1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 2 CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 PUBLIC MEETING NO. 10-10-14 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 Thursday, October 14, 2010 10 Atlantic City Commission Offices 11 Joseph P. Lordi Public Meeting Room - First Floor 12 Tennessee Avenue and Boardwalk 13 Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 14 10:30 a.m. to 11:47 a.m. 15 16 17 Certified Court Reporter: Darlene Sillitoe 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 20 ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING, LLC 21 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS AND VIDEOGRAPHERS 22 1125 ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 700 23 ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401 24 (609) 345-8448 www.accourtreporting.com 25 2 1 B E F O R E : 2 CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION: LINDA M. KASSEKERT, CHAIR 3 SHARON ANNE HARRINGTON, VICE CHAIR MICHAEL C. EPPS, COMMISSIONER 4 WILLIAM T. SOMMELING, COMMISSIONER EDWARD J. FANELLE, COMMISSIONER 5 6 PRESENT FOR THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION: DARYL W. NANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST 7 DANIEL J. HENEGHAN, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER LISA SPENGLER, PUBLICATIONS COORDINATOR 8 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL: 9 DIANNA W. FAUNTLEROY, GENERAL COUNSEL/EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 10 MARY WOZNIAK, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL SETH H. BRILLIANT, SENIOR COUNSEL 11 LON E. MAMOLEN, SENIOR COUNSEL TRACY E. RICHARDSON, COUNSEL 12 BERNADETTE T. FRIGEN, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 13 DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT: 14 DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL BRIAN C. BISCIEGLIA, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 15 TIMOTHY C. FICCHI, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 JAMES C. FOGARTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S : ITEM NO. 3 DARYL W. NANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST 2 MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL N. LYNNE HUGHES, ESQ. 3 FOR: HARRAH'S ENTITIES 4 ITEM NO. 5 LON E. MAMOLEN, SENIOR COUNSEL R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 5 N. LYNNE HUGHES, ESQ FOR: SHOWBOAT ATLANTIC CITY OPERATING 6 COMPANY 7 ITEM NO. 6 LON E. MAMOLEN, SENIOR COUNSEL R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 8 FREDERICK T. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ. FOR: TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES 9 ITEM NO. 8 BERNADETTE T. FRIGEN, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 10 R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HANKIN, SANDMAN & PALLADINO, PC 11 COLIN G. BELL, ESQ. FOR: VINCENT PROCOPIO 12 ITEM NO. 10 MARY WOZNIAK, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 13 JAMES C. FOGARTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP 14 PATRICK MADAMBA, JR., ESQ. FOR: AVENUE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT II, LP 15 ITEM NO. 11 TRACY E. RICHARDSON, COUNSEL 16 GEORGE N. ROVER, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP 17 NICHOLAS CASIELLO, JR., ESQ. FOR: MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL 18 SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS KENNETH F. OETTLE, ESQ. 19 FOR: TRUSTEE HON. JAMES R. ZAZZALI BLANK ROME, LLP 20 STEPHEN D. SCHRIER, ESQ. FOR: NEW JERSEY GL, LLC 21 ITEM NO. 13 SETH H. BRILIANT, SENIOR COUNSEL 22 R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL F. MICHAEL JR., ESQ. 23 FOR: JAMES ROSSELLI 24 ITEM NO. 16 DARYL W. NANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 N. LYNNE HUGHES, ESQ. FOR: HARRAH'S ENTITIES 4 1 AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING NO. 10-10-14 2 October 14, 2010, 10:30 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 1 Ratification of the minutes of the 9 9 September 22, 2010, public meeting 4 October Values Award, Leonora Humphreys 9 2 Applications for employee and casino 5 service industry licenses 4 initial and/or renewal of casino key 12 12 6 and casino employee licenses 17 initial and/or renewal of casino key 12 13 7 and casino employee licenses Application of Nina Carrion for a junket 13 14 8 enterprise license Applications for renewal of casino key 14 15 9 employee licenses and for qualification: David R. Coskey, Sr., Vice President of 10 Marketing for Marina District Development Company, LLC 11 Mario A. DiGuiseppe, Vice President of Table Games for Tropicana Atlantic City 12 Corporation David Fox, Vice President of Marketing 13 for Trump Plaza Associates, LLC Mary Tindall, Vice President of 14 Marketing for Tropicana Atlantic City Corporation 15 3 Petition of Harrah's Atlantic City 15 17 Operating Company, LLC, Showboat Atlantic 16 City Operating Company, LLC, Bally's Park Place, Inc., and Boardwalk Regency Corporation 17 requesting the issuance of a temporary casino key employee license to Kevin Winters 18 pursuant to NJSA 5:12-89(e) and to permit him pursuant to NJAC 19:43-2.6 to assume 19 the duties and exercise the powers of Vice President of Revenue Management without 20 first having been found qualified (PRN 2721008) 4 Stipulation of settlement in renewal 20 21 21 application of Kathleen Migiani (10-0095-ER) 5 Stipulation of settlement in State v. 21 23 22 Showboat Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, (d/b/a Showboat Casino 23 Hotel) (09-0523-VC) 6 Stipulation of settlement in State v. 23 25 24 Trump Plaza Associates (d/b/a Trump Plaza Casino Hotel) (10-0275-VC) 25 5 1 PUBLIC MEETING NO. 10-10-14 2 October 14, 2010, 10:30 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 7 Petition of Alicin J. Kuloszewski for 26 27 early reapplication (10-0268-RA) 4 8 Preliminary hearing concerning the exclusion of: 5 a) Nicholas Caltabiano (10-0236-EL) 38 43 Sworn 39 6 b) Michael Connelly (10-0282-EL) 44 46 c) Vincent Procopio (10-02340EL) 28 37 7 d) Douglas Rubino (10-0283-EL) 44 46 9 Reconsideration of Commission order 46 48 8 granting Nancy Reyes her casino employee license (09-0522-NC) 9 10 Petition of Avenue Capital Management II, 48 54 LP, for approvals necessary to modify the 10 structure for holding an investment in Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. 11 (PRN 2601017) 11 Joint Petition of the Honorable James R. 54 62 12 Zazzali, New Jersey GL, LLC, and MGM Resorts International for approval of a 13 purchase and sale agreement and related relief (PRN 2081006) 14 12 Proposed adoption of amendments for "EZ 64 65 Baccarat" 15 13 Petition of James Rosselli for a hearing 65 87/88 and for rule-making pursuant to NJSA x 16 5:12-69 and NJAC 19:40-3.6 (PRN 2521001) 14 Petition of Resorts International Hotel adj. 17 Inc., for an amendment to NJAC 19:47-2.3 pursuant to NJAC 19:40-3.6 and NJAC 18 19:47-8.4 (PRN 3620901); and Proposed publication of amendments to 19 NJAC 19:45-1.20; 19:46-1.10, and 1.15; 19:47-2.1, 2.3, and 8.3 (Hand Fee in 20 Blackjack) 15 Petition of Diamond Gaming, LLC, and 90 91 21 Trump Taj Mahal Associates (d/b/a Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort) for the approval 22 of a new wager in "Diamond Roulette," pursuant to NJAC 19:47-8.4 (PRN 0361004); 23 And proposed adoption of amendments to NJAC 19:47-5.2 (Dozen Wager in Diamond 24 Roulette) 16 Petition of Harrah's Atlantic City 17 19 25 Operating Company, LLC, Showboat Atlantic 6 1 CONTINUED AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING NO. 10-10-14 2 October 14, 2010, 10:30 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 16 City Operating Company, LLC, Bally's Park 17 19 Place, Inc., (d/b/a Bally's Atlantic City) 4 and Boardwalk Regency Corporation (d/b/a Caesars Atlantic City) for the issuance of 5 a temporary casino key employee license to Holly Gagnon pursuant to NJSA 5:12-89(e) 6 and to permit her pursuant to NJAC 19:43-2.6 to assume the duties and exercise the 7 powers of Vice President Finance & Planning Regional without first having been qualified 8 (PRN 2771005) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 1 E X H I B I T S : 2 NO. DESCRIPTION EVD 3 4 P-1 Remand for hearings 4 license X 5 P-2 Grant 17 licenses X 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Exhibits retained by Commission.) 25 8 1 (Public Meeting 10-10-14 was commenced 2 at 10:30 a.m.) 3 MR. NANCE: Good morning. I'd like to 4 read an opening 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 Meeting Act," the New Jersey Casino Control 9 Commission on October 15, 2009, filed with the 10 Secretary of State at the State House in 11 Trenton, New Jersey, a notice of this hearing. 12 On October 16, copies were mailed to 13 subscribers. 14 Members of the press will be permitted 15 to take photographs, and we ask that this be 16 done in a manner which is not disruptive or 17 distracting to the Commission. 18 The use of cell phones in the public 19 meeting room is prohibited. 20 Any member of the public who wish to 21 address the Commission will be given the 22 opportunity to do so before the Commission 23 adjourns for the day. 24 Please stand for the Pledge of 25 Allegiance. 9 ITEM NO. 1 1 (The flag salute was recited.) 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning. 3 MR. NANCE: Good morning. 4 The matters discussed in closed session 5 were: Employee and enterprise license matters. 6 The Commission approved the September 7 22nd, 2010, closed-session minutes. 8 Litigation update regarding Adamar of 9 New Jersey, Inc., et al. 10 Item No. 1, ratification of the minutes 11 of the September 22nd, 2010, public meeting. 12 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Move to 13 approve. 14 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Second. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 16 made and seconded. All in favor? 17 (Ayes.) 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 19 (No response.) 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 21 MR. NANCE: Miss Spengler? 22 MS. SPENGLER: Madame Chair, 23 Commissioners, good morning. 24 I am very pleased to be here again today 25 to present the October 2010 Value Award 10 VALUES AWARD 1 certification. 2 If you would like to step down, and as 3 you do, I'd like to ask Leonora Humphreys to 4 step forward to accept her award. 5 (Applause.) 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Congratulations. 7 MS. HUMPHREYS: Thanks. 8 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Thank you. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Let me just say on 10 behalf of the Commissioners -- and I'm sure 11 they'll add their comments. Let me just say 12 Leonora was the first person to get us through 13 the flood when we actually had, I think, about 14 ten inches in the garage on the way out, and 15 helped expedite the repairs, the cleaning up. 16 I know on our own floor we had a major flood in 17 the back of the office space. We actually had 18 a gusher coming out of the ceiling. And 19 Leonora did it all very professionally. As you 20 always do with everything you do for us. And 21 we greatly appreciate it. 22 And I don't know if any of the 23 commissioners want to say anything? 24 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: I just think, you 25 know, having been in the public safety arena 11 VALUES AWARD 1 and watching Leonora come back at 1:00 in the 2 morning when the alarms were going off to let 3 the fire department in, I think she went above 4 and beyond what the expectation was. And it's 5 just a reflection of the employees that we have 6 at the Casino Control Commission and their 7 dedication and efforts that they continue with. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: So you think she 9 should be a trooper? 10 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Yup. 11 (Laughter.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Any other 13 Commissioners? 14 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Well, I will 15 just say -- 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. 17 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Everyone here 18 knows this, but I think there's a good reason 19 why she's called "The Mayor." 20 (Laughter.) 21 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: She's the go-to 22 person. So thank you. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. 24 Congratulations. 25 MS. SPENGLER: I'm still going to grab a 12 ITEM NO. 2 1 picture. 2 (Photograph and applause.) 3 MS. SPENGLER: Very nice. Thank you. 4 MS. HUMPHREYS: Thank you. 5 MR. NANCE: Item No. 2, applications for 6 employee and casino service industry licenses. 7 This will -- this will be entered as Exhibit 8 List 1 and 2. 9 The Exhibit List 1 consists of four 10 applications for initial and/or renewal of 11 casino key and casino employee licenses. 12 The Division has objected to licensure. 13 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Move that we remand 14 these matters for hearings. 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion is made and 17 seconded. All in favor? 18 (Ayes.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 20 (No response.) 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 22 MR. NANCE: Exhibit List 2 consists of 23 17 applications for initial and/or renewal of 24 casino key and casino employee licenses. 25 Staff and the Division have recommended 13 ITEM NO. 2 1 that these licenses be granted sub -- that 2 these licenses be granted. 3 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Move to grant the 4 license applications. 5 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: And I would just amend 7 that to say that -- to also comply with the 8 residency requirement; is that correct? 9 MR. NANCE: No. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Nance? Oh, we 11 don't need to worry about that in the motion? 12 MR. NANCE: Yes. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. 14 The motion has been made and seconded. 15 All in favor? 16 (Ayes.) 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 20 MR. NANCE: For consideration is the 21 junket enterprise license application of Nina 22 Carrion. 23 Staff and the Division have recommended 24 that this application be granted. 25 COMMISSIONER EPPS: I move that we grant 14 ITEM NO. 2 1 the junket enterprise license of Nina Carrion. 2 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: 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: For consideration are the 10 following applications for renewal of casino 11 key and casino employee licenses and for 12 qualification: 13 For David R. Coskey, Sr., Vice President 14 of Marketing for Marina District Development 15 Company, LLC; Mario A. DiGuiseppe, Vice 16 President of Table Games for Tropicana, 17 Atlantic City Corporation; David Fox, Vice 18 President of Marketing for Trump Plaza 19 Associates, LLC; and Mary Tindall, Vice 20 President of Marketing for Tropicana Atlantic 21 City Corporation. 22 Staff and the Division have recommended 23 that these applications be granted. 24 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Move to approve 25 the applications, Madame Chair. 15 ITEM NO. 3 1 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Second. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The 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 Epps? 7 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Yes. 8 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fanelle? 9 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Yes. 10 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Harrington? 11 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Yes. 12 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 14 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 15 the motion is unanimous. 16 Item No. 3, Petition No. 2721008, of 17 Harrah's Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, 18 Showboat Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, 19 Bally's Park Place, Inc., and Boardwalk Regency 20 Corporation, is requesting the issuance of a 21 temporary casino employee license to Kevin 22 Winters pursuant to NJSA 5:89(e) and to permit 23 him pursuant to NJSA 19:43 2.6 to assume the 24 duties and exercise the powers of Vice 25 President of Revenue Management without first 16 ITEM NO. 3 1 having been found qualified. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning, miss 3 Hughes. 4 MS. HUGHES: Good morning. First I'd 5 like to thank the Commission and the Division 6 for handling this matter on an expedited basis. 7 And I would ask that you approve this 8 petition. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 11 Good morning, Miss Flaherty. 12 MS. FLAHERTY: Good morning, Chair and 13 Commissioners. 14 The Division has done its plenary 15 investigation on a preliminary basis in regards 16 to this individual. We have no objection to 17 the issuance of the temporary key or temporary 18 qualification. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 21 Any questions for the parties? 22 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 23 questions, Madame Chair. 24 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: I'll -- 25 VICE HARRINGTON: I'll move that we 17 ITEM NO. 16 1 approve the petition and issue a temporary 2 casino key employee license to Kevin Winters 3 and to permit him to assume the duties and 4 exercise the powers of Vice President of 5 Revenue Management without first having been 6 qualified. 7 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: 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 Epps? 13 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Yes. 14 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fanelle? 15 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Yes. 16 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Harrington? 17 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Yes. 18 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 20 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 21 the motion is unanimous. 22 MS. HUGHES: Thank you. 23 MR. NANCE: For your consideration, Item 24 No. 16, Petition No. 2771005 of Harrah's 25 Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, Showboat 18 ITEM NO. 16 1 Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, Bally's 2 Park Place, Inc., and Boardwalk Regency 3 Corporation is requesting the issuance of a 4 temporary casino key employee license to Holly 5 Gagnon pursuant to NJSA 5:12-89(e) and to 6 permit her pursuant to NJSA 19:43-2.6 to assume 7 the duties and exercise the powers of Vice 8 President, Financial and Planning Regional 9 without first having been found qualified. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 11 Miss Hughes? 12 Trying to make things easier. 13 MS. HUGHES: I know. That's great. 14 Chair, Commissioners, again, this is 15 another application where the Commission and 16 the Division did handle this on an expedited 17 basis, and I would like to thank both of them. 18 And, also, I would ask that approve this 19 petition. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 21 Miss Flaherty, again? 22 MS. FLAHERTY: Madame Chair, 23 Commissioners, the Division has reviewed the 24 transfer on a preliminary basis, and based on 25 that, we do not have an objection to the 19 ITEM NO. 16 1 issuance of a temporary key license or 2 temporary qualification. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 5 Any questions? 6 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 7 questions, Madame Chair. 8 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Madame Chair, I 9 move we approve the petition and issue a 10 temporary casino key employee license to Holly 11 Gagnon and permit her to assume the duties and 12 exercise the powers of Vice President, 13 Financial and Planning Regional without first 14 having been found qualified. 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion has been made 17 and seconded. This is a roll call vote. 18 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 19 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 20 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Epps? 21 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Yes. 22 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fanelle? 23 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Yes. 24 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Harrington? 25 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Yes. 20 ITEM NO. 4 1 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 3 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 4 the motion is unanimous. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 6 MS. HUGHES: Thanks. 7 MR. NANCE: Item No. 4, stipulation of 8 settlement and renewal application of Kathleen 9 Migiani. 10 Miss Frigen? 11 MS. FRIGEN: Good morning, Madame Chair. 12 Let me inquire whether Miss Migiani is 13 present or represented? 14 (No response.) 15 MS. FRIGEN: Apparently not. 16 For your consideration is the proposed 17 settlement which recommends granting the 18 license renewal subject to a payment and 19 reporting condition to the Division. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 21 Mr. Biscieglia? 22 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. Good 23 morning, Chair and Commissioners. 24 The Division has nothing further and ask 25 that the stipulation be approved as it is 21 ITEM NO. 5 1 submitted. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 4 Any questions? 5 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 6 Madame Chair. 7 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Move to approve the 8 stipulation. 9 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 11 made and seconded. All in favor? 12 (Ayes.) 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 14 (No response.) 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 16 MR. NANCE: Item No. 5, stipulation of 17 settlement in State versus Showboat Atlantic 18 City Operating Company, LLC. 19 Mr. Mamolen? 20 MR. MAMOLEN: Good morning, Madame 21 Chair, Commissioners. 22 You have before you a stipulated 23 settlement for this matter which is an 24 underaged gaming matter. The incident took 25 place back in April 2009. You have staff's 22 ITEM NO. 5 1 recommendation regarding it. 2 The stipulation calls for a $20,000 3 civil penalty imposed upon the Respondent with 4 conditions in the violation. 5 Lynne Hughes, as you know, is here 6 today. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 8 Hi, Miss Hughes. 9 MR. MAMOLEN: And Lane Stebbins for the 10 Division. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 12 MS. HUGHES: Lynne Hughes again on 13 behalf of Showboat. I have reviewed over the 14 stipulation of settlement and would ask that 15 you adopt it. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 17 Mr. Stebbins? 18 MR. STEBBINS: Madame Chair, members of 19 the Commission, I would echo the words of Miss 20 Hughes. I would ask that you adopt the 21 stipulation of settlement. 22 It's in the standard form, calls for the 23 standard penalty for underaged gambling at 24 table games, baccarat, and that's where we are. 25 If you any questions, I will be glad to 23 ITEM NO. 6 1 answer them. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 3 Any questions? 4 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 5 Madame Chair. 6 Move to approve the stipulation of 7 settlement, impose a civil penalty of $20,000 8 against Showboat Atlantic City Operating 9 Company, LLC, for violation of Commission 10 regulations regarding underaged gambling. 11 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Second. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 13 made and seconded. All in favor? 14 (Ayes.) 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 16 (No response.) 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 18 Thank you. 19 MS. HUGHES: Thank you. 20 MR. NANCE: Item No. 6, stipulation of 21 settlement in State versus Trump Plaza 22 Associates. 23 Mr. Mamolen? 24 MR. MAMOLEN: Another similar case. 25 This one involving both underaged gaming and 24 ITEM NO. 6 1 the serving to an underaged person an alcoholic 2 beverage. 3 Mr. Cunningham is here on behalf of the 4 Respondent and Lane Stebbins. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 6 Good morning, Mr. Cunningham. 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Good morning. For the 8 record, Fred Cunningham for Trump Plaza. 9 Trump Plaza did participate in the 10 preparation of the stipulation that you have 11 before you. It agrees with its terms, and we 12 simply request that it be approved. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 14 Mr. Stebbins, again? 15 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 16 Madame Chair, members of the Commission, 17 this is an evaluation where underaged 18 individuals playing the slot machine, won a 19 jackpot, and in the course of the 20 investigation, it was determined as a result 21 was also served a couple of beers. So we have 22 an underaged drinking and underaged gambling. 23 The total penalty is $20,000. It's in 24 the standard form, standard fine. I would 25 encourage you to adopt the stipulation. 25 ITEM NO. 7 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 3 Any questions? 4 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 5 questions, Madame Chair. 6 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Move to approve the 7 stipulation of settlement and impose a civil 8 penalty of $20,000 against Trump Plaza 9 Associates, LLC, for violation of Commission 10 regulations regarding serving alcoholic 11 beverages to underaged person and underaged 12 gambling. 13 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Second. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 15 made and seconded. All in favor? 16 (Ayes.) 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. 23 MR. NANCE: Item No. 7, petition of 24 Alicin Kuloszewski for early reapplication. 25 Miss Frigen? 26 ITEM NO. 7 1 MS. FRIGEN: Madame Chair, Miss 2 Kuloszewski is having a seat at the table. For 3 your consideration is her petition seeking 4 permission to reapply early for a casino 5 employee license, registration, and/or 6 noncredential hotel employment. 7 Essentially, the denial was prompted by 8 a failure to be fingerprinted in connection 9 with filing this early reapplication. She was 10 fingerprinted by the Division. 11 And by letter dated September 17th, the 12 Division has interposed no objection to her 13 request for early reapplication. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 15 Miss Kuloszewski, is there anything 16 you'd like to say today? I know you butchered 17 your name. 18 MS. KULOSZEWSKI: Oh, no. That's all 19 right. 20 I just -- I appreciate a chance to be 21 able to do it. It's been a dream of mine since 22 forever. So I'm very grateful. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Thank you. 24 MS. KULOSZEWSKI: Thank you. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Biscieglia? 27 ITEM NO. 7 1 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 2 As Miss Frigen stated, the Division 3 interposed no objection our the September 17th, 4 2010, letter. 5 And I would answer any questions you may 6 have. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 9 Any questions? 10 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 11 questions, Madame Chair. 12 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: I move that we 13 grant Miss Kuloszewski permission to reapply 14 early for a casino employee license, a casino 15 service employee registration, and/or to obtain 16 employment early as a noncredential hotel 17 employee. 18 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Second. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 20 made and seconded. All in favor? 21 (Ayes.) 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 23 (No response.) 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 25 Thank you for coming. Good luck. 28 ITEM NO. 8c 1 MS. KULOSZEWSKI: Thank you. 2 MR. NANCE: Item No. 8, preliminary 3 hearing concerning the exclusion of Nicholas 4 Caltabiano, Michael Connelly, Vincent Procopio, 5 and Douglas Rubino. 6 Miss Frigen? 7 MS. FRIGEN: Madame Chair, the first 8 case I would call up is Vincent Procopio. That 9 matter was adjourned two weeks ago at the 10 request of Amy Weintrob. This evidently is not 11 Amy Weintrob. 12 MR. BELL: No. 13 MS. FRIGEN: I suspect it's one of her 14 associates. I'll ask him to give his name for 15 the record, but I would then ask the Division 16 to go forward and present the basis for this 17 preliminary action. 18 MR. BELL: Certainly. Good morning. 19 Colin Bell, Hankin, Sandman & Palladino, on 20 behalf of Mr. Procopio. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. Good 22 morning. 23 Mr. Stebbins, are you ready to proceed? 24 MR. STEBBINS: Yes, I am. Thank you. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Uh-hum. 29 ITEM NO. 8c 1 MR. STEBBINS: Madame Chair and 2 Commissioners, this matter, as are other 3 matters on the agenda today, stems from an 4 investigation at Borgata involving sports 5 betting occurring on site at the casino 6 facility. Mr. Procopio, several other people, 7 were indicted for activities related to sports 8 betting, money laundering, and usury and 9 promoting gambling. 10 Mr. Procopio pleads guilty to promoting 11 gambling, which carries a penalty in excess of 12 six months which qualifies him for preliminary 13 exclusion. 14 Also, because the conduct occurred 15 within the casino facility, I would advance 16 argument, I would advance it at the hearing 17 should it go to a hearing, that it is also an 18 inimical situation. So we have two bases for 19 the exclusion of Mr. Procopio. 20 To shed some light on this, I would just 21 simply indicate that in the reasons for 22 sentencing -- and it didn't come out clearly in 23 the copying, but I will take care of that. The 24 Judge writes: This defendant was a major agent 25 of the ring. He was intercepted on 30 ITEM NO. 8c 1 conversations and physical surveillance. It 2 was revealed that he would assist Mr. Micali 3 with settle up and debt collections from 4 usurious loans. It appears this defendant was 5 a top assistant to Mr. Micali. 6 Then there's some additional 7 information. The Judge writes with regard to 8 Aggravating Factor 3 -- by the way, there was a 9 prior arrest record with Mr. Procopio. The 10 Judge writes: He has not been truthful with 11 the Court as to his involvement. 12 In the end -- at the end of it, the 13 Judge writes: Quite frankly, the Court does 14 not give a lot of credence to anything that 15 this defendant has said to the Court or his 16 presentence report based upon his statements as 17 to his involvement in the criminal enterprise. 18 It seems that Mr. Procopio is denying 19 his involvement, his substantial involvement in 20 the activities. And as the Judge said in the 21 sentencing report, it appears he was one of the 22 top assistants to the -- of the head of the 23 operation. 24 For all of these reasons, I would ask 25 that you preliminarily place Mr. Procopio on 31 ITEM NO. 8c 1 the exclusion list and we continue to move 2 forward. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 5 Good morning. 6 MR. BELL: Good morning. Couple points, 7 I guess, let me address. 8 You can sit. 9 Let me address the points raised in 10 Judge Donio's briefings for sentencing first. 11 And you probably won't find a bigger fan of 12 Judge Donio than myself. I was actually his 13 law clerk. But the commentary and the reasons 14 for sentencing in terms of Mr. Procopio's 15 truthfulness or being a top lieutenant, that 16 sort of thing, he pled guilty to a single count 17 of promoting gambling. The other counts in the 18 indictment were dismissed. 19 And that sort of fact-finding at 20 sentencing absent the right to confrontation 21 was actually struck down in a New Jersey case. 22 It's "Apprendi versus New Jersey," 530 US 466, 23 which is a 2006 US Supreme Court case. So 24 those findings by the Judge are basically void 25 ab initio. 32 ITEM NO. 8c 1 The conduct that he pled guilty to was a 2 single count. In terms of his truthfulness, 3 basically, if you read the reasons for 4 sentencing, one of the things the Judge held 5 against him was he didn't plead guilty right 6 away. Well, obviously, he has a Constitutional 7 right not to plead guilty or give evidence 8 against himself in terms of what his 9 involvements was. So I don't think that should 10 be a factor that the Commission takes into 11 consideration. 12 And, basically, what the State was doing 13 or what the Judge was doing was adopting the 14 State's evidence without the right to 15 confrontation, without a trial. Looking, 16 reading the State's police reports, which 17 obviously only tell one side of the story. 18 In terms of the allegations in the 19 petition, the -- they're conclusory. There's 20 no facts pled as to why my client would be 21 inimical to the interests of New Jersey. It 22 relies on the conviction of the indictable 23 offense, and I would submit that that's double 24 counting. If you're going to use -- if there's 25 two prongs, a conviction and inimicality, the 33 ITEM NO. 8c 1 conviction is one prong. You can't double 2 count and use it for the second prong. 3 You have someone here who had a hundred 4 letters -- character references submitted to 5 the Court at sentencing who has no prior 6 indictable arrest record. He doesn't fall 7 under any of the per se conclusions in terms of 8 being a convicted for cheating, having a 9 license revocation, being a threat to anybody's 10 personal safety. No history exclusion in other 11 jurisdictions. 12 So if you look at the complaint, I'd 13 submit that it doesn't plead sufficient facts 14 that you could find that he meets both prongs 15 of the task required to be placed on the 16 preliminary exclusion list without showing some 17 facts as to why in this particular case this 18 individual is inimical to the interests of 19 gaming. 20 I think it's a fact -- I can't give you 21 the numbers. There's people who are convicted 22 in of felonies in casinos all the time. Every 23 person who has an indictable conviction is not 24 excluded. Trying to exclude this individual -- 25 I guess based on the notoriety of the case. It 34 ITEM NO. 8c 1 was in the newspapers. But beyond that, you 2 have -- this is -- by the way, Mr. Procopio is 3 someone who has played poker almost every day 4 for years. So one incident over years and 5 years and years, I don't think rises to the 6 level. 7 And the last point that I would raise is 8 that New Jersey, unlike most other states in 9 this country, doesn't have a nolo contendere, 10 no-fault, no-contest plea. So the fact of the 11 matter is, people end up pleading guilty to 12 things because they -- it's guilty or not 13 guilty. And I think that that's something that 14 we will explore further on in this case as to 15 what the -- what the real proofs against Mr. 16 Procopio was. 17 The last point is the actual conduct 18 that he pled to at the sentencing hearing was 19 one time he took $300 from someone who said, 20 can you give this to your friend, Mr. Micali? 21 He took the $300 and gave it to him. That was 22 the factual basis for his plea. It didn't 23 involve usury, racketeering, anything like 24 that. So I think based on the bare-bones 25 complaint and the history of this individual, 35 ITEM NO. 8c 1 he doesn't warrant preliminary exclusion 2 pending the outcome of the hearing. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Let me ask if there 4 are any questions before we hear from Mr. 5 Stebbins, who I'm sure is going to have a 6 response. 7 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions at 8 this time. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Stebbins? 10 MR. STEBBINS: Madame Chair, members of 11 the Commission, as I said in my opening 12 remarks, there's two separate bases for the 13 exclusion here. One is the conviction for an 14 offense punishable by more than six months, and 15 we have that by virtue of this plea to 16 promoting gambling. And let's recognize what a 17 plea is. It's a deal that he's cut to reduce 18 his liability, and it saves the State time in 19 prosecuting the full case. 20 I read the reasons for sentencing. That 21 goes to the inimicality, to paint a picture for 22 you in this preliminary hearing as to the 23 nature and extent of what was going on on the 24 inimicality issue, not necessarily on the 25 conviction issue. 36 ITEM NO. 8c 1 So I would suggest to you that we have a 2 strong basis for exclusion here, and it's 3 entirely appropriate to place Mr. Procopio on 4 the exclusion list pending the full hearing. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 6 Any response? 7 MR. BELL: I have nothing further. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Thank you. 10 I think you understand what our process 11 is in terms of this being a -- you know, 12 placing him on the exclusion list pending the 13 final outcome. 14 MR. BELL: I understand. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: So this is a step in 16 the process. 17 Are there any questions? 18 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No question, 19 Madame Chair. 20 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Well, just a 21 comment. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. Commissioner 23 Epps. 24 COMMISSIONER EPPS: It's been the 25 practice here at the Commission that we really 37 ITEM NO. 8c 1 don't entertain arguments whereby you say I 2 took the plea then because it was convenient, 3 but what I pled to didn't really happen. And 4 now I don't want you to use the plea against 5 me. That -- we've not accepted that type of 6 argument here. And so in the hearing, you 7 would have to go a little further than that to 8 get over the hurdle. 9 But as to this motion, I'm going to move 10 that we grant the Division's request for 11 plenary -- plenarily placement of the name -- 12 of the name of Mr. Procopio on the exclusion 13 list pending final outcome of the petition for 14 final exclusion. 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: 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 Thank you. 23 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 24 MR. PROCOPIO: Thank you. 25 MR. BELL: Thank you. 38 ITEM NO. 8a 1 MS. FRIGEN: Madame Chair, the next case 2 we have is Nicolas Caltabiano. Mr. Caltabiano 3 is present. He's going to have a seat in a 4 moment. 5 Again, since this is a motion brought by 6 the Division in application, and I would ask 7 the Division to go forward first. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Ficchi? 9 MR. FICCHI: Thank you. Good morning, 10 Madame Chair and Commissioners. 11 DAG Stebbins laid out pretty clearly 12 what the overall facts are in this matter. Mr. 13 Caltabiano was another gentleman who was 14 involved in a rather extensive sports betting 15 ring that was operating out of the Borgata. 16 Involved a considerable amount of money, as you 17 well know. 18 And Mr. Caltabiano was involved in that 19 and, in fact, pled guilty to promoting gambling 20 based on the facts of that particular matter 21 which extended for some period of time. So it 22 wasn't a single incident. It happened over a 23 period of time. 24 So based upon that and the fact that it 25 was operating out of a casino hotel, and the 39 ITEM NO. 8a 1 other gentleman, the other attorney had 2 mentioned that this case got a lot of 3 notoriety. Well, it certainly did because it 4 certainly put, you know, everyone in a bad 5 light and, you know, the City and so forth to 6 have this kind of activity go on, and certainly 7 is something I know that the Commission is very 8 concerned about, is very sensitive to. 9 So with that I would ask that Mr. 10 Caltabiano be put preliminarily on the 11 exclusion list pending a hearing. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 13 Mr. Caltabiano is there anything you'd 14 like to say today? 15 MR. CALTABIANO: Yeah. I would like to 16 say -- 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We need to have you 18 sworn. Would you please rise? 19 20 NICHOLAS CALTABIANO, was duly sworn to 21 testify in this matter. 22 23 MR. NANCE: Please state your name for 24 the record. 25 MR. CALTABIANO: Nicholas Caltabiano. 40 ITEM NO. 8a 1 MR. NANCE: Thank you. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. What would you 3 like to tell us? You can sit down if you're 4 comfortable. 5 MR. CALTABIANO: Okay. First of all, 6 I'd actually like to ask to be adjourned 7 because I received my mail -- I live in 8 Brigantine, New Jersey. I lived there for two 9 years. And the Commission sent me a packet in 10 Mays Landing where I didn't get the mail for a 11 week and a half. I've had the packet for a 12 week and a half, and now I haven't had the time 13 to get a money together to get a lawyer to 14 represent me properly in this matter. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. You know that 16 this is a preliminary exclusion. It is not a 17 final exclusion so you will have time to get an 18 attorney prior to the scheduling -- 19 MR. CALTABIANO: Right. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: -- of this matter if 21 you wish to do so. 22 MR. CALTABIANO: I would like to -- yes. 23 I would like to a lawyer to represent me, like, 24 in the preliminary stages, though. The whole 25 way through. Is that possible to get 41 ITEM NO. 8a 1 adjourned? 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: What would the 3 Division say to that? 4 MR. FICCHI: Well, not to be 5 unreasonable, I mean, if there was any concern 6 about the service of it, I mean, I haven't been 7 contacted. I mean, as far as I know, the 8 Division hasn't been contacted that, you know, 9 service wasn't properly made. I don't -- so 10 it's certainly your discretion on that. I 11 guess if you -- it could be rescheduled very 12 quickly, but I can't really acquiesce to it. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. 14 Miss Frigen? 15 MS. FRIGEN: I would note that Mr. 16 Caltabiano did contact me subsequent to -- this 17 was actually a second service attempt. Our 18 first one all together had come back as 19 undeliverable, and then we contacted the 20 Division. They provided the Mays Landing 21 address. A week or so afterwards, Mr. 22 Caltabiano -- 23 MR. CALTABIANO: Right. 24 MS. FRIGEN: -- told me that, you know, 25 he had relocated, and he just recently brought 42 ITEM NO. 8a 1 me a change of address. 2 We leave to the Commission's discretion 3 whether or not it wants to defer adjourn action 4 on this until the next meeting. 5 I would note that pursuant to a court 6 order, it's my understanding that you are 7 presently restricted right now from entering a 8 casino pursuant to the terms of your probation. 9 MR. CALTABIANO: Correct. 10 MS. FRIGEN: Is that correct? 11 MR. CALTABIANO: Yeah. That's correct. 12 MS. FRIGEN: Okay. So there is some 13 scope right presently prohibiting Mr. 14 Caltabiano from entering a casino via a court 15 order, if that's of any assistance. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: That's helpful. Let 17 me -- is there a motion to adjourn this matter 18 or -- 19 COMMISSIONER EPPS: We don't need a 20 motion, do we? 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yeah. I think we do 22 need a notion if we going to adjourn it. 23 MS. FAUNTLEROY: Yeah. I think you do. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Any opportunity to -- 25 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: I move that we 43 ITEM NO. 8a 1 adjourn this until our next meeting. 2 MR. CALTABIANO: Thank you. I 3 appreciate it. 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a second? 5 I'll second that motion. 6 The motion has been made and seconded. 7 All in favor? 8 (Ayes.) 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 10 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Opposed 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Did you oppose? 12 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Opposed. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 14 Motion carries four to one. 15 All right. We're going to adjourn this 16 matter to give you an opportunity to get an 17 attorney. 18 MR. CALTABIANO: I appreciate it. 19 MS. FAUNTLEROY: October 27th is the 20 next meeting date. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The next meeting date. 22 MR. CALTABIANO: Thank you very much. I 23 appreciate very much. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Thank you. 25 MR. FICCHI: Thank you. 44 ITEM NO. 8 1 MS. FRIGEN: And the next two cases 2 would be Michael Connelly and Douglas Rubino. 3 I don't believe either is in the meeting room, 4 but let me ask -- 5 (No response.) 6 MS. FRIGEN: -- if that's the case. 7 Apparently not. 8 I will refer these over to the Division 9 of Gaming Enforcement. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 11 Mr. Stebbins? 12 MR. STEBBINS: My turn again. 13 These are two more individuals in the 14 overall Borgata sports betting adventure. Mr. 15 Connelly pled guilty to promoting gambling. 16 Mr. Rubino pled guilty to conspiracy and 17 certain crimes associated with that. 18 In each instance we have a conviction 19 punishable by more than six months in prison, 20 which is a basis for exclusion. 21 And I would ask argue that the type of 22 activity that they engaged in in a casino, 23 which is something that we as regulators cannot 24 tolerate. So we have two separate bases. 25 I would ask that you order the 45 ITEM NO. 8 1 appropriate orders for each of these 2 individuals. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 4 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Any questions for the 6 Division? 7 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Madame Chair -- 8 okay. 9 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Move to grant 10 the Division's request for preliminary 11 placement of the names of Mr. Connelly and 12 Procopio -- 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Rubino. Rubino 14 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Procopio and 15 Rubino on the exclusion list pending a final 16 outcome of the petitions for final exclusion. 17 MR. STEBBINS: We need the names to kind 18 of -- 19 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Connelly and Rubino. 20 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Connelly and 21 Rubino. 22 MR. STEBBINS: There you go. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Thank you. 24 Is there a second? 25 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Second. 46 ITEM NO. 9 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. 8 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 9 MR. FICCHI: Thank you. 10 MR. NANCE: Item No. 9, reconsideration 11 of an order granting Nancy Reyes her casino 12 license. 13 Miss Frigen? 14 MS. FRIGEN: Let me inquire whether 15 Nancy Reyes is present? 16 (No response.) 17 MS. FRIGEN: Apparently not. 18 For your consideration is -- 19 reconsideration at this point of her license 20 status. She's failed to comply with the 21 Commission order regarding her providing 22 certain reports to the Division. As a 23 condition of licensure, she also failed to 24 attend a conference to address a noncompliance 25 issue. 47 ITEM NO. 9 1 This matter is now brought before you 2 for reconsideration. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 4 Mr. Biscieglia? 5 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 6 Miss Reyes' stipulation of settlement 7 was approved by the Commission on January 7th 8 of 2009. That stipulation required Miss Reyes 9 to report to the Division on a quarterly basis 10 regarding IRS debt, New Jersey State tax debt, 11 and a student loan debt. She has not been in 12 compliance. She's been given several chances 13 to do so, including correspondence from the 14 Division, scheduling of conferences by the 15 Commission. And, as always, the final attempt 16 today. And, actually, when we adjourned the 17 matter, she received two of those attempts -- 18 or two of those chances to come and plead why 19 she was not in compliance, and she has chosen 20 not to take advantage of that. 21 So the Division must ask that the -- 22 respectfully ask that the order granting her 23 licensure be vacated and that her license be 24 denied. 25 Thank you. 48 ITEM NO. 10 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 2 Any questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 4 questions, Madame Chair. 5 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Madame Chair, 6 based on the existing record and the failure of 7 Miss Reyes to comply with the conditions set 8 forth in the Commission order granting her 9 licensure and subsequent failure to address her 10 noncompliance issues after having been afforded 11 the opportunity to do so, I move that we vacate 12 the existing order pursuant to 80(a) and 80(d) 13 of the Act and deny her casino employee license 14 application. 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: 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 Thank you. 23 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 24 MR. NANCE: Item No. 10, petition of 25 Avenue Capital Management, II, LP, for approval 49 ITEM NO. 10 1 necessary to modify the structure for holding 2 an investment in Trump Entertainment Resorts, 3 Inc. 4 Miss Wozniak? 5 MS. WOZNIAK: Good morning, Chair, 6 Commissioners. 7 You have a draft resolution which I have 8 also distributed to the parties. And I would 9 note that there is a sealing request as to 10 Exhibit D to the petition, the Revised Avenue 11 New Jersey Trust Agreement. 12 Mr. Madamba is here on behalf of the 13 Petitioners and Mr. Fogarty for the Division. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning, Mr. 15 Madamba. How are you? 16 MR. MADAMBA: Good morning, Madame 17 Chair, members of the Commission. Pat Madamba 18 from the law firm of Fox Rothschild on behalf 19 of Avenue Capital Group. 20 In July of this year the Commission 21 granted an entity within Avenue Capital Group, 22 Avenue Entertainment, interim casino 23 authorization. Today we're seeking essentially 24 three categories of relief with respect to the 25 ICA, and as they move towards qualification. 50 ITEM NO. 10 1 One is approval of certain tax-driven 2 modifications to the structure for holding 3 Avenue Capital Group's interests in Trump 4 Entertainment. There's no change in who's 5 controlling the investment, what have you. All 6 of the changes are on the noncontrol side of 7 the investment. 8 Second is approval of certain technical 9 amendments to Avenue's previously approved 10 Interim Authorization Trust Agreement. Those 11 modifications are to reflect proposed 12 structural changes as well as to update the 13 agreement since it was drafted and entered into 14 sometime before Trump's actually went through 15 its reorganization. 16 And, third, there's a determination that 17 Randal Klein is no longer a natural person 18 qualifier of Avenue Entertainment. He was 19 deemed a qualifier back in July. He no longer 20 has any duties or responsibilities with respect 21 to this investment. He does continue to be an 22 employee of the investment manager, of that 23 investment manager, not only services this 24 investment, but services all of Avenue's US 25 funds, and Mr. Klein has no duties -- he has no 51 ITEM NO. 10 1 present duties with respect to this investment. 2 We've had an opportunity to review the 3 draft resolution, and it is acceptable to us. 4 I would like to thank Miss Wozniak. She 5 is always helpful. She is always timely. 6 She's always professional. And also Mr. 7 Fogarty. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 10 Mr. Fogarty? 11 MR. FOGARTY: Good morning, Chair, 12 Commissioners. 13 We responded to this petition by letter 14 dated September 24, 2010. We tried to explain 15 what's -- what it was that the Avenue Group was 16 doing in terms of changing its structure, which 17 all seemed to be, in the main, due to some tax 18 policy that was involved. We generally have no 19 objection to any of the requests that have been 20 sought. 21 I do need to correct one thing, though, 22 in my report, and this is with regard to Mr. 23 Klein, the relief sought regarding Mr. Klein. 24 I had indicated in my letter report that he was 25 no longer employed with this investment 52 ITEM NO. 10 1 manager, Avenue Group, which is Avenue Capital 2 Management II. Well, he is still employed with 3 that, so I would like to make that correction. 4 That was pointed out to me by Mr. Madamba. I 5 didn't tell him I purposefully put the mistake 6 in there to see if he was reading my stuff. 7 (Laughter.) 8 MR. FOGARTY: Because that wasn't true. 9 That's why I didn't tell him that. So I've 10 made that correction. 11 But I've seen Miss Wozniak's draft 12 resolution, the one dated October 12th, and we 13 have no objection to its entry. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 15 Any questions? 16 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 17 Madame Chair. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mary explained it very 19 well with the colored chart. 20 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Yes. I want to 21 thank Mary for always making this 22 understandable when it could be anything but 23 that. 24 MR. MADAMBA: It's quite some chart. 25 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: To those of who 53 ITEM NO. 10 1 who are not part of that world. 2 So, in that spirit, I move that we adopt 3 the draft resolution and: 4 A, approve the transfers of the Avenue 5 New Jersey Class B non-voting interests as set 6 forth in the petition; 7 B, find that the only new entity or 8 natural person qualifiers for purposes of the 9 revised structure and the Avenue New Jersey ICA 10 are: Avenue International Master AIV, II, LP; 11 Avenue CDP Global Operations -- I'm sorry. 12 Global Opportunities Fund AIV I, LP, ASSF IV, 13 AIV III, LP -- these are Roman numerals, 14 actually so -- and ASSF AIV, II, LP; 15 C, approve the form of the Second 16 Amended and Restated Trust Agreement and the 17 form of the Avenue New Jersey Second Amended 18 and Restated, LLC, agreement; 19 And, D, find that Randal Klein is no 20 longer required to qualify in connection with 21 the Avenue NJ ICA and permit his application 22 for qualification to be withdrawn, all to the 23 extent set forth and subject to the conditions 24 in the resolution. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a second? 54 ITEM NO. 11 1 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 2 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Could you say that 3 again? 4 (Laughter.) 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is this just a general 6 up-and-down vote? Roll call? 7 MR. NANCE: No. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: No. Okay. 9 The motion has been made and seconded. 10 All in favor? 11 (Ayes.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 13 (No response.) 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. MADAMBA: Thank you. 17 MR. NANCE: Item No. 11, Joint Petition 18 of Honorable James R. Zazzali, New Jersey GL, 19 LLC, and MGM Resorts International for approval 20 of a purchase and sale agreement and related 21 relief. 22 Miss Richardson? 23 MS. RICHARDSON: Good morning, Chair and 24 Commissioners. 25 Would counsel please enter their 55 ITEM NO. 11 1 appearances? 2 MR. CASIELLO: Nick Casiello, law firm 3 of Fox Rothschild appearing on behalf of 4 Petitioner MGM Resorts International. 5 MR. OETTLE: Kenneth F. Oettle of the 6 firm of Sills, Cummis & Gross appearing for the 7 Trustee. 8 MR. SCHRIER: Good morning, Madame 9 Chair, members of the Commission. Stephen D. 10 Schrier of the firm of Blank Rome on behalf of 11 New Jersey, GL, LLC. 12 MR. ROVER: George Rover on behalf of 13 the Division. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 15 You may proceed. 16 MR. CASIELLO: Thank you, Madame Chair. 17 I'll commence the proceedings. And if you got 18 the last one right, this one's a piece of cake. 19 (Laughter.) 20 MR. CASIELLO: This is an important and 21 significant petition, but it is really 22 relatively simple. 23 As you know, MGM, as part of the 24 stipulation of settlement with the Division of 25 Gaming Enforcement, placed its ownership 56 ITEM NO. 11 1 interests in Borgata and certain land it owns 2 and leases to Borgata into a divestiture trust 3 and is required to sell that property within a 4 set period of time. The petition seeks 5 approval for MGM to sell the real estate and 6 leases to an affiliate of Vornado Realty, a 7 large, publicly traded real estate investment 8 trust. 9 The relief requested in the petition is 10 twofold. One, that the Vornado affiliate 11 simply needs to be an applicant for a 12 non-gaming related casino service industry 13 license to acquire this interest. That is 14 consistent with the prior rulings of the 15 Commission since the affiliate will have no 16 control over the casino licensee. 17 And, two, a determination that under the 18 trust agreement we have all requisite approvals 19 necessary to transfer from MGM Resorts through 20 the Trustee to Vernado, the land and leases. 21 That ruling, of course, is part of a first 22 ruling if all the Vernado affiliate needs is a 23 non-gaming CSI license, then we should have all 24 the approvals we need under the trust agreement 25 to make the transfer. 57 ITEM NO. 11 1 Lastly, we are asking that certain 2 aspects of the purchase and sale agreement be 3 sealed. And we have received a draft 4 resolution from Ms. Richardson, and it is 5 acceptable to us in form and substance. 6 And, of course, I will be happy to 7 answer any questions that you may have. 8 And I will now turn it over to these two 9 gentlemen. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 11 Mr. Schrier? 12 MR. SCHRIER: Thank you, Madame Chair. 13 As Nick indicated, I represent a Vornado 14 entity known as New Jersey GL, LLC, which is 15 held through a series of intermediary companies 16 by Vernado Realty Trust, which is a publicly 17 traded real estate investment trust on the New 18 York Stock Exchange. 19 What we are seeking today is, as Nick 20 indicated, the opportunity to receive the 21 approval of the Commission to acquire these 11 22 acres or so of land, part of which underlies 23 the casino hotel, part of which does not, as 24 well as a determination by the Commission that 25 New Jersey GL, LLC, should be licensed as a 58 ITEM NO. 11 1 non-gaming CSI. 2 We've worked with Commission staff and 3 Division staff on this. We've talked about the 4 different arrangements that we've requested in 5 the petition. And we join with the trustee and 6 with MGM in that petition seeking that relief. 7 And in furtherance of that, we have 8 filed on behalf of New Jersey GL, LLC, a 9 non-gaming CSI application with the Division of 10 Licensing, and for purposes of that filing has 11 been deemed complete assuming that the 12 Commission grants our request to be licensed in 13 that capacity. 14 As Mr. Casiello said, once that 15 acquisition occurs, only a portion of the land 16 will be held, and it's just the ground that 17 will be held by New Jersey GL, LLC. They won't 18 share in any of the gaming revenues, and they 19 won't have the availability to control any of 20 the day-to-day operations of the Borgata 21 facility or the casino licensee. 22 So with that, and, again, I've reviewed 23 the resolution that's been prepared by Miss 24 Richardson. And we are in agreement with it. 25 And we'd ask that the Commission approve the 59 ITEM NO. 11 1 relief requested in the petition. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 4 Mr. Oettle? 5 MR. OETTLE: Good morning Madame Chair, 6 Commissioners. 7 The Trustee simply joins in the remarks 8 of Mr. Casiello and Mr. Schrier. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 10 Mr. Rover? 11 MR. ROVER: Yes. We have filed a 12 response to the joint petition, and "we" 13 meaning the Division, concurs in the relief 14 requested. 15 We would specifically note that we 16 concur in a determination that NJ GL, LLC, only 17 needs a non-gaming casino service industry 18 license to acquire the trust property. And we 19 also concur in the revised, more limited 20 sealing request submitted by the parties. 21 And with that, we have reviewed the 22 draft resolution, and we consent to its entry. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 24 Any questions? 25 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 60 ITEM NO. 11 1 Madame Chair. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: In March 2010 the 3 Commission approved a stipulation and trust 4 agreement entered into by MGM, the Division of 5 Gaming Enforcement, and Marina District 6 Development Company, better known as the 7 Borgata. That stipulation and trust agreement 8 required MGM to divest its ownership interests 9 in Borgata, resolving the Borgata's reopened 10 2005 casino license. The casino license 11 reopening was prompted by issues raised in the 12 Division of Gaming Enforcement's May 2009 13 special report concerning MGM's joint venture 14 project in Macau. Rather than litigate the 15 issues presented by the special report, the 16 parties, the Division of Gaming Enforcement and 17 MGM, elected to settle the matter, and we 18 approved the resulting stipulation and trust 19 agreement. 20 By the terms of the stipulation and 21 trust agreement, MGM placed all of its 22 ownership interests in Borgata in a trust which 23 is administered by Former State Supreme Court 24 Chief Justice James Zazzali, whom we've 25 qualified as trustee. The trust must be 61 ITEM NO. 11 1 disposed of within 30 months of the trust 2 becoming effective, which occurred on March 3 24th, 2010. For the first 18 of those months, 4 MGM has the right to direct the trustee to sell 5 all or part of the trust's property. 6 MGM has found a buyer for a portion of 7 the trust property comprised of certain land 8 parcels necessary to Borgata's casino 9 operations along with long-term leases for each 10 parcel which were formerly leased from an MGM 11 affiliate to Borgata. That buyer is New Jersey 12 GL, LLC, and MGM, along with the buyer and 13 Trustee Zazzali, seek approval of the purchase 14 and sale agreement for the four land parcels 15 and each accompanying ground lease. 16 Since New Jersey GL, LLC, is purchasing 17 casino-related lands and will lease the land to 18 Borgata, we are asked to determine what 19 licensing status New Jersey GL has under the 20 Act. New Jersey GL seeks a ruling that it is 21 not required to obtain a casino license but 22 rather a non-gaming CSI license. 23 Based on a review of Section 82 and the 24 concurrence of the Division, for my part, I 25 agree that CSI licensure is appropriate. New 62 ITEM NO. 11 1 Jersey GL will be a property owner collecting 2 rent pursuant to long-term leases with the 3 Borgata but will not have control over 4 Borgata's operations. 5 As to the purchase and sale agreement, 6 in my view, the agreement should be approved by 7 the Commission. It is the first step of the 8 disposition of MGM's ownership interests in 9 Borgata as required by the stipulation and 10 trust agreement. 11 So, therefore, I now move that the 12 Commission adopt the draft resolution and grant 13 the relief requested by the joint petitioners, 14 including a limited sealing request as to the 15 purchase and sale agreement in accordance with 16 the findings and rulings in the resolution. 17 And I so move. Is there a second? 18 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion has been made 20 and seconded. This is a roll call vote. 21 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 22 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 23 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Epps? 24 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Yes. 25 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fanelle? 63 ITEM NO. 11 1 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Yes. 2 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Harrington? 3 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Yes. 4 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 6 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 7 the motion is unanimous. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you, 9 MR. CASIELLO: Madame Chair, may I 10 impose upon you all for 30 seconds of your 11 time? 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure, Mr. Casiello. 13 MR. CASIELLO: As you know, under the 14 terms of the trust agreement, the direct 15 communication between myself and Ken Oettle, as 16 counsel for the Trustee, is very limited and 17 circumscribed. We, of course, had specific 18 permission to communicate with respect to this 19 and other issues. I simply wanted to say that 20 I really appreciate, and on behalf of my 21 client, the cooperation and efforts of Chief 22 Justice Zazzali as Trustee and Mr. Oettle as 23 his counsel, and that we find their fees to 24 have been very reasonable to date. 25 Thank you very much. 64 ITEM NO. 12 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 2 MR. SCHRIER: Thank you all. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 4 MR. NANCE: Item No. 12, proposed 5 adoption of amendments for "EZ Baccarat." 6 Mr. Mamolen? 7 MR. MAMOLEN: Before you is our 8 amendment for final adoption in the games of 9 baccarat and mini-baccarat, table version, 10 sit-down version of baccarat. In essence, 11 these are for a no-vigorish variation of 12 baccarat whereby essentially treating a winning 13 banker's hand where the three-card point total 14 is seven is now deemed a push, which would make 15 up for the lost vigorish. 16 And it's published in the New Jersey 17 "Register." There have been no comments 18 received upon publication, and it's before you 19 for final adoption. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 21 Are there any questions? 22 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 23 questions, Madame Chair. 24 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Move to adopt as 25 published. 65 ITEM NO. 13 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a second? 2 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: 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 Thank you. 10 MR. NANCE: Item No. 13, petition of 11 James Rosselli for a hearing in rule-making 12 pursuant to NJSA 5:12-69 and NJSA 19:40-3.6. 13 Mr. Briliant? 14 MR. BRILIANT: Good morning, Madame 15 Chair and Commissioners. 16 Mr. Daily is here on behalf of the 17 Petitioner. Mr. Stebbins is here on behalf of 18 the Division. 19 We did notice Caesars, and they 20 indicated that they have elected not to enter 21 an appearance in this matter. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 23 Good morning, Mr. Daily. 24 MR. DAILY: Michael Daily of Westmont, 25 New Jersey, on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. 66 ITEM NO. 13 1 Rosselli, who is here. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 3 Mr. Stebbins, you just want to enter 4 your appearance for the record? 5 MR. STEBBINS: Oh. Lane Stebbins on 6 behalf of the Division. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 9 Mr. Daily, you may proceed. 10 MR. DAILY: Yes. As set forth in the 11 petition, Mr. Rosselli ended up in a dispute. 12 There was -- that was a private matter with 13 Caesars. Caesars objected to some 14 communications that Mr. Rosselli had, and they 15 levied upon him as a punishment that he was 16 barred from their premises, which would include 17 their casinos in Atlantic City. There were no 18 criminal charges filed, no disorderly persons 19 charges filed. Caesars contacted the state 20 police. They contacted Mr. Rosselli. And 21 nothing further became of the incident other 22 than Mr. Rosselli being barred. 23 Mr. -- obviously, Mr. Rosselli's 24 relationships with the spa and the hotel 25 facilities is not what the petition involves. 67 ITEM NO. 13 1 It involves him being excluded from the 2 Harrah's casinos in Atlantic City. And we 3 submit that that is an issue that would fall 4 within the jurisdic -- the broad jurisdiction 5 of this court -- of this Commission. 6 I would also suggest, because counsel 7 mentioned to me, well, you might -- maybe this 8 is something that could be resolved by the 9 courts. I'm not sure of that. Courts 10 generally don't give advisory opinions, and it 11 sort of would be an advisory opinion. But I 12 think there's a bigger policy matter which was 13 raised to me by Judge Newman of the Appellate 14 Division in the "Campione" case, which was when 15 it comes to what goes on in the casinos, we 16 can't have judges and juries in 21 different 17 counties establishing different standards. 18 So I think that there is a policy issue 19 here that for consistency as to who are being 20 barred from casinos under this common-law right 21 that people who are barred be afforded an 22 opportunity -- like people who were here 23 earlier this morning with much more serious 24 allegations against them -- be afforded an 25 opportunity to bring the matter before the 68 ITEM NO. 13 1 Casino Control Commission and for this 2 Commission to determine based upon -- as time 3 goes on they'll be uniformity developed, based 4 upon one, should they be barred? Or if they 5 have been barred, should it remain permanent? 6 So that is the -- that is our 7 application, that Mr. Rosselli's permanent 8 barring be removed and that he be able to 9 return to the Harrah's casinos as if he was 10 a -- any other member of the public. 11 Obviously, we don't ask any relief about his 12 right to a spa or that stuff. It has to do 13 with the casino operations. 14 And we also suggested that it would be a 15 good idea to establish a regulation that would 16 set forth what someone in Mr. Rosselli's 17 position would -- could do in order to bring 18 the matter -- to make it clear that you can 19 bring this type of matter before the 20 Commission. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 23 Just let me ask, Mr. Daily, you were the 24 attorney in "Campione"; is that correct? 25 MR. DAILY: Yes. Yes, ma'am. 69 ITEM NO. 13 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: And you were really 2 arguing the other side in "Campione," if I read 3 my notes correctly. 4 MR. DAILY: Yes. Yes. I was. But 5 there -- there was also a position had been 6 taken which in the Tose case the Third Circuit 7 raised by DGE that this type of arguments, you 8 couldn't bring them before the Commission. So 9 my argument in "Campione" was, well, if I don't 10 come to court, I can't go anywhere because here 11 are all these letters that say we don't 12 entertain these kinds of complaints. And even 13 if we did, we could not order restitution to 14 the patron. 15 And then eventually the Supreme Court, 16 of course, came up with a hybrid that said, 17 well, you can have your -- your claim for 18 restitution in the courts, but first as to the 19 casino issues, you go to the Commission. They 20 render a ruling, and then if it's favorable, 21 you go back to the courts for restitution. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Let me ask before we 23 hear from Mr. Stebbins if there's any 24 questions. 25 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions at 70 ITEM NO. 13 1 this time, Madame Chair. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Stebbins? 3 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you Madame Chair, 4 members of the Commission. 5 It must be my day to refer to other 6 people's work in support of my argument. 7 This case has its genesis in a letter, 8 July 22 of 2009, from Ms. Hughes, Vice 9 President of Legal Affairs for Harrah's. It's 10 addressed to Mr. Rosselli. And in that letter 11 she instructs Mr. Rosselli to cease and desist 12 from communicating with Caesars' individuals -- 13 certain individuals at Caesars. Goes on 14 further to say that the directives which 15 culminate with him being formally ejected by 16 Caesars are based upon repeated phone calls and 17 messages. Now I'm quoting from the letter. 18 Repeated phone calls and messages to several 19 Caesars' employees that have contained vulgar, 20 profane, and offensive language as well as 21 threats and attempts at intimidations. Those 22 were Miss Hughes' words. 23 We have to distinguish what this is and 24 what this isn't. This is not, as the previous 25 matters that I appeared before you here today 71 ITEM NO. 13 1 an exclusion pursuant to Section 71. When we 2 talk about an exclusion pursuant to Section 71 3 of the Casino Control Act, there are words 4 which require your particular expertise; career 5 offender. Inimical. With whatever that means. 6 And that's your province to decide, and you 7 have promulgated regulations pursuant to your 8 statutory authority to cover that. 9 What this not is that type of action. 10 What this is a common-law action by Caesars 11 which is their right. So I would first say in 12 response to what Mr. Daily said, that this is 13 indeed a private matter. It is between Caesars 14 and Mr. Rosselli. 15 Secondly, I would take issue with his 16 characterization of Caesars' actions as 17 punishment. That's simply -- I think 18 overstates what's going on here. Caesars, 19 under the statute, has the common-law right to 20 take action, to protect its business interests 21 in the face of disruptive conduct. That's what 22 they did here. This is not a punishment. 23 And, thirdly, Mr. Daily referred to the 24 "Campione" case. In that "Campione" case, 25 there were -- there were specific matters 72 ITEM NO. 13 1 related to your expertise in the operation of 2 casino gaming. Unlike the case here, which is 3 based in common law. So let's go through this 4 relatively quickly. 5 First, Section 71 specifically 6 reserves-- the legislature specifically 7 reserves the common-law right of casino 8 licensees to eject or exclude people. They 9 have that -- that right reserved to them. And 10 they can take that action to preserve and 11 protect their business interests, and indeed 12 that's what happened here. 13 Secondly, again, using the "Campione" 14 case, the Court says that the legislature did 15 not intend to prevent patrons from seeking 16 vindication of common-law claims in courts. 17 You have the common-law rights preserved, and 18 "Campione" says, let's do it in the courts. 19 Thirdly, we have the Smerling case. 20 "Smerling versus Harrah's Entertainment." In 21 that case -- and it involved advertising issues 22 and the validity of certain statements in 23 advertising, and it was in a casino setting. 24 But the Court in Smerling said the only time 25 the agency gets involved is when it requires 73 ITEM NO. 13 1 the particular expertise of the agency to 2 resolve the issues. 3 Again, in this case, that is simply not 4 present. We have common law. We have 5 directives from two courts. We have the 6 statutory provision which says to all of us as 7 regulators, regulators, you stay in your 8 business regulating the industry, using your 9 expertise to make sure that it's run fairly. 10 But we're giving to the casinos the common-law 11 right to protect their business interests from 12 disruptive behavior, and if there's issues 13 related to that, take that before the courts. 14 That's where we are. So in resolving 15 the question of whether or not Mr. Rosselli 16 should have a hearing before you, I would 17 suggest to you, I would urge you to find that 18 Mr. Rosselli does not have a right or any 19 opportunity to come before you. He should go 20 before the courts, as the case law and the 21 statutes have directed. 22 Secondly, with regard to Mr. Rosselli's 23 request that this agency engage in rule-making 24 activity. This -- the Casino Control 25 Commission, you and I, have the statutory 74 ITEM NO. 13 1 obligation to promulgate rules, regulations to 2 implement the Act. That is our mission. And 3 under 69(a) of the Act, the legislature says 4 that the Commission shall be authorized to 5 adopt or an amendment regulations consistent 6 with the policy of the Act and the policy and 7 objectives of the Act and, importantly here, as 8 it may deem necessary to protect the public 9 interests in carrying out the provisions of 10 this Act. 11 This is a common-law matter that Mr. 12 Rosselli brings before you. It is not within 13 our regulatory mission. We have no obligation 14 to move forward with regulations here. And, 15 indeed, if we look back at the case law, 16 "Smerling" and "Campione," he should stay out 17 of the business which is properly the courts 18 business. Let us do our job. Let the courts 19 do their job. For these reasons, Mr. Rosselli 20 should not have a hearing before you. 21 And as to the second part, I would 22 encourage this agency to decline to enter into 23 any rule-making activity with regard to this 24 type of action by a casino, the self-help 25 action. 75 ITEM NO. 13 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 3 Mr. Daily? 4 MR. DAILY: Yes. In reply. 5 First of all, I'm rather perplexed that 6 Counsel for the Commission, who obviously 7 wasn't present and has no first-hand 8 information concerning what Mr. Rosselli did or 9 did not do has represented that Mr. Rosselli -- 10 that Mr. -- that what Caesars claims Mr. 11 Rosselli did is -- is a fact. 12 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Mr. Daily? 13 MR. DAILY: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER EPPS: You referred to 15 Counsel for the "Commission." 16 MR. DAILY: I mean the DGE. 17 COMMISSIONER EPPS: You mean the -- 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 19 MR. DAILY: The Division of Gaming 20 Enforcement. 21 It's -- this is -- that those issues are 22 contested, and it's -- and Mr. Rosselli has 23 never really been -- has never been given an 24 opportunity to tell his -- his side of the 25 story. 76 ITEM NO. 13 1 As to the issue going to the courts, and 2 this is a common-law matter, it -- again, I'm 3 not sure that there's any recognizable 4 common-law claim that Mr. Rosselli could make. 5 He hasn't sustained any monetary or tangible 6 damage, and it would be asking for a court to 7 give an advisory opinion. And at the end of 8 the day, the issue is who should be permitted 9 in casinos? And that is a core issue that I 10 assert is within the jurisdiction of the 11 Commission. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Commissioner Epps? 13 COMMISSIONER EPPS: I have a question, 14 Mr. Daily. 15 MR. DAILY: Yes, Mr. Epps. 16 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Let's do it as a 17 hypothetical. 18 MR. DAILY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Let's assume there 20 was a chain of Sheratons. Not gaming, just 21 Sheratons. 22 MR. DAILY: Uh-hum. 23 COMMISSIONER EPPS: And they all had 24 spas. And Mr. Rosselli had an issue with in 25 the spa one of the Sheratons, and they -- that 77 ITEM NO. 13 1 Sheraton decided they he was excluded from the 2 spa, and then they went further to say that he 3 also excluded from the Sheraton but not just 4 this Sheraton, all of their Sheratons. Because 5 that's a business decision that they make. We 6 don't want to engage in business with this 7 person. 8 MR. DAILY: Uh-hum. 9 COMMISSIONER EPPS: There's no 10 regulating industry that he would seek further 11 advice from or rule-making or whatever from. 12 He just can't go to the Sheraton anymore. 13 You seem to change that scenario to 14 something different because the only added 15 piece to the concept is the attraction that 16 it's also in Caesars, and the Harrah's Hotel is 17 a gaming operation, which is regulated because 18 it's a regulated industry. What seems to 19 happen here is that Harrah's has made a 20 business decision that they as a company don't 21 want to do business with this person, either in 22 their spa or in their other business 23 operations, in their hotels; i.e., their 24 casinos. Those casinos which happen to be 25 regulated by us. Because of the anomaly of 78 ITEM NO. 13 1 those casinos being regulated by us, there seem 2 to be some move to create a matter before us 3 because we regulate the operations that they 4 don't longer choose to engage in business with 5 him with. I don't think that just by having 6 that specific operation in their hotel brings 7 the matter squarely before us. I don't see how 8 we get there. Because if there was some other 9 business in that hotel that was not regulated 10 and they chose to exclude him from that, you'd 11 be in civil court saying, we want to do 12 business -- we want to go there, and they won't 13 let me come. And I don't think the court would 14 even entertained the motion, either. It's 15 just -- 16 MR. DAILY: Exactly. 17 COMMISSIONER EPPS: -- something he's 18 not allowed to do. 19 MR. DAILY: Exactly. 20 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Now -- and but the 21 other matter in this matter is, it's not even a 22 situation where its unique. There are 11 23 operations that offer what he's seeking in the 24 city of Atlantic City, only four of which if 25 it's the entire Harrah's organization he's 79 ITEM NO. 13 1 precluded. So it's not even as if he's 2 precluded from engaging in the operation in 3 which he wants to engage in in the city of 4 Atlantic City. So I still don't see how we get 5 the matter before the Commission to make a 6 decision counter to -- counter to the business 7 decision that Harrah's has made. 8 MR. DAILY: Well, if you say the 9 business decision is affecting who goes into 10 the casino, then you're going to be running 11 afoul of "Houston." Because in "Houston" the 12 casino said -- the resorts took the position 13 that we can -- we can -- we can do a business 14 decision and bar Houston from our premises. 15 And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't. You 16 got to have some sort of statutory authority 17 that's going to be subject to review by the 18 Commission. 19 So, and as I also pointed out in the 20 petition, you also have the problem -- if 21 you're not reviewing these things, you also 22 have the problem that the issue of pretext -- 23 in other words. Is the casino saying oh, he -- 24 he -- he was intoxicated. He was disruptive. 25 Because they want to get rid of a particular 80 ITEM NO. 13 1 player when that person really wasn't that way. 2 So if you just say to the casinos, as long as 3 you come up with the right excuse that it's 4 your common-law right, we're never going to 5 look behind it. We're going to assume that 6 what you say is true, that this person was 7 disruptive, that this person was threatening. 8 And, therefore, they're exclusion is -- is 9 valid. We're not going to look behind it. I 10 suggest that if you don't look behind it, then 11 you're going to run into the -- into the 12 potential that the he casinos can start using 13 pretext to pick and choose who they want 14 playing their games. 15 COMMISSIONER EPPS: But it still seems 16 to me that -- well, no. Let me ask it this 17 way. Do you suggest that in this matter gaming 18 operations came into play in the decision? Are 19 you suggesting that is present in this matter? 20 MR. DAILY: I'm not ruling it out. Let 21 me put it that way. And we don't know until -- 22 if you don't investigate it, we don't know. 23 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Well, it seems to me 24 that you would know as the offended patron -- 25 MR. DAILY: He did -- 81 ITEM NO. 13 1 COMMISSIONER EPPS: If anyone knows, you 2 would know. 3 MR. DAILY: He did have winnings of 4 something like -- at the time he was like up, I 5 think, ahead of the house something like 6 $80,000. 7 COMMISSIONER EPPS: But is this a new 8 assertion? I mean, has it previously been 9 asserted that something in the gaming operation 10 was -- 11 MR. DAILY: But that wasn't in the 12 petition. 13 COMMISSIONER EPPS: That's a new 14 assertion. 15 MR. DAILY: Well, it would be something 16 that would be brought up at a plenary hearing. 17 COMMISSIONER EPPS: But that seems to me 18 that that now changes the argument. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Stebbins? 20 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 21 First of all, Counsel in his responding 22 remarks commented upon my stating facts that I 23 didn't know, whatever. All I did was to read 24 Ms. Hughes' letter without vouching for it, and 25 I read it for purposes of explaining how we got 82 ITEM NO. 13 1 here, not that it's accurate or inaccurate. I 2 make no comment on that. 3 Secondly, with regard to running afoul 4 of the "Houston" case, that was a case where 5 there was a card counter, and the casino took 6 it upon themselves to take action there. Court 7 ruled, place public accommodation, you can't do 8 that. And I agree with that. However, the 9 statute and the other case law has said, well, 10 maybe you place a public accommodation, you the 11 casino still have the common-law right to 12 protect your business interests from 13 disruption. 14 And, Commissioner Epps, you were right 15 on the mark when you use the example of the 16 Sheraton where there's disruptive activity 17 there. You know, that's what we have. And to 18 suggest now that there might be some gaming 19 interest is simply not right. The petition 20 itself talks about activities in the spa. It 21 talks about different things. There's not one 22 mention in there of anything related to gaming 23 activities, which the actions of Caesars caused 24 harm to Mr. Rosselli. This is purely outside 25 of the casino. 83 ITEM NO. 13 1 Again, I would say this is not our 2 arena. This is not ours to do. We should -- 3 we should decline to afford a hearing in this 4 forum, and we should decline to engage in 5 rule-making. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 8 Any other questions? 9 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 10 questions, Madame Chair. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: You know, I -- I have 12 to say, I have to agree with you Mr. Stebbins. 13 I just don't see where we get there based on 14 what we've been presented with. I think that 15 if there are additional facts, then, I guess -- 16 I guess you're free to file another petition 17 with respect to that. But I just don't see the 18 connection with respect to gaming at this 19 point. 20 So, you know, let me just say, that in 21 2009, Mr. -- 22 Unless you have anything else you want 23 to add? 24 MR. DAILY: No. No. Thank you. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: In 2009, Mr. Rosselli 84 ITEM NO. 13 1 was barred from entering spa at Caesars and was 2 subsequently excluded from the entire Caesars 3 Hotel Casino as well as all other Harrah's 4 affiliated casinos in Atlantic City. He claims 5 his exclusion was arbitrary and unreasonable 6 and has asked the Commission to conduct a 7 hearing to determine whether his exclusion is 8 lawful. He also requested that the Commission 9 promulgate a regulation which would provide an 10 evicted or excluded patron with the right to 11 request a hearing regarding the validity of the 12 eviction or exclusion at which the casino would 13 bear the burden of proof. 14 Mr. Rosselli previously filed a patron 15 complaint about his exclusion in April of 2009. 16 By letter dated April 15th, 2009, the 17 Commission responded that it did not have 18 jurisdiction over such issues which was a 19 private matter between Caesars and him. He 20 also filed a separate complaint with the New 21 Jersey Attorney General in April 2009 which the 22 Division responded to and rejected on similar 23 grounds. 24 We've carefully reviewed Mr. Rosselli's 25 requests. In my opinion, the 1998 case of 85 ITEM NO. 13 1 "Campione" versus Tropicana is controlling. In 2 that matter, the New Jersey Supreme Court held 3 that the Commission has primary jurisdiction to 4 resolve issues concerning the interpretation of 5 the Casino Control Act and Commission 6 regulations. However, the Court also found 7 that the legislature did not intend to prevent 8 patrons from seeking vindication of common-law 9 claims in the courts and that the Casino 10 Control Act does not delegate to the Commission 11 the adjudication of a patron's common-law 12 claims. Accordingly, the Court held that the 13 proper venue for a casino patron to file a 14 private common-law claim for damages is in the 15 Superior Court. 16 This matter primarily involves Caesars 17 common-law right to exclude a person from its 18 premises. For that reason alone, the civil 19 court would appear to be the most appropriate 20 and logical venue to hear such an issue and is 21 certainly capable of doing so. 22 Furthermore, this matter has nothing to 23 do with gaming, casino operations, or any 24 reported violations of the Act or Commission 25 regulations. It also does not require or 86 ITEM NO. 13 1 depend upon any interpretation of the Act or 2 Commission regulations, notwithstanding the 3 passing reference in Section 71.1 of the Act to 4 the common-law right of a casino licensee to 5 exclude or eject disruptive or disorderly 6 persons from its casino hotel premises. 7 On the other hand, this matter has 8 everything to do with the common-law cause of 9 action involving the reasonableness of a patron 10 exclusion. The fact that the Petitioner was 11 evicted from a spa which happens to be located 12 in a casino hotel hardly seems to be a 13 compelling reason for the Commission to 14 exercise its primary jurisdiction authorized by 15 the "Campione" ruling. 16 Additionally, by requesting a hearing on 17 the reasonableness of his exclusion by Caesars, 18 the Petitioner is essentially attempting to 19 appeal the 2009 rejection of his patron 20 complaint by the Commission staff. However, 21 "Campione" also held that if a patient 22 complaint is rejected by the Commission, the 23 patron does not have a right to request a 24 hearing before the Commission because neither 25 the Act nor Commission regulations provide for 87 ITEM NO. 13 1 such a right. 2 Petitioner has also argued that he has 3 no recourse and no avenue of review if the 4 Commission refuses to hear this matter. Such a 5 contention ignores the "Campione" holding that 6 a civil court case has jurisdiction to hear 7 this matter and that fact that such decisions 8 are themselves subject to further judicial 9 review. 10 In that regard, I would also note that 11 the denial of this petition is based solely 12 upon a lack of jurisdiction and is not a 13 comment upon or dispositive on the merits of 14 the case. 15 For the foregoing reasons, I would move 16 that the Commission deny the Petitioner's 17 request for a hearing to determine the 18 lawfulness of his exclusion by Caesars. 19 Is there a second? 20 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 22 made and seconded. All in favor? 23 (Ayes.) 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 25 (No response.) 88 ITEM NO. 14 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 2 For the same reasons, I would further 3 move that the Commission deny the rule-making 4 aspect of this petition as well. Such a 5 proposed regulation would authorize the 6 Commission to conduct hearings and entertain 7 claims which "Campione" has previously held is 8 beyond this jurisdiction. 9 Is there a second to this motion? 10 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 12 made and seconded. All in favor? 13 (Ayes.) 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 15 (No response.) 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 17 MR. DAILY: Thank you. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 19 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 20 MR. NANCE: Item No. 14, petition of 21 Resorts International Hotel, Inc., for an 22 amendment to NJAC 19:47-2.3 pursuant to NJAC 23 19:40-3.6 and NJAC 19:47-8.4 and proposed 24 publication of amendments concerning hand fee 25 in blackjack. 89 ITEM NO. 14 1 Mr. Briliant? 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Briliant? 3 MR. BRILIANT: Yeah. Chair and 4 Commissioners, I spoke with our General Counsel 5 a little earlier this morning, and what we ask 6 is that this matter be adjourned for two weeks. 7 I had a brainstorm, and rather than 8 brainstorm on the record with you, we thought 9 it would be better to present it to you, give 10 you a chance to think about it. But we think 11 we have an even better way to handle it. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Is there a 13 motion to adjourn? 14 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I'll make that 15 motion. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a second? 17 COMMISSIONER EPPS: 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 We'll await your brainstorm. 25 MR. BRILIANT: Commissioner Fanelle 90 ITEM NO. 15 1 thinks I think out of the box, so we'll see how 2 far out of the box I can get. 3 MR. NANCE: Item No. 15, petition of 4 Diamond Gaming, LLC, and Trump Taj Mahal 5 Associates for approval of a new wager in 6 "Diamond Roulette" pursuant to NJAC 19:47-8.4 7 and proposed adoption of amendments to NJAC 8 19:47-5.2. 9 Mr. Briliant? 10 MR. BRILIANT: The game of "Diamond 11 Roulette" is a variation of roulette which uses 12 a roulette wheel with six different colored 13 sections. And this proposal would add what's 14 known as the "dozen wager" to the rules of that 15 game. 16 Notice of Proposal was published in the 17 New Jersey "Register" on June 7th, 2010, and 18 when the public comment period closed on August 19 6th, 2010, no public comment had been received. 20 The matter is now before the Commission 21 for final adoption. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 23 Any questions? 24 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I have no 25 questions, Madame Chair. 91 ITEM NO. 15 1 COMMISSIONER EPPS: I move that we adopt 2 as published with -- hold on. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Without change. 4 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Without change. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a second? 6 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Second. 7 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Second. 8 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: Third. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 10 made and seconded. All in favor? 11 (Ayes.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 13 (No response.) 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 15 MR. BRILIANT: Thank you very much. 16 I'm going to talk to Mary Wozniak and 17 see if I can could borrow her colored printer. 18 (Laughter.) 19 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: It's not a 20 printer. 21 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: It's all done by 22 hand. 23 MR. BRILIANT: By hand? 24 VICE CHAIR HARRINGTON: By hand. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We'll get you a -- 92 1 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: I'll stop at the 2 dollar store. 3 MR. BRILIANT: Okay. 4 (Laughter.) 5 MR. NANCE: In accordance with 6 Resolution No. 09-12-16-20, the next closed 7 session of the Commission shall be held on 8 Wednesday, October 27th, 2010, at 9:15 a.m. in 9 the Commission offices. 10 It is now time for the public 11 participation portion of the meeting. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there anyone from 13 the public who wishes to be heard? 14 (No response.) 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Seeing no one, I'll 16 declare this portion of the meeting closed and 17 entertain a motion to adjourn. 18 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Motion to 19 adjourn. 20 COMMISSIONER FANELLE: Second. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 22 made and seconded. All in favor? 23 (Ayes.) 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 25 (No response.) 93 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion carries. 2 Thank you. 3 (Public Meeting 10-10-14 was adjourned 4 at 11:47 a.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 4 5 I, DARLENE SILLITOE, a Certified Court 6 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New 7 Jersey, certify that the foregoing is a true 8 and accurate transcript of the proceedings. 9 10 11 I further certify that I am neither 12 attorney, of counsel for, nor related to or 13 employed by any of the parties to the action; 14 further that I am not a relative or employee of 15 any attorney or counsel employed in this case; 16 nor am I financially interested in the action. 17 18 19 DARLENE SILLITOE CCR 20 License No XI01023 21 22 Dated: October 17, 2010 23 My Notary Commission Expires July 22, 2014 24 ID No 2062871 25