Thread Rating:

Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1850
January 11th, 2019 at 1:41:23 PM permalink
The Las Vegas casinos are much more relaxed about the people walking through the casinos than they are in many Midwest casinos. On a few different occasions I've watched kids playing slot machines in Las Vegas casinos. That would be practically unheard of in the Midwest because you often have to show ID just to get in the door if you look too young. In NYNY I watched the security just ignore them.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
January 11th, 2019 at 4:17:25 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

There exists no court case where the court decided that the casino did not have the right to trespass, discovery or not. CZR won its case despite not having to disclose the reason why the trespass was initially created in another jurisdiction and the judges knew that. Only one judge dissented, taking your point of view that discovery could have been relevant. There have been numerous cases in lower courts meanwhile where there has been no dispute that card counting is included under "any reason".

Just because one judge of 7 agreed that discovery would be relevant does not mean that trespassing for card counting is no longer valid. Quite the contrary: Slade established at the supreme court level that a trespass is valid for any reason, even if initiated in a different jurisdiction, even if it the patrons wish not to gamble in the establishment, and even if the reason is not provided. If Nesarian (Slade's lawyer) thought that discovery would help his patron he certainly would have asked for it.

Casino security no longer assaults patrons. Some of them have the training and the right to issue summons and make arrests.

You seem to have drilled in your head that trespass must be done "for good cause". What Nevada legal resource or court case makes you believe that? Slade reinforced 469.129.3.a. the decision is in the introduction:



Your bravado will be your undoing as will your refusal to listen to reasonable advice. So go ahead and live your life while I microwave some popcorn.

And 6/5 has been around for a long time. There is a googlable story at the Las Vegas Sun from June 18, 2010 stating that 25% of strip blackjack tables was at 6-5. In April 2015 it was at 48.9% of strip casino floors (the evolution of blackjack, by Eliot Jacobsen) was introduced in the summer of 2002. Slade was decided in May 2016. So you can kiss that conspiracy good-bye.

Back to work I go.



Now youre starting to annoy me and ill try my hardest to refrain from cursing in this post or insult you.

If youre simply not going to read what I write and bring up the same crap time and time again, then do me a favor and dont reply at all. Your casino bias is really starting to show and I wouldnt be surprised if you work for them on the inside in some fashion or have close relatives who do. Secondly, let me address the crap you raised AGAIN.

'Slades lawyers would have brought it up for him if they thought it would help'. Did Slade even have a lawyer at the district court trial level before even appealing, let alone the supreme court? Probably not. Once you miss your opportunity to contest in trial court on whether a statute 'AS APPLIED' to you is unconstitutional, you further waive your right at any further proceeding down the line whether thats appelate court or at the Supreme Court level. Only 'facial constitutional challenges' can first be made at the appelate level or supreme court level, where you are challenging the statute in its ENTIRETY as unconstititional. Secondly, even if Slade had a lawyer, are you not aware, most dont serve your best interest anyway, they just want your money and keep the case going as long as they can, thats why you cannot be a drone and must learn to defend yourself and know everything there is to know about the topic at hand.

Your next point regarding the ability of a casino to exclude at will barring discriminatory reasons. First off, the judge in the slade supreme court case NEVER actually mentioned that a casino can EXCLUDE YOU AT WILL. The judge simply said a casino can exclude you for any reason 'UNLESS otherwise discrimnatory OR UNLAWFUL. In my previous post, I mentioned the judge saying unless otherwise UNLAWFUL and that it meant other things other than for discriminatory reasons, but thanks for reminding me that he also separated them into TWO categories as well, which further confirms I was right. He didnt just say UNLAWFUL, he said discriminatory OR UNLAWFUL reasons, which means it applies to other circumstances OTHER THAN just being discrimnatory. Ding ding ding. If it was only for discriminatory reasons that a casino could not kick you out for, why bother mention BOTH discriminatory reasons as well as mentioning UNLAWFUL reasons. What do you think falls under the UNLAWFUL reasons? Can it be something such as trespassing someone without GOOD CAUSE just like the judge in the Wilkinson and Robertson case clearly said? You bet it is.

Additionally, when the slade judge in the supreme court case goes on to say he could NOT make a decision regarding the constitutionality of why slade was excluded because slade did NOT seek discovery and then also goes on to say a casino can exclude you for any reason UNLESS discriminatory OR UNLAWFUL mentioning TWO scenarios that are the EXCEPTION to the rule and NOT JUST FOR discriminatory reasons, all of that should light the bulb in your head what actually went down and the true power of a casino to illegally trespass you wirhout GOOD CAUSE.

Also if you mention NRS 463.0129 one more time without reading what I write I simply wont reply anymore. If they could exclude you for any reason, why does the statute find the need to differ between EXCLUDING and EJECTING? When mentioning EXCLUDE, it only mentions GAMING ACTIVITIES, but when it comes time to restrict you from the premises, they coincidentally use the word EJECT? I hope you know both of these terms have very different legal definitions. But if you actually want to know the truth and confirm it for yourself, the Thomas Robertson case specifically addresses not only the NRS 463.0129 statute as having NO APPLICATION to someone who is trespassed without doing anything disruptive or disorderly, but also specifically addresses the NRS 207.200, trespass statute, as well as having NO APPLICATION to someone who did not act disruptive or disorderly.

Try again.
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Jan 11, 2019
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.
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 1835
January 11th, 2019 at 4:23:09 PM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

Not to mention, a casino can never PROVE you are counting regardless of what their siftware says, you dont know whats inside their brain, so who is to say casinos are not discriminating vs you? If i wear a religious tshirt for the rest of my life to casinos and i get thrown out I will sue for discrimination against my religion. Or even better idea is to wear a burqa to mask my face from surveillance while also having the ability to sue for discrimination against my religion. Two can play this game.



So if a casino asks someone who has a religion to stop playing blackjack, then the reason must have been because of their religion and they are violating the law? The good thing for the casino is that the only thing any of us will ever do about it is to warn them on the internet instead of sue them. So if anything, we are teaching them that it is ok to kick someone out for any reason, either because they we are winning or because we have been saved by Jesus
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 438
January 11th, 2019 at 8:23:10 PM permalink
People getting kicked out of casinos for wearing MAGA hats yet?

In a side comment: I was watching someone who recorded himself playing Blackjack online for the highest stakes. The dealer never checked her hole card with an Ace up. She would just turn the hole card over a couple seconds after the computer screen visible to all showed there was a 10 underneath. It makes me think they play with a marked deck, a false see-thru cammed table, or everything is run on shufflemaster shoe, even though the decks are hand-shuffled. Penetration sucked at half on a 6 or 8 deck shoe.

Anyway this BJ player kept jumping from online table to table after less than 5 hands every time. He says he had a tablet on the side watching all these tables so he'd know when he wanted to jump in for a winning hand, and the less players around the better. But this guy has a serious character defect with constant swearing, insults, and threats just talking to his camera, then it spills over into the chat with him trying to get online security's attention to boot someone out who was following him from table to table and the follower was yelling on chat that the high roller was playing with free money. I don't even know what that argument is about. The high roller has a 5 and 6 figures balance and he's betting $5,000 to $10,000 a spot, and just table hopping like Rain Man. But I'm sure being gangster murder threatening on the casino chat might be grounds for getting barred from an internet casino.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
Thanks for this post from:
FTB
January 12th, 2019 at 9:44:50 AM permalink
That was beautiful.

Slade always had Bob N. as counsel from the start. You can view the court proceedings starting from July 24, 2012. After the case was lost in July 2016 a motion for retrial was entered and denied.

So your rant about lawyers is invalid in this case. Robertson and Slade used the same lawyer. Most cases involving card counting are handled by Nersesian.

NLV vs Robertson was dismissed because he was charged with trespassing without having been asked to leave before. As the findings say, "a claimed trespass was strictly a civil matter". Nonetheless even if you do interpret it as a decision in your favour, Slade was decided at a higher court and has precedence.

You have not been charged with anything but according to you, you have been asked to leave and complied 3 times. At some point if you continue you will eventually be charged under NRS 200. At that time you will have your chance in court: the risk of course is a criminal record that will haunt you for life. Given that Nersesian handled both cases you might want to at least consult with him before concluding that you are the next Atticus Finch. But go ahead: ruin your life.

As for your guess that I am somehow in cahoots with the casino industry, I've been on this forum for 10 years. My myriads of posts pretty much tell my life story. But believe what you want to believe -- such is the purview of today's millennials!
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Minty
Minty
Joined: Jan 23, 2015
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 330
January 12th, 2019 at 10:54:23 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

That was beautiful.

As for your guess that I am somehow in cahoots with the casino industry, I've been on this forum for 10 years. My myriads of posts pretty much tell my life story. But believe what you want to believe -- such is the purview of today's millennials!



Just gonna go ahead and say that as a millennial I do NOT agree with this approach...
"Favorable bets are called 'investments.' Unfavorable bets constitute 'gambling.' -William Poundstone quoting John Kelly Jr. in Fortune's Formula
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 5792
January 12th, 2019 at 11:17:08 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Assume you are a card counter, albeit rather clumsy and inept at your trade, such that you only earn on average five bucks a day.

Assume also that the casino detects / determines that you are counting, no question about it.

Given the above, would they let you keep counting or give you the bum's rush?



If I was sure he was a counter that played at a +EV of course I'd make him unwelcome. The seat he is taking at the table costs me money in that I have an expectation of a certain take for each seat at each game I offer.That's in addition to the actual money I am losing. To make this really simple, if there was a table of counters only making $5 each a day, tying up the table for a day, would you let them play, or give them the 'bum's rush'?
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 1956
Thanks for this post from:
ChumpChange
January 12th, 2019 at 2:58:46 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Slade always had Bob N. as counsel from the start.

Bob N. was my attorney when I was backroomed. Looking back on my years in the industry on both sides of the tables, I have very few heroes, but Bob is way up there among the best of them.

Here is my story, in case you missed it:

https://www.888casino.com/blog/apheat/three-card-poker-incident-report
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1850
January 12th, 2019 at 7:55:14 PM permalink
I liked Bob well enough.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
January 13th, 2019 at 11:36:12 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

That was beautiful.

Slade always had Bob N. as counsel from the start. You can view the court proceedings starting from July 24, 2012. After the case was lost in July 2016 a motion for retrial was entered and denied.

So your rant about lawyers is invalid in this case. Robertson and Slade used the same lawyer. Most cases involving card counting are handled by Nersesian.

NLV vs Robertson was dismissed because he was charged with trespassing without having been asked to leave before. As the findings say, "a claimed trespass was strictly a civil matter". Nonetheless even if you do interpret it as a decision in your favour, Slade was decided at a higher court and has precedence.

You have not been charged with anything but according to you, you have been asked to leave and complied 3 times. At some point if you continue you will eventually be charged under NRS 200. At that time you will have your chance in court: the risk of course is a criminal record that will haunt you for life. Given that Nersesian handled both cases you might want to at least consult with him before concluding that you are the next Atticus Finch. But go ahead: ruin your life.

As for your guess that I am somehow in cahoots with the casino industry, I've been on this forum for 10 years. My myriads of posts pretty much tell my life story. But believe what you want to believe -- such is the purview of today's millennials!



I doubt Bob was there from the very proceeding starting in district court. If he was, then that leads me to believe that Slade wasn't trespassed for being an AP. We do not know why Slade was excluded other than making assumptions and having bias come into the picture. Maybe he in fact was being disorderly or disruptive in some way or doing something illegal or gray area, but still wanted to contest the issue on a different ground. Or maybe Slade was a sock puppet for the casino behind the scenes to try and get a court decision in the casino's favor, which isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Ill end this topic with this. Two court decisions specifically say you cannot trespass a counter and the reasons why. One case says nothing specific about the casinos ability to exclude and limits their exlusions to discriminatory or otherwise any UNLAWFUL REASON. So you be the judge who has the leverage at this point. Let me also say this, the point of all of this is, a criminal trespass case for non criminal behavior will get thrown out in court EVERY TIME because the government CANNOT throw you in jail for doing NOTHING CRIMINAL. THAT IS PLAINLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So keep living in fear like 99% of society who doesn't know any better and are held hostage by their lack of knowledge and reliance on others. I also tell your casino management buddies, security guards are not OCCUPANTS OR OWNERS so even if the casino had a power to trespass you for any reason, it wouldn't be coming from them. I guess that's all part of the bluff.

Case closed. End of story.
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.

  • Jump to: