... himself (and his client) in trouble is to allow his analysis of the law to be influenced by his personal preferences. That's the main reason lawyers are told not to get emotionally involved with their clients (or their cases).

And yes, we do need to have a court tell us that chips are included -- because the only way to use the law is in court. And there, we'll either be told it applies to chips or it doesn't.

I have tried more than 100 cases to jury verdicts and have filed and argued several thousand legal motions and/or appeal briefs. I have seen laws which seemed much more obviously applicable than this one held by courts not to apply. And, I have seen laws which seemed much less obviously applicable than this one held by courts to apply.

I have complete confidence that courts will find laws to have a particular meaning only when they are written with absolute clarity. Which this one isn't.

On the other hand, from a practical point of view, what exactly are we talking about here? Who now has the capability of producing in any quantity fake chips which could pass for real? Just a few major manufacturers, I would think -- and it also appears to me that they are now sufficiently aware of the dangers of producing such chips that they will not do so in the future.

Sure, some individuals may try to fake a small number of chips. But, are they going to be deterred by the HPA even if it does apply to chips. Not very likely.

As for making my reservations about the law public, misplaced reliance on a false premise will do nothing more than create a false sense of security.

I'd prefer it if David's opinion of the law is correct, rather than mine. Absent legally citable authority supporting his position, I still think it prudent to try to get the law changed. So much so, that I will say now that as an additional item on my agenda if elected president of the club, I will inquire into the issue of lobbying by the club on an issue like this and, if it is permissible under the rules applicable to our non-profit status, will undertake to have the law changed to specifically include casino memorabilia.

----- jim o\-S