Arising Phoenix

What is Arising Phoenix?

Lawmakers and regulators in Cyrpus have been debating methods to prevent recipients of the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) from using state welfare payments for gambling. 

The GMI, know locally as EEE, is described as a “residual payment to guarantee and legal minimum income for all residents”.

Anyone residing in Cyprus, with income not high enough to support their basic needs, is eligible for the benefit.

About Arising Phoenix

Bringing you series of articles such as Poker on Screen and Poker in Print has been a massive source of pride for myself and the team and I even got the chance to discuss poker in the movies and on television on the recent episode of the award-winning podcast, The Chip Race.  

As ever, I am indebted to too many people to mention, but Derek, Bill, Jasmine and every one of the Calvin Ayre team, as well as Calvin himself of course, have all shown a lot of faith in me to carry the torch and I hope I’ve done them all credit.  

Finally, I really want to thank you, the reader who has kept coming back to find out what else I’m writing about each day, week, month and year. It is you to whom I write, constant reader, and if you’ve enjoyed what you’ve read, then feel free to follow me on Twitter, where a new destination will shortly be announced. 

What is Arising Phoenix?

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.