kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 3278
July 1st, 2015 at 8:21:01 PM permalink
All hail Bob Nersesian....the AP's guardian angel and best friend.

Just read on BJ21 that Bob is at it again, working his magic to level the playing field for advantage players. The Arizona case which was an appeal of an earlier ruling that went the same way could be a game changer. It could put an end to Indian Casinos, complete with their own tribal police departments and courts, abusing patrons rights and then crying immunity when they are sued. Way to go Mr. N.

Just to be clear, this is not a win as far as the case. It just allows the case to be heard, throwing out the immunity claim.

Links to a couple articles of the case/decision

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jul/01/gamblers-abuse-test-sovereignty-tribal-casinos/

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/gamb070115.htm
Just say no to 6:5 Blackjack, Continuous shuffle machines and Blackjack the Forum. All are Negative expected value.
zoobrew
zoobrew
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
July 1st, 2015 at 9:14:10 PM permalink
You know that the AZ tribe will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court. Also Indian casinos didn't lose immunity status only an individual working for the casino. Want to guess how much money you are going to get from an Indian casino worker and collecting the award could also be challenging.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 4870
July 2nd, 2015 at 4:20:20 AM permalink
Quote: zoobrew

You know that the AZ tribe will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court. Also Indian casinos didn't lose immunity status only an individual working for the casino. Want to guess how much money you are going to get from an Indian casino worker and collecting the award could also be challenging.



You are right about individual defendants and the ability to collect, but I hope this starts a wave of work towards leveling the playing field as far as civil rights go between NA and other casinos. If you let residents of areas other than your tribal land onto the land to gamble, the protection from what is otherwise illegal behavior should go with them. If you want to have your own laws, stay on your own land and don't open casinos and other businesses that cater to non-Indians.

Taking it a step further, NA casino compacts should be redone as they are renewed, or sooner, to make them report on the same things other casinos have to report on in a given state.

Just having a casino compact shouldn't give anyone the right to violate civil rights or circumvent gaming regulations.
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
July 2nd, 2015 at 8:26:21 AM permalink
It's called "Indian country" for a reason.

Sovereign immunity should also apply to individuals working within the scope of their tribal employment.

Any claims arising out of activity on tribal property, other than those allowed by tribal compact, should only be litigated in tribal court.

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.
"What, me worry?"
Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 6873
July 2nd, 2015 at 8:58:48 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.


Then visitors from the United States should be allowed to speak with the U.S. Consul in that country before any actions are taken against them. Unless, perhaps, it is a country that does not wish to maintain favorable relations with the U.S.

Quote: MrV

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.



IANAL, but I believe that is done in many cases, particularly when the residents of the other country have their assets in the U.S., such as in a U.S. insured bank.
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
July 2nd, 2015 at 9:58:08 AM permalink
It's a jurisdictional issue, concerning a court's power to hear a matter.

Complicated stuff.
"What, me worry?"
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 4920
July 2nd, 2015 at 10:25:19 AM permalink
To me it would make sense for the tribes to just make laws against advantage play. That way they could discourage AP play and those that continue to do it could be prosecuted and punished under Indian law.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 179
  • Posts: 3278
July 2nd, 2015 at 10:33:49 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

It's called "Indian country" for a reason.

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.



I disagree with you here, MrV. The idea was to not force our values and systems on the Native Americans. It was a 'concession' to allow them to govern themselves on their own land....up to a point.

But when we allow them to build casinos, cater to and draw the public from out side their little 'roped off area' it is them that needs to make concession that the 'outside publics' rights are respected and receive fair treatment and not some kangaroo court where the tribal Police and judge are related.

Without that kind of concession by them to protect the 'outside citizens" that they want and need to draw in, we need to stop all this nice pretend crap and go hard core sovereignty. People will need a passport to get in and they will need a passport to get out. If they want sorvereignty fine, let's see how that effects their little goal mine.

We have given them a license to print money. I am not in favor of giving them a license to steal and abuse people, on top of that.
Just say no to 6:5 Blackjack, Continuous shuffle machines and Blackjack the Forum. All are Negative expected value.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2209
July 2nd, 2015 at 10:56:57 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.



Quote: Doc

IANAL, but I believe that is done in many cases, particularly when the residents of the other country have their assets in the U.S., such as in a U.S. insured bank.


Tribal Sovereignty would dictate that "the other country" doesn't have their assets in the U.S., but in their own country.......the foreign bank operating in the US argument doesn't work for me because the tribe isn't operating the casino off the reservation in the USA. This is closer to filing a lawsuit against a Canadian Casino in a US Court. I doubt anyone would think that was appropriate under international law.

If Tribal Sovereignty is held to be lawful, and I think it is tough to argue otherwise, you can't argue anything done on tribal land is subject to US laws. You may not agree with the Sovereignty of tribal lands, but that is where the battle lies, not with trying to impose US laws on a foreign country.

Alternatively, you can get the States to change their compacts with the tribes, but my guess is they aren't particularly interested in preserving the rights of AP's. If you had regular ploppies being cheated by improperly run games or being back roomed for winning without the use of edge sorting or card counting, you might get some state congressman's ear.

The host States (e.g. their State Assemblies) are more interested in the revenue stream coming from the tribes than preserving the rights of a very small segment of the player pool that in their eyes is at a minimum "gaming the system" and at worst "cheating".

Those inside the gambling world have diverse opinions of AP's, but inside the walls of a State Assembly or out on the street interviewing John Q Public, I just don't think the AP's are going to get that much support. That may be right or wrong in someone's opinion.......but I think it is reality.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2209
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:03:41 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Without that kind of concession by them to protect the 'outside citizens" that they want and need to draw in, we need to stop all this nice pretend crap and go hard core sovereignty. People will need a passport to get in and they will need a passport to get out. If they want sorvereignty fine, let's see how that effects their little goal mine.


This seems appropriate.......I wonder why you aren't required to present a passport when entering the reservation? Of course that would make operating as an AP without being identified very tough :-).......and don't get me wrong here, I am not an anti-AP type of guy.......if AP's can carve out a living playing the cat & mouse game, great for them......and I respect the skills required to do it successfully over a long period of time.

  • Jump to: