Attention Las Vegas Casinos

Quote: Romes

I have two very serious questions for ZK. I'm not trolling, I genuinely would like to know his response to these two questions.

1) Say you win, and you can't be kicked out of casinos. Now every single casino in Vegas, or around the world, only offers EVEN MONEY blackjack. What do you do with your life then?

2) Say you're right, technically, but the politicians and judges are all paid off and they create a new law or change the existing law so that you're wrong, and you lose. So in this scenario, you lose, and it has NOTHING to do with technically correct or not, just money buying votes (how our Oligarchy of a country works). What do you do with your life then?

1) this was the wiz's original point. If the casinos have to just sit there and take unlimited action from winners, it's bad for everyone long term because the will strive to make every game unplayable.

2). I've never heard of such a thing! Politicians and even judges acting unfairly?

Quote: Romes

I have two very serious questions for ZK. I'm not trolling, I genuinely would like to know his response to these two questions.

1) Say you win, and you can't be kicked out of casinos. Now every single casino in Vegas, or around the world, only offers EVEN MONEY blackjack. What do you do with your life then?

2) Say you're right, technically, but the politicians and judges are all paid off and they create a new law or change the existing law so that you're wrong, and you lose. So in this scenario, you lose, and it has NOTHING to do with technically correct or not, just money buying votes (how our Oligarchy of a country works). What do you do with your life then?

Oh really, even money blackjack? Even these idiotic casinos realize they will lose a lot more business by doing that than they're saving by making it unplayable for counters. Just look at AC and Missouri, still beatable games and no even money blackjack.

Secondly, that's why I always stress focusing on your state elections and voting in honorable and moral standard people to your state legislature as they will be the ones controlling most of your life. Very few federal laws are on the books that override conflicting state legislation as well as standalone federal laws such as bankruptcy laws and what not, but this wasnt done by coincidence. Our founding fathers set this up to create the least possibility of a central government that has total control and corruption motives. Besides, these state representatives will be the ones representing you in Congress for any federal laws that do pass and that do in fact have an effect on you so it's imperative people focus on their state elections more so than the puppet federal election.

With that being said, you CANNOT just create a 'law' to get what you want. The law has to be constitutional. Sure, a law can be passed, even if it's unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean the law is VALID as the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison confirmed for us in 1803. You just would then have to fight it in court and if serious enough even get a jury trial(non-petty 6+ month jail offense). The state or federal government cannot create a law that sends you to prison for a criminal trespass for entering a public space WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE(disruptive or disorderly behavior, etc.)

END OF ARGUMENT.

Quote: ZenKinG

Oh really, even money blackjack? Even these idiotic casinos realize they will lose a lot more business by doing that than they're saving by making it unplayable for counters.

Lol! You really think casinos care anything about what counters want? They are a spec on the entire profit of a casino. Trust me when I tell you, counters are not even considered in any way when making any decisions other than some basic game protection.


ZCore13

Quote: Wizard

I spoke to my buddy who is a long time member of the LVPD. He said that if someone returns to a casino after being trespassed, then casino security can detail them for trespassing, because trespassing is a crime. I think it falls under a citizen's arrest. However, he said that if the person in question attempts to leave in a peaceful manner, they probably will let him. The reason being the casinos also know of half-million dollar judgments for back-roomings gone bad. He made a comparison to shoplifting, saying that Target and Walmart will usually let shoplifters walk, even if caught, if they try to leave, fearing the alternative could be facing a huge lawsuit. He went onto say that Las Vegas swap meets are full of people fencing stuff stolen from those two stores, because the ring leaders know Target and Walmart are basically allowing it.

Thank you mike for reaching out to this cop. First off, most cops think they are the be all end all and think they know more than the average citizen, but actually are mostly ignorant as to what they can and cannot do. It always has boggled my mind how cops are given the power to ENFORCE the law, but only spend 6 months in learning the law, whereas a lawyer needs to spend years to PRACTICE law. With that being said, cops are to be presumed to NOT know the law and a citizen should never take a cops word as evidence if something is legal or not, especially when the courts have ruled COPS ARE TAUGHT TO LIE AND ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO LIE. So let that sink in.

Now, with that being said, you mention this cop is your friend, so what he is telling you is probably sincere. But let me also say this and get to the points you just made. He mentions if someone returns to a casino 'AFTER BEING TRESPASSED'. Is the trespass legal or illegal? Not ALL trespasses are LEGAL if they were without GOOD CAUSE. That's his first mistake and first assumption. Any business open to the public has a right to refuse service as long as it's not discriminatory, but any business open to the public MAY NOT RESTRICT YOU FROM ENTERING THE PREMISES WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE(Disruptive or disorderly behavior, destroying property, etc.) This isn't a PRIVATE HOME we're talking about where if someone goes on your lawn, etc., these are PUBLIC BUSINESSES with specific rules and regulations they must follow. They are also licensed institutions by the GOVERNMENT. The one putting you in prison would be the government, not the casino, so the Constitution therefore applies at the time of a court proceeding and is why both in the Wilkinson and Thomas Robertson case, it was thrown out after seeking discovery and deemed unconstitutional.

You also mention that the cop said that they know of half million dollar lawsuit backroomings gone bad? They went bad for a reason because a casino , like the cops, THINK they know the law, but actually have no idea what's going on and overreach their power time and time again.

The vegas bluff is over gentlemen. This is a constitutional issue on the federal level. If Atlantic City lost, Vegas will also lose, it's just a matter of getting through these crooked courts to be able to get a decision. The secret to that is to make the offense punishable by more than 6 months so you can get a jury trial and win on a jury verdict where the judge cannot railroad you. You can thank the Supreme Court for trying to interpret the 6th amendment and saying offenses with punishments less than 6 months are not worthy of a jury trial even though the 6th amendment says ALL criminal trials are given a jury trial. This country is going down the drain.

Quote: Zcore13

Lol! You really think casinos care anything about what counters want? They are a spec on the entire profit of a casino. Trust me when I tell you, counters are not even considered in any way when making any decisions other than some basic game protection.


ZCore13

Tell that to romes, not me, i was simply correcting romes false statements that casinos will go to even money. You basically just said what I said, but nice try to belittle me.

It's time to evolve and find a better AP game where you'll receive less heat and a better edge.

Too much anger is detrimental to the soul.

Quote: ZenKinG

The vegas bluff is over gentlemen. This is a constitutional issue on the federal level. If Atlantic City lost, Vegas will also lose

Oh, really?

What about the states' rights argument you were making above?

Why can't Nevada decide to allow casinos to bar / trespass counters?

Who cares what NJ does?

Nevada is a different state.

This is not a federal issue, at least not yet: by choosing not to intervene the feds are allowing each state to set their own rules: that's how I see it, anyway.

Quote: MrV

Oh, really?

What about the states' rights argument you were making above?

Why can't Nevada decide to allow casinos to bar / trespass counters?

Who cares what NJ does?

Nevada is a different state.

This is not a federal issue, at least not yet: by choosing not to intervene the feds are allowing each state to set their own rules: that's how I see it, anyway.

Because the access to a public place is a fundamental right that each citizen of this country has the RIGHT to do. To bar them without GOOD CAUSE is unconstitutional. To send a card counter to prison for doing nothing wrong is flat out unconstitutional. A criminal trespass never occurred if you did nothing disruptive or disorderly and damaged no property. It is simply a violation of casino policy and so they can kick you out and refuse business, but they CANNOT RESTRICT YOU FROM ENTERING THE PREMISES. Dont believe me that it's unconstitutional? Then why did the Wilkinson judge rule exactly that as well as in the Thomas Robertson case? The judge could've used any other word, but decided to use 'unconstitutional', i wonder why?

The 10th amendment and state's rights does not apply here because the RIGHT already exists and so it's not up to the states.

Quote: ZenKinG

Because the access to a public place is a fundamental right that each citizen of this country has the RIGHT to do. To bar them without GOOD CAUSE is unconstitutional. To send a card counter to prison for doing nothing wrong is flat out unconstitutional. A criminal trespass never occurred if you did nothing disruptive or disorderly and damaged no property. It is simply a violation of casino policy and so they can kick you out and refuse business, but they CANNOT RESTRICT YOU FROM ENTERING THE PREMISES. Dont believe me that it's unconstitutional? Then why did the Wilkinson judge rule exactly that as well as in the Thomas Robertson case? The judge could've used any other word, but decided to use 'unconstitutional', i wonder why?

The 10th amendment and state's rights does not apply here because the RIGHT already exists and so it's not up to the states.

You seem to ignore the Federal Law that allows business to refuse service for any reason other than discrimination. Kind of convenient isn't it?


ZCore13

Mr. King Many a person has been trespassed from public places unlawfully and guess what happens... Sometimes they
pay a little settlement and then its business as usual.

Quote: Zcore13

You seem to ignore the Federal Law that allows business to reduce service for any reason other than discrimination. Kind of convenient isn't it?


ZCore13

First off, where does it say they can restrict you from entering the premises? Refusing service and restriction from entering a building are 2 different things. Secondly, who's to say they're not discriminating you and just lying about it? How can that be proved? So what if I just wear a "I LOVE JESUS t shirt" from now on to play blackjack and then scream discrimination in court? Two can play this game.

You also dont understand fundamental rights. I suggest you read up on the 9th amendment. This is a 9th amendment issue

Quote: ZenKinG

First off, where does it say they can restrict you from entering the premises? Refusing service and restriction from entering a building are 2 different things. Secondly, who's to say they're not discriminating you and just lying about it? How can that be proved? So what if I just wear a "I LOVE JESUS t shirt" from now on to play blackjack and then scream discrimination in court? Two can play this game.

You also dont understand fundamental rights. I suggest you read up on the 9th amendment. This is a 9th amendment issue

No it isn't. "The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed."


ZCore13

I spread 1-3 but I don't count.

Quote: Romes

What do you do with your life then?

What do you do with your life then?

I wanna rock!!



p.s. I didnt mean to get Romes all excited as hes watching Dee Snider in drag.

Quote: ZenKinG

First off, where does it say they can restrict you from entering the premises? Refusing service and restriction from entering a building are 2 different things. Secondly, who's to say they're not discriminating you and just lying about it? How can that be proved? So what if I just wear a "I LOVE JESUS t shirt" from now on to play blackjack and then scream discrimination in court? Two can play this game.

You also dont understand fundamental rights. I suggest you read up on the 9th amendment. This is a 9th amendment issue

So the owner of a bar can refuse to serve someone a drink but must allow them entrance to it and allow them to loiter?

Quote: FCBLComish

Hypothetical question:

You own an all you can eat buffet. The lunch price is $9.99.

Every day, a person comes in and eats $15.00 worth of food, not to mention the labor and other related costs. How long do you let him keep patronizing your business? Do you go out of business, choose another business, or just tell this one person that their business is no longer welcome.

This is EXACTLY what an advantage player does.

First, I don't think buffets can discriminate based on how much people eat, in which case they just have to file this person under "cost of doing business."

Second, however, what if they could? There was an episode of the Simpsons where Homer was banned from a seafood buffet for that reason. I suppose if this behavior was significantly hurting my bottom line, I would politely warn the person that we're losing too much money on him and to either cut down or he will be politely told he is not welcome to return to the buffet.

Quote: Wizard

First, I don't think buffets can discriminate based on how much people eat, in which case they just have to file this person under "cost of doing business."

Second, however, what if they could? There was an episode of the Simpsons where Homer was banned from a seafood buffet for that reason. I suppose if this behavior was significantly hurting my bottom line, I would politely warn the person that we're losing too much money on him and to either cut down or he will be politely told he is not welcome to return to the buffet.

Hire the guy and send him to visit your competitors. True entrepreneurs find ways to turn stumbling blocks into stepping stones.

ZenKinG,

As you get more experience under your belt you'll find that getting banned is, at times, just part of the AP job. If it's getting inside your head too much, then you really need to do something else before the mania creates bigger problems. Your anger and mania is growing into what looks like a more dangerous phase.

Quote: Wizard

There was an episode of the Simpsons where Homer was banned from a seafood buffet for that reason.

As great as that example is, I suspect this one might be a little more persuasive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/18/man-who-ate-plates-sushi-banned-all-you-can-eat-buffet

(then again, it was in Germany)

But here's another one from the good, old US of A:

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/man-kicked-out-of-all-you-can-eat-buffet-after-eating-more-than-50-lbs-of-food-sues-for-2-millions/

Quote: Hullabaloo

As great as that example is, I suspect this one might be a little more persuasive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/18/man-who-ate-plates-sushi-banned-all-you-can-eat-buffet

(then again, it was in Germany)

But here's another one from the good, old US of A:

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/man-kicked-out-of-all-you-can-eat-buffet-after-eating-more-than-50-lbs-of-food-sues-for-2-millions/

I'd put an end to that by having chairs designed to hold 350 pounds. That addresses 99.9% of potential clients. Anyone over that is a potential safety concern so for the customers own safety I'd not sit them. Worse case, I'm sued and have to put in bigger chairs.
I'd also put a three or four hour limit on a table. Otherwise, someone might simply pay homeless people to get there first thing and leave last.

Quote: Hullabaloo

As great as that example is, I suspect this one might be a little more persuasive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/18/man-who-ate-plates-sushi-banned-all-you-can-eat-buffet

(then again, it was in Germany)

But here's another one from the good, old US of A:

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/man-kicked-out-of-all-you-can-eat-buffet-after-eating-more-than-50-lbs-of-food-sues-for-2-millions/

Both businesses are beyond wrong here. They advertise as all you can eat then stand by it! I’ve been to all you can eats where they say you have a 2 hour limit (usually sushi) but if there is no time limit posted then the restaurant has made their bed and should sleep in it.

Quote: PokerGrinder

Both businesses are beyond wrong here. They advertise as all you can eat then stand by it! I’ve been to all you can eats where they say you have a 2 hour limit (usually sushi) but if there is no time limit posted then the restaurant has made their bed and should sleep in it.

Once the person has paid and is there, they should be allowed "all they can eat". The question is, do you allow them to come back in the future?

Quote: billryan

I'd also put a three or four hour limit on a table.

The Old Country Buffet by my old place in Catonsville Maryland had a time limit. As I was told, it was to prevent people from passing off receipts to their friends at the exit, after the first one finished eating.

Quote: Wizard

First, I don't think buffets can discriminate based on how much people eat, in which case they just have to file this person under "cost of doing business."

Second, however, what if they could? There was an episode of the Simpsons where Homer was banned from a seafood buffet for that reason. I suppose if this behavior was significantly hurting my bottom line, I would politely warn the person that we're losing too much money on him and to either cut down or he will be politely told he is not welcome to return to the buffet.

You are just answering your own questions as you type. So a buffet cannot discriminate based on how much people eat and just label it as a 'cost of doing business'. But for a casino they kick out anyone with a legal edge playing by the rules and thats not discrimination? Why isnt that the 'cost of doing business' as well?

Spoiler alert. IT IS. But all of that is irrelevant because they can choose who they would like to offer service to but they CANNOT restrict you from entering a public premise without GOOD CAUSE.

A buffet can absolutely discriminate based on how much someone eats.

Quote: FCBLComish

Once the person has paid and is there, they should be allowed "all they can eat". The question is, do you allow them to come back in the future?

For every buffet in Las Vegas, the answer is yes, including ones at casinos that have asked ZK to stop playing blackjack

Quote: FinsRule

A buffet can absolutely discriminate based on how much someone eats.

Can you supply any sources?

Quote: Wizard

Can you supply any sources?

No. But I don’t see anything saying they can’t.

My attorney wife agrees with me, but she’s not an expert.

Quote: Wizard

Can you supply any sources?

Ugh, I'd have to google but I'm pretty confident the buffet can kick the patron out IF they refund them and then since they're not a paying customer the private business can then ask them to leave. I've heard a few stories of stuff like this over the years.

Here's a buffet tale, with a twist:

all you can (refuse to) eat

Quote: MrV

Here's a buffet tale, with a twist:

all you can (refuse to) eat

See this is legitimate! The business has every right in this situation IMO.

I absolutely support the choice here. I'm quite conscious of all the food I waste, but gosh it can be hard to change those habits.

Quote: Romes

Ugh, I'd have to google but I'm pretty confident the buffet can kick the patron out IF they refund them and then since they're not a paying customer the private business can then ask them to leave. I've heard a few stories of stuff like this over the years.

I texted my attorney just now and he agreed with you, but wasn't positive.

I think this has been tried on many levels. Casinos are private properties owned by corporations. If one just wanted to sit in the lobby of Microsoft all day and security asked you to leave because you were no longer welcome (and you did,), the next time you could be charged with trespassing. Security guards of course would need to present evidence of why they asked them to leave the first time, but a valid reason could simply be "corporate policy allows no one in the lobby that does not have a business relationship with Microsoft".

All of this is my own opinion and I await to hear dissent someone other than ZK.

Heck when I signed my self-exclusion with OLG I acknowledged that I would be charged with trespassing by stepping on to any of their properties. Security guards and other employees or contractors of a private company represent the owner or occupant and act as such when it comes to creating trespassing warnings or enforcing the wishes of its owners.

Businesses and individuals need to have the right to charge people with trespassing when they are no longer welcome. casino floors are not protected.

That said, I read up on both Robertson and Slade. In Slade the dissenting judges stated that Caesars may be an innkeeper which would supercede 463.129 1.e while another stated that because Caesars never disclosed the reason for issuing the blackball letter that CZR may be discriminating based on a protected class.

Your case is neither. Slade argued that he intended to use the facilities as an inn and therefore the 463.129 would not apply. Robertson was improperly handled and north las Vegas police decided not to try the case likely because the casino could not prove that their act of trespass was not for a protected reason.

Likely whenever you were read your trespass security took notes on why it did so that when you get arrested for trespassing it will be valid in court pursuant to 463.129.1.e which Slade already established in Nevada supreme court and tested in other courts in similar proceedings throughout the country.

Section 3 of uston Vs resorts gives a definition of what a public place is and concluded that Uston could not be evicted under that provision. Uston ultimately won because new jersey gaming's regulations regarding blackjack was so detailed that because it was not stated that card counting was not prohibited it was therefore allowed. In Nevada NRS 463.129 supersedes that law.

It seems to me that your best hope would be an attempt to invalidate 463.129.1.e based on federal common law on public amusement spaces. That has already been tested by Slade. The casinos will prove that you were trespassed for a non-discriminatory reason and that you were attempting to engage in gaming activities. Therefore 463.129 as a whole applies to your situation and they have every right to ask you to leave for any reason under Nevada state law.

And since the highest court of Nevada has already made legal precedent you would need to appeal to SCOTUS.

Can't wait for ZK to appear before SCOTUS. That would be prime time viewing.

It seems unlikely to me that ZK will be able to appear before the SCOTUS, assuming he represents himself.

They reject / do not allow most of the cases / appeals which are filed with their clerk to go to hearing; they winnow the wheat from the chaff and, and try to accept, hear, and decide only cases which they deem important.

Without an experienced attorney to help him with his pleadings I just can't see him making the cut: the odds are against him.

But he might be able to pull it off: other pro se litigants have.

high hopes

Quote: AcesAndEights

Can't wait for ZK to appear before SCOTUS. That would be prime time viewing.

Even if ZK could convince Nevada supreme court to overturn the legislation as unconstitutional surely Nevada would turn to the Jersey model which would probably make gaming conditions much worse for all.

Obviously counters would like liberal conditions where trespass wasn't allowed and decks had to allow penetration to 90%, outlaw 6/5 and multideck games. The way I see it is that blackjack, like every casino game was designed as a random game. Once players figured out that card removal allowed one to exploit the game casinos had to add decks and reduce penetration in order to reduce that risk. Nevada casinos also have trespass. Frankly I would rather play cat and mouse rather than just have conditions be terrible.

Counting is an art. While ZK may have mastered the act of counting he hasn't mastered deception. And to become a king, you must master the act and the deception.

ZK fancies himself the king of Zen.

His posts belie this claim: he seems not to grasp and incorporate Zen in his thinking.

Break out the fire poker.

__________________________________________


Fire-Poker Zen

Hakuin used to tell his pupils about an old woman who had a teashop, praising her understanding of Zen. The pupils refused to believe what he told them and would go to the teashop to find out for themselves.

Whenever the woman saw them coming she could tell at once whether they had come for tea or to look into her grasp of Zen. In the former case, she would serve them graciously. In the latter, she would beckon to the pupils to come behind her screen. The instant they obeyed, she would strike them with a fire-poker.

Nine out of ten of them could not escape her beating.

Every successful counter I know treats the game like a ninja. Quietly slip in, cut your victim and be gone before the blood is flowing.
A true master could rollerblade through the casino in a sequin gown and not draw attention to himself.
Nor is he a victim of circumstances.
One of the first authors I read talked about how they dressed and acted differently in every casino. One trip they were drug reps at a convention, then they were urban cowboys rodeo week, grunge fans when a big show was on.
Always be the cat. Sometimes be a tiger, sometimes be a lynx.
I tried to stress this to ZK last year but it was dismissed out of hand.

Quote: billryan

Every successful counter I know treats the game like a ninja. Quietly slip in, cut your victim and be gone before the blood is flowing.
A true master could rollerblade through the casino in a sequin gown and not draw attention to himself.
Nor is he a victim of circumstances.
One of the first authors I read talked about how they dressed and acted differently in every casino. One trip they were drug reps at a convention, then they were urban cowboys rodeo week, grunge fans when a big show was on.
Always be the cat. Sometimes be a tiger, sometimes be a lynx.
I tried to stress this to ZK last year but it was dismissed out of hand.

This is excellent advice and all AP should take notice.

Quote: boymimbo

Even if ZK could convince Nevada supreme court to overturn the legislation as unconstitutional surely Nevada would turn to the Jersey model which would probably make gaming conditions much worse for all.

Obviously counters would like liberal conditions where trespass wasn't allowed and decks had to allow penetration to 90%, outlaw 6/5 and multideck games. The way I see it is that blackjack, like every casino game was designed as a random game. Once players figured out that card removal allowed one to exploit the game casinos had to add decks and reduce penetration in order to reduce that risk. Nevada casinos also have trespass. Frankly I would rather play cat and mouse rather than just have conditions be terrible.

Counting is an art. While ZK may have mastered the act of counting he hasn't mastered deception. And to become a king, you must master the act and the deception.

Oh I totally agree with you. I was just joking about ZK's temperament in the context of SCOTUS. Ha ha.

Quote: boymimbo

I think this has been tried on many levels. Casinos are private properties owned by corporations. If one just wanted to sit in the lobby of Microsoft all day and security asked you to leave because you were no longer welcome (and you did,), the next time you could be charged with trespassing. Security guards of course would need to present evidence of why they asked them to leave the first time, but a valid reason could simply be "corporate policy allows no one in the lobby that does not have a business relationship with Microsoft".

In Nevada, they would have to read a statement that references Nevada Revised Statutes (86'd), only then could it reach criminal trespass. If you came back again uninvited, it *could* be criminal trespass and they *could* detain you in a citizens arrest. But it is definitely a gray area, because it almost never reaches that level. Most likely, they would simply ask you to leave politely. Then read you a specific statement. Then call the cops and let them deal with it.

Of course the only expert I know on this subject is ZK and he insists that if anyone asks him to leave he can sue them and win money in courts because of the constitution. Despite having that as an option, he simply chooses to leave anytime he is asked. Thus the reason it remains somewhat of a gray area.

Quote: TomG

Of course the only expert I know on this subject is ZK and he insists that if anyone asks him to leave he can sue them and win money in courts because of the constitution. Despite having that as an option, he simply chooses to leave anytime he is asked.

LOL

And that surprises you why?

All bark and no bite.

Quote: MrV

LOL

And that surprises you why?

All bark and no bite.

No bark either. Just random growling.


ZCore13

ZK,

Have you considered the possibility that you have been targeted by security/pit bosses, not because you are counting cards, but because you look fairly young and refuse to show ID on the casino floor (I assume)?

Quote: gamerfreak

ZK,

Have you considered the possibility that you have been targeted by security/pit bosses, not because you are counting cards, but because you look fairly young and refuse to show ID on the casino floor (I assume)?

I know ZK. I really doubt he looks underage to anyone. I could be wrong.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I know ZK. I really doubt he looks underage to anyone. I could be wrong.

He definitely looks younger me I think and I still get ID’d in the casinos sometimes.

What people constantly forget is that Slade did NOT SEEK DISCOVERY IN DISTRICT COURT about the reason he was excluded so the casinos ran with this to try and get a decision on the ability to exclude for any reason. Then if you actually read the Slade decision carefully, the judge refers to this issue that because Slade did not raise the issue of WHY HE WAS EXCLUDED, the judge COULD NOT MAKE A DECISION REGARDING THAT SUBJECT. The judge also NEVER actually mentions the ability of casinos to exclude at WILL. He says, 'Unless excluded by law'. Then everyone falsely assume casinos now have the power to exclude at will unless its for discriminatory reasons, but thats NOT what the judge said. ANYTHING excluded by law is what he said and by now you should know whats excluded and what's not.

Do people here not understand the legal precedent of 'facial vs as-applied' constitutional arguments? If you believe a statute AS APPLIED TO YOU is unconstitutional, you MUST FIRST RAISE THIS ISSUE IN DISTRICT COURT or you waive your right to do that. You cannot raise it on appeal, that was Slade's mistake. You must first raise it at trial/district court before proceeding on appeal. Only facial constitutional arguments where you believe the whole statute is unconstitutional on its FACE is where you can first bring it up on appeal.

Had Slade done what Annette Wilkinson and Thomas Robertson did, the case would have been THROWN OUT before going further. Annette unfortunately had to win on appeal but nonetheless STILL WON. What a freaking coincidence. Why else do you think casinos went straight to 6-5 blackjack after the Slade decision? Just let all of this sink in.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I know ZK. I really doubt he looks underage to anyone. I could be wrong.

Definitely disagree =P. Especially with a beard I'd venture myself or bruce look (and are) older than him... and we have the trouble of getting ID'd ALLLLLLL the time just to walk in to a casino, not even playing.