I am posting this for an AP friend who is a long time BJ21 member, but not a member here. He asked me to post this for him. I've known him for almost 30 years and have teamed with him in the casinos over the years. I am just the messenger here. Feel free to post any comments you may have, but if you want to get involved directly or want some further info, use the email address in the post below:
Many of you may know me through my posts of years gone by. Others may not know me at all. I am an attorney in the Philadelphia area and a blackjack devotee. To date, no one has raised and fully litigated in the Pennsylvania courts the issue of whether or not a casino may unilaterally and arbitrarily refuse to deal the game of blackjack to a customer. We all know that the casinos routinely do just that when they believe that a customer is a “card counter” or otherwise has a long term statistical advantage over the casino. And in a great many cases they have little or no evidence to support that belief. (“When in doubt, kick em out”) It is my opinion that the casinos do not have this right in Pennsylvania and that the chances of getting the courts to confirm that, although certainly not guaranteed, is substantial. Similarly, there are open issues in Pennsylvania with respect to the circumstances under which a casino may “evict and exclude”.
Quite recently, I was barred from playing blackjack at Parx Casino. I personally know others who have also been barred and I am sure there are many more than those I personally know.
I am in the process of preparing to file suit in Pennsylvania to hopefully resolve the issues of barring, eviction and exclusion. I have not yet decided on the precise form that the action will take.
The purpose of this post is to seek out others who have been barred at Parx or any other Pennsylvania casino who would be willing to be named as plaintiffs in the proposed action and who would be willing to testify under oath regarding the circumstances of their barring, eviction or exclusion. I will handle all of the legal work pro bono.
If you are willing to at least explore joining in with me on this case, please contact me at [email protected]. Exploring the possibility obviously does not obligate you to go forward.
I am sure there will be many comments in response to this post, both for and against the concept. I suspect some will argue that this suit is a fools folly and that all that I will accomplish, even if successful, will be to make the Pennsylvania games as bad as those in New Jersey where Ken Uston successfully pursued an action like this so long ago. To those people, I understand and respect your point of view, but I don’t agree with it. Other than what I just said I do not, at this time, plan to engage in a public debate about the pros and cons on this or any other forum. I already have at least one plaintiff (not me) willing to go forward with this case and therefore the case will go forward whether others join or not. I will be glad however to discuss the pros and cons with those who respond privately to this post. Thanks and good cards to all.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by seriousplayer
. 
Bookmarks