Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nittany Lion who wrote (7384)	2/16/1998 11:11:00 PM
From: Ed Pettee	Respond to of 10368

Gary It is my understanding that Judge Anderson hearing the case on the issue of whether VGM's violate the state constitution as being a form of a "lottery", will render his decision this week. His decision will go to the State Supreme Court were it is anticipated that this time they will hear the case because it is coming out of a federal court hearing. This is a big issue about the Supreme Court because evidently in two or three other attempts to have the State Supreme Court hear other courts on the issue of constitutionality they have ducked and sent it back to the lower courts. As mentioned earlier he can rule that all machines are illegal , that none are illegal or that some machines (notably poker and blackjack) do require some skill and allow them and rule that the other machines are chance machines with no skill required. That is why there was so much testimony from expert witnesses on whether these machines require any skill or no skill. On the issue of the Senate, it appears at this time that they have over 50% who would vote to ban like the House did, that requires 24 of the 46. However, the Senate Majority Leader Mr. Land has said that he will lead a filibuster of that action and the anti-VGM side needs a two thirds vote to close off a filibuster and at this time they do not have the 30 votes ,they have only 26. This would mean if it was held right now the Anti_VGM group would lose and the House vote would not prevail. I don't know when the Senate plans on addressing this issue. I do know that the newspapers have been suggesting that the Senate postpone doing anything until the Anderson case has been decided and sent to the Supreme Court. I have to say from talking to people in S.C. who are pro-VGM and thought about two months ago that there was no chance of banning the industry, and that what we would see was higher taxes and more regulation, that those people are now worried that there is a momentum working against the industry. Most of it is coming from the Governors strong arming and the churches. There has been an influx in the state from outside giving pastors information to give to their people about the social evils of Video Poker. Some of this info is over blown but it is hard to counter when pastors are giving it out. Hopefully, the Senate will prevail and Anderson will rule favorably.