STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RICHARD JOSEPH BARTH )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-058
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF BUSINESS REGULATION, ) DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )
)
Respondent. )
) JOHN RANDY GALLO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-059
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ) PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice a hearing was conducted before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The dates for hearing were April 10, and September 18, 1981, in Miami, Florida. This Recommended Order is being entered after receipt of the final installment of the transcript excerpts on October2, 1981.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Robert L. Floyd, Esquire
Charles E. Buker, Esquire
One Biscayne Tower, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131
For Respondent: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire
Deputy General Counsel
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
ISSUES
The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioners to be granted licenses to work in the Mutuels Department of the Fronton, Inc., a Florida Jai Alai concession located in West Palm Beach, Florida. More
specifically, the matter to be resolved concerns the Respondent's refusal to license the named Petitioners in the aforementioned capacity based upon the alleged activities of those Petitioners during the 1977 season of the New Port Rhode Island Jai Alai Fronton. The Petitioners are alleged to have conspired to commit a fraudulent or corrupt practice in relation to the game of jai alai and committing fraud or corruption in relation to the game through conspiring to use and using positions as handicappers in misleading the public for the Petitioners' benefit, contrary to Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code. It is further alleged that the Petitioners have violated Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, by associating with their fellow co-Petitioner with a knowledge that the co-Petitioner has violated State of Florida's rules and regulations related to jai alai by conspiring to commit and committing a corrupt and fraudulent practice in relation to the game of jai alai as specified in the discussion of Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent also claims that it has information, to include the information related in the discussion of the two rules provisions, which information is a prima facia indication that the Petitioners are not of good moral character as required by Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, because of their conduct in the relation to the game of jai alai, which conduct would cause a reasonable man to have substantial doubt about the Petitioners' honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and would erode the public's confidence and the honest outcome of jai alai matches in the State of Florida. 1/
FINDINGS OF FACT
Prior to the season for the jai alai known as the Fronton, Inc., located in West Palm Beach, Florida, for the years 1980-81, the Petitioners In the above-styled actions made application for an occupational license to be granted by the Respondent. The licenses requested were to work as employees of the Fronton, Inc., in the mutuels department. The applications for licensure on the part of the Petitioners concerned re-licensure for the upcoming jai alai season in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Petitione'rs had never been denied an occupational license by the Respondent in the past.
After reviewing the license applications, the Division Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering issued letters on November 4, 1980, directed to the named Petitioners, denying their license requests. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The grounds for license denial were as set forth In the issues statement of this Recommended Order. The letters of denial indicated the Opportunity for the Petitioners to request a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing and the Petitioners availed themselves of that opportunity. Subsequent to the request for a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the Respondent forwarded the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing. That hearing was conducted on the dates as stated in the introductory portion of this Recommended Order.
At the time of the hearing, and continuing to the point of the entry of this Recommended Order, the parties are still desirous of being granted the subject occupational licenses. These licenses are required by the terms and conditions set forth in Section 550.10, Florida Statutes (1980). The Petitioners have complied with all procedural requirements for licensure and are entitled to be licensed unless the grounds for license denial as stated in the November 4, 1980, correspondence are well-founded.
During the 1977 jai alai season at the Rhode Island Jai Alai in New Port, Rhode Island, Petitioner Gallo was employed as a sellers" This employment involved punching tickets in the mutuels area of the Fronton where tickets are issued to bettors. Petitioner Barth also worked at the Fronton in the calculating room as an employee of the Fronton. This is the area where the money is collected from the bettors and tabulated.
In that racing season, while employed by the Fronton in Rhode Island, Gallo, Barth and one Robert Fusco, were involved as partners in a venture known as "list betting." Each of the partners had contributed five to six thousand dollars ($5,000.00 to $6,000.00) for the purpose of conducting "list betting." In particular, the "list betting" involved the placement of numerous combinations of numbers on each jai alai game in an effort to win the trifecta portion of the wagering on the individual games. To be successful in the trifecta wager, it was necessary that the three-number combination which constitutes an individual wager comport with the individual team performance for win, place and show. As example, if the individual number combination bet was
8-1-2, then the number (8) team would need to win, the number (1) team would need to place, and the number (2) team would need to show.
The partnership was betting from a list of trifecta combinations which were the result of research conducted by the partnership on the subject of other jai alai seasons. The list of those numbers utilized in the betting may be found as Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. The partnership utilized the "list betting" system for all games during the 1977 season up to August 24, 1977, when the partnership was dissolved.
The philosophy of the "list betting" was to win often enough and in sufficient amounts of money to offset the cost of high volume betting. In this pursuit, the partnership leaned toward the utilization of trifecta combination numbers which would grant the largest return in a winning payoff, as opposed to being concerned with the frequency of the payoff of the chosen combination trifecta number. In addition, the skill of the players in the jai alai game was not a critical factor.
The amount of money being spent on the individual games varied from five, to, eight hundred dollars ($500.00 to $800.00) and, as a result of the "list betting" activities of the partnership, the partnership realized a profit.
The money that was won was constituted of the proceeds from the trifecta pool In a given game less cost deductions extracted by the State and the Fronton. The money pool that remained after these cost items had been deducted was divided between the winning ticket holders in the trifecta pool on an equal basis. Therefore, the fewer winning tickets, the larger the monetary return.
After August 24, 1977, the Petitioners still continued to make trifecta bets, but not as part of the partnership.
One of the other functions that the Petitioners performed together with another Fronton employee, Thomas F. Dietz, was the position as handicapper. (Dietz was a statistician at the Fronton.) Dietz and the Petitioners each would pick a single combination of three numbers to be placed on the game programs for each of the games during the meet under a code identification. Gallo was under the heading Massachusetts; Barth, Rhode Island; and Dietz, Connecticut. Dietz, In turn, made a determination about the "consensus" of the handicappers and made
a three-number combination entry on the program under the heading "consensus." These handicap, picks, are depicted in copies of the racing programs which are found in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence.
Gallo stopped making handicap selections some three or four days after August 24, 1977, and Dietz stopped his handicap selections on September 15, 1977. Barth made handicap selections for the entire season.
It is not certain what the Fronton intended in having the handicappers place their "handicap line" on the game programs; however, the only compensation which the handicappers would receive from the Fronton for their efforts was a. monetary prize of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to be awarded at the end of each month for that handicapper who selected the most quiniela predictions. (A quiniela nick is a combination of three numbers in which the successful bettor must have selected the win and place numbers in his three-number selection, without regard for the order of selection. As an example, if the quiniela picked by the bettor was the combination 1-2-3, and the winning number was (2) and the place number was (3), the bettor would win the quiniela selection.)
There was no testimony on the subject of the betting public's perception of the "handicap line" found on the programs and nothing about those programs identifies the intended purpose.
An analysis of those number combinations on the program, which are picks of a combination of three numbers within the range of (1) through (8)(the numbers representing the players in their game position), leads to the conclusion that the numbers could have been utilized by the betting public as trifecta or quiniela bets. The successful utilization of those numbers as a trifecta pick would always entail success as a quiniela selection, but a successful quiniela bet would not always be a successful trifecta bet. The established breakdown of betting patterns in the jai alai season shows that 55 to 60 percent of bets were made as quinielas.
Management expressed no Opposition during the course of the season to the fact that the Petitioners were "list bettors"; employees of the Fronton and handicappers during the same time period. Moreover, it was not, per se, a violation of the regulatory statutes and rules in Rhode Island for an employee to be a "list bettor." It is the juxtaposition of "list bettor/employee/handicapper, which has put the question of the Petitioners' current request for licensure in Florida at issue. In this regard, the witness Dietz' testimony establishes the fact that on numerous occasions, during the 1977 jai alai season in Rhode Island, Gallo requested that Dietz change the numerical order of his picks in his position as handicapper for the individual games as appeared on the programs, because Gallo was of the persuasion that the Dietz selections interfered with the Opportunity for Gallo and Barth to be successful in their trifecta "list betting." Whether the fact of Dietz' changes in his "handicap line" brought about greater success for the Petitioners "list betting" system was not established in the course of the hearing.
It is apparent that there was a substantial difference in the utilization of the numbers in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4 (constituted of "list betting" combination numbers), in Barth's program selection In the "handicap line" several weeks prior to August 24, 1977, and several weeks beyond that point, the August date being the date that the partnership was dissolved. The comparison of these numbers demonstrates that Barth utilized the number combinations found in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, four times as much in the several week period beyond August 24, 1977, as contrasted with the several week period prior to August 24, 1977.
Gallo had stopped handicapping some three or four days after August 24, 1977, so a comparison of the utilization of numbers in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, as a basis for handicap selections is limited to three or four days prior to August 24, 1977, and three or four days beyond that date. Again, Gallo used the numbers from the list for handicap selections subsequent to August 24, 1977, for that three or four day period as compared to the three or four day period prior to that date, roughly four times as frequently.
A similar comparison of Dietz' handicap selections from several weeks prior to August 24, 1977, and several weeks after August 24, 1977, in the sense of the utilization of number combinations that were found in the Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4; shows that Dietz used those number combinations essentially with the same frequency prior to and after August 24, 1977.
This analysis of the matter takes into account the fact that Gallo and Barth, on a few occasions, did not act as handicappers.
An analysis of the Gallo, Barth and Dietz choice of handicap numbers and the comments of Gallo made to Dietz about changing Dietz' number combinations when Dietz was handicapping, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioners felt that there was some relationship between exempting the numbers from their list in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4 from the handicap selections and Dietz altering his numbers on the handicap selections and success in the Petitioners' "list betting" pursuit. This is further substantiated by the fact that around August 24 or 25, 1977, Dietz asked Gallo why the nature of his selections in handicapping had changed and Gallo replied to the effect that he, Gallo, had stopped his "list betting" activities so he could now use "good numbers' without hurting his winnings. The evidence in this case does not reveal the success that the Petitioners had in this pursuit due to the choice not to use numbers from their list in their handicap selections and due to the change of Dietz' handicap selections promoted by the Petitioner Gallo. The lack of data on the question of the overall effect of removing the Petitioners' numbers in their Exhibit No. 4, from the "handicap line" and the further lack of testimony on the question of the public's utilization of the "handicap numbers," does not allow factual conclusions to be drawn on the question of the effect of the Petitioners' action on the outcome of betting; and the possible additional money to be realized by the Petitioners through the implementation of their technique of withholding the numbers from their list and influencing Dietz to change his numbers on order of finish, which caused the public to use the "handicap numbers" for trifecta betting, thereby decreasing the general public's opportunity to be successful In the trifecta bet.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action, in keeping with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Petitioners are required to obtain an occupational license from the Respondent premised upon the requirements of Section 550.10, Florida Statutes (1980), as implemented by Sections ,551.03 and .12, Florida Statutes (1979).
The Respondent had listed several grounds for denying the license renewal of the Petitioners. The first of those grounds concerns the contention that the Petitioners have violated Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code, by their actions during the 1977 New Port, Rhode Island, Jai Alai Fronton season. In particular, it is alleged that the Petitioners conspired to commit a fraudulent or corrupt practice in relation to the game of jai alai and did commit that fraudulent or corrupt practice In relation to that jai alai game by conspiring to use and using positions as handicappers to mislead the public for their own benefit.
Rule 7E-3.12(2), Florida Administrative Code, states:
(2) No person shall conspire with
any other person for the commission of, or connive with any other person in any corrupt or fraudulent practice in rela- tion to the game of jai-alai, or shall
be commit such an act on his own account.
A reading of this rule reveals that it prohibits the conspiracy to commit corrupt or fraudulent practices in relation to the game of jai alai and also prohibits the commission of those fraudulent or corrupt practices through connivance. An analysis of the facts in this case leads to the conclusion that the Petitioners did conspire to commit corrupt and fraudulent practices by their scheme while employed at the Rhode Island Fronton, in 1977, which scheme in acting as handicappers was designed to mislead the general public by causing the general public to bet number combinations in trifecta betting which did not interfere with the "list betting" number selections of the Petitioners. The hope for outcome was the enhancement of the Petitioners' winnings to be earned in the trifecta "list betting." The facts do not reveal that the Petitioners were successful in this connivance. It was not established to what extent the general public utilized the handicap selections as reported on the programs and the quality of success achieved by the Petitioners in the pursuit of their attempted corruption and fraud.
Having determined that the Petitioners conspired to commit corrupt or fraudulent practices in relation to the game of jai alai, the question then becomes one of the effect of that determination on the issue of granting the Petitioners their licenses. Rule 7E-3.12(2), Florida Administrative Code, considered alone does not serve to deny the Petitioners their licenses; however, when considered in the context of the rule in the second ground for denial of licensure, there is reason for license denial. That second ground for license denial relates to the claim of the party Respondent that the Petitioners have violated Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, by associating at a time when they knew that the co-Petitioner had violated Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code, by conspiring to commit and committing corrupt and fraudulent practices related to the jai alai game during the 1977 New Port, Rhode Island, season.
Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, states that:
The Division may refuse to issue or renew an Occupational license or may
suspend or revoke an Occupational license - issued if it shall find that the applicant, or any person who is a partner, agent, employee, or associate of the applicant, has knowingly associated or consorted with any person or persons who have been con- victed of a felony in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions or is knowingly consorting
or associating with bookmakers, touts, or persons of similar pursuits or who has been found guilty of any fraud or misrepresenta- tion in connection with racing/jai-alai, or otherwise, or has violated any law, rule, or regulation, with respect to racing/jai- alai, In this or any other jurisdiction or any rule, regulation, or order of the Divi- sion, or has been guilty of, or engaged in
similar, related or like practices, provided however, that the Division may issue or renew an occupational license or refuse to suspend or revoke an occupational license issued where the applicant or licensee
has not engaged in such association or activities for a period of ten (10) years or for good cause shown.
The pertinent portions of that rule allow the Respondent to refuse to renew an occupational license for persons such as the Petitioners who violate a rule or associate, knowing that the co-Petitioner is a person who conspired to commit corrupt or fraudulent practices in relation to the game of jai alai which is a pursuit similar to that of a bookmaker or tout. Therefore, for reasons as established in the discussion of Rule 7E-3.12 and Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioners are not entitled to be granted the licenses as requested, having violated those rules.
The third reason expressed for denying the licensure realleges the matters as set forth in the first two grounds for license denial and states that this is a prima facia indication that the Petitioners are not of good moral character as required by Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, because of their conduct in relation to the game of jai alai in Rhode Island. In view of the language in Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and in a consideration of the legal positions taken by the parties, it is concluded that the reference to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, pertains more particularly to Section 550.181, Florida Statutes (197 9). That provision, in pertinent part, states:
550.181 Certain persons prohibited
from holding racing or jai alai permits; suspension and revocation.-
(1) No corporation, general or limited partnership, sole proprietorship, business trust, joint venture or unincorporated association, or other business entity shall hold any horseracing or dog racing permit
or jai alai fronton permit in this state if any one of the persons or entities specified in paragraph (a) has been deter- mined by the division not be of good moral character or has been convicted of any offense specified in paragraph (b).
(.a)1. The permitholder;
An employee of the permitholder;
The sole proprietor of the permitholder;
A corporate officer or director of the permitholder;
A general partner of the permitholder;
A trustee of the permitholder;
A member of an unincorporated associa- tion permitholder;
A joint venturer of the permitholder;
The owner of more than 10 percent of any equity interest in the permitholder, whether as a common shareholder, general
or limited partner, voting trustee, or trust beneficiary; or
An owner of any interest in the permit or permitholder, including any immediate family member of the owner, or holder of any debt, mortgage, contract or concession from the permitholder, who by virtue thereof is able
to control the business of the permitholder. (b)1. A felony in this state;
Any felony in any other state which would be a felony if committed in this state under the laws of Florida;
Any felony under the laws of the United States;
A felony under the laws of another state if related to gambling which would be a felony under the laws of Florida if committed in this state; or
Bookmaking as defined in s. 849.25.
To the knowledge of this Hearing Officer, the Interpretation of the meaning of this Provision is a matter of first impression and upon consideration of the language of the provision, it is concluded that the provision does not create the requirement for good moral character for Occupational license holders such as the Petitioners, as contrasted with permit holders who operate the jai alai frontons. This interpretation is given notwithstanding the fact that the permit holder can be denied a permit if one of its employees is not of good moral character.
Grounds for denial of occupational license holders as distinguished from permittees who control a jai alai fronton are as found in Section 550.10, Florida Statutes (1980), and Chapter 7E, Florida Administrative Code. Those provisions do not contain lack of good moral character per se, as a ground for the denial of an Occupational license for persons such as the Petitioners. Instead, the Respondent has chosen to enact other grounds for the refusal to grant an Occupational license to persons in the category of Petitioners. As example, the grounds expressed in Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, supra, state particular reasons for the denial of occupational licenses.
Therefore, the Petitioners may not be denied the renewal of their licenses based upon any requirements set forth in Section 550.181, Florida Statutes (1979).
Based upon a full consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached herein, it is
RECOMMENDED:
That Richard Joseph Barth and John Randy Gallo he denied occupational licenses to work in the mutuels department of the Fronton, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida, for the 1981-82 season and that this recommendation he effectuated by the entry of a final order agreeing with the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations set forth.
DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1981.
ENDNOTE
1/ This case originally arose at a time when the Petitioners were attempting to gain a license to work at the Fronton, Inc., in West Palm Beach, Florida, in the 1980-81 season which began in November, 1980. In view of the length of time necessary for the parties to prepare and present their cases, this Recommended Order will now relate to the question of the entitlement of the Petitioners to be licensed and employed at the West Palm Beach, Florida, Jai Alai, Fronton, Inc., in the 1981-82 season, which is upcoming. It is also noted that one of the grounds expressed by the Respondent in denying the licensure of the named Petitioners concerned the alleged utilization of information in the circumstance of the 1977 New Port, Rhode Island, Jai Alai season, which information was not equally available to the public, which circumstance inured to the Petitioners' benefit in placing wagers. This latter contention and basis for the denial of the licenses was withdrawn during the hearing in these causes and shall not be considered by the process of this Recommended Order.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert L. Floyd, Esquire Charles E. Buker, Esquire One Biscayne Tower
25th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business
Regulation
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
RICHARD JOSEPH BARTH,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 81-058
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING,
Respondent.
/ JOHN RANDY GALLO,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 81-059
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This matter having cone before the under signed Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering for consideration upon the submission by the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings of a Recommended Order, the Director makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings is adopted and incorporated by reference herein and attached hereto.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action, in keeping with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Petitioners are required to obtain an occupational license from the Respondent premised upon the requirements of Section 550.10, Florida Statutes (1980), as implemented by Sections 551.03 and .12, Florida Statutes (1979).
Mr. John Randy Gallo during his employment with the Newport, Rhode Island fronton in 1977 committed, and conspired with Mr. Richard Joseph Barth to commit, a fraudulent and corrupt Practice in relation to the game of jai alai in violation of Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code.
Mr. Richard Joseph Barth during his employment with the Newport, Rhode Island fronton in 1977 committed, and conspired with Mr. John Randy Gallo to commit, a fraudulent and corrupt practice in relation to the game of jai alai in violation of Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code.
During his employment at the Newport, Rhode Island fronton in 1977, Mr. Richard Joseph Barth knowingly associated with John Randy Gallo, with full knowledge that Mr. Gallo was engaged in a Practice in violation of the rules of jai alai of the State of Florida, that is committing a fraudulent and corrupt practice in respect to the game of jai alai, in violation of 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code.
Mr. John Randy Gallo, during his employment at the Newport, Rhode Island fronton in 1977, knowingly associated with Mr. Richard Joseph Barth, with full knowledge that Mr. Barth was engaged in conduct in violation of the Florida rules of jai alai, that is, committing a fraudulent and corrupt practice in relation to the game of jai-alai, in violation of Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code.
Because of the actions of Mr. John Randy Gallo set forth hereinabove, Mr. Gallo lacks the requisite good moral character to obtain an occupational license to be employed at a Florida pari-mutuel establishment.
Mr. Richard Joseph Barth, because of his conduct set forth hereinabove, lacks the requisite good moral character to obtain an occupational license to be employed at a pari-mutuel establishment in the State of Florida.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is thereupon:
Ordered And Adjudged that Richard Joseph Barth and John Randy Gallo he denied occupational licenses in the State of Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1981.
ROBERT M. SMITH, JR., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION
DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed by the U.S. Postal Service, this of December, 1981, to: Robert L. Floyd, Esquire, One Biscayne Tower, 25th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131; Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The Oakland Building, 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301; Dan C. Brown, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Business Regulation, 219 Johns Building, 725 So. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; NASRC and Elliot H. Henslovitz, Staff Attorney, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 1350 N. W. 12th Avenue, Room 332, Miami, Florida, 33136.
ROBERT M. SMITH, JR., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION
DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 07, 1982 | Final Order filed. |
| Nov. 02, 1981 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 30, 1981 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 02, 1981 | Recommended Order | Deny licenses to Petitioners because each knew the other was conspiring to fraud in jai alai. |
