Booming Seven

What is Booming Seven?

The AGA declined to comment Thursday, and directed iGB to the June letter.

The failure to secure passage of the bill is a stinging defeat for both crypto-connected prediction operators and the CFTC, which has fully embraced the advance of digital assets under Chairman Michael Selig. Interest groups and political action committees had spent countless hours and millions of dollars lobbying for the legislation.

In statements, op-eds and media interviews since his appointment, Selig had pounded the table for a federal crypto framework. As the IGA’s Bean alluded to, the Clarity Act would have given the agency a number of new duties and authorities related to the new assets at a time when the commission’s existing workload has been cause for concern. There are typically five sitting CFTC commissioners at any given time, but Selig is currently the lone sitting commissioner with no other nominations submitted.

What is Booming Seven?

Throughout the performance, he skewered himself. With the confidence of a headliner who understood his public perception and chose to weaponize it, he held up a Wendy’s sign with a hole cut through the center, poked his face through, and announced: “This is what I look like when I’m trying to get recognized.”

The laughter was not polite or ironic. It was the roar of an audience genuinely doubling over.

Humor is inherently subjective, but the only plausible reason to dismiss Carrot Top after seeing his show live isn’t a distaste for kitsch—it’s being easily offended.

About Booming Seven

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.