Steve Wynn’s lawyers have unleashed another attack on the Gaming Control Board, saying the regulatory body’s “administrative hold” is an “unauthorized assumption of power” and, therefore, not grounds to deem him incapable of ever holding a state gaming license.
The legal document, filed before the Gaming Commission, continues a war of words between the billionaire former casino mogul and the industry’s regulatory body. The saga began in October when the Gaming Control Board lodged a complaint that sought to make Wynn “unsuitable to be associated with a gaming enterprise or the gaming industry as a whole.”
Wynn filed a motion to dismiss the filing in November, arguing the board was overstepping its statutory authority because he was no longer a part of his namesake company. He stepped down as chairman and CEO of Wynn Resorts in early 2017, after allegations of sexual misconduct against him surfaced.
On the day before Thanksgiving, the Gaming Control Board filed an opposition document, rejecting Wynn’s argument.
And, now, his lawyer’s have filed another response, saying the regulatory body has failed to articulate why an administrative hold applies to someone no longer involved with licensed gaming operations.
“By failing to say a single word defending the sole basis upon which it claims to have jurisdiction over Mr. Wynn — the nonexistent ‘administrative hold’ — the NGCB should be deemed to concede the merit of Mr. Wynn’s Motion for this reason alone,” according to the latest filing. “This is not the NGCB’s only failing.”
The 19-page legal filing goes on to make a grammatical argument. His lawyers said the Nevada laws referenced by the Gaming Control Board use the present tense, which they interpret as evidence that the regulatory body’s disciplinary power does not extend to people no longer involved in the industry.
“As Mr. Wynn’s Motion established, grammar and tense matter, particularly in a penal setting where potential revocations and fines are at stake,” his attorneys, Donald Campbell and Colby Williams, wrote.
The filing ends with another request that the Gaming Control Board’s complaint be dismissed.