Hey how about i do my best Joe Peschi
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, my opponent has argued that shuffling a deck of cards was enough to make poker both a game of significant chance and significant skill, which falls under the U.K. government’s interpretation of “chance.”
I ask you, how is this possible, is “chance” not by definition a term used to describe an occurance which cannot be altered in any way by one single human being.
Are we supposed to believe that the definition of “chance” has suddenly taken on a new meaning, or perhaps is it that the citizens of London have somehow managed to manipulate the course of events which have yet to happen.
Are we really supposed to believe that these yutes who are winning these poker tournaments possess supernatural powers which can dictate the outcome of events by manipulating fate.
Wow
Seems too incredible to be true, yet the prosecution would have you believe just that.
I mean are we to believe that the good people at Webster’s have been misleading us all these years with their definitions.
Is it possible that the game in question is not even called “poker”, could it be that the game is actually called “i decide wtf i do with my cards”
I would like for you, the members of the jury to look at all of these factors and question the validity of the prosecution’s claim, as you can see they make no sense and defy the laws of logic.
:dajudge: