To ALL players and owners in New York City - PLEASE READ

This defintion distinguishes the guy who organizes a social game in his house who is other than being the guy who organized the game is on no different footing than the other players.

But in your scenario not everyone who is a member is going to be playing in all the time.

So Member A rents the building. Buys the tables gets the chips and cards. If he is sitting in the game he is a player. But next week he is still the guy on the lease who bought the tables and he isn't playing. Now is his defense that he is a player?

How about the floorman? is he a player? How about your dealers (thgis problem goes away if self dealt) Someone is collecting money to pay for all this this is no longer without fee or renumeration. The guy at the door making sure only members enter . . . is he a player?

As

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate to do this, but I have to rain on your parade because I already proposed this to a lawyer recently. Use this as an analogy; the organizer of a home game is free and clear of the law if he loses money in the game. Once he profits from the game, he has broken the law. Profiting includes winning a pot, it is not restricted to time charge or rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

First I was going to say that this 100% incorrect -- but it is not. However, the law is far more nuanced then TT's attempted analogy makes it appear. The law has circular definitions.

In my opinion, if there was a truly private club with strictly restricted entry to members, there would be no problem with the law. The club would also not last more than a few months as it would like collapse under its own weight.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Your first instinct was correct. The analogy is 100% wrong.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
How about...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you proved my point. I said it was a nuanced arguments. Nothing is 100% clear but this would be a very tough case for law enforcement. Anyway, given the logistical nightmare, it is highly unlikely the idea would work. But if it worked, it is highly unlikely that it would ever be raided. But if it was raided, it is highly unlikely that there could ever be a conviction.

You actually have it backwards.

A conviction is very likely. But even if it doesn't result in a conviction, there is no penalty to police for making these arrests. Since there is no penalty to the police nuanced arguments about why it is legal carry littlw weight.

Furthermore assuming the people involved don't have criminal records I expect that the plea offer that will be made to them will amke it substantially worthwhile to take the plea rather than rely on what you call nuanced arguments of legality.

So . . You get arrested for Promoting Gambling in the 2nd degree a Class A misdemeanor with a possible penalty of a year in jail and a fine of $1,000. You have no criminal record and you are offered a plea arrangment where you plead to a Class B Misdemeanor pay a fine of $500 and don't contest the forfeiture of any seized money. Your Lawyer will charge you from $5,000-$10,000 to take the case to trial and if you are convicted you are likely to end up doing jail time, (maybe not the full year but you that is a risk -- actually even if you get the full year you'll be out in 8 months.) Now do you really want to raly on this nuance argument or are you going to just pay the $500 and move on.

Oh and if you get convicted and want to appeal your attorney is going to charge you another $5,000 to $10,0000 for the first level of appeal if you really want to push your nuanced argument.

If you don't get what I'm saying . . . The deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution especially in low level offenses where the costs of fighting often exceed the penalties the prosecution is seeking to impose.

of and the seized money . . . since this money isn't all yours there is little incentive for you to spend a lot of money to fight for the return of the money (which presumably you would then be returning to the people who bought chips).

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
You actually have it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
The deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution especially in low level offenses where the costs of fighting often exceed the penalties the prosecution is seeking to impose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is true -- but you are arguing the facts not the law. A plea is very likely in any small offense regardless of guilt. If you get a parking ticket for less than $50, you are more likely to pay it than fight it -- even if you parked in a way that was 100% legal. A conviction after trial and appeal (if it ever got that far) for advancing /profiting from gambling based on a cooperative gambling group is nearly impossible... but this is like arguing about angels on the head of a pin and I am going to stop here.