Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23604
Thanks for this post from:
JohnnyQdarkozgordonm888
May 4th, 2021 at 3:40:31 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

I can certainly understand why RW fought tooth and claw, as there is little if any precedent in NY for cases of this type.



Good for darkoz for taking one for the team. This first attempt to keep the casinos of New York honest didn't work out, but it at least shows that casinos can be sued. Eventually an attorney in New York will find his niche as a player advocate in such cases. Rome wasn't built in a day, but darkoz and his attorney at least started construction.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2356
May 4th, 2021 at 5:02:55 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

I doubt it would have changed much, but the correct answer is “no”. I assume you said “yes”.

Yeah, you edited it, but you didn’t keep what you felt was relevant. You kept what the defense agreed was relevant.



This was one of my first thoughts too.

Great story to hear. Crappy outcome. I give DO credit for stepping up and fighting back against this type stuff.
100xOdds
100xOdds
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
  • Threads: 543
  • Posts: 3275
May 5th, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM permalink
Quote: Hunterhill

I know Maryland casinos have been sued successfully for backrooomings.

link?
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 262
  • Posts: 8919
Thanks for this post from:
100xOdds
May 5th, 2021 at 12:44:05 PM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds

link?



https://bj21.com/category/patron-abuse/pages/maryland-police-officers-settle-with-falsely-imprisoned-card-counter
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
100xOdds
100xOdds
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
  • Threads: 543
  • Posts: 3275
May 5th, 2021 at 1:09:49 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

For those who claim this was a weak case I disagree.

For one thing this basis is made without having seen the surveillance footage. The Wizard saw the footage.
Perhaps he can chime in but I recall he was surprised at what the Casino thought they were allowed to do.

Motion to suppress the surveillance tapes also caused a fight for years and eventually resorts world lost that as well (although with the caveat that I could not show the surveillance footage or post on any website)

Why arent you allowed to mention details about the footage but the Wiz is?
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 8294
May 5th, 2021 at 1:27:20 PM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: darkoz

For those who claim this was a weak case I disagree.

For one thing this basis is made without having seen the surveillance footage. The Wizard saw the footage.
Perhaps he can chime in but I recall he was surprised at what the Casino thought they were allowed to do.

Motion to suppress the surveillance tapes also caused a fight for years and eventually resorts world lost that as well (although with the caveat that I could not show the surveillance footage or post on any website)

Why arent you allowed to mention details about the footage but the Wiz is?




Another bizarre term. Your lawyer actually had you do some sort of non disclosure type deal WITHOUT you getting a settlement? Come on!
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 262
  • Posts: 8919
May 5th, 2021 at 2:13:42 PM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: darkoz

For those who claim this was a weak case I disagree.

For one thing this basis is made without having seen the surveillance footage. The Wizard saw the footage.
Perhaps he can chime in but I recall he was surprised at what the Casino thought they were allowed to do.

Motion to suppress the surveillance tapes also caused a fight for years and eventually resorts world lost that as well (although with the caveat that I could not show the surveillance footage or post on any website)

Why arent you allowed to mention details about the footage but the Wiz is?



I can discuss what is on the surveillance as well as Wizard. Neither of us can post it physically for all to see.

I suppose I could and be damned but they could try to take me to court then. Who knows if they would.

It went like this.

From 2014 till 2017 they refused to hand over the surveillance tapes claiming it would weaken their surveillance in the future by disclosure of some of their practices. It sounded ridiculous to me but the judge wasn't totally unswayed.

It was three years in and no one even knew yet how much I was telling truthfully about the backroom incident

The judge finally ordered the handing over of the surveillance if it was agreed no one on my end would ever post the tape on any website, YouTube, etc.

The judge felt this would satisfy the concerns of the Casino and deliver the footage we needed.

I actually argued with my attorney we should not be forced into a non-disclosure and she told the judge her client felt it wasn't a term of any similar lawsuit but the judge point blank asked if her client wasn't amenable then was it because he planned to post the footage?

Of course she replied no, and the judge said then there should be no problem with the agreement.

Without the footage there was no case.

What would you have done?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 8294
May 5th, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: darkoz

For those who claim this was a weak case I disagree.

For one thing this basis is made without having seen the surveillance footage. The Wizard saw the footage.
Perhaps he can chime in but I recall he was surprised at what the Casino thought they were allowed to do.

Motion to suppress the surveillance tapes also caused a fight for years and eventually resorts world lost that as well (although with the caveat that I could not show the surveillance footage or post on any website)

Why arent you allowed to mention details about the footage but the Wiz is?



I can discuss what is on the surveillance as well as Wizard. Neither of us can post it physically for all to see.

I suppose I could and be damned but they could try to take me to court then. Who knows if they would.

It went like this.

From 2014 till 2017 they refused to hand over the surveillance tapes claiming it would weaken their surveillance in the future by disclosure of some of their practices. It sounded ridiculous to me but the judge wasn't totally unswayed.

It was three years in and no one even knew yet how much I was telling truthfully about the backroom incident

The judge finally ordered the handing over of the surveillance if it was agreed no one on my end would ever post the tape on any website, YouTube, etc.

The judge felt this would satisfy the concerns of the Casino and deliver the footage we needed.

I actually argued with my attorney we should not be forced into a non-disclosure and she told the judge her client felt it wasn't a term of any similar lawsuit but the judge point blank asked if her client wasn't amenable then was it because he planned to post the footage?

Of course she replied no, and the judge said then there should be no problem with the agreement.

Without the footage there was no case.

What would you have done?



Maybe I mis-read. I thought you were prohibited from even discussing what was in the video. I can see being prevented from exposing the actual video.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 262
  • Posts: 8919
Thanks for this post from:
onenickelmiracle
May 5th, 2021 at 6:35:13 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: darkoz

For those who claim this was a weak case I disagree.

For one thing this basis is made without having seen the surveillance footage. The Wizard saw the footage.
Perhaps he can chime in but I recall he was surprised at what the Casino thought they were allowed to do.

Motion to suppress the surveillance tapes also caused a fight for years and eventually resorts world lost that as well (although with the caveat that I could not show the surveillance footage or post on any website)

Why arent you allowed to mention details about the footage but the Wiz is?



I can discuss what is on the surveillance as well as Wizard. Neither of us can post it physically for all to see.

I suppose I could and be damned but they could try to take me to court then. Who knows if they would.

It went like this.

From 2014 till 2017 they refused to hand over the surveillance tapes claiming it would weaken their surveillance in the future by disclosure of some of their practices. It sounded ridiculous to me but the judge wasn't totally unswayed.

It was three years in and no one even knew yet how much I was telling truthfully about the backroom incident

The judge finally ordered the handing over of the surveillance if it was agreed no one on my end would ever post the tape on any website, YouTube, etc.

The judge felt this would satisfy the concerns of the Casino and deliver the footage we needed.

I actually argued with my attorney we should not be forced into a non-disclosure and she told the judge her client felt it wasn't a term of any similar lawsuit but the judge point blank asked if her client wasn't amenable then was it because he planned to post the footage?

Of course she replied no, and the judge said then there should be no problem with the agreement.

Without the footage there was no case.

What would you have done?



Maybe I mis-read. I thought you were prohibited from even discussing what was in the video. I can see being prevented from exposing the actual video.



No I can describe what happens on the surveillance. I mean it was my own experience lol. I described pretty much in the OP what happened.

Surveillance followed me around as I played ECraps on different players cards. Eight security guards surrounded me, etc, etc.

The entire video is of me so anything I describe about my experience during the backrooming is me discussing what's on the surveillance footage.

I would prefer it be made public.

The Casino doesn't.

That should give you an idea of who really believes they were in the right or the wrong
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23604
May 5th, 2021 at 8:41:59 PM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds

Why arent you allowed to mention details about the footage but the Wiz is?



I never signed an NDA regarding that. If it's okay with darkoz, I'll take any questions on it.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

  • Jump to: