In a message dated 8/24/2004 9:14:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
billvelek@alltel.net writes:
Bill, Esq.,
Your appraisal of the offer as rediculous and offensive is exactly why I
intend to object and appeal. I loathe idea that you can nickle and dime the
public until you're busted by an "avaricious" lawyer--and forces you into return a
miniscule part of the loot. If the worst case scenario for slot cheats (or
Laughlin fake $5 bill passers) is that if they get busted they'll have to
return 1% of the loot--there'd be a lot more such low-lifes on the prowl. Even Bob
Dancer might succumb to the temptation!
BTW, the coupon doesn't even have a 9/10 of a cent value. I looked at the
fine print real hard. Since it's a "proposed" settlement, they can probably
draft it any way they want.
However, there's a BOLD-FACE warning at the bottom:
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS AN ANTI-THEFT DEVICE. ABSENCE OF THIS FEATURE
INDICATES A COPY.
As if some low-life would be inclined to pass phony coupons that aren't even
worth 9/10 cents!
Your comments, as usual, have been most perceptive. Now, can you puhleeze
help me figure out how I can construe this as a war-crime so I can ultimately
get to the Hague. Would barring and slashing FPVP "pass muster" as a crime
against humanity?
Rick
I find it
rather ridiculous, and even offensive, that they consider a coupon
sufficient to satisfy the settlement. Doesn't the coupon say somewhere
no it that it has a cash value of nine-tenths of a cent, or something
like that. They usually have some nearly worthless value, but I don't
know why (never really thought about it).
Good luck.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]