StricklyAP/WizardofNothing
Quote: cwazyWe'll have to agree to disagree until Casinokiller et al get arrested. Let's table any further discussion because it's going nowhere. You are entitled to think you're right until you are proven wrong. Hell, based on this conversation, my guess is that you'll think you're right even after you're proven wrong. Enjoy.
I don't know casino killer but I suspect he was conned by WON as well or why do the doxxing
That said any legal action against him and casino killer would bring out his own evidence of a con and probably get plenty of people willing to share their story
I don't think it would go over well for WON
There is still time to sign up for game 55 on DT.Quote: billryanProfessor Plum, with the candlestick in the Conservatory.
Quote: MrVOK, but I am not talking about "Casinokiller's" liability, I am only saying that the owners of this board would not be held liable for what has been posted.
You’re correct that the board itself wouldn’t be liable unless an investigation proves that the staff actively participated in or encouraged the unlawful behavior. That hopefully is not the case.
Quote: mipletThere is still time to sign up for game 55 on DT.
DT is scary.
Quote: darkozI don't know casino killer but I suspect he was conned by WON as well or why do the doxxing
That said any legal action against him and casino killer would bring out his own evidence of a con and probably get plenty of people willing to share their story
I don't think it would go over well for WON
Obviously I have kept my ear to the ground on this situation and all I can say is that there has been far more egregious conduct perpetrated by Casinokiller et al as part of this whole campaign than has been publicly posted (it’s not my place to post it). My somewhat educated guess is that the scorched earth strategy he is employing has made whatever fallout there may be for WON from dealing with law enforcement and getting the perpetrator(s) arrested worth it.
Quote: RS#FreeCasinoKiller
FCK 4LIFE.
Quote: RS#FreeCasinoKiller
Can we just ban RS already? He’s always trying to cause trouble.
#BanRS
Quote: PokerGrinderCan we just ban RS already? He’s always trying to cause trouble.
#BanRS
That's racist.
Quote: cwazyObviously I have kept my ear to the ground on this situation and all I can say is that there has been far more egregious conduct perpetrated by Casinokiller et al as part of this whole campaign than has been publicly posted (it’s not my place to post it). My somewhat educated guess is that the scorched earth strategy he is employing has made whatever fallout there may be for WON from dealing with law enforcement and getting the perpetrator(s) arrested worth it.
Okay then until that egregious stuff comes to light I admit it may be possible WON could go after casinokiller (not knowing what it is)
I remember the Mystikal story. He was a very successful rapper who discovered his secretary embezzled $80,000. So he asked her to his home where he gang raped her with his Bros. Thinking she would not go to the authorities and incriminate herself
Of course she did and Mystikal did 7 years
Quote: darkozOkay then until that egregious stuff comes to light I admit it may be possible WON could go after casinokiller (not knowing what it is)
I remember the Mystikal story. He was a very successful rapper who discovered his secretary embezzled $80,000. So he asked her to his home where he gang raped her with his Bros. Thinking she would not go to the authorities and incriminate herself
Of course she did and Mystikal did 7 years
I would have been pissed off too if my secretary stole $80,000 from me but gang raping her with his friends was not the answer. How about just plain suing her for his money? That would have been the logical thing to have done.
and his mind he already paid for it. You know sometimes this kind of thinking might be right. They're not going to the police because they're criminals, can be your only recourse sometimes.Quote: NathanI would have been pissed off too if my secretary stole $80,000 from me but gang raping her with his friends was not the answer. How about just plain suing her for his money? That would have been the logical thing to have done.
Quote: onenickelmiracleand his mind he already paid for it. You know sometimes this kind of thinking might be right. They're not going to the place because they're criminals, can be your only recourse sometimes.
If I’m reading what you just said correctly, you’re saying that a gang rape to satisfy a debt was “right”? Yikes.
Quote: cwazyIf I’m reading what you just said correctly, you’re saying that a gang rape to satisfy a debt was “right”? Yikes.
Quote: RSWhat happened to the thief?
I can't find anything on the thief. In researching I need to correct it was Mystikal hair stylist not his secretary but other than that the story was correct
Here is a relevant piece perhaps. Police did not intend to pursue charges since Mystikal claimed sex was consensual but the victim said she saw them videotaping the incident
That got a warrant and the tape was found in Mystikal safe. Tape corroborated the hair stylist version
So relating to this forum let's see if casinokiller was stupid enough to video his actions
Quote: darkozI can't find anything on the thief. In researching I need to correct it was Mystikal hair stylist not his secretary but other than that the story was correct
Here is a relevant piece perhaps. Police did not intend to pursue charges since Mystikal claimed sex was consensual but the victim said she saw them videotaping the incident
That got a warrant and the tape was found in Mystikal safe. Tape corroborated the hair stylist version
So relating to this forum let's see if casinokiller was stupid enough to video his actions
Why did Mystikal's HAIR STYLIST have access to $80,000 of his money? :/
Quote: NathanWhy did Mystikal's HAIR STYLIST have access to $80,000 of his money? :/
I wasn't there so don't know lol. Something about cashing checks
Look it up
Quote: darkozI wasn't there so don't know lol. Something about cashing checks
Look it up
LMAO! :D
Quote: onenickelmiracleand his mind he already paid for it. You know sometimes this kind of thinking might be right. They're not going to the police because they're criminals, can be your only recourse sometimes.
That's really messed up thinking...:/ No, just no. :/
I know. Hardly even worth $80,000. :)Quote: NathanThat's really messed up thinking...:/ No, just no. :/
Quote: MrVI've read your posts, I see no real world issues for this board.
Lot of legal leeway with social media, and like I said do you seriously think WoN would be damn fool enough to actually file a lawsuit, thus exposing himself to numerous legal claims against him?
Hell, I doubt he can scrape up enough cash to buy a cup of coffee, let alone fund litigation.
Sure, in America you can usually find a lawyer somewhere willing to sue anybody for anything, but you need to pay a hefty retainer first, and more as things move forward.
What would his claimed damages be?
Loss of reputation?
That's a good one!
He's been damned, banned and tossed from this board like a bag of smelly, dirty diapers: his rep is beyond tarnished.
Aren't you a lawyer, MrV? I agree with you, and would trust your judgement in matters of law over cwazy.
Quote: MrVWhat little I know about this subject was gleaned from reading newspapers and articles on the subject, thus my opinion is neither definitive nor "expert."
Hmmm, I must be thinking of another long-term board member then.
Quote: AcesAndEightsHmmm, I must be thinking of another long-term board member then.
AceOfSpades is/was a divorce lawyer. But he doesn’t post here anymore.
Quote: rxwineThere's got to be some other lawyers here. They can't all be in church.
MrV is a lawyer. But there are a lot of types of practices. I think he's smart not to weigh in with a legal opinion if it's not his area of the law.
Quote: beachbumbabsMrV is a lawyer. But there are a lot of types of practices. I think he's smart not to weigh in with a legal opinion if it's not his area of the law.
Mr V twice declined to say he was a lawyer. I think his privacy should be respected.
I followed the court history of the case, read the opinions, but that's about it.
I did have success in suing someone who libeled another online, but I never had a case involving potential vicarious liability of an internet provider for posts made by others on its forum.
From what little I have read elsewhere about the subject it is my impression that in this case WoV should have no concerns.
see, e.g.: 2014 court case
Caveat: I've no idea as to the current state of this rapidly developing area of the law.
ZCore13
Quote: billryanMr V twice declined to say he was a lawyer. I think his privacy should be respected.
MrV has said many times in the past on this board that he is a lawyer. I'm not giving any new info there.
Quote: beachbumbabsMrV has said many times in the past on this board that he is a lawyer. I'm not giving any new info there.
In this thread, he declined to say so. What's so difficult about respecting that. If someone asked a member if they were an AP, and they declined to answer, would you out them?
I'm sure it wasn't done with any ill intention but I really don't think volunteering others personal information is cool.
Quote: billryanIn this thread, he declined to say so. What's so difficult about respecting that. If someone asked a member if they were an AP, and they declined to answer, would you out them?
I'm sure it wasn't done with any ill intention but I really don't think volunteering others personal information is cool.
I know your intentions are best but if we start becoming thread specific vs forum specific it's going to be a logistical nightmare
Perhaps let Mr. V weigh in on this in his own defense (no lawyerly double entendre intended)
Quote: MrVMy first brush with internet defamation came when I watched two folks on an old usenet board go at it, with one being sued by the other for defamation.
I followed the court history of the case, read the opinions, but that's about it.
I did have success in suing someone who libeled another online, but I never had a case involving potential vicarious liability of an internet provider for posts made by others on its forum.
From what little I have read elsewhere about the subject it is my impression that in this case WoV should have no concerns.
see, e.g.: 2014 court case
Caveat: I've no idea as to the current state of this rapidly developing area of the law.
WOV itself may or may not have liability. It's murky territory because online service providers generally have immunity if they maintain a hands off approach. But this is a heavily moderated forum, and some staff members are actively encouraging people to contribute new "information," much of which seems to be defamatory and incorrect/unproven (for example "he scams jewish women").
The most problematic legal issue for the forum is that it seems to be allowing its content to be used on the site that began this whole thing. New screenshots of forum posts from here seem to be added daily. The copyright for all of that material is owned by WOV. Since management is well aware of the site and has undoubtedly seen its content posted on there, by not issuing DMCA takedown requests for copyrighted forum material, a jury could pretty easily believe that WOV is at least passively participating in its operation, and is acting as a hub where defamatory content is collected and contributed to an extremely defamatory third party site that is being used in a stalking and extortion scheme. In combination with the factors in the above paragraph, it's quite possible that WOV has stepped over the line and voided its service provider immunity.
If I owned WOV, I'd at the very least be sending DMCA takedowns to Digital Ocean (the company that hosts the site in question) and Imgur (where they are hosting the actual screenshot files of copyrighted forum material) for the WOV material that has been posted on the site. That way if there is a civil claim, the DMCA takedown notices provide some evidence that WOV isn't voluntarily participating in the operation of the site.
Quote: cwazyQuote: MrVMy first brush with internet defamation came when I watched two folks on an old usenet board go at it, with one being sued by the other for defamation.
I followed the court history of the case, read the opinions, but that's about it.
I did have success in suing someone who libeled another online, but I never had a case involving potential vicarious liability of an internet provider for posts made by others on its forum.
From what little I have read elsewhere about the subject it is my impression that in this case WoV should have no concerns.
see, e.g.: 2014 court case
Caveat: I've no idea as to the current state of this rapidly developing area of the law.
WOV itself may or may not have liability. It's murky territory because online service providers generally have immunity if they maintain a hands off approach. But this is a heavily moderated forum, and some staff members are actively encouraging people to contribute new "information," much of which seems to be defamatory and incorrect/unproven (for example "he scams jewish women").
The most problematic legal issue for the forum is that it seems to be allowing its content to be used on the site that began this whole thing. New screenshots of forum posts from here seem to be added daily. The copyright for all of that material is owned by WOV. Since management is well aware of the site and has undoubtedly seen its content posted on there, by not issuing DMCA takedown requests for copyrighted forum material, a jury could pretty easily believe that WOV is at least passively participating in its operation, and is acting as a hub where defamatory content is collected and contributed to an extremely defamatory third party site that is being used in a stalking and extortion scheme. In combination with the factors in the above paragraph, it's quite possible that WOV has stepped over the line and voided its service provider immunity.
If I owned WOV, I'd at the very least be sending DMCA takedowns to Digital Ocean (the company that hosts the site in question) for the WOV material that has been posted on the site. That way if there is a civil claim, the DMCA takedown notices provide some evidence that WOV isn't voluntarily participating in the operation of the site.
And what is your background to be giving legal advice on what WOV should be doing? Are you an Attorney? Digital rights expert? Any case history you've been directly involved in within this space?
ZCore13
I'm happy to help if there's any other doubts.
Quote: Zcore13
And what is your background to be giving legal advice on what WOV should be doing? Are you an Attorney? Digital rights expert? Any case history you've been directly involved in within this space?
ZCore13
I'm not an attorney, nor am I giving legal advice. As I literally said in my post, I was saying what I would do if I owned the forum to avoid or at least mitigate liability. I have operated or consulted for several forums/social media sites and had to deal with very similar situations that escalated to lawsuits four times over last two decades. My experience with those lawsuits, and the directions and advice we were given by the lawyers defending us in those cases, are what I based my post on.
The owners/staff can and probably will ignore everything I said, and you are free to tell me that I'm not qualified and blah blah blah. It makes absolutely no difference to me. But this situation has spun pretty far out of control, and it appears that there are legal headaches coming for anyone that can reasonably be believed to have contributed to it. If the forum owner - who appears to have relatively deep pockets and would thus make an attractive target for any plaintiff's attorney - donesn’t want to start taking simple, free, common sense steps to try to mitigate those headaches, then so be it.
Quote: cwazyI'm not an attorney, nor am I giving legal advice. As I literally said in my post, I was saying what I would do if I owned the forum to avoid or at least mitigate liability. I have operated or consulted for several forums/social media sites and had to deal with very similar situations that escalated to lawsuits four times over last two decades. My experience with those lawsuits, and the directions and advice we were given by the lawyers defending us in those cases, are what I based my post on.
The owners/staff can and probably will ignore everything I said, and you are free to tell me that I'm not qualified and blah blah blah. It makes absolutely no difference to me. But this situation has spun pretty far out of control, and it appears that there are legal headaches coming for anyone that can reasonably be believed to have contributed to it. If the forum owner - who appears to have relatively deep pockets and would thus make an attractive target for any plaintiff's attorney - donesn’t want to start taking simple, free, common sense steps to try to mitigate those headaches, then so be it.
We're (staff) not ignoring you. Can't speak for anyone else.
Quote: cwazyI'm not an attorney, nor am I giving legal advice. As I literally said in my post, I was saying what I would do if I owned the forum to avoid or at least mitigate liability. I have operated or consulted for several forums/social media sites and had to deal with very similar situations that escalated to lawsuits four times over last two decades. My experience with those lawsuits, and the directions and advice we were given by the lawyers defending us in those cases, are what I based my post on.
The owners/staff can and probably will ignore everything I said, and you are free to tell me that I'm not qualified and blah blah blah. It makes absolutely no difference to me. But this situation has spun pretty far out of control, and it appears that there are legal headaches coming for anyone that can reasonably be believed to have contributed to it. If the forum owner - who appears to have relatively deep pockets and would thus make an attractive target for any plaintiff's attorney - donesn’t want to start taking simple, free, common sense steps to try to mitigate those headaches, then so be it.
If true, your experience is legitimate. I yield to your knowledge.
ZCore13
I wont put up the actual info but i dont think it violates any rules to link to the pennsylvania casino gaming commissions public list of excluded individuals
Listings are by date of exclusion (hint: he is currently last on the list therefore most recent exclusion)
Also alphabetically listed below that
https://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/?p=173&list=list
Quote: darkozWizardofnothing is now banned from all pennsylvania casinos
I wont put up the actual info but i dont think it violates any rules to link to the pennsylvania casino gaming commissions public list of excluded individuals
Listings are by date of exclusion (hint: he is currently last on the list therefore most recent exclusion)
Also alphabetically listed below that
https://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/?p=173&list=list
"On February 19, 2016, Mr. xxx was observed feeding $100 bills into slot machines, immediately
cashing out, without playing the slot machines and sometimes jamming them while at a casino
located in Philadelphia, PA. Further investigation determined his presence in casinos would be
inimical."
Quote: darkozWizardofnothing is now banned from all pennsylvania casinos
I wont put up the actual info but i dont think it violates any rules to link to the pennsylvania casino gaming commissions public list of excluded individuals
Listings are by date of exclusion (hint: he is currently last on the list therefore most recent exclusion)
Also alphabetically listed below that
https://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/?p=173&list=list
Yeah..I read some of the others on that list though. PA’s system is NOT like the Nevada Black Book that requires incredibly serious conduct to get into. Half the people in there are there for leaving their kids (some teenagers) in the car for 10 minutes while they get their slot fix.
Also not sure exactly what he did...it says that he put $100 bills into a slot machine and then hit the cash out button without playing. Is that a crime? What if you feed a few thousand into a machine and then have to go to the bathroom before you play? Based on this, that would get you thrown into their black book. Sounds like PA is definitely not the kind of place you want to do any AP activity...if putting money into a slot machine gets a statewide ban there, god help card counters and hole carders.
Quote: cwazyAlso not sure exactly what he did...it says that he put $100 bills into a slot machine and then hit the cash out button without playing. Is that a crime? What if you feed a few thousand into a machine and then have to go to the bathroom before you play? Based on this, that would get you thrown into their black book.
It's a common way of trying to launder money, so it looks super suspicious when you are feeding bills in and cashing out all day without playing. They probably noticed him, and did a a background check which would reveal the fraud/theft/whatever convictions.
Quote: gamerfreakIt's a common way of trying to launder money, so it looks super suspicious when you are feeding bills in and cashing out all day without playing. They probably noticed him, and did a a background check which would reveal the fraud/theft/whatever convictions.
It doesn’t say he did it all day though. How exactly would feeding $100’s into a machine help launder money anyway? People usually launder money by putting small bills and upgrading to larger ones. By putting $100’s, he was just going to get..more $100’s.
As to your second point, casinos don’t exactly draw the best crowd. If they kicked all of their felons out, they’d lose a decent percentage of their loyal customer base.
Quote: cwazyYeah..I read some of the others on that list though. PA’s system is NOT like the Nevada Black Book that requires incredibly serious conduct to get into. Half the people in there are there for leaving their kids (some teenagers) in the car for 10 minutes while they get their slot fix.
Also not sure exactly what he did...it says that he put $100 bills into a slot machine and then hit the cash out button without playing. Is that a crime? What if you feed a few thousand into a machine and then have to go to the bathroom before you play? Based on this, that would get you thrown into their black book. Sounds like PA is definitely not the kind of place you want to do any AP activity...if putting money into a slot machine gets a statewide ban there, god help card counters and hole carders.
Sadly i have to agree with you. When reading what excuse they gave for banning him putting money into a slot machine and then cashing out?
The machine jammed and thats a reason? Im certain he called over the attendant and complained to get his money back so not sure what thats about
I suspect the commission has lots of "stuff" but not enough proof so they came up with a cockamamie reason
Maybe they suspect him of money laundering but their explanation sounds so lame lol
And trust me i am no WON supporter
They have banned many people for being under-age. I mean banned for life from casinos because you were caught inside when you were 16 or 20 seems a bit harsh imo
Nonetheless the ban stands and its public info now
