and now welcome back to another fabulous adventure with the Law at Lawson. And it's not hard for me to come up with a lot of material because these fairs keep on investigating all the corruption here in Honolulu. So they actually make the job a little bit easier. But on a serious note, I wanted to bring you the show today, we're gonna talk about some of the investigations that's going on at the federal courthouse, federal grand jury still investigating as we talked about last week. Captain Wheat, Michael Wheat, federal prosecutor from San Diego, along with his team of Avengers are back. They are the prosecutors who prosecuted Louis and Kat K. Aloha. They're also investigating and had a grand jury investigation going on into the, I guess, the retirement, the $250,000 that the city somehow found, I mean, that's just incredible, man. I mean, here you got it. Chief of police is under indictment, been indicted by the fairs.  He would have to pay back the city, Honolulu, right? The $250,000 within six months. Louis got convicted well over a year ago, last June or July, I believe, right? I was there. I mean, I was sitting like three feet from Louis when the jury said guilty.  You know, sitting in that trial, that whole trial every day, Kat and Louis came to court. You know, this show is supposed to be about this guy, the city manager for Roy Amamea, that got a subject letter and had testified the grand jury last week. I'll get to him in a second. But you know, Louis and Kat throughout that whole trial, right, they came to court every day, right? And matching Aloha where sitting next to each other as the proud couple and all the defendants set there. I mean, we're just such arrogance as if somehow they just knew this jury wasn't going to convict them. That's how I was just like two, three feet away from Louis.  Front row, front row seat when the jury said guilty, right? And Louis, I mean, out of that, so after seeing them for a week after a week coming to court, sitting court, he would lean back in his chair, look at the jury like this, right, in court. And to see that jury come back and say guilty and Louis, like, doubled over, almost like somebody punched him in the gut. All right, so that's just, but anyway, because all this is connected. So keep in mind, again, let's go ahead and show the first slide if we can.  I have a bad time pronouncing anything with a lot of syllables. So this guy is Roy, I'm a mayor, right? Mayor Kirk Caldwell, second in command. Highest ranking person from Caldwell staff to be entangled in federal investigation. That's something to start advertising, right? But he had to appear before a grand jury. So there's different ways you go to the grand jury. And here's why Roy's lawyer, Roy's lawyer is saying in the paper that they're, let me find it for you. Roy's lawyer said that the government has the power to compel the appearance of a grand jury of anyone who government believes may be, may know anything relevant to this investigation. I'm a mayor's lawyer, Lyle, I can't pronounce his name either. His last name said in a statement Friday that the managing director has not committed any crime. And his designation as a subject of a federal investigation is not a surprise. The government has the power to compel the appearance. Okay, but how does the government compel your appearance? So as we go through these grand jury investigations here in Honolulu, I want you to know when you see on the news that someone got a subject letter or somebody got a target letter from the federal government, what does that mean? Right? Or somebody got a subpoena. And so one way that you can be compelled to go to the grand jury, they just give you a subpoena. You sit in the office one day and this guy comes in and the young lady comes in as your subpoena and says that you've been served. You open it up and it's commanding you to appear before the federal grand jury in downtown Honolulu on a certain date.  You still may want to call your lawyer if it's a criminal investigation. But anyway, that, you know, I saw a subpoena and as the slide says, when we talk about, we're going to talk about three things. How to grand jury or how the federal government can compel you to appear in front of a grand jury. That's all going to come by way of subpoena. The first is you're classified as a witness. You get a subpoena as a witness. Right? And that means that you got information about the case. Let's go to the next slide. All right now, this is, yeah, but now remember Keith Connichero and Donna Leon, the city's highest ranking lawyer. And Keith Connichero, our former prosecutor, actually our prosecutor who's on leave. I can't believe he's still our current prosecutor on leave, but he is because he got a target letter. Okay? Now, when we look at this target letter, where does it target? So if, you know, I would be in my office when I was practicing law and I get a call from a client saying, hey attorney Lawson, I got a target letter from the feds. What does that mean?  So you need to come in my office, right? Wiretap, right? And so a target letter is on the opposite end of that spectrum of the witness. Target letter is the most serious letter. Other than the indictment, I mean, the target letter means you just close to indictment, right? And there's a slide talks about at the opposite end of the spectrum of someone classified as a target, right? When the prosecutor deems someone as a target, it means that the government believes that substantial evidence the person has committed a crime. So you have to tell your client, hey man, I serious, get in my office, right? And so they come into your office and we kind of cover this in one of my later classes, earlier classes. Now they come into the office and you have to let them know, hey look, you know, you got a target letter and you can call down to the prosecutor find out what you being the attorney will call down to the prosecutor to find out what's going on.  You don't want to do that with the target letter because if not sooner or later, you may have the US Marshals coming with an arrest warrant because you've been indicted, right? And so again, it really means what the government is saying is look, we got enough evidence on you to charge you right now. However, we're still doing an investigation. Come on down here and we'll continue to do it, you know, and you testify in front of the grand jury and admit to whatever it is we believe you did, give us more information because we want to see how widespread this criminal activity is. And so these letters are used in like white collar crimes. You know, these target letters, subject letters, which we're going to get to next, subject letters and target letters are used in white collar crimes and organized crime like drug conspiracies, right? And so normally when you get a client, if I had a client calling us in or someone calling that wasn't a client yet saying, you know, I want to talk to you, I may want you to be my lawyer. I got a target letter or a subject letter then I already know without don't send anything else. It either involves a drug conspiracy or it involves some type of white collar crime. And so let's go to the next slide. All right, so Donna Leon remember, she got a target letter too. And so why is it serious? And we kind of talked about that, right? And it's formal notice that you will be called to get tested on your federal grand jury.  You get a subject letter. No, that's not true. The government could have issued a witness subpoena. Right? And so let's go to the next slide real quick. Right? And so now we're talking about, you know, the subject letter, right? And so this is what this is. So Donna Leon and Keith County Sherrill, both got target letters from the federal government. We just talked about that, right? It's the most serious you can get under an indictment. Okay? Now, what's the subject letter? A subject letter is somewhere between the witness subpoena and the target letter. It's not as serious as a target letter and it's more serious than getting a subpoena for a witness, right? To a federal prosecutor, the subject is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury investigation. And what that means is the government considers the subject's behavior suspicious. And there's some risk the subject has engaged in a legal activity.  This is the highest ranking person in the city next to the mayor. Why do you, and as you see on that slide, behind him is a guy named Max Sward. And oh, Max, this is Roya Max, right? You see Max back there with his arms crossed. All right, so they both were at the grand jury last week. Now, Max was on the Honolulu County Police Commission pointed by Mayor Carwell when they gave Louis his $250,000 retirement bonus. And maybe this is just my humble opinion. Maybe what's being investigated is why it is that the city felt necessary to give Louis K. Lohan $250,000 after he got indicted. Right, I mean, again, I've been doing this for decades. I have never, never seen a city do something like this after a public official has been indicted to give him $250,000 as a settlement, right? And then now, according to Donna Leon's attorney, I'm just quoting from one of the new sources here because I want to give you the actual facts, right? And so according to her attorney, in addition to being, this is a quote from her attorney with respect to whether or not Donna Leon engaged in criminal conduct. And obviously the lawyer's saying no. In addition to being entirely legal, the severance payment to former Chief K. Lohan was in the best interest of Honolulu as it quickly ended his tenure without further litigation. To suggest that a legal severance payment that accomplishes go with somehow a crime is absurd. Ms. Leon is an attorney of great integrity, is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and should not have her reputation tarnished by this misguided prosecution. Now, you know, and again, as we all know, everybody's, you presumed innocent in our government until and unless the government can prove you're guilty of the crime, right? The presumption of innocence. But again, I'm just telling you, from being a criminal defense attorney, when the target letter comes in as a different Donna Leon and Keith Connichero, I mean, we're talking about serious stuff here, right? You're not gonna get that unless there's been evidence of criminal wrongdoing. So let's go back to this. Now, if you see, again, you still got Max Sword, who was on the police commission, who authorized the settlement. The right of she hand is no longer on the police commission. She resigned a few weeks ago and objected to the settlement, but Sword pushed it. In fact, I think Sword was in the meeting with Donna Leon and counsel for Louis K. Loha when this settlement was worked out. Then they went back in to the police commission and voted and approved it, with the exception of Loretta Sheehan. She voted no on it, okay? So now Max went to the grand jury last week also, along with this guy named Roy, the city manager. This was Max's second time at the grand jury. Now, what could that mean? It could mean that they, so let's say the feds bought Max and six months ago, say Max, you're under oath, right? You're a target or a subject of this investigation and they're asking questions. Then they continue to investigate and then they find out, well, either they find out more evidence that they didn't know and didn't ask Max at that time or they found out evidence that contradicts what Max said earlier. And so they may think Max could be fudging a few things, right, under oath. So they call him back. So you get a client, they just call back to the grand jury twice, remember? At that point, if they're telling different stories, they could be charged with perjury. And perjury means that you told two different stories under oath, right? So that could be a perjury trap. And if you go back to the investigation that was on President Trump, by the former FBI, the head of the FBI, Mueller. Yeah, I thought I was getting old. Yeah, that Mueller investigation, remember? They kept, President Trump kept saying this is a perjury trap and Michael Flynn kept saying this is a print. This is what they're talking about, right? Lying to the feds either under oath or when you're interviewing with the FBI agent or federal agent and you don't tell the truth, you can be charged with perjury. But Max went back twice. So that kind of raises some, we don't know, but I will be concerned if I'm a Max's lawyer. So if Max came to me and said, look, I got another call from the prosecutors that want me to testify again. I want to find out as Max's lawyer what I'm gonna call the prosecutor, what does John want from him? Now, okay, see, I said, look Lawson, we understand all that, all right? So now we got the witness, Supina. Subject letter, which is what Rory is. And then you got the target letters. Those are three things that's coming out from the federal investigation that can compel you to come to the grand jury. You don't have to go, right? If you get a target letter, you can tell the prosecutor, my client's gonna take the fifth. He ain't coming down there or whatever.  Right? He has a right to take the fifth or she has a right to take the fifth. Same with a subject letter. Same as a, as a subpoena for a witness. If you know, if you get a client that says, look, I got a subpoena being a witness, they may not notice, but I know a lot more information because I was involved in the crime and they can take the fifth too. But those are the three ways you get down to the grand jury. Now let's get down to the meat of what we're talking about. Cause he only give me a half hour here at Think Tech Hawaii. And I got a cram all this in and a half hour. But I'm grateful to be able to do it. So here's what we're gonna do. So when you get all these people in here, these people being Roy, Donna Leon, the highest ranking civil attorney involved in this, Max, right? Don't it, right? And again, we keep in mind what the feds are doing is they're climbing up the ladder. They're climbing up the ladder.  They gave her a target letter. They gave my boy Roy. My, they gave him a subject letter and now they calling Max and Roy and Donna down down to the grand jury. Attorney Lawson, should I be concerned? This is Kirk Caldwell calling me, right? And I say, Kirk, I don't want to talk over the phone because your phone might be bugged. So Kirk comes into the office. I'm just telling you straight up, this is what I would tell the client. I would, if I was you, I would be talking over your phone. Now there's a federal investigation going on and it's close to you. So come on in, Kirk. So Kirk comes in and I say, hey, look here, man.  And it seems like they're working their way up because what's curious is who gave them the authority and told them that they should get this done. Whose idea was it that giving Louis $250,000 would be a good idea when he's under federal investigation? Whose brainstorm was that, Kirk? And if we know that some of the funds that was used was federal funds instead of city funds and maybe they came from some type of grant and you took the money from this federal grant to pay off this criminal, then we got some problems, Kirk. So again, you need to let us know, honestly, let me know. It's what I was, people always ask me all the time, hey, when you was practicing law as a defense lawyer, did you want to know if your client did it? Well, I always tell them, yeah, I want my client to tell me the truth. Because see, here's the deal. As long as I know that you telling me the truth, I know when everybody else is lying.  And even some of the investigators and the police is gonna be lying. It's just gonna happen. And so it's odd that sometimes in our system, often in our system of justice, you got so many people in that line and everybody in the courtroom know everybody lying. Judge know the cop line, judge know the witness line, defendant, everybody lying. And we're on a journey to find the truth. But anyway, let's get back to it. So I would tell my client, look, I need to know. As long as I know what the truth is, right? And remember there's an attorney client privilege, so I can't divulge any of this. But if I know what the truth is, and I can go to work on the people that's lying, but if you lying to me and the witness is lying, it's hard for me to cross the exam, right? And so most clients, and one day I'll have a guest, I got some former clients on the mainland that would love to, and you know, reform, they're reformed, right? Ex-murderers and hit man, they would love to come on my show and tell you why it's important for clients to be honest with their lawyer. But anyway, that's beside the points. Let's speed up here. And so again, if Merrick Caldwell came into my office with all this going on right now, I would tell him, yeah, you need to pay a retainer. You need to hire somebody. If it ain't me, you need to get you a lawyer. Because from what? Because the real question is going to be, who gave the order? Look, think about it in miski indictment terms, right? Now they got charged, you got this conspiracy to commit murder to this young man that was from Hawaii County. Remember that, and we'll get back into miski next week. I'm gonna give you guys an update on the miski indictment next week, right? And so you got the individuals who actually killed the young man. But you want to know who gave that order, right? As a prosecutor and the police, but you want who gave the order? Who told you how to give Lloyd $250,000? Where did that come from? Who has to approve that? Who has to put this in motion? Now, again, like I said, we still have this secret grand jury going on. I'm just giving you my opinion, but this is from my experience, right? From looking, from doing this for years and very complicated white collar and criminal enterprise, right? Recal claims or cases. That they looking to go to whoever can get that order. And that's probably the mayor. I could be wrong, but this is my opinion. So you know what? But one thing I'm going to tell you how it is that I'm very seldom wrong or I wouldn't be on here talking like this. And so like I said, it's still my opinion, but that's what they're looking for. Because somebody had to say, that's a good idea to give Lloyd $250,000. And if they're using federal grant money for it, that means that they had to make it work. And why? Did Lloyd have something on somewhere else? Did Kat have something on somewhere else to say, y'all going to pay me $250,000? Or, right, I'm going to start flapping my gums. Think about it. I mean, look, a $250,000 settlement as Donna Leon's lawyer said, and you could do that.  If it's coming from funds that you're allowed to use, but if it's coming from a federal grant and you took money from that grant that has absolutely, because when you got a federal grant, you cannot go outside the terms of that, right? And so if you put it in to get the money for the grant and wasn't up front with it, you could find yourself falsifying documents, right, commit some type of fraud. Now, I don't know. We're just guessing. But I'm telling you, man, I saw Michael Wheaton, when I'm talking about the federal prosecutor and his avengers go after Kat now. And you said, y'all don't remember this, but that jury came back in a heartbeat. I mean, they had fine defendants with all these different charges. That trial lasted for weeks and that jury was out for a couple of hours and it was like guilty. And so two things. Everybody thought, not everybody, but a lot of these politicians and these criminals thought that, you know what? The feds and Didacat and Louis and Han and Bobby Wendell's other two police and they're not gonna get a conviction. When they got that conviction, crossed the board on all charges, only one defendant would sound that guilty. When we and the federal prosecutors got that conviction last year, it woke a lot of these other criminals up. And so they may be down there, like I said, they're not. Look, they calling all these individuals in one by one and it's going higher and higher up that damn food chain. And that's all I'm saying on it. Now let's get back to one last issue before we go. Let's go to the last slide. Hey man, okay, so for you that don't know, that's a picture of Kat K. Aloha, convicted felon Bobby Wendt, convicted felon Derrick Ein and convicted felon Louis K. Aloha. And they still haven't been sentenced yet, right? Now a lot of people are saying, well, I wish, why is it taking so long for them to get sentenced? The courts have opened back up, Lawson. Why can't they get sentenced and go away? Here's why I think it's good that they haven't been sentenced. The COVID pandemic. If you go back and look, Paul Manafort was sentenced to like eight years in federal penitentiary. Then the COVID pandemic, where's Paul at now? He in his, he upstate in New York eating bonbons and with house slippers on and smoking a pipe, watching Fox News. That's where Paul at. Michael Avenatti.  Yeah, Michael Avenatti got convicted by a federal man. He's looking at double digit years. Guess where he at now? He in California, staying with a friend. If Kat and Louis and these other two knuckle here, if Han and when, if they get sentenced now, especially with Kat and Louis age, they coming right back home and they ain't gonna do their time in no penitentiary. They gonna do it on home incarceration. And so one thing I'm, hopefully a judge knows, hey, look, we gonna kick this sentencing down the can till we get this pandemic straight. And then we'll send it down. Cause if anybody deserves to do their time in the penitentiary and not at home eating bonbons, is Kat and Louis after what they did to grandma, Pawana and her uncle, Gerard Pawana. And so again, I know people saying we want them sentenced or they need to go and get sentenced now what's taken so long. I wanna give you the upside to it is you, we want this pandemic to go away. Because I think we'd be, I'd be more upset if she got sentenced and then they sent her right back here to Hawaii to say, you can serve your sentence on home incarceration. Now that, that, that is just wrong. So I'm out of time. Again, next week we're gonna pick back up with, I'm gonna bring you some updates on the Miski enterprise case, but until then, this is a law at Lawson signing off. I'll see you next Tuesday at 1 PM here on Hawaii think type. I'm out.


Okay. Thanks, Dave. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, such for holding this meeting virtually. I'll ask for a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, I'm here. All right, we'll get started. This is a continuation or a resuming our review of the application of FBG Enterprises, LLC, doing business as fanatics. And I believe this is our fourth meeting with you. And so we again extend our great appreciation for your patience as we navigate our busy schedule. We met yesterday at 8 as well from 8 to 10. And we were able to get through much of the list of items for executive session, but not all of them. Our legal counsel has advised that we can go right into our executive session now because we have a proper vote on record. So with that to the public, we will... So Madam Chair, actually before we go, there was the one matter that I had raised with them yesterday. There was a discussion of whether they might be able to quickly talk about it now before we move into executive session. I just wanted to see if we still want to do that or wait till we come back out. And I'll just finish this sentence and then we'll do that and I'll ask if there's anything else. Okay. So we'll be convening back in the public session. This is an opportunity. It's Commissioner O'Brien just mentioned for us to consider whether there's anything else that we would want from an executive session, anything else addressed. And Commissioner O'Brien, I know you raised at least one item yesterday. Yes. And we may not have to go into executive session for it. It's more the open source check that was done, surfaced some articles in connection with Mr. Rubin. He divested himself of his ownership shares and some of the professional teams. And then there was some assigning of Affiliate Office 76ers player James Harden and whether anyone on the company can speak to sort of what was out in the public ether on that topic. Sure. Senator Berger, we saw the comments in IAB's Lunar Report, which was media speculation. I think the company views that it's just unfounded and untrue media conjecture and speculation that there's nothing to substantiate that in reality. Certainly, if IAB is again their final, their future investigation, if they have further questions on the topic or any additional information comes to light that they think is relevant, the company or its principles are more than happy to speak to anything that comes up. But as of now, we think it's just completely unsustainable. Great. Thank you for addressing that publicly. Thank you. Are there any other matter commissioners that you would like to raise before we go into executive session? Anything that you think is appropriate for executive session? All right. Then we'll have our team offer the opportunity to go back into the virtual role. Thanks so much. This could be one minute. No problem, Christian. Okay, Dave, I think we're all set. Thank you. All set. Great. Thank you. Okay, this is a reconvening of a public meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And because we're holding this meeting virtually, I'll do a roll call again.  Good morning. I'm here. And Commissioner Hill. Yeah. And Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Okay. So we just finished up in our executive session and have addressed all the matters that we anticipated addressing. I think that there's a very brief clarification that we think will be helpful for the public record, appropriately so. And so we'll turn first to Mr. Berger and see if there are any questions from you commissioners on that. Well, maybe perhaps, Mr. Grossman, you'll just remind all of us on the individual topic. Are you all set on that? Yeah. No, I think Mr. Berger or Ms. Wynn can take it away. It relates to the interest of James Hardin and his involvement with the company. Okay. Were we on that one? The class action. Yeah, the class action. My apologies. Yes, absolutely. You already talked about, yes, the Sherman Act case that was discussed. Sure. On those, I think our public state, we obviously discussed more in morning executive session, but there's three cases that have been publicly filed. All the pleadings in those cases are publicly available. We certainly welcome commissioners. Take a look at those. We would say in all three cases, defendants have filed pre-motion to dismiss letters in which fanatics in each of those has stated the complaints should be dismissed. We would say that those motions speak for themselves in terms of our current defense in those cases. Any questions on that commissioners? Not a question. It's just a record clarification. It's also my understanding, they were going to just forward to us a copy of the complaint and the motions that were filed so we have them. Yeah, we'd be happy to do that. They're all on the public record, but we can certainly forward them to attorney Grossman. Great. Thank you. Any other questions he has, you know, for additional documents, you know, on public record, we can provide as well. Thank you. Commissioners, at this stage, are there any other questions over the applicant? We do have to take our temperature and, Commissioner Skinner, I know you're not feeling great, so this is not a good choice of words when I say take your temperature today, but if we could find out if we have a consensus with respect to four sections of the application, we need to turn back to sections B, C, E, and G. So, if you have your notes available, we began that evaluation process yesterday, and we've had a great deal of information through our rigorous discussions in the executive session and in the public session. So, with respect to section B, Madam Chair, I would say the applicant has met expectations for section B. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I agree. Thank you. I agree. And Commissioner Bryan, everybody's just, to their notes, which is a good thing. I agree, and I have to say that the executive sessions the last couple of days have helped me tremendously in being able to make my assessments on these, so I would agree they satisfy. Thank you. Madam Chair, very much like yesterday when we had another applicant, I think I could streamline this by saying that I believe section C, E, and G have met expectations. With that, Commissioner Skinner, are you as comfortable with that because we can break it down? I am comfortable with that. I also agree that the applicant needs expectations on all of those sections. Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Maynard, are you comfortable with the collective look? I am comfortable saying they have met expectations in every one of those categories. Thank you. And Commissioner Bryan. I am. The only caveat is for me on E for responsible gaming, I would have a, you know, if we move on to voting them a license approval, I would like the condition on confirmation that the anticipated January 25th board vote adopting the responsible gaming plan. That to me is a big part of whether I felt like they satisfied E. And they moved it up. It's my understanding that that's going to happen imminently. But that is critical to me saying yes on E. Commissioner Bryan, if I may, I think generally we're going to be amenable to that. Can we just have some a little bit of flexibility just in case there's a scheduling conflict or something like that on, you know, that exact day, if you will? Yeah. I think I would condition in wording is such that if, and if it doesn't happen on that day that we get noticed prior to that date. My big concern is the idea that it might launch, you know, you might be trying to technically launch prior to having that approved. So maybe that's it. Is it the understanding that that's going to be approved at the board level prior to any potential launch in Massachusetts? I think that's clearly our intent. And that makes sense. We prefer one like that just, you know, getting better than the date or gathered or, you know, something happened. Yeah, I think that that's the intent of what I'm saying is that it be approved at the board level prior to any launch in Massachusetts. Commissioner, just to be clear on the record, our application asked for a draft. No, I know. But everyone else who's come before us already has an approved one, and then it's sort of how are you going to change it to Massachusetts? They didn't have one even at the corporate level at all. So that's that's the concern. I was going to ask if you could make that distinction. So I wanted that to be clear to the the applicant. So I guess I really do appreciate the immediate responsiveness and what we saw. And so to Commissioner O'Brien's point, it's because of your new history, as opposed to old history. So that's right, right, right. Okay. And so we'll explore that in further detail down the road. So otherwise, I'm taking your temperature now, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, otherwise satisfied as to see Angie. Yes. And, and I have to say that I thought this application was was excellent, very strong. And very much appreciate from several now, a few weeks ago year, a few weeks, but before the holidays, certainly when we had your presentation, all of it put together, it's been very, very helpful. And we appreciate again, and are in answering all of our questions. So thank you. But the application for me was a pleasure to read and assess. So, so I'm good on all sections. Now we turn to I want to get the agenda out. Item number seven on this agenda, where we would turn to whether or not we'd like to proceed with having Mr. Grossman help us go to the determination process. Commissioners, are we at that junction? Juncture comfortably? Okay. Mr. Grossman. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this juncture of the proceedings, we'll turn back to section 218 of the regulations. And you'll recall specifically 218.06 sub five sets out the standard under which the commission will determine whether to award a license or not and lays out all the factors and sub factors. So I'll walk through those right now. And ultimately, the question will become, do you find substantial evidence in the record that the award of a license to this applicant would benefit the Commonwealth? Just by way of refresher, when we say substantial evidence, the term the term itself is defined as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion. And so through that lens, we should walk through the factors and the sub factors that you have already reviewed and will want to make a finding at the end as to whether you find ultimately that they have all been met and are supported by the weight of the evidence. So again, the umbrella question is whether this a license award to this applicant would benefit the Commonwealth. And in making that decision, you need to look at the following factors. The first is the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering. The sub factors there and making that decision is to look at the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering, and the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation here or description of the technical features and operation of its sports wagering platform. The next factor is the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, which include the following sub factors, the employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the Commonwealth, and any community engagement. The third factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming and those sub factors include the applicant's responsible gaming policies, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans, and the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. The next factor relates to the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion, including within the applicant's workforce through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure. Next is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including its geofencing plan, its know your customer measures, and technological expertise and reliability. The next one is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers, and I'll talk a little bit more about this momentarily. The sub factors here include whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205-CMR 215, the applicant's and all parties and interests to the licensee's integrity, honesty and good character and reputation, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports wagering operation, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports wagering licensing requirements and other jurisdictions, and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices. And finally any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So that is the standard and all of the factors and sub factors that the commission has to take into account as it works its way through this evaluation. The other area that I wanted to draw your attention to as you're working through those sub factors relates to suitability. And as we've discussed suitability is described in greater detail in section 215 of the commission's regulations. You'll recall that there are two types of suitability that are provided for. The first is what was referred to as the durable finding of suitability, which is essentially the final suitability decision. And you'll recall that in order to award a durable finding of suitability, the commission would have to conclude that this applicant and each of its qualifiers demonstrated their suitability by clear and convincing proof at an adjudicatory proceeding. I would submit to you in this case that has not happened, in which case they would be eligible not for the durable finding of suitability at this juncture, but instead for the preliminary finding of suitability, which is also discussed in section 215. In order to be awarded that durability, that preliminary finding, the commission need only find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion as opposed to the clear and convincing evidence required for the durable finding. So those are all of the factors. You'll recall of course as well that there are a number of conditions that would attach to any such report. And conditions are discussed in section to 20 of the commission's regulations. There are a series of what we'll call automatic conditions that attach to the award of any license, and I'll walk through those, but the commission should also establish what if any other conditions aside from these automatic ones that will be attached to the award of any license to this particular applicant. The commission just talked about one of them, and that is that they vote to adopt the responsible gaming plan by the entity's board of directors be taken prior to the commencement of operations here in the Commonwealth. So that it would be one condition that would attach. The commission should discuss whether there are others. You'll recall there were a series of issues and matters that the applicant was asked to supplement. And in fact, it did provide supplemental information on. So I don't believe that there are conditions associated with those. But before we get into any additional conditions allow me to just walk through the other automatic conditions just so they're front of mind. And these are discussed in section 220.01. They include the following that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering in the Commonwealth that the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operation certificate. That the operator comply with chapter 23 and and all rules and regulations of the commission. That the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner. And the first one that comes to mind here if the commission were so inclined would be a requirement that the applicant pay the million dollar fee for a temporary license. That the operator maintain its suitability to hold the sports wagering license. And that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205 CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with chapter 23 and section 10 a and consistent with 205 CMR. So those are the automatic conditions that attached to any license. So Madam Chair and commissioners before you move into the final review. I just wanted to check to make sure there are no additional conditions that a commissioner would like to see included in the award of any license. Commissioner O'Brien did just mention the RG draft plan and like if we could give the latitude to the applicant Commissioner O'Brien upon launching the data that I think will your point right. Yeah I think the language I would ask for is that as a condition that the that fanatics license if they're a licensee have a board approved responsible gaming plan prior to any launch in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that they provide that to the commission I through IEB or to the commission directly. Can I tell you my level of discomfort on this it's not high but we didn't ask the others to have their drafts adopted now they had something prior but we didn't really look at what they had prior we only looked at what those drafts I do feel we're treating this applicant a little bit differently but it's I don't Madam Chair because everyone else came in and stated as part of their applications and presentations that they had an official RG plan or policy that is completely absent with this applicant and they have presented a draft substantive draft they amended it to reflect Massachusetts more depth when the follow-up meetings and they've indicated they intend to move on that formally so I'm not looking to get a formal Massachusetts based plan etc I want to know that the company at the corporate level has an RG just that RG and that's fair and I must say they've been very responsive and we have received an RG plan as well as the the information around training and it's excellent so we appreciate that right I see if we may just one one perhaps clarification on the approval process because of our our governance structure and the way we approve plans in the normal course our game really plans are actually approved by our compliance committee in the normal we talk about approval you know we'd be talking about the compliance committee who who has delegated authority you know through the company so we just wanted to be clear that it's not going to be a per say board approval but rather compliance committee approval but that's considered to us an official approval of the plan right so just consistent with your internal operating procedures that's all I'm looking for okay yeah we just we just want to definitely mission say board per say yeah and Commissioner Maynard I think you were trying to weigh in oh I would actually I saw Mr. Berger was off a few but I also have a follow-up question do you not have any RG plans adopted and in any other jurisdictions or anywhere company you know related to sports wagering Mr. Berger I'll let Alex I don't know if you want to weigh in here we are in the process of approving all of our plans we get ready to to launch Alex I don't know correct Commissioner Maynard it's always been our intent to have those plans adopted ahead of our launch of a mobile platform so we've we've moved it up in this case just to give it additional comfort that that that would be there before we launch okay all right Madam Chair I like you I share in some discomfort because honestly I don't remember who had draft plans in front of us or who had permanent plans in front of us but the applicant saying that they have no plans in place so I would join Commissioner O'Brien on that condition but I do think we need to go back and look at at some of the prior decisions we've made okay I think I know that they all had plans but they were different statuses I I think that's my clear memory a most I do believe and you're closer to the application wording than than me Commissioner Maynard but I think it was draft I think I checked that early on was acceptable so but I appreciate Commissioner O'Brien's question and I see that it doesn't present a massive obstacle for you and I think that Commissioner O'Brien with the clarification the language would be that pursuant to their governance procedures so what was presented to us right and I I want to make very clear that this request it has nothing to do with what I think is their plans or their ability or their intention and their pass track record for their you know their employees and private I don't want to say that at all in fact there's a lot about it that I was impressed by I'm just looking for more formalization of it before launch Excellent thank you okay any other conditions that we want to attach other than those that are as Todd said automatic okay Todd can you walk us through the the next step of this process please yes of course so assuming that all are in agreement that it is the preliminary finding of suitability that's in play and not the durable finding and just to clarify why that's important assuming that's the case and the commission ultimately elects to move ahead here that would make this applicant eligible to apply for a temporary license and there's a process in place and an application that will make sure gets over to the entity to submit assuming that that's all in place the question now commissioners is whether you believe that there is substantial evidence in the record and by the record we mean in the application that's been submitted and any testimony and other information provided as part of these procedures whether there are substantial evidence in the record to conclude that awarding a license to this applicant would benefit the Commonwealth and that each of the factors that I've outlined just previously are also supported by substantial evidence in the record and if so you may allow this applicant to move forward in the process Mr Grossman I think in terms of you saying we're all in agreement I think that's fair I think in terms of a legal analysis the durable on suitability isn't really available to this applicant because they haven't been subject yet to an IEB review is that correct I think it'd be fair to say there is no evidence in the record that they will that they qualify for a durable finding of suitability at this juncture which is standard that's that's how every other similarly situated applicant has come in just it hasn't happened yet and just to clarify what that means it just means that this entity like every other that has gone through this process would now go through a thorough comprehensive background check in the matter will be brought back before the commission at an adjudicatory proceeding to determine whether there's clear and convincing evidence of its suitability and that's why a temporary license is awarded at this juncture well that is all going on in the background thank you thanks for that clarification that structure reflects what we understand the legislature and the governor uncontemplated for standing up sports waiting so with that uh uh commissioners would you like to move um on on a finding with respect to a substantial evidence supporting all of those factors that attorney Grossman has laid out okay thank you I moved the commission fine based on the application and what was discussed before us today yesterday january the 11th as well as last week that the applicant fgb enterprises op co lc doing business as fanatics as shown by substantial evidence that they have satisfied the criteria set forth in general laws chapter 23 in as well as 205 cmr 2018 065 that the license award would benefit the commonwealth and further that they have established by substantial evidence their qualification for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205 cmr uh 215.01 subsection 2 and 218.07 um 1a and that this approval be subject to the requirements of 23 in and the requirements set forth in 205 cmr 220.01 um with the additional condition uh by commissioner brian that uh fanatics have a board approved rg plan um in in accordance with their corporate policies and procedures prior to launch in the commonwealth you may want to check my citations dot so following along as you went i think you nailed it but i'll have i i think your application the board approval we would i think um that language could we just he said consistent with their corporate governance policies yeah thank you yep and i would second the motion thank you any further questions all right commissioner brian hi commissioner hill i'm sorry commissioner hill i didn't hear you i'm sorry i haven't made my vote yet madame chair hi oh oh thank you commissioner hill commissioner skinner and i um commissioner manor hi and i vote yes five zero thank you so much um and thank you for your your patience over the course of these several days and congratulations to you not over as you've heard um there's many steps ahead um before uh that temporary license can be issued but we know that um you'll be working closely with our excellent team on all of those as you move ahead again thank you for the many um the many days that stretched up this evaluation we appreciate your flexibility commissioners anything that you would like to add there just to reiterate i appreciate the time that you put into the application to make any specific to massachusetts the responsiveness um when you came back in terms of what we raised as concerns in the first instance and then as i said before the information and executive session to me was critical um given your corporate structure and and the newness to the industry that was critical information for me moving forward and i wish you well good luck thank you commissioner hill congratulations and we look forward to working with you um the very near future and getting this up and running finally congratulations thank you commissioner hill commissioner skinner congratulations to the applicant um on uh meeting this initial threshold and good luck in the rest of the process thank commission mate congratulations and good luck thank you hey thank you um and mr king i'll turn to you i just want to thank the commission for their time um and their diligence uh i thought it was a very productive conversation um and really appreciate uh the opportunity to um make it go through the rest of the process excellent thank you we'll let you all go uh good luck and thank you so much thank you thank you commissioners before we leave um we'll need a motion to adjourn this public meeting we'll be meeting again at 10 o'clock on our of a regular public meeting so a good stretch of work ahead of us today commissioners hope to adjourn thank you second all right commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi and commissioner maynard all right and i felt yes thank you again see you um everyone