Thread Rating:

boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
Thanks for this post from:
rainman
January 15th, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Assume Slade fleshed out the reason for him being tossed: how would the result be different if "discovery" had occurred?

Do you seriously think the result would be different?

Casinos don't toss people solely because they are gay, or black, or crippled: they have a plausible, legal reason.

No doubt Slade knows why, but for whatever reason that fact is not in the record.

Maybe he was a card counter, or some variant of AP: they're fair game for being tossed.

Whatever, the way the law stands currently the casino can toss you when they wish, and you must prove they acted unlawfully.

Can you meet that burden of proof?



Bob revealed in the podcast in April that it was Slade's wife that was 86d. ZK listened to that podcast and disagrees with Bob's assessment. The fact is that casinos continue to trespass people for any reason that is nondiscriminatory. And charge people with trespassing who continue to show up after rejection. ZK leaves peacefully as do most counters who are caught and as advised by pretty much all lawyers to do. The only reason he hasn't been charged yet is because he leaves peacefully and security would rather have that happen then have to make appearances in court, call the police, etc.

Clearly ZK believes he has some kind of legal precedence that no one else has thought of. What he doesn't understand is that I agree with him in principle but that the law is written in a way that he won't win. The best tried.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 119
  • Posts: 3667
January 15th, 2019 at 8:09:47 AM permalink
My guess is that there is not case law that has argued the point that ZK is trying to make.

Example. Letís say a casino had a policy that said the first person to sit down at a blackjack table after 1:00 am would automatically be kicked out and told they were trespassing.

Since the reason they are being kicked out is not because of a protected class, then some would think that is legal.

But if this extreme example went to court, my guess is a judge would rule that there does have to be some kind of reason, it just canít be discriminatory.
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
Thanks for this post from:
FTB
January 15th, 2019 at 5:26:04 PM permalink
summary of Nevada trespass law:

Guide to Nevada Trespass Law
"What, me worry?"
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
January 15th, 2019 at 7:28:01 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Bob revealed in the podcast in April that it was Slade's wife that was 86d. ZK listened to that podcast and disagrees with Bob's assessment. The fact is that casinos continue to trespass people for any reason that is nondiscriminatory. And charge people with trespassing who continue to show up after rejection. ZK leaves peacefully as do most counters who are caught and as advised by pretty much all lawyers to do. The only reason he hasn't been charged yet is because he leaves peacefully and security would rather have that happen then have to make appearances in court, call the police, etc.

Clearly ZK believes he has some kind of legal precedence that no one else has thought of. What he doesn't understand is that I agree with him in principle but that the law is written in a way that he won't win. The best tried.



Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did. Keep putting words in my mouth with false assertions. I dont even know which podcast youre referring to

Also, i have only returned to one casino after being trespassed, so your little assertion of them not calling the police and arresting me simply because I leave peacefully doesnt even apply. No one calls the police on a backoff. Even if you are to return on a trespass like i have one time, it has nothing to do with you leaving peacefully for them not calling the police, but more so of it being a bluff tactic the whole time.
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Jan 15, 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.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
January 15th, 2019 at 7:29:53 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Thank you for answering my question about when you feel that you can return after being asked to leave. You now clearly say 'another day'. I recommend you try this.... Try and be asked to leave sometime slightly before midnight, then return slightly after midnight as since it is now 'another day' and according to you they cannot stop you from returning. Let us know what the result is. thanks.



When i say 'another day', im talking about of at least 24 hours. Are people really picking at straws against me now to discredit me? Typical mob rule mentality, but thats why im the best, ill keep coming back at all of you, wont let false assertions and people putting words in mouth deter me.
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.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
January 15th, 2019 at 7:50:01 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

I don't understand your argument.

You seem to be claiming that a casino needs to have an appropriate reason to throw you out; I disagree, I believe the law says that you can be tossed for any reason so long as the reason is not unlawful, e.g. discrimination against a protected class such as race, sex, religion.

Assume as in the above scenario that a player is given a formal trespass warning for counting cards and ordered to leave and to never returh; assume that they come back later and are arrested for criminal trespass.

Assume that during the initial criminal trial that the reason for giving the warning, card counting, is adduced in testimony and is in the court record.



Slow down buddy. First assumption you made is already erroneous. You assume 'unlawful' as being said to ONLY mean 'discriminatory reasons'. Typical lawyer who subtly hides what was actually said by the judge or a statute and hopes to convince the audience of his agenda at hand. Last time I checked, the Slade judge didnt just say 'unlawful' pertaining to discrimination, he said 'Discriminatory OR otherwise Unlawful reasons'. Two separate distinctions. So dont try and group 'unlawful' with ONLY descriving discrimination. The judge clearly says OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL REASONS. Do what are those unlawful reasons then? You should know by now.

Also let me point out NRS 463.0129 for the millionth time. It says gaming establishments must remain OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and NOT be RESTRICTED in ANY WAY, but then also provides an exception of the casinos common law ability to eject and excludes but wait. Eject and exclude are two very different terms AND are associated within the statute to reference TWO very different events. Ejecting from the 'premises' and excluding from 'gaming activities'. Hmmm, why the careful distinction among the two? Why didnt the statute just say EXCLUDE from EVERYTHING if a casino can do that? Why the need to separate eject and exclude, two terms which have very different meanings. One is temporary and one is permanent. Why wasnt exclude used with restricting you from the premises? Oh that's right, because they dont have the full power to do that as they wish, unless for a specific reason such as damaging property, being disruptive, or disorderly in some fashion.

Not to mention, it would also make the whole statute 'Void for Vagueness' and unconstitutional right on its face if they were to contradict themselves to first say that the public may not be restricted and then say a casino can restrict you for any reason. Initially, I thought the statute was actually Void for Vagueness in my original trespassing thread, but it's actually not due to the careful use of eject and exclude. At the time of writing that lengthy post, it kind of just skipped over my mind, but yeah, typical legalese at work here and you can bet the casino lawyers bribed the nevada legislators to obfuscate the statute to confuse everyone. Luckily, im here though to bring the truth.
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Jan 15, 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.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
Thanks for this post from:
FTB
January 16th, 2019 at 6:14:15 AM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did. Keep putting words in my mouth with false assertions. I dont even know which podcast youre referring to



After listening to the podcast today, a couple things pop out to me. First off, according to the Nevada trespass statute as Bob alluded to, 207.200,

I didn't put words in your mouth. The thread I linked to pretty much has the same arguments that you enumerate here. And you refuted Bob's analysis in that post.

Quote:

Also, i have only returned to one casino after being trespassed, so your little assertion of them not calling the police and arresting me simply because I leave peacefully doesnt even apply. No one calls the police on a backoff. Even if you are to return on a trespass like i have one time, it has nothing to do with you leaving peacefully for them not calling the police, but more so of it being a bluff tactic the whole time.



You are right in that they won't call the police on you when you leave peacefully every time but the motivation for doing so is purely financial, not legal. Time is money and that includes security personnel. As I said before, try NOT leaving peacefully and see what happens. You asked to have the casinos backroom you (same thread, don't make me pull out the quote) and for that to happen, you will need to be more bold.

Edit by mod. boymimbo, you've been gone. In the interim, calling someone "Liar" has been the basis for at least one suspension. I have redacted that one word from your post. Carry on with rebuttal, but don't call names. Thanks. - bbb
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Jan 16, 2019
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 5882
January 16th, 2019 at 6:33:55 AM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

When i say 'another day', im talking about of at least 24 hours. Are people really picking at straws against me now to discredit me? Typical mob rule mentality, but thats why im the best, ill keep coming back at all of you, wont let false assertions and people putting words in mouth deter me.



I didn't try to put words in your mouth, but rather was trying to get you to be specific. I was asking you, not telling you....

Deter you from what by the way?
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
Thanks for this post from:
FTB
January 16th, 2019 at 7:24:47 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

After listening to the podcast today, a couple things pop out to me. First off, according to the Nevada trespass statute as Bob alluded to, 207.200,

I didn't put words in your mouth. The thread I linked to pretty much has the same arguments that you enumerate here. And you refuted Bob's analysis in that post.




Nice find.

ZK, lying will only make you look like you are dishonest.

Are you dishonest?

If not, why did you lie?

Or perhaps you were (conveniently) "mistaken?"

Fact: this emperor, I mean "king" has no clothes.
"What, me worry?"
FTB
FTB
Joined: Jan 5, 2019
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 57
January 16th, 2019 at 8:32:54 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

summary of Nevada trespass law:

Guide to Nevada Trespass Law



It was helpful posting this but you-know-who will just consider that Guide apocryphal.

  • Jump to: