Raid on NYC clubs underway right now.

[bennyblanco]

An ACD is an Adjournment in Contemplation of a Dismissal. If you stay out of trouble for something like 6 months (?), the charges are dismissed.

[mrkilla]

[ QUOTE ]
An ACD is an Adjournment in Contemplation of a Dismissal. If you stay out of trouble for something like 6 months (?), the charges are dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

usually a year, similar "quality of life" crimes get the same treatment, possession of weed, drinking in public , peeing on the 3rd rail etc

pay fine, behave GTFOH,

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An ACD is an Adjournment in Contemplation of a Dismissal. If you stay out of trouble for something like 6 months (?), the charges are dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

usually a year, similar "quality of life" crimes get the same treatment, possession of weed, drinking in public , peeing on the 3rd rail etc

pay fine, behave GTFOH,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes they require community service or drug rehab (not necessarily for poker dealers) or something else in connection with the ACD... you go back into court 6 months to a year later and tell the judge that you have been clean and did whatever you were told to and you walk.

[Skallagrim]

I dont browse this forum often, so this may all be a little late, but to all you NYC poker players and club owners: isnt it time to put a stop to this?

It could be stopped...all that is required is one person to have the guts to actually take the case to court. The risk for that person is probably only monetary.

I am not a NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer. The following is not legal advice, but a strategy it would seem to me someone ought to discuss with their NY lawyer.

NY gambling law does not specifically mention poker. It says:

". "Contest of chance" means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.

2. "Gambling" A person engages in gambling when he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome."

"Players" are not supposed to be prosecuted under NY law, and the prossibly unconsitutional loitering statute only applies in public places. So having standing to pursue this case may be problematic for a player (though I think that can be overcome given their detainment and the confiscation of their money), but not the ones charged with operating the club.

The point to be raised: Poker is not a game of chance.

There are reported a couple of lower court decisions in NY ruling otherwise, but these decisions were not made in response to the kind of proof that can be offered now - and since the decisions were never appealed to a higher court, the issue is still ripe for review by the NY equivalent of the State Supreme Court (I forget what they call it there).

For specifics on NY gambling law go here:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/New-York/

For the specific proof that poker is not a game of chance, go to the legislation forum and check the various threads on the subject. The most comprehensive one with my proof is: here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1
My most recent post of this proof is here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=4&vc=1
You can also follow a discussion here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

Anyway, somewhere, someday, someone is going to take the skill v. luck argument to court with a real argument and facts to back it up. I am ready to help.

The only downside to this strategy is that the cost of mounting this argument will probably be more than the fine. The authorities plan it that way.

GL to you NY players.

Skallagrim

[d3gener4te]

wow lame

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

The point to be raised: Poker is not a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

For every time you can show that poker has been ruled not a game of skill, another lawyer can show that poker has been determined to be a game of chance (or a game of chance with an element of skill) in 20 other instances. I think it was just last month in South Carolina where this argument was once again struck down (not going to bother to google it, but it was discussed in the Legislation forum). We really need to beyond the game of chance argument, lotteries and horse raising are both games of chance and they are legal, and horse racing contains an element of skill as well but it is largely a game of chance in the eyes of politicians. The best defense is arguing the legality of time collection IMHO, I discussed this for hours with the former owner of Sat***e (who was a lawyer). He was also the same guy who told me that arguing a poker case in NYS court may actually do more harm than good because he believes the law as currently applied by the DA's is incorrect, that "profiting" from a game can be argued as anyone who wins (TMTTR doesnt agree with this position as previously outlined in this thread), if he is correct there is obviously that catch 22.

[JACKPOT321]

With casinos in NJ, coming to Philadelphia and already in CT, it really seems like there should be a way to allow for poker in NY, maybe as LA does. I know LA has them under an older law (at least that what Peter McManus says it Positively 5th St), but it seems that there are inherent differences between 'the house always wins' games and player vs player games (with the rent of a seat of course).

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]

". "Contest of chance" means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like this covers poker to me. You have a game where a really good hourly win rate is small (something like 5%) of the size of one standard deviation. Luck has a very large result on the short-medium run outcome even though there is still some skill involved. I have a much better than average understanding of poker ( thats not to say I have a 'good' understanding of it, but certainly higher than the average person or player) and I believe this would cover Poker.

Risking a lot of money, or worse jail time, on something that is definitely not clear cut seems like a big risk for someone to take.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

The best defense is arguing the legality of time collection IMHO, I discussed this for hours with the former owner of Sat***e (who was a lawyer). He was also the same guy who told me that arguing a poker case in NYS court may actually do more harm than good because he believes the law as currently applied by the DA's is incorrect, that "profiting" from a game can be argued as anyone who wins (TMTTR doesnt agree with this position as previously outlined in this thread), if he is correct there is obviously that catch 22.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that "he" thought that (with regards to players). I haven't talked or seen "him" in several months... but he is definitely wrong. These are the words from the statute (Sec. 225.00(5)):

[ QUOTE ]
"Profit from gambling activity." A person "profits from gambling activity" when, other than as a player, he accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he participates or is to participate in the proceeds of gambling activity.

(italics added for emphasis)

[/ QUOTE ]


The words "other than as a player" make it unquestionable (at least I think they do) that winning while playing is not "profiting" from gambling under the statute. Unfortunately, it also seems pretty clear to me from the words of the statute that time charges are "profiting from gambling."

I see huge holes in the logic and reasoning (and facts) of the non-New York lawyer above who is trying to make a case for poker playing in New York. No time to tear it down right now...

Editted to add the definition of "player" from the statute (for those who care to parse it some more):

"Player" means a person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The best defense is arguing the legality of time collection IMHO, I discussed this for hours with the former owner of Sat***e (who was a lawyer). He was also the same guy who told me that arguing a poker case in NYS court may actually do more harm than good because he believes the law as currently applied by the DA's is incorrect, that "profiting" from a game can be argued as anyone who wins (TMTTR doesnt agree with this position as previously outlined in this thread), if he is correct there is obviously that catch 22.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that "he" thought that (with regards to players). I haven't talked or seen "him" in several months... but he is definitely wrong. These are the words from the statute (Sec. 225.00(5)):

[ QUOTE ]
"Profit from gambling activity." A person "profits from gambling activity" when, other than as a player, he accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he participates or is to participate in the proceeds of gambling activity.

(italics added for emphasis)

[/ QUOTE ]


The words "other than as a player" make it unquestionable (at least I think they do) that winning while playing is not "profiting" from gambling under the statute. Unfortunately, it also seems pretty clear to me from the words of the statute that time charges are "profiting from gambling."

I see huge holes in the logic and reasoning (and facts) of the non-New York lawyer above who is trying to make a case for poker playing in New York. No time to tear it down right now...

Editted to add the definition of "player" from the statute (for those who care to parse it some more):

"Player" means a person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice one TMTTR! Of corse you know HIM, I made it as obvious as I could just for you. I saw him 2 months ago in Vegas, other than that he has been MIA for more than a year. Thanks for that clarification. By the way, call the pirate. He needs your help.

Do you agree the best defense is arguing the legality of time collection?