LEGALITY OF CASINO TRESPASSING
Quote: ZenKinGWell that's starting to branch off into a different subject. If you want to grasp at straws here, i guess they DO indeed do some interpreting, but that wasn't my original argument, of course. When I mentioned the SCOTUS interpreting something, I was specifically mentioning things such as the Bill of Rights, and the many clauses from each of the Articles in the Constitution. If new things come up such as abortion(which I'm against by the way), as long as the decision is within constitutional authority, whatever the decision is fine.
The 10th amendment answers the Wizard's question.
The Supreme Court is the branch of gov that has failed the people the most. Obviously, politicians are going to promise voters a bunch of "free" crap to get elected. It was the Supreme Court's duty to uphold the constitution and it's limitations on federal government.
Quote: RogerKintThe 10th amendment answers the Wizard's question.
The Supreme Court is the branch of gov that has failed the people the most. Obviously, politicians are going to promise voters a bunch of "free" crap to get elected. It was the supreme courts duty to uphold the constitution and it's limitations on federal government.
Yup, it becomes a state issue as provided by the 10th amendment. The State Supreme Courts would handle it and no need for the US Supreme Court to take care of it. Forgot about that for a second. Feel like I'm on the hot seat here with tons of questions and needing to respond back quickly.
Quote: ZenKinGFeel like I'm on the hot seat here with tons of questions and needing to respond back quickly.
That's because almost everything you say is incorrect. You're wrong on your theory of being trespassed. You're wrong on how a jury is selected. As a matter of fact, it's rare that I see you post anything that is based on fact. Just your opinions on how things should be or are in your mind.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13That's because almost everything you say is incorrect. You're wrong on your theory of being trespassed. You're wrong on how a jury is selected. As a matter of fact, it's rare that I see you post anything that is based on fact. Just your opinions on how things should be or are in your mind.
ZCore13
But yet you can't provide one shred of evidence refuting anything I said in the OP about the legality of casino trespassing right? Actually not one person in this thread has yet to refute anything I said, but yet I'm the one who's wrong? Im actually right about the jury selection as well, I've been in that courtroom so I know how it works and the process before it even gets to that point. I've been in the jury box and answered questions. If you think I'm wrong, tell me which casino you work for and ill go there and demolish your blackjack game so you can trespass me. I'll then come back and I'll dare you to arrest me. Let's see who wins in court. Deal?
The only thing that surprised me is how the Supreme Court is not honoring every criminal and civil case with a jury trial due to it being labeled as 'petty' and less than a 6 month conviction, which seems to me completely unconstitutional and caught me by surprise because the Supreme Court usually get it right. That was one thing I learned today, which doesn't happen often. Fot me to be wrong it has to be some unconstitutional practice going on and me not being up to date on that particular enforcement of it through a rogue Supreme Court ruling. I can't search every ruling for every piece of information in the Constitution. Generally, you don't need to because like I said there usually isnt any shady practices done by the Supreme Court and all you need to know is what the Constitution says and understand it.
Quote: ZenKinGBut yet you can't provide one shred of evidence refuting anything I said in the OP about the legality of casino trespassing right? Actually not one person in this thread has yet to refute anything I said, but yet I'm the one who's wrong? Im actually right about the jury selection as well, I've been in that courtroom as well so I know how it works. If you think I'm wrong, tell me which casino you work for and ill go there and demolish your blackjack game so you can trespass me. I'll then come back and I'll dare you to arrest me. Let's see who wins in court. Deal?
The only thing that surprised me is how the Supreme Court is not honoring every criminal and civil case with a jury trial due to it being labeled as 'petty' and less than a 6 month conviction, which seems to me completely unconstitutional and caught me by surprise because the Supreme Court usually get it right. That was one thing I learned today, which doesn't happen often. Fot me to be wrong it has to be some unconstitutional practice going on and me not being up to date on that particular enforcement of it through a rogue Supreme Court ruling. I can't search every ruling for every piece of information in the Constitution. Generally, you don't need to because like I said there usually isnt any shady practices done by the Supreme Court and all you need to know is what the Constitution says and understand it.
I work at Talking Stick Casino. Please come demolish us. Pretty please.
ZCore13
"No, it's a game of crock-luck!"
"You're both wrong. It's a game of NO WINNERS ALLOWED! NOW GET THE HECK OUT OF HERE!"
Quote: Zcore13I work at Talking Stick Casino. Please come demolish us. Pretty please.
ZCore13
Oh geez, now we are going to get a lesson on jury selection in tribal court. (Not sure if “tribal court” is the right term)
Quote: FinsRuleOh geez, now we are going to get a lesson on jury selection in tribal court. (Not sure if “tribal court” is the right term)
LOL, for some reason when I saw Talking Stick I thought of Joe Don Baker in Walking Tall and his big stick. Then I googled talking stick casino and saw it is a real casino.
Quote: FinsRuleOh geez, now we are going to get a lesson on jury selection in tribal court. (Not sure if “tribal court” is the right term)
Tribal Court is correct. They have their own police, court. Government, etc. When on Tribal land, you follow Tribal laws, except Zen. He can do whatever he wants.
ZCore13
Quote: ChumpChange"It's a game of skill!"
"No, it's a game of crock-luck!"
"You're both wrong. It's a game of NO WINNERS ALLOWED! NOW GET THE HECK OUT OF HERE!"
We had a player buy in for $200 yesterday morning at 9:30am. At 2:30am this morning he cashed out for $49,100. There are winners of $10,000+ every day. We don't care if people win. Heck, it's how our Dealers make their money.
ZCore13
Quote: ZenKinGIm actually right about the jury selection as well, I've been in that courtroom so I know how it works and the process before it even gets to that point. I've been in the jury box and answered questions.
Let me remind the audience what you wrote:
Quote: ZKYou can't choose the actual jury pool that arrive there, that's done by random by mailing the people who are registered to vote, etc. What you can do, is you then get to choose from that pool in the courtroom many months before trial or however long before it is.
Where is your evidence the defense gets to pick over a list of names many months before the trial starts. If you're interested in how the process really works, here is a link for you: Jury Selection in Criminal Cases.
Quote: ZenKinGAlso just to reaffirm, I also never said Supreme Court justices don't have their place, they are a vital piece to enforcement of the law. It's just that when you say they can interpret the Constitution, that's patently false.
If memory from high school American government class is correct, there are three branches
Legislative (Congress) makes laws
Executive (President, VP, Cabinet, and most federal agencies) carry out (aka enforce) the laws
Judicial (Supreme Court and Federal Courts) evaluate (via Constitution interpretation) laws
So, my understanding is in conflict with ZK about enforcement and interpretation. Please educate this simple drone about my error
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThis thread jumped the shark when Zen started arguing with an attorney about actual case law.
Or when he claimed he knows the law better than the casinos. Whichever came first.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Or when he claimed he knows the law better than the casinos. Whichever came first.
ZCore13
Like, the casinos on the whole or certain representatives of the casinos? Believe it or not, some advantage players actually do know the gambling laws better than some other casino employees. I personally know several different gambling laws for several states such as it has been relevant to me, would you contest that every employee in your casino knows the laws better than I do?
Quote: ZenKinG<snip>I've only logged around 405 hours in Vegas and I'm up +17.2k in vegas and -1600 in SoCal with 6.5 hours played there. So only really about 410 hours played since I got here last May. Do the math, what's that in EV? Pretty close to my expectation betting on average 2x200 since I got here, huh?<snip>
ZenKinG,
So you're up about $16K in about 400 hours... that's about $40/hr.
But you're "betting on average 2x200", or $400. At 100 rounds/hr, that's $40K in action per hour.
Thus, your IBA is 0.1%... that seems pretty low.
Am I missing something?
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandZenKinG,
So you're up about $16K in about 400 hours... that's about $40/hr.
But you're "betting on average 2x200", or $400. At 100 rounds/hr, that's $40K in action per hour.
Thus, your IBA is 0.1%... that seems pretty low.
Am I missing something?
Dog Hand
Yea, in other words he works Part Time and makes slightly above a poverty level income for 1 person. He qualifies for some food stamp benefits, and subsidized Health Care. Not saying he takes these benefits but he does qualify.
He lives by his own admission in places transients, junkies and other down on their luck people live. He enjoys belittling saps working for a living, always willing to prove them wrong. Insulting others for their
life choices at every opportunity. Never missing a chance to show how much smarter he is than them.
In the words of Mel Brooks “It’s Good to be The King”.
I can only dream of a life like he lives. In my nightmares, of course.
Quote: Mission146Like, the casinos on the whole or certain representatives of the casinos? Believe it or not, some advantage players actually do know the gambling laws better than some other casino employees. I personally know several different gambling laws for several states such as it has been relevant to me, would you contest that every employee in your casino knows the laws better than I do?
I was referring to him, not everyone.
ZCore13
Quote: DogHandZenKinG,
So you're up about $16K in about 400 hours... that's about $40/hr.
But you're "betting on average 2x200", or $400. At 100 rounds/hr, that's $40K in action per hour.
Thus, your IBA is 0.1%... that seems pretty low.
Am I missing something?
Dog Hand
100 rounds per hour is too high. I’m guessing 200x2 average is also too high. Otherwise no issues.
There really isn't btw. My uncle (a very intelligent successful DBA) was on a large group of people whom tried to point this out and prove it in the 80's. There's also a challenge out right now for $1,000,000 to anyone that can find the statute that claims Americans have to pay income tax to the government. There isn't one.
Quote: RomesIn pretending you're right that a business can't trespass you for counting cards (again I'm not saying I agree with this, just let's say that's true) that doesn't really mean anything. There is also no law that says citizens must pay income tax. Why do you do that? Stop paying income tax... same thing... then see how that works out for you.
There really isn't btw. My uncle (a very intelligent successful DBA) was on a large group of people whom tried to point this out and prove it in the 80's. There's also a challenge out right now for $1,000,000 to anyone that can find the statute that claims Americans have to pay income tax to the government. There isn't one.
Tax_protester_statutory_arguments
Quote: RomesIn pretending you're right that a business can't trespass you for counting cards (again I'm not saying I agree with this, just let's say that's true) that doesn't really mean anything. There is also no law that says citizens must pay income tax. Why do you do that? Stop paying income tax... same thing... then see how that works out for you.
There really isn't btw. My uncle (a very intelligent successful DBA) was on a large group of people whom tried to point this out and prove it in the 80's. There's also a challenge out right now for $1,000,000 to anyone that can find the statute that claims Americans have to pay income tax to the government. There isn't one.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that what the 16th amendment does? Give the government power to tax income. Perhaps all the legal scholars here can educate me.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkForgive my ignorance, but isn't that what the 16th amendment does? Give the government power to tax income. Perhaps all the legal scholars here can educate me.
You don't even need to get to the amendments. It's in Article I, section 8, paragraph 1 of the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
Granted, those are broad terms, but that's the gist of it. Interestingly, collecting taxes for the "general welfare of the United States" also strongly implies that the gov't can collect taxes and use them for universal healthcare.
Alas, it seems that ZK is to The Law as Nathan is to The Lottery.
In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the fact that Gaming establishments have a free hand to evict anybody as long as they don't discriminate.
Get the facts first.
Quote: FCBLComishZen, I assume you did research for your opening post. Can I assume you also saw Slade v Caesars Entertaiment (2016)?
In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the fact that Gaming establishments have a free hand to evict anybody as long as they don't discriminate.
Get the facts first.
Nevada Supreme Court applied the facts incorrectly so they don’t count.
Quote: TigerWuthe "general welfare of the United States" also strongly implies that the gov't can collect taxes and use them for universal healthcare.
Apparently Chief Justice Roberts agrees with you. I however, do not.
Quote: RomesIn pretending you're right that a business can't trespass you for counting cards (again I'm not saying I agree with this, just let's say that's true) that doesn't really mean anything. There is also no law that says citizens must pay income tax. Why do you do that? Stop paying income tax... same thing... then see how that works out for you.
There really isn't btw. My uncle (a very intelligent successful DBA) was on a large group of people whom tried to point this out and prove it in the 80's. There's also a challenge out right now for $1,000,000 to anyone that can find the statute that claims Americans have to pay income tax to the government. There isn't one.
I applaud your uncle and I've actually studied the income tax for the past 3 years in excruciating detail but have pulled away from discussing it here because of the amount of cognitive dissonance that people suffer from. I even thought of making a fully detailed thread about it as well, but decided not to. All I got to say is people that are claiming the 16th amendment changed anything have a lot of Supreme Court reading to do on what that amendment actually changed. I have read every single Supreme Court ruling regarding the income tax starting from Pollock in 1895 all the way to Brushaber v Union Pacific to Stanton v Baltic Mining, to Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka to Stratton Independence to Peck v Lowe to Doyle Mitchell Brothers, and others I'm probably forgetting as I write this.
First of all, the Constitution prohibits any direct taxation unless APPORTIONED among the several states. That is, if Congress wants to levy a direct tax, it first must send each state a tax bill based on their population after taking a nationwide census and is then equally paid by each state through its property owners until the entire federal direct tax is paid off. Direct taxes cannot be constitutionally laid on its citizens, but rather on the STATES.
Secondly, the 16th amendment, the amendment that everyone and the government claim allowed the federal government to lay a direct unapportioned tax on its citizens, is patently false. The 16th amendment did NOT allow for an unapportioned direct tax and this is not my opinion, but an historical fact, just go look up the Supreme Court rulings after the amendment was passed in 1913 starting with the Brushaber v Union Pacific case. The amendment to make a long story short as explained in the Brushaber ruling in excruciating detail, simply allowed the government to tax corporate profits as an indirect EXCISE tax after the income tax was ruled unconstitutional in 1895 in the Pollock ruling due to it violating the direct taxing clauses of the constitution. You will never see this brought up on TV airwaves or even in indoctrinated universities and law schools. If people actually took the time to read the Supreme Court decisions handed down word for word, the truth will be quite disturbing after they find out what really happened. Also once you learn the truth, you can never unlearn it and you really start questioning everything from then on.
Furthermore, the 16th amendment was proposed right after the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 came into effect and then ratified in 1913. The 1909 Act imposed an indirect excise tax on all corporations organized for profit. The Supreme Court then ruled time and time again in 1916 through Brushaber and throughout the years to 1920 that income meant a corporate profit and that the 16th amendment was passed to allow an indirect excise tax on corporate profits, which otherwise wasnt allowed prior to the 16th amendment. BUT for the 16th amendment to stay constitutional and to tax without apportionment, the Supreme Court in the Brushaber decision ruled that it had to be levied as an indirect tax to not contradict and violate the direct taxing clauses of the Constitution. They further ruled that the 16th amendment contained nothing "repudiating or challenging the ruling in Pollock", which was ruled unconstitutional in 1895, but instead allowed the tax to be levied as an indirect tax if the federal government wanted to tax without apportionment.
I love particularly love when the IRS loves to cite the Brushaber decision. They say this is what made the income tax constitutional. Guess what? NO ONE, at least not the educated ones are arguing ABOUT the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the income tax. The problem is the MISAPPLICATION of the income tax and who it really applies to. Sure it's constitutional, but who does it EXACTLY APPLY to? In the Brushaber decision it was found that the income tax IS constitutional as long as it was was laid as an EXCISE tax and not a direct tax as laid out above and if you're not engaged in the exvise taxable activity, you do NOT owe the tax. But it still has to be IMPOSED. Well guess what? The excise tax on Corporations from 1909 was imposed once the Act was passed in 1909. Ding Ding Ding.
The real truth comes out in the Code of Federal REGULATIONS though. Look up the implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 for the enforcement statues in Subtitle F such as 26 USC 7201, the tax evasion statute as well as 26 USC 7203, the willful failure to file statute. You wont find ANY enforcement regulations for these statutes. In fact, there are NO TITLE 26 REGULATIONS in the Federal Register for producing your books and records as well as no regulation for liens and levies. The regulations in place for those statutes are found in Title 27 which is the title for Intoxicating Liquors NOT for Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code. There are literally NO IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR TITLE 26 in the Code of Federal regulations to enforce any of the enforcement statutes in Subtitle F of Title 26 AND without any regulation published in the Federal Register, NO PENALTY can be assessed against a citizen. That's not my opinion either. Just look at what the Supreme Court said in multiple rulings about not having any regulations when it comes to enforcing a statute.
The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only TOGETHER do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.
-- U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960)
Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of REGULATIONS promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.
-- CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ, 416 U.S. 21 (1974)
So go ahead and find me the implementing enforcement regulation for those 2 tax penalty statutes. I'll wait... And without those regulations in place, those statutes have the same authority as if they were never written to begin with.
Not to mention, what many people don't understand is that there are 3 different types of REGULATIONS and only one form of those has the full force and effect of law. That type of regulation is called 'Legislative' Regulations'. Guess what type of regulations you mostly find in Title 26? INTERPRETIVE Regulations, which have no full force and effect of law and are regulations interpreted by the agency to give their opinion on what they think it means. The other types of regulations are Procedural which also do not have the full force and effect of law. Not to mention, as stated before, in the enforcement section of Title 26 with all of the enforcement statutes, EVERY single regulation points to Title 27 for Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and NOT the Internal Revenue Code for Title 26. WOW, I wonder why?
I can go on and on further exposing it, but would need to make a thread. You also can get into the actual ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY of the Secretary and the IRS when creating Substitute Returns via their SFR program, but they actually have no right to create a substitute return for a 1040 without you first signing off on it FIRST and It's right in the statute itself.
The government is going to keep doing it, period.
Worst case scenario, if it gets enough traction, Congress will just pass a law or bill or whatever in less than a week saying, "Okay, NOW we can legally collect income tax."
We're never going to not have income tax in this country.
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income in a given tax year is obligated to file a return for that tax year. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-compliant individual to civil and/or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986)"
source: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#_Toc350157885
Quote: MrV" The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income in a given tax year is obligated to file a return for that tax year. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-compliant individual to civil and/or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986)"
source: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#_Toc350157885
Nothing like the little pamphlet guide full of vague amd generalizing terms to not directly come out and say certain people dont owe it. Thats always lovely by our wonderful IRS.
'Any taxpayer'. 'When required by regulations'. Where all the regulations? Who is made liable to become a taxpayer? Gross income is what again? How can you define Gross income without ever defining what income is in Title 26? What did the Supreme Court say what income was again? If you also go read those section of 6011, 6012, and 6072, you will find those same vague and generalizing terms. 'Anyone who is made liable'. 'Anyone who owes the tax'. But they never tell us what makes you liable, but rather let the reader falsely assume he has a liability to pay it.
Mr. V can you please cite the implementing regulations that were publisbed in the Federal Register for the enforcement statutes of Title 26 please? Can you please tell me also why nearly every statute in Title 26 have a regulation that refers to Title 27 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or NO REGULATION at all? Hmm. Also the Implementing regulation for Section 1.1 where the tax is imposed is an INTERPRETIVE REGULATION trying to interpet what the statute saying EVERYONE is liable. Well guess how I know that? The statute never says everyone is liable so the agency cant falsely interpret everyone is and therefore is NOT a LEGISLATIVE regulation. The problem is no one knows there are 3 DIFFERENT types of regulations(Legislative, Interpretive, and Procedural). Only Legislative regulations have the full force and effect of law.
Now, imagine a scenario, which ZK would seem happy to find himself in....
He's happily card counting and is taken to task: A pit boss tells him he must leave. Maybe protocol is followed, maybe it's not. ZK asserts that it's his right to stay. Security are called and one of the security guys puts a hand on ZK's shoulder to encourage him to leave. Clearly, that is assault, so ZK kicks off and knocks some of the guys teeth out. More security arrive and they subdue ZK, quite roughly. The police are called. They see the toothless guard. They see the video and wrongfully agree that the guard did not deserve to be punched..
Clearly ZK broke no laws. he was assaulted and his rights were abused..... Now let's place bets on how that pans out. Does ZK get rich, or will cruel reality bite his ass?
Remember... ZK will represent himself.
Personally, I reckon reality is a b1tch. Maybe ZK can tell us how his last backoff panned out. Maybe ZK is already rich from his last civil case. Maybe not.
Knowing your rights is one thing. Successfully asserting them quite another.
Meanwhile some of us drones keep our heads down and prosper and thank the ZK's of the world for distracting the heat.
Quote: GWAEIsnt there a reward for turning people in who don't pay taxes. I think I am going to send zenkings name into the IRS with copies of posts he made on here for proof as to what he has made. Then we might hear how his arguments really hold up in court.
Yayyyyy. no tax on gambling profits in the Uk..... God save the Queen.
Quote: OnceDearI, for one, am impressed by Zenking's research and by his eloquent assertions about US law. However, his logic seems deeply flawed. He asserts almost in every post that his fellow citizens are uneducated drones, and in his next breath, he asserts that the strong will of his peers and the immutable Constitution will see him right. He can't have it both ways.
Now, imagine a scenario, which ZK would seem happy to find himself in....
He's happily card counting and is taken to task: A pit boss tells him he must leave. Maybe protocol is followed, maybe it's not. ZK asserts that it's his right to stay. Security are called and one of the security guys puts a hand on ZK's shoulder to encourage him to leave. Clearly, that is assault, so ZK kicks off and knocks some of the guys teeth out. More security arrive and they subdue ZK, quite roughly. The police are called. They see the toothless guard. They see the video and wrongfully agree that the guard did not deserve to be punched..
Clearly ZK broke no laws. he was assaulted and his rights were abused..... Now let's place bets on how that pans out. Does ZK get rich, or will cruel reality bite his ass?
Remember... ZK will represent himself.
Personally, I reckon reality is a b1tch. Maybe ZK can tell us how his last backoff panned out. Maybe ZK is already rich from his last civil case. Maybe not.
Knowing your rights is one thing. Successfully asserting them quite another.
Meanwhile some of us drones keep our heads down and prosper and thank the ZK's of the world for distracting the heat.
When did I ever say I dont leave after being told to leave. See this is the problem I have when posting on these forums. People dont remember or simply mis-state what I have said. I ALWAYS leave the premises after a backoff. This thread was about TRESPASSING and the legality of a casino being able to cite you for a criminal trespass, which by now you know they cannot if you've done nothing wrong (disturbing the peace, disorderly, destruction of property) etc, while you were in there.
Quote: WizardLet me remind the audience what you wrote:
Where is your evidence the defense gets to pick over a list of names many months before the trial starts. If you're interested in how the process really works, here is a link for you: Jury Selection in Criminal Cases.
Everything in that link is EXACTLY what I said. I dont understand how you're misunderstanding me.
1. The government mails out a jury duty letter RANDOMLY to property owners and people who are registered to vote saying they have to attend jury duty in whichever courtroom in whichever town stated.
2. The people who receive the letter decide whether to attend or not. The ones who attend are now what is labeled as a 'pool' of jurors.
3. This 'pool' of jurors is what the defense gets to pick from inside the courtroom when each one of them is called to the jury boz by the judge.
4. The lawyer (or yourself) interviews these prospective jurors with non-personal questions to get an idea if they will be unbiased towards the trial and although they wont say it outright, who they feel will more likely help them win the case.
So yes, the defense gets to pick the jurors out of the POOL. They obviously have no say in the initial random letters that are sent out.
Quote: OnceDearYayyyyy. no tax on gambling profits in the Uk..... God save the Queen.
I think ZK has me blocked so when I turn him in he won't know it is me and will come on here cussing out everyone like he did about the casino incident.
Quote: FCBLComishZen, I assume you did research for your opening post. Can I assume you also saw Slade v Caesars Entertaiment (2016)?
I know the Dr. Slade in that case. I told him he was going to lose that case. He didn't disagree, but fought it on principle.
Quote: ZenKinGSo yes, the defense gets to pick the jurors out of the POOL. They obviously have no say in the initial random letters that are sent out.
Okay, we're getting closer to our point of departure on this. I just served jury duty at wrote a long article about it just last month. Please read it. You'll note about 100 jurors were called into the courtroom in question, but neither attorney got to cherry pick from all 100. They pretty much went with the first 24, dismissed about five for various reasons, plucked the next people in line to fill their spots, and everybody else got dismissed, including me, having never been asked a direct question.
So, no, the defense attorney may not cherry pick from a huge pool who he wants on the jury. He can argue to dismiss some for good cause, but for the most part the jury is randomly chosen.
Quote: WizardOkay, we're getting closer to our point of departure on this. I just served jury duty at wrote a long article about it just last month. Please read it. You'll note about 100 jurors were called into the courtroom in question, but neither attorney got to cherry pick from all 100. They pretty much went with the first 24, dismissed about five for various reasons, plucked the next people in line to fill their spots, and everybody else got dismissed, including me, having never been asked a direct question.
So, no, the defense attorney may not cherry pick from a huge pool who he wants on the jury. He can argue to dismiss some for good cause, but for the most part the jury is randomly chosen.
was this a public defender who couldnt care less and was just trying to get home? If ZK fights to get one of his piers which by his standards may be impossible I wonder if he could go through all 100
Quote: GWAEwas this a public defender who couldnt care less and was just trying to get home? If ZK fights to get one of his piers which by his standards may be impossible I wonder if he could go through all 100
He was a public defender, but did seem to care. He badgered the people in the "box" with lots of questions, trying to get them to admit a bias, but he wasn't very successful.
If ZK ever defends himself in a criminal trial, I would be happy to observe and provide moral support. ZK is a good guy and I admire his idealism and determination.
I could picture it going down like the courtroom scene in Good Will Hunting.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Y6QvIdCBY
Quote: WizardHe was a public defender, but did seem to care. He badgered the people in the "box" with lots of questions, trying to get them to admit a bias, but he wasn't very successful.
If ZK ever defends himself in a criminal trial, I would be happy to observe and provide moral support. ZK is a good guy and I admire his idealism and determination.
I could picture it going down like the courtroom scene in Good Will Hunting.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Y6QvIdCBY
Maybe you could live tweet or do a end of day video. I'm looking forward to this now.
ZCore13
Quote: OnceDearYayyyyy. no tax on gambling profits in the Uk..... God save the Queen.
Amen. This might make ZK foam at the mouth but the states would have been much better off had they stayed under British rule.
Then again, neither was Timothy McVeigh.
Prisons are filled with jailhouse lawyers and Vegas is filled with those who think they can beat the casinos.
But only 1 can ever be King. And only with a court of willing jesters amusing him.
Somewhere behind the former Communist block, along with a self professed Sorcerer in Summerland, very wealthy men are counting potential profits made from allowing this King to reign across this internet kingdom.
I wonder if they have any responsibility when the inevitable happens with this guy?
In the meantime, wise men debate legalities with a guy living in a bedbug infested tenement.
I only hope none of us are in the casino where it happens.
