Sunday, November 20, 2011

Uston v Resorts' Impact on the Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino

Uston v Resorts' Impact on the Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino
(Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino III)

I'm quite sure there are those that have clicked to this blog, read "Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino," parts one and two and felt, "yeah he has given us the law, but failed to answer the question.

The exclusion of patrons by a casino is a matter of public interest that has and will continue to be overshadowed by greed and the public's aversion to only being concerned by the placing of their wagers.  The casino's would love for this affinity to continue. In some instances the casino's have succeeded in fooling the public into siding with their unlawful eviction methods.  One only has to read some of the comments made during one sites opinion poll.  The web site is put together quite well and I offer that those wishing to learn of the offerings while he or she is in Las Vegas, would do well to peruse The Wizard of Vegas. (See Source Link to right)

On July 21, 2010 one comment was made to "The Wizard of  Vegas" poll asking: "Casinos should have the right to bar perceived advantage players from playing," and the comment stated: "I believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone." This comment misses one key point and it is this exact point that Uston v Resorts settle's and makes a matter of law, when it states at [173]: "[2] Schmid recognizes implicitly that when property owners open their premises to the general public in the pursuit of their own property interests, they have no right to exclude people unreasonably.  On the contrary, they have a duty not to act in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner toward persons who come on their premises.  That duty applies not only to common carriers, Messenger v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 37 N.J.L. 531 (E. & A.  1874), innkeepers, see Garifine, supra, owners of gasoline service stations, Streeter v. Brogan, 113 N.J. Super. 486 (Ch. Div. 1971), or to private hospitals, Doe v. Bridgeton Hospital Ass'n, Inc., 71 N.J. 478 (1976), cert.  Den., 433 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2987, 53 L. Ed.2d 1100 (1977), but to all property owners who open their premises to the public.  Property owners have no legitimate interest in unreasonably excluding particular members of the public when they open their premises for public use."

I further stress that Uston v Resorts also held at [166], that: "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." Lastly the case stated at [167], that: "The Commission alone has the authority to exclude patrons based upon their strategies for playing licensed casino game.  Any common law right Resorts may have had to exclude Uston for these reasons is abrogated by the act."

Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines "abrogate" as: "to abolish by authoritative action." If all laws are to be written so that the man of average understanding can comprehend them, by my interpretation Uston v Resorts says that "Any common law right a casino in the State of New Jersey may have had to exclude a patron has been abolished by the authoritative action of the New Jersey Casino Control Act." Those gaming in other jurisdictions must avail themselves of the laws of that jurisdiction.

Because I broached the subject in reference to "The Wizard of Las Vegas'" poll, I'm compelled to ad that the latest addition of Nevada's gaming regulations, last revised 08/11 are available to Las Vegas gamers at the Nevada Gaming Commission and State Gaming Control Boards website. (See "Source Link" to the right, click "NV Gaming Reg.") If one downloads the Regulations in PDF format and searches the terms of phrases, "Card Counting or eviction" they will note as I have that said searches yield a blank.  But a search of the term "detained" will bring to the searches attention Regulation 2.010 Surveillance equipment, where several references are made to the word detained under "Standard 8."

To this point my research on the subject leads me to answer the question, "Can a casino exclude a patron that has not violated any gaming regulation and is found to be conducting his or her gaming according to the rules promulgated by the casino's regulatory agency," I would have to answer a resounding NO!

As further testimony to my belief and understanding I will now present the facts of my personal encounter with having to submit established law in my effort to redress my false arrest and imprisonment by Harrah Hotel and Casino, as contained within D.N.J. Civil action No. 08-cv-02407 (NLH) (KMW). You don't want to miss a posting because from here on the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics, (J.S.H.I.T.) hits the fan. Thankfully you won't have to dress like you were going to a Vegas show where some comedian will have a huge sledge and splatter you, but be prepared because I will hold no punches as the judicial officers that I had to deal with withheld none of their (J.S.H.I.T.).  Till next time Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming!

No comments:

Post a Comment