Thread Rating:

ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
October 15th, 2018 at 3:02:09 AM permalink
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.
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Oct 15, 2018
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 3929
October 15th, 2018 at 4:08:15 AM permalink
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.
If you are enjoying the game, you're already winning.
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 119
  • Posts: 3667
October 15th, 2018 at 4:28:52 AM permalink
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 canít 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 donít stand up for my rights, Iím worthless. Donít suspend him for it, Iíll say Iím not offended in advance.
VCUSkyhawk
VCUSkyhawk
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 644
October 15th, 2018 at 4:43:53 AM permalink
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.
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 7395
October 15th, 2018 at 4:44:58 AM permalink
Why does every villain feel compelled to reveal their plans ahead of time?
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 948
October 15th, 2018 at 5:18:11 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

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

This is why Watchmen was such a good comic.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
Thanks for this post from:
RSMaxPen
October 15th, 2018 at 5:20:05 AM permalink
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.
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 3929
Thanks for this post from:
GWAE
October 15th, 2018 at 5:20:17 AM permalink
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 you are enjoying the game, you're already winning.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 208
  • Posts: 5125
Thanks for this post from:
MaxPen
October 15th, 2018 at 5:43:00 AM permalink
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 canít 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 donít stand up for my rights, Iím worthless. Donít suspend him for it, Iíll say Iím 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.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 208
  • Posts: 5125
October 15th, 2018 at 5:46:48 AM permalink
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!"

  • Jump to: