very pleased with the verdict" , said Motor City Casino spokesperson Jacci Woods. This is the first lawsuit of its kind in Michigan.Parise could file another claim in State Appeals Court. Cusumano said it's unclear if he will do that.Cusumano is being ordered back to court for what he called "a hearing for sanction".The judge could order Cusumano to pay Motor City Casino's legal bills for filing a "frivoulous" lawsuit.

Who the hell in Detroit has $673,854 to lose??? I did not think the entire city even had $600K these days.

I guess Parise is not the smartest guy in class. Casinos stay in business because more people lose than win. A lot more people lose then win. All the games are set up with the strict purpose of causing more people to lose than to win.

I am really glad the Judge threw this case out.

So. Mr Parise, if you had won the $600K, would you have given it back to the casino because they should not have allowed you to win so much??

I guess everyone is a victim these days. :nope:

It would serve him right if he did have to pay the legal bills in addition to being so stupid as to lose $600K.

What a tool :damn:

[Shearwater]

As long as he can afford to go to court, he obviously can't be that short on money.
What a dope.

[SteamWake]

Another example of someone not taking responsibilitys for their own actions.

[Torplexed]

In Parise's lawsuit, he claimed the casino should have known of his enormous financial losses and never made any attempt to stop him.""We're cutting you off pal. Let us call you a cab." Right. I guess the mixed-up Parise thought he was at a bar. :88)

[MothBalls]

Still trying to figure some thing out. Between the guy who lost the money, or the lawyer who represented him in court; which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber? Didn't they make a movie about this already?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Sapala threw out the case ruling Parise could not recoup the money.

"Obviously, this is very disappointing," said Cusumano.


I wonder if Cusumano actually charged Parise for pursuing this case. If so, something is rotten in Detroit. Any proper attorney should have known right off the bat that the case would be thrown out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the unconstitutionality of this law if practiced as a legal censure.

Here's an excerpt;

Sec. 2939.
(1) In any suit brought by the person losing any money or goods, against the person receiving the same, when it appears from the complaint that the money or goods came to the hands of the defendant by gaming, if the plaintiff makes oath before the court in which such suit is pending, that the money or goods were lost by gaming with the defendant as alleged in the complaint, judgment shall be rendered that the plaintiff recovered damages to the amount of the said money or goods, unless the defendant makes oath that he did not obtain the same, or any part thereof by gaming with the plaintiff; and if he so discharges himself, he shall recover of the plaintiff his costs; but the plaintiff may at his election, maintain and prosecute his action according to the usual course of proceedings in such actions at common law.
In short, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's losses unless they (the defendant) claim they are not liable for the plaintiff's losses. If the defendant makes such a claim, they have a right to sue the plaintiff to recover court costs, but the plaintiff still has the option of pursuing the matter in the normal manner without taking this law into account. :88)

What a marvelously worthless piece of legislation! One has to wonder how it even came into exsistence! I'll bet anything that this worthless law came into play only a few times, and that those times all involved payoffs or money laundering. Just a hunch....

Still working on 2939.2. The term definitions aren't all provided in the original law, but are instead provided by references to the same terms in other laws. It will take some time to locate all of them. Essentially, however, it details penalties for those who use this law without the assent of the defendant.

(3) All notes, bills, bonds, mortgages, or other securities or conveyances whatever, in which the whole or any part of the consideration, shall be for any money or goods won by playing at cards, dice, or any other game whatever, or by betting on the sides or hands of such as are gaming, or by any betting or gaming whatever, or for reimbursing or repaying any moneys knowingly lent or advanced for any gaming or betting, shall be void and of no effect, as between the parties to the same, and as to all persons, except such as shall hold or claim under them in good faith, and without notice of the illegality of such contract or conveyance.
I've highlighted the relevant parts here, to make this comprehensible.
It basically says that when this law is used and accepted by both parties(that part is defined in (1)), all debts of any kind are void, except those that neither party seeks legal mediation to resolve. How convenient for someone who is making a payoff or laundering money :roll:

It might as well read: If both parties want to use this law then all transactions between them are void except the ones that they didn't want to list.

The rest of the law is just a very detailed expansion of the tenets listed here, with an extremely detailed section concerning retention of rights to property. If I had to guess, I'd say that at some point (around 1961)two parties engaged in illegal money transfers wanted a legal contract that would keep everybody honest.

Imagine for a moment a case that goes to court wherein a plaintiff is suing a casino for money he lost and the casino agrees to pay for it. Now imagine that both of the parties involved are under some degree of police scrutiny. That kind of transaction wouldn't be even on the authorities' radar most of the time. The details of civil legal proceedings at the time (this is well before the privacy and freedom of information acts) were not matters of public record and could not be obtained without a proper motion (for civvies) or a warrant (for police)
Finally, imagine that the defendant is recieving a payoff from the plaintiff that exceeds the total value of the plaintiff's assets (or at least those that the authorities are aware of).

What we have here is a functional, obscure, tax-dodging, and most importantly, legal system for executing a below-the-radar money transfer between someone in the casino biz and an unidentified party. The law is impossible for anyone to use against the casino (and even provides penalties for doing so under 2939.4) and it allows both parties to define exactly which assets pertain to the transfer...err suit, whilst ignoring those that do not, thus ensuring that the payer can transfer assets to the payee without alerting the authorities or creating any immediate discrepancies in the records.


All that said, I have a feeling that Cusumano was using this law as a way to extort money from a man who has a bad and costly habit, and who is loloking for ways to get rich quickly. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Parise payed thousands of dollars for a suit that any paralegal would see as being destined to failure.

I may be wrong about all this, and I can't claim any kind of professional legal expertise, but I'd say that this is a classic example of legal criminality on all counts. There is a reason that we look upon lawyers and politicians with disdain and I think that this case is a sterling example of why we do.


Sapala threw out the case ruling Parise could not recoup the money.

"Obviously, this is very disappointing," said Cusumano.


I wonder if Cusumano actually charged Parise for pursuing this case. If so, something is rotten in Detroit. Any proper attorney should have known right off the bat that the case would be thrown out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the unconstitutionality of this law if practiced as a legal censure.

Here's an excerpt;

Sec. 2939.
(1) In any suit brought by the person losing any money or goods, against the person receiving the same, when it appears from the complaint that the money or goods came to the hands of the defendant by gaming, if the plaintiff makes oath before the court in which such suit is pending, that the money or goods were lost by gaming with the defendant as alleged in the complaint, judgment shall be rendered that the plaintiff recovered damages to the amount of the said money or goods, unless the defendant makes oath that he did not obtain the same, or any part thereof by gaming with the plaintiff; and if he so discharges himself, he shall recover of the plaintiff his costs; but the plaintiff may at his election, maintain and prosecute his action according to the usual course of proceedings in such actions at common law.
In short, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's losses unless they (the defendant) claim they are not liable for the plaintiff's losses. If the defendant makes such a claim, they have a right to sue the plaintiff to recover court costs, but the plaintiff still has the option of pursuing the matter in the normal manner without taking this law into account. :88)

What a marvelously worthless piece of legislation! One has to wonder how it even came into exsistence! I'll bet anything that this worthless law came into play only a few times, and that those times all involved payoffs or money laundering. Just a hunch....

Still working on 2939.2. The term definitions aren't all provided in the original law, but are instead provided by references to the same terms in other laws. It will take some time to locate all of them. Essentially, however, it details penalties for those who use this law without the assent of the defendant.

(3) All notes, bills, bonds, mortgages, or other securities or conveyances whatever, in which the whole or any part of the consideration, shall be for any money or goods won by playing at cards, dice, or any other game whatever, or by betting on the sides or hands of such as are gaming, or by any betting or gaming whatever, or for reimbursing or repaying any moneys knowingly lent or advanced for any gaming or betting, shall be void and of no effect, as between the parties to the same, and as to all persons, except such as shall hold or claim under them in good faith, and without notice of the illegality of such contract or conveyance.
I've highlighted the relevant parts here, to make this comprehensible.
It basically says that when this law is used and accepted by both parties(that part is defined in (1)), all debts of any kind are void, except those that neither party seeks legal mediation to resolve. How convenient for someone who is making a payoff or laundering money :roll:

It might as well read: If both parties want to use this law then all transactions between them are void except the ones that they didn't want to list.

The rest of the law is just a very detailed expansion of the tenets listed here, with an extremely detailed section concerning retention of rights to property. If I had to guess, I'd say that at some point (around 1961)two parties engaged in illegal money transfers wanted a legal contract that would keep everybody honest.

Imagine for a moment a case that goes to court wherein a plaintiff is suing a casino for money he lost and the casino agrees to pay for it. Now imagine that both of the parties involved are under some degree of police scrutiny. That kind of transaction wouldn't be even on the authorities' radar most of the time. The details of civil legal proceedings at the time (this is well before the privacy and freedom of information acts) were not matters of public record and could not be obtained without a proper motion (for civvies) or a warrant (for police)
Finally, imagine that the defendant is recieving a payoff from the plaintiff that exceeds the total value of the plaintiff's assets (or at least those that the authorities are aware of).

What we have here is a functional, obscure, tax-dodging, and most importantly, legal system for executing a below-the-radar money transfer between someone in the casino biz and an unidentified party. The law is impossible for anyone to use against the casino (and even provides penalties for doing so under 2939.4) and it allows both parties to define exactly which assets pertain to the transfer...err suit, whilst ignoring those that do not, thus ensuring that the payer can transfer assets to the payee without alerting the authorities or creating any immediate discrepancies in the records.


All that said, I have a feeling that Cusumano was using this law as a way to extort money from a man who has a bad and costly habit, and who is loloking for ways to get rich quickly. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Parise payed thousands of dollars for a suit that any paralegal would see as being destined to failure.

I may be wrong about all this, and I can't claim any kind of professional legal expertise, but I'd say that this is a classic example of legal criminality on all counts. There is a reason that we look upon lawyers and politicians with disdain and I think that this case is a sterling example of why we do.


The judge could order Cusumano to pay Motor City Casino's legal bills for filing a "frivoulous" lawsuit.


One final note here. The judge's authority to punish Cusumano is actually provided for in the law itself (as I mentioned above), unlike most civil laws. Frivolous lawsuits in the US are not usually subject to punishment, which is why so very, very, many are filed each year, mostly by lawyers who (amazingly:o) don't charge themselves for their work, and by idiots who want to play the legal lottery( to the tune of thousands of dollars' worth of legal fees). That aside, the provision for punishment in this law lends some degree of credence to the idea that it was created for use by a very specific party or parties on very specific occassions.

I see this whole thing and the legal industry in general as a perversion of capitalism that never should have exsisted. At least casinos have the decency to offer people a chance to make it big, however slim that chance is. The politicians and lawyers who draft and enforce laws like these aren't even that magnanimous. I think these kinds of issues are a sad commentary on how far we have allowed plutocratic witch-doctery to progress in this country.:nope:

[SteamWake]

Uhhh.... maybe Obama will bail him out


(ducks)

[Chad]

Uhhh.... maybe Obama will bail him out


(ducks)


:damn::damn:

[Sledgehammer427]

just goes to show we live in a world where we cannot accept responsibility for our own actions.

like suing a toaster company for not warning you to stick a fork into a running toaster.

[Jimbuna]

Something similar was tried here in the UK against a national bookmakers company earlier this year.

Obviously the claim failed but could you imagine the widespread consequences if the precedent had happened :o

[sunvalleyslim]

I wonder if Cusumano actually charged Parise for pursuing this case. If so, something is rotten in Detroit. Any proper attorney should have known right off the bat that the case would be thrown out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the unconstitutionality of this law if practiced as a legal censure.

Here's an excerpt;

Sec. 2939.

In short, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's losses unless they (the defendant) claim they are not liable for the plaintiff's losses. If the defendant makes such a claim, they have a right to sue the plaintiff to recover court costs, but the plaintiff still has the option of pursuing the matter in the normal manner without taking this law into account. :88)

What a marvelously worthless piece of legislation! One has to wonder how it even came into exsistence! I'll bet anything that this worthless law came into play only a few times, and that those times all involved payoffs or money laundering. Just a hunch....

Still working on 2939.2. The term definitions aren't all provided in the original law, but are instead provided by references to the same terms in other laws. It will take some time to locate all of them. Essentially, however, it details penalties for those who use this law without the assent of the defendant.


I've highlighted the relevant parts here, to make this comprehensible.
It basically says that when this law is used and accepted by both parties(that part is defined in (1)), all debts of any kind are void, except those that neither party seeks legal mediation to resolve. How convenient for someone who is making a payoff or laundering money :roll:

It might as well read: If both parties want to use this law then all transactions between them are void except the ones that they didn't want to list.

The rest of the law is just a very detailed expansion of the tenets listed here, with an extremely detailed section concerning retention of rights to property. If I had to guess, I'd say that at some point (around 1961)two parties engaged in illegal money transfers wanted a legal contract that would keep everybody honest.

Imagine for a moment a case that goes to court wherein a plaintiff is suing a casino for money he lost and the casino agrees to pay for it. Now imagine that both of the parties involved are under some degree of police scrutiny. That kind of transaction wouldn't be even on the authorities' radar most of the time. The details of civil legal proceedings at the time (this is well before the privacy and freedom of information acts) were not matters of public record and could not be obtained without a proper motion (for civvies) or a warrant (for police)
Finally, imagine that the defendant is recieving a payoff from the plaintiff that exceeds the total value of the plaintiff's assets (or at least those that the authorities are aware of).

What we have here is a functional, obscure, tax-dodging, and most importantly, legal system for executing a below-the-radar money transfer between someone in the casino biz and an unidentified party. The law is impossible for anyone to use against the casino (and even provides penalties for doing so under 2939.4) and it allows both parties to define exactly which assets pertain to the transfer...err suit, whilst ignoring those that do not, thus ensuring that the payer can transfer assets to the payee without alerting the authorities or creating any immediate discrepancies in the records.


All that said, I have a feeling that Cusumano was using this law as a way to extort money from a man who has a bad and costly habit, and who is loloking for ways to get rich quickly. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Parise payed thousands of dollars for a suit that any paralegal would see as being destined to failure.

I may be wrong about all this, and I can't claim any kind of professional legal expertise, but I'd say that this is a classic example of legal criminality on all counts. There is a reason that we look upon lawyers and politicians with disdain and I think that this case is a sterling example of why we do.



I wonder if Cusumano actually charged Parise for pursuing this case. If so, something is rotten in Detroit. Any proper attorney should have known right off the bat that the case would be thrown out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the unconstitutionality of this law if practiced as a legal censure.

Here's an excerpt;

Sec. 2939.

In short, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's losses unless they (the defendant) claim they are not liable for the plaintiff's losses. If the defendant makes such a claim, they have a right to sue the plaintiff to recover court costs, but the plaintiff still has the option of pursuing the matter in the normal manner without taking this law into account. :88)

What a marvelously worthless piece of legislation! One has to wonder how it even came into exsistence! I'll bet anything that this worthless law came into play only a few times, and that those times all involved payoffs or money laundering. Just a hunch....

Still working on 2939.2. The term definitions aren't all provided in the original law, but are instead provided by references to the same terms in other laws. It will take some time to locate all of them. Essentially, however, it details penalties for those who use this law without the assent of the defendant.


I've highlighted the relevant parts here, to make this comprehensible.
It basically says that when this law is used and accepted by both parties(that part is defined in (1)), all debts of any kind are void, except those that neither party seeks legal mediation to resolve. How convenient for someone who is making a payoff or laundering money :roll:

It might as well read: If both parties want to use this law then all transactions between them are void except the ones that they didn't want to list.

The rest of the law is just a very detailed expansion of the tenets listed here, with an extremely detailed section concerning retention of rights to property. If I had to guess, I'd say that at some point (around 1961)two parties engaged in illegal money transfers wanted a legal contract that would keep everybody honest.

Imagine for a moment a case that goes to court wherein a plaintiff is suing a casino for money he lost and the casino agrees to pay for it. Now imagine that both of the parties involved are under some degree of police scrutiny. That kind of transaction wouldn't be even on the authorities' radar most of the time. The details of civil legal proceedings at the time (this is well before the privacy and freedom of information acts) were not matters of public record and could not be obtained without a proper motion (for civvies) or a warrant (for police)
Finally, imagine that the defendant is recieving a payoff from the plaintiff that exceeds the total value of the plaintiff's assets (or at least those that the authorities are aware of).

What we have here is a functional, obscure, tax-dodging, and most importantly, legal system for executing a below-the-radar money transfer between someone in the casino biz and an unidentified party. The law is impossible for anyone to use against the casino (and even provides penalties for doing so under 2939.4) and it allows both parties to define exactly which assets pertain to the transfer...err suit, whilst ignoring those that do not, thus ensuring that the payer can transfer assets to the payee without alerting the authorities or creating any immediate discrepancies in the records.


All that said, I have a feeling that Cusumano was using this law as a way to extort money from a man who has a bad and costly habit, and who is loloking for ways to get rich quickly. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Parise payed thousands of dollars for a suit that any paralegal would see as being destined to failure.

I may be wrong about all this, and I can't claim any kind of professional legal expertise, but I'd say that this is a classic example of legal criminality on all counts. There is a reason that we look upon lawyers and politicians with disdain and I think that this case is a sterling example of why we do.



One final note here. The judge's authority to punish Cusumano is actually provided for in the law itself (as I mentioned above), unlike most civil laws. Frivolous lawsuits in the US are not usually subject to punishment, which is why so very, very, many are filed each year, mostly by lawyers who (amazingly:o) don't charge themselves for their work, and by idiots who want to play the legal lottery( to the tune of thousands of dollars' worth of legal fees). That aside, the provision for punishment in this law lends some degree of credence to the idea that it was created for use by a very specific party or parties on very specific occassions.

I see this whole thing and the legal industry in general as a perversion of capitalism that never should have exsisted. At least casinos have the decency to offer people a chance to make it big, however slim that chance is. The politicians and lawyers who draft and enforce laws like these aren't even that magnanimous. I think these kinds of issues are a sad commentary on how far we have allowed plutocratic witch-doctery to progress in this country.:nope:

undersealcpl, with your vast knowledge of the law, arrest peocedures, and multiple defense tactics, you should become a lawyer.:har::har::har:

[OneToughHerring]

Gambling can form into an addiction. Meaning, into a medical illness that should be treated. Question is, who in the US is responsible for the treatment of gambling addicts?

[SteamWake]

Gambling can form into an addiction. Meaning, into a medical illness that should be treated. Question is, who in the US is responsible for the treatment of gambling addicts?

There are plenty of support groups out there but you have to seek the help yourself. The first step is indeed recognizing you have a problem.

Please oh please lets not start another well intentioned goverment program for gambling addicts.

[MothBalls]

Gambling can form into an addiction. Meaning, into a medical illness that should be treated. Question is, who in the US is responsible for the treatment of gambling addicts?

They are called taxpayers. We take responsibility through programs called welfare, social security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, free mental heath clinics, and when all that fails, prisons.

[OneToughHerring]

Why not a government program? Because it's...*gasp*...socialism? I mean look around you you've got private companies being given the tasks of the government and it's not working out.

They are called taxpayers. We take responsibility through programs called welfare, social security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, free mental heath clinics, and when all that fails, prisons.

Yea but why not proper treatment program? Here in Finland we have plenty of people who are gambling addicts and we don't really even have private companies that can organize gambling, it's all state owned. And still there are people who pretty much gamble everything they have, normal people. I remember reading about a female teacher who gambled pretty much everything and wanted to be banned from all money games. The state gambling company pays for the treatment of gambling addicts, which is kinda funny.

[Shearwater]

Yea but why not proper treatment program? Here in Finland we have plenty of people who are gambling addicts and we don't really even have private companies that can organize gambling, it's all state owned. [...] The state gambling company pays for the treatment of gambling addicts, which is kinda funny.

If gambling is run by the state, they should also take care of everything gambling entails, including gambling addicts - meaning people who want to stop, but can't do it by themselves. To me the system in Finland makes sense.

[SteamWake]

Gambling is not run by the state it is regulated by it.

There are plenty of support groups out there already.

Its about freakin time people take responsibility for their own actions and stop looking to nanny for help and support.