NoLA District Attorney May Get $300k from Collection Lawsuit Against Gambler

The best episode of the television series Intervention — where addicts of all stripes think they’re participating in a documentary about addiction, but instead, at the end of the show, have to go through an intervention with their friends and family — is the one with former science-rapping current compulsive gambler Gabe. (The second best is the episode about the girl who huffs that spray used to clean computer keyboards.)

The reason I even mention it is because I don’t have a lot of sympathy for gamblers — especially gamblers who lose more money in the course of an evening than I’m likely to see in my entire lifetime.

This brings us to John Harvey. Harvey is a car dealer and oil-and-gas man from Flora, Mississippi. He’s also one of those gamblers who can drop something like $1.5 million in the month of May. Which is what he did in New Orleans, draining a credit line playing blackjack at a Harrah’s.

Nola.com has the full story: “Harvey ran into tough luck last spring, part of a losing streak that put him $2.85 million in the hole at casinos here and in Mississippi. He agreed to pay up and wired $150,000 in August to Caesars Entertainment, Harrah’s parent company, under a payoff plan with the casino giant.”

As part of the payment-plan agreement, Harvey agreed not to gamble with a credit line — which was a tough thing for him to agree to because there he was, a little later, gambling with $1 million at the Aria casino in Las Vegas, violating the rules of the payment plan.

Harrah’s then went to Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro and sued Harvey for $1.5 million. Well, actually, Cannizzaro is suing Harvey for something like $1.8 million because on top of the $1.5 million Harrah’s wants from Harvey, Cannizzaro wants a $300,000 finders fee in the form of 20 percent interest on the amount collected.

Harvey, of course, has lawyered up, going with Arthur “Buddy” Lemann (sounds reputable). Lemann filed a motion in the hopes of quashing the charges. His argument? That the fee violates the federal Constitution, amounting to an “outrageous and unconscionable bounty that destroys the principle that ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’”

…yeah. I don’t see it either. I don’t see what’s exactly outrageous or unconscionable about charging a flat 20 percent — but then again, I’m not being sued by a casino for collection of past debts. Maybe that changes one’s point of view.

Also, this paragraph from the news story was pretty interesting: “Debt collection, under threat of prosecution, has been a boon for Cannizzaro’s office, particularly on behalf of Harrah’s. According to the financial documents, the district attorney has taken in $177,000 in fees over the past year, on top of $860,000 paid to the victims. More than 40 percent, or $73,000, has come from collecting on debts for Harrah’s.” And, because Cannizzaro is a district attorney collecting these debts, he doesn’t run afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when he throws in the shadow of potential prosecution as a likely outcome of not paying the debt.

Oh, and the best bit of understatement I’ve read this week (granted, it’s only Monday) comes towards the end of the article, from Harvey’s lawyer Arthur “Buddy” Lemann:

“He’s a very substantial guy. He’s like the (Tom) Benson of Mississippi. He has all kinds of car dealerships. He’s in the cattle business, the oil business. He’s a longtime gambler,” Lemann said. “Somehow or another he’s in a cash crunch of some type. He clearly has the assets and the ability to convert assets to pay, but Harrah’s wouldn’t give him time.” Emphasis added because really? Somehow Harvey’s in a cash crunch? Oh, gorgeous sentence — how I love you!