An attorney from a casino contacted me about a post I made on

>>18135772

If you can't provide evidence of the cheating that might hold in court, then take it down. They'll fuck you up otherwise.

>>18135772
Pictures are illegal in a casino so remove it

You are lucky they're giving you a chance to at all

>>18135780
But I lost $400

>>18135787
Maybe we've learned a little lesson about gambling and casinos, hm?

Regardless of whether he cheated or not, you're not gonna win this one. You'll get sued for libel and even if you get the best possible outcome in court you'll lose in lawyer fees, lost time and hassle. Pick a different hill to die on.

And don't spend so fucking much at casinos. Why do you think people say "the house always wins"? Because THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS. You brought this on yourself.

>>18135772
first of all dealers don't cheat. It's not their money.

They especially don't need to cheat at blackjack

Your claim could be considered libel and the casino is definitely interested in pursuing because fuck you we're a casino we have cash to burn

delete the post, idiot

Why do you think he cheated? What did he do?

>>18135787
You'll probabmy lose more than 4,000 if they sue you.

>>18135787
What did you think was going to happen in a casino? You're paying for entertainment. Never go there actually expecting to win.

>>18135772
its only libel if they can prove you weren't lying.
but i your in the EU then libel suits upend the burden of proof and id take it seriously if i were you.

>>18136357
>its only libel if they can prove you weren't lying
Uh, you know the onus is on the defendant to show they weren't lying if they want to use the truth defence, right?

>>18136360
in ass-backwards EU, yes.
in the real world, america, no.

you don't use truth as a defense you use it as a prosecution. you know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

>>18136370
>you don't use truth as a defense you use it as a prosecution. you know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Holy shit, it could not be more obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about

>>18136372
here ya go, dick head:

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

>>18135787
Even proffesional players lose 1000's of dollars in a night. They just regain it when the stats work out

>>18136375
Source?

>>18137223
wiki and if your american the outcome of any libel suit.

>>18137227
Using wiki after 2004

>>18136357
I wasn't lying >>18136360