Attention Las Vegas Casinos

Quote: MrV

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.

I'll assume that he forgot about that thread. I wasn't active on the forum at the time but when I came upon that thread via Google I realized that this argument has been made before.

Quite frankly a change in the makeup of the judges at the supreme court level or a change to statutes by state legislature might overturn the legality of the statute. Given how much money gambling creates for the state and the lobbying going on, I sincerely doubt it will happen. Bob N makes a few good points in his podcast, and Slade actually did not do anything wrong. He wanted to attend a medical conference at the Paris. His wife was 86d in Tunica. Bob made the point that hundreds of people get barred without association. And Bob seems pretty bent that he hasn't been able to get the law changed on that one. Slade sued the casino - it wasn't Slade v the state. All of which makes things worse for gamblers. The state basically upheld the right of casinos to exclude for any reason and then charge with trespassing after being warned, all without any wrongdoing by Slade. At least that is my take.

Quote: MrV

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.

Lying? Boyimbo referencing a thread from 10 months ago and im supposed to know which podcast he was talking about? I vaguely remember posting that I listened to a bob podcast and had a feeling he was referencing that GWAE episode, but didnt want to assume what he was referencing to, so I asked for clarity from him. So please go ahead and show where I explicitly lied?

Quote: ZenKinG

Quote: MrV

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.

Lying? Boyimbo referencing a thread from 10 months ago and im supposed to know which podcast he was talking about? I vaguely remember posting that I listened to a bob podcast and had a feeling he was referencing that GWAE episode, but didnt want to assume what he was referencing to, so I asked for clarity from him. So please go ahead and show where I explicitly lied?

How about all the times you have stated the casinos are going to “pay” and you wil “own” them.

Interesting reading but let’s face it, you have no intention of actually doing what you state. It’s all theory and boasting.

Quote: ZenKinG

Lying? Boyimbo referencing a thread from 10 months ago and im supposed to know which podcast he was talking about? I vaguely remember posting that I listened to a bob podcast and had a feeling he was referencing that GWAE episode, but didnt want to assume what he was referencing to, so I asked for clarity from him. So please go ahead and show where I explicitly lied?

When did you ask for clarity?

So I didn't put words in your mouth then, and you did listen to that podcast. You posted at least a dozen times in that thread on the podcast. One of the questions in the podcast was about Slade and you posted the question in the thread!!!

You then go on to say you listened to the podcast and questioned Bob's knowledge of the law. Do you think that Bob N would not be knowledgeable on the cases you mentioned? Do you think he doesn't have researchers looking at lower court decisions on a case?

So yeah I have a hard time believing that you didn't know that was the podcast I was referring to, and I am guessing you doubted I would dig it out. You denied that you listened to "any podcast" and accused me of putting words in your mouth. You later recanted... Slightly... Vague recollection... Yeah.

But this is the internet, and people will do whatever it takes to win a debate, including ignoring facts, failing to recollect, and flat out lying to make a point.

Nonetheless Bob N. communicated his thoughts on the Slade case and you disagree with his assessment and believe that the case wasn't pertaining to what are trying to prove.

Right now you seem to believe that the casino staff ejecting you and not charging you with trespassing means that they legally can't.

Quote: boymimbo

When did you ask for clarity?

So I didn't put words in your mouth then, and you did listen to that podcast. You posted at least a dozen times in that thread on the podcast. One of the questions in the podcast was about Slade and you posted the question in the thread!!!

You then go on to say you listened to the podcast and questioned Bob's knowledge of the law. Do you think that Bob N would not be knowledgeable on the cases you mentioned? Do you think he doesn't have researchers looking at lower court decisions on a case?

So yeah I have a hard time believing that you didn't know that was the podcast I was referring to, and I am guessing you doubted I would dig it out. You denied that you listened to "any podcast" and accused me of putting words in your mouth. You later recanted... Slightly... Vague recollection... Yeah.

But this is the internet, and people will do whatever it takes to win a debate, including ignoring facts, failing to recollect, and flat out lying to make a point.

Nonetheless Bob N. communicated his thoughts on the Slade case and you disagree with his assessment and believe that the case wasn't pertaining to what are trying to prove.

Right now you seem to believe that the casino staff ejecting you and not charging you with trespassing means that they legally can't.

Are you really arguing with me whether or not i knew what podcast you were referring to? Why the hell would i care to lie or care to gain about whether i knew what podcast you were referring to. The thing was 10 months ago and i asked at the end of my post which one you were referring to. Jesus christ man. And im the one thats trying to win arguments behind a keyboard? And people accusing me of being a 'liar'? What the hell could i have possibly gained by saying whether or not i heard that podcast and posted about it if my opinions regarding casino trespassing, bobs opinions about trespassing, and the slade case have always been consistent and that i dont agree with any of them?

I guess I shouldnt have immediately attacked you by saying you're putting 'words in my mouth' since i maybe had an idea of what you were referring to. Now that we know which podcast youre referring to instead of just saying i listened to a 'podcast' that I posted about a year ago, now we can proceed further.

"Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did."

Your words.

I thought casinos have the right to trespass people. It keeps the rule good for others.

Quote: MrV

"Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did."

Your words.

Oh sure. Now you want to use his own words against him? I was watching The Profit last night, and the owner of the business remarked how at age 28, he was found to be on the Asperger's Spectrum. It gave me pause to wonder how many people in our lives that seem o be slightly off may register on that scale, myself included. I've always marched to a different drummer.

I stay mostly out of ZK threads, but this just made me lol.

Quote: Excerpt from rant above

Jesus christ man. And im the one thats trying to win arguments behind a keyboard?

Why, yes. Yes, you are.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I stay mostly out of ZK threads, but this just made me lol.



Why, yes. Yes, you are.

He's definitely not winning them in the casino or court.



ZCore13

Quote: MrV

"Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did."

Your words.

Check... and mate.

Quote: MrV

"Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did."

Your words.

Give him the benefit of the doubt. ZK isn't a dishonest guy, imo. It's quite possible he misunderstood the discussion, or there was some confusion or whatever.

Moreover, whether he listened to the pod or not isn't really relevant to the issue at hand.

To answer earlier Qs, ZK's position (which I think is wrong) seems to be that YES NV statute allows for you to be arrested if you return.

However, NV statute and the constitution both stipulate that we have other rights, not explicitly stated. And according to Common Law, those rights include the right to enter any public space, including public-facing businesses. So the owner cannot bar us unless we have committed a crime or have been disorderly on the premises.

However, among other things, none of the judges in Slade give any indication this is their belief. For example, they explicitly state that a purveyor of amusements can bar a customer for "no reason."

You are right in that ZK is not dishonest. What exasperated me was the fact that Bob N explained the case and that ZK heard and commented on it.

ZK to me by the pattern of his postings believe that casinos are operating a conspiracy against him, be it the cards, patterns of shuffling during the holidays when he was down 4SD short term, or that sporting teams manipulate results to upset the results, particularly on a bet that ZK thinks she should have won (and there are threads to back all of this up).

In this case, ZK is giving advice that is false: that casinos do not have the right to charge you with trespassing after being read the trespass "statute". The end result is that would be APs actually do get charged after following advice that does not reflect the legal precedence set in Slade.

At least the 6:5 conspiracy is debunked: 6/5 was ubiquitous in Vegas before then Slade decision and that decision did not change that.

Audacity.

Quote: MrV

"Which podcast? I never listened to any podcast or claimed that I did."

Your words.

Yea and what did I start out by saying? What is it a question or a statement? I ASKED which podcast he was referring to and then because I could not remember exqctly what he was referring to, which ended to be a thread from 10 MONTHS ago, why do you think i claimed I never listened to anything because I didnt remember what he was referring to. Also like I said, what does listening or not listeninf to the podcast have anything to do with the iswue at hand. It's not like my position has ever changed on this so what is the point about arguing this and not taking my word. You guys are ridiculous and in trying my hardest to stay within the rules to not insult you guys.

Quote: boymimbo

You are right in that ZK is not dishonest. What exasperated me was the fact that Bob N explained the case and that ZK heard and commented on it.

ZK to me by the pattern of his postings believe that casinos are operating a conspiracy against him, be it the cards, patterns of shuffling during the holidays when he was down 4SD short term, or that sporting teams manipulate results to upset the results, particularly on a bet that ZK thinks she should have won (and there are threads to back all of this up).

In this case, ZK is giving advice that is false: that casinos do not have the right to charge you with trespassing after being read the trespass "statute". The end result is that would be APs actually do get charged after following advice that does not reflect the legal precedence set in Slade.

At least the 6:5 conspiracy is debunked: 6/5 was ubiquitous in Vegas before then Slade decision and that decision did not change that.

Audacity.

Why were you exasperated by me commenting on it, i dont get what youre trying to say? Just because a lawyer tells his side of the story, that makes it true and you expect me to agree with it? If I got a nickel for every lawers public opinion on what something means and what it ACTUALLY means,, id be a very rich man.

Sorry, but what we have now are TWO separate decisions that SPECIFICALLY say a casino cannot trespass you without GOOD CAUSE(Disruptive or disorderly conduct) and then you have one decision that never specifically addresses what they can and cannot do but leave the exceptions out there for you to figure out what he means. That decision says they can exclude you for any reason UNLESS it's discriminatory 'OR' OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL. Not JUST discriminatory reasons, but also for anything OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL. I suggest you use that head of yours with something called a brain that's attached to to your neck to put two and two together amd figure out what OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL actually means, because hes not just talkng about discriminatory reasons or else he WOULDNT have bothered to make a DISTINCTION between the two.

It's the same wifh NRS 463.0129, why does the legislature carefully make the distinctiom between EJECT and EXCLUDE when mentioning certain activities? Why 'eject' from the 'premises' but ONLY 'exclude' from 'gaming activities'? Why not just say exclude from EVERYTHING? Why else do you think the police always tell the casinos before they arrest an AP, did you give them a chance to leave? Because if they dont leave, it now becomes a DISRUPTIVE and DISORDERLY offense that is chargeable for trespassing.

Regarding 6-5, youre right, it wasnt because of the Slade decision, it happened shortly after the very specific Thomas Robertson decision on what casinos can and cannot do LOL. Thanks for further strengthening my point.

Glad I can clear up all the minsinformation again.

Quote: ZenKinG

Yea and what did I start out by saying? What is it a question or a statement? I ASKED which podcast he was referring to and then because I could not remember exqctly what he was referring to, which ended to be a thread from 10 MONTHS ago, why do you think i claimed I never listened to anything because I didnt remember what he was referring to. Also like I said, what does listening or not listeninf to the podcast have anything to do with the iswue at hand. It's not like my position has ever changed on this so what is the point about arguing this and not taking my word. You guys are ridiculous and in trying my hardest to stay within the rules to not insult you guys.

Any progress on “Owning” the casinos or “Making them pay”?

I understand a few are still laughing about your boasts.

Quote: Boz

Any progress on “Owning” the casinos or “Making them pay”?

I understand a few are still laughing about your boasts.

He's been busy studying up on the branches of Government. I do like how he's been able to stay civil lately.


ZCore13