Bob Nersesian guest again
Quote: Homelessnyc1) has nothing to do with you thinking you were imprisoned, you weren't.
2) i don't trust you either but you post on the fourm others will reply. Nature of the beast. My replying won't impact the chances Bob actually get asked and then answers your question. I'm glad to know you think my replies carry that much weight though.
You clearly didnt read or chose to ignore the parr where security surrounded me while i was waiting
And staff held onto my ID
Quote: darkozYou clearly didnt read or chose to ignore the parr where security surrounded me while i was waiting
And staff held onto my ID
No i read it. Doesn't mean you couldn't leave. Start to move and if they prevent (depending on how) it could be assault and/battery and if they don't touch you call the police.
Seems you don't understand your rights
Edit: saying they surrounded you and because of that you're imprisoned is like saying i was in an office and the person left and closed the door behind them and i was locked in
Quote: darkozBob question for Nersessian
If a casino surrounds you with security so you cant leave the premises however does not backroom you i.e. imprisons you for the space of say an hour but on the gaming floor only while they conduct an investigation is this still grounds for a lawsuit
Is a casino smart enough not to backroom able to circumvent possible lawsuits this way
Also if the investigation was triggered by a jackpot payout and the casino refused payout while conducting said investigation i.e. they have you surrounded with security so yoh cannot leave for 3 reasons 1)they took your id ostensibly to pay a jackpot and wont give it back 2) you are waiting to be paid and 3) they are claiming they are trespassing you for the future
(Yes i had this happen to me within the last few months. Outcome they refused payment and i called the gaming commission rep who forced them to pay me on the spot. I received nothing but a verbal trespass and police were never summoned. It was a weird imprisonment because i felt i both could not leave if i wanted to and didnt want to leave as i wanted my jackpot payout)
Interestng that you’d leave out the reason why they initially refused to pay you
Quote: michael99000Interestng that you’d leave out the reason why they initially refused to pay you
I have no problem listing that
They were given my name from another casino in another state. I was not caught doing anything but playing slots in this one
Quote: HomelessnycNo i read it. Doesn't mean you couldn't leave. Start to move and if they prevent (depending on how) it could be assault and/battery and if they don't touch you call the police.
Seems you don't understand your rights
Edit: saying they surrounded you and because of that you're imprisoned is like saying i was in an office and the person left and closed the door behind them and i was locked in
So you would leave the casino with your ID in their possession?
Push through a bunch of security guys surrounding you
Leave with no record of your winning a jackpot
Quote: WizardThis is the first I've heard the police must be present. Can anyone else confirm or deny?
According to this link the casino can file a trespass charge with the police after letting the patron go. It is then up to the District Attorney if they wan to pursue it or not.
WARNING: The following link is to an attorney's website and might be considered advertising. Mods, please remove if this violates any of your policies.
https://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/trespass.html#definition
Quote: DRichAccording to this link the casino can file a trespass charge with the police after letting the patron go. It is then up to the District Attorney if they wan to pursue it or not.
WARNING: The following link is to an attorney's website and might be considered advertising. Mods, please remove if this violates any of your policies.
https://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/trespass.html#definition
I think that's an excellent link, directly pertinent to the discussion ,with an expert and informed explanation. Thanks for providing it: I don't think it's spam or unwanted advertising at all.
Quote: DRichAccording to this link the casino can file a trespass charge with the police after letting the patron go. It is then up to the District Attorney if they wan to pursue it or not.
WARNING: The following link is to an attorney's website and might be considered advertising. Mods, please remove if this violates any of your policies.
https://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/trespass.html#definition
Silly talk, none of this matters when you understand “Wilkerson vs”.
But it is interesting reading, Thanks DR!
Quote: BozSilly talk, none of this matters when you understand “Wilkerson vs”.
But it is interesting reading, Thanks DR!
You cannot be trespassed for counting legally in vegas and most likely the rest of the country. Thats why no one ever gets arrested upon return. So none of this trespass talk matters.
Quote: BozSilly talk, none of this matters when you understand “Wilkerson vs”.
But it is interesting reading, Thanks DR!
Agreed
Best advice on the site is hire an attorney
I understand the idea of an invite as evidence you are not trespassing but casino mail is notoriously one to two months behind
Getting trespassed april 5th and then you receive an invite to same casino in may is an iffy proposition at best if trying to claim this
Quote: ZenKinGYou cannot be trespassed for counting legally in vegas and most likely the rest of the country. Thats why no one ever gets arrested upon return. So none of this trespass talk matters.
Over/under on when ZK (and no, I don't wish this upon you) gets his first room at the CCDC?
How about providing a link to a credible source of some kind ? Or simply say that "a guy at the bus stop told me". Or whatever the case may be.Quote: ZenKinGYou cannot be trespassed for counting legally in vegas and most likely the rest of the country.
Quote: billryanI'd love if you could have ZK on ,as well, so Bob could dissuade him from his new path of trying to get rich off casino policies. I imagine Bob would enjoy destroying stupid theories one after the other and would make for entertaining radio.
Can I pick them, or what?
Quote: BozSilly talk, none of this matters when you understand “Wilkerson vs”. But it is interesting reading, Thanks DR!
Don't thank that interloper, thank me: I found the link and posted it earlier today, he simply reposted it.
Give credit where credit is due. :)
Quote: MrVDon't thank that interloper, thank me: I found the link and posted it earlier today, he simply reposted it.
Give credit where credit is due. :)
V, I give you more credit than you ever will know.
Quote: ZenKinGYou cannot be trespassed for counting legally in vegas and most likely the rest of the country. Thats why no one ever gets arrested upon return. So none of this trespass talk matters.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
Casinos can trespass you just for "you're too good for us." They don't need more of a reason than that.
I can hardly wait for you to argue, "You can't trespass me. I'm legally counting cards!" I'm sure that argument will go a long way with the head of security.
Quote: BobDancerI'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
Casinos can trespass you just for "you're too good for us." They don't need more of a reason than that.
I can hardly wait for you to argue, "You can't trespass me. I'm legally counting cards!" I'm sure that argument will go a long way with the head of security.
The precedent was already set in the Wilkinson vs the State of Nevada court case decades ago amd was decided upon appeal. Casinos must give you the right to leave each and every time if no crime was ever committed and you werent being disorderly or disruptive. Thats why NRS 463.0129 is written the way it is and that gaming establishments must remain open to the public and not be restricted in any way. People get confused with the casinos ability to 'exclude at will' such as what was decided in the Slade vs Caesars court case that was decided in 2016, but thats a backoff NOT a Trespass. You can backoff at will, but you cannot trespass at will.
Not to mention the whole statute violates the void for vagueness doctrine and if it ever went to the Supreme Court, it would be thrown out because it is unconstitutional on its face. We all know what we can do with an unconstitutional statute, right? Simply ignore it as if its never been written. American Jurisprudence will tell you that.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256
Quote: ZenKinGThe precedent was already set in the Wilkinson vs the State of Nevada court case decades ago amd was decided upon appeal. Casinos must give you the right to leave each and every time if no crime was ever committed and you werent being disorderly or disruptive. Thats why NRS 463.0129 is written the way it is and that gaming establishments must remain open to the public and not be restricted in any way. People get confused with the casinos ability to 'exclude at will' such as what was decided in the Slade vs Caesars court case that was decided in 2016, but thats a backoff NOT a Trespass. You can backoff at will, but you cannot trespass at will.
Not to mention the whole statute violates the void for vagueness doctrine and if it ever went to the Supreme Court, it would be thrown out because it is unconstitutional on its face. We all know what we can do with an unconstitutional statute, right? Simply ignore it as if its never been written. American Jurisprudence will tell you that.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256
I believe you both are correct. But zenking i think you are confusing right to trespass with right to detain
In your example you are still trespassed for a prior reason but they cant detain you without giving you a chance to leave on your own
The confusion is time limit for your return. Certainly if you come back five minutes later they now have the right to detain you for non-compliance.
But is one day safe? A week? Month? Etc. A good question for Nersessian i suppose
Quote: darkoz
Getting trespassed april 5th and then you receive an invite to same casino in may is an iffy proposition at best if trying to claim this
Wasn’t there a GWAE recently where someone told their story of how a casino literally invited someone to come and enter a slot tournament with the intent to actually detain them upon arrival?
Quote: hitthat16Wasn’t there a GWAE recently where someone told their story of how a casino literally invited someone to come and enter a slot tournament with the intent to actually detain them upon arrival?
If thats true they wouldnt have a case. Even the police cannot do entrapment
Quote: darkozIf thats true they wouldnt have a case. Even the police cannot do entrapment
I don't think you understand. The police were trying to find people who already had warrants out for their arrest. They were not trying to entrap them in a new crime. If I recall.....
Quote: SOOPOOI don't think you understand. The police were trying to find people who already had warrants out for their arrest. They were not trying to entrap them in a new crime. If I recall.....
You're right i didnt understand
I thought the casino was trying to get people arrested for trespassing by purposefully inviting them to slot tourneys
I have heard of this police tactic before. In nyc its usually complimentary baseball tickets
Quote: darkozYou're right i didnt understand
I thought the casino was trying to get people arrested for trespassing by purposefully inviting them to slot tourneys
I have heard of this police tactic before. In nyc its usually complimentary baseball tickets
PA has done the "You won a free TV" game before. But the best, or worst one they ever did was on I-78 headed to NY they put up a road sign saying Drug Checkpoint 2 Miles ahead. Obviously they cannot do a checkpoint for drugs, however they did get the cars that illegally made a U-Turn in the middle of the road. Which opened them up for vehicle inspection. I believe some did contest for entrapment but lost.
I have seen checkpoints for drunk drivers. Similar but different I guess.Quote: Bozon I-78 headed to NY they put up a road sign saying Drug Checkpoint 2 Miles ahead. Obviously they cannot do a checkpoint for drugs, however they did get the cars that illegally made a U-Turn in the middle of the road.
Quote: BozPA has done the "You won a free TV" game before. But the best, or worst one they ever did was on I-78 headed to NY they put up a road sign saying Drug Checkpoint 2 Miles ahead. Obviously they cannot do a checkpoint for drugs, however they did get the cars that illegally made a U-Turn in the middle of the road. Which opened them up for vehicle inspection. I believe some did contest for entrapment but lost.
Stay in Florida long enough and you'll run into a drug interdiction checkpoint.
Quote: billryanStay in Florida long enough and you'll run into a drug interdiction checkpoint.
Almost 50 years, never seen one. DUI checkpoint yes.
Quote: DeMangoAlmost 50 years, never seen one. DUI checkpoint yes.
Used to run into them all the time coming from the Keys. DEA manned interdiction points. I don't spend much time in Florida after the ECW PPV disaster so I can't speak to what goes on these days.
Quote: billryanUsed to run into them all the time coming from the Keys. DEA manned interdiction points. I don't spend much time in Florida after the ECW PPV disaster so I can't speak to what goes on these days.
Wait? The ECW PPV disaster? I never heard that one from you. Is that the old Heyman wrestling group?
Remember the story from Silverado where one minute ,everyone is sitting around the campfire all friendly and the next everyone but one guy has their guns out and pointed at him. That guy would be me.
Success has a million fathers. Failure is a bastard. Strange thing was financially the show was a resounding success. Tactically, not so much.
Quote: billryanYes. Pauly wanted to do a PPV in Ft Lauderdale, circa 1997/98 and as he had no experience/connections down there, turned to a friend of mine for help. He, in turn, turned to me.
Remember the story from Silverado where one minute ,everyone is sitting around the campfire all friendly and the next everyone but one guy has their guns out and pointed at him. That guy would be me.
Success has a million fathers. Failure is a bastard. Strange thing was financially the show was a resounding success. Tactically, not so much.
Thanks for sharing. Amazing he hung in there for a couple more years, of course most of his guys weren’t getting paid.
Quote: BobDancerOn Wednesday April 11, Richard and I will be taping a one-hour interview show with attorney Bob Nersesian, to be posted the following day.
We solicit your questions for Nersesian
Please bring up the legality of a trespass in Nevada without cause. Yes, bob has talked about Slade vs Caesars, but after dissecting that court case, the judge completely misapplied NRS 463.0129. You cannot 'exclude at will'. You can only exclude from 'gaming activities'. And you can only 'eject' someone from the premises(backoff).
Also please bring up the legality of the preferential shuffling, which violates NRS 465.015 since they are altering the elements of chance, the result of the game, and the frequency of payments.
NRS 465.015 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
“Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
Preferential shuffling violates subsection (a) and (b) as it alters the result of the game and the frequency of payment due to more blackjacks that I wouldve received had they not shuffled up on me in a hot shoe.
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature
3. This section does not ․ [a]brogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.
Here is the main problem. EXCLUDE from GAMING ACTIVITIES, NOT the whole property in itself. EJECTING from premises is a backoff, not a trespass. No where does it say casinos can EXCLUDE YOU FROM THEIR PREMISES, IT SAYS 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'
But the judge misused the statute in the court case and said they can EXCLUDE you for ANY REASON, but no where in the statute does it say they can exclude you from their premises for ANY REASON, only from GAMING ACTIVITIES.
You cannot trespass someone without cause legally in nevada and the more i dig into it, the more i make my case. The judge completely misused NRS 463.0129 in the Slade Case. You cannot EXCLUDE at will(trespass), you can only EJECT at will(backoff). NRS 463.0129 does not say casinos can EXCLUDE at will, but instead says EXCLUDE from 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'.
To EXCLUDE at WILL from a business open to the public would be completely unconstitutional. The State of Nevada vs Wilkinson already discussed what happens if a casino tries to trespass you without cause and they ruled its unconstitutional. They can exclude you from gaming activities but not excluding you from their premises. They can only eject you from the premises, which is a backoff.
If the Slade case allows casinos to exclude at will, why was NRS 463.0129 not amended to fit that description? Why does it still ONLY SAY exclude from 'gaming activities' as well as eject(backoff) from the premises? Why doesnt NRS 463.0129 say they can exclude at will?
Hmmm
Quote: ZenKinGHere is the major problem with the Slade vs Caesars case that will cause this deciding case to be challenged once again. The judge consistently referred to NRS 463.0129 and the 2 main points of that statute referred to were section E and Paragraph 3
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature
3. This section does not ․ [a]brogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.
Here is the main problem. EXCLUDE from GAMING ACTIVITIES, NOT the whole property in itself. EJECTING from premises is a backoff, not a trespass. No where does it say casinos can EXCLUDE YOU FROM THEIR PREMISES, IT SAYS 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'
But the judge misused the statute in the court case and said they can EXCLUDE you for ANY REASON, but no where in the statute does it say they can exclude you from their premises for ANY REASON, only from GAMING ACTIVITIES.
You cannot trespass someone without cause legally in nevada and the more i dig into it, the more i make my case. The judge completely misused NRS 463.0129 in the Slade Case. You cannot EXCLUDE at will(trespass), you can only EJECT at will(backoff). NRS 463.0129 does not say casinos can EXCLUDE at will, but instead says EXCLUDE from 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'.
To EXCLUDE at WILL from a business open to the public would be completely unconstitutional. The State of Nevada vs Wilkinson already discussed what happens if a casino tries to trespass you without cause and they ruled its unconstitutional. This is why NRS 463.0129 is written the way it is. They can exclude you from gaming activities but not excluding you from their premises. They can only eject you from the premises, which is a backoff.
Let's say you are 100% correct. What does it get you? So now you can go to the buffet in the casino but not play BJ there? Is that a win for you? I just don't understand why this matters more than a pimple on your ass to you?
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: ZenKinGHere is the major problem with the Slade vs Caesars case that will cause this deciding case to be challenged once again. The judge consistently referred to NRS 463.0129 and the 2 main points of that statute referred to were section E and Paragraph 3
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature
3. This section does not ․ [a]brogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.
Here is the main problem. EXCLUDE from GAMING ACTIVITIES, NOT the whole property in itself. EJECTING from premises is a backoff, not a trespass. No where does it say casinos can EXCLUDE YOU FROM THEIR PREMISES, IT SAYS 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'
But the judge misused the statute in the court case and said they can EXCLUDE you for ANY REASON, but no where in the statute does it say they can exclude you from their premises for ANY REASON, only from GAMING ACTIVITIES.
You cannot trespass someone without cause legally in nevada and the more i dig into it, the more i make my case. The judge completely misused NRS 463.0129 in the Slade Case. You cannot EXCLUDE at will(trespass), you can only EJECT at will(backoff). NRS 463.0129 does not say casinos can EXCLUDE at will, but instead says EXCLUDE from 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'.
To EXCLUDE at WILL from a business open to the public would be completely unconstitutional. The State of Nevada vs Wilkinson already discussed what happens if a casino tries to trespass you without cause and they ruled its unconstitutional. This is why NRS 463.0129 is written the way it is. They can exclude you from gaming activities but not excluding you from their premises. They can only eject you from the premises, which is a backoff.
Let's say you are 100% correct. What does it get you? So now you can go to the buffet in the casino but not play BJ there? Is that a win for you? I just don't understand why this matters more than a pimple on your ass to you?
Ill be able to sneak onto the games without being threatened to be arrested.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think that's an excellent link, directly pertinent to the discussion ,with an expert and informed explanation. Thanks for providing it: I don't think it's spam or unwanted advertising at all.
I agree 100%. Links are fine as long as the intent is educational and it is relevant to the topic at hand. In fact, I applaud siting sources.
Quote: ZenKinGQuote: SOOPOOQuote: ZenKinGHere is the major problem with the Slade vs Caesars case that will cause this deciding case to be challenged once again. The judge consistently referred to NRS 463.0129 and the 2 main points of that statute referred to were section E and Paragraph 3
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature
3. This section does not ․ [a]brogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.
Here is the main problem. EXCLUDE from GAMING ACTIVITIES, NOT the whole property in itself. EJECTING from premises is a backoff, not a trespass. No where does it say casinos can EXCLUDE YOU FROM THEIR PREMISES, IT SAYS 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'
But the judge misused the statute in the court case and said they can EXCLUDE you for ANY REASON, but no where in the statute does it say they can exclude you from their premises for ANY REASON, only from GAMING ACTIVITIES.
You cannot trespass someone without cause legally in nevada and the more i dig into it, the more i make my case. The judge completely misused NRS 463.0129 in the Slade Case. You cannot EXCLUDE at will(trespass), you can only EJECT at will(backoff). NRS 463.0129 does not say casinos can EXCLUDE at will, but instead says EXCLUDE from 'GAMING ACTIVITIES'.
To EXCLUDE at WILL from a business open to the public would be completely unconstitutional. The State of Nevada vs Wilkinson already discussed what happens if a casino tries to trespass you without cause and they ruled its unconstitutional. This is why NRS 463.0129 is written the way it is. They can exclude you from gaming activities but not excluding you from their premises. They can only eject you from the premises, which is a backoff.
Let's say you are 100% correct. What does it get you? So now you can go to the buffet in the casino but not play BJ there? Is that a win for you? I just don't understand why this matters more than a pimple on your ass to you?
Ill be able to sneak onto the games without being threatened to be arrested.
My educated guess is you won’t be sneaking in anywhere much longer without an elaborate disguise. And it will be everyone’s fault but yours.
Bob towards the end says casinos can trespass you however they want without reading you a card etc, which I agree with since there is nothing in the statutes that says anything has to be formal, but he also forgot to mention that they cannot trespass you without cause from a business open to the public since that is completely unconstitutional, violates the Wilkinson precedent, and also violates NRS 463.0129. This very statute does give the authorty to casinos to exclude you but ONLY from 'gaming activities' and to EJECT you from the premises. Otherwise, gaming establishments must remain open to the public and not be restricted in any way. Keep in mind that the legal definition of eject means to remove you or throw out, not to BAR or TRESPASS someone fron returning. For a casino to trespass you without cause would not only be unconstitutional but would violate NRS 463.0129 as well as the Wilkinson court case that says you must be causing a distutbance or be disorderl. It's not a coincidence that whrn card counters come back, they are just told to leave each time without being arrested. Everything I said above explains why.
Also the thing about preferential shuffling, i just dont understand how a court can say it doesnt violate the cheating statute on the books for each state, especially Nevada, and claim the casinos can countermeasure you. Thats a complete contradiction. Are we a country of laws or not? The Nevada statute clearly says you cannot alter the odds of the game and the frequency of payment. In a hot shoe youre doing both of those by shuffling up.
Quote: ZenKinGAfter listening to the podcast today, a couple things pop out to me. First off, according to the trespass statute as Bob alluded, to 207.200, the owner or occupant must be the one warning you not to come back. The person at SLS who trespassed me was a security guard after being told by a black suit to trespass me.
Perhaps it could be argued the security guard was an "occupant."
Quote:Bob towards the end says casinos can trespass you however they want without reading you a card etc, which I agree since there is nothing in the statute that says anything has to be formal, but he also forgot to mention that they cannot trespass you without cause from a business open to the public since that is completely unconstitutional and also violates NRS 463.0129. This very statute does give the authorty to casinos to exclude you but ONLY from 'gaming activities' and to EJECT you from the premises. Otherwise, gaming establishments must remain open to the public and not be restricted in any way. Keep in mind that the legal definition of eject means to remove you or throw out, not to BAR or TRESPASS someone fron returning. For a casino to trespass you without cause would not only be unconstitutional but would violate NRS 463.0129 as well as the Wilkinson court case that says you must be causing a distutbance or be disorderl. It's not a coincidence that whrn card counters come back, they are just told to leave each time without being arrested. Everything I said above explains why.
Quote: NRS 463.0129
Public policy of state concerning gaming; license or approval revocable privilege.
1. The Legislature hereby finds, and declares to be the public policy of this state, that:
(a) The gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the State and the general welfare of the inhabitants.
(b) The continued growth and success of gaming is dependent upon public confidence and trust that licensed gaming and the manufacture, sale and distribution of gaming devices and associated equipment are conducted honestly and competitively, that establishments which hold restricted and nonrestricted licenses where gaming is conducted and where gambling devices are operated do not unduly impact the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, that the rights of the creditors of licensees are protected and that gaming is free from criminal and corruptive elements.
(c) Public confidence and trust can only be maintained by strict regulation of all persons, locations, practices, associations and activities related to the operation of licensed gaming establishments, the manufacture, sale or distribution of gaming devices and associated equipment and the operation of inter-casino linked systems.
(d) All establishments where gaming is conducted and where gaming devices are operated, and manufacturers, sellers and distributors of certain gaming devices and equipment, and operators of inter-casino linked systems must therefore be licensed, controlled and assisted to protect the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the inhabitants of the State, to foster the stability and success of gaming and to preserve the competitive economy and policies of free competition of the State of Nevada.
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature.
2. No applicant for a license or other affirmative commission approval has any right to a license or the granting of the approval sought. Any license issued or other commission approval granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or chapter 464 of NRS is a revocable privilege, and no holder acquires any vested right therein or thereunder.
3. This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason; or
(b) Prohibit a licensee from establishing minimum wagers for any gambling game or slot machine.
How does trespassing people non-gambling reasons violate the above? I suppose you're referring to part 1(e), but I assume as "provided by the Legislature," they can exclude whoever they want, as long as the reason isn't discrimination. Are the casinos supposed to be powerless to keep out thieves and other criminals?
Your idealism is very strong, but sometimes you have to accept that you live in the real world.
Quote:Also the thing about preferential shuffling, i just dont understand how a court can say it doesnt violate the cheating statute on the books for each state, especially Nevada, and claim the casinos can countermeasure you. Thats a complete contradiction. Are we a country of laws or not? The statute clearly sayd you cant alter the odds of the game and the frequency of payment. In a hot shoe youre doing both of those by shuffling up.
I already responded to this point.
Quote: Wizard
Quote: NRS 463.0129
Public policy of state concerning gaming; license or approval revocable privilege.
1. The Legislature hereby finds, and declares to be the public policy of this state, that:
(a) The gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the State and the general welfare of the inhabitants.
(b) The continued growth and success of gaming is dependent upon public confidence and trust that licensed gaming and the manufacture, sale and distribution of gaming devices and associated equipment are conducted honestly and competitively, that establishments which hold restricted and nonrestricted licenses where gaming is conducted and where gambling devices are operated do not unduly impact the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, that the rights of the creditors of licensees are protected and that gaming is free from criminal and corruptive elements.
(c) Public confidence and trust can only be maintained by strict regulation of all persons, locations, practices, associations and activities related to the operation of licensed gaming establishments, the manufacture, sale or distribution of gaming devices and associated equipment and the operation of inter-casino linked systems.
(d) All establishments where gaming is conducted and where gaming devices are operated, and manufacturers, sellers and distributors of certain gaming devices and equipment, and operators of inter-casino linked systems must therefore be licensed, controlled and assisted to protect the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the inhabitants of the State, to foster the stability and success of gaming and to preserve the competitive economy and policies of free competition of the State of Nevada.
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature.
2. No applicant for a license or other affirmative commission approval has any right to a license or the granting of the approval sought. Any license issued or other commission approval granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or chapter 464 of NRS is a revocable privilege, and no holder acquires any vested right therein or thereunder.
3. This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason; or
(b) Prohibit a licensee from establishing minimum wagers for any gambling game or slot machine.
How does trespassing people non-gambling reasons violate the above? Are the casinos supposed to be powerless to keep out thieves and other criminals? I would hazard a guess that most trespasses are for non-gambling reasons, like vagrancy, theft, and prostitution.
It violates it because no where in the statute says they can exclude you from non gambling activities. It clearly says from 'gaming activities'. They do have the power to 'eject' you at will and tell you to leave, but that is completely different. The way they would handle things like theft is they would eject them and then inform the police to take over the incident.
To trespass or exclude someone at will from a business open to the public is completely unconstitutional as the judge in the Wilkinson case ruled on.
Regarding SLS and the security guard, i dont think that can be argued that they are an occupant. Bob mentioned many times the difference between a security guard, an occupant, and an owner. Just more intimidation from casinos. Casinos and security are very similar to the police. They are specifically trained to scare you into giving up your rights.
Quote: HunterhillI would guess that the security guard is acting as an agent of the owner or occupant,otherwise you really think Steve Wynn has to be the one to trespass you from a Wynn property or Sheldon from the Venetian.
Yes i do. Being an 'agent' of an owner or occupant isnt exactly the same thing. We're a country of laws right? Read the law and tell me what it says. Laws are to be read in plain english and to mean exactly what it says.
Quote: ZenKinGIt violates it because no where in the statute says they can exclude you from non gambling activities. It clearly says from 'gaming activities'. They do have the power to 'eject' you at will and tell you to leave, but that is completely different. The way they would handle things like theft is they would eject them and then inform the police to take over the incident.
Just because it says they can trespass you for "gaming activities," doesn't mean they can't trespass you for other reasons.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'm pretty sure the law says that casinos are defined legally like private organizations, as opposed to a public-facing business, which gives them a longer leash to welcome and exclude whoever they wish, again so long as it doesn't violate any laws against discrimination.
Quote: WizardJust because it says they can trespass you for "gaming activities," doesn't mean they can't trespass you for other reasons.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'm pretty sure the law says that casinos are defined legally like private organizations, as opposed to a public-facing business, which gives them a longer leash to welcome and exclude whoever they wish, again so long as it doesn't violate any laws against discrimination.
We'll agree to disagree. While they might be regarded as a private business, they also fall under 'gaming establishments' which has its own sets of rules and laws they must follow as well.
You mention discrimination. Thats why i say they cannot trespass you or exclude you from their establishment without cause because that could fall under discrimination, which the Wilkinson judge ruled is unconstitutional if it's without cause.
Quote: ZenKinGBob towards the end says casinos can trespass you however they want without reading you a card etc, which I agree with since there is nothing in the statutes that says anything has to be formal, but he also forgot to mention that they cannot trespass you without cause from a business open to the public since that is completely unconstitutional, violates the Wilkinson precedent, and also violates NRS 463.0129.
LOL, oh but this is rich.
He dares to challenge the legal acumen of B.N., probably the foremost "gamblers' lawyer" in the land.
Dilly dilly.
Quote: MrVDilly dilly.
Why is everybody suddenly saying "dilly dilly?" Is it a reference to Cinderella?
Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Aqr0ume_M
Upon further research, the song Lavender's Blue is an old English song that made it's way into the Cinderella movie. Source:
Wikipedia.
