... of the Hobby Protection Act to convince Paul-son to withdraw the phony Foxy's Firehouse (say that five times fast! <g>) neither adds to nor detracts from the possibility that the act covers casino chips. [Unless, of course, he actually convinced the FTC to step in and force Paul-son to withdraw the chips; it is not my understanding, however, that the FTC intervened.]

Paul-son almost certainly decided it just wasn't worth fighting over and that the cost of litigation to resolve the issue would be excessive.

Some time ago, you sent me a copy of a letter Mr. Ganz sent to your in August 1999 in which he made reference to the application of the Hobby Protection Act to casino tokens. My reading of the statute leads me to conclude that he is simply wrong (isn't the first time two lawyers have disagreed about the meaning of a piece of poorly worded legislation!).

Furthermore, I can find no case law or administrative decision which addresses the specific issue of the applicability of the HPA to casino chips. Apparently, no one has thought it worth the expense to fight the issue out to a publishable decision.

Unless and until I see an OFFICIAL determination that casino chips are included within the HPA, I will continue to think they are not. And that it would be appropriate for us to attempt to rectify the omission.

----- jim o\-S