The Chip Board
Custom Search
   


The Chip Board Archive 06

Re: Pam, you argue well ...
In Response To: Re: Pam, you argue well ... ()

Hi Pete,
Another attorney, right? And one who gives Jim Reilly an occasional headache! grin (How do I get myself into these things???)O.K.,(gulp!) here goes....

(SHOOT!!! I've cut & pasted on this computer before...but it isn't working?!?!?!!!!) Forgive mis-quotes...

Q. Would it be different if the chips were altered for a home game?

A. Depends on who alters them. Let's take a corn farmer from Otumwa Iowa, who served in the military years ago. He had a 2 day layover in Vegas on his way out of the country. He had the time of his life, and still talks about it often. He gets together with "the boys" for a poker game once a month, has never heard of chip collecting and wouldn't believe it if someone told him. He finds a bag of drilled chips for $1 at a local flea market, thinks they'd be fun for his poker game, wonders why there's a hole in them. He buys the chips and fills in the holes. I don't have a problem with that.

Now let's take someone who does or did collect chips. He is or was a member of the CC>CC and knows other chippers. Since membership is for one year, chances are that at sometime during that year he's heard or seen some reference to altered, counterfeited, or repaired chips. He gets ahold of some chips and wonders if he can remake them so they look "good as new". He does one as an experiment and it looks great. He shows it to someone else, and they want to buy some...they know these chips are altered, and don't have a problem with that. So he makes more and more, he teaches someone else how to do it too. As a current or former chipper, he has GOT to be aware that these chips could be used to rip off chippers, and he took no steps to prevent it. Even if he didn't commit fraud, he provided tools for others to commit fraud, and (IMHO) he knowingly provided the tools.

Q. What if you are driving down the road and someone runs in front of the car and you hit and kill them.....

A. Need more information. If I'm driving down a road at night, and there are trees close to the road, and the speed limit is 55 and I'm going 50 and someone runs from between the trees and I jam on my brakes and still hit them...I'd expect an investigation and would expect to be cleared of responsibility. If they happened to leave a suicide note 10 minutes before the accident that would be even better. If it was my husbands mistress that wouldn't be so good (even if I didn't know there was such a person, let alone her identity).

On the other hand, suppose it's daylight and I'm sitting at a red light looking at some soccer fields on my right. I notice a child run into the road chasing a soccer ball, and then I notice that a section of fence is missing. The light turns green and I proceed at the speed limit of 35 mph. Just before I reach the section of missing fence I look down to change radio stations. I look up in time to see that a child has run into the road in front of my car, I jam on the brakes but it's too late. Would I expect to be charged with something? Very possible. I don't know enough law to say what...but I'm sure that negligence, failure to maintain control of the car, maybe even vehicular manslaughter charges would be in my future. Would I be convicted?? I don't have a clue....hopefully you and Jim Reilly would represent me!! vbg

Later,
Pam

Messages In This Thread

One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: I'd appreciate a response, Jim...
Re: Jim just happens to ...
Partial response ...
Re: Partial response ...
David, to repeat what I said ...
Re: JIM, to repeat what I said ...
Gene, I can only repeat ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Came back for another look grin ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
The drilled chip ...
Re: The drilled chip ...
Can't answer that one ...
Re: Thanks, Jim.
Re: The drilled chip ...
Pam, I appreciate the fervor ...
Jim, at what point in your inquiry did you ...
Re: Jim, at what point in your inquiry did you ...
See my response to JB ...
I don't recall saying ...
Re: Pam, I appreciate the fervor ...
Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Thank you for providing my ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue VERY well ...
Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Which is pretty much ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pete, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Pete....
Re: Pete....
Re: Pete....
Re: Pete....
Re: Pam, you argue well ...
Re: Once More
Re: Once More
Re: "intent
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Chips in question were not altered for home use ..
Re: Chips in question were not altered for home us
Re: Chips in question were not altered for home us
I like the term "altered" ...
Re: I like the term "altered" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Re: hypothetical ??
Re: hypothetical ??
Re: hypothetical ??
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...
Let me preface this by saying ...
Re: Let me preface this by saying ...
You may be right about this ...
Re: One more try at "counterfeit" ...

Copyright 2022 David Spragg