Mighty Wild Jaguar

What is Mighty Wild Jaguar?

The LVCVA launched the “Vegas 5-Day Sale” last year in response to growing public sentiment that Las Vegas no longer provided value and that resorts were focused on nickel-and-diming customers. Many on social media criticized the tourism agency’s efforts as “too little, too late.”

The LVCVA, however, seemingly found the campaign successful, returning the five-day sales event this year.

Vegas is where travelers come to trade the expected for the unforgettable. The ‘Vegas 5-Day Sale’ gives visitors even more reasons to book the trip they have been talking about, whether that means checking into an iconic resort, seeing a favorite artist live, celebrating a milestone, or simply making a little room for spontaneity,” said Kate Wik, chief marketing officer at the LVCVA.

About Mighty Wild Jaguar

But as mentioned earlier, this is not the first time Grant has been caught in a similar legal tangle with Star Casino, which accused the man of using a strategy known as “edge sorting,” which is essentially discovering an imperfection in the make of the cards used in a table game.

By leaning into that imperfection, players may then exploit the knowledge and tip the house edge in their favor. Most casinos and courts around the world consider this to be cheating.

However, the judgment in that specific case against Star Casino ruled that Grant was a self-professed advantage player, and that a casino where the staff was competent and the games were operated correctly had nothing to worry about. 

About Mighty Wild Jaguar

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.