News Article: Eugene Melnyk lawsuits:too many to count...

[Sens of Anarchy]

3 for a quarter.
If you don't like the 1st one wait till I tell ya the third one

 

[Clamshells]

That third one is a doozy.

Also, I don't see how you can make all three of those cases at the same time.

I imagine the purpose of #1 and #2 is to demonstrate that he acted in good faith to pay the debts, but circumstances out of his control led to non-payment, in an attempt to excuse himself of any interest or legal fees should he lose the case.
#3 would be very hard to prove unless he has audio/video evidence, or some kind of admissible transcript to back it up.

 

[Mingus Dew]

That third one is a doozy.

Also, I don't see how you can make all three of those cases at the same time.

Arguments in the alternative.

I’m not a litigator but I’m somewhat certain that’s a thing.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Arguments in the alternative.

I’m not a litigator but I’m somewhat certain that’s a thing.

Yeah I don't know anything about litigation but if you're putting multiple "alternative" defenses out there that don't complement each other, you're really not helping your case at all.

 

[Mingus Dew]

Yeah I don't know anything about litigation but if you're putting multiple "alternative" defenses out there that don't complement each other, you're really not helping your case at all.

I think it’s a pretty common tactic. It has to do with the idea that if you don’t affirmatively raise a defence in your pleading then it’s unavailable to you moving forward (or something).

Cannot stress how little I know about the rules of evidence and civil procedure lol.

 

[Micklebot]

Yeah I don't know anything about litigation but if you're putting multiple "alternative" defenses out there that don't complement each other, you're really not helping your case at all.

The arguments don't actually contradict one another.

1. He was taken advantage of and the casino coerced him to gable more after he tried to cash out.

2. Upon losing gobs of cash, and despite feeling he was taken advantage of, he wrote the cheques, but the casino for some reason opted to wait too long before cashing them, so they stale dated.

3. Melnyk (that sly dog) signed his name in a sloppy manner, leading to TD bank not being able to confirm that they were not forgeries.

None of these defenses are mutually exclusive. They are all dumb, but not mutually exclusive. Also, none explain why this wasn't able to be settled without going to court

 

[Do Make Say Think]

So let me get this straight:

1 - The casino failed to cash the cheques on time and the cheques went "stale". Ok, then wouldn't the casino simply ask for new cheques? How does this excuse not paying for two years?

2 - The signature is suspicious and so the bank did not honour the cheques. "Hey boss, this guy's cheques for a total of 900k did not go through, the bank says something is fishy" "Ah well, we'll just let it slide! I like this Melnyk fellow!"

3 - The casino refused to comply with their client's request to cash out which then.... Forced Melnyk to keep gambling? So he wrote the cheques under duress?! What the hell is this?!

None of this makes any sense as to why Melnyk would have refused, for two years, to pay the casino what he owed them. Not to mention the simple fact that the cheques even exist is proof that he meant to pay the casino at one point in time.

Being a lawyer for scumbags must be soulsucking: spend hours trying to help a con man to find ways to delay the inevitable. That is why this Katz fellow went to law school, I'm sure of it!

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Casino is making some good return on $900k over a couple of years.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Casino is making some good return on $900k over a couple of years.

I bet their lawyers are costing them more than 179k

 

[armani]

What a f***ing loser.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

The arguments don't actually contradict one another.

1. He was taken advantage of and the casino coerced him to gable more after he tried to cash out.

2. Upon losing gobs of cash, and despite feeling he was taken advantage of, he wrote the cheques, but the casino for some reason opted to wait too long before cashing them, so they stale dated.

3. Melnyk (that sly dog) signed his name in a sloppy manner, leading to TD bank not being able to confirm that they were not forgeries.

None of these defenses are mutually exclusive. They are all dumb, but not mutually exclusive. Also, none explain why this wasn't able to be settled without going to court

You may be right, but those three things together would get any judge to laugh them out of court.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

I bet their lawyers are costing them more than 179k

True.

 

[Rand0m]

Par for the course for Melnyk.

Arguments 1 & 2 would only make sense if the Casino never reached out within the past 2 years to demand an alternative repayment method. It’s basically implying that the casino started their lawsuit as soon as the cheques bounced? I’m pretty sure the casino has a very detailed method and paper trail when going after gambling debts. I don’t feel like looking up the original lawsuit by the casino but I’ll assume they indicated in there if they attempted to recover the money within that time frame using what methods.

#3 is typical Melnyk not taking any responsibility for the consequences of his actions. This argument to me strongly implies that he definitely bounced those cheques then didn’t have the right liquidity to payback his fines so he just tried to ignore the problem away.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Par for the course for Melnyk.

Arguments 1 & 2 would only make sense if the Casino never reached out within the past 2 years to demand an alternative repayment method. It’s basically implying that the casino started their lawsuit as soon as the cheques bounced? I’m pretty sure the casino has a very detailed method and paper trail when going after gambling debts. I don’t feel like looking up the original lawsuit by the casino but I’ll assume they indicated in there if they attempted to recover the money within that time frame using what methods.

#3 is typical Melnyk not taking any responsibility for the consequences of his actions. This argument to me strongly implies that he definitely bounced those cheques then didn’t have the right liquidity to payback his fines so he just tried to ignore the problem away.

Point three makes the most sense... but why would his lawyers even try this defense!?

So weird

 

[Sensung]

I bet their lawyers are costing them more than 179k

If found guilty, would Melnyk not also be obligated to pay the casinos lawyer fees as well?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Point three makes the most sense... but why would his lawyers even try this defense!?

So weird

I'm not sure how claiming the casino refused to cash him which then forced him to keep gambling until he lost big at which point he then decided to cash out makes any sense...

Unless I misread your post?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

If found guilty, would Melnyk not also be obligated to pay the casinos lawyer fees as well?

I'm not sure when this automatically kicks in and under which conditions. It is a civil case in that State so I'd have to go read up and I don't even know where to start...

I will definitely give it a shot tomorrow though!

 

[thinkwild]

That’s a pretty interesting PR strategy – putting forth 3 possible reasons of defence. Don’t recall off the top of my head that being used before, not that I usually note those things.

Plausible enough defences though so I guess Melnyk is getting his moneys worth. If it's something related to the 3rd one, which sounds like he is suggesting he was taken advantage of as a whale being played by the casino, and thus deserves pity, well, that feels like it will require some good lawyering. And i'd be looking forward to hearing that story.

Still gotta wonder whats with all the mystery about his defence. Some Trumpian like stay tuned PR? Still all seems pretty weird but I guess we should be careful in presuming too much before all the facts are known. But weird.

 

[The Lewler]

#1. The Lionel Hutz meme's are so on point for this.

#2. The claim that the casino induced him to keep playing till he lost as a defence is both literally the entire point of a casino, and hilariously an admission that Melnyk incurred substantial losses.

10/10 content. A+.

 

[harrisb]

Why multiple cheque’s? I’d imagine most people of melnyk’s wealth could just stroke a single cheque unless he was buying as he lost

 

[Tuna99]

I think if he dressed in his Canadian Military uniform he bought people would take him more seriously.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

 

[Tighthead]

For the record, alternative defences are going to be found in almost any statement of defence.

You are usually preparing them under tight timelines without full document disclosure, and you never know what way the facts are going to go.

If you don't include a defence in your pleadings you can't advance it at trial.

The third defence is interesting - I don't think there is a duty of care in the situation, but maybe there is existing case law. The facts might be hard to establish. I would expect the case law to be pro-casino in a state that enjoys significant tax revenue from the industry.

The first two don't fully seem to be denying the existence of the debt.This all may be an effort to buy time which isn't unusual.

If you lose you generally don't pay actual legal fees of winning party, but costs assessed on a tariff. I believe the claim mentioned costs and interests of $15,000, which is surprisinly low to me.

 

[Sensung]

For the record, alternative defences are going to be found in almost any statement of defence.

You are usually preparing them under tight timelines without full document disclosure, and you never know what way the facts are going to go.

If you don't include a defence in your pleadings you can't advance it at trial.

The third defence is interesting - I don't think there is a duty of care in the situation, but maybe there is existing case law. The facts might be hard to establish. I would expect the case law to be pro-casino in a state that enjoys significant tax revenue from the industry.

The first two don't fully seem to be denying the existence of the debt.This all may be an effort to buy time which isn't unusual.

If you lose you generally don't pay actual legal fees of winning party, but costs assessed on a tariff. I believe the claim mentioned costs and interests of $15,000, which is surprisinly low to me.

Thanks for the info.

 

[The Lewler]

For the record, alternative defences are going to be found in almost any statement of defence.

You are usually preparing them under tight timelines without full document disclosure, and you never know what way the facts are going to go.

If you don't include a defence in your pleadings you can't advance it at trial.

The third defence is interesting - I don't think there is a duty of care in the situation, but maybe there is existing case law. The facts might be hard to establish. I would expect the case law to be pro-casino in a state that enjoys significant tax revenue from the industry.

The first two don't fully seem to be denying the existence of the debt.This all may be an effort to buy time which isn't unusual.

If you lose you generally don't pay actual legal fees of winning party, but costs assessed on a tariff. I believe the claim mentioned costs and interests of $15,000, which is surprisinly low to me.

I'm going to re read the open source info and the articles, but I thought that there was around 180k claimed in addition to the principal amount.