Las Vegas sports betting figure told to hand over assets or be locked up 53%

By Noble Brigham71%

7/20/2026, 5:20:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29.8% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 1,409 faulty-reasoning hits from 557 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,367 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.60% of the article peer group.

A judge is holding a Las Vegas sports betting figure in contempt of court and threatening to put him behind bars unless he quickly turns over assets. 
“The record shows that the Court has issued monetary sanctions against Oancea for contempt multiple times, but he has never paid them voluntarily or ceased violating court orders,” said District Judge Tara Clark Newberry’s Friday decision. 
Last July, District Judge Timothy Williams ordered David Oancea to pay $30.2 million to an upscale vacation rental agency in Mexico called Cabo Platinum, which accused him of sabotaging rental reservations for his properties in Mexico. 
Oancea, known as “Vegas Dave,” boasts more than 9 million Instagram followers and was featured in the Showtime docuseries “Action” about the sports gambling world. 
He was ordered not to block access to properties or interfere with agreed-upon rentals but did not comply, according to court documents. 
Williams ordered Oancea to turn over his Richard Mille watch, Birkin bags, cryptocurrency holdings and interests in three Mexican properties within two weeks of a September hearing. 
Oancea then claimed the property no longer belonged to him and did not turn over any of it, Clark Newberry found. 
He testified during a six-day evidentiary hearing, but the judge’s order called some of his testimony “false” and said he had demonstrated “willful noncompliance.” 
“This Court finds that Mr. 
Oancea was not a credible witness,” said Clark Newberry’s order, which drew from a proposed order submitted by Cabo Platinum attorneys. 
“His testimony was inconsistent, contradicted by documentary evidence and prior sworn statements, and was evasive and argumentative.” 
The judge ordered that to “purge” his contempt, Oancea must hand over the Mille watch and three Birkin bags, or cash in lieu of those items, plus over $375,000 in cryptocurrency. 
He is also required to execute a power of attorney agreement giving Cabo Platinum principal Mishan Andre authority related to his interest in Mexican properties. 
He must comply with those conditions by Aug. 5 or surrender and remain incarcerated until he follows the order, the ruling said. 
Clark Newberry also awarded Cabo Platinum almost $294,000 in attorneys’ fees and $17,000 in costs. 
“The Court expressly finds that any claimed inability to comply is self-created, strategic, and the result of voluntary acts to avoid compliance,” said the ruling. 
Oancea and his attorneys did not respond to requests for comment Monday, but registered their displeasure in a filing. 
“This matter arises from a routine property management dispute gone horribly wrong,” said defense attorneys Alex LeVeque, Ross Evans and Michael Desmond. 
“An ordinary contract case has morphed into a cautionary tale about the district courts’ enormous contempt powers and how, when wielded unconstitutionally, they can ruin a litigant’s life.” 
The lawyers also made claims of misconduct against Cabo Platinum. 
Andre has denied similar allegations in the past. 
“We operate ethically,” he said in a prior interview. 
In a statement Monday, he praised Clark Newberry for her “patience and judicial temperament.” 
“This litigation and Dave’s continued noncompliance have imposed an enormous burden on our company and threatened the client relationships our team worked so hard to build,” he said. 
“In my view, this was not merely an attack on our company, it was an affront to the authority of the Court and the judicial process.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.2%Noble Brigham: 4.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Confirmation Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Noble Brigham: 2.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 4.5%Noble Brigham: 1.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Noble Brigham: 5.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.3%Framing Effect11.3%This article: 3.9%Noble Brigham: 1.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Noble Brigham: 1.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 5.0%Noble Brigham: 1.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 19.7%Noble Brigham: 11.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 8.6%Negativity Bias19.7%This article: 15.6%Noble Brigham: 12.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias15.6%This article: 12.9%Noble Brigham: 5.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error12.9%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Noble Brigham: 4.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Halo Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Noble Brigham: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Noble Brigham: 2.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Ad Hominem6.3%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.8%Noble Brigham: 13.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority29.8%This article: 11.3%Noble Brigham: 5.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%False Dilemma11.3%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 3.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Noble Brigham: 4.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.6%Noble Brigham: 16.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion24.6%This article: 14.2%Noble Brigham: 4.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Begging the Question14.2%This article: 6.5%Noble Brigham: 2.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 1.4%Noble Brigham: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque1.4%This article: 6.5%Noble Brigham: 2.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Burden of Proof6.5%This article: 1.6%Noble Brigham: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Appeal to Nature1.6%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.3%Noble Brigham: 1.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.3%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.8%Noble Brigham: 1.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy3.8%This article: 11.8%Noble Brigham: 4.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Unattributed Quote11.8%This article: 11.8%Noble Brigham: 7.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection11.8%This article: 7.4%Noble Brigham: 3.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice7.4%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noble Brigham: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

557 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers41%attributed speech331writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageTara Clark Newberry • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageTara Clark Newberry • 21 words • 100.0% coverageTara Clark Newberry • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTara Clark Newberry • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAlex LeVeque • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAlex LeVeque • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMishan Andre • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMishan Andre • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMishan Andre • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMishan Andre • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tara Clark Newberry

100%flagged-word coverage
99 attributed words44% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+60.1 ptsWriter: 1.5%Tara Clark Newberry: 61.6%61.6%Unattributed Quote+57.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tara Clark Newberry: 57.6%57.6%Biased Writer Voice-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Tara Clark Newberry: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.