Can I go back without the chance of getting trespassed?
Often the database is purchased as well. It is very valuable information for marketing and keeping players that frequented the old casino. Whether they worry about those taken action against is another story. They may prefer more traffic and people winning in the casino to game protection. They may want to start fresh when it comes to determining who is undesirable. They may be paranoid as hell. Often newer casinos go a bit overboard on protecting the bottom line. I guess breaking in new dealers has a need for a close eye for errors and exploitable procedural violations by the dealers. The only way to know is to try to play. I would give it a shot. If they act they will probably keep it nice, quick and easy. The last thing they need at an opening is an ugly incident.
Get a lawyer to confirm.Originally Posted by SplittingFives
If the entity owning the shares of the casino transferred or sold those shares to another entity, then the 86 would remain. The shares own the casino and it doesn't matter who owns those shares. If the casino as part of an entity, sold the building to another group or share structure, then the 86 would no longer be enforceable. The original shares no longer have an interest.
It is my understanding from a prominent gaming attorney that a change of ownership negates any legal trespass issued. Certainly, this might not prevent them from issuing a new trespass when you return.
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
If you are in Florida, then the claim to be asserted for the tort of trespass, or charges to be levied for criminal trespass, clearly is held by the property owner who/that validly asserted it in the first instance.
For analytical purposes, assume that a casino operation is purchased, through a purchase and sale of the ownership of the business entity that owned it, specifically AP21, Inc. Think of Donald Turnip, oops, Trump, purchasing not just the land, buildings, fixtures and all personal property inside a casino, hotel and resort, but also 100% of the shares of stock in the company (AP21, Inc.) that owned and operated the casino and related operations before the Donald buys it.
Since the identity of the casino has not changed, still being Corporation AP21, Inc., which issued the initial trespass warning and notification, the company can enforce its rights established by its prior issiuance of the the trespass warning/notice. The identity of the shareholders is irrelevant, as they did not individually issue the trespass warning, but rather, it was issued by a company representative on behalf of the company, AP21, Inc.
Now if Trump did not purchase 100% of the shares of AP21 and its rights, including the rights to assert trespass notices/warnings, but solely the physical assets and property that was owned by AP21, and he subsequently operates a casino at the same location, then he would not be able to stand in the shoes of AP21, and could not validly enforce the prior trespass warning/notice, as he would lack standing.
Does that help with clarifying when a subsequent casino owner can assert trespass rights that vested when the prior owner issued the warning/notice? Well at least in Florida?
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
From a pragmatic standpoint, it seems to me a bit dangerous for a new casino owner to assert arrest rights by virtue of a trespass warning that was made by employees of the prior owner, especially if those same employees don't actually work for the new owner. This would be particularly true if the person trespassed had not actually signed anything acknowledging the warning. I guess this is more reason to not give ID and to refuse to sign anything.
I could just see the resulting civil lawsuit for false arrest going very poorly for the new casino management when they could not produce the people who allegedly issued the verbal warning. This is even assuming that the casino could prove the guy they arrested was the same guy who allegedly received the warning in the first place.
Then again, IANAL so what the hell do I know.
And to the OP, if an ARREST will jeopardize your job, then you better not set foot outside your house. You could well be arrested regardless of whether you do anything wrong, especially with today's brand of LEO.
Cougfan, facts are such tricky things. Too many assumptions included in your response for me to respond here, without risking the wrath of Tthree by drafting my response and consequently winning the longest post of the year award (T3, just kidding you).
I was simply providing a framework through which I could express my understanding of how Florida law on trespass would apply to a change in corporate ownership (assuming same employees remain) and trespass considerations, based upon my experience and familiarity with Florida law, as I have been licensed to practice law down here since 1988.
Obviously, my analysis might change should the facts require consideration of a situation involving a change in the identity of a casino, hotel and resort management firm (assuming same employees remain) upon a trespass notice/warning, rather than simply a change in corporate ownership (sale of stock).
Last edited by Frank Galvin; 12-17-2015 at 11:41 AM.
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
From Flash's Files: "Facts On The Ground"
Having been trespassed more than most I
will say that I know of only one case of a
trespassed player actually being arrested;
but I am sure there have been a few more.
The casinos do not profit from an arrest being
sought; and they certainly do not want the bad
publicity that is attached to same. Incidentally,
a casino chain that trespassed me and 86'd me
from several of their properties, lately has been
comping me to airfare and R.F.B. all over the USA
as long as I do not play BJ.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks