Home

From: Mark Harriscourtreporter.europe@gmail.com
Sent: 21 August, 2017 1:25 PM
To: info@vitalagroup.com
Subject: MGM Court Settlement

MGM Court Settlement reached January 2013

Hereunder please find a broad historical summary, as follows:

MGM/MANDALAY BAY - PLAINTIFF/COUNTER SUIT DEFENDANT

DR W. VIERICH - PLAINTIFF COUNTER SUIT DEFENDANT

CASES HISTORY REVIEW:

As a result of gaming actions by the defendant in March 2008 in their casinos in Las Vegas, USA, and based upon the plaintiff having granted credit lines/ marker privileges to the defendant, for many years already, amounting to US$ 250.000.00, numerous gaming related disputes arose.

The defendant enjoyed credit lines/marker privileges for the last 13 years at their casinos already and had always paid his markers, if and when he had lost.

The defendant won in a single game US$ 400,000.00, but the plaintiff was only prepared to pay out US$ 75,000.00, by applying a hidden restriction rule on jackpot pay outs.

Furthermore, casino management refused to show their video in evidence (completely in their favour), for no reasons.

Their defence claimed, later on and had to admit, that they did not keep a video recording.

The defendant refused to accept the lower US$ 75,000.00 payment and as a result furthermore refused to meet markers payments due to the plaintiff, for US$ 250.000.00, because he believed rightfully to be in a credit situation, after receipt of his winnings.

The plaintiff strung the defendant along over time, with email correspondence and law suits, to gain specific legal advantages, only available to them in Nevada State laws.

One of them was to make it impossible for the defendant to claim his US$ 400.000.00 win, as the Nevada time limit to claim winnings, had then expired ( three weeks after the event ).

The State of Nevada is unique in the USA, in that all Judges and Prosecutors are appointed by casino votes and by election monies/funds received solely from casinos, hence they have created laws which do not exist in any other legal jurisdiction in the world, to protect their casinos only.

One of the Nevada judgments given against Dr W Vierich, was made in less than 24 hours from the filing of the case, a most unusual time period for a judge to just read the case history...........

Additionally, The Nevada State Prosecutor operates ' a bad cheque unit ', whereby casinos obtain arrest warrants against players who do not pay their markers and the State adds substantial interest payments, thus made an income of over US$ Million 8.0, alone in 2009, which is illegal for a public prosecutor’s office to benefit financially in any format from the public at large.

No legal jurisdiction in the world operates such a system, which is purposely designed to favour only casinos in Nevada.

These are ' Mafia type methods ', unenforceable under European legal concepts, to protect Nevada casinos only, at all costs, in return, casinos control the legal Nevada State structures by controlling votes and fund raising volumes for individuals who want to be prosecutor's and/or judges.

In all other States in the US, federal judges are appointed by the President of the US, but not in Nevada.

As a result, the plaintiff instituted and the defendant defended all claims and counter claims, through:

a) The Nevada District Court ( defendant case lost )

b) The Nevada Supreme Court ( defendant case lost )

c) The Supreme Court of the USA ( defendant case admission denied )

d) The Federal Court of Nevada ( defendant case redirected for amended reply by defendant )

d) The Ninth Federal Court - San Francisco ( defendant intended appeal, now cancelled because of settlement arrangement )

d) The High Court in London/UK ( plaintiff's hearing cancelled because of impending settlement ).

Over four years and eight months legal actions in the USA and the UK, the US plaintiff sought to bring pressure upon the defendant, in ' criminalizing ' a USA Nevada State civil court judgment and having a State of Nevada arrest warrant issued, in early 2009, against the defendant, by claiming falsely that the defendant does not wish/is not able, to pay the markers.

This was instituted WITHOUT informing Dr W Vierich in time and the format as required by US laws.

Neither did the plaintiff inform the Nevada Gaming Board, till today, about the US$ 400,000.00 win claim, which is mandated by Nevada State law.

The intend was for him to be arrested by surprise, on one of his trips and then against a huge bail demand, payments for MGM/MANDALAY BAY would be obtained, in order for him to be released.

Two legal issues were at stake, in principle:

1) Did the defendant have enough funds to cover his US$ 250,000.00 markers, at the time he had signed them, in March 2008?

2) Did the US defendant grant credit to Dr W Vierich, which is against public policy in the UK and European Courts, generally ?

Other queries were:

3) Why did the plaintiff did not pay out the claimed win ?

4) Why was there no video recording of the event, which would have settled the dispute there and then ?

In reply, the defendant evidenced by sworn Supreme Court of England and Wales, audited personal wealth statements, that he had available funds, at the time, very far in excess of the amount claimed, namely millions of dollars.

Neither did the defendant ever refuse to settle any markers, but he just claimed his win.

The US plaintiff produced various witnesses and argued legally that they had advanced ' Markers Privileges ', and not ' credits ', to Dr W Vierich.

Shortly before the UK High Court hearing, Dr W Vierich produced four emails from the plaintiff’s casino host, dating back to the period of 2005 - 2008, whereby it was proven that his ' credit lines ' are in order, confirmed in writing.

The wording of ' Markers Privileges ' was not used.

The plaintiff applied for a Summary Judgment, against the defendant, with a hearing on 08th, and 09t, November 2012.

Additionally, a UK High Court trial date was set for March 2013, before a UK High Court Judge in London/UK.

The trial was allocated for four days, unless the plaintiff was able to obtain a summary judgement before then.

This hearing was listed for the 08th, and 09th, November, 2012, in the London/UK High Court and the judgement would be a final binding decision on both parties.

Legal appeal to this judgment would have to be applied for at discretion of the presiding High Court judge and would not be automatic.

The judgment would be enforceable with a 14 day period, to be paid up in full by the loser.

The loser was to pay for all judgments and all legal costs since March 2008, accrued, in the USA and the UK, covering all litigation's in the USA and the UK, including interests accrued over the time periods, damages, awards and court costs, to both parties.

All legal procedures were completed for High Court submission and the UK defendant was prepared to proceed to judgment.

At the same time, the Nevada District Court ask Dr W Vierich to amend his counter suit claims, to protect summary judgment rulings against him, in the USA, in his Vitala Group counter suit and the defendant gave then instruction to file an appeal in the Ninth District Court of San Francisco, a federal court, headed by judges appointed by the US President, and not by public voters.

Additionally, in a commercial counter law suit, The Vitala Group of Companies, employed six of their corporations, to sue for over US $ Million 400.0, in damages, lost businesses and interference, for lost USA commercial business opportunities, since March 2008.

This was based upon proven business opportunities losses, covering over four years, in excess of US$ 3.4 billion, at the time.

Thereafter, an appeal application by Dr W Vierich and the six Vitala Group companies, would have been heard by the Ninth Federal Court in San Francisco, USA.

There, the judges are appointed by the President of the USA and not Nevada Casinos, and are impartial.

Commencing on the 04th, November, 2012, detailed and time consuming offers from the US plaintiffs were considered by Dr W Vierich, as the legal evidence and all witness statements appeared to be slightly in favour of the UK defendant, subject to UK High Court Summary Judgment ruling.

However, legal UK opinion was, that the legal climate in those type of legal cases had shifted over the last few years, in favour, of granting enforcement of USA Civil judgments in UK and European Courts, in favour of the plaintiff.

Dr W Vierich was urged by his legal advisers in the US and UK, to make substantial settlement payments to the USA plaintiffs, in order to avoid the risk of losing in the UK High Court, as the cost were to be very substantial to the loser, which the option of no appeal being granted.

Dr W Vierich refused, as in his view the demands were too extravagant, he believed his case was stronger and he proceeded to UK trial, the Judges required legal skeleton arguments were prepared by the UK lawyers and submitted for the November 2012, High Court hearings.

After about thirty hours, having negotiated back and forth, before the UK High Court hearing commencement on the 08th November 2012, the USA plaintiff accepted Dr W Vierich refusal of their demands and an overall settlement was reached verbally and confirmed in writing and the UK High Court informed, to close the hearing and all cases in the UK and the USA.

Dr W Vierich cancelled filing for USA appeal.

SETTLEMENT ARRANGEMENTS:

MGM/MANDALAY BAY CORPORATION and their associate companies, discontinue all legal actions against Dr W Vierich in the USA and the UK, forthwith and they have no further claims.

They will cancel the US arrest warrant immediately.

All US Court Judgments were set aside and nil and void.

They grant Dr W Vierich a new credit line/markers privilege, to use their casinos on a credit basis, for every 50% cash paid in, a 50% additional credit will be provided for.

Dr W Vierich is welcome to again in playing in all their casinos, if he wishes to do so.

They will not make any negative references as regards the above described, remove any negative references from internal casino blacklists, unless required by law to do so.

They will forfeit and not receive US$ 484.000.00 given in judgment in their favour, neither do they receive any interest payments and/or related damages or awards.

All their legal costs in the USA and the UK are to be paid in full, by them only.

No court costs and appeal costs are due.

Dr W. Vierich and/or THE VITALA GROUP discontinues all legal actions in the UK and USA, forthwith.

He will pay the costs for the removal of the US Arrest Warrant.

He will not be paid the US$ 400.000.00 win.

All court deposits and bonds placed by him in the US are returned to him in full.