Alternative View To A Plea, (part II)

Please pardon the interruption of "Basis In Fact, I'm Not Biased,You," but I thought it was important to share with you the existence of the Implicit Association Test" or (IAT). If you missed the post or you're just joining us you can click the link to catch up to speed.

When we closed the first part of this topic we had discussed what a demand was, and with that taken care of we can now turn to a plea vs. a prayer.  I shared with you that a plea has several definitions. A plea is defined as: 1. a legal suit or action, 2. an allegation made by a party in support of a cause; as (a) an allegation of fact (b) (1): a defendants answer to a plaintiff's declaration in common-law practice (2) an accused person's answer to a charge or indictment in criminal practice (c)  a plea of guilty to an indictment.

The judicial system within the United States of America, especially the criminal side, emphasizes the definition of "a plea of guilty to an indictment." Why?  Aren't we all innocent until proven guilty?  Yes that's true, in a criminal matter we are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 But, there in lies the catch.  Many may have noticed the litigation in America has become very expensive, and the criminal justice system has been converted into a system of settlements and compromises to defray expenses. So what ends up happening is that most cases result in the plea bargain. In this process a defendant says that he or she is guilty of some charge, which is usually a lesser charge than he or she would face if they went to trial.  But what happens if the person is innocent or the prosecution lacks evidence to prove guilt and the matter is dismissed?

If a matter is dismissed according to the legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) Vol. 54 Section 45 Termination by dismissal or discharge in criminal prosecution:

C.J.S. Vol. 54 Section 45 Termination by dismissal or discharge in criminal prosecution

Where the dismissal of criminal charges reflects on the merits of the underlying action it constitutes a favorable termination sufficient to support an action for malicious prosecution.

In a malicious prosecution action the plaintiff must establish, among other things that the underlying criminal proceeding was terminated in his or her favor, which is satisfied when the final disposition involves the merits and indicates innocence on the part of the accused.  Accordingly, a malicious prosecution action cannot be predicated on underlying criminal proceeding which were terminated in a manner not indicative of the accuser’s innocence.  However, there is other authority that does not distinguish between dismissals consistent with the innocence of the accused and dismissal on the basis of a procedural or technical defect.

The dismissal of criminal charges may constitute a favorable termination even though future criminal proceedings may be brought against the accused on the same charge, if the prosecutor must institute new proceedings in order to further prosecute the case.  A favorable termination has been held to exist where dismissal is due to a formal abandonment of proceedings by a public prosecutor, the complaining witness’s refusal to testify, a lack or insufficiency of evidence necessary for conviction, a lack of a speedy trial, or a prior grant of immunity.

Because of the above, a plea of guilty causes a waiver of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the pleader further waives the right to a trial wherein his or her guilt would have had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Hence the judge must ask if the pleader understands the rights he or she is giving up, and that said waiver is knowing and not coerced. Why, because the conviction and sentencing is to follow.

 And here is the whole point people, as long as there is a conviction there can be no claim of false arrest, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment.  A conviction also negates any claim of violation of a persons civil and constitutional rights. The short version is, "as long as there is some form of conviction, those accused cannot come back and sue those that initiated the prosecution in the first place.

A classic example of this situation is contained within Prinz v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 705 F. 2d 692 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1983. I'll link you to the case but in a nutshell, Mr. Prinz was arrested by a casino, sent to the Municipal Court in Atlantic City, NJ.  Where he was advised by a public defender to plead guilty and all he would have to do is pay a fine and be done, so he did that. He then filed a lawsuit for false arrest and won, but this verdict was reversed due to his prior guilty plea as evidenced within the first paragraph of the case that states:

Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc. (Greate Bay) appeals from a final judgment of $105,000 in favor of David Prinz in his suit for false imprisonment and assault and battery, and from an order denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The judgment was entered on a jury verdict on special verdict interrogatories, which found Greate Bay liable for assault and battery and false imprisonment and awarded $5,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in punitive damages. We hold that the trial court erred in denying Greate Bay's motion for a new trial, and we remand for that purpose.

But guess what folks Mr. Prinz was not guilty of any crime, he just fell for some well planned advice from one of the casinos band, just like all those you are hearing about throughout this blog.  Judge Noel L. Hillman has been made aware of this case law and has done all within his power the protect the New Jersey Casino industry from liability from violating their patrons civil and constitutional rights, as this lone pro se litigant has uncovered.

 So as we can see unless you educate yourself about the law, "prayer" will never enter the equation, because you won't stand a prayer when judicial officers are bent of mind upon securing a conviction by all means necessary. You will not have a prayer if you don't learn what rights you give up by just pleading guilty, paying a fine or taking some other sweet deal that will surly not be designed with you in mind, but the protection of eliminating a future lawsuit.

Thank You,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

$_Atlantic City Casinos Influence Throughout the State of NJ

(Atlantic City, NJ)

Atlantic City Casinos have a huge influence throughout the State of New Jersey.  Said influence is not just confined to the lower part of the state, but southern NJ is where it takes root, sprouts, and spreads its corrupt influence upward from local government and even through the courts located in the state.

Starting on the local level means that one must look at the city within which the casinos' are located, and that would be the City of Atlantic City.  Atlantic City Municipal Court Director, Alison Kaufman comments on that courts webpage that: "This is a busy court with a lot going on."  The site further lists Bruce Weeks as the Chief Judge for the court and says that the types of cases coming before the court are: "Rash Driving, Drunken Driving. Also Tourist Mayhem. And do not forget the casino problems."

Why would the City of Atlantic City publish that its Municipal Court is involved with "Casino problems?" This statement appears to this writer to be contrary to the holdings of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Within Knight v. Margate 86 N.J. 374, 383, the Supreme Court of NJ held: "

In 1980 the Legislature extended the ethical restrictions applicable to casino operations to persons other than commission and division members and employees. This enactment amended the Conflicts of Interest Law and imposed limitations upon dealings between high level government officials and casino licensees or  applicants. L. 1980, c. 79.  Specifically, Section 2(a) of the statute covered the following individuals:

... State officers or employees subject to disclosure by law or executive order; special State officers and employees; the Governor; any member of the Legislature or Judiciary; any member of the governing body, or the municipal attorney of a municipality wherein a casino is located; any member of or attorney for the planning board or zoning board of adjustment of a municipality wherein a casino is located, or any professional planner regularly employed by the planning board or zoning board of adjustment. (emphasis added)

Under this provision, for the first time, the Conflicts of Interest Law was applied to "any member of the ... Judiciary." Chapter 79 was replaced by L. 1981, c. 142, on May 14, 1981. Under the terms of the most recent amendment the application of the conflicts law to the judiciary is limited to "any ... full time member of the Judiciary" and to "the municipal judge ... of a municipality wherein a casino is located."

At page 397 of Knight v. Margate the court cuts through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo and states: "In our disposition of this appeal we have decided that the ethical restrictions of the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, as amended, L. 1981, c. 142, apply to the judiciary, including judges of the municipal courts (with some limitations as to those who are part time), and that the law as applicable to all judges is not unconstitutional." This decisional case law tells this writer that no Municipal Court judge especially an Atlantic City Municipal Court judge, should not have any dealings with matters related to a casino.

You might be say "what's your point?"  In an earlier post I shared with you the holdings of Uston v.Resorts, wherein one learns that the exclusion of patrons from an Atlantic City Casino is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Casino Control Commission or a Superior Court of the State of New Jersey. This fact is given a basis in law by New Jersey Administrative Code 19:48-1.5 Procedure for Entry of Name, which relates to the listing of persons excluded for a casino, and specifically states at NJAC 19:48-1.5 (a) (2): "Upon receipt of an order of the Superior Court of New Jersey excluding such person from all casino hotel facilities.  The Commission shall consider such action forthwith upon receipt of the court order, with at least 15 days notice to the Division and to such person by certified mail at his or her last known address."

JSHIT #6

Ms. Kaufman and judge Weeks clearly step beyond their jurisdiction when that court issues documents telling a patron that he or she is barred from an Atlantic City casino. How do I do?  Don't I back up my averments with facts and law?  If you'd like to see a copy of one of these unlawful evictions you can view the one issued to Markland Grant by clicking here.

Within the above I have let you know about the "goings on" within the Atlantic City Municipal court.  I will ask you to keep close watch on this blog because the corruption is starting to spread out and I have no idea what's on the minds of the individuals I am telling you about.  I do know that as of December 7, 2011, the City Council of the City of Atlantic City was put on notice as to the civil action filed by me and Mr. Grant.  Again, I have proof, as you can see from the City of Atlantic City's Final Council Meeting Agenda.  Now one can begin to see the hubris with which this band of cohorts operate.  I'm telling you the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT) just won't stop, so now we have JSHIT #6

So being a marked man I'm am careful when I cross the street now-a-days, as I know my adversaries wish that I'm hit by a bus, but like I said I'm carful.  But if you don't hear from me, please ask the City of Atlantic City, the Deputy Attorney Generals Office for the State of New Jersey or Judge Noel L. Hillman where's Hickson and Grant? 

Till later Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle!

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

The River Comes Ace of Spades, Cop and a Dog!

(Atlantic City, NJ)

On the River- The Dogs are Brought In and the Patron is Dragged Out

Believe it or not some casino patrons at Caesars Atlantic City may have had flash-backs to the 1960's when the Atlantic City Police department stormed on the scene bring a police dog in the casino and on the casino floor.  What's next fire hoses?

After the casino security supervisor pushed our ill-informed patron in the chest all "HELL" breaks loose, and I must say the way this man was shoved it would have been hard for this writer to accept it too.  So quite naturally he responds with "Oh now you gonna put you hands on me", and he pushes the supervisor back.  Yes you guessed it no one tackled the supervisor when he pushed the patron.

No sooner than the patron pushes the supervisor back, three to four other Caesars Security Officers pounce on him.  Now this guy weighed a buck fifty to 180 lbs. max.  The supervisor falls around the guys waist trying to bring him down, but dude is to strong for them. "He yells out to the on-lookers "do you see this, I haven't done nothing and this is what I get."  I could see the embarrassment, fear and anger building in him, after no one comes to his aide, none of his attacker yield, but continue to try and take him down he again, defends himself, quite well I must add.

By now they (Caesars Security) has swarmed this guy, pushed him down the two steps out of the poker room and into a corner.  Upon dragging him down finally, one of the security officers grabs his left hand and twists it until the guy screams out in pain.  I can only guess that fear and pain kicked in and with a show of amazing human strength he manages to break free of the wrist lock, and once more attempts to defend himself.  The rumble goes on, then you see an Atlantic City police officer rush in, doesn't ask anyone shit, but proceeds to jump in the crowd of security officers, and starts landing blows on the usual suspect. (Yes the black man) See video below A.C.P.D. in yellow and black, one had on biker helmet.

The above act by the A.C. Police officer wasn't the shocker, because two to three more A.C. Police ran in to join the feeding frenzy.  But wait, the A.C.P.D. must have a motto, "It ain't no fun unless the dog can get some", yep cause it appears that the K-9 unit wasted no time upon hearing a broadcast to the tune of something like "Black-male acting up at Caesars all units respond, release the Crackon" or something to that affect. 

That's right folks they brought a dog on the casino floor, I guess they figured one dog can do the job better than three to four Caesars Security Officers, and three to four more A.C. Police Officers to calm or should I say intimidate this "Negro" into submission. NOT! But thankfully they had the where-with-all  not to let the dog lose on him in the casino, but I can't speak on what happened in transport or at the station.  Why would I make such a statement?  Well I've seen first hand a few brothers that were the victims of A.C.P.D's K-9 unit. But you don't have to take my word read the article where the Mayor of Atlantic City suspended this unit.

Well I just wanted to share this with you, plus let this victim know that someone other than his friend and the girl that was with him gave a damn.  The girl attempted to video the events as did I but Caesars Security was not to pleased as you would be able to hear on her recordings.  They went so far as to tell her she was not allowed to take pictures on the casino floor.  Now you know why they tell us this, one so that they can kick our ass and secondly maybe if you hit a jackpot and photo it they can't jack you by saying the symbols were not on the pay line.  At any rate I pray that the young man see's and or hears about this blog so that he can present his side of the story fairly.  Please watch the video you could be next unless you practice Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming!  Now I have to get back to my story and boy it's about to heat up as well so don't fall off!

26 Seconds of Video I was able to Get

Poker Player Takes Bad Beating at Caesars Part II

(Atlantic City, NJ)

Flop to a Bad Beating at Atlantic City Casino

Earlier I broke the story about the bad beating at Caesars Hotel and Casino Atlantic City. If you're just getting in on this story you'll need to catch up to speed by viewing my previous post at Poker Player Takes Bad Beating at Caesars(Physically).  That part of the story  was "pre-flop to the bad beat."

To continue the story, the first patron that was asked to leave the poker room was not happy that he had to leave and the "Black" poker player was able to continue playing.  He pleaded his case with the poker room manager and goaded him into placating his desire to have the other player removed from the game as well, by insulting the poker room manager.  Again the poker room manager, wanting to save face with this man, called security to have the black poker player removed also.

Before the first security officer arrived the two poker players continued to exchange words back and forth, with the poker room manager in between the two.  This took place at a distance of some ten to fifteen feet, the poker room manager was continually telling the white poker player to just leave, but he kept turning and making comments to the black poker player while he was sitting at the table attempting to let the game resume.

The white poker player called the black player some sort of "[FN] loser", and the black player responded from the table across the room, "why don't you go lose at Blackjack" now the white guy starts making invitations for them to go outside.  The poker manager says "ok that’s enough you have to leave this area you can't be making threats to other player."

The first security officer arrived on the scene and speaks with the poker room manager, and was told by the manager that the black poker player had to leave.  Hearing that, the white poker player yells "ok your ass is outa here too!"  Apparently pleased with himself now he finally heads towards the cashier to cash his gaming chips.

The security officer walks over to the black poker player, asks him nothing but gives him the thumb gesture "lets go you're outta here."  The black player say why?  He tell the security officer in a normal voice--his side of what happened to cause the disturbance and tells him to ask the other players at the table if what he said  was true.  The security officer gestures once more and say that he doesn't care the manager said you have to leave.

The black man walks over to the poker room podium, where the manager was and calmly asks him why he has to leave when you saw and heard what happened.  An accurate and un-cut version of the surveillance video will substantiate this fact.  Hopefully?   While the black patron is pleading his case another black patron that was at the same table went over to offer support to the first guy.  They both attempt to calmly tell their version of the events.  Another man, that was sitting at the game, a white patron comes over and lends support to the two black men and this group is further joined by a white woman that was there at the table, and she attempts to tell the security officers the same as the two black guys and one white guy.

The situation starts to lean towards a calm until a Casino Security Supervisor arrives on the scene. He clearly enters with the attitude that he is the law.  He immediately invades the black poker player's personal space and gets right in his face and starts telling him "You have to leave."  The black player seeing that this man having just arrived on the scene, not being informed by anyone as to whats going on, is now telling him he has to leave.  As I said before the situation was calming to where an amicable resolution was possible. But!

Now the Casino Security Supervisor starts to flex his bravado-- and what he says goes, no if and-or-but's.  This Supervisor clearly from my experience, was well versed in provoking patrons to become boisterous.  There was no need for him to invade that mans space, get in his face, as if they were the participants in a "pre-fight-stare-down" but that’s what he did.  Guess what?  It worked, because the black poker player was over-come with embarrassment an was goaded into raising his voice in his own defense.

Now these two were in a shouting match.  The other black player and the white woman did all to bring the young man back to the table and calm him down.  Their efforts were blocked by the casino security officers.  I could see that they were not going to be denied a chance to release some testosterone.  Besides these punk's or should I say (hard-rocks with casino security badges) had the numbers.  And like sharks picking up a drop of blood in the water they knew that their supervisor would deliver the feeding frenzy.  And that he did when he shoved the black poker player in the chest.  By law all this should be on the surveillance tape right?

Well come back later when I'll continue the story and let you in on who let the dogs out.  Something's about to jump off in here and those of you that are followers of this blog will see why I close with "Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming!"  TheCasinoGamingOracle

Poker Player Takes Bad Beating at Caesars

Poker Player Takes Bad Beating at Caesars (Physically)

(Atlantic City, NJ)

On or about 5:00PM a poker play at Caesars Atlantic City has his civil and constitutional rights violated, plus he was jumped by the casino's security force.

While on my break from blog-ing (Basically Living On Google) I happened to be at the Poker room at Caesars in Atlantic City New Jersey.  While talking to a friend and taking in the poker action, an argument broke out at one of the poker tables.  Two players were arguing over a hand, that escalated into a shouting match.

The poker room manager came over to quell the disturbance.  After hearing what was going on he asked the player that was clearly in the "wrong" to leave the casino.  This is where the real problem is born -out.  It was obvious from where I was standing, and what I could hear, the player that was asked to leave, was of the opinion that he had more status than the other man.

So, what happens then you may ask?  Believe it or not this guy plays the "race card."  Well as we all know there are only four suits in the normal deck of cards.  Again from where I was, the patron that was asked to leave was not pleased that he had to leave, when the "spade" was going to be allowed to continue playing. Yes, this player was white.  This player also used what one could only infer was a previous relationship with the poker room manager.

I say this because he continually called the manager by name. He then proceeded to go as far as insulting the manager by telling him that he was not doing his job properly, and that he was irresponsible.  The casino poker room manger fell to these words, his relationship to this player, and in an effort to save face with him he called security to have the other player removed.  Yes, the other player was African-American or as I am more comfortable-- Black.

Those of you that have read my blog in the past know how I do, or should I say know that I give you a basis in fact and law.  Now you were not there but I ask you what do you think happened?  Weather you're an inquiring mind, a person who cares or just some nosy passer by, let me know if you want to know more.   Earlier I told you I had a story to tell but man this is fresh and hot! While you decide weather or not to voice concern I'll learn how to upload the video.  Comment here, email me at thecasinogamingoracle@gmail.com or shout out at @GamingOracle on twitter.

P.S.  Now you and the friends can also join my "Pro Se HQ Group" at    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prosehq, or click "Yahoo Groups join Now" on left.

The Pro-Gambler, Poker Pro's Included

4 The Pro-Gambler, Poker Pro's Included

Within the posting titled "Source Page" you will find that I related to you that, "most state's follow Nevada and New Jersey models as these were the first states to set the tone, with New Jersey following Nevada.  This fact is evidenced in an article found in the Miami Herald, "Florida gaming commission to follow N.J., Nevada models." (See Miami Herald in "Source Links" to the right)."

I felt some background research on my part was needed to give my opinion some further basis in fact and law. I also needed a respite after posting "Low Down Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal (Shame)." So, to all the Pro's, I give to you my opinion as to why the real pro's flock to Las Vegas. Some knowingly, and some just by chance, but there are benefits and downsides to everything in life, especially a gamblers life.

First lets take a look at the law and what it says. In this posting I will deal with the so called models, those being Las Vegas and New Jersey, respectively.  Both have statutory laws for the regulation of gaming. Nevada has the "Nevada Gaming Control Act," and New Jersey has it's own "Casino Control Act."  I find that it is best to remember that the "Act's" are the statutory laws as passed by the State Legislature. The "Act's" in turn empower the "Regulations" that are promulgated by the "Agencies" created by the Act's. (E-I-E-I-Oh what DA?)

The agencies are the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. The legislators say: "Ok, we've petitioned the public and they said that its ok for this State to have legalized gaming, now we can't sit around and make up rules for gambling so lets  pass the buck." They create a State agency, give it a name, and tell them to make up the regulations that will be empowered by the "Act."

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe those of you that are Pro's and have a legal background can chime-in by way of comment to correct any miss-step's I make. (Vanessa Selbst, Tiffany Williamson, and others HOLLA!)  I find a huge contrast in the two states gaming acts. One holds: "Since casino operations are especially sensitive and in need of public control and supervision, and since it is vital to the interest of the State to prevent entry, directly or indirectly, into such operations or the ancillary industries regulated by this act of persons who have pursued economic gains in an occupational manner or context which are in violation of the criminal or civil public policies of this State."

That State referred to above is New Jersey. My focus is the phrase "pursued economic gains in an occupational manner," that resound in the "Professional Gambler" to me.  What do you think? Is New Jersey saying we don't want pro gamblers in our casino's? You tell me and the rest of John and Jane Q Public, does N.J. casino's treat you, as a pro, with the proverbial "ten-foot pole." (Comment, Holla, Tweet, Something, let us know, be bout it!)

Test the source for yourself, click in the "Source Link" to the right "The Act" and go to Article I of the N.J. Casino Control Act, 5:12-1 (b) (9). Please finish reading this posting first, because you want all the facts don't you? I've downloaded the Nevada Gaming Control Act and searched it to see if the word "occupational" is used in the same context, as used in New Jersey.  As you can guess from the tenor of this blog, Nevada does not use the word or phrase "pursued economic gains in an occupational manner," in the same context as New Jersey. So, those in Vegas, get your pro gamble on. (See "Source Page" click link to NVGCB)

HOWEVER, I did say there were benefits and a downside. The downside may be that although Las Vegas appears to welcome the pro, their laws appear to make it easier for them to "eject that ass" oop's!, pardon me, I meant to say exclude you.  Those that followed the "Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino" trilogy below, saw that New Jersey casino's loose their common law right to exclude do to the Casino Control Act. Said fact was settled within Uston v Resorts. (See Uston v Resorts blog below, ¶ 3 subsection (B)).

Nevada's Gaming Control Act differs in that NRS 463.0129 ( e) (3) (a) clearly states: "This section does not: 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;" Hey! Are you paying attention, it says "does not abrogate or abridge the casino's common-law right to exclude or eject any person from the premises," that means unless you keep your cool when someone "sucks-out" or you get "River-ed" they (da casino) can eject you. Note I have not read into NV's meaning of ejection, in New Jersey they have a two tiered system so to speak and depending on who you ask.  In Jersey and depending on what you do, they may ask you to leave, meaning for that day, or they may do what the casino terms a "formal eviction," which has yet to be defined by law.  They appear to think it means when security tells you what management told them to tell you, or they call Gaming Enforcement and they give you a summons to appear before the Atlantic City Municipal Court.

You don't want to miss when I discuss the whole Municipal Court thing, especially considering that the Supreme Court of New Jersey has said that no Municipal Court, especially in South Jersey, should have any dealings in any casino matters.  That's from a case called Knight v. Margate. (I spell Homework, delay the turkey for the curious)

For those of us that have to do our own cooking for this "Thanksgiving" coming upon us tomorrow, I will close here so that you can get back to the bird and or make plans as to where you can get a meal.  Friday, I will also get back to cooking that goose I got in my oven. Till then have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving and keep the gaming knowledgeable! TheCasinoGamingOracle

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!

Exclusion of Patron by a Casino II

Previously within "Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino," part one, I introduced you to the body of case law that say no casino exclusion shall violate State and Federal civil rights laws.  In following what I have learned on the citation of authorities of law one should cite them from the highest to the lowest court or jurisdiction.  Hence in part one I gave you the United States Constitutional Article, The State of New Jersey Constitutional Article and then the primary New Jersey Statute we will be discussing in relation to exclusions of patrons from a casino.

Please note that the posting headed "Insurance Open-Insurance Closed" cites N.J.S.A. 5:12-63 Duties of the Commission and contrasts the changes made by the amendment of 2011. I made that posting to bring to your attention, the fact that before the economy took a downward turn, the Casino Control Commission was present on all the casino floors in Atlantic City as mandated by N.J.S.A. 5:12-63 (f). With the afore reference made I will now continue with the law a N.J. casino should not violate upon evicting a patron.

N.J.Stat. 5:12-71 Regulation requiring exclusion of certain persons

a) The division shall, by regulation, provide for the establishment of a

list of persons who are to be excluded or ejected from any licensed casino

establishment.  Such provisions shall define the standards for exclusion,

and shall include standards relating to persons:

(1)  Who are career or professional offenders as defined by

regulations promulgated hereunder;

(2)  Who have been convicted of a criminal offense under the

laws of any state or of the United States, which is punishable by more than

six months in prison, or any crime or offense involving moral turpitude; or

(3)  Whose presence in a licensed casino hotel would, in the

opinion of the director, be inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey

or of licensed gaming therein, or both.

The division shall promulgate definitions establishing those categories

of persons who shall be excluded pursuant to this section, including cheats

and persons whose privileges for licensure or registration have been revoked.

b) Race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, or sex shall not be a

reason for placing the name of any person upon such list.

c) The division may impose sanctions upon a licensed casino or

individual licensee or registrant in accordance with the provisions of this act

if such casino or individual licensee or registrant knowingly fails to exclude

or eject from the premises of any licensed casino any person placed by the

division on the list of persons to be excluded or ejected.

d) Any list compiled by the division of persons to be excluded or

ejected shall not be deemed an all-inclusive list, and licensed casino

establishments shall have a duty to keep from their premises persons known

to them to be within the classifications declared in paragraphs (1) and (2) of

subsection a. of this section and the regulations promulgated thereunder, or

known to them to be persons whose presence in a licensed casino hotel

would be inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey or of licensed

gaming therein, or both, as defined in standards established by the division.

e) Prior to placing the name of any person on a list pursuant to this

section, the division shall serve notice of such fact to such person by

personal service, by certified mail at the last known address of such person,

or by publication daily for one week in a newspaper of general circulation in

Atlantic City.

f) Within 30 days after service of the petition in accordance with

subsection e. of this section, the person named for exclusion or ejection may

demand a hearing before the director or the director’s designee, at which

hearing the director or the director’s designee shall have the affirmative

obligation to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the

person named for exclusion or ejection satisfies the criteria for exclusion

established by this section and the applicable regulations.  Failure to

demand such a hearing within 30 days after service shall be deemed an

admission of all matters and facts alleged in the director’s petition and shall

preclude a person from having an administrative hearing, but shall in no

way affect his or her right to judicial review as provided herein.

g) The division may make a preliminary placement on the list of a

person named in a petition for exclusion or ejection pending completion of a

hearing on the petition.  The hearing on the application for preliminary

placement shall be a limited proceeding at which the division shall have the

affirmative obligation to demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility

that the person satisfies the criteria for exclusion established by this section

and the applicable regulations.  If a person has been placed on the list as a

result of an application for preliminary placement, unless otherwise agreed

by the director and the named person, a hearing on the petition for

exclusion or ejection shall be initiated within 30 days after the receipt of a

demand for such hearing or the date of preliminary placement on the list,

whichever is later.

h) If, upon completion of the hearing on the petition for exclusion or

ejection, the director determines that the person named therein does not

satisfy the criteria for exclusion established by this section and the

applicable regulations, the director shall issue an order denying the petition. 

If the person named in the petition for exclusion or ejection had been placed

on the list as a result of an application for preliminary placement, the

director shall notify all casino licensees of the person’s removal from the list.

i) If, upon completion of a hearing on the petition for exclusion or

ejection, the director determines that placement of the name of the person

on the exclusion list is appropriate, the director shall make and enter an

order to that effect, which order shall be served on all casino licensees. 

Such order shall be subject to review by the commission in accordance with

regulations promulgated thereunder, which final decision shall be subject to

review by the Superior Court in accordance with the rules of court.

N.J.Stat. 5:12-71.1 Repeat offenders excludable from casino hotel

A casino licensee may exclude or eject from its casino hotel any person

who is known to it to have been convicted of a crime, disorderly persons

offense, or petty disorderly persons offense committed in or on the premises of

any casino hotel.  Nothing in this section or in any other law of this State shall

limit the right of a casino licensee to exercise its common law right to exclude

or eject permanently from its casino hotel any person who disrupts the

operations of its premises, threatens the security of its premises or its

occupants, or is disorderly or intoxicated.

N.J.Stat. 5:12-27  "Hotel" or "approved hotel"

"Hotel" or "approved hotel" - A single building, or two or more buildings which are physically connected in a manner deemed appropriate by the commission and which are operated as one casino-hotel facility under the provisions of the "Casino Control Act," P.L.1977, c. 110 (C. 5:12-1 et seq.), located within the limits of the city of Atlantic City as said limits were defined as of November 2, 1976, and containing not fewer than the number of sleeping units required by section 83 of P.L.1977, c. 110 (C. 5:12-83), each of which sleeping units shall:  a. be at least 325 square feet measured to the center of perimeter walls, including bathroom and closet space and excluding hallways, balconies and lounges; b. contain private bathroom facilities; and c. be held available and used regularly for the lodging of tourists and convention guests.

N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.3 Criteria for Exclusion

(a)  The exclusion list may include any person who meets any of the following criteria:

1.        A career or professional offender whose presence in a licensed casino establishment would be inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey or of licensed gaming therein;

2.        An associate of a career or professional offender whose association is such that his or her presence in a licensed casino establishment would be inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey or of licensed gaming therein;

3.        Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense under the laws of any State, or of the United States, which is punishable by more than six months in prison, or who has been convicted of any crime or offense involving moral turpitude, and whose presence in a licensed casino establishment would be inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey or of licensed gaming therein; or

4.        Any person whose presence in a licensed casino establishment would be inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey or licensed gaming therein, including, but not limited to:

i.        Cheats;

ii.        Persons whose privileges for licensure have been revoked;

iii.        Persons who pose a threat to the safety of the patrons or employees of a casino licensee;

iv.        Persons with a documented history of conduct involving the undue disruption of the gaming operations of casino licensees; and

v.        Persons subject to an order of the Superior Court of New Jersey excluding such persons from all casino hotel facilities.

(b)  For purposes of (a) above:

1.        A person's presence may be considered "inimical to the interest of the State of New Jersey or of licensed gaming therein" if known attributes of such person's character and background:

i.        Are incompatible with the maintenance of public confidence and trust in the credibility, integrity and stability of licensed casino gaming;

ii.        Could reasonably be expected to impair the public perception of, and confidence in, the strict regulatory process created by the Act; or

iii.        Would create or enhance a risk of the fact or appearance of unsuitable, unfair or illegal practices, methods or activities in the conduct of gaming or in the business or financial arrangements incidental thereto.

2.        A finding of inimicality may be based upon the following:

i.        The nature and notoriety of the attributes of character or background of the person;

ii.        The history and nature of the involvement of the person with licensed casino gaming in New Jersey or any other jurisdiction, or with any particular casino licensee or licensees or any related company thereof;

iii.        The nature and frequency of any contacts or associations of the person with any casino licensee or licensees, or with any employees or agents thereof; or

iv.        Any other factor reasonably related to the maintenance of public confidence in the efficacy of the regulatory process and the integrity of gaming operations, the casino industry and its employees.

(c)  Race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, or sex shall not be a reason for placing the name of any person upon such list.

N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.4  Duties of the Division of Gaming Enforcement

(a)  The Division shall, on its own initiative, or upon referral by the Commission, investigate any individual who would appear to be an appropriate candidate for placement on the exclusion list.

(b)  If, upon completion of an investigation, the Division determines that an individual should be placed on the exclusion list, the Division shall file a petition for exclusion with the Commission, identifying the candidate and setting forth a factual basis why the Division believes the candidate satisfies the criteria for exclusion established by section 71 of the Act and this chapter.

(c)  If the Division files a complaint alleging a violation of section 71d of the Act and N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.7(a)2 against any licensee, the Division shall file simultaneously a petition to exclude the person alleged in the complaint to meet the criteria for exclusion in N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.3.

(d)  If, upon completion of an investigation undertaken upon referral by the Commission, the Division determines that an individual should not be placed on the exclusion list, the Division shall so state in writing to the Commission.

N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.5  Procedure for entry of names

(a)  The Commission may place a person on the exclusion list as follows:

1.        Upon petition of the Division in accordance with the procedures set forth at N.J.A.C. 19:42-4; or

2.        Upon receipt of an order of the Superior Court of New Jersey excluding such person from all casino hotel facilities.  The Commission shall consider such action forthwith upon receipt of the court order, with at least 15 days notice to the Division and to such person by certified mail at his or her last known address.

N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.5  Procedure for entry of names

(a)  The Commission may place a person on the exclusion list as follows:

1.        Upon petition of the Division in accordance with the procedures set forth at N.J.A.C. 19:42-4; or

2.        Upon receipt of an order of the Superior Court of New Jersey excluding such person from all casino hotel facilities.  The Commission shall consider such action forthwith upon receipt of the court order, with at least 15 days notice to the Division and to such person by certified mail at his or her last known address.

N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.5A  Application for preliminary placement of candidate on list

(a)  In addition to filing a petition for exclusion, the Division may, in its discretion, file an application with the Commission seeking preliminary placement of the candidate on the exclusion list pending completion of the plenary hearing on the petition for exclusion.  An application for preliminary placement on the list shall be supported by reliable documentary or other evidence.  Upon receipt of an application for preliminary placement on the list, the Commission shall schedule a preliminary exclusion hearing and notify the candidate in accordance with the provisions of N.J.A.C. 19:42-4.

(b)  If, upon completion of the preliminary exclusion hearing, the Commission determines that the reliable documentary or other supporting evidence establishes a reasonable possibility that the candidate satisfies the criteria for exclusion established by section 71 of the Act and this chapter, the Commission shall issue a preliminary order placing the candidate on the exclusion list pending the issuance of a final order in accordance with the provisions of N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.5. A preliminary order designating a candidate as an excluded person shall be effective as to a particular casino licensee upon its service upon that casino licensee.

(c)  The preliminary placement of a candidate on the exclusion list pursuant to section 71 of the Act, N.J.A.C. 19:42-4 and this chapter shall have the effect of requiring the exclusion or ejectment of the excluded person from any casino hotel facility.

N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.7  Duty of casino licensee

(a)  A casino licensee shall exclude or eject the following persons from its casino hotel facility:

1.        Any excluded person; or

2.        Any person known to the casino licensee to satisfy the criteria for exclusion set forth in section 71 of the Act and N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.3(a).

(b)  If an excluded person enters, attempts to enter, or is in a casino hotel facility and is recognized by the casino licensee, the casino licensee shall immediately notify the Commission and Division of such fact.

(c)  The Commission may, upon request of any casino licensee or any person who has been excluded or ejected from a casino hotel pursuant to (a)2 above, refer a matter to the Division for investigation to determine whether such person meets the criteria for exclusion provided in N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.3.

(d)  It shall be the continuing duty of a casino licensee to inform the Commission and Division in writing of the names of persons it believes are appropriate for placement on the exclusion list.

New Jersey Decisional Case Law

Knight v. Margate, 86 N.J. 374 (Supreme Court of N.J)

Prinz v. Greate Bay Casino, 705 F.2d 692 (3rd Circuit Court of Appeals)

Simone v. Golden Nugget, 844 F.2d 692 (3rd Circuit Court of Appeals)

Friedman v. Borgata, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXUS 29084 (D.N.J)

State v. David Morse, 276 N.J. Super 129 (Superior Court of N.J.)

Bartolo v. Boardwalk Regency Hotel, 185 N.J. Super 534 (Superior Court of N.J.)

With the above imparted, this is mission control, all those that study the laws above will have no problem following my two civil actions. I do have one more vital bit of information to share with you and it will be brief.  The method to my madness being that, if I get the laws set before you now, during the presentation of the case I can refer you back to these postings and you will already have an understanding or basis in law. Also keep in mind that I will be presenting a machination that works its way up, from the casino floor, up through the U.S. Dist. Court.

Some will skip through the bulk of the information I am relaying to all at there peril. But I promise you that if you grasp these law you will become captivated as I reveal documentary proofs to substantiate my every allegation. I thank you for the time you spend reading my post, which help relieve the frustrations and stress caused by my court battle.  I set this information before in my effort to make injustice known and eliminate corruption. Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming as always!

Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino

Of interest to all that enter a casino, is the question, "can I be excluded from getting my fix?"  Or in the case of the professional gambler or poker player, "can I be excluded from earning a living in a certain casino?" I say fix because most will not admit it but until they cross-over and become a pro gambling is an addiction.  The bets are the fix, and just like a crack-head chases that first high, the non professional gambler chases all previous losses. Mr. Pachino put it best in the movie where he owned a sports betting company and he explained to his young understudy that the best clients want to lose, why?, because they love the thrill of the come back.

As we learned in the "Uston v Resorts" posting (click label to the left) in the third ¶ at subsection (B) the casino's indoctrinate their agents into thinking that they have the power or should I say the authority conveyed upon them by being an agent of the casino, to evict anyone they please. Many times this false sense of power causes the problem. For argument sake lets imagine a female security officer see's a female casino patron walk into the casino wearing the same red dress that the security officer just spent $600 on, and was planning on wearing it to the fight at the casino next door after she got off work. What if the security officer knows this patron. Lets go so far as to say the female patron walked in the door with the female casino security officers ex. You know it's on and its about to "pop off" as those "Bad Girls" say. (See Bad Girls Club on the Oxygen Network)

The female security officer thinks to herself, "No this bi#@! didn't," she knows that soon as she approaches the patron, she (the patron) will get loud and start swinging her arms around, more than three times in a circle, and bingo!  The camera will have that ass the female security officer thinks.  She further thinks to herself "I can put this man eater outta here, I better get back-up," and reaches for her radio before the poor girl can take another step. The female security officer thinks this way because of her training. In New Jersey, her employer the casino knows that the Commission will side with them, we saw that in Uston, where the case clearly stated: "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."  That's where they stop. In training their agents the casino have to be telling these officers, look you work for me and as long as you are on this property, which is privately owned, you have the power as my security force to uphold the law and prevent crime in this establishment.

And the casino security officers, under this spell, wonder around the casino with this one magic and awaiting bullet tucked away in their shirt pocket like that famous deputy from the old black and white television sitcom we all love, The Andy Griffith Show.  Poor Barney yearned to use that bullet, but Andy was smart enough to only give him that one. Look around the next time you're in a casino, there will be more than one, but the question is which one is itching to use his or her bullet today. Ladies, think twice about wearing that red dress, especially if you know you're delving in OPP.

What does the law really say though? To find out one must read an entire case so that he or she understands the full context of all the circumstances. You can't just pull out and cite what you want thinking, "this case say this and that case says so-and-so, I'm going to beat this case." NOT!  Go back to why we are here today. Uston clearly says in the part they will leave out that: "as long as the exclusion does not violate state and federal civil rights laws."  So baby-girl casino security officer has got it twisted, and her employer should have further informed her that she cannot violate any state or federal civil rights laws. What laws you ask? 

• The Constitution of the United States, Preamble states: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."
•  The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Article [IV] states: "The right of the people to be secure , in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized."
•  The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Article [V] states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Article [VI] states: "In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
• The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Article [VII] states: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in and Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
• The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Article [XIV] Section 1, states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Preamble states: "We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, to ordain and establish this Constitution."
• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I Section 1 Natural and unalienable rights states: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I Section 5 Denial of rights; discrimination; segregation states: "No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin.
• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I Section 7 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; warrant states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized.

• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I Section 10 Rights of persons accused of crime states: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.

• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I Section 13 Imprisonment for debt or militia fine states: "No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any action, or on any judgment founded upon contract unless in cases of fraud; nor shall any person be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.
• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I Section 21 Saving clause states: "This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
• The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article 4 Section 7, ¶ 9, (8) respectively holds: "The Legislature shall not pass any private, special or local laws: (8) Granting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever."
•  N.J.Stat. 5:12-121 Authority of gaming licensee and agents to detain or question persons suspected of cheating; immunity from liability; posted notice required states: "(a) any licensee or its officers, employees or agents may question any individual in the casino or simulcasting facility reasonably suspected of violating any of the provisions of sections 113 through 116 of P.L. 1977, c. 110 (C. 5:12-113 through 116) or of section 46 of P.L. 1991, c. 182 (C. 5:12-113.1).  No licensee or its officers, employees or agents shall be criminally or civilly liable by reason of any such questioning. (b)  Any licensee or its officers, employees or agents who shall have probable cause for believing there has been a violation of sections 113 through 116 of P.L.1977, c.110 (C.5:12-113 through 116), section 46 of P.L.1991, c.182 (C.5:12-113.1), section 118 of P.L. 1977, c.110 (C.5:12-118), section 119 of P.L. 1977, c.110 (C.5:12-119) or R.S.33:1-81 pursuant to subsection d. of section 103 of P.L.1977, c.110 (C.5:12-103) in the casino or simulcasting facility by any person may refuse to permit such person to continue gaming or wagering or may take such person into custody and detain him in the establishment in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time, for the purpose of notifying law enforcement authorities. Such refusal or taking into custody and detention shall not render such licensee or its officers, employees or agents criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false   imprisonment, slander or unlawful detention, unless such refusal or such taking into custody or detention is unreasonable under all of the circumstances.  (c)  No licensee or its officers, employees or agents shall be entitled to any immunity from civil or criminal liability provided in this section unless there is displayed in a conspicuous manner in the casino and, if applicable, the simulcasting facility a notice in bold face type clearly legible and in substantially this form: "Any gaming licensee or officer, employee or agent thereof who has  probable cause for believing  that any person is violating any of the provisions of the Casino Control Act prohibiting cheating or swindling in gaming or simulcast wagering, underage gambling, underage drinking, the unauthorized presence on the casino floor or simulcasting facility by an underage person, or the presence in the casino establishment of a person excluded pursuant to the provisions of section 71 of P.L.1977, c.110 (C:5:12-71), may detain such person in the establishment for the purpose of notifying law enforcement authorities."

Now I, to must conform to the law, and the laws of blog posting say that I should keep my postings short and sweet.  So I will be back with part two of "Exclusion of Patrons by a Casino," later on. Till then be safe and Happy and Knowledgeable gaming!