Opening Arguments OA32: Phil Ivey's Gambling Winnings (with guest Chris Kristofco)
Jan 6, 2017
01:02:00
Today's episode begins with a question from Adrien Thuren about the minimum wage. How come restaurants can seemingly pay wait staff less than minimum wage? And if that's legal, why don't other industries don't start paying their employees less than minimum wage too? Andrew tells us why or why not. For our main segment, we bring back guest Chris Kristofco from OA6. In addition to being an ex-lawyer and current-day blogger about the Green Bay Packers, Chris is also a casino employee and former dealer. He joins us to help break down the recent verdict in federal court in New Jersey requiring Phil Ivey to pay back $10.1 million to the Atlantic City Borgata casino. Next, "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with a segment that explains the difference between a "lawyer" and an "attorney." Be honest -- you didn't know the answer, either, did you?? Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where Thomas tackles question #5 about garnishment of wages. For every episode going forward, TTTBE will give you a new question on Friday, followed by the answer on Tuesday. And remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links
- If you like football, and you love (or hate!) the Packers, you should listen to Chris Kristofco's excellent podcast, Titletown Sound Off.
- If you missed Chris's first appearance way back on OA6, you should go back and listen to his predictions about the "pending NFL apocalypse," and you'll understand why we hold his feet to the fire on this return visit.
- This is the Washington Post article explaining the Ivey verdict, based on the recent damage ruling.
- And this is the full text of the October decision by the federal court on liability, which mostly went unnoticed even though it decided the key issue in the Borgata's favor.
- Finally, this link contains a graphic representation of the purple Gemaco cards that were the subject of the suit as well as the "flaw" exploited by Ivey.