Mounds Movie Theater 10 - Jenco Cinemas Theater Ripoff manager displayed acts of racism towards sibling Anderson Indiana

I know this is old and I'm not sure if the MPA guidelines have changed since this but I do know this, No one under 17 is permitted to a R rated film unless accompanied by a parent or guardian 21 or older I want to repeat accompanied meaning you cant say its ok for them to watch it you have to actually go in and sit with them and watch it. The box office cashier is supposed to ID anyone who looks under 17 and should really ID everyone but the fact remains if you look younger than 35 and you aren't carrying an ID you can be refused because you can prove your age. I'm glad this matter was solved but I wanted to put a clarification note on this about the current MPA guidelines since I see it everyday at work someone forgets their ID and they are with a group of friends and no one is 21.

There is no reason for my brother to have been banned from this place of business, the manager TOLD employees to deny him a ticket if he goes to purchase. You are telling me my corporate office which is located not only all over the united states but in japan and also all over europe that we are wrong?

There must be reason behind someone being banned from a place of business.

ANYWAYS this has been taken care of because this manager HAS IN FACT has been known to cause problems like this before, the district manager has been contacted he has been informed he knows about the problem and has in fact taken the CUSTOMERS SIDE. The manager at this establishment has received his last and final warning.

AS FOR THE CASE OF WOODS:

Woods was referred to Bally's general manager, Brian Collier. Woods informed Collier that she would leave the premises if he returned her membership card. Woods became disruptive, and Collier asked her to accompany him to the office to discuss the matter. He retained the card during that discussion. Eventually, Collier asked Woods to leave because of the disturbance she was causing. Woods started to leave but then changed her mind and returned to Collier's office. Collier again asked her to leave. Collier warned her that he would call the police if she refused, and Woods agreed that he should call the police.
Subsequently, Indianapolis Police Officers Donald Payton and Gerald Neuman arrived at Bally's and asked both Collier and Woods to explain the dispute. Collier stated that there had been a disagreement about Woods' membership status and that Woods had refused Collier's request to leave the facility. The officers then asked Woods to leave and arrested her when she refused.

SHE CAUSED A DISTURBANCE: was asked to leave she refused then the police were notified and yet still refused to leave after the police asked her to leave. My brother did not cause any disturbance and left on his own will, the police were not notified and eye Witnesses stated he was not hostile did not cause any disturbance. In this certain case the police had to be notified and yes of course an acception made to the rules because the customer was becoming violent at that particular moment. In my place of business we can ask a person to leave the building but they can always come back unless we get a permanent ban is placed on them ... in that case this involves the corporate office to have the say in this.

But this all does not matter, the situation has been taken care of. The manager was in fact at fault and not my brother in anyway, Aside from not having his ID.

Olivia,
You seem to want to believe only what supports your position. Whoever your advisors are, they are leading you astray. The law in Indiana clearly states what constitutes trespassing. As afar as citations, you need to review Fleck vs State and Woods vs State. And by the way, your brother cannot possibly claim a contractural interest, since in your own testimony, he did not purchase a ticket. If you and your so-called "advisors" intend to send your brother back, I'd advise you have bail money handy.

Indiana Code 35-43-2-2(a)(2) states that "a person who, not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person, having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent" commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. Lack of a contractual interest in the property is a material element the State must prove to convict a person of criminal trespass. Fleck v. State, 508 N.E.2d 539, 540 (Ind. 1987). Woods claims that she had a contractual interest in the property by virtue of her membership contract with Bally'.

Where did you get your information from? Where are your citations? I have three businesses/corporations and a legal advisor a loss prevention manager verifying my information.

You stated:

"In a place of business the only time a customer can be banned is when associates file complaints in writing and corprotate is brought in and approves of a complete customer removal. A physical threat has to have been made, the person must have put their hands on another person or have made crude sexual comments then they can be removed from that place of business and asked not to come back."

This is so utterly wrong, that I actually called someone in Indiana to verify it. As I suspected, it is a simple matter of PRIVATE PROPERTY and the rights of the owner or management to serve whom they please, how they please. So, wherever you got the bogus information above, I sure wouldn't bet my job on it. Furthermore, once asked to leave, you are committing simple trespassing if you return anyway. I have no idea why you would believe the bizarre series of events you describe above must occur for you to be removed from private property, but hopefully you now understand reality as it applies to businesses.

I am in the eyes of the state and federal government guardian to my brother. And I don't believe it is required for anybody to carry a birth certificate to prove guardianship. And yes both my brother and I live with our parents but I have been taking care of my brother. We all had talked with another theater in another county and they agreed with us that he was treated inappropriately it is "suggested" for a parent/guardian to be present not necessarialy enforced but that is not my argument here. I have no argument in this case at all. My argument is Why were the three other boys before him allowed into the movie when they presented no ID (excluding one boy) and my brother was not allowed in. The two boys looked just as young if not younger. My brother looks like he is older than me and I am of 25 years of age. If this theater is going to enforce the guardian be present they must treat EVERYONE within the same manner no matter the color of their skin. Three non-hispanic males were allowed to watch the movie and two were not asked for ID. MPA guidelines I understand.

I am only saying he is not violent-- In a place of business the only time a customer can be banned is when associates file complaints in writing and corprotate is brought in and approves of a complete customer removal. A physical threat has to have been made, the person must have put their hands on another person or have made crude sexual comments then they can be removed from that place of business and asked not to come back... It is a very touchy situation and in my several years of customer service. I dealt with this situation once and my mananger had to go through corporate headquaters and several written statements before going through with a removal.

All associates at this theater were in a room with a thick glass window where no contact was made. The associates had defended my brother and asked for him not to be banned even asked why he was being banned. and from inside information this post is not known to the manager unless you called him yourself.

Well..actually, MPA ratings only allow a parent or guardian to accompany an underage person into the theater. It is not a parent, guardian, or adult person. The sister does not qualify as a guardian or parent.

Per the Lorain County Office:

A guardian is a person appointed by a probate Court to be legally responsible for another person and/or for another person's property. A person for whom a guardian has been appointed is called a "ward".


So, the sister would not act as a guardian. The MPA website shows clearly the R rating box, which does clearly state Parent or Guardian. So, the theater was well within it's rights to refuse your brother enterance.

Your brother may not bring it up but YOU sure did, twice. Mangement may have read this post and thought it safer to ban him from the location. One of the rules of a CHL is not to let anyone know you have one.

My brother does not let anybody know that he is an instructor unless he is looking at a weapon for his class then he presents his license. The manager has no knowing of my brother's knowledge of the martial arts. This was not brought up, I only mentioned that he is a martial artist is because HE is an instructor who is trained in the field of martial arts and was on his way to watch a movie that had martial arts in it. Weather or not a person has tht type of background does not mean they can or should be banned that is another act of prejudice. My brother teaches at a Christian school he does not display any acts of violence towards anybody he carries himself in a very professional manner therefore this had nothing to do with his being banned from the movie I only mentioned it because like I said... Martial artist trained in the field going to see a martial arts type movie (wesley snipes is a professional martial artist) why should he be kept from seeing one of his idols when he had parental permission and was accompanied by two other adults.

You brought it up. "My brother is a martial arts Instructor who has permission and a license to handle weapon". Mangement probably felt it was safer to ban him from the location.

My brother has now been banned from this theater! And he was not even violent towards anybody in this theater nor did he speak in a hostile voice he kept calm that evening but was informed by friends who work for this company that they have banned him from the theater! When his friends tried to defend him it was said they were threatend with termination!