Sportingbet - Settlement Fee or Extortion

[Jeremy]

Sportingbet Settlement


Is it just me, or does this whole situation seem rather corrupt, I mean shit, if you're going to dismiss a case then just dismiss it. How does accepting a $400K "settlement fee" directly to the D.A.'s office, State Police, and Attorney Generals office make any sense in the world. And I use the word "accepting" lightly. More than likely they bribed Sportingbet with this deal.

Regardless, last time I checked, this is not how the judicial system is supposed to work in ANY state.

That really says a lot for the justice system in Louisiana. What the D.A. should have done is admitted that they had no basis to detain Peter Dicks in the first place and simply dropped the case.

Remind me to stay the fu** out of Louisiana. Apparently it is legal there to issue warrants, detain people, and press charges followed by simply dismissing all charges for a nice six figure payoff.

[PokerProp]

Agreed
On a positive note it is nice to see some people still take bribes lol (95% joking) (but) I had a car I needed to pass inspection a couple months ago and over a few weeks I went to 5 places who said it would fail for the muffler being to loud (it had mods). I offered each from $50-$150 to pass it anyways and all declined. - man back 8 years ago If it took 3 places to bribe a state inspecition location it would have been news - now I go 0-5 and ended up spending the $550 to have a quiet and boring car with a legit inspection sticker, to bad I don't live near Louisiana so I could register it there.

[xpertadvice4u]

Not that I mind seeing a nice pair every once in a while...(actually, I get to see some *every day*) but isn't this just in the wrong forum all together?

Now, back to corruption....Jeremy, it's pretty common for Attorneys General to go after big corporations....and let them weasel their way out after paying big fines...rather than risking Jury Trials.

Elliot Spitzer in New York has made an art form out of this, with some very impressive results. The corporations get taken down a notch, they are forced to change their evil ways...and the public gets the benefit of some cash...which is sometimes funnelled down to actual victims.

Granted, whether there are any redeeming social benefits to the actions we have witnessed remains to be seen.

[Jeremy]

Regardless if it is common practice for Attorney Generals or not. I am fairly certain the founding fathers of the U.S. constitution did not have this kind of "payoff scheme" or "bribery" in mind when they wrote how the judicial system should work.

If you want to avoid a jury trial once you believe you don't have a strong case, then simply dismiss the case. If you want to collect a nice settlement, then find them guilty in a court of law and call it a fine.

[xpertadvice4u]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Regardless if it is common practice for Attorney Generals or not. I am fairly certain the founding fathers of the U.S. constitution did not have this kind of "payoff scheme" or "bribery" in mind when they wrote how the judicial system should work.

If you want to avoid a jury trial once you believe you don't have a strong case, then simply dismiss the case. If you want to collect a nice settlement, then find them guilty in a court of law and call it a fine.

I think that the rationale is that "justice" should be served in a manner most befitting to the Public Interest.

Sometimes it is not in the "public interest" to have a long trial, and spend a whole wad of cash - and keep the jurors' lives on indefinite hold - when the public's interests can be served otherwise.

Requiring either a full trial or a complete dismissal is not in the public's interest. The entire justice system requires that alternatives be used...if for no other reason than there are just too many cases to take through to their normal conclusion. Plea bargaining is an essential facet of the American Justice system.

If you've got somebody on 87 charges, is it really necessary to proceed with all 87? No, it would be wasteful and disruptive to the main goal...which is the administration of justice.

I think the idea is that it is more important that justice be *seen* to be done, rather than it actually *be* done.

And, just dismissing cases is not going to advance the public's interest, normally.

[Jeremy]

So can I sue you for something that you could easily win in a court of law? (Dicks more than likely would have came out innocent in this case anyways)

And then in a few months, say, hey I tell you what, l'll drop the lawsuit if you slip me $5K.....

Would this be acceptable to you?

I do not blame Sportingbet for paying off the D.A. at all, hell I would of done the same exact thing just to get away from the situation. It's the principal of the douche bags that decided to stick Sportingbet for $400K when they realized they didn't have a case.

just dismissing cases is not going to advance the public's interest

Neither is making people pay settlement fees for a crime they have never been found guilty of.

Nothing like a nice healthy debate with my morning coffee Besides us, what does the rest of the group think?

[adioking]

Once upon a time, I got into some trouble. So I said "can't you just raise the fine and promise that I won't go to jail?" Do you know what the judge said (after he laughed)? "Sorry sonny, but you can't buy your way out of justice." Then he proceeded to take the regular fine and began his sentencing.

From what I'm reading, it appears that his statement was quite untrue...