Complaint Review: VIEJAS CASINO - Alpine California

Robert,

The attorney told you that you have NO case.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell you that you have NO case.  Your reaction to the attorney just confirms what is obvious from your tone of writing....that you're an absolute jerk.

You were told "No Cameras" and you didn't confirm with security that it meant only video cameras, and you didn't just take the camera out to your car and leave it there.  Plus, I doubt your story regarding the security employee threatening to take away your camera after you decided to break the rules.  Dollars to donuts says you got mouthy with her and all self-righteous about your interpretation of the rule being the correct interpretation.  You probably deserved to be removed from the venue anyway and you knew it.  That's why you ran like a coward out of the casino before the rest of security showed up.  Your belligerent behavior is pathetic and it is clear you have an anger management issue.

It's time to be a man and realize that YOU'RE the bad guy here.....not some innocent security woman.

The tribes have long argued that since their casinos are located on reservations, they were subject to tribal law Keep in mind, once you get on the property, the local laws do not apply. 'The tribes have long argued that since their casinos are located on reservations, they were subject to tribal law and exempt from local laws' they ( tribes in San diego area) have been 'friendly' with local politicians for some time now, so we all know who will come out on top in any dispute with the casinos MIke, 1. Local laws and tribal laws do not supercede federal law. What had occurred was an attempted robbery, not attempted theft as I previously thought. Serious crimes such as these are in fact enforceable on tribal land. Have you ever seen local police at a casino ? Think about it MIke. No. YOu can't committ serious crimes on tribal land and be absolved of responsibility. The next comment I am going to hear from you is that rape, murder and a cocaine lab is okay too. Use your head MIke ! IN regards to your local comment, MAYBE. However, they will not be sued in their local court of venue. They WILL be sued in los angeles county, where their agent, ticketmaster sold the ticket. Attempted robbery is not a trivial local police matter, it goes to the federal level and I don't believe their corrput influences can extend there. However, WE'LL SEE !

Keep in mind, once you get on the property, the local laws do not apply. "The tribes have long argued that since their casinos are located on reservations, they were subject to tribal law and exempt from local laws" they ( tribes in San diego area) have been "friendly" with local politicians for some time now, so we all know who will come out on top in any dispute with the casinos

Dear Tim ?, Thank you for taking much valuable time from your law practice to type such a long letter. I wish I knew of more attorneys who were so generous to provide so much advice for free ! And, at 1:44 a.m. in the morning too !!! And, waking up at 7:02 A.M. to think about my situation and write even more !! If this is all you do pro bono, I wonder what you'll do for minimum wage !! Let's take a look at your comments for a minute, Tim ? who signed your own letter with nothing but a blank space.... You state: "I fail to understand how your interpretation of "no cameras" encompasses everything but standard cameras. If I walk into a given venue and am expressly told "no cameras," I would expect such a statement to mean NO CAMERAS, and I would futher expect such statement to mean NO CAMERAS, of ANY sort were allowed." My comment: Apparently, since your are from Valparaiso, Indiana, there aren't too many concerts around there to have experiences. If you did go to concerts and visit Ticketmaster.com and various venues, from casino to non casino, you would find that such distinctions are always clearly made. Virtually any concert you go to allows regular point and shoot, but not Video cameras (since they record sound/music)) and not pro cameras with the long lenses. Fans who want to bring a regular point and shoot are most often allowed. As a matter of fact, there are venues that even state no cameras of any kind, and (such as the Del Mar Fairgrounds and the Chumash Casino) then you ask security and they clearly inform you that you just can't use a video camera. Once again, I am sorry you do not have many concert venues in Valparaiso , Indiana like you do in southern Ca. However, if you did, you would know better. Then......... your comment: " NOw, given the fact that you were EXPLICITLY told no cameras, it seems to me that the ticket taker saw that you had a camera and was informing you that such was not allowed. " My comment: This is actually logical thinking on your part. However, the truth of the matter is, the ticket taker DID NOT SEE that I had a camera since it was in my pocket. While it would be unlikely that a ticket taker would keep saying no cameras to every person as thousands packed into a major venue, when you go to a tiny venue of about 500 seats and only 1 by 1 of people enter, it is far more understandable that a ticket taker would provide such information. Once again, the small camera was in my pocket. Unless the ticket taker had x ray vision, there is no way it was seen. You state: "I have been to many concerts where cameras were not allowed but, being a person who does not carry a camera, I have never been explicitly informed of the camera policy." My comment: " Considering your comments and where you live, I honestly don't believe you have been to many concerts and if you have been to many concerts, you would find that people usually have regualr regular point and shoot cameras, but never video cameras or pro cameras. Your statement that you have never been explicitly informed of the camera policy is a comment that I would believe. Until my experience with Viejas, neither have I. Your comment: "The long and short is that your very report suggests that the venue operators saw that you had a camera, and expressdly informed you that cameras were not allowed in the venue. Thus, you were on notice, before entering the venue, that your camera was not allowed inside. My comment: Just because my report "suggests" that the venue operators saw that I had a camera does not mean they did. Unless 1 person (that's all there was) had xray vision, it was not seen. Furthermore, you stating that I was on notice before entering the venue that MY camera was not allowed inside is not so. My camera is different from a video camera and is different from a pro camera. Just like, for instance, no drinks may mean no alcohol or no liquids. If a road says no trucks, is a pickup "truck" a truck or vice versa? You have to be specific. Furthermore, when cameras are banned, ticketmaster says so and/or the venue says so under the question and answer on their sites, and/or the artists website says so. There was no such "no cameras" posting on EITHER OF THE THREE. Ticketmaster comments and website information is far more specific and trustworthy that a security guard who according to Viejas doesn't even work for Viejas and was just a outside security company hired just for the event.... You state: " You nonethless decided to take the camera in with you, and were ultimately faced with the decision of whether to surrender the camera or vacate the premises. You chose the latter, and now you seek to hold the security responsible for the fact that you had to leave the venue. My comment: Now, this is where I even moreso do not believe you are an attorney. If you read properly and accurately as most attorneys do, if you focused on the heart of the legal matter rather than the peripherals, you would have properly focused on this and not messed it up. I'll state again since you were unable to comprehend it above - another attorney first............ I was not faced with the decision of surrendering the camera or vacating the premises. Then, we would not be looking at a clear cut crime. What the crime is, is that FIRST, I informed the security person my understanding and told her that I will put it back in my pocket (without even having had taken a picture) and I was told regardless, I have to surrender my camera. Then, I told the secuirty woman that I will put it back in the car then and I was still told I had to surrender the camera. Then, I said I will JUST LEAVE THEN. AND I WAS STILL TOLD I HAD TO SURRENDER THE CAMERA - AND THAT, THAT IS WHERE THE CRIME IS. Your comment: "I could go on and on about the legalities of this situation." My comment: First one was at 1 o'clock in the morning and next, 7. and now you can go on and on about the legalities. I don't know, maybe attorneys from your city don't have much work but you sure have a lot of free time (no pun intended) on your hands. I really don't believe at all you are an attorney. However, if you are,hey!!!! Please do go on and on about the legalities. I really would like to hear them - and furthermore, maybe you would like to represent the Casino ! Hey. I'm glad I can get some work for you. My advice is you at least provide your first and last name in your letters - it can help a bit "Tim". YOur comments: "You have NO case. "You can possibly face penalties for filing a frivolous case" My comment: Since I will be suing Viejas, maybe you should contact them and let a court decide. Apparently, Viejas doesn't think so in my opinion. If they did, they would have provided more than just one comment of guilt by trying to dismiss liability by saying it WASN'T THEIR SECURITY OFFICERS. (Errr... wasn't me !!) YOUR Comment: Basically you have a steaming pile of SH*T Okay Mr. Attorney, wake up from your attorney dream. I guess tomorrow you're going to be the cursing priest. Sincerely, Robert

Robert, I understand your frustration. But you are not in the right per this incident, and you will NEVER win on this matter in ANY court of law. It's time to let it go. You basically killed your own case in your first paragraph: "Upon entrance, when I showed the woman at the door my ticket, I was told no cameras!" I fail to understand how your interpretation of "no cameras" encompasses everything but standard cameras. And I can GUARANTEE you that a court of law would come to a similar misunderstadning. If I walk into a given venue and am expressly told "no cameras," I would expect such a statement to mean NO CAMERAS, and I would further ecpect such statement to mean that NO CAMERAS, of ANY sort, were allowed. Now, given the fact that you were EXPLICITLY told "no cameras," it seems to me that the ticket-taker saw that you had a camera, and was informing you that such was not allowed. I have been to many concerts where cameras were not allowed but, being a person who does not carry a camera, I have never been explicitly informed of the camera policy. The long and short is that your very report suggests that the venue operators saw that you had a camera, and expressedly informed you that cameras were not allowed in the venue. Thus, you were on notice, before entering the venue, that your camera was not allowed inside. You nonetheless decided to take the camera in with you, and were ultimaltely faced with the decision of whether to surrender the camera or vacate the premises. You chose the latter, and now you seek to hold the security resonsible for the fact that you had to leave the venue. I could go on and on about the legalities of this situation. Suffice it to say that you have NO case against anybody. Yes, I am an attorney and yes, I am familiar with the area of law that your complaint implicates. You have NO case. Throw in the towel as far as legal action goes. If you can get something out of the venue or the security via standard correspondence, then go for it. As far as filing a legal action, don't waste your time, because you will lose, and you could possibly face penalties for filing a frivolous claim. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and please don't "shoot the messenger," but as far as a legal claim goes, you basically have a steaming pile of sh*t that will cost you far much more time and money than it's worth. Best regards.

Hello Robert. Security at the casino demanded my camera - my property. I informed security I won't use it (since I haven't) - still demanded. I informed security I will put it back in the car - still demanded. I then informed security I will just LEAVE - still demanded! I hurriedly left the casino to get away from security and thankfully, they did not use force against me and I was able to escape WITH MY CAMERA. Regardless, you can't demand a persons money or property unless their is clear legal substantiation to do so. This was a basic point and shoot camera I took out of my pocket at a concert. Such actions in no way give the casino the authority to commit this crime and attempt to take away or steal someones property. They have, though, stole my concert ticket since I wasn't able to hear Christian Castro speak one word. What this crime is, is ATTEMPTED THEFT - of camera. THEFT of concert ticket. CONSPIRACY to commit theft was when the security member who demanded my property told me she was "getting the guard then" and I saw her go up to the guard as I hurriedly left the concert room. This action further substantiates the attempted theft as well since the perpetrator went to organize others in committance of a crime. CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. Apparently, two domain names, posting to ripoffreport.com and my 3 cents.com hasn't been enough for them to take action..... Henceforth, I will take more action. I recommend to anyone who has a complaint against any company to remain calm, relax and be resolute to take action. BE PERSISTENT. Don't expect matters to be resolved overnight, don't lose your cool and DON'T LOSE YOUR RESOLVE because they just didn't respond to your first complaint or action. Many companies just want to sweep things "under the rug," figure you won't take action, "go away" and like too many, just be all talk. REMEMBER: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS and if necessary, take many actions, one by one, and be patient........ best regards,

I clicked on the "browse latest reports" button in the top right of the page. The report titles are listed with the NEWEST first. Good luck with it. Oh, did you try to get your camera back from security before you drove away?

Hello Robert. I too am from New York. Brooklyn, though. Thank you for your opinion. By the way, when I search on Viejas Casino, nothing comes up. How did you find my posting? In response to your post, prosecutors negotiate deals al the time when there is more than one party to have FULL cooperation from another. If the Viejas Casino simply provides the info of the security company, I will still hold them liable. I was referring to, in my post, full, prompt cooperation from them within 7 days of which they have provided zero cooperation. Yes, I have indeed provided them a pass. However, the fact that they have ignored it proves one thing 100% CLEARLY TO ME - they are guilty. If what they said was in fact so, don't you think they would have accepted my offer?? Yes. The casino is still liable and in my opinion, the excuse provided was a total lie. What happened to the investigation? This casino is going to lose in court in my opinion and I will keep everyone posted as to police, court, website/s I am going to put up, etc. This is FAR FROM OVER. robert

""ME: Since you hired this company, you can be held liable. However, If what you are saying is in fact so, if you are willing to cooperate with me in regards to their company information and cooperate with me to obtain reasonable compensation ( as per indicated in my letter), from them I will not hold you liable and take no action against you. However, I expect full cooperation from you. If I need to file suit against them, I expect you to also be a plantiff against this company if they do not wish to reimburse your customer since YOU were the host of the event and I was YOUR customer. You were THEIR customer. If what you are saying is true, then YOU AND I HAVE BOTH BEEN DAMAGED BY THEM"" I was with you up to this. You just muddied the waters and it's probably going to be a hassle now. I think you were on the correct path to hold the casino responsible. The security folks were hired by them for the event, making the security people their agents, so they WERE responsible for your camera. You should have delt with the casino only. Now it seems to me you're going to be dealing with 2 companies. You have now let the casino off the hook if they give you the information. You shouldn't have done that. When you go after the security firm, they might blow you off. It might be an idea to consult an attorney at this point (consultation) to be sure of your options if the security company blows you off or gives you the "run around." Good luck. I hope they'll at least return the camera or replace it (it's very unlikely either company will refund your travel expenses without a court judgment.)