This is kinda a big deal. Not often that you see the commission break from the board’s recommendations. Also, Shreck dropped the ball big time here. If you don’t know someone is going to be licensed for sure, it never should have gotten to the commission. Should have stalled, filed a petition to retract the application, etc.
So many sanctimonious hypocrites pearl clutching that don’t give people second chances in life; all the while doing the exact same things. Sorry, I thought this story was about Bar Counsel.
I’m not super familiar with the statutory criteria but I think lying about a trip you received from a vendor is a huge deal. A lot of gaming regulation depends on self-policing and if gaming executives can’t be trusted to tell the truth to the regulators that will be an issue.
9:51 here, yeah the crazy thing about this case isn’t the fact that he was denied. Its that his very expensive attorneys didn’t know he wasn’t going to be approved and let it get to this point. Never should have happened. Especially with the advent a couple years ago of the ability to withdraw your application with commission approval. That isn’t good, but it isn’t the kiss of death that this is. Anyway, pretty wild. I imagine they must of been blind sided by this.
I’m guessing they thought they were OK because the Board had recommended approval. Was the fact that the Board approval was conditional enough of a red flag that they should’ve withdrawn? Or was the Brownstein team just convinced it could work miracles?
9:51 here, conditional approvals are not an issue. Happens all the time. Maybe Shrek just thought they wouldn’t dare deny him. Who knows. Maybe they knew this was a possibility and just decided to roll the dice. Seems like a lot of money and time to waste to take a chance on something like this.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2025 11:02 am
Tony Hsieh
Eureka! I just found Hsieh’s will in my safe deposit box.
Side rant: why is an 89 year old still working in a dangerous job? People should not be forced into poverty in old age for lack of a social safety net. And for the elderly who want to continue to work, lawmakers should legislate a work corps for elderly similar to Americorps for young people.
Or you could have saved some money when you were younger.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2025 3:37 pm
dog is blead
Guest
anonymous
October 29, 2025 4:42 pm
Not Nevada, but I saw this morning that the $200 mil+ verdict in the “Take Care of Maya” case was thrown out, primarily based on qualified immunity for the hospital. Her IIED claim was left intact, but the entire case would have to be retried for her to prove it. Sad case. Mom’s cheese had clearly slipped off the cracker a bit, but the conduct of the authorities and the hospital was oppressive.
Given some of the decisions I’ve seen, I think some courts are operating with a distinct lack of oxygen
..or, Judge did not read party briefs and relied on the law clerk’s (or maybe even a 3L intern) recommendation.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/why-gaming-commission-denied-licensing-to-this-rio-parent-company-executive-3529286/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=latest&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=Why%20Gaming%20Commission%20denied%20licensing%20to%20this%20Rio%20parent%20company%20executive
This is kinda a big deal. Not often that you see the commission break from the board’s recommendations. Also, Shreck dropped the ball big time here. If you don’t know someone is going to be licensed for sure, it never should have gotten to the commission. Should have stalled, filed a petition to retract the application, etc.
So many sanctimonious hypocrites pearl clutching that don’t give people second chances in life; all the while doing the exact same things. Sorry, I thought this story was about Bar Counsel.
I’m not super familiar with the statutory criteria but I think lying about a trip you received from a vendor is a huge deal. A lot of gaming regulation depends on self-policing and if gaming executives can’t be trusted to tell the truth to the regulators that will be an issue.
9:51 here, yeah the crazy thing about this case isn’t the fact that he was denied. Its that his very expensive attorneys didn’t know he wasn’t going to be approved and let it get to this point. Never should have happened. Especially with the advent a couple years ago of the ability to withdraw your application with commission approval. That isn’t good, but it isn’t the kiss of death that this is. Anyway, pretty wild. I imagine they must of been blind sided by this.
I’m guessing they thought they were OK because the Board had recommended approval. Was the fact that the Board approval was conditional enough of a red flag that they should’ve withdrawn? Or was the Brownstein team just convinced it could work miracles?
9:51 here, conditional approvals are not an issue. Happens all the time. Maybe Shrek just thought they wouldn’t dare deny him. Who knows. Maybe they knew this was a possibility and just decided to roll the dice. Seems like a lot of money and time to waste to take a chance on something like this.
Tony Hsieh
Eureka! I just found Hsieh’s will in my safe deposit box.
I just found the will in my girlfriend’s vajaja.
Hi, I’m will.
Hahahaha!!
tainted love
Side rant: why is an 89 year old still working in a dangerous job? People should not be forced into poverty in old age for lack of a social safety net. And for the elderly who want to continue to work, lawmakers should legislate a work corps for elderly similar to Americorps for young people.
Or you could have saved some money when you were younger.
dog is blead
Not Nevada, but I saw this morning that the $200 mil+ verdict in the “Take Care of Maya” case was thrown out, primarily based on qualified immunity for the hospital. Her IIED claim was left intact, but the entire case would have to be retried for her to prove it. Sad case. Mom’s cheese had clearly slipped off the cracker a bit, but the conduct of the authorities and the hospital was oppressive.