Attention Las Vegas Casinos

Quote: Romes

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.

Las Vegas is pretty lax on ID'ing people though. They do it a lot more in the Midwest and the South, particularly because they have ID checkpoints when entering a casino.

Quote: RS

Las Vegas is pretty lax on ID'ing people though. They do it a lot more in the Midwest and the South, particularly because they have ID checkpoints when entering a casino.

Eh... kind of disagree. The first time I went to vegas when I was 21 (over a decade ago) I never got ID'd ONE TIME and I must have looked like I was 14. Last few times I've been in vegas I get constantly ID'd going from one table over to the one next to it... at every place I go.

Quote: MrV

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

Dred Scott

Buffets are close analogies but not a good enough analogy. At cards you can make all the same bets a counter would make, but if at the right time, you'll be asked to leave, etc. This whole tangent is a fallacy, it's persuasive, but too persuasive. The poor buffet owner, with a room full of anorexics, and he has one obese couple ruining his business.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Buffets are close analogies but not a good enough analogy. At cards you can make all the same bets a counter would make, but if at the right time, you'll be asked to leave, etc. This whole tangent is a fallacy, it's persuasive, but too persuasive. The poor buffet owner, with a room full of anorexics, and he has one obese couple ruining his business.

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.

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.

No, no your won’t. You will just come here and complain like you always do. If you were actually serious about this, you would have already started the process.

Instead it’s more look at me.

Quote: Romes

Eh... kind of disagree. The first time I went to vegas when I was 21 (over a decade ago) I never got ID'd ONE TIME and I must have looked like I was 14. Last few times I've been in vegas I get constantly ID'd going from one table over to the one next to it... at every place I go.

Perhaps they recognize your OSN photo and are letting you know.

I think Slade knew exactly why he was banned at CZR Mississippi and didn't go through that discovery to avoid personal embarrassment. One makes the assumption that Slade's team failed to do something that would have turned the case around. The one dissenting judge that makes the discovery point believes it is relevant to the outcome. The second dissenting judge thinks that the purpose of Slade is relevant and that CZR is acting as an innkeeper hosting a convention rather than a purveyor of games.

The difference in your case is that they exercised 463.129.1.e properly. They read you the statement and likely wrote down why. This would be used as evidence and they would show that they excluded you as allowed under NRS rules. Since Nevada supreme court already set precedent in the case you would lose at that level forcing you to appeal to SCOTUS.

Bob N was the champion of these cases all of the time and it was his efforts that stopped casino security violent interventions (backrooms). So you can thank him that security personnel don't beat you up in some hallway somewhere. You could probably also consult a real lawyer who has dealt with cases like yours before rather than spout here.

Take action. Crowdsource your legal fund. Do something!!!!

Quote: boymimbo

I think Slade knew exactly why he was banned at CZR Mississippi and didn't go through that discovery to avoid personal embarrassment. One makes the assumption that Slade's team failed to do something that would have turned the case around. The one dissenting judge that makes the discovery point believes it is relevant to the outcome. The second dissenting judge thinks that the purpose of Slade is relevant and that CZR is acting as an innkeeper hosting a convention rather than a purveyor of games.

The difference in your case is that they exercised 463.129.1.e properly. They read you the statement and likely wrote down why. This would be used as evidence and they would show that they excluded you as allowed under NRS rules. Since Nevada supreme court already set precedent in the case you would lose at that level forcing you to appeal to SCOTUS.

Bob N was the champion of these cases all of the time and it was his efforts that stopped casino security violent interventions (backrooms). So you can thank him that security personnel don't beat you up in some hallway somewhere. You could probably also consult a real lawyer who has dealt with cases like yours before rather than spout here.

Take action. Crowdsource your legal fund. Do something!!!!

First off, them reading me the trespass statute and them writing down the reason(which they probably didnt), is irrelevant to whether I can seek discovery in district court. The whole point of seeking discovery in trial court is to get it on the RECORD so they drop the case once it is found they excluded you without GOOD CAUSE. This isnt exactly a private home that can say get off my lawn and the previous court decisions all prove it. The slade case proved it as well if you actually know what youre reading and why something was said the way it was said as I described many times already.

Secondly, that is not a valid reason to exclude. You cannot exclude someone in a public place without GOOD CAUSE. You seek discovery in district court, the case gets dropped every time. Card counting is NOT GOOD CAUSE.

Lastly, i dont thank Bob for anything, I domt care about getting dragged into a backroom, I welcome it. I wouldnt care about getting beat up. First off, its going to take at least 5 security guards to even have a chance at kicking my ass. Secondly, Im not scared of anyone in these casinos. They can beat me up 500 times, ill keep coming back for more. They will have to put me in a hole in the desert like they did in the 50s to ever get rid of me in this town. Im not going anywhere, whether its prison or a backroom, I will keep coming back. They better kill me before i get a decision in this town.

Quote: ZenKinG

Lastly, i dont thank Bob for anything, I domt care about getting dragged into a backroom, I welcome it. I wouldnt care about getting beat up. First off, its going to take at least 5 security guards to even have a chance at kicking my ass. Secondly, Im not scared of anyone in these casinos. They can beat me up 500 times, ill keep coming back for more. They will have to put me in a hole in the desert like they did in the 50s to ever get rid of me in this town. Im not going anywhere, whether its prison or a backroom, I will keep coming back. They better kill me before i get a decision in this town.

More classic comedy from the "King". You should try when the allow anyone onstage at comedy clubs. You could help your bankroll as well.

You're just another not good card counter in Las Vegas. They've seen a thousand of you before and will see a thousand after you. You may (still to be determined) have enough skill to actually count to an advantage and win a little, but you are lacking other key skills that make a tough AP. Anyone can learn to count. Not everyone can handle the stress and pressure.


ZCore13

Isn’t anyone bored of this conversation yet?

We have the same one every 30 days (after ZK comes back from suspensions).

Quote: ZenKinG

I domt care about getting dragged into a backroom, I welcome it. I wouldnt care about getting beat up. First off, its going to take at least 5 security guards to even have a chance at kicking my ass. Secondly, Im not scared of anyone in these casinos. They can beat me up 500 times, ill keep coming back for more.

No you won't.

As others have said you've done nothing so far, you'll likely do nothing in the future.

It's fine, indeed it is helpful to talk about this issue here, but when you try to interject yourself in the role of Captain Marvel in patently absurd hypothetical scenarios: well, I just choked on my morning coffee.

Funny thing, but I also wouldn't care about you getting beat up, either: we can both agree on that.

Heck, having it happen 500 times or more just puts it into the bonus round.

Just DO something about it and quit jawboning: we're all tough guys on the internet.

Quote: ZenKinG

First off, them reading me the trespass statute and them writing down the reason(which they probably didnt), is irrelevant to whether I can seek discovery in district court. The whole point of seeking discovery in trial court is to get it on the RECORD so they drop the case once it is found they excluded you without GOOD CAUSE. This isnt exactly a private home that can say get off my lawn and the previous court decisions all prove it. The slade case proved it as well if you actually know what youre reading and why something was said the way it was said as I described many times already.

Secondly, that is not a valid reason to exclude. You cannot exclude someone in a public place without GOOD CAUSE. You seek discovery in district court, the case gets dropped every time. Card counting is NOT GOOD CAUSE.

Lastly, i dont thank Bob for anything, I domt care about getting dragged into a backroom, I welcome it. I wouldnt care about getting beat up....

Quote: NRS463.0129.3.a

this section does not abrogate any common-law right of a gaming establishment ttonexclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.

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:

Quote: Slade, Appellant Vs Caesars Entertainment Corporation

"In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether common-law principles referenced in 469.0129(3)(a) permit gaming establishments to exclude from their premises any person for any reason. We generally adopt the majority common-law rule permitting the exclusion of persons for any reason that is not discriminatory or otherwise unlawful.

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.

Quote: FinsRule

Isn’t anyone bored of this conversation yet?

We have the same one every 30 days (after ZK comes back from suspensions).

Honing my research skills and using logic keeps my brain moving. To me this is fun.

Quote: billryan

It is a shame the poster didn't have the courage to post under his real id. If I were a mod, I'd reject claims made by obvious shills out of hand.

It's a shame some posters do not show more courage not to jump to assumptions. One knows what can happen when that occurs.

FWIW, I am not a current member masquerading under a second ID* or former member. As ZQ is fond to say, "Nice try."

We agree on one thing: moderation here is sad, or should I say, is not on equal footing.

I suppose it is normal human nature for humans moderating humans online to be biased sometimes. Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Carry on and stay thirsty, drones... (kidding)

*Edited/updated (thanks, Shirley)

Quote: FTB

It's a shame some posters do not show more courage not to jump to assumptions. One knows what can happen when that occurs.

FWIW, I am not a current or former member. As ZQ is fond to say, "Nice try."

We agree on one thing: moderation here is sad, or should I say, is not on equal footing.

I suppose it is normal human nature for humans moderating humans online to be biased sometimes. Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Carry on and stay thirsty, drones... (kidding)

(emphasis added)

Surely you’re a current member.

Quote: beachbumbabs

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

I also met ZK a while back. I believe him, Romes, PG, and myself are all similar in age/how old we look. And like Romes said, getting ID’d is CONSTANT depending on the casino/state.

Most anyone under 35 is going to get ID’d quite a bit. Having s baby face does not help either. Vegas is a little more lax than other areas but not by much.

In Pennsylvania any entrance to the casino floor is roped off, and you get carded at the door.

I have no doubt that at least part of ZK’s problems with security and pit creatures is that they think he is underage and refuses to show ID.

Having met all three of you, I'd say you are by far the youngest looking of the group.

Three years ago, when I vacationed here with my son, he was id'd constantly. He's in his 30s but still gets asked for id a lot. He has his mothers looks.

Quote: billryan

Having met all three of you, I'd say you are by far the youngest looking of the group.

Three years ago, when I vacationed here with my son, he was id'd constantly. He's in his 30s but still gets asked for id a lot. He has his mothers looks.

I think I am the youngest. But I look even younger than I am.

If I ever shave clean, which is never, I look like I’m right out of a 9th grade yearbook.

Quote: gamerfreak

I think I am the youngest. But I look even younger than I am.

If I ever shave clean, which is never, I look like I’m right out of a 9th grade yearbook.

Beards do make a big difference! Wish I could grow more than a bit of stubble. My brother wouldn't get ID'd and I would when we'd play, and I'm four years older. The curse and blessing of youth, I suppose.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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...

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'?

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

I liked Bob well enough.

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.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think you should co-write, with Mr V, a Socratic dialogue exploring all sides of this. The site does pay for that sort of thing.

The pay should be two cents.

Quote: ZenKinG

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.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Slade sued the casino and retained Bob from the start. It was his wife that was 86ed from Harrahs in Biloxi. The casino simply declared him guilty by association. You can find a podcast where Bob talks the case in detail. He is very fired up about the topic and says that Nevada is the only state where casinos can bar you for any reason. He went on to say that there have been plenty of people excluded for no reason. And prosecuted for trespassing.

And anyone who has done one iota of research on legal matters in a casino understand that Bob has been defending players rights in Nevada, passionately, for decades when other lawyers wouldn't. He shut down the Griffiin book and ended the practice of casinos being violent towards patrons. The Slade case, if he had won it would have changed AP in Vegas as it would have forced casinos to provide a reason for exclusion at minimum and may have changed the basis for 463.129.3.a.

Once again lower court decisions have no meaning when superceded by a court at a higher level. Slade is the reference case in Nevada.

In my opinion, the only reason you haven't been charged yet is because it is far simpler for them to get you to leave peacefully than for them to do a bunch of paperwork, get police involved, and show up in court. Next time you are backed off, try refusing to leave and test the casino procedures yourself. And there are a number of security personnel and casino staff on this forum who know exactly what the SOPs are.

Quote: ZenKinG

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.

Really?

Are you sure?

Assume you get caught clumsily card counting at MGM, and they flat bet you and tell you that is your limit from then on.

Assume the next day you return, try to bet normally, they detect it and read you the trespass warning and tell you not to return or you'll be in violation of the law.

Assume you return and are arrested.

Do you still feel confident in your analysis?

My advice: contact Bob N. and discuss your notions with him: better that he set you straight now than in the future, after you've been trespassed, arrested, charged, and then retain his services.

And no, do NOT try to represent yourself: it would only prove the wisdom of the old adage.

Guess it's not the end of the story.

The admission on this thread was that ZQ was read the trespass statute three times.

Was that three different casinos where casino personnel said not to return or only one specific casino that said on three separate occasions not to return?

And did the return(s) take place?

Eventually, an arrest will be made and we shall see if the casino(s) are "sued into oblivion."

The alternative is doing nothing, again, except return here for more of the same old empty rhetoric and teethless threats against the casinos, with sprinkles of locks of the century, couple scoops of cynical conspiracies about this and that being rigged and a teaspoon of meaningless, condescending fasting advice.

Quote: boymimbo

You don't know what you are talking about.

Slade sued the casino and retained Bob from the start. It was his wife that was 86ed from Harrahs in Biloxi. The casino simply declared him guilty by association. You can find a podcast where Bob talks the case in detail. He is very fired up about the topic and says that Nevada is the only state where casinos can bar you for any reason. He went on to say that there have been plenty of people excluded for no reason. And prosecuted for trespassing.

And anyone who has done one iota of research on legal matters in a casino understand that Bob has been defending players rights in Nevada, passionately, for decades when other lawyers wouldn't. He shut down the Griffiin book and ended the practice of casinos being violent towards patrons. The Slade case, if he had won it would have changed AP in Vegas as it would have forced casinos to provide a reason for exclusion at minimum and may have changed the basis for 463.129.3.a.

Once again lower court decisions have no meaning when superceded by a court at a higher level. Slade is the reference case in Nevada.

In my opinion, the only reason you haven't been charged yet is because it is far simpler for them to get you to leave peacefully than for them to do a bunch of paperwork, get police involved, and show up in court. Next time you are backed off, try refusing to leave and test the casino procedures yourself. And there are a number of security personnel and casino staff on this forum who know exactly what the SOPs are.

Lower courts don't mean anything? That would only be the case IF there was a supreme court case that dealt with the SAME ISSUE AT HAND that OVERRULED IT, but there was not. The Slade case WAS NOT a trespassing case, let me remind you of that. The Slade case did not involve someone who came back after a trespass, but simply fought about a different issue. Do you want to know why there never was a direct trespassing case where there was no criminal behavior done, in front of the Supreme Court? Because they all get thrown out at the district court level when you seek discovery. The government cannot put you in prison for a trespassing charge in a public place where no criminal, disruptive, or disorderly behavior occurred. End of argument.

You got a lot to learn. I suggest you stop making assumptions of the power of casinos to trespass you for any reasons and refer to the court decisions that ACTUALLY DEALT with a trespassing charge for non criminal behavior where the judge CLEARLY said of the power of casinos to trespass you, because NOT ONCE in the Slade case did the judge say casinos can TRESPASS you for any reason, he provided the exceptions and if you understand anything about law in this country, you know exactly what those exceptions are. The judge said they can exclude you for any reason UNLESS for discriminatory reasons OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL REASONS. What are those UNLAWFUL REASONS? How about you learn to read what I write. Slade did not seek discovery in district court. Had he sought discovery, this wouldve never went to the Supreme Court. Slade wanted to battle the case on a different ground and the judge admiited that he could not rule on that issue at hand on whether the casino had a RIGHT TO EXCLUDE HIM. I suggest you read the whole court decision again and find out what really went down.

"Next time you are backed off, try refusing to leave"?

When did I ever say I refuse to leave? Keep putting words in my mouth to further your agenda and argument. My whole argument is them taking action from RESTRICTING ME from entering the premises on ANOTHER day, NOT about REFUSING to leave when told so. I always comply that day to leave.

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?

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?

As the Wilkinson and Robertson case says, yes the result would have been different, not to mention the many other cases that probably never even reached the media/public.

The result would have been different because you get it on the RECORD before appearing before an appelate court and proceeding further. Once you get it on the record, the case gets thrown out because the government has no evidence of criminal behavior to make a criminal trespass valid. You cant trespass someone from a business open to the public just because you feel like it and the government cant throw you in jail just because they feel like it as that would be unconstitutional. If the judge still doesnt throw it out, you will have to appeal it and win just like Wilkinson had to do.

It is very important to seek discovery on an 'as applied' statute type of argument in your first court appearance such as district court, because if you dont, you lose all chance of bringing up later on. If you think a statute such as NRS 207.200 was unconstitutional in its 'application' towards you, you must bring that up at the very first court appearance(trial/district court). Whereas a 'facial' argument regarding its constitutionality as a whole, can be brought up at any time.

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.

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.

He will never admit he's wrong. Not on this or any other of his false claims and statements. Even after he gets arrested at some point it will be the casino and drones fault.


ZCore13

Quote: ZenKinG

When did I ever say I refuse to leave? Keep putting words in my mouth to further your agenda and argument. My whole argument is them taking action from RESTRICTING ME from entering the premises on ANOTHER day, NOT about REFUSING to leave when told so. I always comply that day to leave.

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.

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.

My guess is that there is not case law that has argued the point that ZK is trying to make.

Example. Let’s 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 can’t be discriminatory.

summary of Nevada trespass law:

Guide to Nevada Trespass Law

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.