CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Admin on Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:20 pm

PORTLAND – Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, released the following statement today in response to the announcement that a Las Vegas company is now behind the proposal for casino in Oxford County:

“This is just another layer of deception in an already deceptive casino scheme. The Oxford County casino proposal was sold to Maine voters and the petition signers as a Maine owned-and operated casino. Now, less than two months before the election we are told that the real owners are a Las Vegas outfit who’s only interest is taking money from Maine people to fill their vault in Nevada.

“Maine voters won’t be fooled, just as they weren’t fooled in 2003 by another Las Vegas developer who made the same misleading claims. This proposed Oxford County casino will be a local casino attracting local residents and will take money from Maine’s economy, not add to it.

“This latest development doesn’t change the fact that the casino bill we’ll be voting on in November will lower the legal age to gamble from 21 to 19, and lower the legal age to work in a casino from 21 to 18. It’s in the proposed law and cannot be changed before the vote. So in a casino with card games, craps and cocktails we’ll have young people under the legal drinking age throwing away their weekly allowance or their college savings to fatten the wallet of Las Vegas. Is this really what we want for Maine’s young people?

“On top of this we still don’t know where this casino will be located? Bethel? South Paris? Rumford? It’s just one of the many questions surrounding this deceptive casino scheme.”


Contact: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by C on Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:18 pm

So are they essentially saying that Seth Carey is working for a company from Las Vegas? They didn't say which company?
avatar
C
Admin

Number of posts : 707
Registration date : 2008-05-24
Location : Rumford, ME

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Catch-22

Post by Mark_Henry on Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:18 pm

Here's the Catch-22 for Mr Carey - Maine requires a casino operator to have experience in the business (which Seth doesn't) and basic business sense says that no bank would back him without having a partner that had a winning track record. Couple that with the need to find additional capital to help get the proposal passed and you end up with the current situation.

While I don't agree with it, I respect Mr. Bailey's position - he has every right to be opposed to a casino in Maine. Especially since he's paid to oppose a casino in Maine. What I don't agree with are his methods. It's one thing to discuss the facts - the pros and cons of a proposal - and then judge it on its merits. It's another thing entirely to use innuendo and misdirection to try to scare people into making a decision.

For example, much emphasis is often placed on the fact that a specific location - or even a town - has not been announced. Why this would have any impact on someone in Portland or Bangors vote to allow a casino in Oxford county is beyond me. Either they're for it, or they're not. The only people who would care would be the residents of the possible host towns. So why hasn't Mr. Carey chosen a site? Perhaps it's because he hasn't been able to get any of the municipalities to back him openly? Think about it - would you choose to site a $200m venture in a location without knowing if the town would support your needs for water, sewer, roads, etc? OF COURSE NOT! So he's forced to wait until the proposal passes, and then let the towns approach him.

An inordinate amount of innuendo is often attached to the concept that a company outside Maine might end up owning or operating the casino. So what? Does anyone complain about New Page? Or what about Boise before them? Or the hundreds of other large companies throughout the state which are not headquartered here. So why is this any different? Why - because it confuses the issue and prevents real discussion and debate from happening.

I would actually like to see a real debate concerning this issue take place. One which avoids these types of misguided direction and focuses on discussing the facts - both pro and con - and helping all voters become better educated concerning this very important topic.

Mark Henry

Mark_Henry

Number of posts : 33
Registration date : 2008-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by xmashen on Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:23 pm

Great post, mark, and gives me something to think about.Thanks for shedding some normal light on an issue that is, at best, confusing.

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by steve on Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:44 pm

I'd be curious to see if Dennis Bailey's organization could withstand the level of scrutiny being imposed on Evergreen. Who does pay his bills? Perhaps a southern New England casino that doesn't want to lose its Maine and New Hampshire clientele? Isn't it strange how speculation and innuendo can affect the perception of any individual or organization? As for the new Evergreen management "taking Mainers' money to fill their Nevada vault", the referendum still guarantees 40% of the gross gaming revenue to the state, county and municipality. The "deceptive" new management would then have to pay all operating expenses before taking any profits out of state.

steve

Number of posts : 125
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by chef on Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:29 pm

by this take over i hope seth made a good $$$$ profit
good for you seth
you are smarter than most people who try to bash you

chef

Number of posts : 15
Registration date : 2008-06-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Timeout on Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:07 pm

Mark, you have some good points; I am just wondering why Seth didn't come out and say he needed town support for the reason you gave? That would have seemed less secretive and may have inspired more confidence in the citizens. As for why people care where the casino is, I believe there is a ten-year moratorium on another casino being built anywhere in Maine after the first one is opened...
avatar
Timeout

Number of posts : 829
Registration date : 2008-06-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Timeout on Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:15 pm

On one hand, if the location were to be announced, it might eliminate pro votes from Mainers who hope to locate a casino in their town. On the other hand, if people don't want a casino in their town, they might vote for it if it were to be announced in another town or county.

Maybe they've done a study on what types of voters are likely to turn out or perhaps where the majority of Casino No people live and it's a gambling exercise...lol...maybe they're even taking bets on the outcome...lol...now I'm getting punchy...
avatar
Timeout

Number of posts : 829
Registration date : 2008-06-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by KevinNSaisi on Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:20 am

Thank You Seth for your hard work to provide the people of Maine an opportunity to vote on the casino project.
avatar
KevinNSaisi

Number of posts : 723
Registration date : 2008-06-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by steve on Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:56 pm

For anyone who is interested, check out the story and readers' comments in the PPH online today.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=210631&ac=

steve

Number of posts : 125
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by k on Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:02 pm

I read with interest Mr. Henry's post as I have been closely watching where the Rumford Econ Dev Comm would position themselves in this debate.
"Especially since he's paid to oppose a casino in Maine. What I don't agree with are his methods. It's one thing to discuss the facts - the pros and cons of a proposal - and then judge it on its merits. It's another thing entirely to use innuendo and misdirection to try to scare people into making a decision."
Mr. Bailey's paid service to Casinos No is no more relevant than Mr. Carey's or Ms. LeMarche's paid service. Noone goes into this out of the goodness of their heart.
As for facts, I believe that has been the point of many previous posts, including Mr. Bailey's. Facts from Evergreen have been almost non-existent. Other than it's going to be a 'green' resort what else have they shared?
Innuendo and misdirection - well, let's see - the casino is going to be located in Rumford, no Bethel, no Greenwood; we need to do this in the River Valley because New Page is going to shut down and where will we be??; CasinoNo is funded by out of state entities.... Talk about fearmongering.
As for the location, I do believe that's important. And who are we kidding, the Rumford bos voted 3-2 on Aug 21 to support Carey's casino effort; with Belanger seconding the motion requesting a meeting with Carey to hammer out the details. Now, granted according to the local paper they 'distanced' themselves from the vote; but did they formally rescind their motion? My point is Carey already has a municipality that is all but drooling over themselves to support it. He was willing to meet with them to give them details. So I don't buy that argument. He just wasn't willing to give the voters details.

As for an outside company owning the casino, yes, this is a very important point. What are the values of this company? A local company would be more sensitive to the needs and values of the local community.
What's important and what's not in this argument? Anything the voters thinks is important.

I do agree a discussion is needed. I think that's exactly what this forum provides. But let's not forget, this is not a business venture YET; it's a political campaign with everything that goes along with it. If it wasn't, do you think a business would have written legislation with the money contributions listed? Heck no!

k

Number of posts : 8
Registration date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by steve on Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:49 pm

K: you make some valid points. I suspect that many of the "facts" of which you write were intentionally omitted from public disclosure because the organizers knew that they would not end up being the owners and operators of the resort. The requirement for the owner and/or operator to have prior experience in running a gambling establishment meant that Carey was ineligible to hold that position. And as for committing to a location, he probably wanted that decision to rest with the primary investor(s). I agree that it appeared to be a case of deception, but I don't believe that was the intention. Regarding Dennis Bailey, his commentary is laced with innuendo and half-truths, otherwise known as "spin". The speculation that he is funded by out-of-state casinos is just that - speculation . But it's at least as possible as the statements he makes against the Evergreen project.

steve

Number of posts : 125
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Admin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:44 pm

CASINO BALLOT QUESTION MISLEADS VOTERS
With the Arrival of Las Vegas, “Maine Company” No Longer Involved

PORTLAND – The arrival of Las Vegas to rescue a floundering proposal for a gambling casino in Oxford County renders the ballot question that voters will face in November inaccurate and misleading.

The ballot question reads, “Do you want to allow a certain Maine company (emphasis added) to have the only casino in Maine, to be located in Oxford County, if part of the revenue is used to fund specific state programs?”

But now, the Maine company that began the referendum for a casino, Evergreen Mountain Resort and Casino, has been purchased by a Las Vegas outfit, making the ballot question seriously flawed.

“Almost all the claims by the casino proponents are flawed and misleading, now the ballot question itself is part of the big lie,” said Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, the grassroots organization opposed to the expansion of casino gambling. “The backers of this casino promoted it as a Maine company with Maine roots. Now we learn their roots go all the way to Las Vegas.”

Bailey said CasinosNO! will be working over the next several weeks to make voters aware of the misleading and inaccurate claims by the proponents of the Oxford County casino, including the misleading wording of the ballot question.


CONTACT: Dennis Bailey, 207-347-6077, or 207-749-4963
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by steve on Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:27 pm

The proposed operator of the gaming facility is and will continue to be a Maine business organized under the laws of this state. It is allowed to be a wholly or partially-owned subsidiary of a business organized in and subject to the laws of another jurisdiction (this is the current Maine law). So even though the parent company is located in Nevada, Evergreen Mountain Resort and Casino LLC will survive as a Maine company thereby meeting the intent of the ballot question.

steve

Number of posts : 125
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by k on Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:31 pm

The SJ raises some interesting points in todays editorial - http://www.sunjournal.com/story/283464-3/OurView/Its_a_brandnew_casino_campaign/
They suggest that it's highly likely that the Olympia Group would attempt to have the law changed if the referendum passes.
I think this plan get's more vague as we get closer to the election. I'm more determined than ever to vote no.

k

Number of posts : 8
Registration date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Admin on Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:39 pm

CASINOSNO! BEGINS ‘THE DAILY PAT-DOWN,’
A FACT-CHECK SITE ON CLAIMS BY LAMARCHE

PORTLAND – CasinosNO!, the grassroots organization opposed to the expansion of casino gambling in Maine, today inaugurated “The Daily Pat-Down,” a page on its website that tracks the outrageous and erroneous claims by casino spokesperson Pat LaMarche.

The site can be found at www.casinosno.org

Today’s statement, which LaMarche made yesterday on WGAN radio, concerns the “positive” impact that casinos have had on Connecticut’s economy. She said, “The area [in Connecticut] that the casinos went into, they are importing labor now, because everybody in that area has a job.”

(To hear LaMarche’s interview, go to www.wgan.com)

The facts tell a different story. The unemployment rate in the region around the Connecticut casinos is actually higher than the national average, and higher than Maine’s unemployment rate, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the full response go to “The Daily Pat-Down” at www.casinosno.org

Contact: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by steve on Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:14 pm

k wrote:The SJ raises some interesting points in todays editorial - http://www.sunjournal.com/story/283464-3/OurView/Its_a_brandnew_casino_campaign/
They suggest that it's highly likely that the Olympia Group would attempt to have the law changed if the referendum passes.
I think this plan get's more vague as we get closer to the election. I'm more determined than ever to vote no.
An interview with Dean Harrold from the Olympia Group revealed that, yes, they would ask the legislature to change the wording of several provisions of the law, once passed. Among those changes are striking the portion lowering the gambling age from 21 to 19, and removal of the requirement that the president of Evergreen be allowed to sit on every board and agency that benefits from the 39% of gross gaming revenue from the casino. Any change to the referendum's wording at this point would invalidate the petition and require new signatures. That would effectively remove it from consideration by the voting public in the upcoming election. Instead, the new owners of the proposed casino are content to allow the legislature to modify the offending provisions of the proposed law much like they did with the racino referendum back in 2003. As for the perceived deception by Seth Carey about failing to identify the location of the proposed casino, one of the referendum's requirements is that the municipality selected for the casino location must approve that location by December 4, 2008, a month after the vote. Understandably, he was trying to feel out the BOS to see if there would be support for locating the casino somewhere in Rumford. It would have been both foolish and presumptious on his part to go public with the proposed location before securing the support of at least the municipality's government. I would encourage all commenters here to actually read the referendum to see first-hand what's being proposed rather than relying on the opinions of both proponents and opponents.
For Admin, you seem to be a direct pipeline for Dennis Bailey's spinmeister organization, CasinosNO!, but you seem reluctant to post YOUR opinion on this subject. Based upon your ready willingness to post Bailey's diatribe, I assume (and we all know what ASSUME does to u and me) that you oppose the casino, which is fine. I just like to know on which side of the fence my correspondents sit.

steve

Number of posts : 125
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Admin on Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:52 pm

Hi Steve,

I read your posts with appreciation for offering an opposing view to Dennis Bailey’s press releases. I think you do a great job responding. I am always impressed with how much knowledge you have and think you put your responses together extremely well. You offer information and opinions factually, without attacking anyone or allowing this to become personal. I have GREAT respect for that.

Dennis Bailey sends the Free Press his media releases just the same as he sends them to any other media outlet. Seth Carey has sent media releases here as well and we post them when we get them. We welcome opposing views.

As far as my personal opinion, I believe that there is truth to both sides of the argument regarding the Casino. I think Mr. Carey was far too entangled with personal issues to adequately operate a Casino and said as much on this forum. Now that he has sold, I am looking at the issue with more of an open mind again. I want to understand it better before casting my vote.

I may ask some tough questions, like what assurances will there be that changes to the legal age to gamble and the requirement regarding being a voting member of every board that receives money will be requested?

I do have to ask Steve, are you working for the Casino project or otherwise associated with it? Not that it matters if you post here. You could be Mr. Harold himself and you would be welcome to express your views on this site.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by steve on Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:35 pm

Admin, I do not work for the casino project nor am I associated with any supporting organization. I am simply a Rumford native, born and raised there. I graduated from Stephens High School and spent (misspent) my youth working and playing in the area. It is my hometown, and I fear greatly for its longevity. At one point I worked for a Maine wood products company that went under due to the market practices of the Chinese, so I know first-hand what is in store for New Page; it's only a matter of time. And I don't want to see my hometown become an afterthought. The casino critics are quick to condemn the gambling industry and protest that there are other ways to stimulate the economy of Oxford County. However, when pressed, they cannot cite a specific solution nor identify a single industry, other than the casino, that would consider establishing a business in the area that could replace the taxes, salaries and wages, benefits and standard of living enjoyed currently from New Page. Do we have time to explore and recruit alternative businesses? Possibly. But even given the outstanding work being done by Phil Blampied and his Economic Development group, the future outlook is very cloudy. Is it better to avoid the potential problems associated with a casino and wait for a more socially acceptable industry (which may or may not ever materialize), or is it more prudent to accept the risks and establish a casino that would provide jobs, benefits, taxes and GUARANTEED percentages of the gross revenue for legitimate and socially desirable causes at the local, county and state levels? I can only answer for myself, and I don't count 'cause I don't even live in the state.
As for the assurances that changes would be made by the legislature...there are no assurances. We will have to rely on the elected representatives and senators to do that. To pull this referendum now and reintroduce in the next state-wide election would be very risky because this upcoming election will result in the greatest voter turnout in this state's history thereby ensuring that the up-or-down vote on the casino would be the will of the majority of the voting public as a whole rather than just the majority of the public actually voting in an off-year election.
Bottom line: I'm not necessarily in favor of a casino, but if that's the only viable solution to both the exorbitant unemployment rate in Oxford County as well as the potential catastrophe of New Page's closure, then I'm strongly for it.

steve

Number of posts : 125
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by chef on Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:55 am

well said steve

chef

Number of posts : 15
Registration date : 2008-06-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

LAMARCHE IN RADIO INTERVIEW CALLS OXFORD COUNTY CASINO BILL A ‘MESS’

Post by Admin on Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:15 pm

PORTLAND – In an interview Monday morning on WLOB/FOX 23, Pat LaMarche, spokesperson for the Oxford County casino bill, admitted that the referendum question that will go before voters in November is a “mess.”

During questioning about specific details of the bill, Lamarche said that if the bill is enacted the Legislature “is going to fix this mess.” (Listen to the interview here.)

“It’s astonishing that LaMarche and her bosses from Las Vegas are spending $1 million or more to convince voters to enact a law that they themselves call ‘a mess,’” said Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, the grassroots organization opposed to the expansion of casino gambling in Maine. “She’s doing a better job than I am to convince voters to reject Question 2.”

During the interview, LaMarche also went on at length claiming that the bill does not require the president of the casino to be a “voting member” of the boards and commissions that receive a slice of the casino revenues. In fact the bill specifically says the president of the Oxford County casino “must be appointed a voting member” of the programs and boards receiving an allocation from the casino.

LaMarche’s latest statements quickly became fodder for “The Daily Pat-Down” a compendium on the CasinosNO! website of LaMarche’s outrageous claims. (Click here.)

CONTACT: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS OPPOSE OXFORD COUNTY CASINO

Post by Admin on Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 am

PORTLAND – The League of Young Voters are urging a ‘NO’ vote on Question 2, the Oxford County casino proposal.

In its newly released voter guide, the League gave thumbs down to the proposal, saying that while a casino would bring jobs and revenue to Maine, “Studies also show that casinos lead to crime, violence and addiction….and there’s question whether the jobs it contributes are low paying.”

The League of Young Voters, which describes itself as “a youth-driven organization that finds creative ways to engage our peers in the political process,” has been active in city elections for several years and has seen its influence grow.

“It’s great that the League of Young Voters saw through the hype and misinformation of the casino promoters and rejected Question 2,” said Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, “particularly since the bill would lower the legal gambling age to 19 and lower the age to work in the casino to 18. I guess they felt that Maine should offer more for young people than gambling and working in a casino.”

The League’s voting guide is HERE.


CONTACT: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

SUN JOURNAL ASKS: “WHO’S REALLY BEHIND THE OXFORD COUNTY CASINO?”

Post by Admin on Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:01 pm

PORTLAND – An editorial in today’s Sun Journal reveals that there are a number of minority investors in the Oxford County casino proposal but the casino’s Las Vegas backer has refused to disclose their identities.

Because the casino promoters will be granted a 10-year monopoly on casinos in Maine if Question 2 passes, the Sun Journal urges them to come clean.

“Too much of this casino campaign….has been balanced on the argument of ‘trust me,’” the editorial states. “Maine voters are being asked to drastically change public policy for the benefit of this individual company. We should, at least, know everybody who stands to benefit.”

The newspaper also chided the casino proponents for criticizing the financial backers of CasinosNO!, which are all publicly disclosed in the group’s filings with the state, while keeping their own investors secret. “This criticism only rings hollow until their financials are open to equal scrutiny,” the editorial stated.

Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, said the questions surrounding the bill get murkier by the day.

“We don’t where it’s going to be located, we don’t know who the owners really are, we don’t know what provisions the casino promoters are promising to change if this bill that they themselves describe as a ‘mess’ is approved by voters,” he said. “That should be enough reason for Maine people to vote a resounding NO on Question 2.”

The Sun Journal editorial can be found here.


Contact: Dennis Bailey, 207-347-6077
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by marktripp on Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:13 pm

I believe if the casino proposal doesn’t make it this time it will probably never make it. I had been on the fence for some time with the idea, but as of lately I feel now is the time. Of course there is going to be crime rate increases, people gambling away their retirement money and steeling we all now that, but unless we want to keep losing jobs and people in the area we must do something.
avatar
marktripp

Number of posts : 123
Registration date : 2008-06-27
Location : Rumford

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by xmashen on Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:49 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that TRR "staff" may be among the hidden investors?


Last edited by xmashen on Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : skipped a word)

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum