About this app
About Lucky Halloween
The commission also agreed with the state Department of Commerce’s assessment that the cooperative’s actions were driven by concerns over lost electricity sales rather than legitimate safety risks.
Commissioners pointed to evidence suggesting the tribe may have already been overcharged compared to other member customers.
The Upper Sioux Community also argued that, as a sovereign tribal nation, it is not subject to Minnesota utility regulations. The commission declined to rule on the sovereignty question, concluding it was unnecessary to resolve that issue to determine that Minnesota Valley could not prevent the casino from generating its own power.
About Lucky Halloween
Patent squabbles, including those pertaining to geolocation services, aren’t unheard of in the online gaming space. How things shake out in the Cantor Fitzgerald/DraftKings spat remains to be seen, but it’s possible the deck is stacked against the gaming company.
The Commerce Department has jurisdiction over the USPTO, meaning Lutnick is the boss of the USPTO Director John Squires. Squires, who became 60th director of the USPTO a year ago, has been publicly effusive in his praise of Lutnick.
More relevant to DraftKings is the fact that under his leadership, the patent office has moved to significantly limit access to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) – the very board to which the gaming company is appealing in an effort to have the Cantor patent annulled.
How to play Lucky Halloween
George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.
Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”
Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.
