Vegas Magic

What is Vegas Magic?

Despite those warnings, the tribe opened its “Preview Casino” on July 24, offering Class II gaming out of modular structures.

Six days later, Interior determined that the land did not qualify for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), forcing the tribe to shutter the operation and take the federal government back to court.

The arguments came as Scotts Valley asked US District Judge Trevor McFadden to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Interior’s July 30 decision. The outcome of the dispute directly threatens the tribe’s much larger ambition for the site: a proposed $700 million casino resort and hotel.

How to play Vegas Magic

Carolyn Lidgerwood, an ACMA member, stressed the importance of respecting self-exclusion decisions, stating “providers must respect that decision” and “must have robust systems in place”. 

These remarks align with a broader regulatory focus on harm-minimisation within online gambling, where adherence to self-exclusion protocols is under closer scrutiny.

“These were serious breaches by Dabble. Wagering providers must have robust systems in place to protect people who have chosen to self-exclude,” Lidgerwood added.

What is Vegas Magic?

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.