1 1 2 3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 4 CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 7 PUBLIC MEETING NO. 07-01-17 8 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 11 Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12 Atlantic City Commission Offices 13 Joseph P. Lordi Public Meeting Room - First Floor 14 Tennessee Avenue and Boardwalk 15 Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 16 10:31 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 17 18 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter: Darlene Sillitoe 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 CIPOLLONI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 23 1125 ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 416 ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401 24 (609) 348-9190 www.cipolloni-associates.com 25 2 1 B E F O R E : 2 3 4 CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION: LINDA M. KASSEKERT, CHAIR 5 MICHAEL A. FEDORKO, VICE CHAIR RALPH G. FRULIO, COMMISSIONER 6 WILLIAM T. SOMMELING, COMMISSIONER 7 PRESENT FOR THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION: DARYL W. NANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST 8 DANIEL J. HENEGHAN, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER 9 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL: DIANNA W. FAUNTLEROY, GENERAL COUNSEL/EXECUTIVE 10 SECRETARY MARY WOZNIAK, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 11 STEVEN M. INGIS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL DENIS CORBETT, SENIOR COUNSEL 12 TERESA M. NAGENGAST, SENIOR COUNSEL SETH H. BRILIANT, SENIOR COUNSEL 13 BERNADETTE T. FRIGEN, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 14 DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT: ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL 15 GARY EHRLICH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL BRIAN BISCIEGLIA, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S : 2 ITEM NO. 11 TERESA M. NAGENGAST, SENIOR COUNSEL GARY EHRLICH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 3 COOPER LEVENSON BY: LLOYD D. LEVENSON, ESQ. 4 FOR: SD 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING NO. 07-01-17 2 JANUARY 17, 2007, 10:31 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 1 Ratification of the minutes of 8 8 4 January 3, 2007 2 Applications for employee and casino 5 service industry licenses: 6 applications for initial and/or renewal 9 9 6 of casino key and casino employee licenses Applications of Kevin P. Sterling for a 9 10 7 casino key employee license and for qualification as Vice President of Food 8 and Beverage for Atlantic City Showboat, Inc. Par-4, Inc. 10 11 9 3 Amended petition of Adamar of New 11 12 Jersey, Inc., (d/b/a Tropicana Casino 10 and Resort) for the issuance of a temporary casino key employee license to Mario 11 Di Guiseppe pursuant to NJSA 5:12-89(e) and to permit him pursuant to NJAC 19:43-2.6 12 to assume the duties and exercise the powers of Vice President of Casino Operations for 13 Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., without first having been found qualified (PRN 3620601) 14 4 Amended petition of Adamar of New Jersey, 12 13 Inc., (d/b/a Tropicana Casino and Resort) 15 for the issuance of a temporary casino key employee license to Michael S. Lyons pursuant 16 to NJSA 5:12-89(e) and to permit him pursuant to NJAC 19:43-2.6 to assume the duties and 17 exercise the powers of Director of Security for Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., without 18 first having been found qualified (PRN 3620602) 5 Stipulations of settlement and 19 Consent agreements: a) Jose Ramon Crespo (a/k/a 13 15 20 Alex Rodriguez) (06-0267-EA) 13 15 b) Krasimir D. Georgiev (06-0626-EA) 13 15 21 c) Jerone M. Samuel (06-0364-EA) 13 15 d) Axilis D. Perez (06-0395-ER) 13 15 22 e) Bill Tran (a/k/a Lu Tran) 13 15 (06-0591-ER;03-0749-RC) 23 f) Danita M. Davis-Travers (06-0458-EA) 13 15 g) Christopher R. Wells (06-0585-EA) 13 15 24 h) Logan F. Holt, Jr. (06-0852-ER) 13 15 i) Anthony S. Russell (06-0744-RC) 13 15 25 5 1 CONTINUED AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING NO. 07-01-17 2 JANUARY 17, 2007, 10:31 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 6 Stipulation of settlement in State v. 15 16 4 Phillip J. Verone, Jr. (05-0322-VC) 7 Initial decision of State v. Robert L. 16 18 5 Carpo, Jr. (06-0154-RC) 8 Application for suspension of Adam C. 19 20 6 Purvis (06-0643-RC) 9 Petition of Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., adj. 7 for waiver of qualification of Steel Partners, II, LP (PRN 2120601) 8 10 Petitions of LGC Wireless, Inc., for waiver of qualification for: 9 a) Mayfield fund (PRN 2220601) adj. b) Crystal Ventures (PRN 2210601) 10 c) Intel Capital Corporation (PRN 2020606) d) Omers of Administration Corporation 11 (PRN 2020607) 11 Petition of SD for removal from the 20 57 12 voluntary exclusion list (PRN 0040605) 12 Petition of Harrah's Operating Company, 58 59 13 Inc., Marina Associates, Atlantic City Showboat, Inc., Bally's Park Place, Inc., 14 and Boardwalk Regency Corp. For waiver of equalization of an Officer of HOC (Regional 15 President of Iowa and Missouri Operations and Senior Vice President and General Manager, 16 Horseshoe and Council Bluff) (PRN 0050701) 13 Petition of IGT to terminate the "I Love 59 61 17 Lucy" slot system and to transfer its progressive jackpot to the "Wheel of Fortune 18 $.01" slot system (PRN 3520602) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 E X H I B I T S : 2 ITEM NO. 2 DESCRIPTION EVD 3 4 EL-1 Grant 6 licenses 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Exhibits retained by Commission.) 21 22 23 24 25 7 1 (Public Meeting 07- was commenced at 2 10:30 a.m.) 3 MR. NANCE: I'd like to read an opening 4 statement: 5 This is to advise the general public 6 that in compliance with Chapter 231 of the 7 Public Laws of 1975 entitled the "Open Public 8 Meetings Act," the New Jersey Casino Control 9 Commission on October 16th, 2006, filed with 10 the Secretary of State at the State House in 11 Trenton an annual meeting schedule. On October 12 16th, copies were mailed to the Press of 13 Atlantic City, the Newark Star Ledger. 14 Members of the press will be permitted 15 to take photographs, and we would ask that this 16 be done in a manner which is not disruptive or 17 distracting to the Commission. 18 The use of cellular telephones in the 19 public meeting room while the Commission is in 20 session is prohibited. 21 Any members of the public who wish to 22 address the Commission will be given the 23 opportunity to do so before the Commission 24 adjourns for the day. 25 Please stand for the Pledge of 8 ITEM NO. 1 1 Allegiance. 2 (The flag salute was recited.) 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning. 4 MR. NANCE: Good morning. The matters 5 discussed in closed session were employee and 6 enterprise license matters. 7 The Commission approved the January 3rd, 8 2007, closed session minutes. 9 Litigation update regarding Warren 10 Lackland and Lewis M. Springer, Jr., versus 11 State of New Jersey, Casino Control Commission; 12 Appeal in application of Interstate 13 Drywall Corporation, et al; 14 Gloria Ford versus State of New Jersey, 15 Casino Control Commission, et al; 16 Tyrone J. Floyd versus the Casino 17 Control Commission and Sands Hotel Casino;. 18 And Husain versus Casino Control 19 Commission, et al. 20 Item No. 1, ratification of the minutes 21 of January the 3rd, 2007, public meeting. 22 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Move to 23 approve. 24 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 9 ITEM NO. 2 1 made and seconded. All in favor? 2 (Ayes.) 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 4 (No response.) 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 6 MR. NANCE: Item No. 2, application for 7 employee and casino service industry licenses. 8 This agenda item will be entered as 9 Exhibit List 2. Exhibit List 2 consists of six 10 applications for initial and/or renewal of 11 casino key and casino employee licenses. 12 Staff and the Division have recommended 13 that these license be granted. 14 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Motion to grant 15 applications. 16 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 18 made and seconded. All in favor? 19 (Ayes.) 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 21 (No response.) 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 23 MR. NANCE: For consideration is the 24 application of Kevin P. Sterling for a casino 25 key employee license and for qualification as 10 ITEM NO. 2 1 Vice President of Food and Beverage for 2 Atlantic City Showboat, Inc. 3 The Division has recommended that this 4 application be granted. 5 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Motion to grant 6 for initial key license and for qualification. 7 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion is made and 9 seconded. This is a roll call vote. 10 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 11 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 12 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Frulio? 13 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Yes. 14 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Fedorko? 15 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yes. 16 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 18 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 19 the vote is unanimous. 20 For consideration is the casino service 21 industry license renewal application pursuant 22 to NJSA 5:12-92(a) for Par-4, Inc. 23 The Division has recommended that this 24 license application be granted. 25 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Remand for 11 ITEM NO. 3 1 hearing. 2 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 4 made and seconded. All in favor? 5 (Ayes.) 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 7 (No response.) 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 9 MR. NANCE: Item No. 3, Petition No. 10 3620601 of Adamar New Jersey, Inc., is 11 requesting the issuance of a temporary key 12 casino employee license to Mario DiGuiseppe 13 pursuant to NJSA 5:12-89(e) and to permit him 14 pursuant to NJAC 19:43-2.6 to assume the duties 15 and exercise the powers of Vice President of 16 Casino Operations for Adamar of New Jersey, 17 Inc., without first having been found 18 qualified. 19 Staff and the Division have recommended 20 that this petition be granted. 21 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Motion to grant 22 temporary key license and qualification. 23 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion is made and 25 seconded. 12 ITEM NO. 4 1 This is a roll call vote. 2 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 3 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 4 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Frulio? 5 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Yes. 6 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Fedorko? 7 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yes. 8 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 10 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect the 11 motion is unanimous. 12 Item No. 3 -- excuse me. 13 Item No. 4, Petition No. 3620602 of 14 Adamar, New Jersey, Inc., is requesting the 15 issuance of a temporary key employee license to 16 Michael S. Lyons pursuant to NJSA 5:12-89(3) 17 and to permit him pursuant to NJAC 19:43-2.6 to 18 assume the duties and exercise the powers of 19 Director of Security for Adamar of New Jersey, 20 Inc., without first having been found 21 qualified. 22 Staff and the Division have recommended 23 that this petition be granted. 24 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Motion to grant 25 temporary key license and qualification. 13 ITEM NO. 5 1 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion is made and 3 seconded. This is a roll call vote. 4 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 5 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 6 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Frulio? 7 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Yes. 8 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Fedorko? 9 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yes. 10 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 12 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 13 the motion is unanimous. 14 Item No. 5 stipulations of settlement 15 and consent agreements. 16 When I call your name, please come 17 forward, standing behind this middle table 18 spreading across the room so that you may be 19 seen: Jose Ramon Crespo, Krasimir Georgiev, 20 Jerone Samuel, Axilis Perez, Bill Tran, Danita 21 Davis, Christopher Wells, Logan Holt, Jr., 22 Anthony Russell. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Has everybody who's 24 name has been called come forward? 25 Okay. Sir, you can just join over here. 14 ITEM NO. 5 1 Thank you. I'm going to ask you to 2 state your name for the record, starting with 3 you, sir. 4 MR. GEORGIEV: Krasimir Georgiev. 5 MR. SAMUEL: Jerone Samuel. 6 MR. WELLS: Christopher Wells. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. In a moment 8 we're going to vote on the stipulations which 9 you've agreed to with the Division of Gaming 10 Enforcement. 11 I'm going to ask at this point if any of 12 you wish to be heard on your matter. You do 13 not have to say anything if you do not wish to. 14 Would anyone like to be heard? 15 Okay. Mr. Biscieglia? 16 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Good morning, Chair, 17 Vice Chair, Commissioner. 18 The Division has nothing further to add 19 and respectfully ask the stipulations be 20 adopted as submitted. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 22 Any questions? 23 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Move to approve 24 the stipulations, Madame Chair. 25 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 15 ITEM NO. 6 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 2 made and seconded. All in favor? 3 (Ayes.) 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 5 (No response.) 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 7 Thank you very much for coming. Good 8 luck. 9 FROM THE FLOOR: Thank you. 10 MR. NANCE: Item No. 6, stipulation of 11 settlement in State versus Phillip J. Verone, 12 Jr. 13 Mr. Corbett? 14 MR. CORBETT: Good morning, Chair, 15 Commissioners. 16 Is Mr. Phillip Verone, Jr., or anyone 17 representing him here today in the public 18 meeting room? 19 I don't see him, Chair. 20 Mr. Biscieglia is here for the Division. 21 The stipulation finds that the 22 Respondent violated the underaged gaming 23 statute, sets forth a fine of $250, and 24 suspends his license for a period of 20 days. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 16 ITEM NO. 7 1 Mr. Biscieglia? 2 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you, Chair. 3 The Division has nothing further to add 4 and ask that the stipulation be adopted. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 7 Any questions? 8 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 9 Madame Chair. 10 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Motion to approve 11 stipulation and impose a civil penalty of $250 12 and a 20 working-day suspension for underage 13 gaming in violation of section 119a of the Act. 14 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 15 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Second. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 17 made and seconded. All in favor? 18 (Ayes.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 20 (No response.) 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 22 MR. NANCE: Item No. 7, initial decision 23 in State versus Robert Carpo, Jr. 24 Mr. Corbett? 25 MR. CORBETT: Mr. Carpo? Would you come 17 ITEM NO. 7 1 forward and have a seat. 2 MR. CARPO: Right here? 3 MR. CORBETT: Yeah. Sit down here. 4 Is your attorney here today, Mr. Carpo? 5 MR. CARPO: No, sir. 6 MR. CORBETT: Chair, Commissioners, in 7 this case you have for your consideration the 8 initial decision of Commissioner Fedorko 9 finding the Respondent disqualified pursuant to 10 section 86c(1), finding him not rehabilitated 11 pursuant to section 91d of the Act. 12 However, Commissioner Fedorko found good 13 cause pursuant to section 106c and applied 14 waiver pursuant to section 91e to allow the 15 Respondent to hold a casino service employee 16 registration. 17 No exceptions were filed by the 18 Division. Mr. Biscieglia is here for the 19 Division. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 21 Mr. Biscieglia? 22 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 23 As Mr. Corbett has stated, the Division 24 has not filed any exceptions to this initial 25 decision and does not object to the initial 18 ITEM NO. 7 1 decision as being adopted. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 3 Mr. Carpo, do you understand what we're 4 going to do today? 5 MR. CARPO: Yes. 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We're going to vote on 7 the initial decision. 8 Do you have anything else you'd like to 9 say? 10 MR. CARPO: No. I'm all right. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: All right. Very good. 12 Any questions? 13 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Madame Chair, 14 move to adopt the initial decision, find Mr. 15 Carpo, Jr., disqualified but find good cause to 16 permit him to hold a casino service employee 17 registration and to be employed in a position 18 that does not require a license. 19 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Second. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 21 made and seconded. All in favor? 22 (Ayes.) 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 24 (No response.) 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 19 ITEM NO. 8 1 Thank you. 2 MR. CARPO: Thank you. 3 MR. NANCE: Item No. 8, application for 4 suspension of Adam C. Purvis. 5 Miss Frigen? 6 MS. FRIGEN: Before we hear from the 7 Division, let me ask whether Mr. Purvis is 8 present or represented here today? 9 Apparently he is not. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Biscieglia? 11 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 12 The Division has nothing further to add 13 to its pleading other than the fact that this 14 matter is currently pending in grand jury with 15 no date set. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 17 Any questions? 18 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 19 Madame Chair. 20 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Motion to grant 21 the Division's application to suspend Mr. 22 Purvis' casino employee license and casino 23 employee registration. 24 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 20 ITEM NO. 9-11 1 made and seconded. All in favor? 2 (Ayes.) 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 4 (No response.) 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 6 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you, 7 Commissioners. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 9 MR. NANCE: Items 9 and 10 have been 10 adjourned until the February 7th, 2007, public 11 meeting. 12 Item No. 11, petition of SD for removal 13 from the voluntary exclusion list. 14 Miss Nagengast? 15 MS. NAGENGAST: Good morning, Chair, 16 Commissioners. 17 For your consideration this morning is a 18 petition filed by SD seeking removal from the 19 voluntary self-exclusion list, a lifetime ban. 20 Mr. Levenson is here on behalf of SD and 21 Mr. Ehrlich on behalf of the Division. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning, Mr. 23 Levenson. 24 MR. LEVENSON: Good morning. Chair, 25 members of the Commission. 21 ITEM NO. 11 1 With me is Gerard Quinn, who is my 2 partner and assisted in the research with 3 regard to this matter. 4 I made a fundamental error in this case, 5 and what it was was including in my papers at 6 some point a discussion as to whether SD is or 7 not -- or is not a compulsive gambler. Because 8 what happened as a result of that, is the 9 discussion then became basically that as 10 opposed to what the discussion needs to be and 11 should be. And the discussion that needs to be 12 and should be is just a simple question. Maybe 13 the answer is not simple. But the question is 14 really simple. And that is when someone gives 15 up rights to, in this case, enter a public 16 place of accommodation for a lifetime, is it 17 the law and the public policy of this state to 18 ensure that the person gave up those rights 19 voluntarily and with full knowledge of the 20 consequences of giving up the rights? 21 When he signed up for the lifetime 22 exclusion, you all had a form that was in 23 existence at the time. And at that time it 24 provided for a whole host of information, and 25 I'm not criticizing the fact that you did that. 22 ITEM NO. 11 1 It's perfectly natural and normal that you're 2 taking a lay person, a person that, like anyone 3 else, doesn't sit -- other than maybe us in 4 this room -- and reads the statutes and the 5 regulations with regards to the regulation of 6 casinos. But you have a person who, being 7 given a form and information to look at -- that 8 information told him that he -- if he signed or 9 checked the box for lifetime exclusion -- told 10 him that he would not be able to ever change 11 that exclusion from the casinos -- casino 12 hotels in Atlantic City. And this case is not 13 about fighting that. That fight, if it ever is 14 going to take place, would be with the 15 legislature to encourage a lifetime exclusion 16 even though a lifetime to have some limited -- 17 limit to it, so if somebody's 21 years old, and 18 then they're 60, and they decide to gamble, 19 they haven't signed away those rights for the 20 rest of their life. But that's for another 21 day. 22 Right now we're particularly talking 23 about whether SD knowingly and voluntarily gave 24 up the right which factually has occurred to 25 gamble in dozens and dozens of casinos outside 23 ITEM NO. 11 1 of the corners of New Jersey. Because what has 2 happened is -- and you can read that through 3 his affidavit that he submitted -- is that, 4 especially with all of the mergers and 5 consolidation of casino companies as of the 6 last several years, the casinos in New Jersey 7 are able under the statute to communicate to 8 their sister casinos all around the country and 9 there is, as I said, dozens and dozens and 10 dozens of those. And put basically miss -- SD 11 on their exclusion list and not permit him to 12 enter the casino hotels of all of those other 13 properties. The problem with that is that at 14 the time that he signed up for the lifetime 15 exclusion, the form that he signed up did not 16 tell him that, that he could be excluded from 17 casinos outside of New Jersey. 18 Since he signed up for a lifetime 19 exclusion, the Casino Control Commission has 20 amended its form, and not necessarily as a 21 result of this case but, I don't know exactly 22 why it happened, but the Casino Control 23 Commission added a paragraph in your form which 24 now tells the person who wants to sign up for 25 an exclusion from coming in as a result of 24 ITEM NO. 11 1 compulsive gambling that not only will you be 2 prohibiting from entering into the casino 3 hotels in New Jersey but affiliated hotels in 4 other jurisdictions can also and may also 5 exclude you from coming into their casino 6 hotels. 7 So if Mr. -- excuse me. If SD signed up 8 to be a lifetime -- signed up for a lifetime 9 exclusion after your change in your form, I 10 wouldn't be here today because he would have 11 been on notice through your forms that he would 12 be excluded, not only from New Jersey but from 13 other casinos around the country. 14 Now, why I say I messed up in the 15 beginning and, you know, had this compulsive 16 gambling -- he is, is he not? Put that aside. 17 We have certain views. We put that down. He 18 put that down in his affidavit. It's 19 irrelevant to this question. If he were even a 20 criminal defendant -- and no one is suggesting 21 that SD did anything wrong whatsoever. He 22 didn't do anything wrong. He did it -- he did 23 something wrong to himself by signing up for 24 this lifetime exclusion. But he is not anyone 25 who is accused of any wrongful conduct. But 25 ITEM NO. 11 1 even in the criminal sense, in the criminal 2 proceedings, when somebody enters a plea of 3 guilty, a judge is required not only to get a 4 factual basis for the plea, but the judge is 5 required to tell that person all of the 6 potential situations that will occur or could 7 occur as a result of the entry of that plea. 8 For example, if they enter a plea that as part 9 of the conviction would cause a revocation of 10 your driver's license or suspension of your 11 driver's license, you have to be told that. If 12 you are not told that, so our courts have ruled 13 over and over again, if you are not given that 14 information at the time of your plea, you're 15 not acquitted. You're not said, okay, you're 16 not told that, so you go free. No. All that 17 means is that you can reverse your plea of 18 guilty and go back to square one and then 19 either plead guilty, knowingly, intelligently, 20 voluntarily because you know that -- now you 21 know the consequences. Or you decide, you know 22 what? I'm going to challenge this and go to 23 trial or whatever else you want to do. 24 If you're permitted to do that in a 25 criminal setting where you're charged with a 26 ITEM NO. 11 1 crime, why in a situation where it's purely 2 remedial, where the only person that's affected 3 is SD, and he was unaware of the fact of what 4 those consequence were and relied upon your 5 paperwork at the time, why should not he be 6 able to have at least as many rights as a 7 criminal defendant would have and be able to 8 put him back into the position he would have 9 been had he been aware of the consequences? 10 Again, I'm not asking him to be taken 11 off the lifetime exclusion in New Jersey. 12 That's clear. He signed up for that. But what 13 he didn't sign up for and was unaware of was 14 being excluded from the -- we counted them, and 15 we may be off -- but 60 or 70 casino hotels 16 around the country that are affiliated. And 17 more and more are happening every time you have 18 a consolidation around the country that are 19 affiliated with the New Jersey casinos. 20 Now, the Division will probably argue, 21 well, wait a minute. If you picked up the 22 statute, or you picked up the regulation, you 23 would have seen a provision in there that says 24 that the casinos can share information with 25 their affiliates in other locations. But even 27 ITEM NO. 11 1 in a criminal sense, you know, when you we take 2 a plea of guilty from a criminal defendant, the 3 judge explains the crime. The judge gets a 4 factual basis. The judge tells the person the 5 consequences of it. We don't expect criminal 6 defendants to go out and read the entire 7 statute and be aware of the fact that they may 8 get a mandatory sentence, a minimum sentence, a 9 driver's license revocation. It's incumbent 10 upon the court. So our courts have held, our 11 higher courts have held, it's incumbent upon 12 the trial court to give that person all of the 13 potential consequences of their plea. 14 So if that -- again, if that's what the 15 situation is when somebody is charged with 16 doing something criminal, at least give this 17 person the opportunity to get back into the 18 position he would have been. Because if we 19 don't expect the criminal defendants to know 20 the consequences of -- all the consequences 21 because they could -- they could pick up a 22 statute book and see that if they were -- 23 committed this crime, and they're admitting to 24 this crime, that they could go for a mandatory 25 four years because it was with a gun or 28 ITEM NO. 11 1 whatever. But as sure as can be, if a judge 2 were to take a plea and does not tell that 3 person that they were pleading to and do they 4 understand that they are pleading to a 5 mandatory jail sentence, and then it comes time 6 for sentencing, and they get a mandatory jail 7 sentence, and some attorney looks at this and 8 says, well, wait a minute. Let's see a 9 transcript of the plea. He wasn't advised of 10 that. He would be able to retract his plea, 11 and even the prosecutor in that case would not 12 dispute that. Because that's the law. You 13 have to be told the consequences. 14 So I'm not criticizing the Commission 15 for putting in the paperwork what was in the 16 paperwork. But it's an indication by amending 17 the paperwork that there needs to be a full 18 disclosure to people, of which he did not get 19 the benefit of. 20 And all we're asking is, is that he have 21 no fewer rights than a criminal defendant under 22 all our case law to put himself back in a 23 position he would have been had he been aware 24 of what the consequences of his acts would have 25 been, and that any argument that he should have 29 ITEM NO. 11 1 read the law or should have read the 2 regulations, he had the paperwork in front of 3 him that told him what the ramifications were. 4 And all -- although there is something in that 5 initial form which says you can go read the 6 statute and regulations for more information, 7 look at it in the aspect of a lay person who's 8 got several pages of a form to read and 9 concluded that I am going to be barred from New 10 Jersey for life. But then go to a Las Vegas 11 casino and try to walk in the door and having 12 been told, I'm sorry, you can't come in here 13 because in New Jersey you signed a lifetime 14 exclusion. He said, what? I signed that, but 15 that's for New Jersey. Why am I banned in Las 16 Vegas? 17 So I think, in all fairness -- and, 18 again, having nothing to do with whether he is 19 or is not a compulsive gambler and the fact 20 that he's done nothing wrong other than for his 21 own protection signed up to be on the exclusion 22 list but only for New Jersey. 23 So that's the position we've 24 articulated, we believe, in all of our papers. 25 If there are any questions, further questions, 30 ITEM NO. 11 1 I'm certainly here to ask answer them. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Let me ask if there 3 are any questions? 4 Commissioner Fedorko? 5 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: I guess the 6 question I have, Mr. Levenson, is why would you 7 exclude yourself from gambling in New Jersey 8 but not Las Vegas? I mean, if you want to be 9 excluded, you want to be excluded. 10 MR. LEVENSON: Why would -- well, you 11 mean, if you want to know what really happened 12 is -- yeah. I mean, you're asking for what his 13 frame of mind would be, so I can tell was his 14 frame of mind was. I mean, he went into an 15 Atlantic City casino, lost a lot of money, was 16 aggravated himself. Said I'm never coming back 17 to Atlantic City again. And went and signed up 18 for a lifetime exclusion. 19 Five minutes after that, he went back 20 and said how do I reverse that? Well, it was 21 too late. I mean, so that's the -- that's the 22 real facts of that. And, you know -- you know, 23 there's no reason why he could -- he should be 24 excluded from every place of gambling in the 25 country. 31 ITEM NO. 11 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: But that's not our 2 decision. That's a decision by a gaming 3 company, a private company, a policy decision. 4 It's not our decision to exclude him from every 5 venue in the country. That was a decision made 6 by the company. 7 MR. LEVENSON: I'm sorry. Say that 8 again, Chair? 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: That decision is a 10 policy decision made by that gaming company, 11 not by this commission, not by anything that he 12 signed up for. It's the decision, frankly, 13 made by the gaming company that decided if 14 somebody excludes in one state, they're 15 excluded everywhere. 16 MR. LEVENSON: No. No. Maybe take 17 exception to that in this sense. In your 18 statute -- everything is confidential. I mean, 19 that's why we're calling this fellow "SD." I 20 mean, it's all confidential. The only 21 exception to that is in your statute, in 22 regulation, and now in your new form which says 23 that you can share that information. When I 24 say "you" can share, I mean the casinos can 25 share it. 32 ITEM NO. 11 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Uh-hum. 2 MR. LEVENSON: Without that provision in 3 the statute and regulations, a casino would not 4 be able to share that information outside of 5 New Jersey. That's what gives them the right 6 to share it. 7 So it's that -- again, it's that 8 regulation and statute that he was unaware of 9 that was not in your forms to begin with but 10 now is in your forms that is the crux of that. 11 And if I can go back to a prior -- for 12 Commission Fedorko, SD lives close to Atlantic 13 City. That's where he had the problem in the 14 sense of the proximity to Atlantic City. Las 15 Vegas is not something you go and go on a day 16 trip, like Atlantic City is able to be done by 17 him. So his thought process, certainly, was I 18 don't want to be -- I don't want Atlantic City 19 to be available to me. But once a year, once 20 every two, three years that he goes to Las 21 Vegas, he wants to be able to have the 22 experience of gambling. And that's the answer 23 to Commission Fedorko's question that, you 24 know, he doesn't want to be gamble in his own 25 backyard because it's too easy. But having to 33 ITEM NO. 11 1 get on a airplane, buying a ticket, and all the 2 red of that, staying for a few days, that's a 3 trip. And that's not something with his 4 financial situation that, you know, he can do 5 on a weekly basis or even a monthly basis. 6 It's some kind of trip with his family. And 7 now he's prohibited from so many of the Nevada 8 casinos because of not being warned of the fact 9 that the casinos could share that information 10 with their sister casinos and the sister 11 casinos could, obviously, take that action to 12 exclude him. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Commissioner Fedorko? 14 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: On the back page of 15 the self-exclusion questionnaire -- 16 MR. LEVENSON: The new one or the old 17 one? 18 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: The one that he 19 initialed. 20 MR. LEVENSON: Okay. 21 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: The fifth paragraph 22 states to him that he has the option of a 23 one-year, five-year, or lifetime option. And 24 the last sentence says, "Do you understand that 25 if you choose a lifetime option, you cannot 34 ITEM NO. 11 1 request to be taken off the self-exclusion 2 list?" I assume that's his initials next 3 to it. 4 MR. LEVENSON: Correct. I'm not. 5 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: You're not what? 6 MR. LEVENSON: I'm not asking for him to 7 be taken off the self-exclusion list here in 8 New Jersey. That's not why I'm here. 9 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: I still don't 10 understand. 11 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yeah. You're 12 losing -- 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: I think Mr. -- well, I 14 don't want to speak for Mr. Levenson. But I 15 think his argument is the fact that he -- and 16 help me out, Counsel, and then we'll hear from 17 the Division. But the fact that the 18 information wasn't contained that this 19 information could be shared, so you're not 20 asking for removal from the New Jersey list 21 now, which I am confused because I think that's 22 what your petition initially said. You're 23 asking that he be removed because of the other 24 jurisdictions. 25 And then that's -- that was my -- that 35 ITEM NO. 11 1 goes back to my question. Because we can't -- 2 we don't control that. That is something that 3 was really -- you know, that's a public -- 4 that's a policy decision made by the casino 5 company, and that's where I'm having trouble 6 following your argument. 7 MR. LEVENSON: Well, when I say I'm not 8 asking for him to be -- for you to reverse his 9 initials here for that. What I'm saying is 10 that a result has to be achieved. I think you 11 have to look first at what happened, and 12 whether you agree that he was not given the 13 information as a criminal defendant had the 14 right to be given, not given the information 15 from which he could voluntarily, knowingly, 16 know the consequences; and, therefore, signing 17 up, whether it's one year, five years, or a 18 lifetime. 19 The fact is that whatever he signed up 20 for in New Jersey, the fact that he is being 21 excluded as a result of the statute permitting 22 the New Jersey casinos to share this with their 23 other casinos is the problem that we have here. 24 If the result has -- so, in other words, before 25 you think about where you're going with this, 36 ITEM NO. 11 1 as far as -- 2 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yeah. But, Mr. 3 Levenson, that's not our -- what happens in 4 another state is is not our concern. 5 MR. LEVENSON: Well, no. Then let me go 6 back a minute, then. Let me go back. Just 7 bear with me a second. 8 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Okay. 9 MR. LEVENSON: First, forget about what 10 happens in another state right now. Think 11 about this -- what my argument is solely with 12 the question of was SD given the information 13 that he should have been given in order to have 14 made a knowing and voluntary decision for this 15 lifetime exclusion in New Jersey? Stop right 16 there. Forget about what's happening as a 17 result. Think about it, just that. Okay? 18 Think about it totally with a blinder 19 on, because I think it's necessary. Because 20 you have to make a decision whether his rights 21 basically have been violated. We'll come to 22 what the result of that, how to fix that, later 23 down the line in, you know, this morning. But 24 first you have to come -- if you don't accept 25 my argument that he was prohibited from -- not 37 ITEM NO. 11 1 "prohibited." He was not told, and the forms 2 that were provided to him since changed, led 3 him to not believe that he would be excluded 4 around the country. You need to come to -- you 5 need to come to a decision as to whether he, 6 like a criminal defendant was entitled to be 7 advised of those ramifications. 8 Now, if you agree with me that he was 9 entitled to those warnings or advice before it 10 could become an exercise of giving up his right 11 to a place of public accommodation, then we can 12 go on and talk about what should occur as a 13 result of that. You know, how to -- how to 14 accommodate the loss of his rights. 15 And maybe it is despite the fact that it 16 says here that if you choose a lifetime option, 17 you can request to be taken off the lifetime 18 exclusion list. That basically is begging the 19 question. Because there's no question he was 20 advised that if you sign up for this, a 21 lifetime exclusion, you can't get off this. So 22 one of the consequences of signing up for this 23 was a consequence that he wasn't told about, 24 which was the fact that the casinos in Atlantic 25 City can share this with their sister casinos; 38 ITEM NO. 11 1 and, therefore, had he known that, as he said, 2 he would not have signed up for the lifetime 3 conclusion in New Jersey. 4 So maybe the answer is that he has to be 5 put back in a position before he signed up for 6 this lifetime exclusion. So despite the fact 7 they put his initials on there, if the only way 8 to deal with this, to get him back in a 9 position he was before he signed this, same as 10 the criminal plea. I mean, a guy pleas guilty, 11 he's given all his rights, he comes to 12 sentencing, and somebody says -- the judge 13 says, you know, you have a mandatory four 14 years. I have no discretion. The guy says, 15 well, I didn't know I had a mandatory four 16 years. And the judge said, I advised you. 17 Here's a transcript of your plea. I advised 18 you. And that's the end of the story. He was 19 advised. But if he didn't get advised, then 20 what the judge does at that point say, mea 21 culpa. All right. You want to retract your 22 plea, you can now plea now knowing you got four 23 years mandatory sentence or you can go to 24 trial. There's no difference here other than 25 the fact that he didn't do anything wrong like 39 ITEM NO. 11 1 a criminal defendant other than plead guilty, 2 there's no difference here. 3 So if he didn't have the information 4 with which to make a voluntary act, then you 5 should put him back in that position that he 6 was before he put his initials there. And you 7 have recognized that by virtue of the fact that 8 you have amended the form. So everybody 9 else -- and that's another point the Division 10 made was maybe open the floodgates here. All 11 these lifetime excluders are going to come back 12 here and say we want to come back. But you've 13 amended the form. You've amended the form to 14 take care of the problem that SD has. And 15 there certainly has been no, you know, 16 follow-up petitions or anything. But that's 17 not even -- the question of whether another 18 criminal defendants are going to take advantage 19 of the fact that people weren't told of things, 20 you know, of the consequences of their plea, 21 courts don't take that into consideration. You 22 got to look at this case and this case alone, 23 in all fairness to SD. 24 Would he have -- he says he would never 25 have signed this if he was -- if he was told of 40 ITEM NO. 11 1 those consequences. He wasn't told those 2 consequences. You didn't have it in your form. 3 You since have it in your form. Now anybody 4 else who signs this can't make this argument. 5 But SD should be able to take advantage 6 of this argument because that's what he said 7 under oath in his affidavit, that he was 8 unaware of this. So if the fact that he signed 9 a lifetime ban, that lifetime ban is no 10 different than a plea of guilty without being 11 afforded -- 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Well, it's a -- 13 MR. LEVENSON: -- the information -- 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: I don't know. I don't 15 think I can reconcile the two. I mean, we're 16 talking about, as far as I know, one casino 17 company. Is that correct? Are the other 18 casinos besides the one? I mean, he is not 19 banned from going to another casino in Las 20 Vegas that doesn't have the policy of excluding 21 across the country. 22 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Or in any casino. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Am I correct? 24 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Yeah. I was going 25 to say that. 41 ITEM NO. 11 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: You're saying 3 dozens and dozens of casinos that are 4 affiliated, let me guess that there are about 5 328 Indian casinos in the country that this guy 6 had the option to go to. So why are we here? 7 MR. LEVENSON: Well, because -- 8 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Why are we here? 9 MR. LEVENSON: We're here because it's a 10 denial of someone's rights. You're saying 11 because you could go to the Shop-Rite -- 12 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Go to Path Mark. 13 MR. LEVENSON: You know, to buy your 14 food -- forget about the fact that Path Mark 15 throws you out. I mean, that's -- I don't -- 16 with all due respect, think that that is the 17 question that's here. 18 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Well, I don't 19 know. 20 MR. LEVENSON: That if you can find a 21 casino somewhere that will take you in, kind of 22 thing. 23 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: That's right. 24 MR. LEVENSON: The question again comes 25 back to the very question that I started this 42 ITEM NO. 11 1 with, which is was he given all the 2 ramifications of his -- an explanation of his 3 rights and the consequences of his actions? 4 And if you think he was, then with all 5 due respect, you didn't need to amend your 6 form. You amended your form because -- and, 7 again, it wasn't as a result of us. It wasn't 8 because of my case. You amended your form 9 because someone realized that there needed to 10 be a greater disclosure to the people that were 11 signing up that this could have an effect on 12 your ability to patronize another casino. 13 You know, I mean, just to say that he 14 can go to an Indian casino but he can't go to, 15 you know, Wynn in Las Vegas, I mean, that's not 16 most respectfully, Commissioner Frulio, the 17 question. The question is was his rights 18 violated in a sense of was he given the 19 information that was necessary, and did he 20 voluntarily -- which is the -- that's what the 21 upper courts and our supreme courts say even 22 with regard to criminal cases. Was he given 23 the information? Was there anything about his 24 agreement to be put on the exclusion list that 25 he was not aware of? And -- and there's no 43 ITEM NO. 11 1 question that he wasn't aware of it. I mean, I 2 don't think anybody even believes that -- the 3 Division or commission staff or anything 4 believes that he knew he was going to be 5 excluded from other casinos around the country. 6 So, I mean, you have to believe that. So if -- 7 And, you know, there are a lot of nice 8 casinos around the country. It's an open place 9 of accommodation, these other casinos. 10 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Yeah. 11 MR. LEVENSON: You know, it's not that 12 he can go somewhere else. It's the fact that 13 he should be able to go anywhere because -- 14 actually, he should be able to go in -- back 15 into New Jersey, also, even though it's a 16 lifetime exclusion. 17 If you find that he was not -- he did 18 not voluntarily, basically, because of the fact 19 that he was not aware of the consequences, same 20 as a criminal defendant with mandatory 21 sentences, loss of driver's license, probation 22 violation, or all those things you have to be 23 told. You realize you can get extra time if 24 you plead guilty to this because you had a 25 prior. You're on probation. We can sentence 44 ITEM NO. 11 1 you to your original -- and, I mean, I used to 2 be a prosecutor. I know all that stuff. It's 3 like, it was -- the trial judges, you know, 4 they read that. That's how important it is 5 now. They have a whole script so they don't 6 miss any one of those items in giving people 7 their warnings. 8 You -- Commissioner Fedorko, you know 9 that. I mean, you've seen enough of those 10 cases in your career. 11 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yeah. And I also 12 know what self-exclusion means and a lifetime 13 ban. That's the problem I'm having with this. 14 MR. LEVENSON: Well, I know. I see 15 that. 16 But the point is that if you -- do you 17 agree with me that if somebody were to offer a 18 plea of guilty, and a court did not tell them 19 of the loss of a driver's license or the fact 20 that a probation -- they're on probation, they 21 get more time. Or the fact that did you it 22 with a gun so you have a minimum three years in 23 prison. If a judge didn't tell that person at 24 the time of a plea, and now the sentence comes, 25 and he sentences him in accordance with what 45 ITEM NO. 11 1 the law is, do you agree with me that that 2 person could retract their guilty plea? 3 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: That's like saying, 4 geez, I wouldn't have robbed that bank if I 5 knew I was going to go to jail. 6 MR. LEVENSON: I don't understand. No. 7 No. Just take the guilty plea. 8 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: That's what you're 9 saying. 10 MR. LEVENSON: No, I'm not. No. It's 11 purely a judge and a defendant. The telling of 12 a defendant what are the potentials in his 13 sentence. Because here's the same kind of 14 situation. By -- he pleaded, so to speak, when 15 he signed up for this. The result of it is the 16 sentence. So the question is, is the signing 17 of this something that was done with full 18 knowledge of the consequences? And by virtue 19 of the fact that you amended your form, I 20 believe that you realized that there wasn't 21 enough information in the forms for someone to 22 know that the -- one of the consequences of 23 this was to be excluded from casinos outside of 24 New Jersey. And if you -- I think it's clear 25 that the -- 46 ITEM NO. 11 1 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: But he's not 2 excluded from casinos outside of New Jersey 3 because there are casinos that he can go to 4 outside of New Jersey; right? 5 MR. LEVENSON: Well -- 6 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Am I right? 7 MR. LEVENSON: I can't say that every 8 one of the casinos that he walked into would 9 throw him out. 10 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Am I right? He can 11 go to casinos outside of New Jersey? 12 MR. LEVENSON: But would you agree with 13 me this way, there are casinos that he can't go 14 into as a result -- 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Based on the policy 16 decisions on those casino, not by us. 17 MR. LEVENSON: No. Based on a policy 18 decision -- wait a minute. Hear me out. 19 Of the legislature and the Commission 20 through its regulations which mirrors the 21 statute which says that it's confidential. 22 Nobody else can know anything about who this 23 person is. And, believe me, Miss Nagengast was 24 very clear about, you know, we use these 25 initials, we, you know -- and I applaud her for 47 ITEM NO. 11 1 it. And so this is all very, very 2 confidential. 3 There's an exception to the confidential 4 by statute and by your regulation which was not 5 in your forms. And he was not aware of at the 6 time he signed that. And so -- and no one says 7 that they told him that. So it's pure -- it's 8 purely a legal question. You know, I see that 9 you're looking at it more factually and 10 whatever. But it's purely a legal question. 11 If someone was not aware of that, and you have 12 forms which at that point in time didn't tell 13 that person, and then they signed up for the 14 exclusion, is that exclusion valid as a matter 15 of law? 16 And I know you -- you know, you want to 17 keep people who think they are compulsive 18 gamblers out of casinos and all rest. I 19 understand that. I mean, it's a public policy 20 of the state. But it only becomes a public 21 policy of the state when the person knew the 22 consequences of his acts, and he could rely 23 upon what the paperwork was at the time, and I 24 don't believe that he should have been required 25 to go to the statute or regulations as you 48 ITEM NO. 11 1 don't expect any criminal defendant or whatever 2 to go see what the potential sentences can be 3 before a person pleads guilty. That's up to 4 the judge, and in this case it would be up to 5 the Commission, to advise a person before they 6 sign away -- especially a lifetime right to go 7 to casinos. 8 And I'm sure I -- I'm sure I talked 9 beyond your time allotted. 10 (Conferring.) 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: And let me ask if 12 there are any other questions before we hear 13 from Mr. Ehrlich? 14 Mr. Ehrlich? 15 MR. EHRLICH: Thank you Chair, 16 Commissioners. Good morning. 17 We filed a brief on this, so I just want 18 to address a couple of points very quickly. 19 First of all, I don't think it was 20 discussed yet, but we did make the argument 21 that you have no reg that supports this action. 22 Of course, I was going under the assumption 23 that Mr. Levenson was asking that SD be removed 24 from New Jersey -- 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Right. 49 ITEM NO. 11 1 MR. EHRLICH: -- casino exclusion list. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Me, too. 3 MR. EHRLICH: And I think probably we 4 got around to that at the end. I think 5 probably that's the only practical relief here 6 because I just can't envision how you could 7 keep a person excluded in New Jersey but 8 somehow direct casino companies in other states 9 to allow him to come in. So I think that's 10 really -- that would be the relief if you, in 11 fact, found for him. 12 And my argument was that there was no 13 reg that supports that action by the 14 Commission, as there is with regard to those 15 who sign up for lesser periods of time and are 16 permitted to come back to you and be taken off 17 the self-exclusion list. 18 There was some discussion about 19 criminals analogies and guilty pleas and so 20 forth, and I never suggested and wouldn't 21 suggest now that SD is a criminal. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: No. 23 MR. EHRLICH: Or did anything wrong or 24 that this is punitive. However, if the analogy 25 is drawn, there is certainly case law that 50 ITEM NO. 11 1 supports the proposition that criminal 2 defendants pleading guilty need only be 3 informed of the direct consequences of a guilty 4 plea and not all the collateral consequences. 5 And we would argue here in this case that the 6 direct result of getting on the New Jersey 7 exclusion list, obviously, is being excluded 8 from New Jersey casinos and that anything that 9 happens in any other state because of policies 10 by casino companies that are here is certainly 11 a collateral consequence, and every one of 12 those need not be told to the person before 13 they get on. 14 It's good that your form was changed to 15 provide more information. But we don't think 16 that necessarily means that it was insufficient 17 the way it was. Just as in civil cases, if 18 somebody corrects something or does something 19 to improve a product or a service, it doesn't 20 mean that they were negligent before or that it 21 was insufficient or that there was anything 22 wrong with it. 23 Finally, the -- when we're focusing on 24 one person like SD, it's easy to kind of get 25 lost and think that the person is unique, but 51 ITEM NO. 11 1 I'm reminding the Commission, as I have before 2 and as you know, that there are other people 3 who have similar situations to SD, even though 4 they are not before you. There are people on 5 the lifetime self-exclusion list who signed up 6 before your form was changed. There are people 7 who signed up for lesser periods of self- 8 exclusion before your form was changed. And 9 if, in fact, SD's signing up was void because 10 he was not informed of these consequences, then 11 the Division does not see why everyone else, 12 the lifetime self-excluding people or even 13 those with terms, could not come in and say we 14 weren't informed of that, either. We want to 15 get off the list. And, in fact, if you find 16 that this is a violation, you may even be 17 obligated to let them know that they have the 18 right to do that. So there really isn't a 19 clear end point to this with SD if we go down 20 this road. And, to us, allowing SD the 21 privilege of gambling in a few more casinos 22 affiliated with New Jersey casinos in Las Vegas 23 or other places around the country is simply 24 not worth the risk of undermining the entire 25 self-exclusion program. 52 ITEM NO. 11 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 3 Let me ask if there are any questions? 4 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: No. 5 MR. LEVENSON: Can I just make one brief 6 response to that? 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. 8 MR. LEVENSON: Probably expect what I'm 9 going to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. 10 That courts from the US Supreme Court on down, 11 agencies such as yourselves do not and should 12 never, I believe, make a ruling in a case that 13 this would open and make available a challenge 14 from others as a reason why if someone's rights 15 have been violated, then the Commission and 16 courts are obligated to make a decision and 17 deal with whatever consequences come down the 18 line, if any consequences come down the line. 19 Everything that Mr. Ehrlich says about 20 this aspect, first of all, is speculative. 21 There are certainly plenty of people who want 22 to remain on the exclusion list. I don't know 23 that you've gotten any petitions previously, 24 and there's no assurance that you're going to 25 get any in the future of people wanting to get 53 ITEM NO. 11 1 off the exclusion list. 2 But notwithstanding that, I think that 3 that is a red herring the same way as I brought 4 up the red herring in my papers of is he a 5 compulsive gambler, is he not a compulsive 6 gambler? You need to put blinders on because 7 you have the responsibility, as all courts 8 have, to decide SD's rights. And if as a 9 result of deciding that other things may happen 10 which you have to deal with, then you have to 11 deal with it. But you cannot decide SD based 12 on the fact that, well, there's other casinos 13 that he can -- he can go to. And if we believe 14 that his rights were violated, he can still go 15 to other casinos. And if we give him a relief 16 here, SD relief, then we may get other 17 petitioners from other e-mail. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Well, how do you 19 address Mr. Ehrlich's argument, which was also 20 noted in counsel's brief that, you know, the 21 double-edged about collateral consequences, 22 that even in a criminal matters it's only the 23 direct consequences, not collateral 24 consequences? Are you arguing that this is a 25 direct consequence? 54 ITEM NO. 11 1 MR. LEVENSON: Absolutely. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Not a collateral. 3 MR. LEVENSON: Yeah. It's a -- 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: But if the self- 5 exclusion program applies to self-exclusion in 6 New Jersey, anything else that happens outside 7 of New Jersey, you don't think that's 8 collateral? 9 MR. LEVENSON: I don't think it's 10 collateral when in the statute and the 11 regulation, in the whole aspect of the 12 exclusion -- self-exclusion law is 13 confidential. That's probable the underpinning 14 of it. The fact that you can't get any 15 information from the Commission, Division, or 16 casinos, or whatever with regard to the name 17 and identifying information of that person. 18 You can't communicate that because it's so 19 confidential. 20 There's an exception to that that the 21 statute includes and your regulation mirrors 22 which permits casinos to basically bypass that 23 confidentiality, legally so, and communicate 24 outside of that casino in Atlantic City that 25 they own to the host of other places that they 55 ITEM NO. 11 1 own around the country. And that is something 2 that the -- the statute and the regulation 3 permits. But in the -- whole underpinning of 4 this is the confidentiality. 5 So, you know -- I lost what your 6 question was. I'm sorry. 7 (Laughter.) 8 MR. LEVENSON: But my answer was 9 brilliant. 10 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: If you think so. 11 FROM THE FLOOR: Collateral. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Collateral. Right. 13 MR. LEVENSON: My answer was collateral 14 to your question. 15 The point being that it is something 16 that is not collateral. I mean, in the sense 17 that, oh, you know, you can -- you can go to 18 other casinos, but you can only wear blue 19 clothes or something. I mean, I guess you 20 could get to something that's collateral. But 21 it's not collateral in the sense that it's a 22 deprivation of your ability to go into public 23 places. 24 I mean, you know, unless you're on the 25 other exclusion list, which is normally 56 ITEM NO. 11 1 reserved for, you know, the real bad guys and 2 gals, this person put himself on the -- 3 basically right next to that, even though 4 having done nothing wrong. So he's on a 5 lifetime exclusion from all these casino 6 properties outside of New Jersey which can grow 7 even beyond where it is today, certainly, by 8 any of these casinos buying each other. And, 9 also, by virtue of the fact that some of these 10 other casinos who may not have -- or some of 11 the casinos in New Jersey may not have as 12 significant a responsible gaming program in 13 other states that they do in New Jersey. I 14 don't know how each of them work internally. 15 The point is, even if it was one casino outside 16 of New Jersey, it's not how many. It's not 17 whether you can go to an Indian casino. The 18 question is -- going back to it -- is that is 19 it a fundamental piece of advice that he was 20 entitled to? That he would be precluded by the 21 ability -- because he was told it was 22 confidential. You agree with that. That he 23 was told that you've signed up for this. It's 24 confidential. Well, it really isn't 25 confidential because he wasn't told that the 57 ITEM NO. 11 1 casinos can breach that confidentiality legally 2 by communicating to their sister casinos in 3 other jurisdictions. 4 So it's not collateral. It's just as 5 much a part of the essence of his signing these 6 papers as any other part. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Let me ask if there 9 are any other questions? 10 Does anyone feel they need a recess? 11 Is there a motion? 12 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Madame Chair, I 13 will make a motion to deny the petition of SD 14 for removal from the voluntary self-exclusion 15 list. 16 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Second. 17 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 19 made and seconded. All in favor? 20 (Ayes.) 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 22 (No response.) 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. LEVENSON: Thank you. 58 ITEM NO. 12 1 MR. NANCE: Item No. 12, petition of 2 Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Marina 3 Associates, Atlantic City Showboat, Inc., 4 Bally's Park Place, Inc., and Boardwalk Regency 5 Corp. for waiver of qualification of an officer 6 of HOC. 7 Miss Wozniak? 8 MS. WOZNIAK: Good morning. 9 I have distributed a draft resolution 10 regarding this matter. 11 Miss Flaherty is here for the Division, 12 and apparently the petitioners are not entering 13 an appearance today. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 15 Ms. Flaherty? 16 MS. FLAHERTY: Yes, Chair, Vice Chair, 17 Commissioners. 18 The Division has submitted a report. 19 We've reviewed the duties and responsibilities 20 of the position and noticed that they are not 21 significantly involved in New Jersey. Based on 22 that, the director will concur in the waiver of 23 the qualification. And if any circumstances 24 change in the future, we will have 25 resubmission. 59 ITEM NO. 13 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 2 Any questions? 3 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 4 Madame Chair. 5 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Move to adopt the 6 draft resolution and waive the qualification 7 requirement pursuant to NJSA 5:12-85d(1) as to 8 the Regional President of Iowa and Missouri 9 Operations and Senior Vice President and 10 General Manager, Horseshoe and Council Bluffs. 11 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion has been made 13 and seconded. This is a roll call vote. 14 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 16 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Frulio? 17 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Yes. 18 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Fedorko? 19 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Yes. 20 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 22 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 23 the motion is unanimous. 24 Item No 13, petition of IGT to terminate 25 the "I Love Lucy" slot system and to transfer 60 ITEM NO. 13 1 the progressive jackpot to the "Wheel of 2 Fortune $.01" slot system. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Anyone uses a Cuban 4 accent -- 5 MR. NANCE: Mr. Briliant? 6 MR. BRILIANT: Good morning, Madame 7 Chair, Commissioners. 8 Mr. Previty and Mr. Kimmel asked that 9 this matter be heard on the papers today. 10 As you know, this is a petition to 11 transfer -- to terminate and transfer the "I 12 Love Lucy" jackpot to the "Jeopardy" -- I'm 13 sorry -- to the "Wheel of Fortune $.01" system. 14 All the counsel have advised me that 15 they are satisfied with the form and the 16 content of the proposed resolution, and the 17 matter is now before the Commission. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 19 Any questions? 20 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 21 Madame Chair. 22 Move to adopt the draft resolution and 23 approve IGT's request to transfer a progressive 24 slot jackpot subject to the conditions in the 25 resolution. 61 ITEM NO. 13 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a second? 2 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 4 made and seconded. All in favor? 5 (Ayes.) 6 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Si. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We'll let the record 8 reflect that the record was unanimous, and it 9 was yes. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. BRILIANT: Thank you. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 13 MR. NANCE: In accordance with 14 Resolution No. 06-12-13-20, the next closed 15 session of the Commission shall be held on 16 Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. in 17 the Commission offices. 18 It is now time for the public 19 participation portion of the meeting. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there anyone from 21 the public who wishes to be heard? 22 (No response.) 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Seeing no one, I'll 24 declare this portion of the meeting closed and 25 entertain a motion to adjourn. 62 1 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Motion to 2 adjourn. 3 VICE CHAIR FEDORKO: Second. 4 COMMISSIONER FRULIO: Second. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 6 made and seconded. All in favor? 7 (Ayes.) 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 9 (No response.) 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 11 Thank you. 12 (Public Meeting No. 07-01-17 was 13 adjourned at 11:30 a.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 4 5 I, DARLENE SILLITOE, a Certified 6 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the 7 State of New Jersey, certify that the foregoing 8 is a true and accurate transcript of the 9 proceedings. 10 11 12 I further certify that I am neither 13 attorney, of counsel for, nor related to or 14 employed by any of the parties to the action; 15 further that I am not a relative or employee of 16 any attorney or counsel employed in this case; 17 nor am I financially interested in the action. 18 19 20 DARLENE SILLITOE CSR 21 License No XI01023 22 23 Dated: January 20, 2007 24 My Commission Expires on July 10, 2009 25 ID No 2062871