Boz
Boz 
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5373
April 7th, 2018 at 12:42:04 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

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.



Wait? The ECW PPV disaster? I never heard that one from you. Is that the old Heyman wrestling group?
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 7372
April 7th, 2018 at 2:11:54 PM permalink
Yes. 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.
Boz
Boz 
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5373
April 7th, 2018 at 6:41:17 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

Yes. 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.
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 7372
April 7th, 2018 at 7:17:25 PM permalink
Most of the guys in ECW would have worked for free. With the exception of some established stars like Sabu, most of the talent worked for peanuts. I was stunned when I saw him hand Perry Saturn a $100 bill and remind him that that was for tonite and an advance on tomorrows card. Somebody( Taz,maybe) had a relative with a connection to a funeral parlor and they used to fly to matches using condolence fares obtained with letters from the funeral parlor. Flying down to the show, I sat behind Bubba Ray, Devon and Big Dick Dudley, all squished into one row in coach.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
April 10th, 2018 at 6:14:09 AM permalink
Quote: BobDancer

On 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.
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Apr 10, 2018
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
April 10th, 2018 at 7:15:51 AM permalink
Here 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. 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
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Apr 10, 2018
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 5575
April 10th, 2018 at 7:49:02 AM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

Here 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?
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
April 10th, 2018 at 7:57:18 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: ZenKinG

Here 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.
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1196
  • Posts: 19962
April 10th, 2018 at 8:13:07 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

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.



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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Boz
Boz 
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5373
April 10th, 2018 at 8:28:43 AM permalink
Quote: ZenKinG

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: ZenKinG

Here 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.

  • Jump to: