Before I can introduce you to civil action 08-cv-02407 (NLH) (KMW), that is being litigated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, I feel obligated to make sure that you understand the basics of the law that applies to that matter. The time has passed whereby injustice can lurk and hide, or should I say be locked away in the judges chambers. Hence I reach out to you over the blogosphere. What do you call it when one reveals corruption and makes injustice known via the internet? Answer, Supreme Tweet Justice of course.
One of the first concepts of law that I had to grasp was that before anyone goes into a Court of law seeking redress he or she must have a basis in law and facts. The laws are to be applied by the court and if there are facts in dispute the jury should decide.
There are times when even the court must decide how the law is to be applied to a certain set of facts. This was the case in Uston v. Resorts, 89 N.J. 163, wherein the Supreme Court of New Jersey, didn't have the capacity to tweet, but stated that:
- 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 Commission upheld Resorts decision to exclude Uston. Relying on Garifine v. Monmouth Park Jockey Club, 29 N.J.47 (1959), the Commission held that resorts enjoys a common law right to exclude anyone it chooses, as long as the exclusion does not violate state and federal civil rights laws. The Appellate Division reversed, 179 N.J. Super 223 (1981). Although we interpret the Casino Control Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 to 152 somewhat differently than did the Appellate Division, we affirm that court's holding that the Casino Control Act precludes Resorts from excluding Uston. The Commission alone has the authority to exclude patrons based upon their strategies for playing licensed casino games. Any common law right Resorts may have had to exclude Uston for these reasons is abrogated by the act. We therefore need not decide the precise extent of Resorts' common law right to exclude patrons for reasons not covered by the act.
- Put simply, Uston's gaming is "conducted according to rules promulgated by the Commission." N.J.S.A. 5:12-100 (e). Resorts has no right to exclude Uston on grounds that he successfully plays the game under existing rules.
- Of far greater importance, the decisions of this Court have recognized that "the more private property is devoted to public use, the more it must accommodate the rights which inhere in individual members of the general public who us that property." State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 562 (1980).
- Whether a decision to exclude is reasonable must be determined from the facts of each case. Respondent Uston does not threaten the security of any casino occupant. Nor has he disrupted the functioning of any casino operations. Absent a valid contrary rule by the Commission, Uston possesses the usual right of reasonable access to Resorts International's blackjack tables.(See Source Link to the right)
The above decisional case law tells us that Resorts (a casino) had no right to exclude Uston because any common law right it had was and still is abrogated by the Casino Control Act. Caution, the casino's will tell you this is private property. One that knows the law will retort, "you may be privately owned and your employer may have brainwashed you to say that but look around, this place is open to the public. Remember it thusly, we can expect privacy in our homes and on our property but if the most odorous person steps into your yard during your yard sale and steals nothing nor threatens anyone you may have a problem even getting the police to remove him. The best option would be to run in the house grab a few bars of soap and tell them that they are on the house, but if he or she asks how much for the house and proceeds to pull out cash, quell all the judgments you may have made and sell, sell, sell.
Not only will they try the private property ploy but they may have the hubris to tell you that the can exclude anyone they want according to common law. Again you must know the law see the (B) above. Resist the inner thug, don't say hey buddy you care to tell me that outside. That’s a threat, and maybe you watch to much Ultimate Fighter. Calm down and stand on the law, they want you to become loud and cause a scene. Then you're disrupting the operation of the casino because other patrons will stop to watch them gang-up and whip your you know what.
Tune in next post when I'll cover "What can cause, Who, When and How can a casino patron be excluded from a casino." Just in case let me get my disclaimer in now. At no point will I give you legal advice, so after doing your own research and standing on what you feel you know if you get your you know what handed to you, that’s on you. I almost made that mistake acting on emotion I told the security officers falsely arresting me that I fight very well, but I did have the where with all to put my hand in my pocket and announce that I was doing the same and I intended not to pose a threat to them but I would defend my self I I'm approached. You'll have to stay tuned to see if I got lumped up. Deal? Till then Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming.