Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD)

LTFD 0.170

0.0%

Sep 29 11:29 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: T.K. Allen who wrote (5648)	12/17/1997 9:25:00 AM
From: Ed Pettee	Read Replies (1) of 10368

TKA-.In a discusion with a reporter from the "State" yesterday, she stated that the case filed last June, as a class action law suit on behalf of 39 Video Poker players is the one that Condon is trying to have the state of S.C. join. It is my understanding that the judge will first decide whether the state can join that case or not and rule on that issue within the next few weeks. He will then have hearings on the original case in mid Feb. The original case brought in June is the same one you are referring to. This group of lawyers are seeking damages against operators on behalf of these 39 Video Poker players. I do not know who the specific operators are that are the target of that suit. I have a call in to a professor at the Law school in Columbia who follows this,and to an individual at the South Carolina Coin Operators Association, in an attempt to get more specifics on this case and how it is scheduled to proceed. I assume that in the hearings in Feb. the operators will argue that these games are not the same as a lottery and give evidence to support that. It is my understanding that those opposed to video poker have little chance of overturning the public referandum that was passed in Nov. 94 , so they keep trying to claim these games are the same as a lottery since there is a paragraph in their state constitution that bans lotteries. This class action law suit is brought by nine attorneys and is a little like the asbestos and cigarette cases, try to win big judgements and the attorneys walk away with their 33%. This could never be brought where there is no question of the legality of the gambing, they can only prevail if they can win on the question of legality.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next