LEGALITY OF CASINO TRESPASSING

As everyone should already know, the threat of criminal trespass for counting cards is nothing but a bluff. It's time I make a full, complete, and detailed thread about the legality of the ability of a casino to have someone arrested for counting cards and simply doing nothing wrong. This thread will be directed at Nevada law, but it's the same for the whole country. At the end of this I will also show you how to fight back and when I say fight back, I dont only mean in court. I will show you a method of exactly how to put the shift manager and casino manager in a false sense of security and set them up for a major lawsuit against their own person. People will soon learn ignorance is no excuse, which is something I simply cant stand anymore because it's so prevalent in our society today and just a bunch of immoral, ignorant and corrupt drones just following orders for a paycheck with no problem in doing so.

So first off, one needs to understand what NRS 463.0129 really means. Once you read the statute, you come across part (e), which states :

(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state MUST remain OPEN to the GENERAL PUBLIC and the access of the general public to gaming activities must NOT be restricted in ANY manner *EXCEPT* as provided by the Legislature.

Ok so now we know it must remain open to the public and access to gaming activities must not be restricted in ANY way. BUT wait, there is an EXCEPTION at the end of the section. Let's continue reading.

3. This section does not:

(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.

As you can see, this statute completely contradicts itself and is vague, which already makes it unconstitutional and by violating the 'Void for Vagueness' doctrine, but that's besides the point because even if it wasn't unconstitutional, the truth comes out in one of the court rulings I will get to later on in this post that refers to that exact section and what gaming establishments can and cannot do. But anyway, to the common drone after reading that section, he will immediately say, 'Well that says it right there, casinos can trespass you if they want and have you arrested if you come back'. WRONG. Lets proceed further shall we? As you read this part, pay attention to the words EXCLUDE and EJECT. These words have very different legal meanings. From Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary:


EXCLUDE

To prevent or restrict the entry or admission of [ hearsay evidence]

And what did the statute say that you can be EXCLUDED from? That's right. GAMING ACTIVITIES, NOT the BUILDING or PREMISES. So how can one be trespassed from the premises then? Simple, they CANNOT.

Now on to EJECT. This time from Black's law.

EJECT

To cast, or throw out; to oust, or dispossess; to put or turn out of possession.

Now what did the statute say regarding the premises? They can EJECT you from the premises. What does eject mean again? Does it mean to exclude you and restrict you from entering or does it simply mean throw out and come again on another day? What other word means to be thrown out and come back another day. That's right. The word BACKOFF as we know in blackjack means to come back another day without restriction.

Now, doesn't that seem different? Hmm. The statute clearly says EXCLUDE, BUT only from GAMING ACTIVITIES. Why doesnt it say EXCLUDE from the premises? When it comes to removing you from the premises, they decide not to use the word EXCLUDE, but rather discreetly use the word EJECT and we now know what the legal defintion of eject is. The legislature wouldn't have gone through the trouble of using two different words if they didnt have to and go on to define two different activities proceeding the word. 

The reason being is that it has to do with the fact that in places of public accomodation or amusement, they cannot trespass you without 'good cause', because if they do, it otherwise would be a form of discrimination and unconstitutional as was found in the Wilkinson district court case.

Secondly, let's look at the very own trespassing statute in itself, NRS 207.200. The statute states :

NRS 207.200  Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.

      1.  Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:

      (a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or

      (b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.

      2.  A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:

Parts (a), (b), and (c) are irrelevant to the subject at hand and speak about agriculture and fencing the area, which is more about private home type ownership, but let's not digress. Look at 1(b) and also when we scroll down to part (d) of section 2. Notice how it talks about the OWNER or OCCUPANT.

1 (b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the OWNER or OCCUPANT thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.

2 (d) By the OWNER or OCCUPANT of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.

That sounds more like the type of situation inside the casinos, correct? But WAIT, who is the one who gives the oral or written demand to us at the time of a trespass inside a casino? The security guard? Last time I checked the legal dictionary of an owner or occupant, this is what I found:

Owner

The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor.

Occupant

n. 1) someone living in a residence or using premises, as a tenant or owner. 2) a person who takes possession of real property or a thing which has no known owner, intending to gain ownership.

Do either of these 2 definitions sound like the drone security guard who walks you out of the premises reciting the NRS 207.200 trespassing statute? I dont think so, but let's move on even further.

Let's now get into the court decisions involving criminal trespasses.

There are 2 district court cases that I know of and 1 Supreme Court case. The 2 district court cases were that of the State of Nevada vs Annette Willinson from the 70's that was won on appeal and that of the City of North Las Vegas vs Thomas Robertson. Both cases were won in favor of the defendant. In the Wilkinson case, the judge found that as long as you were not being disorderly or destroying any property, it was simply unconstitutional for a casino to trespass you without good cause, plain and simple. Now, the Thomas Robertson case was a much more recent case, but I particularly like this case because the judge really specified some interesting things. First off, the judge clearly points to the fact that NRS 207.200 VIOLATES NRS 1.030, which is the statute for the application of the common law in the State of Nevada. Did you read that right? The judge said the trespassing statute that the Stratosphere and SLS drone security guards and managers love to recite to you VIOLATES the common law also known as NRS 1.030. The judge then goes on to say that members of the public have a RIGHT to enjoy a place of public amusement and ABSENT any disruptive or disorderly conduct, that casinos would be violating the common law if they decided to trespass them. He then proceeds to cite the ending part of 463.0129, which, remember, is the part of the statute that says casinos have the right to throw you out for any reason, and I quote, "the saving language at NRS 463.0129.3(a) does NOT apply ABSENT disruptive or disorderly conduct. WOW. Not only did the judge say the treslassing statute of NRS 207.200 was in violation of the common law of the State of Nevada when there is no disorderly conduct done in a casino, but he then also goes and says the vague part of the NRS 463.0129 statute DOES NOT APPLY as well.

As you can now see, the vagueness of NRS 463.0129 that I alluded to before was officially cleared up in this recent 2010 district court decision as well as the trespassing statute of who both of those statutes really APPLY to. Casinos DO NOT have a right to exclude you at will for any reason, but of course they won't tell you that either out of ignorance or to protect their own corrupt money hungry interests. As long as you're not disruptive or disorderly inside the casino or hotel, they are powerless, just like I have been saying all along. Casinos love to cite that they're private property, but they're actually not. They're defined in the law as a 'gaming establishment' and classified as a public place or amusement and have their own rules, laws, and regulations they must abide by.

Now I also want to get into the Supreme Court decision of Slade vs Caesars, which seemed to be the last gasp for relief by the casinos to try and exclude card counters at will, but ended up being nothing but window dressing and another failed attempt as you'll find out below.

First off, the main issue with the Slade case is that Dr. Slade NEVER sought DISCOVERY in district court about why he was EXCLUDED. Had he done so, it wouldve been thrown out before even getting to the supreme court. Of course the casinos ran with this and took advantage of this opportunity to see if they can get a favorable decision, but inevitably failed.
Nonetheless, the judge in this decision consistently stated that per NRS 463.0129, gaming establishments must remain open to the public and access of the public must not be restricted in any way, BUT then also consistently referred to the ending part of that statute, which stated gaming establishments had the right to exclude you for any reason, but then ALSO said, UNLESS EXCLUDED by law and there lies the main problem. The judge not once explained what exactly was EXCLUDED by law, but what did we learn from the Robertson decision about the ending of the 463.0129.3(a) statute? ABSENT someone being disruptive or disorderly, that part of the statute and I quote "DOES NOT APPLY". So now we know EXACTLY what the judge in the Slade decision meant by UNLESS EXCLUDED by law.

Now whether the judge in the Slade ruling was in the casino's pocket to obfuscate the actual ruling, who knows, that's a subject for another day, but in general Supreme Court justices are moral, ethical, and get it right. But if you want confirmation of what really went down in that decision, go ahead and take notice of what happened in this town right after that decision. 6:5 anyone? Why else do you think casinos went straight to 6:5 right after the Slade ruling? Could it be, they were finally left powerless to trespass counters? You bet. Casinos and their lawyers realized they were officially left powerless after this decision, but the decision left it vague enough to confuse everyone else. That's why not one card counter is ever successfully convicted of a criminal trespass in Nevada or anywhere around the country for that matter. Find me one card counter that has ever been convicted of a criminal trespass. You wont find any and now you know why because it's simply unconstitutional for a public place to EXCLUDE you without 'GOOD CAUSE'. Good cause can be something such as destroying their property, being disorderly, etc. If a casino fraudulently has you arrested for counting after returning from a trespass warning, it will just be thrown out once you seek discovery in district court, BUT you have to make sure you SEEK DISCOVERY and get it on the record. That was Dr. Slade's mistake and the casinos ran with it. You should then sue everyone involved as I'll get into below who were involved in your false arrest and basically as defined in the law, 'kidnapping'.

Now on to the fun part. How to fight back and it doesnt even involve a court battle, at least not initially. Let's say you've drawn heat and you're about to get trespassed. It will always involve MULTIPLE people and this is where you get them. First thing you do once you're encountered with the casino or shift manager is you get out your smartphone and discreetly record the interaction with a voice app. You don't even have to let them know you're recording because they aren't cops and in some states, you actually have to let the cop know you're recording them. You then simply ask the casino, shift manager, or security guard in the moment, "What happens if I come back or come back and play"? They'll then say "Well, we will have you arrested" BOOM, this is where you have them and they just committed a major federal offense under Title 18 Section 241 for acting under color of law and conspirinf against your rights and potentially Section 242 for deprivation of rights, and I say 'potentially', because for section 242, you will have to prove 'willfulness'. As we already know, a public place cannot trespass you without 'good cause' and now you have all of this voice recorded for litigation to sue each and every one of them in their private capacity. Now for section 241 it will take 'multiple' people, which is why I highlighted it above and because trespasses ALWAYS involve 'multiple' people, they're screwed and in violation of that code section and liable for major damages. That threat alone will get the casino to settle the case and drop it if they're set on to get a criminal trespass misdemeanor against you in the initial stages.

No need to wait for an idiot drone security guard to assault you and then try to sue for damages related to assault and battery as Nersesian always likes to do and what most lawsuits against the casino usually are. Let me know if Nersesian ever recommended the way of fighting back that I just illustrated above, but that's why I'm here and let it be a lesson to everyone once again that it pays to understand the law yourself and not rely on some high paying lawyer with a financially motivated agenda rather than what's really in your best interest. The problem is everyone is completely ignorant and uneducated about law and need to rely on these money hungry lawyers, let alone understanding the most important piece of law in this country, which of course is our sacred Constitution. Not to mention, if you want to fight back against the casino, whether it be assault, battery, or conspiracy or deprivation against your rights, you don't even need a lawyer or attorney in the first place, learn to apply your 6th amendment rights and be your own counsel. Yes, the 6th amendment extends to the ability for a citizen to be their own counsel. You have every right to do so and is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Thank me later.

Hi ZK,
You have been busy. Welcome back.

May I ask... Have you ever had occasion to completely test the assertion above? If so, how did it pan out for you.

And every time someone googles me, the first result will be that I was arrested for trespassing in a casino.

All to prove a point that I can’t be convicted of trespassing for card counting.

You go ahead and do it. No one here is telling you not to. Your AP move of winning a false imprisonment lawsuit might have a better chance of success than counting. (Although your post could be used as evidence that you were just trying to goad them in to arresting you, which may hurt you in court)

This reminds me of the opening courtroom scene in Good Will Hunting.

Now ZK will probably respond and call me a sheep and says that if I don’t stand up for my rights, I’m worthless. Don’t suspend him for it, I’ll say I’m not offended in advance.

Quote: FinsRule

This reminds me of the opening courtroom scene in Good Will Hunting.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Except Zen is not as brilliant as Matty Damon.

Why does every villain feel compelled to reveal their plans ahead of time?

Quote: billryan

Why does every villain feel compelled to reveal their plans ahead of time?

This is why Watchmen was such a good comic.

Quote: billryan

Why does every villain feel compelled to reveal their plans ahead of time?

Who's the villain and what 'plans' are you even talking about? Don't try to misconstrue the information I provided out of good will and try to make it sound like im the bad guy. The way of fighting back that I illustrated is not some plan of malicious intent, but to protect our rights from being violated by these corrupt and ignorant casino employees.

I meant to ask... In what way is this *OFFICIAL* ?
I don't believe it's a forum management announcement and I sure as hell doubt ZenKing even has an office.

Quote: FinsRule

And every time someone googles me, the first result will be that I was arrested for trespassing in a casino.

All to prove a point that I can’t be convicted of trespassing for card counting.

You go ahead and do it. No one here is telling you not to. Your AP move of winning a false imprisonment lawsuit might have a better chance of success than counting. (Although your post could be used as evidence that you were just trying to goad them in to arresting you, which may hurt you in court)

This reminds me of the opening courtroom scene in Good Will Hunting.

Now ZK will probably respond and call me a sheep and says that if I don’t stand up for my rights, I’m worthless. Don’t suspend him for it, I’ll say I’m not offended in advance.

When fighting for your civil rights there is nothing about goading that eliminates your rights

Im certain the restaurant civil rights cases of the south began with that argument "They knew they could not eat in a white establishment and deliberately goaded the owner into having them arrested"

The casinos main defense against being goaded into violating your civil rights is simply not to violate them regardless.

Quote: OnceDear

I meant to ask... In what way is this *OFFICIAL* ?
I don't believe it's a forum management announcement and I sure as hell doubt ZenKing even has an office.

I took it to mean "here is all the evidence. That makes it true and official" Not that it was a forum management official announcement

In my part of town if someone is trying to make a point they believe cant be argued back because you have the "goods" or irrefutable evidence you say "That's official!"

Quote: ZenKinG

The way of fighting back that I illustrated is not some plan of malicious intent, but to protect our rights from being violated .

Maybe just take a knee during every shuffle.

Other counters will join in solidarity

Quote: FinsRule

And every time someone googles me, the first result will be that I was arrested for trespassing in a casino.

All to prove a point that I can’t be convicted of trespassing for card counting.

You go ahead and do it. No one here is telling you not to. Your AP move of winning a false imprisonment lawsuit might have a better chance of success than counting. (Although your post could be used as evidence that you were just trying to goad them in to arresting you, which may hurt you in court)

This reminds me of the opening courtroom scene in Good Will Hunting.

Now ZK will probably respond and call me a sheep and says that if I don’t stand up for my rights, I’m worthless. Don’t suspend him for it, I’ll say I’m not offended in advance.

In what way, shape, or form, can my post be used as evidence of me trying to goad them into arresting me? They're the ones initiating the threat of trespass for something non-criminal(counting cards). My way of fighting back is AFTER they are trying to illegally trespass and arrest me and all I'm doing is simply trying to DEFEND myself.

Quote: OnceDear

I meant to ask... In what way is this *OFFICIAL* ?
I don't believe it's a forum management announcement and I sure as hell doubt ZenKing even has an office.

If Nathan gets an official thread... :-)

Officially jumped the shark.

Quote: ZenKinG

In what way, shape, or form, can my post be used as evidence of me trying to goad them into arresting me? They're the ones initiating the threat of trespass for something non-criminal(counting cards). My way of fighting back is AFTER they are trying to illegally trespass and arrest me and all I'm doing is simply trying to DEFEND myself.

A company can trespass you for any reason that is not protected by law (discrimination based on sex/race/ect.) The fact that card counting is not illegal is irrelevant.

ZK, I have to take you to task for using the word "official" in your title. It's make it seem as if the thread is endorsed by site management, which it isn't. In fact, I have the opposite opinion, as I've explained the last time you raised this topic.

If it were not for my strong respect for freedom of speech, I would change the title thread myself.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

A company can trespass you for any reason that is not protected by law (discrimination based on sex/race/ect.) The fact that card counting is not illegal is irrelevant.

If state gambling regulations state they cant then that is the law

In NJ they CANNOT trespass you for just any reason including card counting

As with most of your theories, you're wrong. Now you're choice is to do the right thing and follow the rules, or do the wrong thing and pay the price.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

As with most of your theories, you're wrong. Now you're choice is to do the right thing and follow the rules, or do the wrong thing and pay the price.


ZCore13

Follow the rules or follow the law?

I notice casino employees like to think those are one and the same

They are not!

Quote: darkoz

If state gambling regulations state they cant then that is the law

In NJ they CANNOT trespass you for just any reason including card counting

Gotcha. Did not know that. However, I will say this. There is what is legal and right and then there is how things actually happen.

Take this for example. A casino asks you to leave because you are counting. You, as the counter are naturally ticked, you kick up a fuss. Perhaps it is not physical, just cursing at them because you are a hothead (the hypothetical you), that would be enough grounds to ban you from the property. Wouldn't you think so?

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Gotcha. Did not know that. However, I will say this. There is what is legal and right and then there is how things actually happen.

Take this for example. A casino asks you to leave because you are counting. You, as the counter are naturally ticked, you kick up a fuss. Perhaps it is not physical, just cursing at them because you are a hothead (the hypothetical you), that would be enough grounds to ban you from the property. Wouldn't you think so?

Yes that would fall under being unruly. Disturbing the peace etc.

The best thing is to quietly let them walk into a court case not fight with them and mess it up

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Gotcha. Did not know that. However, I will say this. There is what is legal and right and then there is how things actually happen.

Take this for example. A casino asks you to leave because you are counting. You, as the counter are naturally ticked, you kick up a fuss. Perhaps it is not physical, just cursing at them because you are a hothead (the hypothetical you), that would be enough grounds to ban you from the property. Wouldn't you think so?

Darkoz left out some important info though. NJ casinos are allowed to basically change the game on you. They can tell you that you can not fluctuate your bet and they can also shuffle after every hand if they want to.

Quote: GWAE

Darkoz left out some important info though. NJ casinos are allowed to basically change the game on you. They can tell you that you can not fluctuate your bet and they can also shuffle after every hand if they want to.

Dont they flat bet you in Vegas as well

And dont they have the right to shuffle when they wish in Vegas?

Quote: darkoz

Yes that would fall under being unruly. Disturbing the peace etc.

The best thing is to quietly let them walk into a court case not fight with them and mess it up

You said they can't trespass you for ANY reason. Can they trespass you for being unruly?

A guy was recently 86ed from CP in Vegas for masturbating at the poker table. (Miraculously, for him, they didn't call the cops).

In NJ would they have to let him come back?

According to ZK, do they have to let him come back in LV?

Quote: Rigondeaux

You said they can't trespass you for ANY reason. Can they trespass you for being unruly?

A guy was recently 86ed from CP in Vegas for masturbating at the poker table. (Miraculously, for him, they didn't call the cops).

In NJ would they have to let him come back?

According to ZK, do they have to let him come back in LV?

ZK is interpreting the laws wrong and in a way he wants to see them. None of it is fact based.


ZCore13

Quote: Rigondeaux

You said they can't trespass you for ANY reason. Can they trespass you for being unruly?

A guy was recently 86ed from CP in Vegas for masturbating at the poker table. (Miraculously, for him, they didn't call the cops).

In NJ would they have to let him come back?

According to ZK, do they have to let him come back in LV?

I said they cannot trespass you for JUST ANY REASON

I.e. they cant just say you are card counting or we dont need a reason because we are private property

Justified reasons (things that would amount to criminal misdemeanors like fighting, masturbation in public or whatnot of course they have a legal right to trespass you on)

Quote: Rigondeaux

A guy was recently 86ed from CP in Vegas for masturbating at the poker table. (Miraculously, for him, they didn't call the cops).

Do you have a source for this? The only thing I can find is a 2+2 post.

There are no winners when it comes to criminal court.

You do not want to go through that process.

Even if you are 100% in the right, you still come out a loser.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Do you have a source for this? The only thing I can find is a 2+2 post.

Someone who I have no reason to doubt told me about it. When he identified the culprit, I was not particularly surprised (well, other than it not being Axl). This guy always reminded me of Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver.

The story was told to me like this. My friend was sitting next to PJ and looked down and saw that he was choking the chicken. There was an attractive dealer at the table. He said, "what do you think you're doing?" PJ replied, "What? I'll wash my hands!" My friend informed the floor person. Surveillance confirmed the story and he was 86ed.

I didn't really delve into it much beyond that, so I guess it's possible the police were called and he was turned over to them somewhere else. It was just a casual conversation. But my acquaintance was under the impression the police were not involved.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Someone who I have no reason to doubt told me about it. When he identified the culprit, I was not particularly surprised (well, other than it not being Axl). This guy always reminded me of Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver.

The story was told to me like this. My friend was sitting next to PJ and looked down and saw that he was choking the chicken. There was an attractive dealer at the table. He said, "what do you think you're doing?" PJ replied, "What? I'll wash my hands!" My friend informed the floor person. Surveillance confirmed the story and he was 86ed.

I didn't really delve into it much beyond that, so I guess it's possible the police were called and he was turned over to them somewhere else. It was just a casual conversation. But my acquaintance was under the impression the police were not involved.

Thanks. I just wanted to know if it made the news. It seems outlandish, but hey, some people are really outlandish.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Someone who I have no reason to doubt told me about it. When he identified the culprit, I was not particularly surprised (well, other than it not being Axl). This guy always reminded me of Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver.

The story was told to me like this. My friend was sitting next to PJ and looked down and saw that he was choking the chicken. There was an attractive dealer at the table. He said, "what do you think you're doing?" PJ replied, "What? I'll wash my hands!" My friend informed the floor person. Surveillance confirmed the story and he was 86ed.

I didn't really delve into it much beyond that, so I guess it's possible the police were called and he was turned over to them somewhere else. It was just a casual conversation. But my acquaintance was under the impression the police were not involved.

Was he holding the nuts at the time? ;)



Sorry, bad joke, but I just couldn't resist!

Quote: Joeman

Was he holding the nuts at the time? ;)



Sorry, bad joke, but I just couldn't resist!

He was about to head to Craps for the come bets

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Joeman

Was he holding the nuts at the time? ;)



Sorry, bad joke, but I just couldn't resist!

He was about to head to Craps for the come bets

I’m going to assume he was the shooter

Quote: Rigondeaux

Someone who I have no reason to doubt told me about it. When he identified the culprit, I was not particularly surprised (well, other than it not being Axl). This guy always reminded me of Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver.

The story was told to me like this. My friend was sitting next to PJ and looked down and saw that he was choking the chicken. There was an attractive dealer at the table. He said, "what do you think you're doing?" PJ replied, "What? I'll wash my hands!" My friend informed the floor person. Surveillance confirmed the story and he was 86ed.

I didn't really delve into it much beyond that, so I guess it's possible the police were called and he was turned over to them somewhere else. It was just a casual conversation. But my acquaintance was under the impression the police were not involved.

You know danm well I'm clever enough not to get caught...

Quote: gamerfreak

There are no winners when it comes to criminal court.

You do not want to go through that process.

Even if you are 100% in the right, you still come out a loser.

Especially on something that goes to the Magistrate and would result in a fine, but not jail time. The Magistrate has every incentive to find the accused guilty and absolutely zero reason to have a disposition favoring a finding of innocence.

Quote: Mission146

Especially on something that goes to the Magistrate and would result in a fine, but not jail time. The Magistrate has every incentive to find the accused guilty and absolutely zero reason to have a disposition favoring a finding of innocence.

Which is why people need to pay attention to local judge elections/all local elections.

But people only care/talk about a SCOTUS judge appointment that they can hardly control

Quote: Mission146

Especially on something that goes to the Magistrate and would result in a fine, but not jail time. The Magistrate has every incentive to find the accused guilty and absolutely zero reason to have a disposition favoring a finding of innocence.

Thats why you make sure you hire a lawyer

Quote: darkoz

Thats why you make sure you hire a lawyer

A lawyer who is going to charge me more than the amount of the fine?

Quote: Mission146

A lawyer who is going to charge me more than the amount of the fine?

If you pay the fine that costs you and you have admitted guilt by paying it

If you pay the lawyer and beat the charge and you have grounds for unlawful activity on the casinos part you sue for an amount that will pay back the imvestment in the lawyer

EDIT: Beyond that why anyone would risk facing a DA without an attorney beats me. You might wind up with that fine turning into jail time or 6 months community service or something

Always go in defended by an attorney is my motto

Quote: Mission146

A lawyer who is going to charge me more than the amount of the fine?

Its the principle of the thing :)

Quote: darkoz

If you pay the fine that costs you and you have admitted guilt by paying it

If you pay the lawyer and beat the charge and you have grounds for unlawful activity on the casinos part you sue for an amount that will pay back the imvestment in the lawyer

There are a few responses to this I have for you:

1.) The lawyer would have definitely cost more than the fine and I made the same legal argument that the lawyer would have in my particular case. Since it was not coming from a lawyer, it was deemed uncompelling. I might have won had the lawyer made the same argument, but then I might have lost resulting in paying the fine AND the lawyer.

2.) Because #1, the only way I would have even considered a lawyer is if the lawyer getting paid was contingent upon him winning. I don't think any lawyer is going to agree to that for a such a small sum of money even if he does win.

EDIT to Add 2A.) Again, had the lawyer won, that would still cost more than the amount of the fine. So, I probably still would not have went with a lawyer.

3.) I would not have had grounds for unlawful activity on the casino's part in this case, they absolutely did not do anything illegal. Therefore, I would have no lawsuit against the casino. Also, had the casino done anything unlawful, I could still sue them if I wanted to despite losing the trespass case.

4.) I'm certain that suing the parent company of that casino would get me 86'ed from all properties in that corporation and other affiliated corporations, whereas I am currently and will remain 86'ed from only that one individual casino. Honestly, I shouldn't even be on the radar because the casino in question was owned by a DIFFERENT COMPANY at the time I was 86'ed and there was no notice sent to me that I was still 86'ed when the new company bought it, which was the basis of my primary legal argument. I also had two lesser arguments in my defense.

5.) I did not admit guilt, I was found guilty. But, it's a petty offense. Equivalent to a traffic citation, so I'm really not concerned about that one way or another.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Its the principle of the thing :)

Besides, you can just say to the lawyer and the judge. ' I don't recognise the authority of your fake fiat currency. I'll pay you in tulip bulbs and you'll like it or lump it.'... 'I don't recognise your authority to throw me in jail... I know the constitution. I know my rights.'... 'Can I have a cell with a clean mattress please?'

So, ZK... Do i take it that you have not thoroughly tested your assertions in practice?

Quote: OnceDear

Besides, you can just say to the lawyer and the judge. ' I don't recognise the authority of your fake fiat currency. I'll pay you in tulip bulbs and you'll like it or lump it.'... 'I don't recognise your authority to throw me in jail... I know the constitution. I know my rights.'... 'Can I have a cell with a clean mattress please?'

So, ZK... Do i take it that you have not thoroughly tested your assertions in practice?

I am a sovereign citizen. I am not Mission146, I am Mission147, who is the representative, advocate and agent of Mission146. Mission146 will not be available until the conclusion of these proceedings and is also not a person.

Quote: Mission146

I am a sovereign citizen. I am not Mission146, I am Mission147, who is the representative, advocate and agent of Mission146. Mission146 will not be available until the conclusion of these proceedings and is also not a person.

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
— Abraham Lincoln

Quote: OnceDear

Besides, you can just say to the lawyer and the judge. ' I don't recognise the authority of your fake fiat currency. I'll pay you in tulip bulbs and you'll like it or lump it.'... 'I don't recognise your authority to throw me in jail... I know the constitution. I know my rights.'... 'Can I have a cell with a clean mattress please?'

So, ZK... Do i take it that you have not thoroughly tested your assertions in practice?

When you are right, you are right. Regardless of what some drone judge decided, he is an F’N loser like the rest of us. A tool addicted to worthless money and is a sucker with a mortgage. His court has no control over the king. He is a pawn in the Kings world. Just another squirrel trying to find a nut.

It appears some of you don’t appreciate the “Offical” advice provided free of charge to you.

I’m sorry you have to read these replies King, these drones are truly not deserving of your presence. And to think some of them requested a Mead instead of a Bud Light!

Quote: Mission146

Especially on something that goes to the Magistrate and would result in a fine, but not jail time. The Magistrate has every incentive to find the accused guilty and absolutely zero reason to have a disposition favoring a finding of innocence.

Wrong. You and others on here have no concept of how things work. It's no coincidence you guys see the judge the same way you see the President. You think they have the final say. Just another misconception of the American public is that they think corruption and railroading can get in the way of justice. This is America, you want to know what we have that no other country has? The right to a JURY TRIAL. JURY NULLIFICATION. The only way corruption can last in this country is through an uneducated and ignorant public about everything including this. Now do you see why I'm so passionate about everyone educating themselves because knowledge and education can stop any possible corruption in the courtroom. Corrupt judges can only go so far, some might even try to tamper with a jury, which is clearly illegal, but an educated citizen base and jury will trump any corruption that could ever go on in this country. But how can any of this be possible when most people are droned out celebrity gossip robots. I bet there's people in this country that don't even know there's a right to a jury trial in criminal AND civil cases to begin with, LOL. You go ahead and ask 99% of the public what the 6th and 7th amendments say and your answer will be similar to throwing a ping pong ball at their head.

The powers behind the scenes are trying their hardest to disarm the public of being an educated citizen with indoctrinated school systems and mass media brainwashing to the point the public doesn't even question anything the government or their tell-a-lie-visions spit out to them on the daily basis. There is severe cognitive dissonance going on among our fellow citizens. Americans have no idea the freedom they actually have in this country if they were actually educated. It's such a damn shame because not only is everyone ignorant, but these same ignorant citizens are putting their own fellow citizens in prison through the jury as well out of sheer ignorance and cognitive dissonance. These same people are also trying every possible way to avoid doing jury duty, the most important and sacred rights we have in this country. How can this be? They don't even want to attend. LOL

The people run this country, not Trump, not some rogue corrupt agenda based politician, not some supreme court judge, not any of them, the PEOPLE, the PUBLIC have the last say EVERY single time, directly and indirectly. Sure, we are a country of laws and the government sets those laws and we must abide by them, im not arguing that, but guess who elects these government officials into office? WE DO through our respective state elections. And guess what these government officials have to abide by? The CONSTITUTION. And what happens if they don't abide by it? The law is nullified regardless if it's passed by any state Legislature or federal agency. An unconstitutional law is a law that might as never have been written and carries no force and effect of law as stated by the Supreme Court in Norton v. Shelby County as well as the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. We then have the additional power of a Jury to strike down that same unconstitutional law or a corrupt railroading judge, if it ever got to that point. Do you see the POWER we all have? It's just amazing to me how everyone can be this ignorant. There's literally nothing the government can do to any of us as long as we're ALL educated about the Constitution and law in this country.

So why doesn't the government simply tell us of the power we truly have? You know what we get instead? The subtle subconcious illusion that politicians and the puppet president somehow run a dictatorship and do as they want to us. The way people talk about the President and the numbers showing up to these presidential rallies, you would think Congress doesn't even exist and it's a one man show. The way citizens today go through their lives in this country, you would think we live in some totalitarian country such as Russia, China, or Cuba. If you're using the basis of being frightened by corruption of the courts to shape your mindset of not doing anything, just go read the 6th and 7th amendment and then get back to me if corruption can succeed in this country or is it our own fault things are the way they are? The only thing you should be frightened of is an uneducated droned out fellow citizenzry.

Also let me again be clear, I'm simply arguing the fact of unconstitutional laws that are corruptly enforced by the government and the courts in lieu of following the law. I'm obviously not against ALL laws and I never said that. Laws are very important to a civilized society. As long as any law stays within it's constitutional authority, so be it.

Quote: darkoz

If you pay the fine that costs you and you have admitted guilt by paying it

Paying a fine is not an admission of guilt.

Quote: Joeman

Was he holding the nuts at the time? ;)

*snort*

Quote: ZenKinG

Wrong. Another misconception of the American public is that they think corruption and railroading can get in the way of justice. This is America, you want to know what we have that no other country has? The right to a JURY TRIAL. JURY NULLIFICATION.

First sentence under ANNOTATIONS:

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-06/06-criminal-proceedings-to-which-the-guarantee-applies.html

Quote:

The Sixth Amendment is phrased in terms of “all criminal prosecutions,” but the Court has always excluded petty offenses from the guarantee to a jury trial in federal courts, defining the line between petty and serious offenses either by the maximum punishment available82 or by the nature of the offense.83 This line has been adhered to in the application of the Sixth Amendment to the states,84 and the Court has now held “that no offense can be deemed ‘petty’ for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.”85 A defendant who is prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses, however, does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial, even if the aggregate of sentences authorized for the offense exceeds six months

Since the maximum possible jail sentence under these proceedings was exactly 0 Years, 0 Months, 0 Days, 0 Hours, 0 Minutes and 0 Seconds, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply.

Quote:

The only way corruption can last in this country is through an uneducated and ignorant public about everything including this. Now do you see why I'm so passionate about everyone educating themselves because knowledge and education can stop any possible corruption in the courtroom.

Yes, I do see why you're passionate on this point. Therefore, I encourage you to read the link above and educate yourself on this matter.

Quote:

Corrupt judges can only go so far, some might even try to tamper with a jury, which is clearly illegal, but an educated citizen base and jury will trump any corruption that could ever go on in this country.

There was no jury and nor did I have any right to one, therefore, there was no way to tamper with the jury.

Quote:

But how can any of this be possible when most people are droned out celebrity gossip robots. I bet there's people in this country that don't even know there's a righy to a jury trial in criminal AND civil cases to begin with, LOL. You go ahead and ask 99% of yhe public what the 6th and 7th amendments say and your answer will be similar to throwing a ping pong ball at their head.

I bet there are people in this country who don't know that certain criminal cases do not have an inherent right to a jury trial.

Quote:

The powers behind the scenes are trying their hardest to disarm the public of being an educated citizen with indoctrinated school systems and mass media brainwashing to the point the public doesn't even question anything the government or their tell-a-lie-visions spit out to them on the daily basis. There is severe cognitive dissonance going on among our fellow citizens. Americans have no idea the freedom they actually have in this country if they were actually educated. It's such a damn shame because not only is everyone ignorant, but these same ignorant citizens are putting their own fellow citizens in prison through the jury as well out of sheer ignorance and cognitive dissonance. These same people are also trying every possible way to avoid doing jury duty, the most important and sacred rights we have in this country. How can this be? They don't even want to attend. LOL

This was an enjoyable paragraph to read given that it followed a patently erroneous assertion.

The rest of your post was unquoted as it has little to do with the subject matter and I don't have any major disagreements with it. At least, I don't think I do. I didn't really read it thoroughly.

Quote: Mission146

First sentence under ANNOTATIONS:

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-06/06-criminal-proceedings-to-which-the-guarantee-applies.html



Since the maximum possible jail sentence under these proceedings was exactly 0 Years, 0 Months, 0 Days, 0 Hours, 0 Minutes and 0 Seconds, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply.



Yes, I do see why you're passionate on this point. Therefore, I encourage you to read the link above and educate yourself on this matter.



There was no jury and nor did I have any right to one, therefore, there was no way to tamper with the jury.



I bet there are people in this country who don't know that certain criminal cases do not have an inherent right to a jury trial.



This was an enjoyable paragraph to read given that it followed a patently erroneous assertion.

The rest of your post was unquoted as it has little to do with the subject matter and I don't have any major disagreements with it. At least, I don't think I do. I didn't really read it thoroughly.

You don't even realize what the link says that you quoted. First off, your legal proceeding was a STATE matter, not a FEDERAL matter, correct? Additionally, your case if it resulted in no jail time, was a CIVIL matter and a jury trial is guaranteed by the 7th amendment. The link you showed me was regarding the FEDERAL courts and the 6th amendment. Nonetheless, the court has no right to interpret the Constitution. All interpretation is found in the Federalist Papers and Madisons' Notes. If the 6th amendment says ALL criminal trials, it means ALL, end of story. Any court that says otherwise can be challenged.