barrings and trespass

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#1
Gambling law: Good idea Sonny. Very useful info to know. :)

Now my question: It seems most of the recently opened gambling destinations have adopted positions similar to Nevada, in regards to barrings and trespasses. According to my understanding of the wilkinson ruling, Nevada casinos must give you the opportunity to leave each and every time before you can be arrested for trespassing. You could actually go back day after day after day and when they confront you each time, they must give you the opportunity to leave before you can be arrested. I wonder how that translates to other juristictions.
 

Pro21

Well-Known Member
#2
That does not mean they won't arrest you anyway just to f*** with you. Especially if you are f***ing with them by coming back every day.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#3
Pro21 said:
That does not mean they won't arrest you anyway just to f*** with you. Especially if you are f***ing with them by coming back every day.
That would be a very costly policy for a casino. :)
 

NightStalker

Well-Known Member
#4
are you kidding me?

Pro21 said:
That does not mean they won't arrest you anyway just to f*** with you. Especially if you are f***ing with them by coming back every day.
That exactly mean "casino cannot arrest you if you are willing to leave"
 
#5
Advice

If you are verbally barred from playing BJ no big deal to try again in a few weeks,,days, or months, especially in a state regulated casino.

On the other hand if you are legallly trespassed do you really want to take the chance of being denied chip cashing, jail,,,and fines??? Why even try.

If you are on the Rez. and either of these happen to you than you are at their mercy and the Tribal law,, Courts, and that is no where you want to be.

Now if you have been legally trespassed at a Rez. casino that means they have a real big hard o# for you and you could be in deep s### if you try any smart a## moves and get caught.

CP
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#6
creeping panther said:
If you are on the Rez. and either of these happen to you than you are at their mercy and the Tribal law,, Courts, and that is no where you want to be.

CP
Are you suggesting that tribal law is unfair, unjust or possible corrupt? :laugh:

Kidding aside, this is one of the reasons that I choose not to play much at Indian Casinos, as well as out of the country and that includes cruise ships. You never know what your getting into or exactly what recouse if any is available. At least with state regulated locations, you know where you stand. You may not like it, but you know. :laugh:
 

Brock Windsor

Well-Known Member
#7
kewljason said:
Are you suggesting that tribal law is unfair, unjust or possible corrupt? :laugh:

Kidding aside, this is one of the reasons that I choose not to play much at Indian Casinos, as well as out of the country and that includes cruise ships. You never know what your getting into or exactly what recouse if any is available. At least with state regulated locations, you know where you stand. You may not like it, but you know. :laugh:
The law should always be on your side... the issue is how much money you have to spend to receive due process. Eventually you will likely have to play these places if you are around for the long haul... and you should play them. Read some of the stories about where the old pros played..... cruise ships and native casinos are a candy store in comparison.
 

Lonesome Gambler

Well-Known Member
#8
Have there been any known high-profile cases where players were forcefully detained, denied chip cashing, or had other unusually harsh tactics used against them on Native territory? I'd imagine that reactions and procedures would vary from region to region, but I can't recall of many well-known examples of things like theses happening, despite the usual warnings about Native casinos.

Have any APs every gone to a tribal court in regards to a casino action against them?
 
#9
Lonesome

Lonesome Gambler said:
Have there been any known high-profile cases where players were forcefully detained, denied chip cashing, or had other unusually harsh tactics used against them on Native territory? I'd imagine that reactions and procedures would vary from region to region, but I can't recall of many well-known examples of things like theses happening, despite the usual warnings about Native casinos.

Have any APs every gone to a tribal court in regards to a casino action against them?
All of the above.

Good luck going to Tribal Court,,,,someplace you do not even want to think about!:eek::laugh: (You're F##### Man!!:eek:)

CP
 

SWFL Blackjack

Well-Known Member
#12
Lonesome Gambler said:
Trust me, I don't plan on ending up there, but do you have any links to examples? I'm interested to hear the details.
This story doesn't involve a gambler, however it does involve a disabled man who was at a bar on the Seminole Reservation in Hollywood, FL. Anybody not familiar with the Hard Rock Hollywood, FL casino, it features a wide variety of clubs, bars, restaurants, and shops right by the casino. They are all located on the property, so they are exempt from Broward County's laws that regulate liquor sale times, smoking restrictions, etc. Also, this area is patrolled by Seminole Tribe police, who of course are biased towards the best interest of the Seminole Indians.

(Dead link: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/08/disabled_miami_man_says_he_was).



Here is another story. Although not directly related, it gives an example of how the Seminole Indians can work things into their favor.
(From http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/mayo/blog/2009/10/ )
October 15, 2009
Federal judge: Beware of contracts with Seminoles

> Posted by Michael Mayo on October 15, 2009 11:04 AM
As the state’s gambling compact with the Seminoles continues to sputter and stall, another contract dispute should serve as a reminder about the perils of doing business with the sovereign tribe.

It involves the Seminoles’ abrupt July 2008 lease termination and takeover of the Hollywood Mobile Estates trailer park on State Road 7.

The land belongs to the Seminoles, but for years they leased it to a partnership controlled by Hartman & Tyner, the Michigan firm that also owns the Mardi Gras Casino.

(I know, I was shocked that the gambling rivals were business partners, but Mardi Gras head Dan Adkins said the arrangement pre-dated the Seminoles’ gambling empire.)

The Seminoles claim that the lease was breached and they seized the mobile home park by force last year.

The U.S. Department of Interior, which oversees tribal matters through its Bureau of Indian Affairs, found the lease was improperly voided but hasn’t done anything about it.

In turn, the management company sued the Interior Department.

This week, a federal judge in Fort Lauderdale denied a motion for a rehearing and upheld the case’s dismissal. U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas ruled that his hands were tied in ordering the Department of Interior to take any action against the tribe.

Dimitrouleas’ order included some strong wording that should be a warning to anyone doing business (or considering doing business) with the Seminoles.

He wrote:

“It now appears that the Department may be unwilling to do anything to damage the fiduciary or government-to-government relationship it enjoys with this or any Indian tribe…
If tribes have sovereign immunity, except for limited circumstances where only the Department of Interior can intervene, and if the Department will only intervene to protect the rights of the Tribe, then non-Indian entities should be very wary of entering into contracts that will be enforced only against them.”


Let me repeat that, with emphasis: “Non-Indian entities should be very wary of entering into contracts that will be enforced only against them.”

That shouldn’t exactly fill Floridians with confidence about the Seminoles’ future adherence to a gambling compact that’s filled with escape clauses and wiggle room.

The proposed compact contains provisions for disputes, including arbitration and court remedies, but this is the point where it’s time to wonder if the Interior Department will make the Seminoles comply.

Under the current system of sovereignty and shackled courts, anything that takes place on tribal land seems stacked in the Seminoles’ favor.

As Dimitrouleas noted: “Certainly, there was a time in American history where Indian tribes were deserving of the paternal protection of the U.S. government. Whether that situation continues to exist is a matter for political debate in another forum.”

Interesting stuff. Anybody concerned?
 
Top