card counter sues planet hollywood
Quote: GandlerWhat about somebody carrying reportable amounts of money?
What do you mean by "reportable amount of money"? If you're crossing borders, then OK. But if you're not crossing country borders, how much do you think is " reportable amount of money"?
Quote: sc15I think the only time you're obligated to stop for a receipt checker is at a place like costco / other stores that require a membership to shop there, since it's probably something you agreed to when you signed up for a membership.
But yeah, otherwise at a walmart they can't stop you to ask for a receipt.
I wonder what kind of settlement you might get if they try to illegally detain you at a walmart.
This is a common misconception.
You are not obligated to show a receipt at a place like costco that requires membership. Membership agreements do not supersede the U.S. Constitution. You can't sign away your basic rights.
What Costco can do is revoke your membership if you refuse to show your receipt. But they can't stop you without evidence of shoplifting, just like anywhere else.
Quote: RSWhat do you mean by "reportable amount of money"? If you're crossing borders, then OK. But if you're not crossing country borders, how much do you think is " reportable amount of money"?
Civil Asset Forfeiture seems to start applying at $5000.
As was previously noted, SARC's apply at $5000.
$5000 seems to be about the limit that a typical wallet will hold (your mileage may vary).
I'm gonna guess $5000.
Quote: DieterCivil Asset Forfeiture seems to start applying at $5000.
As was previously noted, SARC's apply at $5000.
$5000 seems to be about the limit that a typical wallet will hold (your mileage may vary).
I'm gonna guess $5000.
The day to day cops we hear about in stories are stopping people and seizing even a grand or two. The cops are in the theft business now.
However, I can speak from an experience I had in 2004. I had just landed at LAX when I was approached by FBI agents. It seemed suspicious I returned on a flight from New York with no luggage (I had apartments on both coasts and had clothing on either side.)
When they stopped me they asked if I had any illegal drugs, weapons, contraband or large sums of cash.
I hesitantly admitted that I had none of those except for a large amount of cash.
They asked how much.
I admitted I was carrying fifteen grand on me.
They laughed and said that was not a lot. They were looking for fifty grand or more.
I shrugged and asked them if the average person carries fifteen grand in their pockets and they admitted not too many people do but it was not what they were looking for. Then they said I was free to go because I was too honest to be a criminal!
Most of us don't carry anything with our SSN on it, at least some of us don't, well I don't....
I know my number by heart of course, but as I age, I have to actually think about what it is....
Is it required to prove your SSN is valid/yours to cash out $5000. or $10,000.usd? and what happens to foreigners?
You must not hit a lot of JPs or use it enough. Mine is burned into my memory.Quote: NokTangSSN
I know my number by heart of course, but as I age, I have to actually think about what it is....
If you give a fake SSN or one that doesn't match, you'll likely be 86'd from the casino the next time you're there.
Quote: NokTangRemain curious about the Social Security Number being required to cash out chips and I guess get large slot payoffs.
Most of us don't carry anything with our SSN on it, at least some of us don't, well I don't....
Out in the hinterlands, it is fairly common to have 2 forms of ID required to cash a $1200+ handpay.
For me, the easiest two forms are driver's license and social security card. Trivial to carry.
If you don't have them with you, they'll hold your prize at the cage until you can produce the ID, usually 30 or 90 days.
She had to call her supervisor before she would accept it. Even then the supervisor said, don't you have any other regular ID.
Quote: HunterhillI was out in the boonies once and gave my passport, the slot attendant said ,we need to have an official state issued iD.
She had to call her supervisor before she would accept it. Even then the supervisor said, don't you have any other regular ID.
Wow, in my eyes a passport would supersede any state ID.
Quote: terapinedWow, in my eyes a passport would supersede any state ID.
It depends on the usage.
To enter the country, yes, passport supersede state ID. But for casinos, they don't care about your citizenship, they do want to know your home address which is on state IDs, not on passport.
Quote: RS
If you give a fake SSN or one that doesn't match, you'll likely be 86'd from the casino the next time you're there.
I know casinos verify your SSN using your ID. If you gave a fake SSN, they will find out in seconds and you will not get your jackpot.
Quote: vendman1
I agree that he must be looking for/causing trouble.
Look this guy absolutely does not deserve to be harassed by management for card counting. I think we can all agree on that. I'm sure he'll get some kind of settlement (quietly, is the key) from Planet Hollywood, eventually.... and the lawyers will get a third. Good for him he was wronged, no question.
But his history of four detentions by CET security, in roughly a year, indicates a pattern of questionable behavior. This guy is clearly drawing attention to himself in some way. Then not handling the attention well when it comes. He needs to look in the mirror and figure out why he's been having so many issues. Otherwise his days of counting cards are severely limited.
Exactly my thoughts.
Something is wrong with this story.
They don't detain counters in AC. They shuffle up on you, "one-hand" you, and take other legal countermeasures, but the days of detaining counters are long over.
The fact that he was detained at THREE properties in 2013, and now had this issue at PH, shows that this guy is doing something non-standard which keeps getting him into trouble.
I am all for standing up for the victim at casinos where APs are abused, but this guy hardly seems like an innocent victim. It wouldn't surprise me if he's tried his best to bait CET to detain/arrest him multiple times, in attempt to sue them and hit a big payday.
How come no other card counters are reporting getting repeatedly detained at AC Caesars properties?
Quote: DanDruffbut the days of detaining counters are long over.
It has certainly never happened at Maryland Live, either.
It didn't happen to a buddy of mine a few months ago, either.
Regarding confiscating the chip, I still maintain that PH was probably allowed to do that. Again, I refer to the Nolan Dalla case. The MGM seized a $5,000 chip from him almost eight years ago and as far as I know still have not paid him for it or given it back. Unlike what somebody wrote, chips are not bearer instruments. It is my understanding they are casino property, yet which they still must honor as a debt for legitimate players.
I would also lay good odds that the PH gave the player a receipt for the chip, with the understanding they would pay him after he proved his age.
While I still maintain there are red flags that the player was lawsuit fishing, I think Nercesian wouldn't mind that me saying that he gets called all the time for advice on how to get backroomed for the purposes of filing a lawsuit. He strictly has nothing to do with such individuals. So, the case must have at least some merit. However, just because Nercesian took the case doesn't mean it is a slum dunk. I'm sure any attorney looks at the potential award and probability of winning before taking a case on contingency. If we assume a $600,000 award, 25% chance of winning, and a 1/3 contingency fee, Nercesian may have calculated that a $50,000 EV to him was enough to take the case.
One big difference between this and the Dalla case is that Dalla told Mgm he was given the chips by someone else. If I remember correctly.Quote: WizardAgain, I want to preface my remarks that I'm not an attorney and could be wrong about any of this.
Regarding confiscating the chip, I still maintain that PH was probably allowed to do that. Again, I refer to the Nolan Dalla case. The MGM seized a $5,000 chip from him almost eight years ago and as far as I know still have not paid him for it or given it back. Unlike what somebody wrote, chips are not bearer instruments. It is my understanding they are casino property, yet which they still must honor as a debt for legitimate players.
I would also lay good odds that the PH gave the player a receipt for the chip, with the understanding they would pay him after he proved his age.
While I still maintain there are red flags that the player was lawsuit fishing, I think Nercesian wouldn't mind that me saying that he gets called all the time for advice on how to get backroomed for the purposes of filing a lawsuit. He strictly has nothing to do with such individuals. So, the case must have at least some merit. However, just because Nercesian took the case doesn't mean it is a slum dunk. I'm sure any attorney looks at the potential award and probability of winning before taking a case on contingency. If we assume a $600,000 award, 25% chance of winning, and a 1/3 contingency fee, Nercesian may have calculated that a $50,000 EV to him was enough to take the case.
Quote: Wizardchips are not bearer instruments. It is my understanding they are casino property, yet which they still must honor as a debt for legitimate players.
$4975 in chips cannot include any $5000 chips.
According to the article, it would seem that Miller took his chips directly from the table to the cage. There should be no question if he was a player at the casino or not.
I believe the circumstances are significantly different between the two cases.
Quote: HunterhillOne big difference between this and the Dalla case is that Dalla told Mgm he was given the chips by someone else. If I remember correctly.
True. One regulation is that chips are supposed to be redeemed by the player himself. The MGM was enforcing this regulation.
Another regulation is that the casino enforce the gambling age and guard against structuring, meaning the same player making multiple transactions under $10,000 per day to avoid the CTR rule. Seems to me the PH could argue they were just following the rules. When the player wouldn't cooperate I speculate that the PH took the chip away until he did. It wouldn't surprise me if the PH plays this card in court -- that they had ever right to do what they did.
To me, the player has the better case about the back rooming. I think talk about seizing the chip is a red herring.
Quote: WizardIt wouldn't surprise me if the PH plays this card in court -- that they had ever right to do what they did.
Yes, but wasn't he unlawfully detained? I don't see how they can justify this part.
Quote: HunterhillOne big difference between this and the Dalla case is that Dalla told Mgm he was given the chips by someone else. If I remember correctly.
Yes.
I would imagine if you did in fact play in the pit, got your chips, etc. and didn't show ID. Then went to the cashier and asked for your ID, the pit would be able to verify if you were in fact playing. If you were playing in the pit, then you must be 21+, as it's their responsibility to ensure players are of age.
I suspect something like that happened in this case: Player plays BJ w/o showing ID, goes to the cage, refuses ID, tells cashier to call the BJ pit and verify he was playing, pit responds saying they want to see his ID (because they're suspect of him AP). Somewhere in the process the "You let me buy chips without an ID, but I can't cash them out without an ID?" came into play. At which point, the player wanted to contact gaming, but couldn't because he had no service near the cage (I get sh*tty service around that area too in PH), and when requested for gaming to be called, Planet Hollywood decided to "have none of this" and cuffed and back-roomed him. I suspect something like that happened.
Quote: WizardTrue. One regulation is that chips are supposed to be redeemed by the player himself. The MGM was enforcing this regulation.
Another regulation is that the casino enforce the gambling age and guard against structuring, meaning the same player making multiple transactions under $10,000 per day to avoid the CTR rule. Seems to me the PH could argue they were just following the rules. When the player wouldn't cooperate I speculate that the PH took the chip away until he did. It wouldn't surprise me if the PH plays this card in court -- that they had ever right to do what they did.
To me, the player has the better case about the back rooming. I think talk about seizing the chip is a red herring.
A CTR cannot be filed if the aggregate cash-in or cash-out (not combined sum, but each separate sum) is less than $10,000. However, a SAR(C) can be filed for anything suspicious -- but a photo ID is not required for a SAR(C) to be filed.
Quote: Dieter$4975 in chips cannot include any $5000 chips.
According to the article, it would seem that Miller took his chips directly from the table to the cage. There should be no question if he was a player at the casino or not.
I believe the circumstances are significantly different between the two cases.
Well, the denomination of the chips isn't the only thing when it comes to honoring them as a debt to legitimate players.
High denom chips obviously get checked out, but if there's something suspicious related to low denomination chips they can be confiscated too.
Like if you show up to the cage with $40 in blood soaked red chips and tell the cashier you just shot a guy for these, they probably won't cash you out.
Quote: sc15Like if you show up to the cage with $40 in blood soaked red chips and tell the cashier you just shot a guy for these, they probably won't cash you out.
Whole new meaning to "red-chipper".
Quote: WizardTrue. One regulation is that chips are supposed to be redeemed by the player himself. The MGM was enforcing this regulation.
Another regulation is that the casino enforce the gambling age and guard against structuring, meaning the same player making multiple transactions under $10,000 per day to avoid the CTR rule. Seems to me the PH could argue they were just following the rules. When the player wouldn't cooperate I speculate that the PH took the chip away until he did. It wouldn't surprise me if the PH plays this card in court -- that they had ever right to do what they did.
To me, the player has the better case about the back rooming. I think talk about seizing the chip is a red herring.
According to Nevada statutes casino chips are the property of the casino so they are not bearer bonds (which I mis-understood in an earlier post.)
The statutes dictate the chips are a debt owed to the patron.
They state they are only owed to patrons and therefore if it is recognized by the casino that a non-patron is attempting to cash them in, they are not allowed by statute to redeem the chip. That explains the Nolan Dalla case.
The statutes state the chips must be redeemed promptly by the casino.
They do not state that confiscation or refusal to redeem are appropriate means when attempting to age verify in fact, age verification is not a part of the chips and token section at all.
This means the casino had no legal right to confiscate the chips at the cashier for age verification and since it was obvious this person had just come from the blackjack tables, this meant they were obligated to redeem his chips promptly per state statute.
As pointed out earlier, statutes about obtaining sarcs or checking for structuring do not require identification per statute either.
I hardly see this part of the case as a red herring from a statute perspective. The casino violated statutes. End of story.
I wish I could copy and paste the regulations but they are in a pdf format and I only have a reader.
You can view them here.
http://gaming.nv.gov/index.aspx?page=51
Quote: darkozI wish I could copy and paste the regulations but they are in a pdf format and I only have a reader.
The PDF viewer built into Google Chrome may be helpful to your purposes, should you choose to use it.
Quote: darkozAccording to Nevada statutes casino chips are the property of the casino so they are not bearer bonds (which I mis-understood in an earlier post.)
The statutes dictate the chips are a debt owed to the patron.
They state they are only owed to patrons and therefore if it is recognized by the casino that a non-patron is attempting to cash them in, they are not allowed by statute to redeem the chip. That explains the Nolan Dalla case.
The statutes state the chips must be redeemed promptly by the casino.
They do not state that confiscation or refusal to redeem are appropriate means when attempting to age verify in fact, age verification is not a part of the chips and token section at all.
This means the casino had no legal right to confiscate the chips at the cashier for age verification and since it was obvious this person had just come from the blackjack tables, this meant they were obligated to redeem his chips promptly per state statute.
As pointed out earlier, statutes about obtaining sarcs or checking for structuring do not require identification per statute either.
I hardly see this part of the case as a red herring from a statute perspective. The casino violated statutes. End of story.
I wish I could copy and paste the regulations but they are in a pdf format and I only have a reader.
You can view them here.
I believe you are incorrect about the ID thing.
Successfully playing in the casino despite being underage does not guarantee one to be able to cash out winnings.
Simply put, the casino does not give up the right to ID you for age purposes just because one of their earlier employees was asleep at the switch and failed to do so.
What if a 10-year-old played blackjack, and somehow the clueless dealer didn't kick him out or ID him?
Are you saying that he could walk up to the cashier, cash out his chips, and refuse to show ID? No way.
Quote: DanDruffI believe you are incorrect about the ID thing.
Successfully playing in the casino despite being underage does not guarantee one to be able to cash out winnings.
Simply put, the casino does not give up the right to ID you for age purposes just because one of their earlier employees was asleep at the switch and failed to do so.
What if a 10-year-old played blackjack, and somehow the clueless dealer didn't kick him out or ID him?
Are you saying that he could walk up to the cashier, cash out his chips, and refuse to show ID? No way.
Nope that is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the casino must go by Nevada statute regarding chip payment and reimbursement period.
There is nothing in the regs that says payment may be confiscated or refused in order to do age verification.
Having read Bob Nersessian's book, he does not have to prove what if's, only that the regs were not followed. If the casino wants to argue the point you just made, then they can lobby for the regs to be changed in the future.
Here is another example. A ten year old puts money into a slot machine and wins a jackpot. The agent paying him is asleep at the wheel and pays him without age verification by issuing him a check. Should the check, after having been written have payment stopped because the proper procedure was not followed?
While the check should be stopped due to the child being underage, the regs state the proper time to ID was at the gaming level before the promise of debt (the check) was issued. The proper time to check for ID in this case, was also, in play at the gaming table.
It will be difficult to counter-argue why they chose not to notify gaming of the possibility of such an incident and instead, chose to confiscate the chips post-gaming.
Quote: onenickelmiracleSounds apparent the carding was not because of suspicion of age, but a means to gather information for other purposes. This area tends to be absurd reminding me of the South park episode where they think they can shoot anything as long as they yell, "it's coming right at me". It's a deficiency in regulations when casinos generally seem to be on the honor system taking advantage of their duty. Doubtful these things will ever change because the money will never flow enough to make it right.
He was 28 it could be because of age (it should be, they should ID everyone in their 20s).
It could also be because of the size of the money transaction.
CET gets blamed when they don't ID young people and they get blamed when they do. It must be a tricky position to be in.
Quote: GandlerHe was 28 it could be because of age (it should be, they should ID everyone in their 20s).
It could also be because of the size of the money transaction.
CET gets blamed when they don't ID young people and they get blamed when they do. It must be a tricky position to be in.
They legally have to ID someone to let them play. They legally, do not have to ID someone for CTR under $10k. That is more of an "internal casino policy." The ID is not required to receive "prompt" payment, and the employee protocol is to write down the best physical description of the patron for the purposes of keeping a daily total amount. He does not have to show ID, and at worse case, they have no right to keep his chips (which he clearly is the owner of since he just came from the pit).
Do you just ignore certain things posted because you want to?
I wish you would also stop ignoring this question: Are you a CET employee or do you have any ties to CET?
Quote: RomesThey legally have to ID someone to let them play. They legally, do not have to ID someone for CTR under $10k. That is more of an "internal casino policy." The ID is not required to receive "prompt" payment, and the employee protocol is to write down the best physical description of the patron for the purposes of keeping a daily total amount. He does not have to show ID, and at worse case, they have no right to keep his chips (which he clearly is the owner of since he just came from the pit).
Do you just ignore certain things posted because you want to?
I wish you would also stop ignoring this question: Are you a CET employee or do you have any ties to CET?
Yes, Gandler keeps ignoring the statutes and the posts that pertain to anything anti-CET.
He reminds me of the D.A. who in a recent case where a prosecution of rape was overturned by overwhelming DNA then stated, "This person could still have done it. Perhaps he wore a condom."
And yes, there is a D.A. who said that. Luckily, the judge followed the DNA results and let the guy out after 20 years anyway.
Quote: RomesThey legally have to ID someone to let them play. They legally, do not have to ID someone for CTR under $10k. That is more of an "internal casino policy." The ID is not required to receive "prompt" payment, and the employee protocol is to write down the best physical description of the patron for the purposes of keeping a daily total amount. He does not have to show ID, and at worse case, they have no right to keep his chips (which he clearly is the owner of since he just came from the pit).
No, CET is the owner of the chips.
He was in there to cause trouble, looking for a lawsuit. He received what he was looking for.
Quote:Do you just ignore certain things posted because you want to?
Yes.
Obviously that's BS. We know why it went down like this.
Looks like Gandler is either a CET employee or one of their fine lawyers. Perhaps Gary Loveman himself!
Quote: GandlerYes.
Seems trollish...or lawyerish...
No offense AoS
Quote: AxelWolfSince structuring is a crime I'm wondering if they can argue they had a right to detain him for that?.
Only if they can prove that's what he was doing...
Quote: GandlerHe was in there to cause trouble, looking for a lawsuit. He received what he was looking for.
This is one of your lesser intelligent comments you've been making. WHO CARES if he was "looking for trouble" so long as he wasn't doing anything illegal? Does that give the casino permission to break laws and violate his rights? NO.
It is my 100% opinion that you work for, or have some relation to CET... and it's quite obvious.
Quote: RomesOnly if they can prove that's what he was doing...
This is one of your lesser intelligent comments you've been making. WHO CARES if he was "looking for trouble" so long as he wasn't doing anything illegal? Does that give the casino permission to break laws and violate his rights? NO.
I care if he was looking for trouble. If he went into a casino where he knew he would likely get a cold reception because of past disputes, he knew and likely wanted what he was getting into. There are endless amounts of casinos in NV he could have tripped to, he chose to go to a CET casino. There is a reason for that.
You comment is the immature one. You are inferring lawsuit baiting is OK as long as it is legal. I disagree. He wanted a lawsuit. He wanted to cause trouble. This is not a hero. This is not a victim. This is somebody with an agenda, a predator devouring local businesses and destroying jobs.
He went in a casino where he knew his presence would cause drama. He cashed out just under 5k while 28 years old and refused to show ID and immediately made a scene demanding gaming officials to be called etc... The casino detained him and called the police.
CET acted properly to preserve the integrity of gaming transactions. We will see ultimately what the gaming commission states about the chips. But I will bet the crux of his lawsuit will focus on the supposed wrongful detainment, and not so much on the chips as that issue could be resolved without a lawsuit and likely would have been already...
There is a scene in the Rob Reiner classic movie 'Princess Bride', where the Mandy Patinkin character is sword fighting the villain (played by Christopher Guest). The Mandy Patinkin character has been stabbed multiple times and can barely hold himself up and near death, while the villain is unharmed. As the Mandy character attacks yet again, The villain says. "Oh my, are you still trying to win"? Maybe a better analogy would be the Monty python movie where the black knight has lost both his arms and legs and continues to fight. Lol.
That's you, Gandler. You are not winning this argument, you are not going to win this argument. As a matter of fact everyone is convinced you have ties to CET. More importantly CET is not going to win this case. The only question now is how the CET bankruptcy, which began with todays filings, will effect the defendants ability to collect on any kind of settlement reached?
Quote: GandlerI care if he was looking for trouble. If he went into a casino where he knew he would likely get a cold reception because of past disputes, he knew and likely wanted what he was getting into. There are endless amounts of casinos in NV he could have tripped to, he chose to go to a CET casino. There is a reason for that.
You comment is the immature one. You are inferring lawsuit baiting is OK as long as it is legal. I disagree. He wanted a lawsuit. He wanted to cause trouble. This is not a hero. This is not a victim. This is somebody with an agenda, a predator devouring local businesses and destroying jobs.
He went in a casino where he knew his presence would cause drama. He cashed out just under 5k while 28 years old and refused to show ID and immediately made a scene demanding gaming officials to be called etc... The casino detained him and called the police.
CET acted properly to preserve the integrity of gaming transactions. We will see ultimately what the gaming commission states about the chips. But I will bet the crux of his lawsuit will focus on the supposed wrongful detainment, and not so much on the chips as that issue could be resolved without a lawsuit and likely would have been already...
Lawsuit baiting _IS_ OK as long as it is legal. That's how the legal system works.
It's the casino's duty to not take the bait and do something illegal.
Don't bring any moral discussions into this. This has to do with lawyers and courts. Morals have no place here.
Quote: sc15Lawsuit baiting _IS_ OK as long as it is legal. That's how the legal system works.
No. It shows the character of a person who abuses the system. I have been a long proponent of reverse action lawsuits, where if somebody files a lawsuit that fails they have to pay that to the defendant.
Quote:It's the casino's duty to not take the bait and do something illegal.
So if I get drunk Jump your fence and fall into your pool and sue you for not havin a high enough fence (this has happened), I hope you keep the same logic....
Quote:Don't bring any moral discussions into this. This has to do with lawyers and courts. Morals have no place here.
I feel differently. But I am not a sellout to my values.
I hate lawsuits. And people who make a living baiting them. I feel not the slightest sympathy for this sham artist. I feel terrible for an honorable chaperone of responsible gaming such as CET have to struggle with such predators.
Quote: Gandler. I feel terrible for an honorable chaperone of responsible gaming such as CET have to struggle with such predators.
CET is the predator.
I pay all my bills.
I agreed to take out a mortgage and will pay that money back. Bank not worried, house worth way more then the outstanding balance.
I am an honorable person when it comes to owing money.
Will CET be honorable this year and pay what they owe ????
Quote: BozI never knew Gary Loveman had so much time on his hands to spend on this forum.
I lol'd.
Seriously though, whether or not this guy was purposefully trying to get a reaction, I hope he gets paid in accordance with the casino's misdeeds.
Quote: GandlerNo. It shows the character of a person who abuses the system. I have been a long proponent of reverse action lawsuits, where if somebody files a lawsuit that fails they have to pay that to the defendant.
So if I get drunk Jump your fence and fall into your pool and sue you for not havin a high enough fence (this has happened), I hope you keep the same logic....Quote:Don't bring any moral discussions into this. This has to do with lawyers and courts. Morals have no place here.
I feel differently. But I am not a sellout to my values.
I hate lawsuits. And people who make a living baiting them. I feel not the slightest sympathy for this sham artist. I feel terrible for an honorable chaperone of responsible gaming such as CET have to struggle with such predators.
You might want to move out of the US then, where being a lawyer is a great profession.
There's also IS exactly what you want for a "reverse action lawsuit." It's called malicious prosecution. And there's also countersuits.
Also, if someone broke onto my property and fell into my pool and it looks like a situation where I'd be facing a lawsuit (e.g. they have an obvious injury or they're already unconscious. A situation that wouldn't be resolved by just pulling them out and telling them to beat it.), I would wait for them to die before calling anybody. It's much cheaper to deal with a corpse than a living plaintiff with injuries. (If the person dies, you might get a negligence lawsuit and settle for 5 figures. If they have brain damage and survive you could be on the hook for decades of medical expenses) It doesn't pay to be a good samaritan in the US.
And CET being a chaperone of responsible gaming, HAH, you must be trolling w/ that statement. 1 word counters that argument: Watanabe.
They only need to suspect you of it.Quote: RomesOnly if they can prove that's what he was doing...
This is one of your lesser intelligent comments you've been making. WHO CARES if he was "looking for trouble" so long as he wasn't doing anything illegal? Does that give the casino permission to break laws and violate his rights? NO.
It is my 100% opinion that you work for, or have some relation to CET... and it's quite obvious.
I was detained one time at the Sahara because I looked like someone who just stole some little old ladies bucket of coins. Luckily she had all of her facilities and confirmed it wasn't me.
The security guards were Idiots. I was standing in the casino casually chatting(I guess theres the worlds dumbest) I also had 2 witnesses, but they wouldn't even talk with them.
I didn't even get so much as an apology. IMO they should have came back with a big fat dinner comp.
Quote: sc15Quote: GandlerNo. It shows the character of a person who abuses the system. I have been a long proponent of reverse action lawsuits, where if somebody files a lawsuit that fails they have to pay that to the defendant.
So if I get drunk Jump your fence and fall into your pool and sue you for not havin a high enough fence (this has happened), I hope you keep the same logic....Quote:Don't bring any moral discussions into this. This has to do with lawyers and courts. Morals have no place here.
I feel differently. But I am not a sellout to my values.
I hate lawsuits. And people who make a living baiting them. I feel not the slightest sympathy for this sham artist. I feel terrible for an honorable chaperone of responsible gaming such as CET have to struggle with such predators.
You might want to move out of the US then, where being a lawyer is a great profession.
There's also IS exactly what you want for a "reverse action lawsuit." It's called malicious prosecution. And there's also countersuits.
Also, if someone broke onto my property and fell into my pool and it looks like a situation where I'd be facing a lawsuit (e.g. they have an obvious injury or they're already unconscious. A situation that wouldn't be resolved by just pulling them out and telling them to beat it.), I would wait for them to die before calling anybody. It's much cheaper to deal with a corpse than a living plaintiff with injuries. (If the person dies, you might get a negligence lawsuit and settle for 5 figures. If they have brain damage and survive you could be on the hook for decades of medical expenses) It doesn't pay to be a good samaritan in the US.
Countersuits are different. Some countries force failed plaintiffs to pay the amount they were suing to the defendant. Ironically these countries rarely have frivolous lawsuits.
But you would let somebody die to save some money? being a good Samaritan should not have a price.
You attack me for siding with CET for performing their civic duty. And yet you are willing to let somebody die to save some money? It sounds like I am not the one with the skewed morals.... I find it ironic that I am viewed by some as the absurd one. But I guess have principle and honor is absurd to those with liberal values.
You are right, I don't enjoy lawsuit culture. The only ones who do are those who abuse the system.
