Thread Rating:

Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 3376
January 6th, 2019 at 3:58:28 AM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

No it's not because it's a federal issue and a fundamental right of all citizens in this country to be able to access a public place. YES, CASINOS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC PLACES. They're either 'public amusements', or 'gaming establishments', or whatever in between, all public in nature when one seeks out the definition.



Wrong again. Ever see a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse service? Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include: Race or color. National origin or citizenship.


ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 2205
January 6th, 2019 at 4:10:42 AM permalink
OK, my interest is piqued.


I'm not a lawyer, but reading the Wiz's link, Mr. V's interpretation seems more accurate. There are certain common law requirements of inn keepers because of "monopolistic concerns" (i.e as, inns can be far apart you might find yourself "at the mercy of the innkeeper"). A dissenting view was that casinos must abide by these rules. The majority view was that they be treated as purveyors of "amusements," who can exclude for "any reason, or no reason" apart from discrimination or any other reason specified in a statute.

"There is overwhelming authority recognizing the common law right of a private owner of a public amusement to exclude any person for any reason from the premises. "

Arguing against the inn keeper angle, it's stated again:

"Further, the rule suggested by our colleague would result in district courts parsing out parts of a gaming establishment's premises to determine whether patrons may be excluded without cause or whether a reason for exclusion must be given."

It doesn't say that casinos can or can't have you arrested and jailed for showing up when excluded. It does talk about whether it is "lawful" for you to be on the premises when excluded, implying that you are breaking the law if you show up when lawfully excluded. Statue does stipulate that returning to a private building after a warning from the owner is a misdemeanor.

Never says the only lawful reason for exclusion is unruly behavior. Explicitly says the opposite, including that "no reason" is a good enough reason, if the casino is regarded as a purveyor of amusements rather than an inn keeper.

They do say that Slade never sought the reason for his exclusion in discovery but, several times, potentially unlawful exclusions are listed and they are always discrimination. No judge suggests that it would be unlawful to exclude him for AP, even though it seems far more likely that this is the reason for his exclusion than say, gender discrimination, which is mentioned repeatedly.

Also, I doubt that Slade's lawer (Bob N I think) is such a bungling moron that Slade was illegally excluded, but he just forgot to bring it up.

If any of the judge's thought the only lawful reason for an exclusion was unruly behavior, it would be very strange for them to discuss the case in these terms, and never make mention of that fact.


I thought the dissenting argument was better, for a few reasons, but mainly that it's silly to say that various convention halls operate in competition and therefore there is no monopolistic concern. "Why can't Dr. Slade just go to the AVN awards instead?"

On the other hand, the majority opinion might be more pragmatic because it saves endless debates about which casinos count as innkeepers or monopolists.

Saying that every security guard who has read a trespass is guilty of some federal felony does, in fact, sound like sovereign citizen type stuff.

Quote:

The judge then proceeds to cite the ending part of 463.0129, which, remember, is the part of the statute that says casinos and misinformed people like Zcore claim they have the right to trespass you for any reason, and I quote, "the saving language at NRS 463.0129.3(a) "Does NOT apply ABSENT disruptive or disorderly conduct".



Based on what you are saying, a judge said that common law overrides the staute which says.

"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;"

That's hardly iron clad. It's also pretty sovereign citizen to rely on a particular interpretation of common law as though it was clearly written in the sky by God.

However, if more judges take up the view that English common law overrides these statutes, then ZK could become correct. At least if the casio is regarded as an innkeeper. Would be kinda funny if Eureka could ban you but Bellagio couldn't.

I figure the lawyers and casino folk probably understand the question best, though the latter are biased. True, it doesn't logically follow that a lawyer knows the law better than a layman, but it is very likely.

It's also interesting to consider what happens if the casino IS treated as an innkeeper. They now must provide a reason for barring you. If they cannot bar you as innkeepers, can they still "tresspass" you from the casino floor? The judges in Slade seem open to this as they discuss things like if Slade could use the convention center without setting foot in the casino.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 5792
January 6th, 2019 at 6:18:17 AM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

So thank you for confirming everything I have said and not masquerading the truth. All an intimidation tactic and casinos must tell you to leave each time just like I said it was. I never argued about not leaving, just about the ability to return each and every time and that a casino cannot restrict you from entering the premises the next time.

Props to you. Thank you very much.



So seriously, you think that if you leave after being told to, you are free to turn around seconds later and return, and have the same scenario play out over and over?
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5604
January 6th, 2019 at 7:19:13 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

So seriously, you think that if you leave after being told to, you are free to turn around seconds later and return, and have the same scenario play out over and over?



Yes, yes he does. Same thought process as the guys who consider numbers “due” on Roulette, play Marti’s and consider each short gambling session as having no effect on long term odds.

Stay Hydrated my friends.
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5604
January 6th, 2019 at 7:29:21 AM permalink
Just as interesting to me is wondering if anyone here has reported ZK to any casinos as a potential threat based on his ramblings? Considering we have posters who send PM’s to Mods when they see or feel the slightest “insult”.

And some claim casinos monitor this site when the threat of a play being exposed comes up. While most feel ZK is harmless I wonder if casinos at least have him on their radar based on his threats to “own” MGM and other negative comments toward casinos and employees.

We all could be a witness to history in a way yet to be determined. And every generation, minority or oppressed group (Backed Off Card Counters)needs their own Rosa Parks, maybe ZK is one of them.
Last edited by: Boz on Jan 6, 2019
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 131
  • Posts: 16741
Thanks for this post from:
OnceDearMaxPenMinty
January 6th, 2019 at 9:22:32 AM permalink
Right or wrong, ZK is fighting (more like.... just arguing) for the right side. That side includes the same side that many of the people who love F+×÷ing with him are on.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1093
Thanks for this post from:
MichaelBluejay
January 6th, 2019 at 9:28:51 AM permalink
In an attempt to distill what seems to be people talking past each other in this thread, I’ve teased out what I see are the key questions.

1) Can a casino legally force someone to leave their premises for cars counting (no disorderly conduct involved)? I think Zenking says yes, but am not sure. This may go further than a back off of stopping individual from playing the games.

2) After a backoff and a return by the individual, can the casino legally read that person the trespass act (no disorderly conduct, just person kept card counting)? Zenking says no.

3) If after being read the trespass right and another return by the individual, can the casino legally have the person arrested for criminal trespass (no disorderly conduct, just more card counting)?

4) After 3, can the person be prosecuted and found guilty of a criminal trespass?

Are those the four questions in dispute?
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
January 6th, 2019 at 9:39:23 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Right or wrong, ZK is fighting (more like.... just arguing) for the right side. That side includes the same side that many of the people who love F+×÷ing with him are on.




ZK clearly is no dummy, and he has untrammeled zeal.

Were he to become an attorney then he'd better understand the issues involved and how to chart a path to achieve his desired result.

Who knows, he might catch the eye of and be hired by Bob Nersesian.

Bob is the closest there is to a casino dragon-slayer; he knows how to play the game and is best positioned to do so.

It takes hard work and focus.
"What, me worry?"
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5604
Thanks for this post from:
RogerKint
January 6th, 2019 at 9:42:29 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Right or wrong, ZK is fighting (more like.... just arguing) for the right side. That side includes the same side that many of the people who love F+×÷ing with him are on.



History is filled with infamous people who weee fighting for the “right” thing for many but went about it the wrong way.

Or in other words, stop wining on an Internet forum and do something about it. Wouldn’t be hard to get backed off again if he really wants to go to court and press the matter. Otherwise it’s just rambling nonsense.
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5604
January 6th, 2019 at 10:07:33 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

ZK clearly is no dummy, and he has untrammeled zeal.

Were he to become an attorney then he'd better understand the issues involved and how to chart a path to achieve his desired result.

Who knows, he might catch the eye of and be hired by Bob Nersesian.

Bob is the closest there is to a casino dragon-slayer; he knows how to play the game and is best positioned to do so.

It takes hard work and focus.



I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not hiring the “most cursed” person on Earth to represent me. But maybe that’s just me.

  • Jump to: