DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:40 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA

)
STATE OF ALABAMA )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC., )
ENCORE GAMING GROUP, )
EPIC TECH, INC., )
GREENETRACK, INC., )
Civil Action No.
THE CENTER FOR RURAL FAMILY )
__________________________
DEVELOPMENT, INC. D/B/A GREEN )
CHARITY, )
DREAM INC. D/B/A FRONTIER BINGO, )
TENNTOM COMMUNITY )
DEVELOPMENT D/B/A RIVERS EDGE, )
TOMMY SUMMERVILLE POLICE )
SUPPORT LEAGUE, INC. D/B/A )
PALACE BINGO, AND )
JONATHAN BENISON )
)
Defendants. )
)

COMPLAINT

Comes now, the State of Alabama, by and through Attorney General Steve Marshall via

the undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for declaratory and

injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance of unlawful gambling, pursuant to ALA. CODE 6-5-

120. The State of Alabama, in support of its Complaint, asserts the following:

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties as they are all residents or do business

in Greene County, Alabama.

1
 DOCUMENT 2

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is the State of Alabama by and through its Attorney General, Steven T.

Marshall, who has standing to bring this action on behalf of the State. See Ala. Code 36-15-12.

3. Defendant Pen-Tech, LLC (Pen-Tech), d/b/a Encore Gaming Group, is a Georgia

domestic profit company and commercial enterprise with a principal place of business at 1640

Airport Road, Suite 105, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144. Pen-Tech is currently engaged in business

in Greene County, Alabama.

4. Defendant Epic Tech, LLC (Epic Tech), d/b/a Epic Tech Software LLC and/or

Aurify Gaming, is a Delaware limited liability company and commercial enterprise with a

principal place of business at 55 Pearson Way, Suite E, Lavonia, Georgia 30553. Epic Tech is

currently engaged in business in Greene County, Alabama.

5. Defendant Greenetrack Inc., is an Alabama corporation and commercial enterprise

with a principal place of business at 524 County Road 208, Eutaw, Alabama. Greenetrack is

currently located and engaged in business at the above address in Greene County, Alabama.

6. Defendant Center for Rural Family Development, Inc. (CFRD), d/b/a Green

Charity, is an Alabama domestic non-profit corporation with a principal place of business at 836

County Road 131, Eutaw, Alabama. The CFRD is currently located and engaged in business at

Green Charity, located at 1055 Co Rd 208, Eutaw, Alabama 35462, in Greene County, Alabama.

7. Defendant DREAM, Inc. (Dream), d/b/a Frontier Bingo, is an Alabama domestic

non-profit corporation with a principal place of business at 437 Westhills Court, Bessemer,

Alabama. Dream is currently located and engaged in business as Frontier Bingo, located at 121

Old Patton Rd, Knoxville, Alabama 35469, in Greene County, Alabama.

2
 DOCUMENT 2

8. Defendant TennTom Community Development, Inc., d/b/a Frontier Bingo, is an

Alabama domestic non-profit corporation with a principal place of business at 29214 US-11,

Knoxville, Alabama 35469. Dream is currently located and engaged in business as Rivers Edge

Bingo, located at 29214 US-11, Knoxville, Alabama 35469, in Greene County, Alabama.

9. Defendant Tommy Summerville Police Support League, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bingo,

is an Alabama domestic non-profit corporation with a principal place of business at 401 Main

Street, Eutaw, Alabama. The Tommy Summerville Police Support League is currently located and

engaged in business as Palace Bingo, located at 51 County Road 220, Knoxville, Alabama 35469,

in Greene County, Alabama.

10. Defendant Jonathan (Joe) Benison is the Sheriff of Greene County, Alabama. The

main office of the Sheriff of Greene County is located at 400 Morrow Ave, Eutaw, Alabama 35462.

Defendant Benison is responsible for the regulation and enforcement of the play of the game

commonly known as bingo permitted under Amendment 743 of the Alabama Constitution.

VENUE

11. Venue is appropriate in this Court. The Defendants either live, work or conduct

business in Greene County, Alabama. Greene County is within the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit

of Alabama.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Defendants operate, administer, and/or provide gambling devices at one or more of

the five casinos (the casinos) in Greene County, Alabama. At the casinos, Defendants provide

hundreds of slot machines and gambling devices in open, continuous, and notorious use.

3
 DOCUMENT 2

13. Gambling is generally illegal in Alabama, and slot machines are particularly so.

The States general prohibition on gambling is so fundamental that the People enshrined it in the

Constitution. See ALA. CONST. art. IV, 65. The Legislature has specifically criminalized

possession of slot machines and other gambling devices. ALA. CODE 13A-12-27. Nevertheless,

because of the immense profits associated with organized gambling, the industry frequently has

tried to evade[] these prohibitions, as the Alabama Supreme Court put it in Barber v. Jefferson

Cnty. Racing Assn, 960 So. 2d 599 (Ala. 2006), by asserting that loophole[s] in Alabama law

were much larger than they in fact were. Id. at 614. For example, in 2006, the Alabama Supreme

Court rejected the industrys attempt to pass off what were slot machines as machines that were

playing a legal sweepstakes. Id. at 603-15. The Alabama Supreme Court held that substance is

more important than legal technicality; accordingly, gambling devices are illegal if they look like,

sound like, and attract the same class of customers as conventional slot machines. Id. at 616. See

also Ex parte State, 121 So.3d 337 (Ala. 2013); Barber v. Cornerstone Comm. Outreach, 42 So.

3d 65 (Ala. 2009); State ex rel. Tyson v. Teds Game Enterprises, 893 So. 2d 376, 380 (Ala. 2004).

14. The Alabama Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the game of bingo cannot be

played on electronic machines in the State of Alabama. See HEDA v. State, 168 So. 3d 4 (Ala.

2014); State v. $223,405.86 et al., 203 So. 3d 816 (Ala. 2016); State v. 825 Electronic Gambling

Devices, --- So. 3d ----, 2016 WL 7428393 (Ala. 2016).

15. Defendants gambling devices are slot machines completely reliant on games of

chance. Someone who wants to play one of Defendants gambling devices can insert money

directly into the face of the machine and/or load money onto a swipe card or PIN account number

that the player inserts or uses in the machine. The player then presses a button to bet a certain

amount of money. Once the bet is placed, the player presses a button to start the game and the

4
 DOCUMENT 2

spinning of slot reels that appear on the devices. On the machines, the slot reels are digital;

simulating the mechanical reels found on traditional slot machines. Seconds later, the machine

displays the games result. If the customer wins, then his or her credits go up; if not, the credits go

down. The player can then either play again or cash out to receive money for any credits he or she

has remaining.

16. All it takes to operate the gambling devices at Defendants casinos is a touch of a

button. With a touch of a button, the machines initiate a game and/or bring that game to conclusion.

17. Defendants devices may display a small bingo card to the side, below, or above

the slot reels. However, the predominant display on all Defendants gambling devices is a large,

digital or mechanical representation of reels commonly seen on acknowledged slot machines.

18. Defendants gambling devices replicate a game of chance in an electronic format.

There is no interaction between players. There is no competition to be the first person who covers

a bingo card. No player must call out bingo. There is no holder of a bingo card who covers

randomly drawn numbers on the card. No player can sleep a bingo or forfeit a prize based on

his or her failure to recognize a predetermined winning pattern. The player does not need to pay

attention, listen to alphanumeric designations drawn one-by-one, or match them up to a bingo card.

Instead, the player presses a single button, watches slot-machine reels spin, and is told whether he

or she has won by the gambling device. As such, as the Supreme Court of Alabama has held, the

machines are illegal and not permitted to play the game commonly known as bingo in Alabama.

19. Defendants gambling devices play like, look like, sound like, and attract the same

class of customers as acknowledged slot machines.

COUNT I PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER STATE LAW

20. The State incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as if fully stated in Count I.

5
 DOCUMENT 2

21. The Defendants devices used at the casinos do not play the game commonly

known as bingo as defined by Alabama law. See Barber v. Cornerstone Comm. Outreach, 42 So.

3d 65 (Ala. 2009); HEDA v. State, 168 So. 3d 4 (Ala. 2014); State v. $223,405.86 et al., 203 So.

3d 816 (Ala. 2016); State v. 825 Electronic Gambling Devices, --- So. 3d ----, 2016 WL 7428393

(Ala. 2016).

22. The Defendants devices used at the casinos are prohibited gambling devices, as

defined in Alabama Code 13A-12-20(5). They are machines or equipment used in the playing

phases of gambling activity between persons or machines. Id.

23. The Defendants devices used at the casinos are slot machines or readily convertible

to slot machines, as defined in Alabama Code 13A-12-20(10). As a result of the insertion of an

object, Defendants devices operate with the aid of a physical act by the player to eject something

of value based on the element of chance.

24. Defendants do not have legal authority to operate, advance, or profit from unlawful

gambling activity in violation of Article IV, Section 65 of the Alabama Constitution (1901) and

ALA. CODE 13A-12-20 et seq.

25. Defendants, because of their engaging in interstate commerce in the State of

Alabama, have an obligation to comply with Alabamas laws. This includes the prohibition of the

possession, promotion or transportation of gambling devices and records. See ALA. CODE 13A-

12-20 et seq. The Defendants have engaged in all these illegal behaviors by contracting and

offering the games in Greene County, Alabama.

26. This continued operation of illegal slot machines and unlawful gambling devices

by Defendants is a public nuisance. See ALA. CODE 6-5-120 et seq.; Restatement (Second) of

Torts 821B; Try-Me Bottling Company, et al v. State of Alabama, 178 So. 231 (Ala. 1938).

6
 DOCUMENT 2

27. The continued operation of slot machines and unlawful gambling devices by

Defendants works hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public interest.

28. The public policy of Alabama is emphatically against lotteries or any scheme in the

nature of a lottery.

29. The State has an interest in the welfare of the people within her domain and, of

consequence, in enforcement of the States declared public policy against lotteries or gift schemes.

Try-Me Bottling Co. at 235.

30. Defendants operation of lotteries and their use of slot machines and unlawful

gambling devices are enjoinable in suit by the State by virtue of this Courts equity jurisdiction to

abate a public nuisance. See Try-Me Bottling Company, et al v. State of Alabama, 178 So. 231

(Ala. 1938).

31. The State of Alabama, through its Attorney General, is a proper party to file an

action to enjoin the public nuisance of unlawful gambling in the State of Alabama.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Alabama respectfully requests

this Honorable Court enter an Order:

1) declaring that the gambling activities being conducted by or through the Defendants is

a public nuisance;

2) permanently enjoining the Defendants from providing such unlawful gambling

activities; and

3) ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

7
 DOCUMENT 2

Respectfully submitted,

STEVE MARSHALL (MAR083)

ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ John L. Kachelman III

JOHN L. KACHELMAN III (KAC001)
Assistant Attorney General

OF COUNSEL:
John L. Kachelman III (KAC001)
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
501 Washington Avenue
Post Office Box 300152
Montgomery, AL 36130-0152
(334) 242-7300
(334) 242-4890 FAX
jkachelman@ago.state.al.us

8
 DOCUMENT 6
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA

)
STATE OF ALABAMA )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC., )
ENCORE GAMING GROUP, )
EPIC TECH, INC., )
GREENETRACK, INC., )
THE CENTER FOR RURAL FAMILY )
DEVELOPMENT, INC. D/B/A GREEN )
CHARITY, ) Case No. CV-2017-900064
DREAM INC. D/B/A FRONTIER ) __________________________
BINGO, )
TENNTOM COMMUNITY )
DEVELOPMENT D/B/A RIVERS )
EDGE, )
TOMMY SUMMERVILLE POLICE )
SUPPORT LEAGUE, INC. D/B/A )
PALACE BINGO, AND )
SHERIFF JONATHAN BENISON, in his )
official capacity as Sheriff of Greene )
County, )
)
Defendants. )
)

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Comes now the Plaintiff, the State of Alabama, by and through Attorney General Steve

Marshall, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for a preliminary injunction under Ala. R.

Civ. Pr. 65(a) prohibiting the Defendants from doing any of the following things:

(a) offering electronic bingo machines at the facilities in Greene County, Alabama;

(b) receiving any monies in relation to the electronic machines at the facilities in

Greene County, Alabama;

1
 DOCUMENT 6

(c) transporting or providing any additional electronic machines to or from the facilities

in Greene County, Alabama; and

(d) receiving, utilizing and/or providing bingo licenses or permits under Amendment

743 for the play of electronic bingo in Greene County, Alabama.

The State submits the following in support of its request:

I. Introduction

The Court should grant the States requested injunction. Gambling is illegal in Alabama

except as expressly allowed by constitutional amendment. See ALA. CONST. Art. IV, 65. The

Alabama Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that Section 65 is to be construed broadly, and

that any constitutional amendments permitting any form of gambling are to be construed narrowly.

See Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65, 78 (Ala. 2009), Opinion of the

Justices No. 83, 31 So. 2d 753, 754 (Ala. 1947), Barber v. Jefferson Cty. Racing Assn, Inc., 960

So. 2d 599, 614 (Ala. 2006).

The Legislature specifically criminalized possession of slot machines and other gambling

devices, and has defined all such devices to be unlawful unless specifically authorized by law.

ALA. CODE 13A-12-20, 27. None of Alabamas bingo amendments authorize fully automated

casino gambling, and nothing in Greene Countys bingo amendment does either.

Because of the immense profits associated with organized gambling, the gambling industry

continues to attempt to evade the clear Constitutional, statutory, and judicial prohibitions on

gambling. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 3 So. 790, 791 (Ala. 1888); Barber, 960 So. 2d at 614

(finding sweepstakes machines illegal). Constant battles against so-called electronic bingo is

the latest front in this old war. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Alabama discussed these constant

attempts:

2
 DOCUMENT 6

The owners [of the gambling establishment] propose that they have
found, and exploited, a loophole in the law...Alabama's gambling
law, however, is not so easily evaded. It is the policy of the
constitution and laws of Alabama [to prohibit] the vicious system of
lottery schemes and the evil practice of gaming, in all their protean
shapes.

Barber, 960 So.2d at 614 (Ala. 2006). These protean shapes continue to change and the

Defendants specifically in Greene County continue to skirt the clear prohibition of slot

machines and gambling devices in Alabama. Most recently, in 2016, the Supreme Court of

Alabama emphasized that machines cannot be used to play the game commonly known as bingo

permitted by Amendment 743 in Greene County:

[T]he game traditionally known as bingo is not one played by or

within an electronic or computerized machine, terminal, or server,
but is one played outside of machines and electronic circuitry. It is
a group activity, and one that requires a meaningful measure of
human interaction and skill. This includes attentiveness and
discernment and physical, visual, auditory, and verbal interaction by
and between those persons who are playing and between the players
and a person commonly known as the announcer or caller, who
is responsible for calling out the randomly drawn designations and
allowing time between each call for the players to check their cards
and to physically mark them accordingly.

State v. 825 Electronic Gambling Devices, --- So. 3d ----, 2016 WL 7428393 (Ala. 2016). The

Supreme Court continued to extend the Cornerstone factors in Greene County as in all other

counties with bingo amendments.

In 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court instructed in Cornerstone that, just like a slot

machine purportedly playing a sweepstakes was illegal, a slot machine purportedly playing

bingo would be illegal throughout this state if it did not strictly comply with each of the six tests

that have come to be known as the Cornerstone factors. The Court reviewed all of Alabamas

bingo amendments and determined that each of these amendments (properly construed) authorized

only the game commonly or traditionally known as bingo. Cornerstone, 42 So. 3d at 7880, 86.

3
 DOCUMENT 6

The Court then declared what features a game must have to potentially qualify as legal bingo.

Id. at 86. The Court emphasized and required human elements in the play of bingo like paying

attention, personal recognition and related skills, physically and personally marking matching

individual numbers on cards as numbers are announced one by one, racing to be the first, and

group interaction; it rejected the fast-paced, slot-style game the casinos offered.

Over the subsequent years following Cornerstone, the Supreme Court has continued to

emphasize these characteristics of the game of bingo; later decisions specifically extended the

definition and characteristics of this game of bingo to all Amendments allowing bingo in the state.

See Ex Parte State, 121 So. 3d 337 (Ala. 2013) (holding that the Cornerstone test is more than

clear enough to serve as a guide in considering whether the games were legal bingo games); State

v. Greenetrack Inc., 154 So. 3d 940 (Ala. 2014) (We identified in Cornerstone and we reaffirm

today that the game of bingo as that term is used in local constitutional amendments throughout

the State is that game commonly or traditionally known as bingo, and that this game is

characterized by at least the six elements we identified in Cornerstone) (internal citations

omitted); State v. $223,405.86, 203 So. 3d 816 (Ala. 2016) (this Court again affirmed that the

Cornerstone test was applicable to the term bingo as used in Alabamas various local bingo

amendments).

The Alabama Supreme Courts clear mandate is that [i]t is the policy of the constitution

and laws of Alabama to prohibit the vicious system of lottery schemes and the evil practice of

gaming, in all their protean shapes. Barber, 960 So. 2d at 614. Despite the Supreme Courts

clear holding in Cornerstone and its progeny, the profitability of casino gambling to its operators

makes them willing to flout the law again and again.

4
 DOCUMENT 6

The Defendants continue to encourage, solicit, facilitate and promote gambling on

electronic devices in Greene County in contradiction of the clear prohibitions under Alabama law.

Multiple attempts have been made by state officials to encourage those tasked with enforcing the

laws in Greene County to fulfil their obligations and close the illegal gambling in their

jurisdictions. The States efforts have been to no avail and the defiance of state law continues.

This defiance of state law presents a textbook case for the issuance of injunctive relief. The

Defendants violations harms not just the State (by creating legally recognized nuisance under law

and promoting and engaging in illegal activity of its citizenry) but also any private citizens who

wish simply to live in a state that has clear enforcement of the laws. Issuing an injunction,

meanwhile, will not meaningfully harm the Defendants: indeed, if they are acting in an illegal

fashion they should not be operating anyways. Because the Defendants should be forced to

immediately cease operating illegal gambling devices, an injunction should issue now to vindicate

the supremacy of state law while the Court proceeds to final judgment.

II. Background & Factual Basis

The State of Alabama hoped that the Supreme Courts final ruling in State v. 825 Electronic

Gambling Devices, et al, --- So.3d ----, 2016 WL 7428393 (Ala. 2016), would bring an end to the

lingering debate and constant promotion of illegal gambling in Greene County. It has not. Instead,

the Greene County Sheriff has actually allowed more electronic bingo facilities to open and

operate illegally in the county. There are now five facilities that are operating in an open and

notorious fashion in the county,1 completely spurning the clear legal precedent by the Supreme

1
In 2014, during the last attempt at enforcement by the Attorney General in Greene County, there were only four
facilities open at the time.

5
 DOCUMENT 6

Court of Alabama. This struggle to enforce the anti-gambling laws in Greene County is not a new

struggle and has been ongoing for many years.

In Greene County, the Sheriff has been given the responsibility to regulate the operation of

bingo in the county:

The sheriff shall promulgate rules and regulations for the licensing,
permitting, and operation of bingo games within the county. The
sheriff shall insure compliance with such rules or regulations and all
of the following:

(1) No person under the age of 19 years shall be permitted to play

any game or games of bingo, nor shall any person under the age of
19 years be permitted to conduct or assist in the operation of any
game of bingo.

(2) Bingo games shall be operated exclusively on the premises

owned or leased by the nonprofit organization operating the bingo
game. Such location shall be specified in the application of the
nonprofit organization.

(3) A nonprofit organization may not enter into any contract with
any individual, firm, association, or corporation to have the
individual or entity operate bingo games or concessions on behalf of
the nonprofit organization. A nonprofit organization may not pay
consulting fees to any individual or entity for any services
performed in relation to the operation or conduct of a bingo game.

(4) A nonprofit organization may not lend its name or allow its
identity to be used by another person or entity in the operating,
promoting, or advertising of a bingo game in which the nonprofit
organization is not directly and solely operating the bingo game.

(5) All equipment shall be stamped or clearly marked in letters no

less than one-half inch in height and one-fourth inch in width (except
for the letter I) with the name of the nonprofit organization using
the equipment. A nonprofit organization or other person or entity
may not use equipment marked with the name of another nonprofit
organization.

(6) Prizes given by any nonprofit organization for the playing of

bingo games shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in cash
or gifts of equivalent value during any bingo session.

6
 DOCUMENT 6

(7) A nonprofit organization may not advertise bingo except to the

extent and in the manner authorized by rule of the sheriff. If the
sheriff allows a nonprofit organization to advertise bingo, the
nonprofit organization shall indicate in the advertisement the
purposes for which the net proceeds will be used by the nonprofit
organization.

(8) A nonprofit organization shall display its bingo license

conspicuously at the location where the bingo game is conducted.

(9) The sheriff shall determine by regulation the days of operation

during any calendar week and the hours of operation.

ALA. CONST., Amendment 743. Pursuant to this duty to regulate the games of bingo, the Sheriff

of Greene County has promulgated rules and regulations for those wishing to offer bingo in the

county. See Rules & Regulations, Attached as Exhibit A. Within his rules and regulations, the

Sheriff differentiates different licenses as: Class A paper only bingo and Class B all forms of

bingo (which allows electronic bingo under the regulations). Id. This differentiation allows

the Sheriff to collect at least $2,200 for each Class B license allowing electronic bingo in the

jurisdiction or location before such is allowed to occur. Each non-profit organization wishing to

authorize Class B gaming must apply for, pay for and receive this license.2 Id. The Sheriff then

consents to and allows the play of these devices in the county (despite the clear rulings that such

are illegal under Alabama law); without his consent, such games would not be authorized for play

in Greene County. The Sheriff also has a role in distributing the money received at these facilities

and dividing it out to the various recipients in Greene County. For example, in the months of May

and June 2017, the Sheriff was involved in handing out more than $687,000 to various

organizations including his own Sheriffs Department from the proceeds of the five electronic

bingo facilities in Greene County. See Articles, attached as Exhibit B. In May 2017 alone, it

2
Multiple non-profits can utilize the facilities in Greene County for operation, thus multiple licensees may be using
the asme physical location offering the electronic bingo machines.

7
 DOCUMENT 6

appears that Sheriff Benison and his own Sheriffs Department received $76,894 from the illegal

operations in his county while he was supposedly enforcing the laws of the State. Id.

Since before 2010, Greene County has allowed electronic bingo facilities to operate and

local authorities refuse to take any action against them. Multiple cases have been prosecuted by

the Gambling Task Force and the Attorney Generals Office since 2010 resulting in numerous

victories for law enforcement before the Alabama Supreme Court. See e.g. State v. Greenetrack,

Inc., 154 So.3d 940 (Ala. 2014); State v. 825 Elec. Gambling Devices, --- So.3d ----, 2016 WL

7428393 (Ala. Dec. 23, 2016). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that electronic

bingo is illegal in Greene County. However, even after these rulings, it became apparent that the

facilities would continue to offer electronic bingo machines regardless of the clear holding that

such was illegal in Alabama. The State would shut down a facility and then they would reopen

with other machines. News sources continue to tout the opening of the facilities, encouraging

attendance, and completely disregarding the rule of law applicable to this illegal activity.

Additionally, the Sheriff of Greene County has made no efforts to shut down this illegal enterprise

in his county and continues to reap the financial benefits from the licensing and operation of these

machines in his county.

The Attorney Generals Office conducted undercover surveillance of the facilities on

January 11, 2017. See Videos, attached as Exhibit C.3 After seeing that there were electronic

games being offered at facilities in Greene County,4 the Attorney Generals Office made attempts

to locate the business distributing and supplying machines to the facilities in Greene County. The

3
Exhibit C includes video surveillance from only Greenetrack and Greene Charity facilities although all four facil-
ities at the time were observed.
4
At the time of this earlier surveillance one electronic bingo facility, Palace Bingo, had not been opened yet.
Subsequent surveillance of the facilities before the filing of this action would include observation of the machines
at Palace Bingo in Knoxville, AL.

8
 DOCUMENT 6

agents with the Attorney Generals Office identified two possible suppliers/manufacturers of the

games in Greene County: Encore Gaming Group and Epic Tech, Inc. Calls were made to Encore

Gaming Group, an entity located in the State of Georgia, and spoke with a representative of the

business, John Jimenez, who indicated that they were provided machines to facilities in Greene

County and confirmed that Epic Tech, Inc. was providing machines to other facilities in Greene

County.

On February 28, 2017, the Attorney Generals Office then sent a cease and desist letter

to Encore Gaming who had admitted to providing the machines to facilities in Greene County. See

Letter, attached as Exhibit E. John Jiminez replied via email to the Attorney Generals Office and

claimed that his understanding was that different agencies of the state and local government

including various courts take different positions as to the subject of [our cease and desist] letter.

See Letter, attached as Exhibit F. Pen-Tech Inc.5 (Pen-Tech) also responded in writing to the

States demand to cease providing illegal machines and they attempted to avoid legal ramifications

by claiming that the various forms of gaming, including bingo machines such as those referred to

in [the cease and desist] letter, currently are under considering by state and local governments.

See Letter, attached as Exhibit G. Pen-Tech refused to acknowledge the clear rulings by the

Supreme Court of Alabama and instead hinged their hopes that the law and regulation of gaming

in the State of Alabama may evolve or change in the near future. Id.

A cease and desist letter was also sent to Epic Tech, Inc. on Janurary 6, 2017, via its

counsel Guy Lewis. See Letter, attached as Exhibit H. After Mr. Lewis received the letter, several

phone calls took place between him and the Attorney Generals Office regarding the situation with

5
During surveillance operations, it appeared that the manufacturer was Encore Gaming Group from Kennesaw,
GA. However, the reply to the cease and desist letter indicated that the companys legal name was actually Pen-
Tech Associates, Inc.

9
 DOCUMENT 6

Epic Tech, Inc. In these phone calls, Mr. Lewis continued to assert that his client believes they

have not violated any laws because of local law enforcement officers and other attorneys

representing the casinos in Greene County. The State provided the clear legal cases, specifically

applicable in Greene County, but no change in position occurred from Epic Tech. The States

attempts to curtail the supply of machines to Greene County produced no tangible results and the

facilities continued to operate.

Since the facility continued to operate illegal machines in Alabama, the Attorney General

decided to conduct additional surveillance in an undercover investigation on the facility. On July

19, 2017, agents with the Attorney Generals Office visited the five facilities in Greene County.

During their visits, they observed and played the electronic games at the facilities. See Affidavit,

attached as Exhibit D, and Videos, attached as Exhibit I.6 These games played in the same manner

as they did previously on January 12, 2017. As indicated from the undercover investigation, the

facilities did not offer the game commonly known as bingo but instead offered electronic bingo

machines.

III. Argument

The Court should preliminarily enjoin the illegal gambling activity in Greene County

because the State meets the four prerequisites for such relief: (1) without the injunction the State

would suffer irreparable injury; (2) the State has no adequate remedy at law; (3) the State has at

least a reasonable chance of success on the merits; and (4) the hardship imposed on the defendants

by the injunction would not unreasonably outweigh the benefit accruing to the State. See Perley v.

6
No videos were obtained of the operations at Greenetrack and Palace Bingo as the video equipment did not operate
properly and no video evidence was recorded at those facilities. The game play and machines at the facilities is
described in the Affidavit, attached as Exhibit D, and was for all material respects like the games played at the
other three facilities.

10
 DOCUMENT 6

Tapscan, Inc., 646 So. 2d 585 (Ala. 1994).

A. The State has a reasonable chance of success on the merits.

The clear holding of the Supreme Court of Alabama regarding the impermissible and illegal

use of slot machines and gambling devices is without ambiguity. The Court has made it abundantly

clear that such cannot be used in Alabama to play the game of bingo. This continued operation of

illegal slot machines and unlawful gambling devices by Defendants is a public nuisance. See ALA.

CODE 6-5-120 et seq.; Restatement (Second) of Torts 821B; Try-Me Bottling Company, et al

v. State of Alabama, 178 So. 231 (Ala. 1938). The Defendants are operating in an open and

notorious manner in Greene County, advertising their illegal operations to the public, and

admitting that their machines are operating in the State. As such, no defense is likely to allow

protection from the nuisance currently perpetrated by the Defendants under State law. The

likelihood of success in this action is a veritable certainty.

B. Without injunctive relief, there will be irreparable harm.

As explained above and in the Complaint, every passing day is one more that illegal

gambling activity continues in Greene County. Absent immediate action, these illegal devices that

can be used for no lawful purpose will continue to be offered for play. Try-Me Bottling Co. v.

State, 178 So. 231, 235 (1938). Defendants have refused to refrain from operating illegally after

multiple successful prosecutions and failed to comply with the States request to cease and remove

the illegal machines from the State.

Although the State could bring criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings against the

individuals and property, such does not bring the complete relief for the State.

The mere prosecution for a misdemeanor here involved will not give
complete relief. The State is interested in the welfare of the people
within her domain, and, of consequence, in the enforcement of the
declared public policy against lotteries or gift schemes in the nature

11
 DOCUMENT 6

thereof As [] noted above, this court has never regarded a

criminal prosecution, which can only dispose of an existing nuisance
and cannot prevent a renewal of the nuisance, for which a new
prosecution must be brought, as a complete and adequate remedy
for a wrong inflicted upon the public. The public authorities have a
right to institute the suit where the general public welfare demands
it and damages to the public are not susceptible of computation. The
maintenance of the public health, morals, safety, and welfare is on a
plane above mere pecuniary damage, although not susceptible of
measurement in money; and to say that a court of equity may not
enjoin a public nuisance because property rights are not involved
would be to say that the state is unable to enforce the law or protect
its citizens from public wrongs.

Try-Me Bottling Co. v. State, 178 So. 231, 235 (1938). Such is the case here when the Defendants

have been involved in numerous attempts to thwart the laws of the State and no previous action

has fully enjoined or stopped their wrongs inflicted upon the public. Thus, absent immediate

intervention, the harm will continue to the citizenry of the state and will not be redressed. To

ensure that neither harm occurs, an order halting the illegal business activities is necessary.

C. The State has no adequate remedy at law.

In a similar vein, not much needs to be said about the inadequacy of the States legal

remedies. The previous years attempts at enforcing the illegal gambling laws in Greene County

has shown the inadequacy of remedies under Alabama law. Although ALA. CODE 13A-12-20 et

seq. allows for the criminal and quasi-criminal prosecution of these illegal acts, the States attempts

and utilizing these remedies has been minimal. Because local law enforcement refuses to comply

with the Orders and Opinions of the Supreme Court, the effectiveness of these enforcement actions

has been marginalized. Additionally, the incredible cost of a seizure operation and the subsequent

storage of hundreds or thousands of illegal gambling machines is a tremendous burden to State

agencies involved in the operation. The previous remedies although successful for the short-

12
 DOCUMENT 6

term have proven to be inadequate to purge the State of these surreptitious actors. The State

needs an adequate remedy to maintain the health, morals, safety and welfare of our state.

Additionally, as the Alabama Supreme Court put it, a conclusion that the injury is

irreparable necessarily shows that there is no adequate remedy at law. Water Works & Sewer Bd.

of the City of Birmingham v. Inland Lake Investments, LLC, 31 So. 3d 686, 692 (Ala. 2009)

(quotation marks; citation omitted; emphasis added). Any continuation of illegal activity brings

about irreparable harm to a community and a state. It is impossible to quantify the exact injury

exacted; however, any violation of the health, morals, safety and welfare of our state should be

given serious consideration. Here, the offense against the States public-policy against illegal

gambling is not completely redressable. Such is not an option. No amount of money can adequately

repay the State for resources expended and consumed during the previous enforcement actions.

Multiple state agencies, including the Attorney Generals Office and other law enforcement

agencies, will never be able to be compensated for the tremendous amount of time and money that

was required for previous enforcement actions. Adequate remedies have proven elusive against

individuals like and including the Defendants.

D. The balance of equities favors issuance of an injunction.

The final prerequisite calls for a balancing of the equitiesand more specifically that the

injunction be issued if in doing so, the harm to the Defendants will not unreasonably outweigh the

benefit to the State. Ex parte B2K Sys., 162 So. 3d at 903. Here, this balance clearly favors

issuance of the injunction.

On one side of the ledger, the State will benefit significantly from issuance of the

injunction. As already noted, such an order will immediately and directly vindicate the rule of law

in the state and properly stop the illegal activity of the Defendants that is a verified nuisance in our

13
 DOCUMENT 6

state. Beyond that, the injunction will also immediately and directly benefit any private citizens

who wish to have a state that upholds and treasures the rule of law and respect for proper legal

authority in the state.

On the other side of the ledger, meanwhile, the Defendants have no valid (or legal) claim

of hardship. This is so for two reasons. First, it should be impossible to claim hardship when, as

would be the case here, issuance of the injunction will simply ensure that the laws of the state are

followed and the health, safety, and welfare of the state continues. To put this point more

concretely, the Court has already weighed the competing arguments about preserving the sanctity

of our laws compared to illegal gambling, and it has come down on the side favoring law and

order. Second, any claim of hardship would necessarily include an argument of loss of funds

acquired by continued criminal activity. This kind of harm should never outweigh the immediate

and direct benefit of proper enforcement of laws in our State.

IV. Conclusion

By continuing to engage in illegal gambling activity, the Defendants continue a clear

violation of state law and creation of a public nuisance that must be abated. That violation works

an ongoing harm to the State and private citizens, and there is no other way to make it immediately

stop except by order of this Court. The Court should accordingly enter the States requested

preliminary injunction and direct the Defendants to immediately cease operations.

Respectfully submitted on this 4th day of October, 2017.

STEVE MARSHALL (MAR083)

ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ John L. Kachelman III

JOHN L. KACHELMAN III (KAC001)
Assistant Attorney General

14
DOCUMENT 6

State of Alabama
Office of the Attorney General
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152
(334) 242-7300
(334) 353-8440 (fax)
jkachelman@ago.state.al.us

15
 DOCUMENT 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 4, 2017, I filed the foregoing motion electronically using

the AlaFile.com online filing system and mailed a copy to the following addresses:

Pen-Tech Associates, Inc., and/or Dream Inc. D/B/A Frontier Bingo,

Encore Gaming Group, c/o Janice Henderson
1640 Airport Road, Suite 105 437 Westhills Court
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 Bessemer, Alabama 35022

Epic Tech, Inc., Tenntom Community Development D/B/A

c/o Corporation Service Company Inc. Rivers Edge,
641 South Lawrence Street 29214 US Hwy. 11
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Knoxville, Alabama 35469

Greenetrack, Inc., Tommy Summerville Police Support League,

c/o Luther Winn Inc. D/B/A Palace Bingo,
524 County Road 208 c/o E.K. Aycock
RR 3, Box 31 401 Main Street
Eutaw, Alabama 35462 Eutaw, Alabama 35462

The Center For Rural Family Development, Sheriff Jonathan Benison

Inc. D/B/A Green Charity, Greene County Sheriffs Office
c/o Brendan G. Gaines 400 Morrow Avenue
16493 Field Road P.O. Box 109
Ralph, Alabama 35480 Eutaw, Alabama 35462

STEVE MARSHALL (MAR083)

ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ John L. Kachelman III

JOHN L. KACHELMAN III (KAC001)
Assistant Attorney General

State of Alabama
Office of the Attorney General
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152
(334) 242-7300
(334) 353-8440 (fax)
jkachelman@ago.state.al.us

16
 DOCUMENT 7
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit A
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
DOCUMENT 7
 DOCUMENT 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit B
 DOCUMENT 8

Five bingo facilities contribute $358,626.66 for distribution

in Greene County
greenecodemocrat.com /2017/05/24/five-bingo-facilities-contribute-358626-66-for-distribution-in-greene-county/

greenecodemocratcom 5/24/2017

Shown L to R: Bingo
Clerks, Emma Jackson and Minnie Byrd; Forkland City Councilman,JohnTuck; Greene County Board of
Education CFO, Katrina Sewell; Sheriff Jonathan Benison;Rhonda French, representing Greene Co.
Commission; Geraldine Thompson, representing Town of Union;Shirley Edwards, representing the Greene
Co. Health Systems and Boligee Councilwoman, Earnestine Wade.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017, Greene County Sheriff Department distributed $358,626.66 in monthly bingo allocations
from the five licensed gaming operations in the county. The Palace, located on US Hwy. 11, Knoxville, is the latest
bingo facility to become licensed by Sheriff Jonathan Benison.
The recipients of the monthly distributions from bingo gaming designated by Sheriff Benison in his Bingo Rules and
Regulations include the Greene County Commission, the Greene County Sheriffs Department, the cities of Eutaw,
Forkland, Union, Boligee, Greene County Board of Education and the Greene County Hospital. Assessments are for
the month of April 2017.
Greenetrack, Inc. gave a total of $86,226,66 to the following: Greene County Commission, $34,490.67; Greene
County Sheriffs Department, $12,934; City of Eutaw, $6,467; Towns of Forkland, Union and Boligee each,
$4,311.33; Greene County Board of Education, $19,401.00.
Green Charity (Center for Rural Family Development) gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County
Commission, $24,000; Greene County Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; and the Towns of
Forkland, Union and Boligee each, $3,000; Greene County Board of Education, $13,500.

Frontier (Dream, Inc.) gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County Commission, $24,000; Greene County
Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; and the Towns of Forkland, Union and Boligee each, $3,000;
Greene County Board of Education, $13,500.
Rivers Edge (TennTom Community Outreach) gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County Commission,
$24,000; Greene County Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; and the Towns of Forkland, Union and
Boligee each, $3,000; Greene County Board of Education, $13,500.

1/2
 DOCUMENT 8

Palace (Tom Summerville Police Support) gave a total of $92.400 to the following: Greene County Commission,
$4,620; Greene County Sheriffs Department, $36,960; City of Eutaw, $27,720; and the Towns of Forkland, Union
and Boligee each, $4,620; Greene County Board of Education, $$4,620 and the GreeneCounty Hospital $4,620.

2/2
 DOCUMENT 8

Five bingo facilities contribute $332,400 to county entities

designated by the sheriff
greenecodemocrat.com /2017/06/28/five-bingo-facilities-contribute-332400-to-county-entities-designated-by-
the-sheriff/

greenecodemocratcom 6/28/2017

Shown L to R: Cynthia McKinnon representing the GreeneCounty Sheriff Department; Union

Councilwoman Rosie Davis; Shirley Edwards, representing the Greene Co. Health Systems; Forkland Mayor
Charlie McAlpine; Bingo Clerk, Emma Jackson; Brenda Burke representing Greene County Commission
and Bingo Clerk, Minnie Byrd

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, Greene County Sheriff Department distributed $332,400 in monthly bingo
allocations from the five licensed gaming operations in the county. The recipients of the monthly distributions from
bingo gaming designated by Sheriff Benison in his Bingo Rules and Regulations include the Greene County
Commission, the Greene County Sheriffs Department, the cities of Eutaw, Forkland, Union, Boligee, Greene County
Board of Education and the Greene County Hospital. Assessments are for the month of May 2017.
Only the Palace, the newest bingo facility in the county, contributed to the Greene County Hospital.
Greenetrack, Inc. gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County Commission, $24,000; Greene County
Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; Towns of Forkland, Union and Boligee each, $3,000; Greene
County Board of Education, $13,500.

Green Charity (Center for Rural Family Development) gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County
Commission, $24,000; Greene County Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; and the Towns of
Forkland, Union and Boligee each, $3,000; Greene County Board of Education, $13,500.
Frontier (Dream, Inc.) gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County Commission, $24,000; Greene County
Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; and the Towns of Forkland, Union and Boligee each, $3,000;
Greene County Board of Education, $13,500.
Rivers Edge (TennTom Community Outreach) gave a total of $60,000 to the following: Greene County Commission,
$24,000; Greene County Sheriffs Department, $9,000; City of Eutaw, $4,500; and the Towns of Forkland, Union and
Boligee each, $3,000; Greene County Board of Education, $13,500.
Palace (Tom Summerville Police Support) gave a total of $92.400 to the following: Greene County Commission,
$4,620; Greene County Sheriffs Department, $36,960; City of Eutaw, $27,720; and the Towns of Forkland, Union
1/2
 DOCUMENT 8

and Boligee each, $4,620; Greene County Board of Education, $4,620 and the GreeneCounty Hospital $4,620.

2/2
 DOCUMENT 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit C
(Disk to be filed separately with clerk
and provided to parties)
 DOCUMENT 10
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit D
 DOCUMENT 10

AFFIDAVIT OF BOBBY MOORE

COTINTY OF MONTGOMERY
STATE OF ALABAMA

Before me, the undersigned notary public in and for said County and said State,

personally appeared Bobby Moore, who being known to me and having been first duly sworn,

deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Bobby Moore. I am employed as a Special Agent with the Office of

the Alabama Attomey General. I have been so employed since December 2016. I am in my 11th

year of continuous law enforcement service having first been employed by the Cleveland, MS

Police Department. I have worked as a patrol officer and as an investigator, having worked for

the Montgomery, Police Department for the approximately five (5) years prior to my corning to

the Office of the Attorney General. For the past 11 years, I have worked in many areas including

white collar fraud, cybercrimes and special victims-related physical and sexual crimes

investigation. I have been the Case Agent and Co-Case Agent in numerous investigations that

were prosecuted in Federal, State, and Municipal Courts and have successfully obtained

numerous search warrants for State and Federal violations of criminal law.

Z. On July T3,2Ol7,I and Special Agent Richard Windham, travelled to Greene

County to investigate the five casinos in operation there: Frontier Bingo, Palace Bingo, River's

Edge Bingo, Greene Charity Bingo, and Greenetrack. Our objective was to determine an

approximate count of machines operating within each facility, gain information as to how the

machines operated within each facility and how the games were played via the machines.

3. At approximately 1757 hours we arrived at Frontier Bingo, located at l2l Old

patton Road, Knoxville, Alabama. Upon entering the facility there is a divider wall that separates

the facility into two large but separate rooms. Located near the entry/exit door there was a
 DOCUMENT 10

license signed by the sheriff of Greene County indicating that he had inspected the bingo

machines and determined that they met the standards for bingo in Alabama. tn the center of the

building, almost directly in line with the wall divider was a cashier's cage manned by two black

females at the time of our arrival. Around the facility there were two types of machines in

operation. The first type of machine did not have a slot for money to be inserted into it; the

second type resembled a traditional slot machine with a slot for accepting cash and a second slot

consistent with printing a receipt or cash receiptiticket. Agent Windharn and I walked to the

cashier's window where a cashier infonned me that the machines against the wall accepted cash,

while the machines in the center required that you enter a PIN code that you would have to

purchase from them at the window. I then asked which machines paid out better and she stated

..tall machines" against the wall that accepted cash paid out better. I thanked the cashiers
that the

and then separated from Agent Windham where I then entered the right-side room of the facility

and inserted $20 of currency provided to me by Agent Windham into one (1) of the cash-based

machines. I noted that the machines bore either a logo for Encore or ECS gaming, with the

exception of the machines in the center of the facility near the cashier's cage. The machines that

accepted a pIN code did not have a company name that I could see and appeared to be software-

based programs running on PCs that were located behind the monitors. In total, there were

approximately 250 machines located throughout the building with the majority of the machines

being the pay machines. While at Frontier Bingo, we walked through the facility, observed all

the rnachines and games on the machines, and played some of the machines'

4. At Frontier Bingo, I operated the machines that you could insert cash directly into

and I observed the machines that you could insert a code into; all machines appeared to operate

the garnes in the same manner. The user was able to select from a variety of "games," with the
 DOCUMENT 10

types of games differing slightly with some machines. All of the games I observed were

consistent with slot-style play in which computer video reels would spin after the user placed

their bet using their credits from inserting money or their PIN and the user would then be

notified of their winnings by the syrnbols that aligned on the pay lines. Each machine - on the top

portion of the machine - would have a small bingo card that was allegedly in play at the same

time as the dial, and the notice to the player was that winners were based on the play of the bingo

card on this screen. Although there was a notice on the machine that indicated that the user was

not betting on the reels but on the bingo card located in the lower left corner of the upper screen

of the machine, to the player, the payouts consistently appeared to revolve around the user

winning the alignment on the slot reels on the lower screen and not the bingo card at the top of

the screen. Payouts were explained or indicated in terms of the alignment of symbols on the slot

reels and not the pattern of bingo on the virtual card displayed.

5. After leaving Frontier Bingo, Agent Windham and I proceeded to Palace Bingo,

which is located down the street from Frontier Bingo. Both Agent Windham and I played and

observed the machines at the facility. These machines were consistent with the machines that

were observed at Frontier Bingo. Players were able to insert money into the machine and then

play avariety of slot-based "games" on the machines. Signs there indicated that the player was

engaged in a virtual bingo game but again the payouts appeared to the player to be based upon

the alignment of the reals in the virtual slot machine "game" that was being played. There were

several different types of machines, some of which bore the logo of "Winter Sky," and others

that appeared to bore a logo of "ECL." However, all of the machines that I observed were cash-

based machines that played similar styles of "games."

 DOCUMENT 10

6. At approxirnately 1859 hours, Agent Windham and I entered River's Edge Bingo

located at 29214 US-11, Knoxville, Alabama. This was a much larger facility than Frontier

Bingo that had a full bar and seating area in the back and multiple machines on the garning floor

area. There were approximately 500 machines located throughout the facility. The rnajority of

machines were cash-based machines (could insert cash directly into the machine), but there were

several lines of machines in the back that appeared to be operating off of a network of computers

and required a PIN code to operate. The operation of all the machines appeared consistent with

each other regardless of whether they accepted cash directly or utilized a PIN number.

7. At Rivers Edge Bingo, the machines operated in the satre or similar fashion as

those at the other facilities. The user would be granted a certain amount of credits based on the

amount of money placed into the machine and then the user would play a slot style game on the

main screen while a small bingo card would be displayed on the upper left side of the top screen.

Players were instructed via instructions on the machine that the slot line was only for amusement

and that the player was actually playing bingo. However, the display of payouts on the machine

were shown with the pay lines on the slot reels; nothing seemed to be connected to the digital

bingo card on the game. In fact, I noted several discrepancies between the bingo card on the top

of the machine and slot reels on the bottom screen of the machine. For example, there were

multiple instances in which I was informed that I had won by the matching symbols on the pay

lines on the slot reels, but when I looked at the top at the bingo card there was no clear

discemible pattern indicating that I should have won at bingo. Conversely, sometimes there

would be five numbers in a row or pattern on the bingo card when I would hit matching symbols

on the pay line. Yet other times I would win on the bingo card - or rather should have won
 DOCUMENT 10

because I had five (5) numbers in a row and yet I did not win because I did not have anything on

the slot dials that indicated a winning combination of symbols.

8. The machines did have tax stamps affixed to them but I could not locate anything

that indicated charities that were being played for by the gamers. Again, I was able to locate a

notice or license for River's Edge that appeared to have been issued by the sheriff that indicated

that the machines had been inspected and were legal.

9. When we completed our undercover work, my credits were actually greater than

the $20.00 that I started with so I decided to cash in my payout slip. I was instructed to go to a

cashier's window that contained the type of machine that I had been playing (in this case it was

labeled "Wintersky'') and provide the slip to the cashier. I did so and received approximately $41

and some change from the teller.

10. At approximately 1936 hours Agent Windham and I exited River's Edge Bingo

and proceeded to the next location, Greene Charity Bingo. Upon arrival at the venue I noticed

that the facility appeared to have one time been a fast food restaurant of some type. The entry

way into the facility contained a cashier's window to the right, and gaming machines to the left

and right of the entrance, with a hallway leading into another larger open area in the back of the

facility that I did not venture into. Sitting directly across from the entrance - in what was once

the drive through window area - was a security officer and a line of drink machines. Agent

Windham and I split up and I went to play the machines located to the left of the entrance. These

machines bore the logos of "AMS" and "Encore," and contained notices that the machines were

"Operated by BCFD" but there was no other signage to indicate what those letters stood for or

meant. Perhaps most interesting to me was that the machines at Greene Charity operated in the

same maruter as the machines at the previous facilities - down to the fact that there was a bingo
 DOCUMENT 10

card displayed on the rnachine but the payouts and winnings were indicated to the user on the

basis of the virtual slot machine payout lines - but there was one difference on the machines at
this facility. The button on the machine that the user would press to start the "game" and to start

the reels spinning, normally had the word "Bet" written on it. At this location the button to start

the o'game" was labeled "Donation." The machines that I observed bore the logos of "AMS" and

"Encore." At one point I was attempting to play one (l) of the machines near the security officer

and the machine would not take my ticket, prompting the officer to tell me that I had to play the

tickets in the same brand of machine that I won them in or go to the cashier's window and cash

in the ticket and play a different brand of machine.

11. At approximately 2015 hours Agent Windham and I arrived at Greenetrack,

located at 524 County Road 208, Eutaw, Alabama. Upon entering the facility, Agent Windham

and I were instructed by an armed security officer to remove any items from our pockets prior to

going through a metal detector. Once inside we moved to the primary gaming floor where there

were approximately 500 machines that appeared to have from varying companies or

manufacturers names on them. We were able to note the following machine companies: Encore,

CGS (Crown Gaming Systern), Star (unknown company with a star logo like the Dallas

Cowboys star logo), Moonlight, and then unknown PIN code type machines that required an

account. I inserted $20 of cash provided to me by Agent Windham into a machine and played

until I had only 20 cents remaining on the account. I then printed the payout ticket and located

Agent Windham to leave the facility. While Agent Windham was still playng the machines I

walked throughout the lower level of the building and observed all of the machines that were

accessible by players. Each of the machines that I observed were playable in the same manner as

the previous locations mentioned above.

6
 DOCUMENT 10

12. It is worth noting that at Greenetrack I again observed discrepancies in payouts

between the bingo card on the upper left comer of the machine and the slot reels on the lower

portion of the machines. There were several times that it appeared that I won the slot reel portion

of the game because certain synbols on a pay line were aligned on the display, but there was no

bingo on the card. Once I even noted that I had three bingo balls on the bingo card display but

they were not even in a row. The balls or numbers began flashing as if I was a winner (which I

was according to the slot reels). Another time I won, or should have won, based on my having

five numbers blinking in a row on my bingo card but nothing on my slot reels. In this instance, I

was rewarded one penny for the winning bingo card.

13. In walking through the facility I was able to locate the license paperwork issued

by the Sheriff of Greene County indicating that he machines had been inspected and were legal,

as well as tax stamps on the machines as had been located at previous locations. This facility also

maintained notices on the majority of the machines that appeared to indicate charities that the

money would be going to. There were only two (2) different charities that I was able to locate:

Woman to Woman and E911. At approximately 2046hrs Agent Windham and I exited the

facility.

NOTARIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county in said state, hereby certify that

Robert Moore, whose name is signed to the foregoing Affidavit and who is known to me,
 DOCUMENT 10

acknowledged before me on this day that, being informed of the contents of the above and

my hand and seal on this the

EsITGRAT{II DENEVE
fhry htfc, Abbena Sbb At large
My commission expires: ry cmnigsr Eryir Feuar, + At g
 DOCUMENT 11
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit E
 DOCUMENT 11

Srlre OF ALABAMA
OrrIce oF THE Arronruey GENERAL
STEVEN T. MARSHALL 50I WASHINGTONAVENUE
ATTORNEY GENERAL MONTGOMERY, AL 36I30
|a,34)242-7300
WWW.AGO.ALABAMA.GOV

February 28,2017

|ohn f imenez
Encore Gaming Group
7640 Airport Road, Suite 105
Kennesaw, GA 30144

RE: Encore Gaming Group (1640 Airport Road, Suite 705, Kennesdw, GA 30L44)

Dear Mr. f imenez,

I am sorry that you did not receive our previous letter sent on Jantary
26,
20L7. I am now sending this second letter regarding your business, Encore Gaming
Group ["Encore"], which is headquartered in Georgia and does business in Alabama.
My office's investigation has established that Encore is providing electronic gaming
machines in Greene County to four different gaming facilities. All of these Encore
machines purport to play "electronic bingo". These machines are provided either
by sale or lease to multiple facilities in our state. This letter is a formal request to
Encore to cease and desist from providing these machines and to immediately
remove all existing machines from Alabama within 21 days.

Electronic bingo has been declared in Alabama as an illegal form of lottery

prohibited under Alabama's Constitution. Houston County Economic Development
Authority (HEDA) v. State of Alabama, 168 So.3d 4, 9 [Ala. 2014). Some
Constitutional Amendments have been passed to allow bingo in certain local
jurisdictions to permit the play of the traditional form of paper bingo. The Alabama
Supreme Court has consistently held that these amendments do not allow electronic
devices, such as the Encore machines, for the play of bingo.

Specifically, in Greene County, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered

Amendment 743 and held on December 23,2016, "nothing in the plain language of
Amendment No. 743 eliminates the requirement of meaningful human interaction
and skill by the player when playing the game or any of the other elements of bingo
as explained in Cornerstone and HEDA, including the fundamental requirement of a
game not played by or within the electronic circuitry of a machine."T
I State v. 825 Electronic Gambling Devices, et al, -- So. 3d --, p. 23 (emphasis added) p. 25, (Opinion enclosed);
See also Barber v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc.,42 So.3d 65 (2009); Houston County Economic
Development Authority v. Stqte of Alabama,l68 So.3d 4 (Ala. 2010; and State of Alabama v. $223,405.86, -- So.
3d --, 2016 WL 127 3039 (Ala. 20 l6).
 DOCUMENT 11

John Jimenez
February 28,2017
Page 2

These Supreme Court of Alabama has clearly held that the game of bingo may
not be played on electronic machines in the State of Alabama -- including
specifically Greene County. The casino-style, so-called "electronic bingo" games --
--
often found on federally recognized tribal lands for play in Indian Casinos are not
legal in the state. Under Alabama law, these type of electronic games are slot
machines and illegal.

Since your client is involved in the operation of such machines in Alabama,

they face potential civil or criminal prosecution in state andf or federal court. My
office haJ no desire in long or protracted litigation against your client. Our
previous experience in similar cases has revealed that lessees often do not fully
disclose the true state of gambling law in Alabama when negotiating with lessors
for services or products. Therefore, in order to provide you a fair opportunity to
comply with Alabama law, I will allow your clientto immediately suspend use of and
subiequently remove all electronic games from Alabama within 2L days. If your
client fails to comply, this office will be forced to take legal action to bring
compliance to Alabama laws.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at
(334) 353-06ig o. by email at jkachelman(Oago.state.al.us. Thank you for your
prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

9/-1.{t-0,La
Vonn L. Kachelman III
Assistant AttorneY General

Enclosure
 DOCUMENT 12
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit F
 DOCUMENT 12

March 14, 2017

Mr. John Kachelman

501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36130

RE: Encore Gaming Group

Dear Mr. Kachelman:

We are in receipt of your letter dated February 28, 2017. We have taken your
correspondence under advisement and it is under review by legal counsel. We are of the
understanding that different agencies of the state and local government including various courts
take different positions as to the subject of your letter. We are seeking guidance as to this.

It would seem that state and local law enforecement particularly may not be in accord
with the sentiments stated in your letter. For our part we want to be a responsible business
operating in the State of Alabama and we, of course, are always happy to have such
conversations and discussions as may be appropriate with your office and others. To this end,
within 21 days of this letter, please send me assurance from the Alabama Law Enforcement
Agency and the sheriff of Greene County that they are in agreement with the position set forth in
your letter.

Thank you for your help and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
 DOCUMENT 13
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit G
DOCUMENT 13
DOCUMENT 13
 DOCUMENT 14
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit H
 DOCUMENT 14

STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LUTHER STRANGE 5OI \/!r'ASHINGTON AVENUE
P.O- BOX 300t52
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MONTGOMERY. AL 36I30-OI52
(334) 242-73OO
WWW.AGO.ALABAMA.GOV

January 6,2017

I{onorable Guy Lewrs

Lewis Tein PL
3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133

RE: Epic Tech, LLC (55 Pearson Way Suite E, Lavonia, GA 30553)

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I write regarding your client, Epic Tech LLC ["Epic"], which is headquartered in Georgia
and does business in Alabama. My office's investigation has established that Epic is providing
electronic gaming machines in Macon County to Victoryland. Further, we believe Epic is also
providing electronic gaming machines in Greene and Lowndes Counties. All of these Epic
machines purport to play "electronic bingo". These machines are provided either by sale or lease
to multiple facilities in our state. This letter is a formal request to Epic to cease and desist from
providing these machines and to immediately remove all existing machines from Alabama within
2l days.
Electronic bingo has been declared an illegal form of lottery prohibited under Alabama's
Constitution. Houston C.ounty Economic Development Authority (HEDA) v. State of Alabama,16S
So.3d 4,9 (Ala.2014). Some Constitutional Amendments have been passed to allow facilities in
certain local jurisdictions to permit the play of the traditional form of paper bingo. The Alabama
Supreme Court has consistently held that these amendments do not allow electronic devices, such
as the Epic machines, for the play of bingo.

In Lowndes County, where Epic currently has machines, the Supreme Court of Alabama
considered Amendment 674 and held that the games played on electronic machines do not meet
the definition of the "game commonly known as bingo."l This ruling has been upheld multiple
times and has been extended in other recent decision affecting all other counties in our State.

In Macon County, where Epic currently has machines, the Supreme Court of Alabama
considered Amendment 744 and held that "[T]he game traditionally known as bingo is not one
played by or within an electronic or computerized machine, terminal, or server, but is one played

1
Barber v. Cornerstone CommuniQ Outreach, lnc.,42 So.3d 65 (2009).
 DOCUMENT 14

Honorable Guy Lewis

January 6,2017
Page2

outside of machines and electronic circuitry. It is a group activity, and one that requires a
meaningful measure of human interaction and skill."2

In Greene County, where we believe Epic also has machines, the Supreme Court of
Alabama considered Amendment 743 and held on December 23, 2016, "nothing in the plain
language of Amendment No. 743 eliminates the requirement of meaningful human interaction and
skill by the player when playing the game or any of the other elements of bingo as explained in
Cornerstone and HEDA, including the fundamental requirement of a game not played by or within
the electronic circuitry of a machine."3

These decisions clearly hold that the game of bingo may not be played on electronic
machines in the State of Alabama-- including specifically Lowndes, Macon, and Greene Counties.
These casino-style, so-called "electronic bingo" games -- often found on federally recognized
tribal lands for play in Indian Casinos -- are not legal inthe state. Under Alabama law, these type
of electronic games are slot machines and illegal.

Since your client is involved in the operation of such machines in Alabama, it and its
officers and employees face potential civil or criminal prosecution in state and/or federal court.
My office has no desire to initiate long or protracted litigation against your client. Our previous
experience in similar cases has revealed that lessees often do not fully disclose the true state of
gambling law in Alabama when negotiating with lessors for services or products. Therefore, in
order to provide you an additional opportunity to comply with Alabama law, I will allow your
client toimmecliately suspend use of and subsequently remove all electronic games from Alabama
within 21 days. If your client fails to comply, this office will be forced to take legal action.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call Assistant Attorney
General John Kachelman III at (334) 353-0619 or by email at ikaclrclrnun . Thank
you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LLLr S{-"-Y-
Luther Strange
Attorney General

2 State of Alabamav. $223,405.86, -- So. 3d---,2016WL 1273039 (Ala.20l6) (quoting HEDA v. State,l68 So.3d
at l8) (emphasis added).
3 State v. 825 Electronic Gambling Devices, et al, -- So. 3d --, p. 23 (emphasis added) p. 25, (Opinion enclosed).
 DOCUMENT 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/4/2017 3:47 PM
35-CV-2017-900064.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
GREENE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MATTIE ATKINS, CLERK

Exhibit I
(Disk to be filed separately with clerk
and provided to parties)