Change of Ownership; Trespass Acts still enforced?

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#1
If you get trespassed at a casino - say, the Aladdin or ti or Barbary Coast - and then the casino changes ownership, are you still 86'd? Alternatively, let's say you're trespassed at all HET properties. If a casino gets acquired by HET - e.g. Barbary Coast - are you automatically trespassed there?
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#2
I'd think that it has more to do with casino management than ownership. since most resorts are owned by publicly traded companies, I can't see how ownership would matter.
As an example- Jackie G just sold El Cortez to his long time right hand man, Mike Nolan. I wouldn't expect the new owners to offer an amnesty period.
But when Jackie sold the Plaza to Tamares and they canned most of the management,I think that might have created new possibilities.
 

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#3
MGM sells TI to Phil Ruffin, do their trespasses carry over? While TI is still using Players Club? After?

Do New Frontier barrings carry over to TI?

Would a barring at the Rio in the old days skip over a Marnell generation and remain in effect at the M?

My brain hurts.
 

Mr.M

Well-Known Member
#4
callipygian said:
If you get trespassed at a casino - say, the Aladdin or ti or Barbary Coast - and then the casino changes ownership, are you still 86'd? Alternatively, let's say you're trespassed at all HET properties. If a casino gets acquired by HET - e.g. Barbary Coast - are you automatically trespassed there?

Thats a good question. I can only say that when I was at the casino I was at, we bought out another big company during my time. We never received a list of banned players, but the information from the point of buyout is shared, so starting from that point your face will be distributed all over. The old information is not shared unless they call the other house and ask if they have any information on a certain player.

As far as the other way around, I cant answer for sure, but I think the dept. still keeps all there information about banned players. Surveillance doesn't wipe out there database when new ownership takes over.
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#5
Not an attorney, but here is my thinking

The question is not can you be arrested for criminal trespass to me. The question is, can you be convicted of criminal trespass.

You can always be arrested. If security tells metro to arrest you, you are an odds on favorite, big favorite to be arrested.

Conviction? You were read the trespass act by an agent of a landlord who is no longer the landlord of that property. My thinking is that if the new landlord wishes to continue to barr you, he must inform you of this.

Seems logical to me but I think we need an attorney with experience in the field to chime in for a real answer.

ihate17
 

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
#6
has anyone on here (or anyone you know of) ever been 86'd, returned to the scene at a later date and then arrested for trespassing?
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#7
Good question

Mimosine said:
has anyone on here (or anyone you know of) ever been 86'd, returned to the scene at a later date and then arrested for trespassing?
I can only speak for myself here. Happened twice that I returned at a later date from a place where I had been 86d and was ID'd. In one place the 86 turned into a backoff and in the other place I was just nicely told to leave and I did.

ihate17
 

KenSmith

Administrator
Staff member
#8
ihate17 said:
In one place the 86 turned into a backoff and in the other place I was just nicely told to leave and I did.
Huh? You were 86'd, and upon your return they told you that you are now welcome on the property but you can't play blackjack? Is that what you mean by the "86 turned into a backoff"?
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#9
ihate17 said:
The question is not can you be arrested for criminal trespass to me. The question is, can you be convicted of criminal trespass.
I guess my OP was unclear. This is what I meant - if you are legally trespassed from a casino (not just backed off, not just ID'd as a person of interest, etc.), what exactly are your legal obligations? To stay away from that property forever, even if the ownership changes? What if the building is destroyed and rebuilt (under same ownership or under new ownership)?

The question is mostly to entertain my curiosity; I accept that in reality, chances are you'd be arrested regardless of the strength of case against you, and you'd fight it in court with a nebulous outcome.
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#10
There is more to it

KenSmith said:
Huh? You were 86'd, and upon your return they told you that you are now welcome on the property but you can't play blackjack? Is that what you mean by the "86 turned into a backoff"?

Yes Ken, that is what happened.
The rest of the story is that a few months after the 86 I received a marketing offer of a free stay and free entry into a slot tournament. I made many copies of the invite and also booked a room at another hotel just in case.
I never played blackjack but I was spotted and approached while playing VP (without a players card). I gave the invite to the suit who had approached me and he left me at the machine with a security type. Upon his return I was told I was welcome but no table games.
Upon my return home I did receive a certified letter 86ing me from all HET properties and never have received another marketing offer.

ihate17
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#12

Of course, I am not an attorney, but I will shoot my mouth off anyway.

This is a legal question. A corporation is a legal entity that has trespassed you, not an individual or an officer of said corporation - ergo a change of management leaves the trespass situation in place, but if the business changes hands and re-incorporates as a new or different business that would probably render the original trespass "null and void". It seems rather obvious to me that if a casino changes hands but continues to operate as the same casino, the trespass remains in effect.

I would imagine that being "trespassed from the premises" as it is usually stated may not be quite the same thing as being "trespassed from X Casino"

As this is a misdemeanor situation in any case, it is not as if there are precedents to be referenced via "case law" as is generally done with felonies.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#13
FLASH1296 said:
A corporation is a legal entity that has trespassed you, not an individual or an officer of said corporation - ergo a change of management leaves the trespass situation in place, but if the business changes hands and re-incorporates as a new or different business that would probably render the original trespass "null and void".
I can definitely buy this, but let's say company A and company B merge; from a legal standpoint company A and company B both cease to exist, an a new entity, company AB, is created. Company AB is a new, but non-different, business. Certainly contracts that company A and company B signed are still in effect, but does this hold for trespass notices?

And how would this change when the joining is not a merger but a buyout? In the case of company A buying company B, company B ceases to exist completely; would a trespass notice by company B have any legal weight? (I agree that in such a case company A's trespass notices are definitely still valid)

FLASH1296 said:
It seems rather obvious to me that if a casino changes hands but continues to operate as the same casino, the trespass remains in effect.
It's not so obvious to me. Let's take the example that started me thinking about this: let's say someone were trespassed at the old (pre-2000) Aladdin. When the building was imploded and a new one built there, were all those people still trespassed?

FLASH1296 said:
As this is a misdemeanor situation in any case, it is not as if there are precedents to be referenced via "case law" as is generally done with felonies.
I have almost no experience in this regard. Are you saying that a judge in a misdemeanor case has the right to just say, "look you broke the spirit of the law, pay up"?
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#14
The most likely outcome ...

Yes, the Judge is pretty free to interpret law as he sees fit should there be murkiness involved. Trespass is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is capped at a term of incarceration not exceeding one year, and it cannot include time in prison. County Jail only. Fines and probation predominate following guilty pleas or conviction. Because there is no "jury of your peers" and the "people of the state of Nevada" will be represented by an assistant district attorney, a person pleading "not guilty" has a "Bench Trial" The judge hears both sides of the case and decides the outcome. The D.A. can simply reject the charges and have the judge dismiss the case. In felonies there are Grand Jury Arraignments, Pre-Trial Hearings, depositions, motions, discovery challenges, jury selection, voir dire, plea-bargaining, etc.

If the A.D.A. is busy (as most are) s/he will not waste time with a case of trespass that isn't "criminal trespass", e.g. a known thief being apprehended where he should not be while in possession of a lock pick and a glass cutter.
If the A.D.A. wishes to argue the merits of the case, s/he will ponder not so much the (dubious) merits of the case, but on which Judge's schedule the case appears. Will Judge X be perturbed with my wasting the court's time on such a trivial case ? Will Judge Z act as harsh (or as lenient) as has been his/her modus operandi ? Most A.D.A.s are cognizant of their "batting average" and will want to avoid losing (any) case. Any case that is not "cut and dried" is viewed as risky and may not be pursued. "Victimless crimes" receive low priority of course.

In a case like this the most common outcome, I believe, is as follows:

The judge speaks to you and the ADA (and your lawyer if have one) and says to you, words to the effect ... "I feel that "in the interest of justice" it is appropriate to "adjourn this case in contemplation of dismissal" ... meaning that we will "put this case over" for a year from now, and if in the next year you do not appear before this bench on the same or a similar charge, the case will be dismissed. You need not appear. We will notify you by mail. I am sure that the A D A sees this case similarly. How does that sound to the two of you? You all agree ? Good. Have a nice day. Bailiff, call the next case"


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


If the Aladdin had trespassed me (they did not) and now I venture into Planet Hollywood, I believe that the outdated "trespass" warning would be "null and void" because they are no longer the same corporate entity that they had been at the time of the original event. It is little different from being in violation of failing to heed a person's wish that he never see my face again; but this issue now becomes moot as he has expired.

:eyepatch:

 

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#15
What if this happen's out of a casino realm.

IMHO.

Let's saw I was kicked out of Yankee Stadium for causing a disturbance and am told to never come back, given papers and all. I can still go to Shea, Fenway, MSG etc. I can even go to Yankee games in places other than the Bronx Zoo.

Now, Yankee Stadium is sold to GS's son, Yankees are still there, the ban would probably stand.

Now, Yankee Stadium is closed and a new one is built next door still owned by GS's son. Depending on the wording of the tresspass I think I would be able to renew my disturbance causing and pelt Jason Bay with batteries.

I think a ban, a true trespass notice, would last for the life of the building. If you are kicked from a NY Rangers game, you can't take your kids to the circus or go to heckle the Knicks. However, if you were kicked out of a game at Colonel Rupert's Yankee Stadium in 1923 for gambling on Wally Pipp's expected return you would be able to catch your first game in 87 years!!!
 

sevencard2003

Well-Known Member
#17
been barred from numerous casinos, and mostly it wasnt for playing BJ. (those times i just was asked to play other games).

the barrings all took place years ago. mostly during a very low point in my life when i was broke alot, and homeless off and on. mostly in poker rooms, sometimes in the rest of the casino. examples include sleeping on the roof of the elcortez, scratching my scalp at the palms--they thought i had lice--, the mirage thinking i was looking for credits and the poker room dealers all hating me cause i couldnt afford to tip back then, and id thrown an ashtray against the wall. and the excaliber where i got in a dispute with a woman i was with who told them lies cause i wasnt around and took off. also the MGM for trying to stop a hooker who ripped me off from leaving who was a friend of the valet guy who lied to security. and sams town for hanging up the phone on a floorman who was calling security on me. and some rooms they just didnt like my style of play years ago since i was so broke alot and pissed when i lost. none of the bans took place in the last few years.

i get ssi now and am no longer ever homeless. and my bankrolls never been under $1000 or over $5000 in the last 6 months. would like help in getting them bans lifted--they include all MGM properties, among others. any advice? damn id gladly pay $200 apiece to have them lifted. please advise. some places im banned from and they dont know too.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#18
sevencard2003 said:
i was broke alot, and homeless off and on ... scratching my scalp at the palms--they thought i had lice-- ... thrown an ashtray against the wall
I might have seen you once at the Monte Carlo. Did you ever shove a security officer when he tried to stop you from looking through slot machines for loose change?

(I suppose there might be many people who fit that description.)

As for getting your bans lifted, I'm sure the first step is to write a polite letter. It's much more effective than people generally realize. Explain that you hit a rough patch in life (no gory details as suits won't care) and lashed out on the casinos because they were there. Apologize profusely and ask if they'd lift your ban for a trial period so that you can go back and make things right. You probably don't need to mention that you have money now; you being broke was a minor reason for banning you. If you can find the names of executives at MGM (from SEC filings) or individual properties (probably harder to find) you can try guessing their E-mail addresses ([email protected] or [email protected], for example) or you can try to get a hold of the marketing department.

This is unsolicited advice, but are you sure you should be gambling? I'm the kind of guy who insists that my gambling bankroll is completely, completely disposable - if I lose it all, I'm not going to be in any sort of trouble. Are you secure enough financially that you can lose half your bankroll on a downswing and still be okay?
 

sevencard2003

Well-Known Member
#19
nope that guy at the monte carlo sure wasnt me. being broke did have a lot to do with it, cause all the dealers used to hate me when i was too broke to ever tip and bad mouthed me to the floor, making them quick to wanna get rid of me.
 
Top