card counter sues planet hollywood
Quote: GandlerQuote: 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.
Countries where the defendant must pay for the amount being sued for failed lawsuits obviously don't have any large suits.
Imagine if a little old lady on disability lost their lawsuit for millions in damages and now they had to pay that. LOL, a little old lady on welfare being on the hook for millions? What a waste of legislation that would be. Wonder how fast they would collect.
Quote: Gandler
You attack me for siding with CET for performing their civic duty.
Wouldn't it be a good civic duty for CET to do everything in their power to pay back the money they borrowed.
How honorable is it to play shuffle the assets game to avoid paying back those they borrowed from.
Answer: HELL TO THE NOQuote: terapinedWill CET be honorable this year and pay what they owe ????
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...
As someone else already stated... So when African Americans staged sit-ins at "white only" restaurants, it was their fault they were arrested because they knew they would have a "cold reception," as you stated? Or they were drawing attention to a much bigger civil rights violation. Oh wait, that's what the AP is upset about, his civil rights being violated when the casino STEALS his money from him.
The rest of your comment... "He did nothing illegal but this is what he did!"
"immediately made a scene demanding gaming officials to be called"
Really, Gandler, a person makes a scene when they ask for the official abiding commission to examine the situation? Instead, it was better the casino called the police because a citizen was making a ridiculous demand that the gaming commission get involved in a dispute--which happens to be an actual regulation in the Nevada statutes, that gaming be called in the matter of payout disputes?
Quote: RomesAs someone else already stated... So when African Americans staged sit-ins at "white only" restaurants, it was their fault they were arrested because they knew they would have a "cold reception," as you stated? Or they were drawing attention to a much bigger civil rights violation. Oh wait, that's what the AP is upset about, his civil rights being violated when the casino STEALS his money from him.
The rest of your comment... "He did nothing illegal but this is what he did!"
Are you really comparing casinos banning AP players to Businesses banning African Americans?
There are literally hundreds of other casinos he could have went to. He chose a casino he was on bad terms with to prove a point.
You say the casino stole his money?
What did the gaming commission day? Do they not have the power to foe the casino to give it back without a trial if the casino violated a rule?
Quote: GandlerAre you really comparing casinos banning AP players to Businesses banning African Americans?
While the reasons are different are both not a situation in which someone's rights are being violated?
Quote: GandlerThere are literally hundreds of other casinos he could have went to. He chose a casino he was on bad terms with to prove a point.
Yes, and all the African Americans could have went to the plenty of Blanks Only restaurants too! Why on EARTH would they insist on being treated fairly/equally?!?!
Quote: GandlerYou say the casino stole his money?
When he buys chips, plays, and goes to cash them out and they don't cash him out and keep the chips, yes. Yes they stole his money in doing that.
Quote: GandlerWhat did the gaming commission day? Do they not have the power to foe the casino to give it back without a trial if the casino violated a rule?
I have no clue what their powers are in the face of pending litigation.
Quote: RomesWhile the reasons are different are both not a situation in which someone's rights are being violated?
Yes, and all the African Americans could have went to the plenty of Blanks Only restaurants too! Why on EARTH would they insist on being treated fairly/equally?!?!
When he buys chips, plays, and goes to cash them out and they don't cash him out and keep the chips, yes. Yes they stole his money in doing that.
I have no clue what their powers are in the face of pending litigation.
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.Quote: GandlerAP 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.
Quote: GandlerAP 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: GandlerAP 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: GandlerThis 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.
Quote: darkozIn 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.
Quote: darkozIn 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.
Quote: GandlerIt'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.
Quote: darkozI 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.
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.
Quote: darkozGandler, 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?
Quote: GandlerYou 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.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI got my new sig out of it, so the discussion wasn't totally useless.
Excellent signature. That was hilarious when I read that for the first time.
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.
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.
So if I run a red light and permanently disable you, I can safely assume you'd take no action against me? SWEET!
Quote: BrewfangrbSo if I run a red light and permanently disable you, I can safely assume you'd take no action against me? SWEET!
I think Gandler is saying something more like: If someone jumps into the crosswalk (on purpose/knowingly) with incoming traffic and gets run over. Then that person was baiting a lawsuit. And that I agree with, especially since the driver, essentially, can't do anything about the situation.
On the other hand, CET definitely had an option. They had a choice of what to do.
You put drugs in front of someone, they have a choice. If you pump it into their bloodstream while they're asleep through an IV, they have no choice.
Quote: RSI think Gandler is saying something more like: If someone jumps into the crosswalk (on purpose/knowingly) with incoming traffic and gets run over. Then that person was baiting a lawsuit. And that I agree with, especially since the driver, essentially, can't do anything about the situation.
That I get. But he said "I hate lawsuits". Then added "and I hate people that bait them". So he just hates lawsuits he's decided he doesn't like. Or maybe just those that don't involve him. Which is nonsense.
Quote: RSOn the other hand, CET definitely had an option. They had a choice of what to do.
And this is exactly my issue. Even if Miller was "looking for a fight", CET solves this problem by simply not giving him one. They would have been far better off to have cashed his chips and banned him outright from the casino, as they're allowed to do for essentially any reason. And then tell him if he did leave, they'd call the cops. If a throws a fit, you let him. Call the cops and let THEM cuff him and haul him out. Their taking the steps they did simply opened themselves up to exposure they simply didn't need. Gandler argues Miller was looking for a fight. Well, CET, it seems, was too. Why do all this over $5000?
Quote: BrewfangrbThat I get. But he said "I hate lawsuits". Then added "and I hate people that bait them". So he just hates lawsuits he's decided he doesn't like. Or maybe just those that don't involve him. Which is nonsense.
No, I hate people who going somewhere intending to sue. So, yes, any lawsuit involving setting up a situiain with prior intent I hate or at least disagree with.
Quote:And this is exactly my issue. Even if Miller was "looking for a fight", CET solves this problem by simply not giving him one. They would have been far better off to have cashed his chips and banned him outright from the casino, as they're allowed to do for essentially any reason. And then tell him if he did leave, they'd call the cops. If a throws a fit, you let him. Call the cops and let THEM cuff him and haul him out. Their taking the steps they did simply opened themselves up to exposure they simply didn't need. Gandler argues Miller was looking for a fight. Well, CET, it seems, was too. Why do all this over $5000?
They did call the cops.
And, I am sure they would have cashed the chips if he showed ID.
He was a profesional gambler. He knew this, he knew the law, and he knew CETs policies. He wanted this.
Quote: BrewfangrbThat I get. But he said "I hate lawsuits". Then added "and I hate people that bait them". So he just hates lawsuits he's decided he doesn't like. Or maybe just those that don't involve him. Which is nonsense.
No, I hate people who going somewhere intending to sue. So, yes, any lawsuit involving setting up a situiain with prior intent I hate or at least disagree with.
Quote:And this is exactly my issue. Even if Miller was "looking for a fight", CET solves this problem by simply not giving him one. They would have been far better off to have cashed his chips and banned him outright from the casino, as they're allowed to do for essentially any reason. And then tell him if he did leave, they'd call the cops. If a throws a fit, you let him. Call the cops and let THEM cuff him and haul him out. Their taking the steps they did simply opened themselves up to exposure they simply didn't need. Gandler argues Miller was looking for a fight. Well, CET, it seems, was too. Why do all this over $5000?
They did call the cops.
And, I am sure they would have cashed the chips if he showed ID.
He was a profesional gambler. He knew this, he knew the law, and he knew CETs policies. He wanted this.
They would have tape of his refusal to show ID (though there seems to be no real legal reason for it anywhere in this thread BUT the "whole story" could show more of a reason), his attitude, and his ejection.
He may have wanted it. CET was willing to give it to him.
Quote: Gandler...and he knew CETs policies...
So what's your solution (nevermind don't answer that)? Just say, "Hey, even though CET's policies are against the law, that's perfectly dandy with me" and let CET do whatever they want?
How do you get change and fix something without doing anything about it? Years ago, do you think the blacks were like, "We have our own schools, sh*tty books, have our own water fountains, we can't eat at certain restaurants and we gotta sit in the back of the bus....but that's OK, I'm sure something will eventually change." Or perhaps do you think there were leaders who said, "F*** this sh*t, we're rising up. We're going to go to whatever schools we want, we're sitting where we want, and we're going to be treated equally."
Change only happens if someone / people protest against those with bad policies.
Quote: Gandler
He was a profesional gambler. He knew this, he knew the law, and he knew CETs policies. He wanted this.
Say there are complaints to CET regarding security illegally detaining people to Gaming.
Now police are always baiting liquor stores by sending in under age buyers to see if the liquor will make a sale.
How about gaming sending somebody pretending to be AP, complaining loudly, not showing id, and stay whithin the law but bait CET to illegally detain.
Gaming testing CET to see if they will break the law.
Do you have a problem with that?
