mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3163
January 13th, 2015 at 12:24:19 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

AP players are not a protected class. Nor should they be.

AP players engage in behavior that makes them liable to be banned. In no way is it the same as ethnicity.


This could have been resolved by the gaming commission if this was about the "stolen" chips. He wanted a lawsuit.

Illegal detainment (essentially kidnapping) and a legal barring are two different things entirely.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5552
January 13th, 2015 at 12:35:44 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

AP players are not a protected class. Nor should they be.


Why don't we deserve the same rights as every other casino patron... for doing nothing more than using our brain???

Quote: Gandler

AP players engage in behavior that makes them liable to be banned. In no way is it the same as ethnicity.


Behavior that makes them liable to be banned... like using their brains lol, or worst yet, winning! WHAT SCUMBAGS! Re-read my message, I didn't say ethnicity was equal to APing, just that both were having their rights violated and chose to exploit that for all to see (countering your "he knew he wasn't welcome!" argument).

Quote: Gandler

This could have been resolved by the gaming commission if this was about the "stolen" chips. He wanted a lawsuit.


Yes, perhaps if when the player requested the casino call gaming they DID call gaming perhaps this could have been resolved. Instead they tried to steal his chips, and as he was leaving they decided to illegally detain him and call the local police. Again, the casino management is astoundingly moronic.

100% sure you're affiliated with CET at this point.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 270
  • Posts: 9552
January 13th, 2015 at 12:39:12 PM permalink
In fact, at this point I am only responding to Gandler because I find his answers hilarious and his specious arguments worth eliciting for the outright humor of it all.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1593
January 13th, 2015 at 12:53:08 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

In fact, at this point I am only responding to Gandler because I find his answers hilarious and his specious arguments worth eliciting for the outright humor of it all.



It's funny that you mock me, you have made more factually incorrect statements than me...

We will see when the video gets released who's side is right. I am willing to bet he was not "trying" to leave. He was probably acting like a jack wagon arguing with security, not obeying their orders.
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
January 13th, 2015 at 12:55:32 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

In fact, at this point I am only responding to Gandler because I find his answers hilarious and his specious arguments worth eliciting for the outright humor of it all.


I got my new sig out of it, so the discussion wasn't totally useless.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 270
  • Posts: 9552
January 13th, 2015 at 1:05:06 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

It's funny that you mock me, you have made more factually incorrect statements than me...

We will see when the video gets released who's side is right. I am willing to bet he was not "trying" to leave. He was probably acting like a jack wagon arguing with security, not obeying their orders.



I stated that chips were bearer bonds and then admitted my error when examining Nevada statutes. There is nothing wrong with being mistaken and admitting to your error.

However, making statements that video tape which no one has seen will prove this guy was arguing with security, and trying to claim that a casino which violates not only the civil rights of this person, but violates actual Nevada statutes in the handling of this case is the proper thing to do is worth mocking.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1593
January 13th, 2015 at 1:10:32 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

I stated that chips were bearer bonds and then admitted my error when examining Nevada statutes. There is nothing wrong with being mistaken and admitting to your error.

However, making statements that video tape which no one has seen will prove this guy was arguing with security, and trying to claim that a casino which violates not only the civil rights of this person, but violates actual Nevada statutes in the handling of this case is the proper thing to do is worth mocking.



Unless you know this man or were there, You are doing nothing but speculating.

You are taking the word of one man with a bad history.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 270
  • Posts: 9552
January 13th, 2015 at 1:33:09 PM permalink
Gandler, I happen to have a lawsuit and Robert Nersessian is representing me so I can tell you from experience that there are a few steps involved prior to filing the suit.

The first step is a letter of intent sent to the casino to see if they are willing to settle amicably AND to see if they refute the testimony of the litigant.

In my case, for example, Bob stated what I told him in the letter and stated that to the best knowledge he has without ordering a view of the tapes, that he is intent on bringing the case forward.

The reply he got from the casino, in my case, was that the events (not hearsay but what the tapes will show) match what I told him.

Based on their standing their ground, there will now be the first filing of paperwork. But the important thing(particularly to Bob) was that the casino did not say I made up any of the torts in question--that they actually did occur. I won't discuss what they were since the suit is about to move forward.

I am certain, that had the events in question not happened in this other case with CET, that would have been stated by CET in their response to Bob and he would have hesitated before going to the court and filing first motions.

I have not seen the tapes, nor at this moment, I'm sure, has Bob. Only the casino has, but I am certain they have had their chance to refute or argue that other things occurred on those tapes and that by their not refuting what happened, this case is moving forward.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1593
January 13th, 2015 at 2:32:46 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Gandler, I happen to have a lawsuit and Robert Nersessian is representing me so I can tell you from experience that there are a few steps involved prior to filing the suit.

The first step is a letter of intent sent to the casino to see if they are willing to settle amicably AND to see if they refute the testimony of the litigant.

In my case, for example, Bob stated what I told him in the letter and stated that to the best knowledge he has without ordering a view of the tapes, that he is intent on bringing the case forward.

The reply he got from the casino, in my case, was that the events (not hearsay but what the tapes will show) match what I told him.

Based on their standing their ground, there will now be the first filing of paperwork. But the important thing(particularly to Bob) was that the casino did not say I made up any of the torts in question--that they actually did occur. I won't discuss what they were since the suit is about to move forward.

I am certain, that had the events in question not happened in this other case with CET, that would have been stated by CET in their response to Bob and he would have hesitated before going to the court and filing first motions.

I have not seen the tapes, nor at this moment, I'm sure, has Bob. Only the casino has, but I am certain they have had their chance to refute or argue that other things occurred on those tapes and that by their not refuting what happened, this case is moving forward.



You say if somebody is allegedly involved with CET they may have a bias?

And having a lawsuit against CET does not give you a bias?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 270
  • Posts: 9552
January 13th, 2015 at 3:06:52 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

You say if somebody is allegedly involved with CET they may have a bias?

And having a lawsuit against CET does not give you a bias?



Forget it, Gandler. You don't read posts or you are unable to understand what you read.

I never said I had a lawsuit against CET. I said I have a lawsuit against a particular casino. It happens to not be a CET property.

And I mentioned nothing about Bias in that post. I discussed the rational procedure that is done by Bob and probably (hopefully) most litigation attorneys, at least those who have legitimate ethics in mind.

Since you keep refusing to actually digest most of the posts from the people on here, there is no point in discussing this further. The great thing is, you will not be on this jury and this plaintiff will most likely receive a fair trial as a result.

Edit: I will give you the courtesy that after re-reading my earlier post, perhaps it was not clear that I was referring back to the original poster when I mentioned the CET case. That cloudiness notwithstanding, you still refuse to digest the facts. I presented the methodology of the attorney representing both myself and the subject of the original post and you simply ignore everything that does not suit you. So, once again, I am not replying any further on this thread, at least not to you.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee

  • Jump to: