CAW Class Action Lawsuit Summarized -R.I.C.O Allegations

[Silver Charm]

Someone can buy a Seat in the Exchange. But it doesn\'t get them a Special Deal. If you know someone you can probably get in on an IPO but if the IPO was over priced the Stock would go down once it\'s Trading. Unlikely because people want it to be successful. So comparing that to Horse Racing did you get a Deal? Well you will know in about 10 minutes when the IPO hits the Market or the Race is run.

No one is buying a Deal. And there is a Regulatory Body called the Securities and Exchange Commission. Market manipulators are watched. Insiders are Tracked. There is no such thing or a similar regulatory body surrounding Racing.

A Company can not price their IPO lower for one group of buyers because they favor them versus another. It\'s Illegal as hell.

[Boscar Obarra]

I told ya , look up HFT , High Frequency Trading.   Ask your favorite AI for a summary.  They are good at that

[rezlegal]

Fairmount- negligence is an unintentional tort. Any wrongdoing here was manifestly intentional as all the defendants knew or had to know the impact that CAW wagering would have on pools, payoffs etc.

[Fairmount1]

Rez,

Apologies here for the miscommunication on these fronts.

Correct me if I\'m wrong, but for some time, you have maintained the problem with chasing the tracks, CAW\'s, and Tote companies is that with the allegations involved namely that it would be in the vein of fraud.  As such, your position is that getting past a Motion to Dismiss would be very difficult.  As a result, the discovery that would effectuate meaningful change by itself even before a trial would never happen.  I believe that is your position in the past.  If I\'m wrong, correct me.

Picking up on that, I am suggesting that pleading Negligence against the tracks and tote companies, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, to the intentional torts would provide another avenue to achieving success.  Now, the exact lawsuit in question may not state this, but I am stating that a claim can be made with the mountain of evidence piling up that At Least, the tracks and tote companies are negligent in failing to close the pools when the gates open.  The evidence is beyond there for this claim.  Now if it is being done intentionally, that would be a suit based in fraud.  Those two suits could be plead alternatively.  One set of facts can give rise to these alternative theories being plead as you understand.  

And the negligence suit is more likely to get past a Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment than an intentional tort.  That is my point.  

I understand in the suit at hand actually on file that it is plead under statutes that provide treble damages and attorney\'s fees while negligence does not allow these terrific threats.  However, all one may need is to get the case to discovery.  The house of cards, if it is one, will begin to show its bare bones if that\'s the situation (LIKELY LOL).  

Duty to Close the Pools When the Gates Open
Breach-Show any judge just one video of the odds changing at the wire after 1:12 3/5 and I\'m pretty sure they aren\'t going to say I understand 70s technology is slow in 2026.  Add in ALL the examples where the odds on horses go up in odds that lose jockeys and break poorly and we have a PLAUSIBLE claim.  NOTE:  This is where you HAVE them...the pools don\'t even fully settle by their own records until 19 SECONDS INTO THE RACE!!!!
Causation-The Pools not closing when the gates open lead to lower odds on horses bet after the bell causing the Plaintiff to receive lower odds and thus lower payoffs in the form of monetary damages. All these ADW records are perfect for this to show a payoff for a plaintiff was far lower b/c of the odds difference between the odds shown at the time the gates open and when the pools close.  Just look for a BCBC participant (with diversity) who was robbed of 75k on a winning play the last several years.  I\'m sure there is at least one example of this out there.  Between their gambled amount going down b/c of the odds change and the prize amount they missed for a higher placing in the final race, I\'m certain we can get there.
Damages-Lost prize money and gambling winnings from the pool not being closed on time by the tracks and the tote companies.  

This gets them past a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgement against the tracks and the tote companies.  And that gets you to Discovery which is the promise land to tearing them down.  A victory at trial isn\'t even probably necessary thereafter.  But there\'s no treble damages and no attorney\'s fees with this approach.

I just gave another blueprint to take these %^#%&^#$ down.  You can disagree and I\'m confident you will.  But it will only take one suit to get to discovery in one state using this method and . . .