TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
DGVREIMAN
TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
editorial on contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in
this article represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical
fact, nor is about, directed toward or against any particular person -
other than those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being
posted for entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post
personally annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please
notify me of your specific reasons for annoyance via email at
legal...@comcast.net. If we find your detailed objections
reasonable (considering the "reasonable person" doctrine and case law)
we will then remove this post, or the offending passages contained
therein, from the Google archive, publicly apologize and retract. My
intent is to entertain, and to present articles to USENET readers
prior to publication to determine interest, and not to annoy, abuse,
humiliate, or in any way cause anyone emotional harm by posting on
USENET or elsewhere. Please note that defending myself from harassment
and obloquy with rebuttal posts has been deemed a "lawful and
legitimate" publication by my legal counsel. If I am not attacked,
libeled, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles not
interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web
site or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive.
SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous,
absurd and obviously false claims about my military service that
originates from the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on
alt.war.Vietnam, I also hereby certify and attest this article is NOT
a secret coded message that only gang members can decode with their
secret Federal Agent/Sp4 draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget
decoder and mind reading rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots' inevitable accusations and howls
that this article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code
(a code only crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which
involves their typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary's
definitions of simple terms, such as "we" "estimated" "involved"
"retired from" and "not representing any biographical claim" are all
incorrect, and only their "special interpretations of the English
language can apply to all English terms I use, and of course the gang's
standard nonsensical mind reading and soothsaying claims that (1) I
was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho Chi Minh,
HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy soldiers in Vietnam
and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a secret member
of the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them out) that I hunted down and
murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was trained
by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and retractable
fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after my deeds in
Vietnam and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and best of
all, I went to the Carlisle War College to study WWII tactics even
before I was born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA.
Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts
are of course, not true.
I have posted dozens of times on USENET that I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail. Only a
quip now and then. And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or more information and details about an
issue which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact
me via email, identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want
to exchange such personal information with them.
Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my
posts. It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious
typos, errors, and occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor
corrections, nor do they even want verification whether I was the
actual author of the post in question.
As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and
fraudulent misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written
in the past, or contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is
and is not truly contained in my military records, and of course,
their fraudulent use of USENET posts they know others have written to
use to smear me, defame me, hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me,
and otherwise further their years' long demonizing and vilification
campaign they have been regularly waging against me.
In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are
desperate to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful
rebuttals, which they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is
true, reveal them for what they really are.
The gang's lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the
gang' preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is
the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing
hundreds of typos, errors, misstatements made by typists and I found
so far in about thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under
accounts I used, and then replacing the errors with the true intended
context and meaning by the author is somehow "sinister" and the
original discarded post was the correct intended post and the
corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims
about me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask
the gang leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make
such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce
their own forgeries, or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long
been detected and discarded in my waste basket they have dug out of
that trash). And no, regardless of forgeries and discarded posts found
in my waste basket that were thrown there because of an error or
typist misstatement by one of our typist's, I have posted about two
dozen times in the past that my time in South America was spent (other
than an assignment and short visit to Southern Command after I left
Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western Oil and
Gas or PCA, which evidence was scanned and posted years ago.
Also, in response to the smear gang's et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the
same accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders
started their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby
forced me to post on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the
following proof that of course the gang leaders et al have been caught
lying again:
http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS' GALORE POST proves there were about
71 previous posts prior to the gang's glaring lie that I never
mentioned others posting under the same accounts I used until after
the gang leaders started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments
written by many different people, years apart, never written on any
military forum, deceptively spliced together with forged words added
into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of different context post
fragments so as to fraudulently alter their meaning or context.
http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the
Nigel Brooks con and smear gang is all about.
http://tinyurl.com/bu3dwb Those that Label Others KOOKS suffer a
psychosis named EID say psychologists - and that Kook votes never
occur outside of the smear gang.
http://tinyurl.com/5o59lr Nigel Brooks lies about receiving medals he
never received, and serving in war campaigns long after he had already
left active duty.
http://tinyurl.com/bxrf2b US Government Web Site and independent
Experts on the US Military confirm Nigel Brooks lied about my
military service and my military records. (This read is important as
the gang is claiming that my military records disproved or prove
various things, but we find those claims to be nothing more than
outright cons and fraud from the gang. Brooks and Rau and other gang
members have been lying about the contents of my records for years.
Above is just some of the proof of that fact.
http://tinyurl.com/ddogy4 Proof of just a few of Nigel Brooks
outright forgeries which he has used to fraudulently defame and smear
me - yes *forgeries* - fraud and deception from Nigel Brooks.
Purple Heart Defamation from the gang revealed and rebutted.
Irrefutable proof the gang has been using outright fraud, defamation
and forgeries to smear and defame in respect to this issue.
http://tinyurl.com/pomzo7 05/21/09 YET ANOTHER Investigator confirms
gang lied about Purple Heart medal claims. Also all those times I
said I did not have a PH Medal, which the gang has been hiding.
Smear Gang "I said I was a Hero lie" - In fact - I said the *exact
opposite* as these several past posts clearly prove - once again the
gang has been caught lying about something they have been forging and
lying about for years.
Here Nigel Brooks admits that he is not claiming I claimed I had a
purple heart medal:
1http://tinyurl.com/y3yvb9 In this post I make it clear that I
referenced a Purple Heart Card and not a Purple Heart Medal - and the
difference between the two.
In the above URL, Mr. Brooks also provided the following very clear
statement about this issue:
"He's doing the same now - by trying to insert the word "medal" into
the argument. Well no-one is accusing him of claiming to have had a
"Purple Heart Medal" - but the record shows he has claimed to have had
a Purple Heart (VA service connected ID card) and that he received it
in a real war. "
Obviously, Nigel Brooks above agreed and confirmed that I never said I
had a purple heart medal. Strange Nigel and his gang would
conveniently "forget" Nigel's conclusion about this issue after I
started proving they had lied about this issue all along - as the
above posts clearly prove?
When Brooks read my "shoot around little girl" post (for about the
tenth time and counting) he said the following:
http://tinyurl.com/q9r9to May 22, 2009
"I would hazard a guess that the story is complete bullshit and that
Reiman never shot a 4 or 5 year old Vietnamese girl, otherwise
such an admission made in a public forum is astounding.
>>>> Nigel Brooks "
Then *after* I responded to Brooks (see URL above) and told him that
of course it was pure fiction just like my disclaimer states hundreds
of times. Brooks then reversed himself and wrote:
" he was in fact claiming that whilst he was in Vietnam he was >
forced to shoot a 4 or 5 year old Vietnamese child, who he claims was
attempting to kill him or his compatriots with an explosive device
concealed in a package of cigarettes.
>
> Now that is the logical interpretation of his post. In that post he
> says
> nothing about it being a fictional account or a debating method. The
> post
> stands by itself."
Nigel Brooks"
http://tinyurl.com/madq65 In this post I point out that I have told
Nigel Brooks and his hate/con smear gang members *more than a thousand
times* (evidenced by Google archives) that I *DO NOT* post
autobiographical statements of fact on USENET - and if someone wants
to know whether what I post is Fiction, Non-Fiction, or whatever, they
*must contact me* and ask for more details.
When an Author tells you MORE THAN A THOUSAND TIMES he is NOT posting
exclusively non-fiction on USENET, you would think that statement by
the author would resonate into even the pea brains of con men, smear
merchants and hate group leaders. Which of course it did as they
acknowledged this statement (Tom Rau said he read my disclaimer more
than 270 times) - but this fact had to be hidden by such people so
they could further their obviously fraudulent smear and con defamation
campaigns.
SELF ADMITTED AND SELF ACCLAIMED "TROLLS" OPERATE NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR
GANG'S MOST UNETHICAL FRAUD, SERIAL LYING AND CON MAN FALSE
ACCUSATIONS!
Many of the most vociferous and deceptive Nigel Brooks' key smear
gang members self-describe themselves as "Trolls."
These self-acclaimed and self-described *Trolls* have posted
hundreds of defaming statements and libel about me under those very
revealing Troll self-descriptions. (See alt.war.vietnam troll
section - you will find ALL of the self-described Trolls are connected
to Nigel Brooks and his gang's defamation and smear campaigns).
As just one example, here is the latest FBI forgery direct from a
Nigel Brooks gang member that self-describes himself as a "Troll."
Note the gang member is again fraudulently using the name of the FBI
to smear and defame - which as we all know is a criminal act.
It is obvious these Nigel Brooks smear gang members will resort to and
use criminal acts to further the gang's smear and vilification
campaigns:
"Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.alt.net
From: Troll #351 <Leon...@sistine.va>
Newsgroups:
alt.war.vietnam,alt.politics,alt.news-media,alt.military,alt.military.retired,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: That Second FBI Phone Transcript betwixt Mr.Doug Grant-tm
and the FBI
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:55:46 -0700"
Considering the self-description of these gang members as "Trolls" and
their propensity to use criminal acts (using the name of the FBI for
nefarious purposes is a criminal act - Federal and Brooks knows it)
to defame Nigel Brook's targeted smear victim, can anyone out there
actually believe anything Nigel Brooks or any of his gang members say
about anyone?
If you do then you are admitting that you are de facto stating that
you believe people that are *telling you up front they are liars and
con men!* BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Question:
If you actually believe someone that is telling you up front that he
is lying to you, what would best describe you: (1) a moron (2) a
drooling moron (3) a member of the Nigel Brooks smear and con gang -
or perhaps all three?
Several Cease and Desist notices have been provided to several members
of the Nigel Brooks smear/hate gang by Lawyer Peter Shaver from
Portland Oregon. Due to the fact Mr. Shaver received hate messages
via email about me from gang members, Mr. Shaver will now be called as
a witness to testify and those hate messages will be used against the
perpetrators in any future legal action.
All should known and be hereby informed that hate, serial lying,
fraud, libel, (which of course includes defamation and libel by
omitting key facts) publications of any kind will be recorded and
used against the perpetrator in a legal action. This is especially
true for those owners and participants in hate web sites and hate
newsgroups which are used to further hate and smear campaigns against
individuals.
End Disclaimer - Rebuttal Begins below:
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau, a vocerifus, serial liar that is a member of the Nigel Brooks
smear/hate and con gang attempted to lie and spread his hate in fraud
in the following post - which I am forced to rebut:
Tom Rau said:
You still haven't come up with the promised Google URLs or
Message-IDs to support or substantiate even a single one of your
intentionally libelous postings accusing me of lying.
DAI UY LIES ABOUT COPYRIGHTS http://tinyurl.com/qo3m7
DAI UY LIES ABOUT OUR POWS http://tinyurl.com/ntler
DAI UY LIES ABOUT THE CIB http://tinyurl.com/nmbo2
DAI UY LIES ABOUT MEDALS, http://tinyurl.com/18r
DAI UY LIES ABOUT COMBAT DUTIES, http://tinyurl.com/orlgq
DAI UY LIES ABOUT 1803 KILLS, http://tinyurl.com/qr9wk
DAI UY LIES ABOUT RVN TRAINING, http://tinyurl.com/gs4gz
DAI UY LIES ABOUT WOLFHOUND OFFICES, http://tinyurl.com/klvuc
DAI UY LIES ABOUT BIG BEAR,
DAI DUMMY LIES ABOUT WEB SITE http://tinyurl.com/sydv9
DAI UY'S DECORATED HERO LIE http://tinyurl.com/hwmrg
DAI UY'S CAN THO LIE http://tinyurl.com/hd3hx
THE FAILURE TO POST THOSE URLS OR MESSAGE IDS IS THE SAME
AS AN ADMISSION THAT DOUG GRANT (TM) HAS INTENTIONALLY AND
MALICIOUSLY LIBELED.
Doug's Rebuttal: Mr. Rau, I have posted references to each one of
those items you have posted above SEVERAL TIMES! (Note the very
URL's Tom Rau provides represents irrefutable evidence he lied! He
posts the very URL's that prove he lied, then he claims I never posted
them! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).
I have posted *SEVERAL TIMES* verification, and specifics as to when
you lied, how you lied, and on what dates, along with proof positive
that you did lie. Are you asking me to repeat it again?
If you claim any of the above represents libel then you must
understand that you did precisely what I said you did - you lied, so
there is NO libel involved.
(Tom Rau has a bizarre tendency to ask for information, proof,
whatever, and then when he is provided it, ignore it, and then some
time later claim that I never provided it. I suspect ignoring facts,
truth and such is necessary for the Nigel Brooks smear/hate and con
gang to continue smearing their targeted victims. The truth only
makes them appear as to what they really are, - hate/smear gang
members with a common purpose objective - smear and destroy the gang's
targeted victims with fraud, serial lying and general obloquy).
However, Tom Rau's *own post* above contains URL references to
examples of his lies and fraud - albeit this clown actually claims I
never provided evidence when he actually references the evidence in
his own post! BWHHAHAHAHAHA. (No one said the Nigel Brooks smear/con
and hate gang members had IQ's above six).
As a case in point, I will address the very first item Tom Rau posted
above that he preposterously claims is libel:
Mr. Rau:
I said you lied about my copyrights, and you DID lie about them as
your own URL above clearly proves! I did not copyright that passage
you claimed I copyrighted above, and I certainly DID NOT place my
copyright notice under that specific passage as you did in your post.
You moved and altered my copyright notice, and you fraudulently
claimed that I copyrighted a passage that I did not. Both acts
clearly represent lying about my copyrights. See how easy it is to
prove your fraud Mr. Rau?
I ALSO told you several times in posts (which you acknowledged) that
I did not copyright the passage you claimed I did - yet even after you
acknowledged those posts you again repeated your fraud above. So your
intent was clearly fraudulent and malicious as you had specific
knowledge that I *did not* copyright the passage you claimed I did.
Placing a quip someone else posted in a copyrighted article does not
mean that quip is claimed to be a part of a copyright - you have been
told this fact several several times. Moreover, in the URL reference
above you clearly moved my copyright notice. According to your own
URL you are fraudulently presenting that I placed my copyright notice
under the quip you are accusing me of inventing - obviously that is
fraud, and obviously it is a lie.
Now if you want me to repeat the proof that I have already posted
about your other lies, just ask?
And you still have not provided any instance of libel - we are
waiting. You claimed I posted libel about you. Strange that I cannot
find *any* such libel - perhaps you might want to try some other con
or ploy and I will address or rebut it as well?
If you want to challenge this libel issue there is a good way to do
it:
It is called binding arbitration. I say you have libeled me, but I
have not libeled you. You say that you have not libeled me but I have
libeled you. If the completely independent Association of American
Arbitrators agree with you, then I will apologize and pay for their
services. But if they agree with me, you will apologize and pay for
their services.
So are you all "Big Hat and No Cattle" Mr. Rau? All bullshit about
your history, and your claims, or, are you willing to "walk the walk"
and not just talk? Do you have even a tiny bit of honor left Mr. Rau?
If you do, take my challenge, and if you do not then all I can do is
opine in your own words about your constant running and hiding and
ducking this independent review:
THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
DEFAMING LIGHT.
I suspect there is no reason whatsoever for the smear/hate gang to
duck this offer, unless of course, they already know they are lying
and any independent Arbitration review will expose their fraud. If
they were telling the truth they would jump at the change to prove it,
and revel in the opportunity to make me pay for the investigation as
well!
I know I am willing to walk the walk - but Nigel Brooks and Tom Rau
and the rest of the smear merchants, duck, cower, run and hide,
ignore, obfuscate, dodge, snip out, try to talk around and over, all
offers of an independent legal review of their claims about me. . .
and I suspect the readers are now learning the reason why.
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
About all those fraudulent After Action Reports the authors of those
reports told Congress they were ordered by MACV to fill with fraud
and lies to make certain officers and operations look good - I find I
must quote Aristotle:
"Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them."
Should all of those commissioned officers that received medals in
Vietnam be forced to return them?
Is this fraudulent After Action reports and the associated "awards"
delivered to commissioned officers due to such fraud a bigger issue
than some poor idiot lying about his medals and duties during the tet
offensive like Nigel Brooks did?
Or is it a bigger issue than that other gang member that calls himself
Pepperoni, lying about going to Vietnam - and owning 15000 buildings!
And is it a bigger issue than the guy that calls himself a "medic"
but was really only a "ward attendant that worked in nice safe
hospital ward (albeit I can imagine the duty was akin to burning shit
day after day) - and how about that key gang member that lied
profusely about having a purple heart medal, and lied about being in
combat as well and having ribbons for combat?
Then we have the gang member that never went to Vietnam - 30 years a
junior NCO - how pathetic is that when he posts on Vietnam vet forums?
Then we must not forget the top and key Nigel Brooks smear/hate and
con gang member that is not even any kind of Veteran, but goes from
Veteran group to Veteran group to harass and defame our Vets, and call
our Marines "murderers?" How about that Nigel Brooks gang member
that calls all gang designated victims "pedophiles " and "child porno"
dealers and was up to his eyeballs in the John Kerry "Vietnam Vets
Against the War" and seems to like Vietnam better than his own
country?
Are all those gang member issues more important than the tens of
thousands of commissioned officers that received medals in Vietnam
based upon admitted fraudulent and embellished After Action Reports?
Strange that Tom Rau never addressees any of the above in his posts?
And he keeps ducking my question:
Mr. Rau, when you were stationed guarding that lonely border as you
said, how many times was the Atoll you were guarding attacked by the
enemy when you were located there?
Waiting and waiting for a response from Mr. Rau? Strange that he is
afraid to respond to this simple question? I base this question on
the fact that Mr. Rau claims he is an expert on Combat and he knows
more about it than I do - which begs whether he actually knows what it
is like to be attacked by the enemy repeatedly?
I also must wonder why Tom Rau never mention's the glaring fraud from
his fellow smear/hate and con gang members? I also must wonder if Mr.
Rau understands the term "hypocrite?"
He may not, but I bet the rest of us do.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Mac
wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/pomzo7 05/21/09 YET ANOTHER Investigator confirms
>gang lied about Purple Heart medal claims...
========= ********* =======
Here is a copy of your ORIGINAL POST in that thread.
I've included the DATE, the SUBJECT, the groups... so others can
find this and verify what you originally posted in your attempt to
belittle Chip.
I believe that he and you for this conversation were #16 AND #17 in
this thread...
=========== ===========
Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:22:46 GMT
Local: Sun, Feb 16 2003 2:22�pm
Subject: Re: Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT, �DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...
Doug Says: �We declared war on terrorism. �Saddam is
supporting, financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring
terrorists.
Duh. �I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are
talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a
shot fired in anger in your life.
CHIP STATED:
> I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie.
> There are other countries, some that are our allies, who are
much more active in supporting and arming terrorists...yet you want
to go after Iraq because you don't have the will to go after them.
That, to me is cowardice.
Doug Says: �
I have a Purple Heart also, and I received �mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
never fought in a war. �About the only place you could have
received a purple heart was in Lebanon, and that was not a
shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
Marine officers. �In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering,
hiding, and doing nothing. �It is pretty clear who the coward is
around here. �BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in
combat is about as cowardly as it gets.
*************** *************
AFTER your claim was reported to STOLEN VALOR, After you had been
repeatedly challenged regarding your "Purple Heart", by the year
2008 you were posting the following:
Newsgroups: alt.news
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:55:23 -0700
Local: Wed, Jun 11 2008 10:55�am
Subject: Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel
Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart Card also, and I received mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have never
fought in a war. About the only place you could have received a purple
heart card was in Lebanon, and that was not a shooting war, just a
bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of Marine officers. In respect
to deposing Saddam, I am the one advocating removing Saddam, you are
the
one advocating cowering, hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear
who the coward is around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart Card
not received in combat is about as cowardly as it gets.
Note: A purple heart medal cannot be awarded other than in combat.
Consequently, Chip must be talking about a Purple Heart VA ID card. My
purple heart card reference in my reply is not about the medal, but is
only referencing a purple heart ID card provided by the Veterans'
Administration for service connected disabilities which I have.
Mac
wrote:
>When Brooks read my "shoot around little girl" post (for about the
>tenth time and counting) he said the following:
snip
************* ****************
Bat-pucky!
You stated that you shot the little girl.
You did NOT claim you were shooting AROUND that little girl.
You stated --- (( HEADERS provided... ))
Note the Date, the HEADERS, and the Subject and the Groups.
ALSO note that nowhere does he hint that this is what he is now
desperately claiming it to be: "fiction".
Draw your own conclusions as to the mental make-up of the person who
would spew forth the following in a debate/conversation with another
person.
=============
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups:
alt.news-media,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.security.terrorism
References:
<Dflp8.13307$se.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<uabpeks...@corp.supernews.com
<4hmp8.13400$se.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<3CA62E0D...@exploratoire.ch
<IYtp8.14415$Eb5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<3CA82636...@exploratoire.ch
Subject: Re: Arafat Refuses Land Back
Lines: 300
Message-ID:
<g80q8.17599$se.16...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:45:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.130.222
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1017679500 12.82.130.222
(Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:45:00 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:45:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Doug Says:
Colin, you have not seen such films unless they were produced for
propaganda purposes.
When I was in Vietnam little children were given toe poppers (small
mines) hidden in cigarette packages, then they were told by the
Communists to give this nice gift to the American GI's as they passed
by their village.
I will never forget the day when a little smiling girl no more than 4
or 5 years old started walking towards me trying to give me a pack of
cigarettes.
I was forced to shoot her.
**********************************
It is nice to know that you have never forgotten the day when you shot
that little girl !!
NOTE the differences.
In APRIL, 2002 you clearly state:
"I was forced to shoot her."
Once you have been challenged on the above bullshit, on June 6th,
2009, you now desperately try claiming:
"... about shooting around a little girl in
Vietnam to make a point about how the
Commie Vietnamese used little children
to murder..."
SEVEN years later you try to insert that little preposition of
"around" --- instead of your former declarative statement that you
had been "...forced to shoot her."
So, when are you proceeding with that lawsuit?
You know, the one you have been threatening everyone with for YEARS
and YEARS....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
> It is called binding arbitration. I say you have libeled me, but I
>have not libeled you. You say that you have not libeled me but I have
>libeled you. If the completely independent Association of American
>Arbitrators agree with you, then I will apologize and pay for their
>services. But if they agree with me, you will apologize and pay for
>their services.
>
>So are you all "Big Hat and No Cattle" Mr. Rau?
******************************************
You have threantened LAWSUITS over the years and over several UseNet
Groups.
You have repeatedly claimed you have submitted material to your
alleged attorneys.
You have repeatedly claimed you will engage in lawsuits.
Several people had then clearly and concisely stated that they are NOT
interested in your "arbitration", but await your lawsuit and the
deposition.
In the FALL of 2008 you claimed you had (( AGAIN )) submitted
material to attorneys and then would get back to you within NINETY
DAYS: it has now been more than TWO HUNDRED DAYS!!!
Your threats of lawsuits have been ongoing for years....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
>THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
>NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
>CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
>THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
>HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
>PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
>DEFAMING LIGHT.
**************************************
Bat-pucky.
You have threatened LAWSUITS for years.
Several of the veterans (( and others )) who have challenged your
balderdash have then been subjected to your antics.
Many have clearly stood up and told you, in no uncertain terms, that
there would NOT be arbitration.
They challenged you to have the courage of your threats and proceed
with you threatened lawsuits.
They stated they were prepared to stand before the Judge and challenge
what you have stated and the attacks you have made.
All you have done is whine and threaten.
You lack the courage of your threats.
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
> I know I am willing to walk the walk...
==============================
Then follow through on the many threats you have made over the years
regarding those "LAWSUITS".
No arbitration.
You claim you presented material to several different attorneys.
Follow through on your threats.
No arbitration ----- follow through on your threats regarding the
lawsuits.
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
> And is it a bigger issue than the guy that calls himself a "medic"
>but was really only a "ward attendant that worked in nice safe
>hospital ward (albeit I can imagine the duty was akin to burning shit
>day after day) -
===========================================
Poor little Dougie.
You are so desperate to enhance your own self-image and puffed-up
military history that, although you have copies of several veterans
files, you deliberately choose to mis-read what the MOS is....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
>a bigger issue
>than some poor idiot lying about his medals and duties during the tet
>offensive like Nigel Brooks did?
====================================
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Seems I remember YOU making several claims of your actions during
that TET Offensive.....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
>Strange that Tom Rau never addressees any of the above in his posts?
>And he keeps ducking my question:
snip
>I also must wonder why Tom Rau never mention's the glaring fraud from
>his fellow smear/hate and con gang members? I also must wonder if Mr.
>Rau understands the term "hypocrite?"
========================================
Well, it could well be that Mr. Rau has been very patient with your
deliberate and desperate distortion of his service.
I believe that he has patiently answered several of your questions.
Please do not blame him if you
(a.) refuse to read those replies
(b.) refuse to verify what was stated
and
(c.) then apologize
AS FOR HIM understanding the term "hypocrite", I suspect he is quite
well aware of you and your posting history, and your antics, and your
ongoing threats to anyone challenging your codswallop.
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
>
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
SNIP
=============================
CLAIMS that Doug Grant was �wounded�...
War is a terrible thing to behold.� I know, I fought in one for a very
long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life
ITEM ONE: *******************************
The date is �May 21,1998 �and the UseNet Group is
<rec.gambling.blackjack>
HERE IS WHAT YOU WROTE ---I'll put into CAPITAL LETTERS the sentence
that you posted....
QUOTE:
From: DOUGLAS REIMAN
Date: Thurs, May 21 1998 12:00 am
Now Ed, where DID you get that medical degree! �
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Give it back you forgot your change.
I think I was wrong a few times.
�I certainly was wrong when I volunteered for my second tour in
Vietnam. �
AND I WAS WRONG TO THINK THE VC �THAT FIRED AT ME WOULD NOT HIT ME. �
---CLOSE QUOTES---
If the VC fired at him and �hit him�, he claimed he was �wounded�.
ITEM TWO: *****************************
AS FOR HIS STATEMENT �...almost lost my life� Such was in his
response to:
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
From: "John Salerno" <johnj...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:59:25 -0500
Local: Wed, Sep 12 2001 12:59�pm
Subject: Re: An Act of War
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rgNn7.21838$KV3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in one for a
> very long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life. Yet I
> would fight again today, and send my sons to fight.
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
Snip
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DOUG GRANT claims:
VC firing mortars from moving vehicles
Watching VC drive ambulances onto CanTho airfield PRIOR to his
arriving in Vietnam !!
====== =======
Newsgroups: alt.security.terrorism, alt.terrorism.world-trade-center
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:14:01 GMT
Local: Sat, Oct 6 2001 3:14�pm
Subject: TERROR FIGHTS BACK
When I was in Vietnam, stationed in Can Tho, I witnessed two
ambulances drive through our main gate, calmly drive to our
airport, drive on the tarmac and while driving down the tarmac
Viet Cong contained in the ambulances shot each plane on the
tarmac with a M-79 grenade launcher. �Then when they were
through, they simply drove out the back gate and down the road.
This was a "drive-by" on an airport!
�These six or seven Viet Cong, equipped with simple weapons (that
look like big shotguns) destroyed an entire American Army air
base in about five minutes!
..... SNIP ....
The Viet Cong were also experts with mortars. �They would steal
trucks, and while driving down a road fire several mortar rounds
from those moving trucks all at different altitudes. �By firing
in this manner the mortar rounds would all fall in the same
general area within about ten seconds of each other. �
...SNIP .........
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
****************************** ***************
The above described event took place in December of 1967.
Doug Grant was NOT in Vietnam in any part of 1967 ---although he
claims to have �witnessed� the above event.
The ambulances were employed in that December, 1967 attack.
HOWEVER, in January of 1969 the air field was again attacked --- but
NOT with ambulances and certainly NOT in the manner which Doug Grant
claimed above.
And, of course, the "De Oppresso Liber" expression is NOT one
earned by Doug Grant ---- he was NEVER in "Special Forces".
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DOUG GRANT Claims to have killed 1,803-PLUS enemy...!!!
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Surely that should read 'Americans are dangerous'?
- was:
Re: Alerts Are Dangerous
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:39:33 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <u9cqor7futs...@corp.supernews.com
References: <u9ch011lc7a...@corp.supernews.com
<VOsl8.2483$We7.19632...@news-text.cableinet.net
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Complaints-To: newsab...@supernews.com
Lines: 39
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post02.iad01!roadrunner.com!not-for-mail
From: Dai Uy <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Followup-To: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Decorated Vietnam War "hero" turns out to be just another
Republican phony
Organization: just another vet for truth
Reply-To: alt.war.vietnam
Keywords: " Did you kill anyone?" "1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours with
only 3 wounded in my team" "I have a Purple Heart too"
References:
<e9abe339-82b7-4a40-8f0a-338a8e92b...@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
<g1a9v3ln63c8qcttitirtghuoieik7f...@4ax.com
<Dai-Uy-C1B9DE.17300803042...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com
<K9SdnXlsHLfjvGXanZ2dnUVZ_t6on...@comcast.com
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:55:01 -1000
Message-ID: <Dai-Uy-336296.17550105042...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com
Lines: 139
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.49.169.182
X-Complaints-To: ab...@rr.com
Bytes: 5712
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.war.vietnam:702785
"Cubistic_Fi<ator"
<whateveryouwantittobeyousickstal...@wherever.net wrote in
message news:VOsl8.2483$We7.19...@news-text.cableinet.net...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
ALERTS ARE DANGEROUS
These Green, Yellow, Orange and Red alerts dreamed up by
someone
in our Government are very dangerous. Why? Let me tell you
a
little story first:
When I was in Vietnam, we used Claymore mines
...and napalm and agent orange and cluster bombs and rifles and
grenades
and AP mines and tanks and rocket launchers and mortars and
jets and attack
helicopters and....
Did you kill anyone?
As many VC and NVA as I could. (1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours
with only 3 wounded in my team). It is too bad however that we
did not kill more. Then perhaps there would not have been the
Pol Pot massacres of six million, and another estimated 2
million
butchered by the North Vietnamese after they took Saigon. But
then those murders should be on the collective conscience of
those that protested us fighting the communists.
So, how many innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese do you think you
helped to massacre by protesting the Vietnam war?
Doug Grant (Tm)
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:39:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Surely that should read 'Americans are
dangerous'? - was:
Re: Alerts Are Dangerous
As many VC and NVA as I could. (1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours
with only 3 wounded in my team).
� � �Mar 18, 2002
Question - Did you kill anyone?
As many VC and NVA as I could. (1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours
with only 3 wounded in my team). It is too bad however that we
did not kill more.
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
********** **********
DOUG GRANT and O.C.S. ---�ButterBars�...
Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:34:31 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 23 2001 10:34�am
Subject: Re: Military Experts on FOX & CNN?
Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. �I went through three
Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I
went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. �Half of my
graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
Doug Grant (Tm)
************************
Doug did NOT complete O.C.S.
Apparently did NOT last a month or so.
He later claimed a "ButterBar" was a NCO....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remember Doug Grant claiming to have a Purple Heart ?
Here he claims to have been wounded.
HOWEVER, he apprently does NOT have a Purple Heart.
===========
The date is �May 21,1998 �and the UseNet Group is
<rec.gambling.blackjack>
HERE IS WHAT YOU WROTE ---I'll put into CAPITAL LETTERS the sentence
that you posted....
QUOTE:
From: DOUGLAS REIMAN
Date: Thurs, May 21 1998 12:00 am
Now Ed, where DID you get that medical degree! �
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Give it back you forgot your change.
I think I was wrong a few times.
�I certainly was wrong when I volunteered for my second tour in
Vietnam. �
AND I WAS WRONG TO THINK THE VC �THAT FIRED AT ME WOULD NOT HIT ME. �
---CLOSE QUOTES---
If the VC fired at him and �hit him�, he claimed he was �wounded�.t
him and �hit him�, he claimed he was �wounded�.
And, he claims TWO TOURS in Vietnam here.
Elsewhere he claims 2.5 tours in Vietnam.
HOWEVER, apparently he was inCountry for FIFTEEN MONTHS.
He was in the army.
A normal army "tour" was approximately TWELVE MONTHS.
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First page or two of a 125-pg document
filed by DOUG GRANT in Fall of 2008 against
what he is desperately calling a "gang" challenging
his blustering balderdash....
Douglas G. Reiman v. John Does et al Civil Action DocketNo.___________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT
TACOMA
CIVIL ACTION: DOCKET NO. ___________
AS DOUGLMAGN . RAE I O(UAG/K / D GRANT),
PLAINTIFF
-AGAINST
JOHN AND JANE DOES (1-1000),
AB C ENTITIES/CORPORATIOSN (1-100 0),
JOHN AND JANE ROES (1-1000),
DEFENDANTS COMPLA INT
______________________________________________________________
DOUGL A S G. REIM AN
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
8__ R______ DRIVE .
RIDGEFIELD, WA 98642
(360) ___-4___
EMAIL: DGVR...@COMCAST.NET
______________________________________________________________
PARTIES TO THIS COMPLAINT
TO THE NAMED DEFENDANTS: Douglas G. Reiman, the Plaintiff pro se
herein, alleges upon information, belief and knowledge with respect to
his own
acts, and upon information and belief with respect to all other
matters, as follows:
PLAINTIFF
(1.1). Plaintiff Douglas G. Reiman is currently an individual citizen
of the
state of Washington, and was a citizen of that state, for the time
covered by the
complaint.
(1.1)(a.) Plaintiff�s address is:
8__ R_____ Drive, Ridgefield, Wa, 98642 TeL; 360-___-4___, Clark
County.
DEFENDANTS
(1.2). Defendants:
(1.3). Defendants John and Jane Does 1-100 are those individuals, as
yet
unidentified by their Internet Service Providers, Agents, Web Hosts
and Proxy
Servers, who participated in, and/or are liable, culpable, responsible
for or
contributed to, or enabled, threats of death and violence against
Plaintiff, the
Internet and USENET publications, emails, all other publications,
contacts and
transfers to third parties, web sites, telephone calls, mailings,
conversations,
third party contacts and meetings, USENET posts, messages, computer
hacking,
malicious interference with Plaintiff�s business and trade, copyright
infringements, forgeries, false accusations, impersonations, filing
false and
malicious criminal complaints, filing false applications and providing
false
information to US Government agencies, Web Sites and Home Pages that
are
the subject of this complaint. All individual Defendant gang members
hereinafter are known as the �Defendants.�
(1.4). Defendants ABC Entities/Corporations and Government agencies
(1-
100) are those entities and/or corporations, or other business
entities, as yet
unidentified, and who may be responsible, liable and/or culpable for
the actions
pleaded herein. These entities include but are not limited to Internet
service
providers, anonymous re-mailers, agents, proxy servers, web page
hosters and
creators, domain name holding entities, government agencies, law
enforcement
agencies and officers, and all individuals and/or all business
entities that have
advertised on, received advertising income from, gained clients from,
or
otherwise attempted to sell or sold products or services on the
Defendants�
numerous web pages, enabled or contributed to such activities,
including but not
limited to news servers that allowed criminal activity by their
clients on
USENET after those servers were specifically notified of such alleged
criminal
activity, insurance or all other companies that provide coverage to
any and all
individual John and Jane Does, ABC Entities/Corporations, John and
Jane
Roes, or any and all other individuals, entities or businesses,
vicarious and/or
contributory, that were involved in the creation, posting,
transmission, or
otherwise profiting from in any manner the transfer, publication,
conspiracy
and/or storage of the materials, publications or conveyances, which
are subject of
this complaint.
(1.5). Defendants John and Jane Roes 1-1000 for those individuals, as
yet
unidentified, who were and/or are agents, representatives,
advertisers, employee
or servants of the above ABC entities/corporations or John Doe
Defendants,
acting on those defendants� behalf for Defendants� benefit, or to
assist
Defendants in their smear, torture, intimidation and harassment
campaign
against Plaintiff, or were acting within the scope of their agency and
employment, and/or with the knowledge and consent of the ABC or John
and
Jane Does defendants.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
OVERVIEW OF CASE
Background:
(1.6). Plaintiff has attempted every way possible to avoid this
litigation.
Plaintiff and his lawyer have sent hundreds of cease and desist
requests to
Defendants begging Defendants to cease their unlawful acts against
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has even proposed amnesty from legal action if Defendants
would
retract and remove all previous defaming and threatening publications
from
Google archives, and agree to stop publishing and perpetrating
wrongful acts
against Plaintiff.
(1.7). In each case, and regardless of Plaintiff�s constant begging
Defendants to cease and desist their wrongful acts and agree to his
proposals to
avoid litigation, the Defendants have responded to both Plaintiff and
his
Attorney�s cease and desist requests and proposals to avoid litigation
with
arrogant libel, false accusations, harassment, obloquy, intimidation
and taunts for
Plaintiff to take legal action against them, and have further stated
the Defendants
believe such legal action would be too expensive or time consuming for
Plaintiff
to undertake.
SNIP over 125-PLUS pages....
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
DOUG GRANT Suit:
---demands in which, before trebling, they are seeking at least
$347,532,800 in damages.
59
We are disturbed that appellants have couched their arguments in
dramatic hyperbole obfuscating the real issues. Indeed, we are
satisfied that the appellants have mischaracterized the facts.
==================
Doug Grant, Inc., Richard Andersen, Judy L. Bintliff, Lynn v. Bohsen,
Thomas M. Bolick, Michael Bonn, Roland Bryant, Sr., Eugene Clauser,
Elmer Conover, Scott Conover, Joseph Curran, Dino D'andrea, Mark F.
D'andrea, Warren Davenport, Frank Delia, Karen Dwyer, Dennis F.
Foreman, Rosemarie Francis, Stephen Freel, Stavros Georgiou, Kenneth
Gross, Adib Hannah, G. Hassan Hattina, Leroy N. Jordan, Roman Kern,
Richard H. Kessel, Scott Klee, Jeffrey S. Krah, Kathleen E.
Lane-bourgeois, Thomas J. Lotito, Jr., James Macelroy, Mar Tin Malter,
Stanley P. Mcanally, Anne T. Mcgowan-novak, Eugene L. Miserendino,
Daniel G. Nauroth, Matthew S. Pellenberg, Daniel Pilone, Stephen F.
Pinciotti, Robert E. Prout, Martin Rose, Lynn Rufo, Vincent Salek,
Arlen Schwerin, Joseph Scioscia, William F. Strauss, Douglas G.
Telman, Aino Tomson, Ants Tomson, Thomas Tomson, Linwood C. Uphouse,
Dolores Valancy, Andrew R. Vardzal, Jr., Grant Douglas Von Reiman,
Kenneth J. Warner, Steven W Atters, Paul v. Yannessa, Doug Grant
College of Winning Blackjack, Inc., Sigma Research, Inc., Beta
Management, Inc., Favorable Situations Only Inc., T/a Doug Grant
Institute of Winning Blackjack, Jan C. Muszynski, Linda Tompson,
Appellants v. greate Bay Casino Corporation, Grea Te Bay Hotel and
Casino T/a Sands Hotel and Casino, Sands Hotel and Casino, Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Gnoc Corp. T/a "atlantic City Hilton," Atlantic
City Hilton, Bally's Park Place, Inc. T/a "bally's Park Place,"
Bally's Park Place, Itt Corporation, Itt Corporation Nv, Caesar's
World, Inc. A/k/a "caesar's Atlantic City," Caesar's World, Claridge
Hotel & Casino Corp., Claridge at Park Place, Inc., Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc., Marina Associates D/b/a "harrah's Casino Hotel",
Harrah's Casino Hotel, Sun International North America Inc., Sun
International Hotels Ltd., Resorts International Hotel, Inc., Resorts
Casino Hotel, Showboat, Inc., Showboat, Aztar Corporation, Adamar of
New Jersey, Inc., (formerly Trop World Casino and Entertainment
Resort) T/a Tropicana Casino and Resort, Tropicana Casino and Resort,
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc., Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts
Holdings, L.p., Trump Atlantic City Associates, Trump Plaza
Associates, L.p., Trump Plaza Associates, Trump Plaza Hotel and
Casino, Trump Taj Mahal Associates, Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, the
Trump Organization, Inc., Trump's Castle Associates, L.p., Trump
Castle Associates, Trump Marina Casino Hotel Resort, Formerly Trump's
Castle Casino Resort, John Does 1-100, Griffin Investigations,
International Casino Surveillance Network, L.p., Surveillance
Information Network, John Does 101-200, F. Michael Daily, Esq.,
Quinlan, Dunne, Daily & Higgins, Ellen Barney Balint, Meranze & Katz,
Caplan & Luber, Lloyd S. Markind, Esq., Richard L. Caplan, Esq.,
Sharon Morgan, Esq., Michele Davis, Esq
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT - 232 F.3d 173
(3rd Cir. 2000)
Argued October 5, 2000
Filed November 2, 2000
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 97-04291)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas[Copyrighted Material
Omitted][Copyrighted Material Omitted][Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Howard A. Altschuler (argued) 66 Saltonstall Parkway East Haven, CT
06512 Attorney for Appellants
Frederick H. Kraus Sands Hotel & Casino Indiana Avenue & Brighton Park
Atlantic City, NJ 08401 Attorney for Appellees Greate Bay Casino,
Greate Bay Hotel and Sands Hotel and Casino
Adam N. Saravay (argued) Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry, Llp 4
Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Attorneys for the Trump Casino
Appellees and Co-Counsel for the Remaining Casino Appellees and
Griffin Investigations
John M. Donnelly (argued) Levine, Staller, Sklar, Chan, Brodsky, &
Donnelly, P.A. 3030 Atlantic Ave. Atlantic City, NJ 08401 Attorneys
for Casino Appellees (other than the Trump Casino Defendants) and
Griffin Investigations
Before: Nygaard, Greenberg and Cowen, Circuit Judges
Greenberg, Circuit Judge.
1
This matter comes on before this court on appeal from an order entered
on May 1, 1998, partially dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.1 See Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 3 F.
Supp.2d 518 (D.N.J. 1998). The appellants had instituted this action
in the Superior Court of New Jersey but the appellees removed it to
the district court. Consequently, when the district court entered the
Rule 12(b)(6) order it remanded appellants' state-law claims that it
did not address to the Superior Court. In view of the procedural
posture of this case, we treat the allegations of fact in the
complaint as true, and consider them in a light most favorable to the
appellants.2
2
The individual appellants are blackjack players who have frequented
Atlantic City casinos operated by the casino appellees. Of the 60
individual appellants, all but six have developed card-counting skills
for playing blackjack enabling them to reduce or eliminate the normal
odds in favor of the casinos and, indeed, to turn the odds in their
favor. The corporate appellants are associated with appellant Doug
Grant, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, whose predecessor corporations
operated card-counting schools and mock casinos established by the
appellant, Doug Grant, a renowned card-counter . Doug Grant, Inc. also
provided the training for several cooperative player groups, including
many of the appellants here, who pooled their financial resources and
agreed to share their blackjack winnings.
3
A. The Play of Blackjack, Card-Counting and Shuffling- At-Will and
Other Countermeasures
4
The gravamen of appellants' complaint is that the casinos have taken
countermeasures that the appellants regard as illegal to eliminate the
advantage that a skilled card-counter may have over them in playing
blackjack, the one casino game in which a player's skill may increase
his chance of winning to the point of eliminating the winning odds in
favor of the "house." See Campione v. Adamar of N. J., Inc., 714 A.2d
299, 301 (N.J. 1998). Card-counters use intellect and memory to
identify the time during the course of play when a player's odds of
winning are better or worse. Thus, the individual appellants allege
that the casinos have impaired their ability to win money from the
casinos in blackjack. The corporate appellants allege that their
schools and mock casinos were forced to close as a result of the
casinos' countermeasures against card-counters, and because of bomb
threats, break-ins, destruction of property, theft of student lists,
stalking and other intimidation tactics.
5
It is necessary for us partially to describe how blackjack games are
run in order to put appellants' allegations in context. Blackjack is
played with decks containing 52 cards of four suits (hearts, diamonds,
clubs and spades) with each suit containing 13 cards (Ace, King,
Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2). See N.J.A.C. S 19:46-1.17.
Before a blackjack game starts, the dealer receives one or more,
usually between six to eight, card decks from a casino supervisor and
inspects them in the presence of the floorperson. See id. S
19:47-2.4(a). After inspecting the cards, the dealer takes them to a
blackjack table and spreads them out in a fan, face upward, for visual
inspection by the first player or players to arrive at the table. See
id. S 19:47-2.4(b). After these players are afforded an opportunity to
inspect the cards, the dealer turns them face downward on the table,
mixes them thoroughly, and shuffles them until they are "randomly
intermixed." The dealer then places the cards into a stack. See id. S
19:47-2.4(c); id. S 19:47-2.5(a). After the shuffling is completed,
the dealer asks the player seated at a particular position at the
table, as defined by the regulations of the Casino Control Commission
("CCC"), the casino regulatory agency, id. 19:47-2.5(e), to cut the
deck. See id. S 19:47-2.5(b). The player cuts the deck by placing a
plastic cutting card in the stack at least ten cards from either end.
See id. S 19:47-2.5(c).
6
Once the player has inserted the cutting card, the dealer takes all
the cards in front of the cutting card and places them at the back of
the stack. See id. S 19:47-2.5(d). The dealer then takes the entire
stack of shuffled cards and cuts and aligns it along the side of the
dealing shoe which has a mark on its side enabling the dealer to
insert the cutting card so that it is in a position "at least
approximately" one-quarter of the way from the back of the stack. See
id. S 19:47-2.5(d); id. S 19:46-1.19(d)(4). The dealer then inserts
the stack of cards into the dealing shoe for commencement of play. See
id. S 19:47-2.5(d). The cards behind the cutting card will not be used
during the game.
7
Once play has commenced the dealer deals the cards to the players in a
series of hands until the dealer reaches the cutting card. When the
dealer reaches the cutting card, the dealer repeats the shuffling
process and cutting procedures described above. See id. S
19:47-2.5(h).
8
A blackjack player's object is to reach as close as possible to a
total card value of 21 without exceeding that value. A player
exceeding 21 loses regardless of the dealer's subsequently acquired
hand. Persons in the casino industry and card-counters have come to
recognize that, in a player's endeavor to reach a value as close as
possible to 21, certain cards are more favorable to the player and
certain cards are more favorable to the dealer. In particular,
appellants assert that the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten are
favorable to a player, but the 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2 are favorable to the
dealer and thus to the house. The 7, 8, and 9 are said to be neutral.
At any point during the play, the cards in a shoe can contain more
player -favorable cards or more dealer-favorable cards. When there are
more player-favorable cards, a player's chances of winning are
increased but when there are more dealer-favorable cards, the dealer's
chances of winning are increased. Whether and when a shoe will turn
out to be player - or dealer-favorable is purely random.
9
Card-counters attempt to "count cards" to determine whether and when a
shoe is player-favorable. They then vary their bets, i.e., betting
high when the shoe is player-favorable and low when the shoe is
dealer-favorable to increase their chances of having a winning round
of play. Bets are placed before each individual round of blackjack,
usually within established minimum and maximum limits for the table.
According to the appellants, successful card-counting contains several
basic elements including the assignment of a point value to each card,
maintaining a running total of those points during play, betting
strategies, playing strategies, money management, a sufficient
bankroll, and "the intangible ability to consistently apply these
interrelated strategies under fast-paced casino conditions." See app.
at 24.
10
For maximum advantage, card-counters need to be able to view, through
the rounds of play, as many of the cards in the shoe as possible. The
greater number of cards they are able to view, the easier it is for
them to determine to whom the remaining cards in the shoe are
favorable. For this reason, card-counters prefer that the dealer place
the cutting card toward the end of the shoe, leaving a small number of
cards behind the cutting-card and increasing the overall number of
cards in play. Card-counters also prefer to have the entire shoe of
cards played. If the dealer reshuffles prior to reaching the cutting
card, then the card-counters' opportunity to bet high on a shoe with a
remainder of mostly player-favorable cards is impaired.
11
The casinos, on the other hand, prefer to decrease the card-counters'
opportunity to bet high on a player-favorable shoe. Therefore, it is
in their interest to decrease the card-counters' chances of
determining whether a shoe is player-favorable by playing with fewer
cards in the shoe, i.e., placing the cutting card as far from the back
of the stack as permitted by the CCC regulations. It is also in the
casinos' interest to reshuffle prior to reaching the cutting card when
the remaining cards in a shoe are player-favorable. These practices,
however, come at a cost to the casino as the more often the dealer
goes through the meticulous shuffling process, the shorter the actual
time of play and thus the smaller the casino's profits.
12
Appellants allege that the casinos maintain card-counting teams and/or
video and computer surveillance equipment to identify card-counters
and inform the dealers of their participation in a blackjack game so
that the dealers can take countermeasures against them. Appellants
challenge these practices, claiming they violate the New Jersey
"cheating games" section in the Casino Control Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. S
5:12-115 (West 1996), which provides that it shall be unlawful:
13
Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any
game or games played with cards . . . which have in any manner been
marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a
manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to
alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal
chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the
game.
14
The appellants make several specific allegations to support their
claims. See Doug Grant, 3 F . Supp.2d at 524-25. First, they argue
that the card-counter identifying process fundamentally is flawed
because it tends unfairly to misidentify non-card-counters as
card-counters. They claim casinos define card-counters as (1) any
patron who increases a bet during a player-favorable count, or (2) any
patron who knows or is related to someone who has increased a bet
during a player-favorable count. According to appellants, a player the
casino identifies as a card-counter is "branded for life" and never is
able to play a "fair" game of blackjack without being subjected to
countermeasures. The casinos allegedly share information about
suspected card-counters through defendant Griffin Investigations and
other similar agencies. These agencies allegedly keep dossiers
containing the pictures of suspected card-counters which casino
employees then use to spot card-counters for the purpose of knowing
when to implement countermeasures.
15
Second, appellants claim that the casinos utilize what they term the
"cheating-at-will" preferential shuffle and which, as codified by the
CCC regulations, generally is known as the "shuffle-at-will." A dealer
reshuffling prior to reaching the cut-card marker shuffles-at-will. A
casino will shuffle in this manner when its card-counting team
determines that the shoe is player-favorable at a table where it
suspects card-counters are playing. Appellants allege that the
shuffle-at-will provides an extra 2% advantage to the casino, nearly
double its normal chance of winning, and thus providing the casinos
with a windfall of millions of dollars. Id. at 525. They also claim
that a casino can shuffle-at-will abusively to the disadvantage of
players who are not card-counters by shuffling-at-will even when its
employees do not suspect that there is a card-counter playing at a
table. Id.
16
Appellants recount specific instances in which individual appellants
allegedly were subjected to shuffling-at-will by specific casinos
throughout the past ten years. On some, but not all, of these
occasions, the player reported the shuffle-at-will to the CCC and/or
the New Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement ("DGE") official
on-site at every casino. According to appellants, the casinos never
have responded to such complaints by admitting to counting cards and
shuffling during a player -favorable count. Id.
17
Appellants also allege that because they have been identified as
card-counters, they are limited to one wager at a time, are refused
cards, have bets pushed back, and are forced to bet below the original
posted limit at the table. Id. Moreover, they allege that "shills"
associated with the casinos sometimes occupy all seats at tables at
which they wish to play. Id. The appellants allege that they have been
treated in these adverse ways even though players who are not
card-counters are not so treated.
18
Appellants also claim that the casinos have denied them hospitality
"comps," such as meals, after identifying them as card-counters. Id.
Finally, appellants allege that they have been threatened, assaulted
and stalked because of their suspected card-counter status. Id. They
allege that they have been threatened in person while at the casinos
by both known and unknown casino employees and that they have been
threatened and sent pornographic materials over the Internet by
unnamed John Does allegedly connected to the casinos. Id.
19
B. The Casino Control Act and CCC Regulations
20
The New Jersey Casino Control Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-1 et seq.
(West 1996) (the "Act"), gives the CCC comprehensive authority to
define and regulate the rules and conduct of play for blackjack and
other authorized casino games. See Campione, 714 A.2d at 304; Uston v.
Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., 445 A.2d 370, 372-73 (N.J. 1982). It also
grants the CCC "exclusive jurisdiction" over the interpretation and
enforcement of regulations governing "all matters delegated to it or
within the scope of its powers under the provisions of [the Act]."
N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-133b; see also id. 5:12-69, 70. That
jurisdiction delegates to the CCC the power to promulgate regulations
regarding the rules of casino games, including blackjack, id. SS
5:12-69-70f, gambling related advertising, id. S 5:12-70o, and the
enforcement of gaming regulations, including the investigation,
adjudication, and punishment of regulatory violations, id. SS
5:12-63b, f, g; id. S 5:12-64; id. S 5:12-129.
21
The regulations governing blackjack are exhaustive and set forth in
great detail the rules for the conduct of the game. See N.J.A.C. S
19:47-2.1 et seq. Indeed, the New Jersey Supreme Court has stated
that, "[i]t is no exaggeration to state that the Commission's
regulation of blackjack is more extensive than the entire
administrative regulation of many industries." Uston, 445 A.2d 373.
The CCC is very aware of the card-counter controversy. As the parties
have recognized, the CCC carefully has considered and addressed in its
regulatory capacity the effect card-counters can have on the game and
the ways in which casinos should be permitted to respond to
professional card-counters. See, e.g., 14 N.J. Reg. 467-70 (May 17,
1982); 14 N.J. Reg. 559-69 (June 7, 1982); 14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2,
1982); 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 2613 (Sept. 3,
1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3350 (Nov. 4, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3354 (Nov. 4,
1991); 25 N.J. Reg. 3953 (Sept. 7, 1993); 25 N.J. Reg. 5521 (Dec. 6,
1993). The CCC regulations authorize the casinos to use certain
countermeasures to prevent card-counters from overcoming the
statistical advantage that is necessary to ensure the casinos'
financial viability.
22
The CCC adopted many of its regulations authorizing countermeasures in
response to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in Uston, 445 A.2d
370, a case considering whether casinos have the authority to exclude
card-counters from their premises. The court determined that casinos
were not authorized to exclude card-counters, reasoning that the Act
gave the CCC exclusive and plenary authority to set the rules and
methods of play of casino games and that the CCC had not authorized
the exclusion of card-counters as a countermeasure3 The court
suggested, however, that if the CCC wanted to approve measures to
neutralize the card-counter threat, it might be able to exclude
card-counters, provided that the regulation did not violate
constitutional or statutory limits. Uston, 445 A.2d at 375-76.
23
Yet, prior to Uston, the CCC had codified a practice which the casinos
used as a card-counter counter measure even though the CCC did not
promulgate it for that purpose. This regulation provides that: "[a]
casino licensee, in its discretion" may permit a player to "wager on
[more than] one box at a Blackjack table." N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.14. The
CCC had been allowing the use of this practice against card-counters
through its approval of casinos' internal control pursuant to N.J.
Stat. Ann. S 5:12-99. The rule specifically grants casinos discretion
to allow players (usually non-card-counters) to bet on more than one
box, and presumably, in light of the discretionary language, allows
them to preclude card-counters from betting on more than one box.
24
After Uston, the CCC held a series of hearings on the issue of
card-counters and decided to enact regulations authorizing the casinos
to use certain measures to neutralize the potential negative effect
card-counters could have on their financial viability. See Campione,
714 A.2d at 305. The new regulations, which the New Jersey Supreme
Court urged the CCC to consider in lieu of allowing the casinos to
exclude card-counters, balanced the statutory goals of casino
viability and fair odds to all players. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S
5:12-100e. The CCC intended the regulations to ensure both the
fairness and integrity of casino gambling and "the right of the
casinos to have the rules drawn so as to allow some reasonable
profit." Uston, 445 A.2d at 376; see also 14 N.J. Reg. 560-61 (June 7,
1982); 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3, 1991).
25
Several of these countermeasures involved the manner by which casinos
could shuffle the blackjack cards. The first approved shuffling method
is known as the "Bart Carter Shuffle," a "shuffling procedure in which
approximately one deck of cards is shuffled after being dealt,
segregated into separate stacks and each stack is inserted into
premarked locations within the remaining decks contained in the
dealing shoe." N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.1; see also 14 N.J. Reg. 559 (June
7, 1982); 14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982). The CCC also approved the
"shuffle-at-will," which we have described above, to allow the casinos
to shuffle after any round of play. To implement this approval, the
CCC amended the existing shuffle regulation by adding language
regarding the casinos' authority to shuffle "after each round of
play":
26
(a) Immediately prior to commencement of play, after any round of play
as may be determined by the casino licensee and after each shoe of
cards is dealt, the dealer shall shuffle the cards so that they are
randomly intermixed.
27
. . . . . .
28
(h) A reshuffle of the cards in the shoe shall take place after the
cutting card is reached in the shoe . . . except that:
29
1. The casino licensee may determine after each round of play that the
cards should be reshuffled;
30
2. When the `Bart Carter Shuffle' is utilized a reshuffle shall take
place after the cards in the discard rack exceed approximately one
deck in number .
31
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5; see 14 N.J. Reg. 559 (June 7, 1982), 14 N.J.
Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982).
32
The CCC also has approved the use of a device known as the continuous
shuffling shoe. In place of the dealing and shuffling requirements set
forth in N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.5 and 2.6, a casino licensee may utilize a
dealing shoe or other device designed to reshuffle the cards
automatically, provided that the CCC or its authorized designatee has
approved such shoe or device and the procedures for dealing and
shuffling the cards through the use of this device. See N.J.A.C. S
19:47-2.21; see also 14 N.J. Reg. 559 (June 7, 1982), 14 N.J. Reg. 841
(Aug. 2, 1982).
33
The shuffling regulations, particularly the most commonly used
shuffle-at-will, have enabled the casinos to lessen the card-counters'
ability to determine whether cards remaining in the shoe are
player-favorable. As we already have noted, when the cards are
reshuffled continuously or prior to the dealer reaching the
cutting-card in the shoe, card-counters lose their potential advantage
over the casinos because they no longer can increase their bets,
secure in the knowledge that their chance of receiving
player-favorable cards has been increased.
34
The CCC also authorized one non-shuffling countermeasure after the
Uston decision--an increase in the number of decks casinos are allowed
to use in blackjack play. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.2. This change helped
the casinos combat card-counters by increasing the number of cards
card-counters would need to track to determine whether a shoe was
player-favorable. Plainly, the more cards in the shoe, the more
difficult a player's task is to keep track of the cards.
35
After the CCC authorized these initial counter measures, in 1991 it
approved another regulation which provides that:
36
[A] casino licensee may at any time change the permissible minimum or
maximum wager at a table game, without notifying the Commission of
such change, upon posting a sign at the gaming table advising patrons
of the new permissible minimum or maximum wager and announcing the
change to patrons who are at the table.
37
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-8.3(c); see also 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3, 1991); 23
N.J. Reg. 2613 (Sept. 3, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3350 (Nov. 4, 1991); 23
N.J. Reg. 3354 (Nov. 4, 1991). This regulation gives the casinos the
authority to lower the betting limitwhenever it identifies a
card-counter so that the card-counter will not be able to bet high
when the shoe becomes player-favorable. Then, in 1993, the CCC made a
further addition to its regulations which, as further amended in 1999,
provides:
38
(b) A casino licensee may offer:
39
1. Different maximum wagers at one gaming table for each permissible
wager in an authorized game; and
40
2. Different maximum wagers at different gaming tables for each
permissible wager in an authorized game.
41
(c) A casino licensee shall provide notice of the minimum and maximum
wagers in effect at each gaming table, and any changes thereto, in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.3.
42
(d) Notwithstanding (c) above, a casino licensee may, in its
discretion, permit a player to wager below the established minimum
wager or above the established maximum wager at a gaming table.
43
(e) Any wager accepted by a dealer which is in excess of the
established maximum permitted wager at that gaming table shall be paid
or lost in its entirety in accordance with the rules of the game,
notwithstanding that the wager exceeded the current table maximum or
was lower than the current table maximum.
44
N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.2(b) to (e); see 25 N.J. Reg. 3953 (Sept. 7, 1993);
25 N.J. Reg. 5521 (Dec. 6, 1993). This regulation clarified that the
casinos could limit specifically the wagers of only those patrons
identified as card-counters, while permitting non-card-counters to
continue betting at higher limits.
45
The New Jersey courts seem not to doubt the legality of the
CCC-authorized countermeasures. In particular, the trial court in
Campione recognized that the practice of "shuffling at will," the
central concern in this case identified by the district court, is
authorized by CCC regulation, see N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5, and affects
all patrons, even those not counting cards, at a blackjack table. See
Campione v. Adamar of N. J., Inc., 643 A.2d 42, 50-51 (N.J. Super. Ct.
Law Div. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 694 A.2d 1045 (N.J. Super. Ct.
App. Div. 1997), mod. and aff'd, 714 A.2d 299 (N.J. 1998). Further, on
appeal in Campione, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division,
found that the CCC "authorizes the disparate treatment of
card-counters." 694 A.2d at 1050. The court noted that the CCC has
approved the countermeasures allowing for betting limits and
permitting casinos to vary the number of boxes in which particular
players can wager. Id. at 1047. Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court
in Campione, while not expressly upholding the countermeasures the CCC
has allowed, implicitly made it clear the CCC lawfully may permit such
countermeasures. 714 A.2d at 305, 308.
46
The complaint in this action alleged violations of the United States
Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S 1983, and the federal RICO statute, as well
as causes of action under the New Jersey RICO statute, constitution
and common law. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. SS 1441, 1331, and 1367. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. S 1291.
47
Our review of a district court's order of dismissal of a complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, is plenary and we apply the same test as the
district court. See Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481 (3d Cir.
2000). Thus, "[a] motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may be
granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Id. at 481-82.
However, while our standard of review requires us to accept as true
all factual allegations in the complaint, "we need not accept as true
`unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences.' " City of
Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., 147 F.3d 256, 263 n.13 (3d Cir .
1998) (quoting Schuylkill Energy Res., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power &
Light Co., 113 F.3d 405, 417 (3d Cir. 1997)). "[C]courts have an
obligation in matters before them to view the complaint as a whole and
to base rulings not upon the presence of mere words but, rather, upon
the presence of a factual situation which is or is not justiciable. We
do draw on the allegations of the complaint, but in a realistic,
rather than a slavish, manner." Id. at 263.
48
Appellants' first count alleges claims for racketeering under federal
RICO, 18 U.S.C. S 1964(c), New Jersey RICO, N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2C:41-4c
(West 1995), and the RICO provisions of the Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. S
5:12-127c (West 1996). As appellees point out, the predicate acts of
alleged racketeering on which appellants' base their RICO claims
consist almost exclusively of the use of counter measures or alleged
violations of other CCC regulations. In order to make out a RICO
claim, appellants first must show that the casinos committed the
predicate criminal acts enumerated by RICO. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. SS
1961, 1962. Appellants claim that the casinos committed the following
predicate acts: shuffling-at-will when the count was player
-favorable, using computer and video technology to assist in counting
cards and identifying card-counters, denying comps to appellants,
using shills, limiting plaintiffs to one hand of blackjack at a time,
lowering betting limits, and failing to disclose the use and nature of
the disputed countermeasures. See br. 30-41; Doug Grant, 3 F. Supp.2d
at 531-32. Based on the premise that these uses of authorized
countermeasures and other alleged regulatory violations are criminal
acts, appellants' complaint alleges that the casinos' operation of
blackjack violates criminal statutes regarding unlawful debt
collection, transmission of gambling information, operation of illegal
gambling business, and interstate commerce for an unlawful activity.
49
The district court believed that the primary purported predicate act
on which appellants relied is the shuffling of cards when the count is
favorable to the players.4 The complaint alleges that use of the
"shuffling-at-will" countermeasure constitutes a predicate act of
racketeering because it violates the criminal casino "cheating"
statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-115. The trial court in Campione
rejected this precise claim. Campione, 643 A.2d at 51 ("labeling of
the shuffling at will as `cheating' is specious"). Moreover, despite
appellants' protestations, the regulation itself makes clear that a
casino at its discretion may shuffle at the conclusion of any round of
play:
50
(a) Immediately prior to commencement of play, after any round of play
as may be determined by the casino licensee and after each shoe of
cards is dealt, the dealer shall shuffle the cards so that they are
randomly intermixed.
51
. . . . . .
52
(h) A reshuffle of the cards in the shoe shall take place after the
cutting card is reached in the shoe as provided in N.J.A.C.
19:47-2.6(1) except that:1. The casino licensee may determine after
each round of play that the cards shall be reshuffled.
53
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5(a), (h).
54
Appellants attempt at length to skew the plain meaning of this
regulation and the relevant regulatory history leading to its adoption
to convince us that the CCC has authorized only a "random
shuffle-at-will," i.e., not a reshuffle that occurs only during player
favorable counts. See br. at 33. Appellants' restrictive
interpretation of the shuffle-at-will regulation, however, runs
contrary to its express language.
55
The regulatory history makes clear that the CCC is fully aware of and
allows the practice of shuffling-at-will when there is a
player-favorable count as a countermeasure against card-counters. When
the CCC published the proposed regulation to allow the casinos to
shuffle-at-will, it noted that the casinos might shuffle when the
count is favorable and that this practice might affect the odds of the
game:
56
The economic impact of this proposed amendment would vary depending on
when in fact the cards were shuffled. For example, if the cards were
always shuffled after the first round of play regardless of the point
count, then the casino advantage against the basic strategy player and
average player would probably remain the same with the advantage
enjoyed by the card counter being decreased. If the cards, however,
were only shuffled in positive point count situations and not in
negative point count situations, the casino advantage against all
types of players would increase.
57
14 N.J. Reg. 470 (May 17, 1982).
58
Appellants appear to take issue with the propriety of the
shuffle-at-will regulation. But even assuming that in this action we
should entertain a challenge to the regulation, we perceive nothing
illegal in it.5 In any event, even if the regulation is an improper
exercise of the CCC's authority, a conclusion that we reject, a casino
following it before its invalidation hardly could be subject to RICO
liability for that conduct. In our view, a casino does not commit a
predicate RICO act when it engages in conduct the CCC expressly
permits.
59
We are disturbed that appellants have couched their arguments in
dramatic hyperbole obfuscating the real issues. Indeed, we are
satisfied that the appellants have mischaracterized the facts. For
instance, appellants characterize the use of the shuffle-at-will as
"secretly removing cards from a blackjack game in progress." See br.
at 30. But the reshuffle is hardly secret as the dealer does it openly
in the view of the players. Moreover , a dealer reshuffling does not
remove cards from the deck. Rather, the reshuffle simply places the
cards in a different random order for the next hands.
60
Appellants further allege that the shuffle-at-will is a RICO criminal
predicate act because it has a tendency to alter the normal random
chance of the game. See br. at 32-39. What appellants fail to realize,
however, is that the normal random chance of the game is defined
pursuant to the statutory rules and CCC regulations. As the CCC has
explained:
61
[T]he normal chance and random character of any casino game is
necessarily defined and determined by the rules governing the conduct
of the game. Since the Commission has the statutory authority to
initially establish the rules of the game, N.J.S.A. S 5:12-100e and
70f, and primary jurisdiction to resolve any issues concerning
interpretation of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, . . .
it is absurd to allege that practices approved by the Commission as
being consistent with its rules constitute `cheating' under section
115 of the Act.
62
31 N.J. Reg. 556 (Feb. 16, 1999). While appellants may wish to have
the CCC rethink the scope of the shuffle-at-will regulation, we are
satisfied that after being stripped of its conclusory legal dressing,
there is no allegation in the complaint regarding reshuffling
sufficient to support a RICO claim against the casino defendants.
63
Appellants' other alleged predicate acts are similarly insufficient to
support a RICO claim. The alleged violations of criminal statutes
regarding unlawful debt collection, 18 U.S.C. S 1962, transmission of
gambling information, 18 U.S.C. S 1084, interference with commerce by
threats or violence, 18 U.S.C. S 1951, interstate commerce for
unlawful activity, 18 U.S.C. S 1952, and operating an illegal gambling
business, 18 U.S.C. S 1955, all derive from the allegations regarding
the use of authorized countermeasures and other alleged but in fact
nonexistent violations of the CCC regulations. Any debts allegedly
"unlawfully collected" are those lost by players during blackjack
games played in accordance with the CCC regulations. Any "illegal
gambling business" or "unlawful activity in interstate commerce" is
simply the play of blackjack as authorized by the CCC. Similarly, the
casinos do not engage "in unlawful activity" or "operating an illegal
gambling business" by not offering appellants or anyone else "comps,"
which are nothing more than free gifts from the casinos. While
appellants claim that the casinos are obliged to offer "comps," in our
view if they fail to do so they are not committing criminal acts in
any way impacting on the integrity of the blackjack game. If
appellants want to bring a judicial action to recover the value of
"comps," surely their forum should be a New Jersey state court, at
least in some instances the small claims part. Plainly, the casinos'
activities of which appellants complain do not constitute crimes and
therefore are not predicate RICO acts.
64
Furthermore, appellants, although mentioning the use of "shills" in
their complaint, have not made any allegations that the casinos
violate the statutory prohibition of the use of "shills," i.e.,
persons who induce potential patrons to enter a casino or induce them
to play any game. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-1001 (West 1996).
Certainly the casinos have not used shills to encourage appellants to
play blackjack in their premises.
65
In their brief, appellants further assert that the CCC stated in an
administrative proceeding that it would be deceptive for casinos
actively to solicit a player to count cards in its casino without
letting the player know that countermeasures will be used against
those suspected of counting cards. See br. at 11, 25. Appellants,
however, fail to cite the full text of the CCC's statement, which
concluded:
66
[T]he Commission does not believe that any of the exhibits submitted
by the commenters come even close to supporting an allegation of
active solicitation of card counter play by a casino licensee.
67
31 N.J. Reg. 556 (Feb. 6, 1999). Thus, appellants' reference to the
CCC's statement adds nothing to their allegation that the casinos' use
of shills constitutes a RICO act.
68
Appellants also assert that it is deceptive for the casinos to fail to
provide players with a complete text of the rules governing the play
of blackjack. This allegation also fails to support a claim for
relief. As we set forth above, the rules and regulations governing
blackjack are numerous and thus they do not lend themselves to
inclusion in a short manual. Further, the sample casino brochure in
the appendix explaining blackjack on its face is not deceptive. See
app. at 832-34. While it does not purport to set forth all of the
blackjack rules, it does give the information needed by a player to
play the game.
69
The appellants also allege that it is impermissible for the casinos to
require one player's wager to be less than that of other players at
the same table. See br . at 40 (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-100g
(West 1996)). As we mentioned, however, the CCC has adopted a
regulation that specifically allows casinos to set different wager
limits, even among players at the same table, if a player is suspected
of card counting. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-8.2(b)-(d). As a result, the
casinos cannot be said to have violated the Act in a manner to support
a RICO cause of action. While appellants may wish to challenge the
propriety of the regulation, they have not stated a RICO cause of
action against the casinos whose actions are in compliance with the
law and the CCC's regulations.
70
Appellants next argue that the casinos' failure to obtain prior
approval for the countermeasures they implement constitutes a
predicate act. See br . at 40-41. Yet appellants also recognize that
the CCC has determined that the casinos do not need prior approval to
implement the measures. See id. at 41. While the appellants note that
that ruling is being challenged on appeal, it will be time enough for
a federal court to consider the RICO implications if and when the CCC
determines that the casinos' practices are illegal and the casinos do
not comply prospectively with the CCC's determinations.
71
The only alleged predicate acts that are not based on CCC regulations
are the allegations of assaults, threats, and stalking-in-person and
via the Internet. Appellants allege that one appellant was knocked off
his seat on one occasion, that some appellants were followed around
casinos, and that one appellant was grabbed by the arm while being
escorted out of a casino. However, these minor altercations cannot be
regarded as conduct egregious enough to serve as predicate acts
sufficient to support what appellants apparently believe is massive
litigation, in which, before trebling, they are seeking at least
$347,532,800 in damages. See Doug Grant, 3 F. Supp.2d at 522 n.1. Nor
do the appellants' claims of receiving anonymous pornographic,
offensive and threatening messages over the Internet from John Doe
defendants constitute predicate acts attributable to the appellees, as
appellants put forth no basis for concluding or even alleging that
anyone associated with the casinos sent the messages. Accordingly, we
will affirm the order of the district court dismissing the state and
federal RICO causes of action.
72
For the reasons we have set forth, we have reached the conclusion that
appellants' allegations that the casinos or any appellee has committed
predicate RICO acts are completely insubstantial and border on the
frivolous. In the circumstances, inasmuch as appellants have failed to
allege any predicate act upon which to base a RICO claim, we need not
determine conclusively whether appellants properly have pleaded injury
to business or property as required for a RICO damages action. See 18
U.S.C. S 1964(c); N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2C:41-4c (West 1995); Maio, 221
F.3d at 483-84. Nevertheless, in this regard we do make the following
observation which demonstrates why this action, which has generated a
large record and required a considerable expenditure of time and no
doubt money is, at bottom, at least with respect to the claims we have
considered, a fatuity.
73
Unlike an ordinary RICO victim, in this case the allegedly injured
plaintiffs, i.e., the players, can avoid any injury simply by walking
away from the alleged wrongdoers, the casinos, by not playing
blackjack in casinos. In fact, that is what the casinos apparently
want them to do, at least as long as they count cards. While this
abstention would deprive them of the opportunity to enrich themselves
at the casinos' expense, surely it would be difficult to characterize
that lost speculative opportunity as an injury to "business or
property." If the appellants have played blackjack in the past, aware
of the casinos' countermeasures, and if they continue to play
blackjack in the future in the hope of profiting by counting cards,
they have suffered and will suffer self-inflicted wounds. Accordingly,
at least with respect to individual players who are aware of the
casinos' countermeasures, it is difficult to consider this case within
a RICO formulation.6
74
The appellants originally pleaded a cause of action under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but omitted that claim in their amended
complaint. In the district court, and here, they have asked permission
to amend their complaint to reinclude the Consumer Fraud Act claim.
The district court denied appellants leave to amend because it found
that the Consumer Fraud Act claim was completely without merit and it
would be futile to amend the complaint to include a meritless claim.
See Doug Grant, 3 F. Supp.2d at 536-37.
75
As noted by the district court, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently
has held that the Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to a heavily
regulated industry to the extent that application of the statute would
create a "real possibility" of conflict between the Consumer Fraud
Act, as administered by the Division of Consumer Affairs, and the
regulatory schemes of other administrative bodies. See Lemelledo v.
Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 696 A.2d 546, 553 (N.J. 1997). Thus,
the Consumer Fraud Act is inapplicable where "the other source or
sources of regulation deal specifically, concretely, and pervasively
with the particular activity, implying a legislative intent not to
subject parties to multiple regulations that, as applied, will work at
cross-purposes." Id. at 554.
76
Certainly the Casino Control Act evidences the New Jersey
legislature's intent to vest in the CCC exclusive control of the
regulation of casino gaming, including the content of related
advertising. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-133b (West 1996); id. S
5:12-70(o); see also Greate Bay Hotel & Casino v. Tose, 34 F.3d 1227,
1232-33 (3d Cir. 1994). If we allowed claims such as the appellants'
proposed consumer fraud claim to proceed in the district court, we
would interfere with the CCC's regulatory scheme. The regulation of
the game of blackjack, including shuffling-at-will and the
advertisement regulations, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
CCC. Moreover, the CCC has particularized expertise in these matters
not possessed by courts and juries. While it is true that the Supreme
Court of New Jersey in Campione, approving our opinion in Tose, see
714 A.2d at 307-08, held that the courts were not ousted of
jurisdiction over common law damage claims against casinos merely
because the claims arose from gambling transactions, this holding does
not inform our result here on the very different question of the
applicability of a different regulatory act to casino operations with
respect to running blackjack games. Thus, the district court properly
denied appellants' motion for leave to amend for, as a matter of law,
the amended complaint would not have stated a claim on which relief
could be granted. See Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 139
F.3d 180, 190 (3d Cir. 1999), vacated on other grounds, 525 U.S. 459,
119 S.Ct. 924 (1999).
77
In reaching our result on this point, we emphasize that the goals of
the Consumer Fraud and the Casino Control Acts are not entirely
consistent. The Consumer Fraud Act is concerned with the protection of
consumers. The Casino Control Act, however, has dual purposes that
must be balanced -- the protection of gambling patrons and the
protection of the financial viability of the casino industry. N.J.
Stat. Ann. S 5:12-1b (12) (West 1996). Thus, the Casino Control Act
presupposes that the consumers as a group, i.e., the players, will
lose their money, a contemplated result that hardly is the object of
the Consumer Fraud Act.
78
C. Dismissal Against John Does with Prejudice
79
The sixth count of the complaint alleges various state and federal
statutory claims against John Does for sending offensive messages and
alleged threats over the Internet. But while the appellants in the
complaint sought relief against the casino appellees for these acts,
see app. at 104, they failed to offer any link between the John Does
and the casinos. Thus, the district court properly dismissed this
aspect of the complaint, though it did so with prejudice. We conclude,
however, that the dismissal should have been without prejudice,
allowing appellants to bring a claim at a later time if they uncover
sufficient facts to permit them to plead facts supporting a conclusion
that the casinos were responsible for these acts. Accordingly, we will
vacate the order dismissing the sixth count with prejudice to the
extent that it included claims relating to the sending of the
offensive messages and threats over the Internet, and with respect to
that aspect of the order will remand the matter to the district court
to modify the order so that it dismisses the count without prejudice.
80
Appellants' sixth count also alleges violations of the Equal
Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, Article 1, paragraph 1 of
the New Jersey Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. S 1983. As the district
court correctly noted, this count fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted for several reasons. First, appellants'
allegations of state action are insufficient. State regulation and the
CCC's authorization of casino activities do not transform the casinos
into state actors. See Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 448 F. Supp. 116,
118 (D. Nev. 1978); State v. Sanders, 448 A.2d 481, 486 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. 1982) (search by casino employees does not constitute
state action). It is well established that "[m]ere approval of or
acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient
to justify holding the State responsible for those initiatives under
the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S.
991, 1004-05, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2786 (1982); Jackson v. Metropolitan
Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350-51, 95 S.Ct. 449, 453-54 (1974). Second,
appellants have not suffered any equal protection clause violation
inasmuch as under the rational basis test applicable for a
non-protected class such as card-counters subject to CCC regulations,
see Bally Mfg. Corp. v. New Jersey Casino Control Comm'n, 426 A.2d
1000, 1005 (N.J.) (casino regulations examined under rational basis
test), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 804, 102 S.Ct. 77 (1981), the
countermeasures used by the casinos and authorized by the CCC are
rationally related to the legitimate state interest in protecting the
financial viability of the casino industry. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S
5:12-1b(12). Third, we are satisfied that the appellants do not have a
constitutionally protected property interest in the opportunity to
gamble and thus the activities of which they complain do not violate
their due process rights. Therefore, the district court properly
dismissed the constitutional and civil rights claims in the sixth
count of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.7
81
We have carefully considered all of appellants' arguments, including
those that we may not have addressed specifically, and have concluded
that the district court properly dismissed this action with prejudice
with respect to the counts of the complaint that it addressed, except
that it should have dismissed count six without prejudice to the
extent that the count related to sending offensive messages and
threats over the Internet.8 Consequently, we will modify the order of
dismissal to provide that count six partially is dismissed without
prejudice, and we otherwise will affirm the order of dismissal with
prejudice, and will affirm the order remanding the remaining aspects
of the complaint to the Superior Court of New Jersey. We will remand
the case to the district court to enter an order consistent with this
opinion. Costs on this appeal will be taxed against appellants.
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Decision regarding the APPEAL of Doug Grant Lawsuit against
Casino's...
xd November 2, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 98-5291
DOUG GRANT, INC., RICHARD ANDERSEN, JUDY L.
BINTLIFF, LYNN V. BOHSEN, THOMAS M. BOLICK,
MICHAEL BONN, ROLAND BRYANT, SR., EUGENE
CLAUSER, ELMER CONOVER, SCOTT CONOVER,
JOSEPH CURRAN, DINO D'ANDREA, MARK F. D'ANDREA,
WARREN DAVENPORT, FRANK DELIA, KAREN DWYER,
DENNIS F. FOREMAN, ROSEMARIE FRANCIS, STEPHEN
FREEL, STAVROS GEORGIOU, KENNETH GROSS, ADIB
HANNAH, G. HASSAN HATTINA, LEROY N. JORDAN,
ROMAN KERN, RICHARD H. KESSEL, SCOTT KLEE,
JEFFREY S. KRAH, KATHLEEN E. LANE-BOURGEOIS,
THOMAS J. LOTITO, JR., JAMES MACELROY, MAR TIN
MALTER, STANLEY P. MCANALL Y, ANNE T.
MCGOWAN-NOVAK, EUGENE L. MISERENDINO, DANIEL
G. NAUROTH, MATTHEW S. PELLENBERG, DANIEL
PILONE, STEPHEN F. PINCIOTTI, ROBERT E. PROUT,
MARTIN ROSE, LYNN RUFO, VINCENT SALEK, ARLEN
SCHWERIN, JOSEPH SCIOSCIA, WILLIAM F. STRAUSS,
DOUGLAS G. TELMAN, AINO TOMSON, ANTS TOMSON,
THOMAS TOMSON, LINWOOD C. UPHOUSE, DOLORES
VALANCY, ANDREW R. VARDZAL, JR., GRANT DOUGLAS
VON REIMAN, KENNETH J. WARNER, STEVEN W ATTERS,
PAUL V. YANNESSA, DOUG GRANT COLLEGE OF
WINNING BLACKJACK, INC., SIGMA RESEARCH, INC.,
BETA MANAGEMENT, INC., FA VORABLE SITUATIONS
ONLY INC., t/a DOUG GRANT INSTITUTE OF WINNING
BLACKJACK, JAN C. MUSZYNSKI, LINDA TOMPSON,
Appellants
v.
GREATE BAY CASINO CORPORATION, GREA TE BAY
HOTEL AND CASINO t/a SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO,
SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO, HILTON HOTELS
CORPORATION, GNOC CORP. t/a "A TLANTIC CITY
HILTON," ATLANTIC CITY HILTON, BALLY'S PARK PLACE,
INC. t/a "BALLY'S PARK PLACE," BALLY'S PARK PLACE,
ITT CORPORATION, ITT CORPORATION NV , CAESAR'S
WORLD, INC. a/k/a "CAESAR'S ATLANTIC CITY ,"
CAESAR'S WORLD, CLARIDGE HOTEL & CASINO CORP .,
CLARIDGE AT PARK PLACE, INC., HARRAH'S
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MARINA ASSOCIATES d/b/a
"HARRAH'S CASINO HOTEL", HARRAH'S CASINO HOTEL,
SUN INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA INC., SUN
INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC., RESORTS CASINO
HOTEL, SHOWBOAT, INC., SHOWBOAT , AZTAR
CORPORATION, ADAMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC.,
(formerly Trop World Casino and Entertainment Resort)
t/a TROPICANA CASINO AND RESORT, TROPICANA
CASINO AND RESORT, TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO
RESORTS, INC., TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESOR TS
HOLDINGS, L. P., TRUMP ATLANTIC CITY A SSOCIATES,
TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, L. P., TRUMP P LAZA
ASSOCIATES, TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO,
TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES, TRUMP T AJ MAHAL
CASINO RESORT, THE TRUMP ORGANIZA TION, INC.,
TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES, L. P., TRUM P CASTLE
ASSOCIATES, TRUMP MARINA CASINO HOTEL RESOR T,
formerly Trump's Castle Casino Resort, JOHN DOES
1-100, GRIFFIN INVESTIGATIONS, INTERNATIONAL
CASINO SURVEILLANCE NETWORK, L. P.,
SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION NETWORK, JOHN DOES
101-200, F. MICHAEL DAILY, ESQ., QUINLAN, DUNNE,
DAILY & HIGGINS, ELLEN BARNEY BALINT, MERANZE &
KATZ, CAPLAN & LUBER, LLOYD S. MARKIND, ESQ.,
RICHARD L. CAPLAN, ESQ., SHARON MORGAN, ESQ.,
MICHELE DAVIS, ESQ.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 97-04291)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas
Argued October 5, 2000
BEFORE: NYGAARD, GREENBERG and COWEN,
Circuit Judges
2
(Filed: November 2, 2000)
Howard A. Altschuler (argued)
66 Saltonstall Parkway
East Haven, CT 06512
Attorney for Appellants
Frederick H. Kraus
Sands Hotel & Casino
Indiana Avenue & Brighton Park
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Attorney for Appellees
Greate Bay Casino, Greate
Bay Hotel and Sands Hotel
and Casino
Adam N. Saravay (argued)
Tompkins, McGuire,
Wachenfeld & Barry, LLP
4 Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Attorneys for the Trump Casino
Appellees and Co-Counsel for the
Remaining Casino Appellees and
Griffin Investigations
John M. Donnelly (argued)
Levine, Staller, Sklar, Chan,
Brodsky, & Donnelly, P.A.
3030 Atlantic Ave.
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Attorneys for Casino Appellees
(other than the Trump Casino
Defendants) and Griffin
Investigations
3
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes on before this court on appeal from an
order entered on May 1, 1998, partially dismissing this
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted. 1 See Doug
Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 3 F. Supp.2d 518
(D.N.J. 1998). The appellants had instituted this action in
the Superior Court of New Jersey but the appellees r emoved
it to the district court. Consequently, when the district
court entered the Rule 12(b)(6) order it r emanded
appellants' state-law claims that it did not addr ess to the
Superior Court. In view of the procedural posture of this
case, we treat the allegations of fact in the complaint as
true, and consider them in a light most favorable to the
appellants.2
The individual appellants are blackjack players who have
frequented Atlantic City casinos operated by the casino
appellees. Of the 60 individual appellants, all but six have
developed card-counting skills for playing blackjack
enabling them to reduce or eliminate the nor mal odds in
_________________________________________________________________
1. In our extensive Introduction and at other places in our opinion,
we
essentially have tracked the district court's compr ehensive opinion.
We
also note that the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Campione v. Adamar
of N. J., Inc., 714 A.2d 299, 301, 305-06 (N.J. 1998), discussed the
countermeasures the New Jersey Casino Control Commission has
allowed the casinos to take against card-counters. Of course, the
casinos' use of these countermeasures is at the heart of this case.
2. Inasmuch as the complaint references and relies on the content of
certain documents, we consider them on this appeal. See Churchill v.
Star Enter., 183 F.3d 184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999); Rose v. Bartle, 871
F.2d 331, 339 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). Indeed, this case is unusual as the
appendix consists of four volumes and thus is of a length which might
be expected on an appeal from a summary judgment rather than on
appeal from a motion to dismiss.
4
favor of the casinos and, indeed, to turn the odds in their
favor. The corporate appellants are associated with
appellant Doug Grant, Inc., a New Jersey corporation,
whose predecessor corporations operated car d-counting
schools and mock casinos established by the appellant,
Doug Grant, a renowned card-counter . Doug Grant, Inc.
also provided the training for several cooperative player
groups, including many of the appellants her e, who pooled
their financial resources and agr eed to share their
blackjack winnings.
A. The Play of Blackjack, Card-Counting and Shuffling-
At-Will and Other Countermeasur es
The gravamen of appellants' complaint is that the casinos
have taken countermeasures that the appellants regard as
illegal to eliminate the advantage that a skilled card-
counter may have over them in playing blackjack, the one
casino game in which a player's skill may incr ease his
chance of winning to the point of eliminating the winning
odds in favor of the "house." See Campione v. Adamar of N.
J., Inc., 714 A.2d 299, 301 (N.J. 1998). Car d-counters use
intellect and memory to identify the time during the course
of play when a player's odds of winning are better or worse.
Thus, the individual appellants allege that the casinos have
impaired their ability to win money from the casinos in
blackjack. The corporate appellants allege that their schools
and mock casinos were forced to close as a result of the
casinos' countermeasures against car d-counters, and
because of bomb threats, break-ins, destruction of
property, theft of student lists, stalking and other
intimidation tactics.
It is necessary for us partially to describe how blackjack
games are run in order to put appellants' allegations in
context. Blackjack is played with decks containing 52 cards
of four suits (hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades) with
each suit containing 13 cards (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10,
9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2). See N.J.A.C. S 19:46-1.17. Before a
blackjack game starts, the dealer receives one or more,
usually between six to eight, card decks fr om a casino
supervisor and inspects them in the presence of the
floorperson. See id. S 19:47-2.4(a). After inspecting the
cards, the dealer takes them to a blackjack table and
5
spreads them out in a fan, face upward, for visual
inspection by the first player or players to arrive at the
table. See id. S 19:47-2.4(b). After these players are afforded
an opportunity to inspect the cards, the dealer turns them
face downward on the table, mixes them thor oughly, and
shuffles them until they are "randomly intermixed." The
dealer then places the cards into a stack. See id. S 19:47-
2.4(c); id. S 19:47-2.5(a). After the shuffling is completed,
the dealer asks the player seated at a particular position at
the table, as defined by the regulations of the Casino
Control Commission ("CCC"), the casino r egulatory agency,
id. 19:47-2.5(e), to cut the deck. See id. S 19:47-2.5(b). The
player cuts the deck by placing a plastic cutting card in the
stack at least ten cards from either end. See id. S 19:47-
2.5(c).
Once the player has inserted the cutting car d, the dealer
takes all the cards in front of the cutting card and places
them at the back of the stack. See id. S 19:47-2.5(d). The
dealer then takes the entire stack of shuffled cards and
cuts and aligns it along the side of the dealing shoe which
has a mark on its side enabling the dealer to insert the
cutting card so that it is in a position "at least
approximately" one-quarter of the way fr om the back of the
stack. See id. S 19:47-2.5(d); id. S 19:46-1.19(d)(4). The
dealer then inserts the stack of cards into the dealing shoe
for commencement of play. See id. S 19:47-2.5(d). The cards
behind the cutting card will not be used during the game.
Once play has commenced the dealer deals the car ds to
the players in a series of hands until the dealer r eaches the
cutting card. When the dealer reaches the cutting card, the
dealer repeats the shuffling process and cutting procedures
described above. See id. S 19:47-2.5(h).
A blackjack player's object is to reach as close as possible
to a total card value of 21 without exceeding that value. A
player exceeding 21 loses regardless of the dealer's
subsequently acquired hand. Persons in the casino
industry and card-counters have come to r ecognize that, in
a player's endeavor to reach a value as close as possible to
21, certain cards are more favorable to the player and
certain cards are more favorable to the dealer. In particular,
appellants assert that the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten
6
are favorable to a player, but the 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2 are
favorable to the dealer and thus to the house. The 7, 8, and
9 are said to be neutral. At any point during the play, the
cards in a shoe can contain more player -favorable cards or
more dealer-favorable cards. When there are more player-
favorable cards, a player's chances of winning are increased
but when there are more dealer -favorable cards, the
dealer's chances of winning are increased. Whether and
when a shoe will turn out to be player - or dealer-favorable
is purely random.
Card-counters attempt to "count cards" to determine
whether and when a shoe is player-favorable. They then
vary their bets, i.e., betting high when the shoe is player-
favorable and low when the shoe is dealer-favorable to
increase their chances of having a winning r ound of play.
Bets are placed before each individual r ound of blackjack,
usually within established minimum and maximum limits
for the table. According to the appellants, successful card-
counting contains several basic elements including the
assignment of a point value to each card, maintaining a
running total of those points during play, betting strategies,
playing strategies, money management, a sufficient
bankroll, and "the intangible ability to consistently apply
these interrelated strategies under fast-paced casino
conditions." See app. at 24.
For maximum advantage, card-counters need to be able
to view, through the rounds of play, as many of the cards
in the shoe as possible. The greater number of cards they
are able to view, the easier it is for them to determine to
whom the remaining cards in the shoe ar e favorable. For
this reason, card-counters prefer that the dealer place the
cutting card toward the end of the shoe, leaving a small
number of cards behind the cutting-card and increasing
the overall number of cards in play. Car d-counters also
prefer to have the entire shoe of car ds played. If the dealer
reshuffles prior to reaching the cutting card, then the card-
counters' opportunity to bet high on a shoe with a
remainder of mostly player-favorable car ds is impaired.
The casinos, on the other hand, prefer to decr ease the
card-counters' opportunity to bet high on a player-favorable
shoe. Therefore, it is in their inter est to decrease the card-
7
counters' chances of determining whether a shoe is player-
favorable by playing with fewer cards in the shoe, i.e.,
placing the cutting card as far from the back of the stack
as permitted by the CCC regulations. It is also in the
casinos' interest to reshuffle prior to reaching the cutting
card when the remaining cards in a shoe are player-
favorable. These practices, however, come at a cost to the
casino as the more often the dealer goes thr ough the
meticulous shuffling process, the shorter the actual time of
play and thus the smaller the casino's profits.
Appellants allege that the casinos maintain car d-counting
teams and/or video and computer surveillance equipment
to identify card-counters and inform the dealers of their
participation in a blackjack game so that the dealers can
take countermeasures against them. Appellants challenge
these practices, claiming they violate the New Jersey
"cheating games" section in the Casino Contr ol Act, N.J.
Stat. Ann. S 5:12-115 (West 1996), which provides that it
shall be unlawful:
Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose
for play any game or games played with cards . . .
which have in any manner been marked or tamper ed
with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner,
the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends
to alter the normal random selection of characteristics
or the normal chance of the game which could
determine or alter the result of the game.
The appellants make several specific allegations to
support their claims. See Doug Grant, 3 F . Supp.2d at 524-
25. First, they argue that the card-counter identifying
process fundamentally is flawed because it tends unfairly to
misidentify non-card-counters as card-counters. They claim
casinos define card-counters as (1) any patr on who
increases a bet during a player-favorable count, or (2) any
patron who knows or is related to someone who has
increased a bet during a player-favorable count. According
to appellants, a player the casino identifies as a card-
counter is "branded for life" and never is able to play a
"fair" game of blackjack without being subjected to
countermeasures. The casinos allegedly share information
about suspected card-counters through defendant Griffin
8
Investigations and other similar agencies. These agencies
allegedly keep dossiers containing the pictur es of suspected
card-counters which casino employees then use to spot
card-counters for the purpose of knowing when to
implement countermeasures.
Second, appellants claim that the casinos utilize what
they term the "cheating-at-will" pr eferential shuffle and
which, as codified by the CCC regulations, generally is
known as the "shuffle-at-will." A dealer r eshuffling prior to
reaching the cut-card marker shuffles-at-will. A casino will
shuffle in this manner when its card-counting team
determines that the shoe is player-favorable at a table
where it suspects card-counters ar e playing. Appellants
allege that the shuffle-at-will provides an extra 2%
advantage to the casino, nearly double its nor mal chance of
winning, and thus providing the casinos with a windfall of
millions of dollars. Id. at 525. They also claim that a casino
can shuffle-at-will abusively to the disadvantage of players
who are not card-counters by shuffling-at-will even when
its employees do not suspect that there is a card-counter
playing at a table. Id.
Appellants recount specific instances in which individual
appellants allegedly were subjected to shuffling-at-will by
specific casinos throughout the past ten years. On some,
but not all, of these occasions, the player r eported the
shuffle-at-will to the CCC and/or the New Jersey
Department of Gaming Enforcement ("DGE") official on-site
at every casino. According to appellants, the casinos never
have responded to such complaints by admitting to
counting cards and shuffling during a player -favorable
count. Id.
Appellants also allege that because they have been
identified as card-counters, they are limited to one wager at
a time, are refused cards, have bets pushed back, and are
forced to bet below the original posted limit at the table. Id.
Moreover, they allege that "shills" associated with the
casinos sometimes occupy all seats at tables at which they
wish to play. Id. The appellants allege that they have been
treated in these adverse ways even though players who are
not card-counters are not so treated.
9
Appellants also claim that the casinos have denied them
hospitality "comps," such as meals, after identifying them
as card-counters. Id. Finally, appellants allege that they
have been threatened, assaulted and stalked because of
their suspected card-counter status. Id. They allege that
they have been threatened in person while at the casinos
by both known and unknown casino employees and that
they have been threatened and sent pornographic materials
over the Internet by unnamed John Does allegedly
connected to the casinos. Id.
B. The Casino Control Act and CCC Regulations
The New Jersey Casino Control Act, N.J. Stat. Ann.
S 5:12-1 et seq. (West 1996) (the "Act"), gives the CCC
comprehensive authority to define and r egulate the rules
and conduct of play for blackjack and other authorized
casino games. See Campione, 714 A.2d at 304; Uston v.
Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., 445 A.2d 370, 372-73 (N.J. 1982).
It also grants the CCC "exclusive jurisdiction" over the
interpretation and enforcement of r egulations governing "all
matters delegated to it or within the scope of its powers
under the provisions of [the Act]." N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-
133b; see also id. 5:12-69, 70. That jurisdiction delegates
to the CCC the power to promulgate regulations regarding
the rules of casino games, including blackjack, id. SS 5:12-
69-70f, gambling related advertising, id. S 5:12-70o, and the
enforcement of gaming regulations, including the
investigation, adjudication, and punishment of r egulatory
violations, id. SS 5:12-63b, f, g;id. S 5:12-64; id. S 5:12-129.
The regulations governing blackjack ar e exhaustive and
set forth in great detail the rules for the conduct of the
game. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.1 et seq. Indeed, the New
Jersey Supreme Court has stated that, "[i]t is no
exaggeration to state that the Commission's r egulation of
blackjack is more extensive than the entir e administrative
regulation of many industries." Uston , 445 A.2d 373. The
CCC is very aware of the card-counter controversy. As the
parties have recognized, the CCC carefully has considered
and addressed in its regulatory capacity the effect card-
counters can have on the game and the ways in which
casinos should be permitted to respond to professional
card-counters. See, e.g., 14 N.J. Reg. 467-70 (May 17,
10
1982); 14 N.J. Reg. 559-69 (June 7, 1982); 14 N.J. Reg.
841 (Aug. 2, 1982); 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3, 1991); 23
N.J. Reg. 2613 (Sept. 3, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3350 (Nov. 4,
1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3354 (Nov. 4, 1991); 25 N.J. Reg. 3953
(Sept. 7, 1993); 25 N.J. Reg. 5521 (Dec. 6, 1993). The CCC
regulations authorize the casinos to use certain
countermeasures to prevent car d-counters from overcoming
the statistical advantage that is necessary to ensur e the
casinos' financial viability.
The CCC adopted many of its regulations authorizing
countermeasures in response to the New Jersey Supreme
Court's ruling in Uston, 445 A.2d 370, a case considering
whether casinos have the authority to exclude car d-
counters from their premises. The court determined that
casinos were not authorized to exclude car d-counters,
reasoning that the Act gave the CCC exclusive and plenary
authority to set the rules and methods of play of casino
games and that the CCC had not authorized the exclusion
of card-counters as a countermeasur e.3 The court
suggested, however, that if the CCC wanted to approve
measures to neutralize the card-counter threat, it might be
able to exclude card-counters, provided that the regulation
did not violate constitutional or statutory limits. Uston, 445
A.2d at 375-76.
Yet, prior to Uston, the CCC had codified a practice which
the casinos used as a card-counter counter measure even
though the CCC did not promulgate it for that purpose.
This regulation provides that: "[a] casino licensee, in its
discretion" may permit a player to"wager on [more than]
one box at a Blackjack table." N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.14. The
CCC had been allowing the use of this practice against
card-counters through its approval of casinos' internal
control pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-99. The rule
specifically grants casinos discretion to allow players
(usually non-card-counters) to bet on mor e than one box,
and presumably, in light of the discretionary language,
allows them to preclude card-counters fr om betting on
more than one box.
_________________________________________________________________
3. It appears that prior to Uston the casinos on at least some
occasions
excluded card-counters and did so with "overwhelming force." See State
v. Sanders, 448 A.2d 481, 485 (N.J. Super . Ct. App. Div. 1982).
11
After Uston, the CCC held a series of hearings on the
issue of card-counters and decided to enact r egulations
authorizing the casinos to use certain measur es to
neutralize the potential negative effect car d-counters could
have on their financial viability. See Campione, 714 A.2d at
305. The new regulations, which the New Jersey Supreme
Court urged the CCC to consider in lieu of allowing the
casinos to exclude card-counters, balanced the statutory
goals of casino viability and fair odds to all players. See
N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-100e. The CCC intended the
regulations to ensure both the fair ness and integrity of
casino gambling and "the right of the casinos to have the
rules drawn so as to allow some reasonable pr ofit." Uston,
445 A.2d at 376; see also 14 N.J. Reg. 560-61 (June 7,
1982); 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3, 1991).
Several of these countermeasures involved the manner by
which casinos could shuffle the blackjack car ds. The first
approved shuffling method is known as the"Bart Carter
Shuffle," a "shuffling procedur e in which approximately one
deck of cards is shuffled after being dealt, segregated into
separate stacks and each stack is inserted into pr emarked
locations within the remaining decks contained in the
dealing shoe." N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.1; see also 14 N.J. Reg.
559 (June 7, 1982); 14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982). The
CCC also approved the "shuffle-at-will," which we have
described above, to allow the casinos to shuffle after any
round of play. To implement this appr oval, the CCC
amended the existing shuffle regulation by adding language
regarding the casinos' authority to shuffle "after each round
of play":
(a) Immediately prior to commencement of play, after
any round of play as may be determined by the casino
licensee and after each shoe of cards is dealt, the
dealer shall shuffle the cards so that they are randomly
intermixed.
. . .
(h) A reshuffle of the cards in the shoe shall take
place after the cutting card is reached in the shoe . . .
except that:
12
1. The casino licensee may determine aft er each
round of play that the cards should be r eshuffled;
2. When the `Bart Carter Shuffle' is util ized a
reshuffle shall take place after the car ds in the discard
rack exceed approximately one deck in number .
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5; see 14 N.J. Reg. 559 (June 7, 1982),
14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982).
The CCC also has approved the use of a device known as
the continuous shuffling shoe. In place of the dealing and
shuffling requirements set forth in N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.5 and
2.6, a casino licensee may utilize a dealing shoe or other
device designed to reshuffle the cards automatically,
provided that the CCC or its authorized designatee has
approved such shoe or device and the pr ocedures for
dealing and shuffling the cards through the use of this
device. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.21; see also 14 N.J. Reg. 559
(June 7, 1982), 14 N.J. Reg. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982).
The shuffling regulations, particularly the most
commonly used shuffle-at-will, have enabled the casinos to
lessen the card-counters' ability to deter mine whether cards
remaining in the shoe are player-favorable. As we already
have noted, when the cards are reshuffled continuously or
prior to the dealer reaching the cutting-car d in the shoe,
card-counters lose their potential advantage over the
casinos because they no longer can increase their bets,
secure in the knowledge that their chance of r eceiving
player-favorable cards has been incr eased.
The CCC also authorized one non-shuffling
countermeasure after the Uston decision--an increase in
the number of decks casinos are allowed to use in
blackjack play. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.2. This change
helped the casinos combat card-counters by incr easing the
number of cards card-counters would need to track to
determine whether a shoe was player-favorable. Plainly, the
more cards in the shoe, the more difficult a player's task is
to keep track of the cards.
After the CCC authorized these initial counter measures,
in 1991 it approved another regulation which provides that:
13
[A] casino licensee may at any time change the
permissible minimum or maximum wager at a table
game, without notifying the Commission of such
change, upon posting a sign at the gaming table
advising patrons of the new permissible minimum or
maximum wager and announcing the change to
patrons who are at the table.
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-8.3(c); see also 23 N.J. Reg. 1784 (June 3,
1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 2613 (Sept. 3, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3350
(Nov. 4, 1991); 23 N.J. Reg. 3354 (Nov. 4, 1991). This
regulation gives the casinos the authority to lower the
betting limit whenever it identifies a car d-counter so that
the card-counter will not be able to bet high when the shoe
becomes player-favorable. Then, in 1993, the CCC made a
further addition to its regulations which, as further
amended in 1999, provides:
(b) A casino licensee may offer:
1. Different maximum wagers at one gaming table for
each permissible wager in an authorized game; and
2. Different maximum wagers at dif ferent gaming
tables for each permissible wager in an authorized
game.
(c) A casino licensee shall provide notice of the
minimum and maximum wagers in effect at each
gaming table, and any changes thereto, in accor dance
with N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.3.
(d) Notwithstanding (c) above, a casino licensee may, in
its discretion, permit a player to wager below the
established minimum wager or above the established
maximum wager at a gaming table.
(e) Any wager accepted by a dealer which is in excess
of the established maximum permitted wager at that
gaming table shall be paid or lost in its entir ety in
accordance with the rules of the game, notwithstanding
that the wager exceeded the current table maximum or
was lower than the current table maximum.
N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.2(b) to (e); see 25 N.J. Reg. 3953 (Sept. 7,
1993); 25 N.J. Reg. 5521 (Dec. 6, 1993). This r egulation
14
clarified that the casinos could limit specifically the wagers
of only those patrons identified as car d-counters, while
permitting non-card-counters to continue betting at higher
limits.
The New Jersey courts seem not to doubt the legality of
the CCC-authorized countermeasures. In particular, the
trial court in Campione recognized that the practice of
"shuffling at will," the central concer n in this case identified
by the district court, is authorized by CCC r egulation, see
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5, and affects all patrons, even those not
counting cards, at a blackjack table. See Campione v.
Adamar of N. J., Inc., 643 A.2d 42, 50-51 (N.J. Super. Ct.
Law Div. 1993), rev'd on other gr ounds, 694 A.2d 1045 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997), mod. and af f 'd, 714 A.2d 299
(N.J. 1998). Further, on appeal in Campione, the New
Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, found that the
CCC "authorizes the disparate treatment of card-counters."
694 A.2d at 1050. The court noted that the CCC has
approved the countermeasures allowing for betting limits
and permitting casinos to vary the number of boxes in
which particular players can wager. Id. at 1047. Finally, the
New Jersey Supreme Court in Campione, while not
expressly upholding the countermeasur es the CCC has
allowed, implicitly made it clear the CCC lawfully may
permit such countermeasures. 714 A.2d at 305, 308.
II. JURISDICTION
The complaint in this action alleged violations of the
United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S 1983, and the
federal RICO statute, as well as causes of action under the
New Jersey RICO statute, constitution and common law.
Thus, the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
SS 1441, 1331, and 1367. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. S 1291.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of a district court's order of dismissal of a
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failur e to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, is plenary and we
apply the same test as the district court. See Maio v. Aetna,
15
Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481 (3d Cir. 2000). Thus, "[a] motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may be granted only if,
accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Id. at 481-82.
However, while our standard of r eview requires us to accept
as true all factual allegations in the complaint,"we need
not accept as true `unsupported conclusions and
unwarranted inferences.' " City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn
Power Co., 147 F.3d 256, 263 n.13 (3d Cir . 1998) (quoting
Schuylkill Energy Res., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light
Co., 113 F.3d 405, 417 (3d Cir. 1997)). "[C]ourts have an
obligation in matters before them to view the complaint as
a whole and to base rulings not upon the presence of mere
words but, rather, upon the presence of a factual situation
which is or is not justiciable. We do draw on the allegations
of the complaint, but in a realistic, rather than a slavish,
manner." Id. at 263.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. RICO Claims
Appellants' first count alleges claims for racketeering
under federal RICO, 18 U.S.C. S 1964(c), New Jersey RICO,
N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2C:41-4c (West 1995), and the RICO
provisions of the Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-127c (West
1996). As appellees point out, the predicate acts of alleged
racketeering on which appellants' base their RICO claims
consist almost exclusively of the use of counter measures or
alleged violations of other CCC regulations. In order to
make out a RICO claim, appellants first must show that the
casinos committed the predicate criminal acts enumerated
by RICO. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. SS 1961, 1962. Appellants
claim that the casinos committed the following pr edicate
acts: shuffling-at-will when the count was player -favorable,
using computer and video technology to assist in counting
cards and identifying card-counters, denying comps to
appellants, using shills, limiting plaintiffs to one hand of
blackjack at a time, lowering betting limits, and failing to
disclose the use and nature of the disputed
countermeasures. See br. 30-41; Doug Grant, 3 F. Supp.2d
at 531-32. Based on the premise that these uses of
16
authorized countermeasures and other alleged regulatory
violations are criminal acts, appellants' complaint alleges
that the casinos' operation of blackjack violates criminal
statutes regarding unlawful debt collection, transmission of
gambling information, operation of illegal gambling
business, and interstate commerce for an unlawful activity.
The district court believed that the primary purported
predicate act on which appellants relied is the shuffling of
cards when the count is favorable to the players.4 The
complaint alleges that use of the "shuffling-at-will"
countermeasure constitutes a predicate act of racketeering
because it violates the criminal casino "cheating" statute,
N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-115. The trial court in Campione
rejected this precise claim. Campione , 643 A.2d at 51
("labeling of the shuffling at will as `cheating' is specious").
Moreover, despite appellants' pr otestations, the regulation
itself makes clear that a casino at its discr etion may shuffle
at the conclusion of any round of play:
(a) Immediately prior to commencement of play, after
any round of play as may be determined by the casino
licensee and after each shoe of cards is dealt, the
dealer shall shuffle the cards so that they are randomly
intermixed.
. . .
(h) A reshuffle of the cards in the shoe shall take place
after the cutting card is reached in the shoe as
provided in N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.6(1) except that:
1. The casino licensee may determine after each
round of play that the cards shall be r eshuffled.
_________________________________________________________________
4. In their brief, the appellants contend that the district court was
incorrect in this characterization, as their"central concern is the
deceptive, unadvertised and clandestine use of countermeasures only
when the cards favor players." See br. at 31. We will not linger on
this
point for two reasons. First, the casinos take their countermeasures
quite openly. For example, it should be appar ent to anyone at a table
when the dealer shuffles before the cutting card is reached. Second,
it
seems clear that, as the district court recognized, the principal
countermeasure is shuffling-at-will.
17
N.J.A.C. S 19:47-2.5(a), (h).
Appellants attempt at length to skew the plain meaning
of this regulation and the relevant r egulatory history
leading to its adoption to convince us that the CCC has
authorized only a "random shuffle-at-will," i.e., not a
reshuffle that occurs only during player favorable counts.
See br. at 33. Appellants' restrictive interpretation of the
shuffle-at-will regulation, however, runs contrary to its
express language.
The regulatory history makes clear that the CCC is fully
aware of and allows the practice of shuffling-at-will when
there is a player-favorable count as a countermeasure
against card-counters. When the CCC published the
proposed regulation to allow the casinos to shuffle-at-will,
it noted that the casinos might shuffle when the count is
favorable and that this practice might affect the odds of the
game:
The economic impact of this proposed amendment
would vary depending on when in fact the car ds were
shuffled. For example, if the cards wer e always shuffled
after the first round of play regar dless of the point
count, then the casino advantage against the basic
strategy player and average player would probably
remain the same with the advantage enjoyed by the
card counter being decreased. If the car ds, however,
were only shuffled in positive point count situations
and not in negative point count situations, the casino
advantage against all types of players would incr ease.
14 N.J. Reg. 470 (May 17, 1982).
Appellants appear to take issue with the propriety of the
shuffle-at-will regulation. But even assuming that in this
action we should entertain a challenge to the r egulation, we
perceive nothing illegal in it.5 In any event, even if the
_________________________________________________________________
5. There have been numerous state administrative and judicial
proceedings regarding the issues before us but it is difficult from
the
parties' briefs and appendix to discern their exact status. In any
event,
we do not find any state determination inconsistent with the result we
reach. Significantly, the parties are in agreement that shortly after
18
regulation is an improper exercise of the CCC's authority,
a conclusion that we reject, a casino following it before its
invalidation hardly could be subject to RICO liability for
that conduct. In our view, a casino does not commit a
predicate RICO act when it engages in conduct the CCC
expressly permits.
We are disturbed that appellants have couched their
arguments in dramatic hyperbole obfuscating the real
issues. Indeed, we are satisfied that the appellants have
mischaracterized the facts. For instance, appellants
characterize the use of the shuffle-at-will as"secretly
removing cards from a blackjack game in progress." See br.
at 30. But the reshuffle is hardly secr et as the dealer does
it openly in the view of the players. Moreover , a dealer
reshuffling does not remove cards from the deck. Rather,
the reshuffle simply places the cards in a different random
order for the next hands.
Appellants further allege that the shuffle-at-will is a RICO
criminal predicate act because it has a tendency to alter the
normal random chance of the game. See br. at 32-39. What
appellants fail to realize, however, is that the normal
random chance of the game is defined pursuant to the
statutory rules and CCC regulations. As the CCC has
explained:
[T]he normal chance and random character of any
casino game is necessarily defined and deter mined by
the rules governing the conduct of the game. Since the
Commission has the statutory authority to initially
establish the rules of the game, N.J.S.A. S 5:12-100e
_________________________________________________________________
appellants filed this action, the individual appellants "filed a
petition
with the CCC with claims identical to those raised in the federal
complaint." See appellants' br. at 4; appellees' br. at 5-6. In
addition, the
individual appellants later filed a declaratory petition with the CCC
seeking its "interpretive ruling on pr ovisions of the Act, blackjack
regulations and casino practices that ar e at issue in this appeal."
See
appellants' br. at 6; appellees' br. at 6. Apparently, appellants were
not
satisfied with the outcome of the declaratory petition, see 31 N.J.
Reg.
555 (Feb. 16, 1999), as they have appealed fr om the determination to
the
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.
19
and 70f, and primary jurisdiction to resolve any issues
concerning interpretation of the Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder, . . . it is absurd to allege that
practices approved by the Commission as being
consistent with its rules constitute `cheating' under
section 115 of the Act.
31 N.J. Reg. 556 (Feb. 16, 1999). While appellants may
wish to have the CCC rethink the scope of the shuffle-at-
will regulation, we are satisfied that after being stripped of
its conclusory legal dressing, there is no allegation in the
complaint regarding reshuffling sufficient to support a
RICO claim against the casino defendants.
Appellants' other alleged predicate acts ar e similarly
insufficient to support a RICO claim. The alleged violations
of criminal statutes regarding unlawful debt collection, 18
U.S.C. S 1962, transmission of gambling infor mation, 18
U.S.C. S 1084, interference with commerce by threats or
violence, 18 U.S.C. S 1951, interstate commer ce for
unlawful activity, 18 U.S.C. S 1952, and operating an illegal
gambling business, 18 U.S.C. S 1955, all derive from the
allegations regarding the use of authorized
countermeasures and other alleged but in fact nonexistent
violations of the CCC regulations. Any debts allegedly
"unlawfully collected" are those lost by players during
blackjack games played in accordance with the CCC
regulations. Any "illegal gambling business" or "unlawful
activity in interstate commerce" is simply the play of
blackjack as authorized by the CCC. Similarly, the casinos
do not engage "in unlawful activity" or "operating an illegal
gambling business" by not offering appellants or anyone
else "comps," which are nothing mor e than free gifts from
the casinos. While appellants claim that the casinos are
obliged to offer "comps," in our view if they fail to do so
they are not committing criminal acts in any way impacting
on the integrity of the blackjack game. If appellants want to
bring a judicial action to recover the value of"comps,"
surely their forum should be a New Jersey state court, at
least in some instances the small claims part. Plainly, the
casinos' activities of which appellants complain do not
constitute crimes and therefore ar e not predicate RICO
acts.
20
Furthermore, appellants, although mentioning the use of
"shills" in their complaint, have not made any allegations
that the casinos violate the statutory prohibition of the use
of "shills," i.e., persons who induce potential patrons to
enter a casino or induce them to play any game. See N.J.
Stat. Ann. S 5:12-1001 (West 1996). Certainly the casinos
have not used shills to encourage appellants to play
blackjack in their premises.
In their brief, appellants further assert that the CCC
stated in an administrative proceeding that it would be
deceptive for casinos actively to solicit a player to count
cards in its casino without letting the player know that
countermeasures will be used against those suspected of
counting cards. See br. at 11, 25. Appellants, however, fail
to cite the full text of the CCC's statement, which
concluded:
[T]he Commission does not believe that any of the
exhibits submitted by the commenters come even close
to supporting an allegation of active solicitation of card
counter play by a casino licensee.
31 N.J. Reg. 556 (Feb. 6, 1999). Thus, appellants' r eference
to the CCC's statement adds nothing to their allegation that
the casinos' use of shills constitutes a RICO act.
Appellants also assert that it is deceptive for the casinos
to fail to provide players with a complete text of the rules
governing the play of blackjack. This allegation also fails to
support a claim for relief. As we set forth above, the rules
and regulations governing blackjack ar e numerous and
thus they do not lend themselves to inclusion in a short
manual. Further, the sample casino br ochure in the
appendix explaining blackjack on its face is not deceptive.
See app. at 832-34. While it does not purport to set forth
all of the blackjack rules, it does give the infor mation
needed by a player to play the game.
The appellants also allege that it is impermissible for the
casinos to require one player's wager to be less than that of
other players at the same table. See br . at 40 (citing N.J.
Stat. Ann. S 5:12-100g (West 1996)). As we mentioned,
however, the CCC has adopted a regulation that specifically
allows casinos to set different wager limits, even among
21
players at the same table, if a player is suspected of card
counting. See N.J.A.C. S 19:47-8.2(b)-(d). As a result, the
casinos cannot be said to have violated the Act in a manner
to support a RICO cause of action. While appellants may
wish to challenge the propriety of the r egulation, they have
not stated a RICO cause of action against the casinos
whose actions are in compliance with the law and the
CCC's regulations.
Appellants next argue that the casinos' failur e to obtain
prior approval for the countermeasur es they implement
constitutes a predicate act. See br . at 40-41. Yet appellants
also recognize that the CCC has determined that the
casinos do not need prior approval to implement the
measures. See id. at 41. While the appellants note that that
ruling is being challenged on appeal, it will be time enough
for a federal court to consider the RICO implications if and
when the CCC determines that the casinos' practices are
illegal and the casinos do not comply prospectively with the
CCC's determinations.
The only alleged predicate acts that ar e not based on
CCC regulations are the allegations of assaults, threats,
and stalking-in-person and via the Internet. Appellants
allege that one appellant was knocked off his seat on one
occasion, that some appellants were followed ar ound
casinos, and that one appellant was grabbed by the arm
while being escorted out of a casino. However , these minor
altercations cannot be regarded as conduct egregious
enough to serve as predicate acts sufficient to support what
appellants apparently believe is massive litigation, in which,
before trebling, they are seeking at least $347,532,800 in
damages. See Doug Grant, 3 F. Supp.2d at 522 n.1. Nor do
the appellants' claims of receiving anonymous
pornographic, offensive and threatening messages over the
Internet from John Doe defendants constitute predicate
acts attributable to the appellees, as appellants put forth
no basis for concluding or even alleging that anyone
associated with the casinos sent the messages. Accor dingly,
we will affirm the order of the district court dismissing the
state and federal RICO causes of action.
For the reasons we have set forth, we have r eached the
conclusion that appellants' allegations that the casinos or
22
any appellee has committed predicate RICO acts are
completely insubstantial and border on the frivolous. In the
circumstances, inasmuch as appellants have failed to allege
any predicate act upon which to base a RICO claim, we
need not determine conclusively whether appellants
properly have pleaded injury to business or pr operty as
required for a RICO damages action. See 18 U.S.C.
S 1964(c); N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2C:41-4c (W est 1995); Maio, 221
F.3d at 483-84. Nevertheless, in this r egard we do make the
following observation which demonstrates why this action,
which has generated a large recor d and required a
considerable expenditure of time and no doubt money is, at
bottom, at least with respect to the claims we have
considered, a fatuity.
Unlike an ordinary RICO victim, in this case the allegedly
injured plaintiffs, i.e., the players, can avoid any injury
simply by walking away from the alleged wr ongdoers, the
casinos, by not playing blackjack in casinos. In fact, that is
what the casinos apparently want them to do, at least as
long as they count cards. While this abstention would
deprive them of the opportunity to enrich themselves at the
casinos' expense, surely it would be difficult to characterize
that lost speculative opportunity as an injury to"business
or property." If the appellants have played blackjack in the
past, aware of the casinos' countermeasur es, and if they
continue to play blackjack in the future in the hope of
profiting by counting cards, they have suffered and will
suffer self-inflicted wounds. Accordingly, at least with
respect to individual players who are awar e of the casinos'
countermeasures, it is difficult to consider this case within
a RICO formulation.6
_________________________________________________________________
6. In their brief, the casinos assert as an alter native ground for
affirmance that the statute of limitations has run as to some of the
appellants' claims. See br. at 14 & n.5. Appellants respond that they
have alleged continuing violations that render their claims timely.
See
reply br. at 9. Appellants seem to overlook, however, that the
corporate
plaintiffs all ceased operations by 1992. See app. at 930-32. In the
circumstances, inasmuch as appellants instituted this action in 1997,
the corporate appellants' federal RICO claims ar e barred by the
four-year
RICO statute of limitations. See Forbes v. Eagleson, No. 99-1803, ___
F.3d. ___, 2000 WL 1529852, at *10 (3d Cir. Oct. 17, 2000).
23
B. Leave to Amend
The appellants originally pleaded a cause of action under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but omitted that
claim in their amended complaint. In the district court, and
here, they have asked permission to amend their complaint
to reinclude the Consumer Fraud Act claim. The district
court denied appellants leave to amend because it found
that the Consumer Fraud Act claim was completely without
merit and it would be futile to amend the complaint to
include a meritless claim. See Doug Grant, 3 F. Supp.2d at
536-37.
As noted by the district court, the New Jersey Supr eme
Court recently has held that the Consumer Fraud Act does
not apply to a heavily regulated industry to the extent that
application of the statute would create a "r eal possibility" of
conflict between the Consumer Fraud Act, as administered
by the Division of Consumer Affairs, and the r egulatory
schemes of other administrative bodies. See Lemelledo v.
Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 696 A.2d 546, 553 (N.J.
1997). Thus, the Consumer Fraud Act is inapplicable where
"the other source or sources of r egulation deal specifically,
concretely, and pervasively with the particular activity,
implying a legislative intent not to subject parties to
multiple regulations that, as applied, will work at cross-
purposes." Id. at 554.
Certainly the Casino Control Act evidences the New
Jersey legislature's intent to vest in the CCC exclusive
control of the regulation of casino gaming, including the
content of related advertising. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-
133b (West 1996); id. S 5:12-70(o); see also Greate Bay
Hotel & Casino v. Tose, 34 F.3d 1227, 1232-33 (3d Cir.
1994). If we allowed claims such as the appellants'
proposed consumer fraud claim to proceed in the district
court, we would interfere with the CCC's regulatory
scheme. The regulation of the game of blackjack, including
shuffling-at-will and the advertisement regulations, is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CCC. Mor eover, the
CCC has particularized expertise in these matters not
possessed by courts and juries. While it is true that the
Supreme Court of New Jersey in Campione, approving our
opinion in Tose, see 714 A.2d at 307-08, held that the
24
courts were not ousted of jurisdiction over common law
damage claims against casinos merely because the claims
arose from gambling transactions, this holding does not
inform our result here on the very different question of the
applicability of a different regulatory act to casino
operations with respect to running blackjack games. Thus,
the district court properly denied appellants' motion for
leave to amend for, as a matter of law, the amended
complaint would not have stated a claim on which r elief
could be granted. See Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic
Ass'n, 139 F.3d 180, 190 (3d Cir. 1999), vacated on other
grounds, 525 U.S. 459, 119 S.Ct. 924 (1999).
In reaching our result on this point, we emphasize that
the goals of the Consumer Fraud and the Casino Contr ol
Acts are not entirely consistent. The Consumer Fraud Act
is concerned with the protection of consumers. The Casino
Control Act, however, has dual purposes that must be
balanced -- the protection of gambling patr ons and the
protection of the financial viability of the casino industry.
N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-1b (12) (West 1996). Thus, the Casino
Control Act presupposes that the consumers as a group,
i.e., the players, will lose their money, a contemplated
result that hardly is the object of the Consumer Fraud Act.
C. Dismissal Against John Does with Prejudice
The sixth count of the complaint alleges various state
and federal statutory claims against John Does for sending
offensive messages and alleged threats over the Internet.
But while the appellants in the complaint sought r elief
against the casino appellees for these acts, see app. at 104,
they failed to offer any link between the John Does and the
casinos. Thus, the district court properly dismissed this
aspect of the complaint, though it did so with pr ejudice. We
conclude, however, that the dismissal should have been
without prejudice, allowing appellants to bring a claim at a
later time if they uncover sufficient facts to per mit them to
plead facts supporting a conclusion that the casinos were
responsible for these acts. Accordingly, we will vacate the
order dismissing the sixth count with pr ejudice to the
extent that it included claims relating to the sending of the
offensive messages and threats over the Internet, and with
respect to that aspect of the order will r emand the matter
25
to the district court to modify the order so that it dismisses
the count without prejudice.
D. Constitutional and Civil Rights Claims
Appellants' sixth count also alleges violations of the
Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, Article 1,
paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, and 42 U.S.C.
S 1983. As the district court correctly noted, this count fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for several
reasons. First, appellants' allegations of state action are
insufficient. State regulation and the CCC's authorization of
casino activities do not transform the casinos into state
actors. See Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 448 F. Supp. 116,
118 (D. Nev. 1978); State v. Sanders, 448 A.2d 481, 486
(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1982) (sear ch by casino
employees does not constitute state action). It is well
established that "[m]ere approval of or acquiescence in the
initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify
holding the State responsible for those initiatives under the
terms of the Fourteenth Amendment." Blum v. Yaretsky,
457 U.S. 991, 1004-05, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2786 (1982);
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350-51,
95 S.Ct. 449, 453-54 (1974). Second, appellants have not
suffered any equal protection clause violation inasmuch as
under the rational basis test applicable for a non-protected
class such as card-counters subject to CCC r egulations,
see Bally Mfg. Corp. v. New Jersey Casino Contr ol Comm'n,
426 A.2d 1000, 1005 (N.J.) (casino regulations examined
under rational basis test), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 804,
102 S.Ct. 77 (1981), the countermeasur es used by the
casinos and authorized by the CCC are rationally related to
the legitimate state interest in protecting the financial
viability of the casino industry. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 5:12-
1b(12). Third, we are satisfied that the appellants do not
have a constitutionally protected property interest in the
opportunity to gamble and thus the activities of which they
complain do not violate their due process rights. Therefore,
the district court properly dismissed the constitutional and
civil rights claims in the sixth count of the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.7
_________________________________________________________________
7. We hasten to add that we do not suggest that our holding means that
the casinos have carte blanche in dealing with their patrons and they
do
not suggest otherwise. For example, both federal and state
discrimination laws would be implicated if casinos discriminated among
their patrons on the basis of their inclusion in protected groups.
26
V. CONCLUSION
We have carefully considered all of appellants'
arguments, including those that we may not have
addressed specifically, and have concluded that the district
court properly dismissed this action with pr ejudice with
respect to the counts of the complaint that it addressed,
except that it should have dismissed count six without
prejudice to the extent that the count r elated to sending
offensive messages and threats over the Internet.8
Consequently, we will modify the order of dismissal to
provide that count six partially is dismissed without
prejudice, and we otherwise will affir m the order of
dismissal with prejudice, and will affir m the order
remanding the remaining aspects of the complaint to the
Superior Court of New Jersey. We will r emand the case to
the district court to enter an order consistent with this
opinion. Costs on this appeal will be taxed against
appellants.
A True Copy:
Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
_________________________________________________________________
8. Immediately before oral argument on this appeal, appellants filed a
motion requesting "an evidentiary hearing on possible conflicts of
interest of the district court" because of what appellants said were
their
"serious concerns" that the court "may have undisclosed conflicts of
interest or financial interests." W e have considered this application
carefully and will deny the motion as we find it to be without merit.
In
any event, the appellants' "serious concer ns" are quite immaterial,
as we
have exercised plenary review on all the issues on this appeal so that
it
would not matter if the appellants' concerns were justified. While we
recognize that we review the denial of a motion for leave to amend on
an
abuse of discretion basis, here we ar e upholding the denial on the
legal
basis that the proposed amendment would not survive a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Smith, 139 F.3d at 190. Thus, we have
not deferred to the district court on any issue on which we have
passed.
Mac
wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
snip
###############################
ADVANTAGE PLAY AND COMMERCIAL CASINOS
���������������������������������������� Anthony Cabot*
��������������������������������������� Robert Hannum**
"Card-Counting..."
������� *� Anthony Cabot is a partner in the law firm of Lewis and
Roca, with offices in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson and Albuquerque. His
practice emphasis is on gaming law. He is the president and was a
founding member of the International Masters of Gaming Law
Association, a worldwide organization of prominent gaming attorneys
devoted to the on-going education of and communications within the
gaming industry. Mr. Cabot is the co-Editor-in-Chief of the Gaming Law
Review. He is the founding editor of The Internet Gambling Report Vll
(2004), covering the evolving conflict between technology and the law.
Mr. Cabot authored Federal Gambling Law and Casino Gaming: Public
Policy, Economics and Regulation, a 527-page book covering all aspects
of casino gaming. He coauthored Practical Casino Math and is co-editor
and contributing author of International Casino Law. Mr. Cabot is
listed in Best Lawyers in America.
������� ** Robert Hannum is Professor of Statistics at the University
of Denver, where he teaches probability and statistics, with
particular interests in the mathematics of gambling, the business of
commercial gaming, and data mining. His publications include the books
Practical Casino Math and Introductory Statistics: A Self-Study
Manual, as well as numerous articles in statistical, gaming, and law
journals, including Annals of Probability, Annals of Statistics, John
Marshall Law Review, Sociological Methods and Research, International
Gambling Studies, Quantity and Quality in Economic Research, Finding
the Edge: Mathematical Analysis of Casino Games, and Global Gaming
Business.
How Law and Regulation Address Advantage Play
Protected Right of Access to Casino Games of Advantage Players Have
������ Advantage players have have attempted to use constitutional and
statutory protections against discrimination to create a right to
gamble. Advantage players have alleged that their exclusion violates
the federal civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.[143] Federal courts have rejected these
arguments.[144] A casino in a typical case would refuse to allow the
card counter to play blackjack and request him to leave the premises
permanently.[145] Casino security would escort him to the exit and
read him the state trespass statute.[146] The card counter would then
allege this conduct was done under color of state law, and, thus,
violated his civil rights.[147]
������ These were precisely the federal law issues raised and rejected
in the ruling of federal courts in both Nevada (Uston v. Hilton Hotels
Corp.) and New Jersey (Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino).[148]
Each of these courts held that card counters failed to state any
federally-recognized cause of action, i.e. that summary judgment was
appropriately entered on behalf of the defendant casinos.[149]
������ To maintain a successful civil rights claim, the complaining
party must show that the conduct deprived him of a right under the
United States Constitution or federal law.[150] Actions maintained
directly under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment also require a showing of �state action� and
violation of a constitutional right.[151]
������ �State action� means the state government had significant and
direct involvement in the challenged activity.[152] Private conduct,
such as excluding card counters from a casino, can be action taken
under color of state law where the alleged infringement of a federal
right is fairly attributable to the state.[153] The more connections a
purportedly private action has with some kind of state activity, rule
or actor, the more the private action will be considered attributable
to the state. Several early court actions were initiated by the late
Ken Uston, a well known card counter and author.[154] Uston asserted
that private entities excluding card counters from a casino
constituted state action if the conduct is �fairly attributable to the
state.�[155]
������ In the Hilton Hotels Corp. case, Uston asserted that the
casino's actions were tantamount to state action, �(1) because of the
extent to which the state of Nevada regulates the gaming industry, and
(2) because the State of Nevada, charged with the enforcement of the
gaming laws, has refused to prohibit the discrimination against card
counters.�[156]
������ Mr. Uston was also unsuccessful in another case where the court
found that �there is a lack of `state action' in the discriminatory
conduct he alleges.�[157] Mere state regulation of a private industry
in and of itself does not constitute state action.[158] �Something
more, more in the nature of a substantial and direct state involvement
in promoting the challenged activity, must be
demonstrated�.�.�.�.�[159]
������ The court concluded that �there has been no demonstration that
the State of Nevada, either through its regulation and/or licensing of
the gaming industry, has to any significant degree promoted or
participated in the exclusion of persons suspected by gaming
establishments to be card counters.[160]
������ After the Hilton Hotels Corp. case was decided, the United
States Supreme Court again considered the issue of whether mere
regulation can constitute state action. In Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, the
plaintiff alleged that four connections between the state and the
private school defendant made the school's conduct in discriminatorily
discharging employees a state action.[161] One of the connections
argued was the extensive regulation of the school in nearly every
aspect by numerous public entities.[162] Although the Court noted,
citing Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.,[163] that state regulation,
even if �extensive and detailed,� does not equal state action, the
Court went on to specifically contrast the �extensive regulation of
the school generally� with the comparatively unintrusive and
infrequent regulation of the specific conduct challenged-personnel
discharge procedures.[164] This unfortunate dichotomy suggests that
where the specific conduct engaged in is highly regulated, the Court
may characterize the activity as state action.[165]
������ The analogy, applying this analysis to the expulsion of a card
counter, is that the decision would remain a private one because,
despite the extensive regulation of the gaming industry in general,
the decision relating to excluding card counters is �not compelled or
even influenced by any state regulation.�[166] In fact, this was a
specific holding in the Hilton Hotels Corp. case: �In the case at
hand, there has been no demonstration that the state of Nevada, either
through its regulation and/or licensing of the gaming industry has to
any significant degree promoted or participated in the exclusion of
persons suspected by gaming establishments to be card
counters�.�.�.�.�[167]
������ The opinions in the Hilton Hotels Corp. case and of the Supreme
Court of the United States in Rendell-Baker contemplate that if the
exclusion decision �was itself based upon some rule of conduct or
policy put forth by the state,�[168] then the decision to exclude
would be fairly attributable to the state. That is, if the state
gaming regulators elected to promulgate a regulation controlling the
expulsion of card counters, the potential liability of the casinos for
civil rights violations would multiply.
������ In 2000, the issue of state action resurfaced in federal court
in New Jersey. While Doug Grant, Inc. was decided under the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the New Jersey Constitution, the
federal appellate court analysis in dismissing the constitutional and
civil rights claims of the plaintiff card counters was consistent with
federal law.[169]
������ The court based the decision that the casino's countermeasures
did not constitute violations based on three considerations. First,
state regulation and the state gaming regulator's �authorization of
casino activities do not transform the casinos into state
actors.�[170] State action is necessary to establish a constitutional
violation under state and federal equal protection and due process
clauses. Second, even if the equal protection clause applied, the
court found that a rational basis would exist for allowing casinos to
discriminate against card counters through the use of countermeasures
based on �the legitimate state interest in protecting the financial
viability of the casino industry.�[171] Finally, the court held that
the �opportunity to gamble� was not a constitutionally-protected
property interest that could be the basis for a due process
claim.[172]
������ In summary, a card-counter cannot establish a ��1983 civil
rights case without a showing that the state was substantially
involved in the challenged activity.[173] The Hilton Hotels Corp. and
Doug Grant, Inc. cases are strong and persuasive precedent that such a
plaintiff cannot show the requisite state involvement. Thus, advantage
players have no right of access created by civil rights or
constitutional law.
Regulatory Policy
������ The policy position urged by card counters is essentially that
banning them is inconsistent with the basic public policy that the
games be fair. This was alluded to in the New Jersey case involving
Ken Uston and is the subject of opinion pieces that have appeared in
various media.[305] The fallacy in this argument is that the
responsibility of the regulators extends only to assuring that the
games are fair in the sense that they are not overly advantageous to
the casino such that the player has almost no opportunity to win.
Regulation has always recognized the right of the casino to maintain a
house advantage to realize a fair profit.[306] As the federal district
court noted in the Doug Grant, Inc., case, the
regulations, which the New Jersey Supreme Court urged the [Casino
Control Commission] to adopt in lieu of allowing the casinos to
exclude card-counters, balanced the statutory goals of casino
viability and fair odds to all players, N.J.S.A. 5:12-100e, and were
intended to ensure both the fairness and integrity of casino gambling
and �the right of the casinos to have the rules drawn so as to allow
some reasonable profit.�[307]
������ From a public policy perspective barring the advantage player
may be preferable. The casinos claim if they let card counters play
they would have to undertake countermeasures to take away their
advantage.
������ Professor Lehman, Professor of Philosophy at East Carolina
University, stated in The Gambling Studies, Proceedings of The Sixth
National Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking that Ken Uston, who
was a well-known card counter, misses the point in his observations
that no one would be hurt by a no-barring rule.[308] Professor Lehman
discussed some groups overlooked by Uston in his analysis:
�� First, there are the less-skilled, poorly-bankrolled, would-be
counters like myself�not to mention the one-to-five dollar, simple
count players that Uston spends a good deal of time addressing in
Million Dollar Blackjack. As Uston so clearly explains and documents,
pushing up the cut card to midway in the shoe makes blackjack a much
harder game to beat. Counts must be much more powerful (and difficult)
in order to pick up useful information: fluctuations in a player's
capital become much more violent: the �long run� is further and
further off. Small-scale counters are much more likely to be wiped out
under such conditions. So if we compensate casinos for the prohibition
against barring big-time counters with the opportunity to move the cut
card forward, the small-time counters pay for it. And what about
single deck, the amateur counter's favorite? Under no-barring
conditions, it can't exist at all.
�� But this is only part of the story. Uston also allows that casinos
should be allowed to shuffle up whenever they please as compensation
for being forbidden to bar counters. Now consider what this does to
the other players. Of course, this practice also damages the
small-time counters: but now focus on just the simple basic-strategy
and recreational players. When favorable decks are shuffled away to
frustrate the big-time counters, the small fish lose them too. So
five-dollar bettors, visiting the casino one weekend a year, lose the
blackjack they would have had on the next hand, if not for a
shuffle-up, so that a blanket prohibition against barring counters can
be maintained. Again the big-time counters are allowed to play at will
only at the expense of those who are already the probable losers.[309]
������ Such observations can be quantified. For example, if the casino
moves from a single deck to two decks, the house advantage over
patrons that play according to the rules of basic strategy increases
by .32%, moving to four decks increases the house advantage by .48%,
and moving to six decks increases the house advantage by .54%.[310]
������ Moreover, allowing the casino to exclude advantage players may
itself have good public policy arguments. Casinos would face a dilemma
if they were prohibited from excluding card counters. Suppose a
suspected card cheater was playing. How does the casino exclude him
from playing without being subject to a lawsuit or disciplinary action
based on the claim that the cheater was excluded because he was
counting?
Category Three Advantage Play: Taking
Advantage of the Casino's Mistakes
Contractual Enforcement
Simple ethical considerations, however, that would apply in everyday
life seem to take on a different life in the casino environment. Can
one seriously argue that it is ethically acceptable to take advantage
of a patently mispriced product at a grocery store?[331] How about
keeping an overpayment on an insurance claim or an ATM withdrawal?
������ Yet, even courts seem to have difficultly in finding that
simple unethical behavior when practiced against a casino is
unethical. The distinction, however, is probably based more on the
perceived notion of the casino as the exploiter.[332] Therefore,
taking advantage of the exploiter is not socially reprehensible.
������ This notion is misplaced. The house advantage maintained by the
casino is necessary to assure the economic viability of the casino,
but is regulated by the government to assure that it is fair to the
player.[333] This is no different than the mark-up that a grocer may
charge on a gallon of milk. The house advantage is simply a reflection
of the price that a player pays for the opportunity to play the
game.[334] If the player believes that the casino is being unfair and
charging too much, the player is no more compelled to play at the
casino, than he is to buy a gallon of milk that he believes is
overpriced.
FOOTNOTES:
������� [148]���������������� Hilton Hotels Corp., 448 F. Supp. at
116; Doug Grant, Inc., 3 F. Supp. at 518. In 1984, a federal district
court in New Jersey held that a person cannot maintain an action
against a casino for exclusion based on being a card counter. The
court reiterated the prior holding that violations of a person's
constitutional guarantees of personal rights under the federal
constitution require state action. Hoagburg v. Harrah's Marina Hotel
Casino, 585 F. Supp 1167, 1171 (D. N.J. 1984).
������� [149]���������������� See supra notes 127-48 and accompanying
text.
[126]���������������� See Countermeasures, at
www.urbino.net/V1/pages/ar3_4.htm (last visited May 6, 2005) (Urbino
is a website hosted by longtime casino executive Andrew McDonald)
[hereinafter Countermeasures].
������� [127]���������������� See generally, Bill Zender's
Card-counting for the Casino Executive (1990) (discussing other
countermeasures casinos can implement). �The shuffle-at-will occurs
when the dealer is instructed to reshuffle prior to the cut-card
manner because the casino card-counting team has determined that the
shoe is player-favorable and card-counters are suspected to be playing
at a given table.� Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 3 F.
Supp. 2d 518, 525 (D.N.J. 1998). New Jersey Casino Commission
Regulations specifically permit shuffling at will. New Jersey Casino
Commission Regulation 19:47-2.3(i) provides:
After the cards have been shuffled�.�.�. , a casino licensee may, in
its discretion, prohibit any person, whether seated at the gaming
table or not, who does not make a wager on a given round of play from
placing a wager on the next found of play and any subsequent round of
play at that gaming table unless the casino licensee chooses to permit
the player to begin wagering or until a reshuffle of the cards has
occurred.
Id.
������� [128]���������������� See Countermeasures, supra note 126.
������� [129]���������������� Id.
������� [130]���������������� Id. New Jersey Casino Commission
Regulation 19:47-2.14 specifically authorizes this countermeasure. It
provides, �A player may only wager on one box at a Blackjack table
unless the casino licensee, in its discretion, permits the player to
wager on additional boxes.�
������� [131]���������������� Countermeasures, supra note 126. New
Jersey Casino Commission Regulation 19:47-2.5(a) provides,
�Immediately prior to commencement of play, after any round of play as
may be determined by the casino licensee and after each shoe of cards
is dealt, the dealer shall shuffle the cards so that they are randomly
intermixed.�
������� [132]���������������� Countermeasures, supra note 126. Some
casinos may use two cut cards. The first at about 50% penetration and
the second at about 85%. If the casino suspects that a card counter is
playing, it will initiate the shuffle at the first cut card. Id.
Nigel Brooks
"Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
news:6355551i6eth46pk0...@4ax.com...
Reiman is truly off his rocker.
Independent review - hahahahahahaha - what happened to the stable of
lawyers, experts, and lawsuits.
A truly independent review using the latest technology available may be
accomplished here
http://bsmeter.bravehost.com/
Just input any statement Reiman his over four year crusade of libel and wait
a few seconds for the review.
Nigel Brooks
Nigel Brooks
"Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
news:nf5555di98e5mtq05...@4ax.com...
Reiman has obtained the military records of Mac, the Medic and has verified
that Mac was awarded the Silver Star for actions during the early morning
hours of January 31, 1968. Yet he continues to impugn an individual who he
is not worthy to wash the feet of.
There was a poster here a while ago who used the same kind of disgusting
rhetoric to impugn others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CQ6Hp97E68
Nigel Brooks
Nigel Brooks
"Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
news:sv65559i0ljb1upsg...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:12:17 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
> snip
> (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
>
> Decision regarding the APPEAL of Doug Grant Lawsuit against
> Casino's...
>
> xd November 2, 2000
>
> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
> FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
>
> No. 98-5291
and of course having lost that - Reiman and his cronies tried to take it to
the Supremes - the result being:
Certiorari Denied
(in other words we find no compelling reason to review the decision of the
Third Circuit which dismissed Reimans appeal)
Nigel Brooks
Nigel Brooks
"Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
news:3955551d0i5vu5gsk...@4ax.com...
"Walk the walk" I guess Doogies been watch FMJ again to get some pointers.
Heck he is limping right now - Google has blocked him from posting to his
cyberstalking newsgroup for one or more of the following reasons:
You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and communications
while using the Service and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use
the Service only to send and receive messages and material that are legal,
proper and related to the particular Group. By way of example, and not as a
limitation, you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal
rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
* post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
Content;
And Google are pretty much liberal when it comes to what they will allow -
Doogie really must have set off some alarms.
Nigel Brooks
Dai Uy
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:12:17 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
> >NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
> >CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
> >THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
> >HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
> >PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
> >DEFAMING LIGHT.
Mr. Reiman,
You may ask whomever you wish to conduct a review of what you
characterize as a dispute. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing
in dispute. Your internet posting history has already been reviewed.
The results are in. It has been suggested by every poster that you've
disagreed with that you've embellished, inflated, and exaggerated your
military background in an effort at self-aggrandizement and to puff up
your image and claim credibility.
You've finally, and belatedly, admitted that everything you have
posted, or will ever post is a lie. You then ridicule your critics
for having requested clarification of your fabricated tales
You have admitted "up front" that you are a liar. There is no
longer any dispute.
X-URL: http://tinyurl.com/n6odxv
> ...then you are admitting that you are de facto stating that
> you believe people that are *telling you up front they are liars and
> con men!* BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> Question:
>
> If you actually believe someone that is telling you up front that he
> is lying to you, what would best describe you: (1) a moron (2) a
> drooling moron (3) a member of the Nigel Brooks smear and con gang -
> or perhaps all three?
>
Even if your admitted lies do not reach the threshold of being a
crime, they are nevertheless demeaning to those who truly sacrificed
for their country.
You steal from the real veterans who's awards you denigrate out
of envy.
You also steal from the community at large.
You steal the public trust.
You steal your own honor.
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.
--Shakespeare, Henry V
I pity you...
***
Mac
wrote:
>
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
>a Purple Heart VA card is
>the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
>times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal)
=================================
Actually, in a post wherein you attempted to castigate "Chip" for
being in Lebannon, and not being in "...a real war" as you tried to
declare, the simple meaning of the American/English that you posted
clearly indicates that you were bragging about a Purple Heart.
Chip also referenced a C.A.R.
Which, later, you tried to pretend meant a Purple Heart Card.
You tried claiming that the VA card with the Purple Triangle was a
"Purple Heart Card...
Here you go.
Here is what you posted.
Here are the HEADINGS, the MESSAGE ID, the DATE, the SUBJECT.
Also, when you look at the thread, Chip is Message #16 and your
reply is Message #17:
=========== ===========
Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
*************** *************
And, especially after STOLEN VALOR, here are the editorial changes
you made ---- after being challenged and shown for the puffed-up
bombast you are.
DGVREIMAN
>>>> Nigel Brooks “
Nigel Brooks”
If you do then you are admitting that you are de facto stating that
you believe people that are *telling you up front they are liars and
con men!* BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Question:
If you actually believe someone that is telling you up front that he
is lying to you, what would best describe you: (1) a moron (2) a
drooling moron (3) a member of the Nigel Brooks smear and con gang -
or perhaps all three?
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Rau:
THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME
AS AN ADMISSION THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND
SMEAR GANG MEMBERS HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID
VICTIMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM
A FALSE AND DEFAMING LIGHT.
I suspect there is no reason whatsoever for the smear/hate gang to
duck this “arbitration loser pays” offer, unless of course, they
already know they are lying and any independent Arbitration review
will expose their fraud. If they were telling the truth they would
jump at the chance to prove it, and revel in the opportunity to make
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
dealers and was up to his eyeballs in the John Kerry’s “Vietnam Vets
Against the War” and seems to like Vietnam better than his own
country?
Are all those gang member issues more important than the tens of
thousands of commissioned officers that received medals in Vietnam
based upon admitted fraudulent and embellished After Action Reports?
Strange that Tom Rau never addressees any of the above in his posts?
And he keeps ducking my question:
Mr. Rau, when you were stationed guarding that lonely border as you
said, how many times was the Atoll you were guarding attacked by the
enemy when you were located there?
Waiting and waiting for a response from Mr. Rau? Strange that he is
afraid to respond to this simple question? I base this question on
the fact that Mr. Rau claims he is an expert on Combat and he knows
more about it than I do - which begs whether he actually knows what it
is like to be attacked by the enemy repeatedly?
I also must wonder why Tom Rau never mention’s the glaring fraud from
his fellow smear/hate and con gang members? I also must wonder if Mr.
Rau understands the term “hypocrite?”
He may not, but I bet the rest of us do.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ffc63780-cb65-471a...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 2:21 pm, Mac <NoSpamTo...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:12:17 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgvrei...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN
> >THE
> >NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN
> >THIS
> >CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
> >THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG
> >MEMBERS
> >HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
> >PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
> >DEFAMING LIGHT.
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Reiman,
You may ask whomever you wish to conduct a review of what you
characterize as a dispute. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing
in dispute. Your internet posting history has already been reviewed.
The results are in. It has been suggested by every poster that you've
disagreed with that you've embellished, inflated, and exaggerated your
military background in an effort at self-aggrandizement and to puff up
your image and claim credibility.
Doug’s Rebuttal: Mr. Rau, you are a liar. I have spoken with several
people that disagree with your fraud and false accusations about my
military service - and these people were NOT a member of your
smear/hate and con gang and therefore had zero axes to grind.
Where is the Gang’s Evidence? Con men abounding.
Mr. Rau, if you or your fellow hate/smear gang members claim I lied
about my military service, (or anything else) - then now is the time
to post your evidence to back up your, what I know are utterly false
accusations. PROOF? PROOF? PROOF? - Strange how Tom Rau and gang
always ducks that single word?
If you DO NOT have any proof or evidence that I lied about my military
service, then you are de facto again admitting that you are
fraudulently accusing me of lying, and you are using outright con man
false accusations to do so.
So either Walk the Walk Mr. Rau, or simply admit you are a con man
that is a member of the Nigel Brooks smear/hate and fraud gang that
has been using false accusations about me to paint me and my military
service in a false, fraudulent and defaming light for years.
And of course I have already proved your con man fraud about my
military service a complete fraud in several rebuttal posts. Would
you like to see them again?
My proof includes verification of your and your gang's fraud from
the National Personnel Records centers and outside experts on the US
Military. ALL I have consulted have proved you have lied about my
military service, records, and have forged my past posts in both
context and content to further the Nigel Brooks smear/con and hate
gang's malicious smear campaign.
Moreover, your key "gang" members self-acclaims themselves as
"Trolls" who are known con
men and liars, and these are the people you hold as support for your
fraud! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I would suggest that self-admitted and
self-acclaimed "Trolls" hardly compare to the independent experts,
lawyers and National Records Centers I have consulted and quoted - all
concluding that you and your gang members have been lying about my
military records and my
service.
So if you have any proof, let’s see it. . . Or is it run for your
sewer time again as usual.
Your reference to your smear/hate and con gang's fraudulent and false
accusations to claim I did something you and your gang has been lying
about for years is not only ridiculous, but clearly designed to duck,
hide and run from an independent Arbitration review of your posted
fraud and libel about me.
If you are telling the truth, then you have no reason to duck and run
from an *independent* legal review, loser pays, from the American
Association of Arbitrators. They will review you and your gang's
false claims about me and my military service, and my rebuttals, and
determine which are accurate.
If you are not conning the readers with your libel and fraud, then why
hide from this fair and impartial offer?
Tom Rau said:
You've finally, and belatedly, admitted that everything you have
posted, or will ever post is a lie. You then ridicule your critics
for having requested clarification of your fabricated tales
Doug’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Rau, there you go again adding words to my disclaimers. I have
not admitted anything of the kind, and your claim that I did admit to
any lie is nothing more that outright fraud and more false
accusations. Post your proof of your bizarre and child like
accusations Mr. Rau, or just admit you are conning the group again.
You said you read my disclaimer 270 times, so you must have read the
part where I say you
must ask me whether any passage was meant to be fiction or
non-fiction? And fiction is *not* a lie - as any 5th grader will soon
tell you. Did you make it through the 5th grade Mr. Rau? Apparently
not if you do not know the difference between Fiction and a lie.
Tom Rau Said:
You have admitted "up front" that you are a liar. There is no
longer any dispute.
Doug Says: No Mr. Rau, I not admitted any such thing, and your claim
that I have is just more Tom Rau con's and fraud. So obviously there
is a dispute. If you disagree simply post your *proof* that I
admitted to lying about anything - you know I do not lie Mr. Rau, and
you also know the only lies about my military service and life have
been posted by you and your smear/hate gang. If you disagree post
PROOF! Let’s see something, anything, backing up your fraud and false
accusations - or are you prepared to just admit you have been conning
the readers all these years? The con man label is something that is
obvious if you fail to post your “proof.”
The facts are that you libeled me, posted fraud about me, lied about
my military service, lied about my lawsuits, and set forth a malicious
and deliberate smear campaign against me. Now that you have been
caught in your con's and fraud, you now want to lie about what is
contained
in my disclaimer statement above - and then falsely accuse me of
admitting something we both know I did not - whew!
However, if you mean there is no more dispute because you are now
confessing that you are a con man, serial liar, fraud/hate and smear
merchant that has posted hundreds of lies, fraud, libel and false
accusations about me, then of course your confession and admission to
those *facts* of course would end this dispute, but I still hereby
demand a full apology, and retraction for
all of the fraud, false accusations, libel and obloquy you have posted
about me.
Your assumptive confession would be refreshing, but unless you agree
to my understanding that you have just confessed all of your past
fraud, then of course there is a dispute, and one that if you believed
you could win you would accept my offer of independent arbitration
loser
pays - and your failure to do so means the following (according to
you):
THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
> >NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN
> >THIS
> >CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
> >THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG
> >MEMBERS
> >HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
> >PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
> >DEFAMING LIGHT.
X-URL: http://tinyurl.com/n6odxv
> ...then you are admitting that you are de facto stating that 
>
> you
> believe people that are *telling you up front they are liars and
> 
>
> con men!* BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> Question:
>
> If you actually believe someone that is telling you up front that he
> 
> is lying to you, what would best describe you: (1) a moron (2)
> a
> 
> drooling moron (3) a member of the Nigel Brooks smear and con
> gang - 
> or perhaps all three?
Mr. Rau, you copied the above from my disclaimer also above - it
references the self-acclaimed "Trolls" that operate within your
smear/hate and con gang. Of course when someone admits and boasts
they are a Troll, which is a known liar and con man, and these are the
*very people* you claim agree with you, I suggest you read the passage
again, only in the proper context. When you have con men agreeing
with you, and you use self-acclaimed con men as references, I suggest
that you need to stop smoking or drinking whatever you have been
smoking and drinking - forthwith.
>
Tom Rau Said:
Even if your admitted lies do not reach the threshold of being a
crime, they are nevertheless demeaning to those who truly sacrificed
for their country.
Doug Says: Mr. Rau, considering I have never admitted to lying about
anything, you might as well say since the Moon is blue I blah blah
bullshit bullshit fraud, lies, and con man hype flowing.
You and I both know I did not admit what you are falsely accusing me
of admitting, and you are using yet another false accusations to
bolster your other fraud, obloquy and smear/hate defamation you have
been posting about me for years. You need to post some proof of your
claims con man - this bullshit is waaaay to slippery for even you to
sell.
Moreover, the person that really demeans real veterans are those
people that make up fraud and lies about the military service of
other Veterans that clearly saw much more service and combat than they
did.
Those are the real con men that are demeaning real Veterans.
You lied about almost every aspect of my military service, including
lying about me even going to Vietnam, then you lied about my duties
when I was there, lied about my promotions, lied about my assignments,
lied about almost every aspect of my military service, and then you
claim those that you lied about and posted con's and fraud about are
the ones that are dishonoring Veterans? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It is the hate/smear and con gang's that try to intimidate, bully and
control other Vets that are demeaning and denigrating those that truly
"sacrificed for their country" -
You are a hypocrite Mr. Rau, and no wonder you duck and run from any
offer of an independent review - you already know you have been caught
conning the readers and lying through your teeth again.
Tom Rau said:
You steal from the real veterans who's awards you denigrate out
of envy.
Doug’s rebuttal: Mr. Rau, I assure you that I do not envy anyone,
never have, never will. Moreover, I *certainly* would never envy
people that received awards due to false and fraudulent After Action
Reports, as is indicated above. Once again, I am forced to quote
Aristotle:
About all those fraudulent After Action Reports the authors of those
reports told Congress they were ordered by MACV to fill with fraud
and lies to make certain officers and operations look good - I find I
must quote Aristotle:
“Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them.”
Should all of those commissioned officers that received medals in
Vietnam be forced to return them?
Is this fraudulent After Action reports and the associated rewards
delivered to commissioned officers due to such fraud a bigger issue
than some poor idiot lying about his medals and duties during the tet
offensive like Nigel Brooks did?
Or is it a bigger issue than that other gang member that calls himself
Pepperoni, lying about going to Vietnam - and owning 15000 buildings!
And is it a bigger issue than the guy that calls himself a “medic”
but in truth was really only a “ward attendant” that worked in nice
safe
hospital ward (albeit I can imagine the duty was akin to burning shit
day after day) - and how about that key gang member that lied
profusely about having a purple heart medal, and lied about being in
combat as well and having ribbons for combat?
Then we have the gang member that never went to Vietnam - 30 years a
junior NCO - how pathetic is that when he posts on Vietnam vet forums?
Then we must not forget the top and key Nigel Brooks smear/hate and
con gang member that is not even any kind of Veteran, but goes from
Veteran group to Veteran group to harass and defame our Vets, and call
our Marines “murderers?” How about that Nigel Brooks gang member
that fraudulently calls all gang designated victims “pedophiles” and
“child porno”
dealers, (something Rau knows about) and was up to his eyeballs in
the John Kerry’s Vietnam Vets Against The War hate group - and seems
to like Vietnam better than his own country.
Are all those gang member issues more important than the tens of
thousands of commissioned officers that received medals in Vietnam
based upon admitted fraudulent and embellished After Action Reports?
Strange that Tom Rau never addressees any of the above in his posts?
And he keeps ducking my question:
Mr. Rau, when you were stationed guarding that lonely border as you
said, how many times was the Atoll you were guarding attacked by the
enemy when you were located there?
Waiting and waiting for a response from Mr. Rau? Strange that he is
afraid to respond to this simple question? I base this question on
the fact that Mr. Rau claims he is an expert on Combat and he knows
more about it than I do - which begs whether he actually knows what it
is like to be attacked by the enemy repeatedly?
I also must wonder why Tom Rau never mention’s the glaring fraud from
his fellow smear/hate and con gang members? I also must wonder if Mr.
Rau understands the term “hypocrite?”
He may not, but I bet the rest of us do."
Mr. Rau, if you believe I envy fraud merchants and hypocrites and your
other gang members (self
acclaimed "Trolls") then you really need to stop smoking whatever it
is you are smoking.
Tom Rau Said:
You also steal from the community at large.
You steal the public trust.
You steal your own honor.
Doug Says: Mr. Rau, your fraudulent claims above are preposterous, I
have not lied about anything, yet your gang members have been caught
in lie after lie about their military service, and I have posted
PROOF - yet you ignore their fraud and then use false accusations to
try and paint me the liar!
The true thief is the one that spreads hate/fraud and false
accusations about Veterans, then claims to be one himself, while
hypocritically ignoring the glaring fraud from his own smear/hate gang
members. Sound familiar Mr. Rau?
There is nothing more dishonorable than such a hypocrite - especially
one like yourself that has said the defaming things you have said
about the NCO corps, our POW's and all those men that suffer or died
from Agent Orange - they sacrificed much more than you did Rau, and
your arrogance toward them is what is stealing honor - and all you
need is a mirror to find the worst perpetrator of someone that has
stolen the honor of millions of Vets - many that served much longer
and certainly in more combat than you did.
Your constant denigration of other Veterans and your repeated fraud,
serial lying, and con man defamation about other Vets is what is truly
dishonorable Mr. Rau, not to mention all of those
fraudulent After Action Reports.
Tom Rau said:
I pity you...
Pot Kettle Black. Mr. Rau, we all know that if you even remotely
believed what you have
posted about me you would accept my binding arbitration offer, loser
pays. If you were NOT a con man, serial liar, fraud/hate merchant
gang member that has been and is libeling me for years, you would jump
at this independent review of your claims and my rebuttals to them.
Instead you hide, whine, cry, duck, run, dodge, and try to use even
more fraud to "avoid" what you know will get to the truth - now that
is something that is truly worth pity - but instead what I feel toward
you is revulsion - for your constant attacks on other Vets - I assume
probably because you are so ashamed of your own service.
Again, there are several issues you are hiding from mentioned above -
and we can all see why.
Time to walk the walk Mr. Rau.
Not unless you want your confession above to stand?
If that is the case then I will accept your dodging of my arbitration
offer due to your open
confession that you have been using con's, fraud, serial lying, libel
and general obloquy about me for years - so which is it? Confession
or take my Arbitration offer? It is time to trot out all that
evidence you used to post your fraud about me Mr. Rau - or we all must
accept the following as absolute fact:
THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
> >NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN
> >THIS
> >CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
> >THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG
> >MEMBERS
> >HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
> >PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
> >DEFAMING LIGHT.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
>>>> Nigel Brooks "
Nigel Brooks"
Question:
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Rau:
THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
DEFAMING LIGHT.
I suspect there is no reason whatsoever for the smear/hate gang to
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7bfnp8F...@mid.individual.net...
Doug's Rebuttal to Nigel Brooks fraud: "Stable?" What "Stable?"
And if you call a rebuttal to your initiated smear campaign against me
"my crusade" you should note who is the person with all those web
sites dedicated to using cons and fraud to smear me, and who has
posted more than 8000 (and counting) smears and fraud against me, and
incited threats and hate from third parties also with the use of
fraud, hate and outright serial lying. All I am doing is defending
myself - and if you believe I have libeled you well then there is my
Arbitration challenge. Why hide from it?
I certainly did hire a major law firm and they have investigated this
issue and I have received their conclusion in writing. Moreover,
attempting to discredit me with libel and fraud certainly will not
hide the irrefutable facts contained in my rebuttals to Nigel Brooks
hate/cons and fraud, not to mention exposing some of his key
hate/smear and con gang member's similar tactics. See above. Note
anytime Nigel Brooks or Tom Rau is proved a con man and a serial liar,
the gang chimes in to try and cover up this proof with howls that
anyone that proves their gang leaders are con men is "crazy" - while
of course hiding from, averting their eyes from, avoiding, ducking,
the irrefutable proof that Nigel Brooks and Tom Rau are leading a
smear/hate and con gang and they have been caught in mid con and fraud
so many times the summary of such cons and fraud will fill volumes.
I guess the gang knows when they cannot refute obvious truth, their
only chance to protect their gang leaders is to try and discredit the
messenger - but then rational readers can see easily what is going on.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
>>>> Nigel Brooks "
Nigel Brooks"
Question:
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Rau:
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
And is it a bigger issue than the guy that calls himself a "medic"
but was really only a "ward attendant that worked in nice safe
hospital ward (albeit I can imagine the duty was akin to burning shit
Doug Grant (Tm)
news:7bfodoF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
> news:nf5555di98e5mtq05...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:12:17 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
>> <dgvr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And is it a bigger issue than the guy that calls himself a "medic"
>>>but was really only a "ward attendant that worked in nice safe
>>>hospital ward (albeit I can imagine the duty was akin to burning
>>>shit
>>>day after day) -
Snip bullshit. Duty description all over records.
>>
>>> Reiman has obtained the military records of Mac, the Medic and has
>>> verified
> that Mac was awarded the Silver Star for actions during the early
> morning hours of January 31, 1968. Yet he continues to impugn an
> individual who he is not worthy to wash the feet of.
>
> There was a poster here a while ago who used the same kind of
> disgusting rhetoric to impugn others.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CQ6Hp97E68
>
> Nigel Brooks
Doug's Rebuttal: Only a con man/hate smear gang leader like Nigel
Brooks would claim I ever used any youtube anything to impugn anyone.
Yet my lawyers did find some youtube references to me - which places
the libel and hate in a completely new light I am told. More about
this and other issues later. Also, if someone is really a Ward
Attendant in a Hospital Company, why would he want to pan himself off
as a Combat Medic? That is a simple question, and if true, then how
is that impugning anyone? Why does that have anything to do with
anyone's medal?
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
>>>> Nigel Brooks "
Nigel Brooks"
Question:
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Rau:
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
news:7bfornF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
> news:sv65559i0ljb1upsg...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:12:17 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
>> <dgvr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
>> snip
>> (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
>>
>> Decision regarding the APPEAL of Doug Grant Lawsuit against
>> Casino's...
>>
>> xd November 2, 2000
>>
>> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
>> FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
>>
>> No. 98-5291
Doug' rebuttal to Nigel Brooks: The merits of the case was not tried
by the District court - it transferred its *entire* jurisdiction and
authority to the NJ Casino Control Commission - that was what was
appealed - along with the libel toss - the libel was reinstated and
the Appealate division upheld the District Courts transfer of the case
to the NJ CCC - the District court did not hear the case - it did not
try it - and it never heard testimony nor witnessess - it simply
transfered its entire jurisdiction and authority to the NJ CCC. Nigel
Brooks has been caught lying about this issue so many times it is
starting to smell.
> and of course having lost that - Reiman and his cronies tried to
> take it to the Supremes - the result being:
>
> Certiorari Denied
>
> (in other words we find no compelling reason to review the decision
> of the Third Circuit which dismissed Reimans appeal)
>
> Nigel Brooks
No, that is not what it means. Duh. The transfer of the case from
District court to the NJ CCC was what was not heard.
(If Brooks wants to contradict these facts he can take my University
law department challenge - which he is still hiding from).
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
>>>> Nigel Brooks "
Nigel Brooks"
Question:
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Rau:
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
news:7bfpddF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
> news:3955551d0i5vu5gsk...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:12:17 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
>> <dgvr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I know I am willing to walk the walk...
>>
Sinp nonsense and taunts >
> Heck he is limping right now - Google has blocked him from posting
> to his cyberstalking newsgroup for one or more of the following
> reasons:
>
> >
> And Google are pretty much liberal when it comes to what they will
> allow - Doogie really must have set off some alarms.
>
> Nigel Brooks
Doug 's Rebuttal: Mr. Brooks, I am allowed to post to that site, the
site still exists, and will continue to exist. You are lying. We can
all access the site at will - your fraud is glaring again Brooks.
Further, you have suffered not less than ELEVEN web sites forced down
due to violations of terms of service in respect to defamation, fraud
and false accusations. You hold the Internet record for fraudulent
web sites forced down I believe. Google nor any other web host has
forced down any newsgroups nor web sites I have posted on - and
further it appears that a conspired common purpose con man/hate and
smear gang effort was used in this regard to deceive Google - and I
assure you Google is not through with this issue and neither are my
lawyers.
You have lied so much about Google you really need to wonder what they
think about your cons and your gang. I suspect we shall find out in
the near future.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Mac
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>REBUTTAL
**************************************
What Doug Grant is proclaiming is that he lacks the courage of his
threats.
He fears following through on his threats of lawsuits.
He would have to document, for the Court, his position.
He would have to have those he showed only his position come forward
and really look at the complete records... and then testify whether
or not the decisions they made were appropriate.
He would have to stand before the Court and aver that what he has
spewed forth over many years and over many Groups, was simply his
efforts at embelishing his military record.
He would after to testify as to his original postings ((i.e.,
claiming he obtained that Purple Heart in "...a real war"; being
"wounded"; describing how he "almost lost his life"...etc.,etc.)).
He would have to be honest.
Nah.
Never happen.
He prefers to make his threats and then run away from implementing
that lawsuit, that time in Court.
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>When Brooks read my "shoot around little girl" post (for about the
>tenth time and counting) he said the following:
******************************************
Bat-pucky!
You stated that you shot the little girl.
You did NOT claim you were shooting AROUND that little girl.
You stated --- (( HEADERS provided... ))
Note the Date, the HEADERS, and the Subject and the Groups.
ALSO note that nowhere does he hint that this is what he is now
desperately claiming it to be: "fiction".
Draw your own conclusions as to the mental make-up of the person who
would spew forth the following in a debate/conversation with another
person.
=============
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups:
alt.news-media,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.security.terrorism
References:
<Dflp8.13307$se.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<uabpeks...@corp.supernews.com
<4hmp8.13400$se.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<3CA62E0D...@exploratoire.ch
<IYtp8.14415$Eb5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<3CA82636...@exploratoire.ch
Subject: Re: Arafat Refuses Land Back
Lines: 300
Message-ID:
<g80q8.17599$se.16...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:45:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.130.222
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1017679500 12.82.130.222
(Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:45:00 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:45:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Doug Says:
Colin, you have not seen such films unless they were produced for
propaganda purposes.
When I was in Vietnam little children were given toe poppers (small
mines) hidden in cigarette packages, then they were told by the
Communists to give this nice gift to the American GI's as they passed
by their village.
I will never forget the day when a little smiling girl no more than 4
or 5 years old started walking towards me trying to give me a pack of
cigarettes.
I was forced to shoot her.
**********************************
It is nice to know that you have never forgotten the day when you shot
that little girl !!
NOTE the differences.
In APRIL, 2002 you clearly state:
"I was forced to shoot her."
Once you have been challenged on the above bullshit, on June 6th,
2009, you now desperately try claiming:
"... about shooting around a little girl in
Vietnam to make a point about how the
Commie Vietnamese used little children
to murder..."
SEVEN years later you try to insert that little preposition of
"around" --- instead of your former declarative statement that you
had been "...forced to shoot her."
So, when are you proceeding with that lawsuit?
You know, the one you have been threatening everyone with for YEARS
and YEARS....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>REBUTTAL
=================================
CanTho airfield attack with ambulances....
Back in OCTOBER, 2006 this Doug Grant claimed he observed the
following attack on CanTho... with "ambulances";
A slight problem.
The attack with ambulances took place MONTHS before he arrived in
Vietnam.
The airfield was again attacked in January, 1969 but without the
ambulances.
By that time he was in Vietnam.
Newsgroups: alt.security.terrorism, alt.terrorism.world-trade-center
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Mac
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
>NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
>CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
>THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
>HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
>PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
>DEFAMING LIGHT.
*****************************************
Bat-pucky, you Loon !!
For several years you have threatened LAWSUITS.
You have been informed that you should proceed.
That several of the veterans are ready to stand before the Judge and
the Jury and present their findings.
HOWEVER, in your case, you have been the craven.
You flee from the actions your threaten.
You simply bluster your codswallop.
Again, the suggestion is that you actually have the courage of your
threats and follow through.
File your lawsuit.
Let's have a Judge, a Jury, the legal system review the matter....
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>TOM RAU'S LIBEL BS - REBUTTAL
>
>(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
>of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
>editorial on contemporary issues and events - my opinion
************************************
Considering the ploy Doug Grant is undertaking by reposting this
balderdash, later I shall reply with the usual responses, indicating
what he originally stated, what he originally claimed....
But for now, I think I'll head out for an iced coffee and read a book
for a little bit.
-Mac, the Medic
tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net says...
> THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
> NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
> CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
> THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
> HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
> PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
> DEFAMING LIGHT.
>
>
Guess that leaves you with only one choice..
File your lawsuit and proceed to llose your ass...
Mac
>In article <OeadnZo6hfpycfvX...@giganews.com>,
>dgvr...@comcast.net says...
> THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
> NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
> CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
> THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
> HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
> PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
> DEFAMING LIGHT.
***************************
Hardly.
You have threatened for years lawsuit after lawsuit.
You have been, repeatedly, told, that an offer less than a Court, less
than a Judge and Jury, is not sufficient.
You have threatened alleged attorney after alleged attorney.
Given your antics, given your history, several of the veterans have
stated they wish to meet you in Court and have the opportunity to have
the attorneys present their cases to the Jury.
It is YOURSELF refusing to acknowledge what you have told.
It is yourself that continues to bully and threaten.
It is yourself that continues to avoid the simple solution and
follow through on your threats.
-Mac, the Medic
Nigel Brooks
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24d6c0e...@news.bytemine.net...
you left out "obese"
Nigel Brooks
DGVREIMAN
>>>> Nigel Brooks "
Nigel Brooks"
Question:
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tom Rau said:
Mr. Rau:
THE FAILURE TO ACCEPT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR/HATE AND CON GANG AND ITS TARGETED VICTIMS (IN THIS
CASE ME - BUT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS) IS THE SAME AS AN ADMISSION
THAT NIGEL BROOKS, TOM RAU AND OTHER HATE/CON AND SMEAR GANG MEMBERS
HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND MALICIOUSLY LIBELED SAID VICTIMS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING AND FRAUDULENTLY PAINTING THEM A FALSE AND
DEFAMING LIGHT.
I suspect there is no reason whatsoever for the smear/hate gang to
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S.
Doug Grant (Tm)
news:7d5rtgF...@mid.individual.net...
Doug Says: Rebuttal to Nigel Brooks: Since you accept the de facto
admission above - why should I file any civil legal action to prove
you are what you have admitted you are? I have offered you binding
arbitration about these issues from the American Association of
Aribtrators, loser pays for their services. You and your gang have
run, cowered, hid and dodged that offer each time it was presented to
you - that clearly indicates to rational people you know you are
lying. If not, why hide from an completely independent reveiw of your
false and fraudulent accusations about me? Obviously, you know you
will be the one paying.
Moreover, your obvious inability to rebut or even challenge the facts
contained in my rebuttals, and your child like directions to your 6th
grader hate/smear gang to post their libel, fraud and smears and try
to hide my rebuttals, indicates (1) your hate/smear and con gang
operates the same as the James Von Brunn hate/smear and con gang did,
and (2) you know you cannot refute the truth. So keep hiding, posting
child like insults, and keep on running away from the truth, you are
making my point precisely.
Further, taunting me to file legal action is hereby acknowledged.
Your statement that you have no intention to stop your smear and libel
campaign against me, regardless of how many times I and my lawyer have
told you and your hate/smear gang to cease and desist, unless I file
some legal action against you is also hereby acknowledged. You are
giving me no choice but to take this issue to a legal arena. Any
futher harassment, lies, libel and false accusations by you or any of
your associates, will be proof positive that you have no intention of
stopping or ceasing your smear campaign against me unless I am forced
to take legal action against you.
Doug Grant (Tm)
BTW, I received this from my lawyers recently. It should interest
you:
"Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses
individually identifiable health information in violation of the
Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to
one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and
up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false
pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the
wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use
identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal
gain or malicious harm. The Department of Justice is responsible for
criminal prosecutions under the Privacy Rule."
tankfixer
Goes without saying Revered Gangmaster..