Disturbing video

[MJGolf]

Here is one link that might be informational. Thought it was interesting that they opined that most trespass statute use occurred in casinos.

Link: www.shouselaw.com/nevada/trespass.html



Of course "vexing or annoying" the casino is our true intent, right?

[Aslan]

Here is one link that might be informational. Thought it was interesting that they opined that most trespass statute use occurred in casinos.

Link: www.shouselaw.com/nevada/trespass.html



Of course "vexing or annoying" the casino is our true intent, right?

IMHO, no business open to the public should be allowed to trespass anyone without sufficient cause. How I part my hair; the fact that I have no hair; the fact that my hair is brown, blond, red, black or gray; the fact that I am lawfully winning money from a casino; or the appearance that I am counting cards with my mind-- none of these should be deemed sufficient cause for trespassing me in Nevada or any other state. Some states already agree with me on this.

It would be nice to have a uniform code on this, similar to the a Uniform Commercial Code, duly adopted by all the states, to eliminate the thousands of incidents that should not be allowed to rise to the level of a crime or misdemeanor. There are probably hundreds of other types of local laws and ordinances that could and should be added to such a Code so that American citizens can have equal justice under the law across the United States, and not be subjected to antiquated or unfair local practices. Sometimes it seems like one is in an entirely different country when he crosses a state line. While I support the sovereignty of the individual states, sometimes it is carried too far, and the varying trespass laws from state to state is one of those cases. YMMV

[moo321]

Many Casino's in Vegas know how to mistreat patrons to the fullest extent of the law. If someone walks in to a casino and Biometrica tags their face as being an advantage player often times a casino will 86 the player. They will mistreat them to the fullest extent of the law. So is it wrong for Casinos in Las Vegas like Caesar's Palace, Wynn & Encore and Redrock to escort a player out with security while reciting the trespass act? Absolutely. However for this mistreatment alone there is no legal recourse although most of the public would be disgusted to see someone treated that way. These above mentioned Casinos do this because they know its still within the bounds of the law to ban anyone if they're not in a protected category. As MJGold mentioned in NJ Skilled Players are a protected group, I believe this is the case in Missouri as well. However when a casino instead detains a player, they've breached the line of legality and become liable for civil damages as well as criminal charges for their staff.

I want to clarify a couple of things. The way I read the Uston case, I don't think counters are a "protected group". Rather, it held that casinos cannot exclude someone unreasonably. The case is really technical, and it turns on who has the right to determine what people to exclude: the Casino Control Commission or the casino? The court held that Casino Control were the only ones that were allowed to make those rules.

"We hold that the Casino Control Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12–1 to –152 gives the Commission exclusive authority to set the rules of licensed casino games, which includes the methods for playing those games. The Casino Control Act therefore precludes Resorts from excluding Uston for card counting. Because the Commission has not exercised its exclusive authority to determine whether card counters should be excluded, we do not decide whether such an exclusion would be lawful"

[MJGolf]

"Because the Commission has not exercised its exclusive authority to determine whether card counters should be excluded, we do not decide whether such an exclusion would be lawful"

Moo......This kind of reminded me of Jimmy Carter's statement about lust after a woman. Now just exactly HOW can someone actually prove that you are counting cards IF it's all in your head? So can they even CHOOSE to exclude it. For example, did Justin even admit he was counting cards? I know the cops said it was illegal. Well you have to PROVE illegal activity. (And we all know that card counting is legal) I've been thinking about that and how they use surveillance. I think they just have to continue to rely upon the trespass statutes to actually FIRST inform you that you are not welcome. Therefore they read from their own printed note card or get you to sign a statement reflecting you were warned. The casino's own "miranda warning card"........LOL The way I understand it, the first time is not really the offense. It's when you violate their order not to come onto the property by subsequent visit.

But what goes on in your brain.........and how they can actually document it......video, whatever, is going to make for some interesting evidence one of these days in a court. I just think that things are on the cusp of change. Games will continue to get worse as time goes on........as they have been for years. Because someone is going to push that trespass bs to the limits in court and win. Someone who has MUCH more money and MUCH more time that you or I probably have.

[ACFERRET]

Damn it, You guys done got me started on Nevada Tresspass.......

I dug pretty deep into the Nevada Trespass law during my appeal of a GCB decision and took a stab at it, looking back this was my primary area of focus.

NRS 463.0129 is the prime source of all the confusion.

Paragraph 1(E) reads....
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature.

while simultaniously paragraph 3(A) reads:

3. This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason; or

Heres the bottom line, the statute MUST be interpreted such that is has SOME MEANING that is purposeful...Consider this...if the legislature intended for this to preserve the right of a private property owner to exclude anybody for any reason by paragraph 3(A) then paragraph 1(e) would have no meaning at all!!

It is much more logical that the legislature intended to make exception for SPECIFIC common law rights to exclude SPECIFIC types of people for SPECIFIC reasons should they happen to exist, and those specific common law rights to exclude are limited to the realm of ANY person, and ANY REASON

I feel that Paragraph 3A describes a limitation to the exception that the paragraph itself provides.

For example, there if there is a common law right and duty to remove the disorderly the statute doesn't abrogate or abridge that right because "disorderly people" fall within the realm of "any person" and "any reason"

This is similar to the Uston decision except that the uston descision limits the common law exceptions to the right to access, where NRS463.0129 make allowance for any common law right to exclude.
If the issue arises Uston should carry more weight if you point out that NRS 463.0129 has similar language to NJSA 10:1-2

I couldn't locate any public opinion that has decided the issue of a players right to play, or a casinos right to evict somebody arbitrarily. It seems that nevada leaves your right to play open to your own interpretation of the statutory language and common law. Even the casinos arnt sure what they can do, in fact i have seen casinos on numerous occasions threaten trespass charges, but then fail to deliver them when you come back the next day. Personally, I will just keep coming back and keep playing, but i leave when im asked to in order to avoid the fuss.

[JustinM]

Damn it, You guys done got me started on Nevada Tresspass.......

I dug pretty deep into the Nevada Trespass law during my appeal of a GCB decision and took a stab at it, looking back this was my primary area of focus.

NRS 463.0129 is the prime source of all the confusion.

Paragraph 1(E) reads....
(e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature.

while simultaniously paragraph 3(A) reads:

3. This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason; or

Heres the bottom line, the statute MUST be interpreted such that is has SOME MEANING that is purposeful...Consider this...if the legislature intended for this to preserve the right of a private property owner to exclude anybody for any reason by paragraph 3(A) then paragraph 1(e) would have no meaning at all!!

It is much more logical that the legislature intended to make exception for SPECIFIC common law rights to exclude SPECIFIC types of people for SPECIFIC reasons should they happen to exist, and those specific common law rights to exclude are limited to the realm of ANY person, and ANY REASON

I feel that Paragraph 3A describes a limitation to the exception that the paragraph itself provides.

For example, there if there is a common law right and duty to remove the disorderly the statute doesn't abrogate or abridge that right because "disorderly people" fall within the realm of "any person" and "any reason"

This is similar to the Uston decision except that the uston descision limits the common law exceptions to the right to access, where NRS463.0129 make allowance for any common law right to exclude.
If the issue arises Uston should carry more weight if you point out that NRS 463.0129 has similar language to NJSA 10:1-2

I couldn't locate any public opinion that has decided the issue of a players right to play, or a casinos right to evict somebody arbitrarily. It seems that nevada leaves your right to play open to your own interpretation of the statutory language and common law. Even the casinos arnt sure what they can do, in fact i have seen casinos on numerous occasions threaten trespass charges, but then fail to deliver them when you come back the next day. Personally, I will just keep coming back and keep playing, but i leave when im asked to in order to avoid the fuss.

Bob Nersesian has a case in front of the Nevada Supreme Court about this. SLADE VS. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT
Case should be ruled on within the next month.

The supreme court website listing includes the audio of the hearing, with arguments from Nersesian representing Slade and Whitmire representing Caesars.


http://supreme.nvcourts.gov/Supreme/...ENTERTAINMENT/

[21forme]

Bob Nersesian has a case in front of the Nevada Supreme Court about this. SLADE VS. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT
Case should be ruled on within the next month.

Is that the one involving a doctor and not an AP issue?

[JustinM]

Is that the one involving a doctor and not an AP issue?

What I know about the case is that it challenges the notion that casinos in Vegas refuse service and trespass people for any reason as long they are not a protected group. So its similar to the Ken Uston case in the sense perhaps not of making AP a protected group but rather limiting the Casinos ability to 86 or even back off someone for advantage play.

[BlackHead]

I remember reading In blackjack and the law that casinos are willing to pay a settlement of X amount to hush the victim to avoid losing foothold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bodarc]

When I listened to the audio it seemed to me he was trespassed because he was letting other people play on his card. I am not an attorney but it seemed to me the casino made a big mistake by just trespassing him without a reason rather than saying you broke the terms of our agreement and therefore your play is not welcome here any longer.

[MJGolf]

Man, that's quite awhile for waiting for a ruling AFTER oral argument. 4 months+

Justin: Any update on your deal?

As to trespass, I still think when you have a place of public accommodation, like a casino is they have to issue a warning FIRST before they can actually call upon any trespass statute. It's the subsequent entry that becomes the violation. So if they kick you out for counting PRIOR to issuing any trespass warning, doubt there is any issue with coming back. I agree with Bodarc that the issue of using a player's card by someone else is a violation of contract. I doubt that it's a valid reason for trespass violation. With the open access many of these places have...........and the way they have evolved more and more to become something other than or in addition to a "gambling" area, I think Casinos are starting to tread on thinner and thinner ice for trying to use trespass as a means to boot someone out of their place WITHOUT a more obvious or actual commission of a crime SUCH as disturbing the peace; assault of an employee; public intoxication, etc..........something other than JUST being an AP/Card Counter.

[JustinM]

Good evening,

The Mandamus Hearing regarding assigning a special prosecutor for criminal charges is coming up, February 17th.
Case Number: 02C14190223

Regardless of the outcome of the hearing and the criminal charges, we will proceed with the civil action.

The lawsuit will be filed by the end of the week.

JM

[JustinM]

The Courts are closed due to inclement whether so the hearing for the criminal part of this case will be postponed.