IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
                       STATE OF MISSOURI
  
  EDWIN P. McKASKEL and         )
  DR. HAROLD H. HENDRICK,       )
                                )
                 Plaintiffs,    )
                                )
  vs.                           ) Case No. 08AC-CC00205
                                )
  ROBIN CARNAHAN,               )
  Secretary of State, and       )
  SUSAN MONTEE, State Auditor,  )
                                ) June 13, 2008
                 Defendants.    ) Jefferson City, Missouri
  
                            VOLUME I
                   DEPOSITION OF JOHN KINDT,
  a witness, produced, sworn and examined on the 13th day of
  June, 2008, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
  of that day at the law offices of Audrey McIntosh,
  612 East Capitol, in the City of Jefferson, County of
  Cole, State of Missouri, before
  
              KELLENE K. FEDDERSEN, RPR, CSR, CCR
                  MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
             3432 West Truman Boulevard, Suite 207
                   Jefferson City, MO  65109
                         (573)636-7551
  and Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri,
  commissioned in Cole County, Missouri, in the
  above-entitled cause, on the part of the Defendants,
  pursuant to Notice.

                            I N D E X
  Direct Examination by Ms. Vollet                       5
  Cross-Examination by Mr. Hatfield                      275
  
                         EXHIBITS INDEX
                                                   IDENTIFIED
  Exhibit No. 1   Plaintiffs Edwin McKaskel and
                  Dr. Harold Hendrick's Answers to
                  First Interrogatories of
                  Defendant Montee                       6
  
  Exhibit No. 2   Plaintiffs Edwin McKaskel and
                  Dr. Harold Hendrick's Answer to
                  Intervenor Bake's First Set of
                  Interrogatories                        6
  Exhibit No. 3   Documents Produced with Exhibit 1      21
  Exhibit No. 3A  John Kindt's Statement to the National
                  Gambling Impact Study Commission,
                  May 21, 1998                           47
  Exhibit No. 3B  Casinos, Crime, and Community Costs
                  Earl L. Grinols and David B. Mustard   72
  
  Exhibit No. 3C  3/08/04 Press Release                  122
  
  Exhibit No. 4   Research, Testimonies and Articles From
                  the Experts, Compiled by Chad Hills    49
  Exhibit No. 5   Excerpts from Gambling in America      50
  Exhibit No. 6   The Costs of Addicted Gamblers: Should
                  the States Initiate Mega-Lawsuits
                  Similar to the Tobacco Cases?
                  John Warren Kindt                      50
  
  Exhibit No. 7   Michigan State DCL Law Review,
                  Volume 2003, Summer, Issue 2           175
  Exhibit No. 8   Drake Law Review, Volume 43, No. 1     175
  Exhibit No. 9   Pathological Gambling A Critical
                  Review                                 180
  
  Exhibit No. 10  Journal of Gambling Studies "The
                  Social Costs of Gambling:  An
                  Economic Perspective"                  207
  Exhibit No. 12  Book Review by Ralph Lattimore         215
  Exhibit No. 13  Book Review by Dean Gerstein           220
  Exhibit No. 14  Book Review by Douglas Walker          225
  Exhibit No. 15  Book Review:  Gambling:  Who Wins?
                  Who Loses? by Christine McKay and
                  Henry R. Lesieur                       230
  Exhibit No. 16  Problems in Quantifying the Social
                  Costs and Benefits of Gambling, by
                  Douglas M. Walker                      233
  Exhibit No. 17  Excessive Zeal:  A Response to John
                  Kindt The Economic Impacts of
                  Legalized Gambling Activities, by
                  Jon Griffin Donlon                     244
  
  Exhibit No. 18  Introduction to Special Issue:
                  Comments on 'Costs of Addicted
                  Gamblers', by Paul H. Rubin            248
  
  Exhibit No. 19  Comment on Kindt's Paper by William R.
                  Eadington                              261
  Exhibit No. 20  Kindt's Paper Epitomizes the Problems
                  in Gambling Research, by Douglas M.
                  Walker                                 266
  Exhibit No. 21  Assessing the Costs of 'Addicted'
                  Gamblers, Dean R. Gerstein, Rachel A.
                  Volberg, Henrick J. Harwood and Eugene
                  M. Christiansen                        268
  
  SIGNATURE INSTRUCTIONS:
       Presentment waived; signature requested.
  EXHIBIT INSTRUCTIONS:
       Bound separately.
  
                     A P P E A R A N C E S
  FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
       TERRY ALLEN
            Attorney at Law
            ALLEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
            314 Monroe Street
            Jefferson City, MO  65101
            (573)636-9667
  
  FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
  
       HEIDI DOERHOFF VOLLET
            Assistant Attorney General
            Supreme Court Building
            207 West High Street
            P.O. Box 899
            Jefferson City, MO  65102
            (573)751-1220
            heidi.vollet@ago.mo.gov
  FOR THE INTERVENORS:
       CHARLES W. HATFIELD
       KHRISTINE HEISINGER
            Attorneys at Law
            STINSON MORRISON HECKER, LLP
            230 West McCarty Street
            Jefferson City, MO  65101
            (573)636-6263
            chatfield@stinson.com
            kheisinger@stinson.com

  

  

  JOHN KINDT, being sworn, testified as follows:
  DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Would you please state your name for the
  record.
          A.     John Warren Kindt, K-i-n-d-t.
          Q.     What is your -- how are you employed?
          A.     I'm a professor of business and legal
  policy at the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana.
          Q.     You have engaged as an expert for the
  Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, McKaskel v. Carnahan?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     In regards to their challenge to the fiscal
  note that was prepared for an Initiative Petition
  regarding -- or that was submitted by Troy Stremming in
  January of this year?
          A.     I don't know the details, but I believe so.
          Q.     You have reviewed a fiscal note in your
  work as an expert in this case --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     -- that was prepared by the State Auditor?
          A.     Your fiscal note, yes.
          Q.     Prepared by the State Auditor's Office?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And I do represent the Auditor's Office in
  this matter.  Okay.  And you've reached certain opinions
  regarding the fiscal note?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     I'm going to show you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 1.  This is a set of -- the document's entitled
  Plaintiff Edwin McKaskel and Dr. Harold Hendrick's Answers
  to First Interrogatories of Defendant Montee; is that
  correct?
          A.     That's what it appears to be, yes.
          Q.     While we're at it, I'm also going to show
  you what's been marked as Exhibit 2, and this document is
  Exhibit 2, is entitled Plaintiff Edwin McKaskel and
  Dr. Harold Hendrick's Answers to Intervenor Bake's First
  Set of Interrogatories?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     All right.  Let's turn to Exhibit 1, the
  answers to the interrogatories of Defendant Montee.  Turn
  to -- the second page of that exhibit is the answer to
  Interrogatory 1, and it contains a list of persons who
  consulted or assisted in the responses.  Do you see that?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And you are listed as a person who was
  consulted or assisted in the response?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     How did you participate in responding to
  these interrogatory responses?
          A.     I received information from Terry Allen's
  office, Terry Allen specifically, and provided him with
  background information.
          Q.     Did Mr. Allen send you a copy of the
  interrogatories?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     What else did he provide you with?
          A.     I believe he provided me with all the
  relevant documents in the case.
          Q.     And what would be those documents?
          A.     The Amended Complaint, and I think it would
  probably be better to ask him what he forwarded on to me,
  but I looked at all of those documents.
          Q.     You mean the, for example, the Initiative
  Petition and the fiscal note prepared by the Auditor?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     I remember the fiscal note.
          Q.     Were there any other documents that you can
  remember that were forwarded to you from Mr. Allen?
          A.     He forwarded me multiple documents, and I
  looked at all the documents which he forwarded to me to
  determine their relevance to the questions that he asked.
          Q.     And what would be the names of some of
  those documents?
                 MR. ALLEN:  If you recall.
                 THE WITNESS:  I would have to go and check
  my files and see those documents.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Do you recall what types of documents they
  were?
          A.     Well, they were complaints, answers,
  interrogatories.
          Q.     So --
          A.     They were the -- I'm sorry.  Go ahead.
          Q.     Essentially they were legal filings related
  to the case?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Were there any other types of documents
  other than legal filings related to the case, that you
  recall?
          A.     Not that I recall.
          Q.     Okay.  How did you assist in preparing the
  answers to the interrogatories?  Specifically, we're
  talking about the answers to the interrogatories to
  Defendant -- of Defendant Montee in Exhibit 1.
          A.     Attorney Allen asked me several questions
  over the phone on different occasions, and I supplied him
  with the answers involving research and the sources of the
  research, indicating that it was commonly on the web and
  easy to find.
          Q.     Would it be fair to say that you assisted
  primarily in providing a list of the research on which you
  would be relying for your opinions in this case?
          A.     I did provide a short list, and I also
  provided citations to the documents where he could find
  relevant documents.
          Q.     And by the relevant documents, you mean
  research in the field of gambling costs?
          A.     Yes, research relating to the social cost
  of gambling.
          Q.     Were there any other ways in which you
  assisted in answering the interrogatories in Exhibit 1
  than what you've just discussed?
          A.     I believe I recall faxing citations and
  research materials to Mr. Allen or his office.
          Q.     Anything else?
          A.     That appeared to be all that was necessary.
          Q.     If you'll turn to the next page of
  Exhibit 1, there is an Interrogatory No. 4, and the answer
  is on page 3 and then it continues on to page 4 of
  Exhibit 1.
          A.     We're looking at paragraph 4?
          Q.     The Interrogatory 4 that starts, please
  state what you believe or contend to be the estimated cost
  or savings, if any?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  And then after that question, there
  is an answer that starts, for each dollar received from
  gaming?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And then following that statement there is
  a -- says, see also the attached items, and then there is
  a list, listing of items, and then it goes on to the next
  page.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Is this a list of the research material and
  other source material that you provided to Mr. Allen?
          A.     I either provided or showed him where to
  find them on the web.  Many of these are just on the web.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     So I would have provided him the web source
  and sometimes would have faxed them off just as a double
  check the materials.  And I assume this affidavit is the
  one on the web form Earl Grinols and not one he's done
  specifically for this case, but I did show him where to
  find an affidavit of Earl Grinols on the web.
                 I did cite to the Gambling in America book
  to Mr. Allen, and I gave him the citizenlink.org cite from
  which he could download Dr. Grinols' affidavit, assuming
  it's the one to which I just referred, as well as my
  testimonies before Congress and multiple Law Review
  articles, as well as the U.S. National Gambling Impact
  Study Commission completed in 1999, and I indicated that
  all these are downloadable for free from this public
  website.  They're also located on other web sites
  throughout the Internet.  Do you want me to keep going
  through these one by one?
          Q.     Well --
          A.     I did --
          Q.     First let me clarify, the public website
  that you're talking about is this citizenlink.org website
  that's listed on page 3?
          A.     Right.  Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     If you wouldn't mind just continuing
  through the list, that would be fine.  I think we were
  on --
          A.     My congressional testimonies there, 2006,
  including I appended to my testimony affidavits of
  Professor Grinols, myself and Nancy Petry in another case
  in California which was relevant to this particular case.
  I sent him tables of studies showing the $3 in costs which
  have been reprinted in multiple sources, including myself.
  The table, by the way, is appended to the congressional
  hearing, both -- I should say the congressional statement
  that I gave in 2006 plus the congressional statement that
  I gave in 2005.
                 The testimony before the Missouri Joint
  Legislative Committee on Gambling regarding loss limits, I
  believe I faxed that to his office.  I did fax excerpts
  from Gambling in America, and I believe specifically those
  pages, as I recheck my notes --
          Q.     Here you're referring to the pages 172
  and --
          A.     172, right.
          Q.     -- and 137?
          A.     And actually I think a couple more than
  that, which were the continuation of the tables.  In other
  words, they started there.  Then I sent or told him where
  to find, I think, which was downloadable again off the web
  for free, and included several of these tables again, the
  Managerial Decision Economics article.
                 The Net Economic Impact of Indian Casino
  Gambling in the Rest of Wisconsin came -- I believe it was
  appended to -- it was appended to my 2005 congressional
  testimony that's downloadable off the web.  It's in the
  public domain.  It's also in the governmental records.
  The -- and I can't recall if that's also appended to my
  2006 testimony or not.  But it's easily -- easy to find,
  and it's very well known.  It's by Professor William
  Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan Rickman, Professor
  Rickman.
          Q.     The next item is the Chapter 7.
          A.     Let's see.  Yes.  This is what I mentioned
  earlier, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission
  Final Report.  I'm sure I referenced him to Chapter 7,
  perhaps Chapter 4 as well.  That also is available on the
  previous website, and you can actually just type in on the
  web, at least the last time I did it, National Gambling
  Impact Study Commission and it will come up in full --
  it's easy to find.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     The Business Profitability Versus Social
  Profitability article, I believe that's also on that
  website mentioned earlier, but otherwise you can find all
  these in law libraries and general libraries.  That's also
  out of -- that's an article by Professor Grinols.
                 Costs and Consequences of Gambling in
  Delaware, I can't recall that offhand.  That might have
  been something off of one of these public sites that was
  downloaded by the law firm that they found.  Just --
          Q.     So am I understanding you correctly that
  this list that is in the response to Interrogatory 4, at
  least with the exception of the Delaware study, are items
  that you believe are relevant to the social costs of
  gambling?
          A.     Yes, ma'am, and I believe these are the
  leading edge materials from an academic perspective.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Oh, yes.  And I also provided a cite to the
  Department of Mental Health, the Missouri Department of
  Mental Health.
          Q.     There's a website.  Let me see if I can
  help you with this.
          A.     It's dmb.mo.gov/ada/facts/gambling.htm.
          Q.     This item is listed on the --
          A.     It's at the very end.
          Q.     -- end, just before Ms. --
          A.     Right.
          Q.     -- McIntosh's signature?
          A.     Right.
          Q.     I guess these pages aren't numbered here.
          A.     And I faxed that either to Terry Allen or
  to Ms. McIntosh.  I can't remember which.  And I think I
  also mailed them hard copies because I thought it was
  significant.  I kept saying, this is all on the web and
  here it is right in -- it's a Missouri case, and here is
  the Missouri Department of Mental Health.
                 I also recall faxing the current website,
  and I don't see it listed here, but it's on the current
  website as well.
          Q.     You mean the -- you're referring to the
  current website for the Missouri --
          A.     For the Missouri Department of Mental
  Health, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     All right.
          A.     Yeah.  It's on the 2008 website as well,
  this year.  We've checked it currently, or I checked it.
          Q.     Do you believe this is a -- in the response
  to Interrogatory 4, the list that we've been discussing,
  as well as the information from the Missouri Department of
  Mental Health website, do you believe that those materials
  constitute a fairly complete list of the --
          A.     I would say that they're a fairly complete
  list or they cite to other studies which are the complete
  list and the most authoritative academic studies that are
  available --
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     -- over the last 15 years, approximately.
          Q.     I'm going to draw your attention to
  Exhibit 2, on page 2, on the bottom of page 2 and then
  continuing on to page 3, it has -- in the answer to
  Interrogatory 3, it has what looks like, at least at the
  beginning, it's the same list of materials, but then
  adding -- it also adds some -- after the Costs and
  Consequences of Gambling in the State of Delaware, then it
  adds some Sunshine Law requests and responses and a gaming
  market, gamer profile study?
          A.     Are you asking me a question?
          Q.     I'm asking you if it is -- the materials in
  this response includes the same authoritative articles
  that you have mentioned in the field?
          A.     The ones that are the same as from the
  previous Exhibit 1 that we just discussed appear to be in
  this list as well, and I do see that they have the
  Missouri Department of Mental Health down at the bottom on
  this list.  I probably should have included the current
  2008 website as well.  Might be oversight or a typo.
          Q.     Okay.  I may have asked you this already,
  but just to make sure, does the list of materials that's
  in Exhibit 1 include all the sources or at least some
  links to all the sources for your expert opinions in this
  case?
          A.     I would say that these sources are the
  leading edge introductory materials, as well as some are
  substantial resources, authoritative academic reports in
  and of themselves, and they will certainly link to any
  other reports that were authoritative and might also
  discount reports that they felt were not authoritative.
                 MR. ALLEN:  And she's asking -- if I may,
  she asked you if your opinion, your expert opinion in this
  case is based on those assumptions?  Is that fair?
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Well, what I want to find out is, do we
  have everything that you're basing your expert opinion on
  contained in this list other than, you know, information
  you might have from your study, background and knowledge.
  Is this the main stuff here?
          A.     This is the main stuff.
          Q.     Okay.  So there might be an article or two
  that may come up as we're having discussions today that
  you may cite to, but this list is your best compilation of
  the key material for your opinions in this case?
          A.     Right.  Most of the material should be, in
  this case, or in the footnotes, are part of the research
  here listed.
          Q.     Okay.  Fair enough.
          A.     By the way, I noticed a typo.  I don't live
  at Country Bend Land.  I'm at Country Bend Lane.
          Q.     Duly noted.
          A.     Just to let you know I'm not totally off
  here.
          Q.     All right.  Let's return to Exhibit 1, the
  answer to Interrogatory 4.  Well, the question in
  Interrogatory 4 is, please state what you believe or
  contend to be the estimated costs or savings, if any, to
  state or local government entities of the ballot
  initiative submitted by Troy Stremming to the Secretary of
  State on January 24th, which is referenced in the First
  Amended Petition.  And then the answer there it says, for
  each dollar received from gaming, it is estimated that the
  costs are $3.
                 Is that statement about for each dollar
  received there's an estimated cost of $3 your opinion as
  an expert in this case?
          A.     Would you repeat that?  I think you might
  have misstated that as a three to two ratio.
          Q.     Is it your opinion as an expert in this
  case that for each dollar received from gaming, it is
  estimated that the costs are $3?
          A.     The social cost to the taxpayers are $3,
  according to the authoritative academic studies, for every
  $1 in potential new or tax revenues.
          Q.     And so that is your opinion as an expert in
  this case regarding --
          A.     That would be my opinion based on these
  cited materials.
          Q.     Do you have -- have you reached any other
  opinions about the costs or savings to state and local
  governmental entities as a result of the ballot initiative
  at issue in this case?
          A.     Well, I'll be glad to break down these
  numbers for you.
          Q.     I think let me just --
          A.     I'm not sure what you're asking.
          Q.     Well, what I'd like to do is just start by
  getting a list of your opinions.  If you only have one
  main opinion, I'd like to know that, and then we're going
  to go through everything in detail, but I want to get an
  overview of what stuff we need to go through.
                 So is your principal opinion that the
  fiscal note in this case is flawed because it fails to
  include $3 for social costs for every $1 of economic
  benefit as a result of the Initiative Petition?
          A.     Well, I don't know what the Missouri rules
  and regulations are, other than what I've read in these
  documents, but my response would be that the social costs,
  from what I understand and what I've read, that the social
  costs need to be addressed in the language at issue.
          Q.     In the fiscal note you mean?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  So in your view, under Missouri law,
  social costs should be included in the fiscal note,
  correct?
          A.     I'm not a Missouri attorney, but it is my
  understanding that if we're talking cost-benefits, that
  costs need to be mentioned.
          Q.     And that -- and it's also your opinion that
  if the costs should be mentioned, the costs based on the
  authoritative studies that you have mentioned --
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     -- the costs are $3 for every $1 coming in?
          A.     That would be a conservative starting
  point, three to one.  There are studies which are higher
  than that.
          Q.     Okay.  Have you identified any other
  deficiencies in the fiscal note other than its lack of
  addressing social costs and failure to include the at
  least three to one ratio?
          A.     Well, I don't -- I'm not sure I'm qualified
  to talk about the procedural requirements of the fiscal
  note.  I was called to testify about the social costs
  compared to the potential revenues that would be coming
  in.
          Q.     Are there any other opinions that you have
  had in your capacity as an expert in this case regarding
  the fiscal note other than what we've just discussed?
          A.     I think I'm called to talk about the social
  cost, cost-benefit analysis, and I would leave the other
  issues for the litigators to decide.
          Q.     Fair enough.  So you -- but you don't have
  an opinion about the accuracy of the tax generation
  estimates that were included in the fiscal note?
          A.     Not if I understand your question.  I would
  presume that the numbers that your experts or your
  regulators have come up with are accurate numbers of the
  amount of money to be anticipated to come in.
          Q.     Okay.  There were -- were you aware that
  there were documents that were produced along with the
  interrogatory responses in Exhibit 1?
          A.     If you wish to show me those documents,
  I'll be glad to --
          Q.     Okay.  I'm going to -- I'm going to show
  you what's been marked as Exhibit 3.  Let me get copies
  for everyone.  I'll just represent to you that these were
  copies of the documents that were produced along with the
  answers to Exhibit 1.  When they came in, they weren't
  numbered.  I had my secretary number them.
          A.     Excuse me.  These are the documents that
  came in with Exhibit 1 you said?
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     Okay.
          Q.     Yes.  You can verify.  I just had my
  secretary put numbers on them so we would be able to talk
  about them more easily.  If you'll just verify for me that
  Exhibit 3 in the bottom right-hand corner on the first
  page it starts with McKaskel 1.  Do you see that?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And then it goes -- on the very last page
  we have McKaskel 414, which is a -- looks like a copy of
  your CV or resume?
          A.     I guess so.
          Q.     What I'd like to do, I've got some specific
  questions about the materials in Exhibit 3, but first I'd
  like to just go ahead and identify them with you and see
  how they correspond to the list of authoritative materials
  that we've been discussing in the response of
  Interrogatory 4 in Exhibit 1.  Okay?  So it may be easier
  if you take Exhibit 1 and turn to the third page with that
  list.
          A.     Okay.
          Q.     And the first item on the list in Exhibit 1
  is Affidavit of Dr. Earl Grinols?
          A.     Okay.  Let me clarify.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     That when I earlier said Affidavit of Earl
  Grinols, I was referring to the one on the web that was
  appended to my congressional testimony.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     And this is the first time that I've seen
  this particular page to --
          Q.     McKaskel 1?
          A.     Yes, but I've been -- I've been skimming it
  and I'm familiar with what he's saying.
          Q.     Okay.  Okay.  But you will -- you will
  agree that the item on -- or the McKaskel 1 is a
  Declaration of Dr. Earl Grinols?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  He also uses a three to one
  ratio.
          Q.     And let's turn to McKaskel 2.  This is a
  cover page for Dr. Grinols' book Gambling in America; is
  that correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I would point out that that's
  Cambridge University Press, which is prestigious in
  academia.
          Q.     This is the same book that is the second
  item in the list in Exhibit 1?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Book, Gambling in America.  So we have the
  cover page and some inside information on McKaskel 3 and 4
  from the Gambling in America book, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Then on McKaskel 5, it has a -- the top of
  the page says Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2006
  Hearing?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Is what starts with McKaskel 5, is that the
  2006 congressional testimony of John Kindt and others?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     That is mentioned in -- in the list in
  Exhibit 1?
          A.     It would be primarily my testimony plus the
  appended -- some of -- appended documents for the members
  of Congress, including the, I believe the three affidavits
  from Professor Grinols, myself and Dr. Nancy Petry should
  also be on this, and it looks like they are here.
          Q.     Okay.  So the -- it looks like the appended
  materials, just so we're on the same page, so McKaskel 5
  through McKaskel 15 is a reprint of --
          A.     That's my testimony --
          Q.     Your testimony.  Okay.
          A.     -- on Internet gambling.
          Q.     And then McKaskel 16 is your attachment to
  the statement, and that goes on through --
          A.     That includes this table with the three to
  one ratio summarizing all of the studies, the
  authoritative studies, and includes a couple of the other
  things that are mentioned in this list, including the
  McKaskel 21 is the -- is a page out of the report that I
  mentioned by Professors Thompson and then Rickman.
          Q.     On Indian gambling --
          A.     Right.
          Q.     -- in Wisconsin?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  And it shows the net negative
  effect.
          Q.     Okay.  And then on McKaskel 22 is a table
  from --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     -- the Kindt article, or your article in --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     -- Managerial and Decision Economics?
          A.     Yes.  This is a table done by Professor
  Henry Lesieur and updated by him and reprinted with his
  permission that shows the numbers of expenditures by
  problem gamblers for selected forms of gambling, and then
  he limits that by different states and provinces.
          Q.     I'm going to have specific questions for
  you --
          A.     Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to go into a
  lecture.
          Q.     No.  No.  That's fine.  I just want us
  to -- I want to let you know we'll be coming back, so
  we'll have comment time later.  Right now I just want to
  identify things.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     All right.  And so McKaskel 24 through 30
  is a Declaration of Dr. Grinols in a California case
  called Cisneros versus Yahoo?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  That would be an affidavit, I
  believe it was.
          Q.     And McKaskel 31 is?
          A.     It's a declaration.
          Q.     I'm not sure what -- it might have been the
  signature page.  It's a little dark.  And McKaskel 32 is
  expert opinion of John Warren Kindt in the Cisneros case?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And that continues on through McKaskel 36?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And then there is an -- on McKaskel 37, the
  declaration of Dr. Nancy Petry in the Cisneros case?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And that goes on through McKaskel 51?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     All right.  Now, let's go back to
  Exhibit 1, our listing there.  We've just covered the 2006
  congressional testimony with affidavits of Grinols, Kindt
  and Nancy Petry, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And then the next item is table of studies
  showing $3 cost for every one article in benefits.  Does
  that table appear on McKaskel 52?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And this is a reprint, McKaskel 52 is a
  reprint from the Grinols and Mustard article 2002 article
  in Managerial and Decision Economics; is that correct?
          A.     I think it might be 2001.  That might be a
  typo.
          Q.     Okay.  Going back to our list in Exhibit 1,
  the next item is testimony of Professor Kindt before the
  Missouri Joint Legislative Committee on Gambling regarding
  loss limits in November 22, 2005.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And does that -- does your testimony appear
  in the document marked McKaskel 53 through 59?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  When I say yes to all these,
  I'm flipping through the pages and I'm assuming they're
  all there.
          Q.     We'll -- if there are any problems, we can
  correct it later with Mr. Allen.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Sure.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     If you notice any, let me know, because we
  want to make sure we've got all the correct material.
  Okay.
                 All right.  Now, the item -- next item from
  Exhibit 1 is excerpts from Gambling in America, page 172
  and 173.  Did those items appear in McKaskel 60 through --
          A.     I'm missing --
          Q.     -- 65?
          A.     I'm missing a page 62 if there's a
  McKaskel 62.
          Q.     Oh, I don't have it in mine either.
                 MR. ALLEN:  There's no 62.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     We might have had a numbering problem on
  our side.  So it would be McKaskel 60 through 65, and
  there is no McKaskel 62 in that set.
          A.     I'm thinking that there's a page missing.
          Q.     Okay.  We've got the book here.
          A.     And I think I've got it with me.
          Q.     I've got the book here, too, so we can make
  a copy.
          A.     Let me look at this.  Yeah, I believe page
  174 might be missing, and I've got a copy of it right here
  if you would like it.
          Q.     Okay.  What we'll do is -- why don't you
  keep your set together.  We'll --
                 MR. ALLEN:  If you need to make a copy, you
  might want to make it from this.  It will be easier than
  from a book.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Let's flag this.
                 MR. ALLEN:  What were you going to say?
                 THE WITNESS:  I don't have a problem giving
  you my page here if you would like it.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Just for the record, we'll
  take care of this at the break so we can have a complete
  set for everyone.  When we discuss it, we'll use a full
  copy.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Otherwise, other than this missing page,
  you would agree that what's in McKaskel 60 through 65 is
  from Dr. Grinols' book Gambling in America?
          A.     Well, it looks like -- no.  It looks like
  64 and 65 are repeats of two pages where I pointed out the
  date error that I thought was a date typo earlier.  So it
  looks like these McKaskel 64 and 65 are just misplaced.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     I should say they're not in the book.
  They're not in the book.
          Q.     Okay.  They are from the Grinols and
  Mustard 2001 article or 2002 article?
          A.     The first one is from that article, and
  that's McKaskel 64.  The McKaskel 65 is from my article in
  the same issue 2001.
          Q.     Okay.
                 MR. ALLEN:  That's that Managerial
  Decision --
                 THE WITNESS:  Right.
                 MR. ALLEN:  -- Economics?
                 THE WITNESS:  I would point out --
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     So would 64 and 65 then be the excerpts --
  we turn back to Exhibit 1, after the list, excerpts from
  Gambling in America, page 171, 173, it says excerpt
  Management Decision Economics 2001 and a full copy later.
          A.     Right.  Both of these are from that -- that
  issue, yes, these two tables.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     I'm sorry for that confusion.
          Q.     All right.  The next item on our list from
  Exhibit 1 is excerpt Table 18, Net Economic Impact of
  Indian Casino Gambling --
          A.     Right.
          Q.     -- et cetera?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  McKaskel 66.
          Q.     And that -- okay.  It's on McKaskel 66.
  And then McKaskel 67 through McKaskel 98 is a copy of
  Chapter 7, Gambling Impacts on People and Places from the
  National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  It appears to be so.  You said
  it went through McKaskel 86?
          Q.     It goes through McKaskel 98.
          A.     Okay.
          Q.     Going back to our list on Exhibit 1, we're
  to Business Profitability versus Social Profitability.
  It's a 2001 article by Grinols and Mustard.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Does that appear on McKaskel 99 through
  118?
          A.     It appears to be so.
          Q.     Then the last item on the Exhibit 1 list is
  a Causes and Consequences of Gambling in the state of
  Delaware?
          A.     Uh-huh.
          Q.     This is on McKaskel 119 through 168?
          A.     119 through -- you said through 168?
          Q.     Yeah.
          A.     That appears to be accurate.
          Q.     Now, just a few other documents in
  Exhibit 3 that I wanted to have you identify.  If you'll
  turn to McKaskel 287 through 293, it's the legal page size
  one, is that a copy of the Initiative Petition that you
  reviewed in this case?
          A.     It appears to be.
          Q.     And McKaskel 294 is Missouri Gaming Market,
  Gamer Profiles and the Estimated Impact of New Gaming
  Facilities in the State of Missouri?
          A.     That's in here.
          Q.     Is that something you have reviewed?
          A.     It's not something that I recall reviewing,
  no.
          Q.     Okay.  Do you recall if that was provided
  to you?
          A.     I don't believe so, because it's a type of
  thing would have jumped out at me.
          Q.     The last item is the very last page, M414,
  and what is that?
          A.     That's an out-of-date vita probably from
  the College of Business.
          Q.     It's currently on the website for your --
          A.     It probably is.
          Q.     Do you have a more updated CV somewhere?
          A.     I usually just go to that citizenlink.org
  site.  I think they have one that I prefer.
          Q.     Okay.  So it would be available on that
  website?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Would you like to take a break
  or anything?  I'm going to start going through some of the
  documents.  It would be a fine time to take a break.
                 (A BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     We're back on the record, and then during
  the break, Professor Kindt, you realized that one article
  that you have relied on and you believe is one of the best
  sources on costs and benefits is a 2006 article by
  Professor Grinols and David Mustard called Casinos, Crimes
  and Community Costs that is in the Review of Economics and
  Statistics?
          A.     Yes, ma'am, Volume 88.
          Q.     And through an oversight we have not been
  provided with a copy of that article so far, but Terry's
  going to get us -- Mr. Allen will be getting us a copy and
  hopefully today so that we can cover it in your
  deposition.
          A.     Okay.
          Q.     Let's go back to Exhibit 3.  This is the
  compilation of authoritative sources and other documents
  that we've just spent some time identifying.  On
  McKaskel 1 of Exhibit 3, there's an affidavit or
  declaration of Dr. Earl Grinols.  How do you know
  Professor Grinols?
          A.     Professor Grinols and I were colleagues at
  the University of Illinois from the mid '80s until about
  three or four years ago when he left to go to Baylor
  University.
          Q.     Were you in the same department?
          A.     No, ma'am.  We were in the College of
  Business, but we were in different departments.
          Q.     What was Professor Grinols' position at the
  University of Illinois?
          A.     Was a professor of economics at the
  University of Illinois.
          Q.     And you are in the College of Business, but
  you are not an economics professor?
          A.     I'm not an economics professor.  I have
  published in economics journals, or one in particular, and
  so I feel comfortable with the economics, and if I were to
  have any questions about economics, I regularly confer
  with my economics colleagues.
          Q.     Would that include Dr. Grinols?
          A.     Yes.  Also include Professor Fred Gottheil.
          Q.     Is he a professor at the University of
  Illinois?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     How often are you in contact with
  Dr. Grinols currently?
          A.     We contact each other if there is a
  question about some research, just like I would contact
  any other colleague who was an expert in their field.
  Sometimes he contacts me.  Sometimes I contact him.  That
  can be very frequently over a short period of time, and
  then there might be two or three months, maybe even
  longer, where we don't talk.
          Q.     Have you spoken with him about this
  lawsuit?
          A.     I don't think so.  I could have mentioned
  something in passing, but I don't recall discussing
  anything in detail.
          Q.     Have you seen him in person since the
  filing of this lawsuit?
          A.     No, I don't believe so.
          Q.     Have you seen him in person in the last
  three years?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I'm trying to think of the
  last time.  I believe it was last summer is the last time
  I saw him.
          Q.     What was the occasion?
          A.     His daughter invited us to her wedding in
  Virginia.  As an old University of Virginia alum, I had a
  double reason for going back.
          Q.     That's a beautiful campus.  Any other --
  well, let me take that back.
                 Are you also personally friends with
  Dr. Grinols?
          A.     I would say that we are -- well, we're
  friends in a professional way.  We don't go hunting
  together, but we're professional friends.
          Q.     Are you involved or members of any of the
  same organizations as Professor Grinols?
          A.     None of which I'm aware.  We frequently
  cross paths at conferences or meetings.  I -- I don't
  think that we're members of any of the same organizations.
          Q.     When we first talked about the declaration
  on McKaskel 1 of Dr. Grinols, I think you said that today
  was the first time you had seen it; is that right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  It's the first time I've seen
  this one-page affidavit.
          Q.     So you don't have any knowledge of what
  Dr. Grinols may or may not have reviewed in coming up with
  this affidavit?
          A.     No.  I -- I could not say for certain what
  he reviewed or did not review.  I could speculate, but I
  don't think you want that.
          Q.     No.  Let's turn to McKaskel 5.  This is
  the -- your testimony before the United States Congress on
  the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     What was the context of you providing
  testimony?
          A.     I was called by the staff of the chairman
  of the House Committee, House of Representatives Committee
  to appear as an expert on this bill, HR4777 before --
  which was pending before the Subcommittee on Crime,
  Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee on the
  Judiciary.
          Q.     Who was the chairperson?
          A.     That was Howard Coble.  I believe he's
  Republican from North Carolina.  Coble is C-o-b-l-e.
          Q.     Why do you believe you were contacted to
  provide testimony?
          A.     I believe, without being presumptuous, that
  the University of Illinois is on the leading edge of the
  social and -- socioeconomics of gambling academic research
  throughout the country.
          Q.     Who else was invited to give testimony?
          A.     Well, there were four of us listed here on
  the table of contents.  One was Congressman Bob Goodlette,
  Republican from Virginia, who was the sponsor of the bill.
  Then there was Bruce Ohr, the chief of the organized crime
  and racketeering section of the U.S. Department of
  Justice.  And then there was Samuel Vallendingham who was
  the vice president and chief information officer of a
  bank, First State Bank.
          Q.     To your knowledge, were you the only
  academic who testified?
          A.     We're well known as being on the leading
  edge of these issues.
          Q.     Were you aware of any other academics who
  testified on this particular bill?
          A.     There had been hearings on similar bills
  over the last ten years, and other people have testified.
  I would have to go back and check those hearings.
          Q.     But sitting here today, you can't recall
  any other academics who testified on this or similar
  bills?
          A.     There were only the four of us called for
  this particular bill.
          Q.     And to your knowledge, were each of the
  four contacted by the staff of the chair of the committee,
  Representative Coble?
          A.     Pardon me?  I would imagine that that's
  generally the procedure, and the ranking member of the
  minority party also makes suggestions on who to call.
          Q.     Do you know if you were recommended by the
  minority party as a person to be called?
          A.     I would hope that I would be recommended by
  both parties as just an expert witness.
          Q.     But you don't know?
          A.     I don't know.
          Q.     The testimony -- your testimony starts on
  McKaskel 8, correct?  And would it be fair to say that the
  first several pages, McKaskel 8 through 10, relate to --
  primarily to Internet gambling?
          A.     Yes.  They relate to Internet gambling, but
  it does have parallels because Internet gambling basically
  puts electronic gambling at every work station, at every
  school desk and in every living room, and so Internet
  gambling has the same or I should say similar electronic
  interface as slot machines do in casinos and racinos.  So
  there's a similar societal cost impact.
          Q.     Between Internet gambling and casino
  gambling?
          A.     Well, you're -- it's not a question of the
  technology.  It's a question of the electronic interface
  with the patron, and so if a person's sitting in front of
  an electronic gambling machine, also known as an EGD or
  electronic gambling device, modern day slot machines, and
  that's similar to if you put those electronics on a
  television set or on a computer screen in a person's home.
          Q.     Well, I guess what I'm trying to figure out
  is -- let me withdraw that.
                 On McKaskel 11, there's a statement about
  pathological gambling being recognized as an addictive
  behavior in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual under
  disorders and some discussion of the harms of gambling,
  and then there is a new paragraph or continuation of the
  paragraph after a block quote that says, for the most
  authoritative analysis of new crime costs, link to the
  accessibility and acceptability of gambling in a citation
  to work by Professor Grinols and some other material.
                      What I'm trying to find out is, the
  material on McKaskel 11 appears to be more closely related
  to the social cost estimates that we're concerned with in
  this lawsuit.  Would you agree that the items that are
  listed on McKaskel 11 are primarily the ones that you can
  be relying on for your opinions?
          A.     I'm not -- I wouldn't say primarily, but
  it's well established that the American Psychiatric
  Association in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
  Mental Disorders lists pathological gambling as an impulse
  control disorder.  The proper terminology is pathological
  gambling, which I and others, several others call
  addictive gambling, and there are ten criteria listed.  If
  a person satisfies five or more, they would qualify as an
  addicted or pathological gambler.  Under five would be a
  problem gambler.
                 So those would be the definition -- those
  are the two groups which are generally identified and
  studied, and psychologists and psychiatrists and the
  National Gambling Impact Study Commission parallel these
  types of addictions to drug addictions.  So if people
  think about it in that manner, sometimes it becomes more
  simple to -- or more clear to -- easier to identify these
  social consequences.  You listed Earl Grinols et al.,
  this is the Casinos and Crime 1999 is the article that we
  referenced right after the break as missing --
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     -- from the documents.  Now, the Casinos
  and Crime 1999 shows that this was a ten-year more or less
  study.  It took them a long time to do this.  It's a
  definitive work.  It's been in process for almost a
  decade.  And I have here that it is updated in 2005.  Of
  course, my testimony was in 2006.
                 And then I probably called Professor
  Grinols and said what pages -- do you have page numbers
  where this is being published now so that I can include
  pages 28 through 45 in this citation for the congressional
  committee so that they would have the most up-to-date
  citation, but I -- I had copies of all the preliminary,
  but until something's actually published and in print, I
  don't -- you have to cite to what you have.
          Q.     Right.  Well, you testified before Congress
  that you -- in your opinion the most authoritative
  analysis of the crime costs were this work by Professor
  Grinols updated to the 2006, the one that we're going to
  be getting a copy of.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Is it still your view that these works by
  Dr. Grinols are the most authoritative analysis of crime
  costs?
          A.     Of crime costs, within what they reviewed,
  yes.  I mean, I think Professor Grinols is a Nobel Prize
  caliber economist, and the -- they worked on this for
  about ten years.  It shows before and after on every
  community before it brought these video gambling machines
  in, usually as part of casinos, and then after.  So
  there's a before and before type of analysis and yet it
  shows that the third year after they opened up, the crime
  rate increases about 9 percent and then continues up after
  that.
                 So -- and it's published by Harvard and
  MIT.  It's probably one of the top three econ journals in
  the country, so my colleagues tell me.  I think this is
  even better than the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission analysis.  I'm sure it is.
          Q.     You testified before Congress, as reflected
  in this statement, that a table of the authoritative
  academic studies highlighting that socioeconomic public
  costs of legalized gambling activities are at least $3 for
  every $1 in benefits, and you cited the Grinols and
  Mustard 2001 article in Managerial and Decision Economics.
          A.     I was actually citing to their table in
  that article, but that included, I believe, eight
  different studies over the last 15 years, more or less,
  and they all come out with about this three to one ratio.
                 I should also point out that in my
  statement to a congressional committee in 1994, which was
  the House Committee on Small Business, I summarized the
  research at that time and put that three to one ratio in
  there.  So this three to one ratio has been around for a
  lot of years.
          Q.     That's what I wanted to ask you about, is
  the next statement that you have in your --
          A.     Oh, I put it in there.
          Q.     -- statement here is the three to one ratio
  has been the ratio for many years, and then you are citing
  your testimony in 1994?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     That's the next citation.
          Q.     And you believe that the ratio has been the
  ratio for many years based on your review of the
  literature that is noted in the citation here in the
  congressional record?
          A.     I stated it and it's here in this
  congressional hearing record, but since 1994 there have
  been subsequent studies that had come out with this ratio
  with similar ratios.  I don't think it's a debatable point
  anymore from an academic standpoint.
          Q.     Okay.  Do you believe it was a debatable
  point in 1994?
          A.     The three to one ratio that I indicated in
  the 1994 congressional hearing was a summarization of the
  most authoritative available relevant studies to that
  date.  And that is how I would make my determinations
  would be to analyze authoritative academic studies and
  then reach that conclusion.
          Q.     So in '94 you based the three to one ratio
  views based on what you believed to be the most
  authoritative studies, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And now sitting here today in 2008, you
  believe that the three to one ratio is beyond academic
  debate?
          A.     Well, I wouldn't say anything is beyond
  economic debate, but this is overwhelming -- I mean, the
  ratio -- ratio has stayed the same, and -- now, it can go
  up or down somewhat based on new data, and I would never
  say never, but at this point, I don't think there's much
  bona fide debate.
          Q.     According to your statement, your testimony
  in Congress in 2006, you indicated that the definitive
  book in these areas, which I assume you mean socioeconomic
  costs, was Professor Grinols' Gambling in America --
          A.     His book --
          Q.     -- published by Cambridge.
          A.     I would point out again that Cambridge
  University Press is a prestigious press.  It's an academic
  press.
          Q.     And then you pointed Congress to your
  article in Managerial and Decision Economics, all the
  costs of addictive gamblers, et cetera.  You pointed them
  to that article for summaries and tables of the major
  studies of socio and economic costs, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I also pointed to 14 or 15.  I
  think one is a Part 2 table, in -- published in Managerial
  and Decision Economics.
          Q.     And those were tables to your -- that were
  appended to your article, the Cost of --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     -- Cost of Addictive Gamblers?
          A.     Actually, more complete tables are in what
  was provided to you, I do believe, which was from my
  testimony before the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission in 1998.
          Q.     We did not get a copy of that, but I'm not
  sure that we're going to need it.  We'll see.
          A.     Well, my tables are -- this is an economics
  journal, and they left off some of the numbers to be
  calculated in the future so that you could use present
  cost tables to update the tables.  So if we were going to
  go through those tables, I would rather go through my
  testimony before the National Commission because the
  tables are a little more complete and they have more of
  the numbers in them.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     When you publish academically, the editors
  can remove some things for their format.
          Q.     Okay.  I'll put a note that we -- do you
  want to produce that?
                 MR. ALLEN:  (Indicating).
                 MS. VOLLET:  We'll make that an exhibit
  later.
                 THE WITNESS:  Do you want to give her that,
  or I can give her my copy?
                 MR. ALLEN:  Either way.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Why don't we mark this?
                 MR. ALLEN:  Do you have a copy of that,
  Chuck?
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Let me see what this is.
  Can we go off the record for a minute?
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Just before our break, Professor Kindt, you
  had mentioned you had had some more complete tables
  showing social costs of gambling that you had prepared for
  your statement to the National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission in 1998?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 3A.  Is this a copy of your statement to the
  National Gambling Impact Study Commission?
          A.     Yes, except if you notice the asterisk at
  the bottom, it's -- has been updated.
          Q.     Okay.  But the tables?
          A.     The tables were not modified, to the best
  of my recollection.
          Q.     Can you point me to the tables that you
  were referencing in Exhibit 3A?
          A.     Well, there are several figures, Figure 1
  through -- let's see.  Looks like Figure 1 through 14, and
  then there are -- which I put on overheads before the
  commission, and then there's Tables 1 through, looks like
  14, Tables 1 through 14.
          Q.     And am I correct that these figures and
  tables in Exhibit 3A are more complete versions of the
  tables and figures that are in the appendix to your 2001
  article in Managerial and Decision Economics?
          A.     They would have more numbers in them.  Of
  course, they're initial numbers, but they would have more
  numbers because when you publish, sometimes academic
  editors will cut things out for space reasons.  They're
  virtually the same, but I did notice not long ago that
  there are a few more numbers here in what I initially
  presented to the commission.
          Q.     And you're indicating -- you're pointing to
  one of the tables in your -- in Exhibit 3A?
          A.     Well, it goes through the addiction costs,
  the bankruptcy costs, crime costs, the regulatory and
  corrections costs, numbers of new pathological and problem
  gamblers, costs to the insurance industry, and then the
  last two tables have summaries of various studies
  indicating theft from employers, being fired or quitting
  work, divorce and separation, and there aren't costs
  associated with those yet because it's very hard to
  document what the cost would be.
                 And Table 14 has some good numbers on
  attempted suicides as when people get hooked on gambling,
  and I list, for example, in Table 14 I think four or five
  studies there where experts are giving their different
  numbers.
          Q.     As a -- to ease our discussion, I'm going
  to give you a couple other exhibits here.  Give you what's
  been marked as Exhibit 4.  This is a printout from
  citizenlink.org entitled Research, Testimonies and
  Articles From the Experts.  The printout is a little bit
  different than what you're looking at on the web page, but
  is this list of materials the list that appears at
  www.citizenlink.org/gamblingresearch that was referenced
  in the answers to interrogatories in Exhibit 1?
          A.     It appears to be what you stated.
          Q.     And I sent it to Audrey beforehand.  And
  Exhibit --
          A.     This is -- this last item, Exhibit C or
  3A is listed, is downloadable from this site.  It's
  No. 28, I believe.
          Q.     Okay.  This is on page 6 --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     -- of Exhibit 4?  Okay.
          A.     And let me qualify that.  The copy you have
  has a bit different text because I said it had been
  updated slightly, but the table should be the same.
          Q.     So you said the text in 3A will be --
  what's in Exhibit 3A has been updated, but the tables are
  the same?
          A.     The tables should be the same.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     And I think the tables and figures were the
  relevant -- what we were referencing.  And since we're in
  Missouri, I should point out that No. 29 on that list is
  my law review article in the St. Louis University Law
  Journal.
          Q.     I saw that.  Let me hand you what's been
  marked as Exhibit 5.  This is an excerpt from Professor
  Grinols' book Gambling in America, and it is a printout of
  pages 172 and 173 and 216 through 223 of the book that has
  the references.
          A.     The -- just as a note, we mentioned that
  page 174 probably should be included in there as well,
  which is another table of added costs.
          Q.     We'll get that.
          A.     I believe that's page 174.
          Q.     We'll add a copy of page 174 during the
  break and add it to Exhibit 5.
                 I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 6.  This is your article Cost of Addicted Gamblers
  in Managerial and Decision Economics.  We were talking
  about the tables that were in this article on -- in
  Managerial and Decision Economics of yours in Exhibit 6?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Can you point me to the tables in
  Exhibit 6?
          A.     They're in the back in Appendix A.  I
  believe they start on page 44.
          Q.     And they continue on through the --
  through 51?
          A.     The -- I think they go right to the end of
  the article.  Well, the footnotes for the tables go
  through page 63.  So they're -- the studies are listed in
  these tables.  There are quite a few studies up to that
  point, and then the footnote citations to the complete
  studies are in the appended footnotes.
          Q.     Okay.  So the studies and the reference
  material related to them are on pages 44 through 62 or 63
  of Exhibit 6?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I might point out that on page
  51, as of the date of publication, it was the Consumer
  Price Index, which would be an accepted way of updating
  older numbers to current number dollar values, and the
  formula is given at the bottom of each table so that
  people can update the numbers from the original reports.
          Q.     You're referring to page 51 of Exhibit 6?
          A.     Yes, ma'am, but you can -- you can update
  them to today by going to stats.bls.gov, which is the
  Bureau of Labor Statistics.
          Q.     And have you done updated estimates based
  on the Consumer Price Index for 2008?
          A.     When I publish articles, for example, one
  that's mentioned here is in the University of Southern
  California Interdisciplinary Law Journal.  I appended
  tables to that and -- including some we've already
  mentioned, and I would update the dollar amounts as
  appropriate or I would indicate this was the original
  amount, update it yourself, to the reader.
          Q.     Going back to your congressional testimony
  on McKaskel 11, down at the bottom of McKaskel 11 there
  are some figures about increases in pathological gamblers.
  Continues on to McKaskel 12.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     There's a citation to an article by Jacobs
  and then also a citation to the National Gambling Impact
  Commission Final Report and one to your article, an
  article by you in Michigan State Law Review?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Are those calculations about increasing
  percentages of problem gamblers important to your analysis
  of the three to one ratio number?
          A.     Yes.  Those would be important numbers to
  the calculation of social costs.  The -- basically, back
  to the parallel with prohibited drugs or prohibited
  substances, if people were to or governments were to
  legalize, for example, cocaine, you would have an expected
  increase in the number of people who would get hooked, and
  so this is what psychologists call the accessability and
  acceptability factors.  If you legalize something, you
  make it acceptable, you can expect increases in the number
  of people that get hooked.  And so we're seeing these
  increases as gambling has spread throughout the United
  States.
          Q.     Are these increasing percentage figures
  taken into account in your article in Managerial and
  Decision Economics?
          A.     They would be taken into account directly
  or indirectly in practically all of my publications
  involving gambling issues.
          Q.     And how about --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Excuse me just a minute.
                 MS. VOLLET:  We'll go off the record just a
  second.
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     During our break, we added to Exhibit 5 the
  page 174 from the Grinols and Mustard book, added that to
  the end.  And I believe we were discussing -- I believe
  you indicated to me, Professor Kindt, before the break
  that this gambling increase in pathological and problem
  gambling is taken into account in the studies that are
  cited in your article in Managerial and Decision
  Economics.  They would also be taken into account in
  Professor Grinols' work, the other authoritative sources
  that you rely on?
                 The reason I'm asking is that I don't want
  to discuss them separately if we don't need to.  Would
  they be basically taken into account in the other major
  authoritative works you've cited?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  All right.  In the appendix to your
  testimony, you have put together some material from other
  sources for Congress in -- such as tables and other
  things, and those -- those are collected from other
  materials that we're going to be discussing later, so I'm
  not going to discuss them, ask you questions about them.
  I do quickly want to ask you about the Cisneros versus
  Yahoo lawsuit.  What was --
          A.     What page are we looking at there?
          Q.     I'm looking at McKaskel 24 in Exhibit 3.
  First there's the -- let me ask you generally about the
  lawsuit.  What is the -- what was the nature of that
  lawsuit?
          A.     As I recall, in generic terms it was a
  Quitan type of action, Q-u-i-t-a-n, brought by a law firm
  on behalf of the, I think some select individuals as well
  as the People of California against the major -- or all of
  the search engines on the Internet, search engine
  companies providing services on the Internet, documenting
  that they were routing people or allowing people to be
  routed to illegal gambling sites, and as I recall, there
  were mechanisms by which people could be routed to a bogus
  legal site, which would then reroute them to an illegal
  gambling site, at least according to the U.S. Justice
  Department.
          Q.     How did you become involved in this
  lawsuit?
          A.     I was contacted by Stan Mallison, who I
  believe originally asked me to provide background
  research, and then at some point he, in consultation with
  other members of the relevant law firms, had myself and
  Professor Earl Grinols and Dr. Nancy Petry, that's a --
  she's a psychologist, not an MD doctor, provide affidavits
  regarding the immediate irreparable harm caused by people
  getting hooked on gambling on the Internet or potential
  for them to get hooked on gambling on the Internet.
          Q.     How did Mr. Mallison get in contact with
  you?
          A.     I believe it was a phone call first.
          Q.     Do you know how he came across your name?
          A.     Pardon me?
          Q.     Do you know how he came across your name?
          A.     As I recall, he was going on the net and
  just Googling and saw the studies that came up, and I
  think -- I believe I was the first person he called as an
  expert.
          Q.     Were you retained as a testifying expert,
  then, in that case?
          A.     Potentially.  I gave a deposition in that
  case, if that's what you're asking.  We did not go to
  trial, or I did not go to trial.  I believe that it was
  settled about a year ago, but I don't know.
          Q.     You filed an affidavit in the case also?
          A.     I filed an affidavit, as you can see here,
  which is appended to the testimony, and I appended it to
  the congressional testimony because I wanted you-all -- I
  wanted the public to see it, to see -- hear under oath
  three parties indicating the problems with Internet
  gambling in particular, and on McKaskel 36 you'll note
  that I signed it in Holts Summit, Missouri.
          Q.     I was going to ask you about that.
          A.     The night before I testified on one of your
  other documents here before the Joint Committee on Gaming
  here in your Legislature.  So they faxed it to me and I
  signed it and faxed it back.  Small world.
          Q.     In Dr. Grinols' declaration on -- on
  McKaskel 26, in Footnote 3, he says the Modern Study of
  Harm dates to Robert Politzer, Morrow and Leavey, 1981.
          A.     Excuse me.  Which footnote again?
          Q.     Three.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Do you agree with that statement?
          A.     The 1981 initial study by Politzer, Morrow
  and Leavey is very well known and well done.  It's out of
  Johns Hopkins.  So it would be an authoritative effort.  I
  would indicate that that was subsequently published
  academically.
          Q.     Have you reviewed Professor Grinols'
  affidavit or declaration in the Cisneros case?
          A.     I've read through it several times.  Not --
  not within the last couple days.
          Q.     Do you think it's generally consistent with
  the views he's expressed in his book and in the 2006
  article that you're relying on?
          A.     I don't recall seeing anything in there
  with which I would disagree, but I would want to read
  through it again.
          Q.     He's basically recapping some of his
  previous studies, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     There's not anything different in there
  that you're aware of?
          A.     Different from?
          Q.     From what is in his published work.
          A.     You mean new information or --
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     I would think that it would parallel his
  other publications.
          Q.     Turning to your affidavit or declaration
  on -- which begins on McKaskel 32, in paragraph 4 you say
  you've been actively researching issues involving gambling
  and the economic and social impacts of gambling for
  several years.  About how long have you been researching
  issues involving gambling and the economic and social
  impacts of gambling?
          A.     Well, I started at the University of
  Illinois in 1978, and we were one of the first states at
  that time to get the lottery.  So it was a tangential
  issue for me in 1978.  I did not start speaking publicly
  on the issue or prepare to publish academically until
  1990, but I did -- I was publishing in other areas
  throughout the '80s, and it was not the highest thing on
  my list until 1990.
          Q.     Why the change in 1990?
          A.     Well, in 1990, Illinois became the second
  state to legalize riverboats, and in 1991, '92 and '93, a
  $2 billion casino complex was proposed for downtown
  Chicago.  And so as a professor of business and legal
  policy, I and my economics colleagues and others,
  criminologists, were approached for our expert opinions in
  these different areas, and so I started publishing in that
  area as well.  And I should indicate that at that time
  Professor Henry Lesieur was at Illinois State University
  and was extremely well known as a criminologist and
  psychologist on gambling issues.
          Q.     You said you were publishing in other areas
  in the '80s?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     What were the areas that you were
  publishing in at that point?
          A.     Probably -- well, I've done law review
  articles on international women's rights, anti-trust,
  mostly international law and policy, environmental law and
  policy, law of the sea.  I have a six-volume book out
  entitled Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea, and I
  just updated Volumes 5 and 6 in the last two years.  So
  they're updated as of 2007.
          Q.     Do you continue to publish in those other
  areas?
          A.     I haven't done any Law Review articles.  I
  have been focused on updating my Law of the Sea book.  So
  for the last three or four years, that has been my focus.
          Q.     I believe you indicated that you were
  approached in the '90s by -- regarding the proposed casino
  complex in Chicago.  Who were you approached by?
          A.     By various groups that were interested in
  the economic and business impacts.  I can't remember
  specific.  But there were people in our capital,
  Springfield, Illinois, who contacted myself and our
  associates.  They contacted Professor Grinols, who at that
  time was at the University of Illinois.  They contacted
  quite a few people in academia.
          Q.     Were they groups both for and against the
  proposal?
          A.     Yes.  And I remember we were contacted on
  both sides of the issue over the years.
          Q.     When you say we, do you mean your
  department?
          A.     My colleagues and myself or those with
  whom --yeah, if I pass somebody in the hall, they might
  say guess who called me up, and it's just kind of a word
  of mouth type of thing.
          Q.     At the University of Illinois primarily?
          A.     Primarily at the University of Illinois,
  although I would get calls from other parties across the
  country who have both pro and critical opinions of
  gambling.
          Q.     Did you -- could you describe the nature of
  your work in looking at this casino complex proposal?
          A.     The -- the best report that came out was
  done by the Better Government Association of Chicago.  I
  believe the date on it, it's in -- probably it's in one of
  my footnotes.  I believe the date was about 1992.  It was
  done by Terrance Brunner, who was a former U.S. Attorney,
  it was about, I don't know, 4- or 500 pages long, and it
  included some leaked documents from three casino companies
  which were quite unflattering to the industry.
                 And I cited to those actually in the
  footnotes to one of my law review articles, my Drake Law
  Review article in 1994.  I cited to these leaked documents
  and some of the unflattering things that they said about
  the numbers being provided by the gambling industry to
  promote their project.
          Q.     Did you participate in Brunner's study or
  publication?
          A.     No.
          Q.     But --
          A.     I thought it was very good at that time in
  particular.
          Q.     And did his study pique your interest in
  the area of gambling?
          A.     No.  I was already into the area in a very
  big way by at least 1990.
          Q.     And this was -- your interest in the area I
  think you told me was instigated by the casino complex
  proposal?
          A.     No.  I'd been monitoring it throughout the
  '80s, various types of issues that would come up as part
  of legal policy, and my legal policy course students would
  write on various topics.  I remember several wanting to do
  topics involving a lottery or horse racing or off-track
  betting parlors or other types of gambling issues.
                 Now, they did all sorts of other issues as
  well, but I, of course, would read through those papers
  and that would kind of keep me alert to what was going on,
  not just in the gambling area but in several other
  business and economic areas, as well as international law
  areas.
          Q.     In the 1990s, would you say that most of
  your work was focused on gambling issues?
          A.     In 1990, I started publishing or putting
  together in publishable form.  I think my first official
  law reviews came out in '94, but it takes two or three
  years to put these things together.  So it's a long,
  drawn-out process.  And I think most of my publications
  have been in that area, with exception of this recent
  update of my Law of the Sea book, which has really
  preoccupied me for about three years.
          Q.     Would you say --
          A.     It's been my priority item.  Excuse me.
          Q.     No.  Go ahead.  Would you say since the
  1990s until today, other than your update of Law of the
  Sea, your principle research focus has been gambling?
          A.     I think that's fair to say, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And all of your publications have been
  related to gambling since approximately the 1990s, with
  the exception of your book on Law of the Sea?
          A.     I can't think of something in another area,
  but at this point, I would think I've been primarily
  focused on the gambling issue.
          Q.     You indicated in your declaration in the
  Cisneros case that you published over 20 academic articles
  in law reviews as well as in law and economics journals?
          A.     I believe that's about correct.
          Q.     Is the list of articles on Exhibit 4 a
  complete list or a mostly complete list of your
  publications in the area?
          A.     I think so.
          Q.     This would be page 3 to 6 of Exhibit 4?
          A.     I believe that's -- I believe that's all of
  them.
          Q.     I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks
  to me like the most recent law review article listed on
  Exhibit 4 for you is 2003.  There's a couple --
          A.     I think No. 7 there is 2004.
          Q.     Oh, 2004.  Okay.  Is the 2004 article No. 7
  in Mercer Law Review, is that the most recent article that
  you --
          A.     I believe that's the last law review
  article that I published, but I would indicate that it
  takes three or four years, and I do have other projects,
  primarily a law review article on marketing and gambling
  which I'll probably break into two articles because it's
  getting long.
          Q.     All right.  So you're in the drafting
  process?
          A.     I'm in the drafting process of that, but as
  I said, the last three years or so have been primarily
  focused on getting this Law of the Sea update for Volumes
  5 and 6.
          Q.     The marketing and gambling article that
  you're working on, does that relate to the social cost of
  gambling?
          A.     It would go through the basics of these
  social costs of gambling, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  Will it sort of reiterate what
  you -- the basic material that you have outlined in other
  articles in your testimony?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     But it's not suggesting new or different
  ground that has been plowed in the area of social cost?
          A.     I will definitely be monitoring and my
  research assistants will be monitoring or helping me
  find -- just like this article we went looking for, if I
  hear word or spot something in a journal that I think is
  authoritative, we -- we're already in the process of
  pulling those off and putting them in our research file to
  make sure that we cite to them and update and are as
  current as possible in our next publication.
          Q.     So what I hear you saying is that even
  though you haven't published something since 2004, you
  keep up to date in the field of cost of gambling?
          A.     I keep up to date as much as possible.
  That doesn't mean something hasn't slipped, but I would
  catch up to it because we always do periodic checks of the
  reviews of the bibliographies to make sure we haven't
  missed something.  That would be embarrassing.
          Q.     Okay.  There's a declaration by Nancy
  Petry, and you said she was a psychologist?
          A.     I believe so.
          Q.     Is there anything in her declaration that
  you think is relevant to this case that isn't otherwise
  covered in materials that would be in your own
  publications or that of Professor Grinols?
          A.     I would like to read through her materials
  again before I said that, but with that caution, it -- my
  general impression is that it parallels what Professor
  Grinols and I both have reported.
                 MS. VOLLET:  I think that I can get
  through -- we can go off the record for a second.
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     I want to ask you a few questions about
  your testimony before the Missouri Joint Legislative
  Committee on Gambling.  You appeared before the committee
  on November 22nd, 2005?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     What was -- what prompted your appearance
  before the committee?
          A.     I think that I was contacted by Mark
  Andrews, who asked if I would come and appear before the
  committee.  It could have been someone else.
          Q.     And Mark Andrews is the chairman of Casino
  Watch?
          A.     I don't know.
          Q.     How do you know Mr. Andrews?
          A.     We have --I think we first probably met
  about 1994.  He's periodically at conferences which I also
  attend, both regional and national.
          Q.     What conferences would those be?
          A.     Well, I am -- let's see.  Well, one that
  comes to mind was here in St. Louis, and it was a
  conference of the National Coalition Against Legalized
  Gambling.  I think it was 1999.  John Ashcroft was there.
  Senator Paul Simon was there.  I think it was '99.  Might
  have been 2000.  And I was one of the speakers at that
  conference, and --
          Q.     What was the speech that you gave there?
          A.     What was the speech?
          Q.     Yeah, the topic of your speech.
          A.     It was probably on the socioeconomic costs
  of gambling.
          Q.     Were you invited as a participant there?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And by whom?
          A.     By the organization, National Coalition.
          Q.     And do you believe they invited you because
  you're you are an expert on the social costs of gambling
  or because you studied other areas?
          A.     Well, the University of Illinois is on the
  leading edge of monitoring these issues, and so I get
  invited to a lot of places, but I've been, I think, to
  every one of their national conferences.
          Q.     All right.  So getting back to your
  testimony before the Missouri Joint Legislative Committee,
  you were contacted by Mr. Andrews?
          A.     I could have been contacted by somebody
  else, but when I think about Missouri, I think about his
  name because he and his wife are nice people and I run
  into them.
          Q.     And the issue before the Legislature at
  that time was what?
          A.     I think it was the loss -- well, the three
  issues here are loss limits, limits on the number of
  casino licenses, and I think there were some regulation
  issues, and so they're listed on my first page here, and I
  think I just had like three topics.  It's not very long.
          Q.     Is McKaskel 53 through 59, is this a report
  that you prepared?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I typed this up.  Either I or
  could have been my wife typed it up for me.
          Q.     But it's your thought?
          A.     It's my original work.
          Q.     And topic heading A it says loss --
  although often forgotten, loss limits are essential in any
  legalized gambling scenario.  It's on McKaskel 54.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     What do you mean by that?
          A.     Well, we've talked -- well, I think the
  first paragraph explains that.  Loss limits are effective
  in reducing the speed and processes by which new
  pathological addicted and problem gamblers are created.
  I've been to -- talked with many psychologists and
  psychiatrists over the years, and the idea that there has
  to be a stopping point for people that slows the process
  of their getting hooked, and I think that's pretty much an
  accepted principle among the psychologists and
  psychiatrists at least that I've encountered over almost
  20 years.
          Q.     And the citations that you have in your
  testimony are some of the leading studies you think?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  Frank Quinn, I don't know if
  he's still -- I think he's still working in the area, and
  he's pretty well known.  He was published in a law review
  article, actually, in the Mississippi Law Journal.  Huge
  article with professor Randall Bridwell with the
  University of South Carolina Law School.  And I did notice
  that they were cited in one of the -- I think in the back
  of Dr. Grinols' citations here that you handed me earlier.
  But he's a psychologist, and I think he makes a good
  point, first do no harm.
          Q.     And then there's also some studies by
  Professor Lesieur?
          A.     Yes.  I mentioned him earlier.  He was
  originally -- I think it's St. John's University.  Well,
  he's very well respected.  He's recently retired in the
  last few years, and throughout the 1990s he was at
  Illinois State University.  I think for a period of time
  was chair of their department of, I want to say
  criminology, or criminal justice, criminal justice I
  believe was it.  And his wife actually worked in our
  college over in Champaign, which is about 45 miles away.
                 I might point out as we're looking through
  this that on McKaskel 55, that after we testified as
  expert witnesses before the Illinois House Committee on
  this, they passed a bill, House Bill 1920, to eliminate
  all the casinos because when they started looking at the
  economic impacts, it appeared that they overwhelm the
  benefits, and that was reported favorably out of committee
  in 2005 and passed the House 67 to 42.
          Q.     And you testified there also?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I testified before that
  committee.  Passed unanimously out of committee, as I
  recall, with the exception of one vote.  Reported
  favorably I should say out of the committee.
          Q.     So you testified in favor of illegalizing
  gambling in that instance?
          A.     I'm sorry.
          Q.     What was -- if I -- you testified in favor
  of recriminalizing gambling?
          A.     I simply gave the figures on the
  cost-benefits and testified, much as the information that
  I'm giving you here today.  And you asked me if I --
  Professor Grinols was there.  I was surprised to see him
  come in from Baylor.  They'd asked him to come up.
          Q.     Now, does this material in McKaskel 53
  through 59, it accurately reflects the substance of your
  oral testimony to the Joint Committee, Missouri Joint
  Committee?
          A.     I believe so, and I think it's probably a
  good summary of some of the issues facing, as I understand
  them, this proposal now.
          Q.     What do you mean by that?
          A.     I think this is a good summary of the
  literature and -- and keeps things focused on the issues
  that we've been discussing, the cost-benefits.
          Q.     Have you had any other appearances before
  the Missouri Legislature other than this 19 -- or 2005
  appearance that we've been discussing?
          A.     I don't recall being here before the
  Missouri Legislature other than this one time, but I've
  appeared before lots of state legislatures, and they tend
  to blur after a while.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Let's -- this is a good
  stopping point for lunch.
                 (A BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Over the break, I was able to obtain a copy
  of the Grinols/Mustard article Casinos, crime and
  Community Costs.  I have it as Exhibit 3B.  Will you
  verify that that is the article?  Is that the article,
  Professor Kindt?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  This is the article in
  Volume 88 of the Review of Economics and Statistics by
  Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  I
  should say published by them.  And I would reiterate this
  probably is one of the top three econ journals in the
  country, according to my associates.
          Q.     Before the break, we finished up with
  questions about your testimony before the Missouri Joint
  Legislative Committee on Gambling, and I think the next
  item that appeared in the list in Exhibit 1, page 3, was a
  table showing $3 cost for every $1 in benefits which you
  identified as coming from Professor Grinols.  No.  I'm
  sorry.  Excerpts from Gambling in America.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Page 172, 173.  Now, I previously gave you
  Exhibit 5, if you can find that.  This Exhibit 5 has pages
  172, 173, and then tacked onto the back page 174 from
  Professor Grinols' book, and it's also got some reference
  pages from the reference materials.  We might have to
  recollate these so that the table appears together and the
  reference material's at the end.  This material I think
  you've described as one of the authoritative compilations
  of materials that you were relying on; am I correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I believe I used the word
  definitive.
          Q.     Oh, definitive?  Okay.
          A.     In one of my -- in my 2005 Missouri
  statement.
          Q.     I wanted to have you explain to me what is
  in the tables.  I think it starts on page 172, table 7.1?
          A.     First let me look -- compare the two
  tables.  Table 7.1 says the social cost for pathological
  gambler in 2003 dollars, and Table 7.2 is social cost for
  problem gambler in 2003 dollars.  So -- and I would also
  point to the bottom of Table 2, for example, in the
  footnote which -- which indicates that these figures were
  adjusted by the author for sample selection bias.  In
  other words, they're trying to make everything into apples
  to apples because every professor has a slightly different
  way of doing their studies, and so he spent a great deal
  of time making this apples to apples comparison.
          Q.     All right.  So let me just make sure I
  understand what you're talking about.  You are referring
  to the footnote on page 172 at the bottom of Table 1.7
  that says LA figures were adjusted by the author for
  sample selection bias, et cetera?
          A.     Right.  I think it's page 174.  And he
  actually --
          Q.     And he, you're referring to?
          A.     Professor Grinols, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     And in the methodology explanations leading
  up to this, he describes how he did that, and --
          Q.     The LA figures, this is Louisiana figures
  in the Ryan, et al., 1999 study?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     But I pointed that out as an example
  that -- that the -- any biases are accounted for and taken
  out of these tables so that we can rely upon these tables
  as being accurate representations of apples to apples.
          Q.     Okay.  Well, this one, this note indicates
  that the Louisiana figures were adjusted for sample
  selection bias, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  But --
          Q.     But it doesn't say that the other ones were
  adjusted for sample selection bias?
          A.     In the previous -- in the previous
  terminology leading up to this in the previous pages prior
  to these tables, it would -- it would talk about that.
          Q.     Okay.  Well, why don't you -- I've got his
  book here.  Can you tell me where in his book it indicates
  that?
          A.     I haven't looked at this for a while, but
  just on a quick glance, I would look at pages 167, and
  actually I think he even talks about it in the preceding
  bit as well, and discusses how I believe -- yes, right, he
  talks about -- right, I would refer you to pages 167
  leading up to the table, up to the tables and that would
  --
          Q.     The number -- going on page 167 where it
  says the numbers summary and going up to the tables?  And
  if there -- if you find another instance that's -- you
  think is relevant to this question of bias, you can feel
  free to point it to me later also.
          A.     Well, I think -- I probably shouldn't have
  even put that out because it's a bit of a misdirection on,
  I mean, you use that word and it's an academic context.
          Q.     What are you talking about, what word?
          A.     The bias.  Yeah, probably shouldn't have
  used that particular word.  But what it does, it's
  designed to simply take out any -- anything which might
  prejudice the results one way or another.
          Q.     And in the case of the Ryan study, do you
  know what sample selection bias was -- Professor Grinols
  was concerned about?
          A.     No, I don't.  I would have to reread it and
  go through it to refresh my memory.
          Q.     All right.  Let's start on the Table 7.1 on
  page 172.  He says the social cost for pathological
  gambler 2003 dollars?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     This table goes on 172 through 173; am I
  correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  And in the -- if you turn to the
  side, and it has a bar across the top that says MD, FL,
  WI, et cetera, that's a listing of different states where
  studies were conducted?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Going across.  So like, for example, MD,
  Maryland, then directly underneath that it has Politzer,
  et al. 19--
          A.     1981.  That's the study you mentioned
  earlier, which was a leading edge study at the time.
          Q.     So -- and then if you went straight down
  the Maryland column, there's some numbers, like
  adjudication criminal and civil justice cost, $3,619.  Is
  that figure derived from the Politzer study?
          A.     These would be costs that Politzer
  identified and categorized under those categories that are
  identified in the left-hand column.  You've got crime,
  business and employment cost, bankruptcy, suicide, but as
  you can see, there are several categories which are --
  have no cost because he did not calculate cost in those
  particular categories.
          Q.     There you mean Politzer?
          A.     Politzer.  So that's a partial listing of
  the cost, and I should probably point out that in all of
  these tables, they're all partial listing of costs, so
  when you get down to the weighted average or the average
  down in the lower right-hand corner of $10,330 in social
  costs per new pathological, i.e. addicted gambler, that
  that's -- that's a very conservative number because it's a
  partial listing of costs.  And what Professor Grinols is
  doing is he's updating the previous tables that we
  discussed, the Grinols and Mustard table we identified
  earlier.
          Q.     In the Managerial and Decision Economics
  Journal?
          A.     Right.  So this would be a more
  authoritative and more recent compilation of these --
  of -- summary of these studies.  I think he's got nine
  here, and I don't think the 2003 Schwer study -- well, it
  wouldn't have been in the previous.  So here's a new study
  which he's added that is authoritative and parallels what
  the other studies previously had shown since 1981.
          Q.     You mean 2001?
          A.     No.  1981 is the Politzer, the first study.
          Q.     Right.
          A.     So every four or five years here you're
  having another -- three or four years you're having
  another study done, and they're all tracking these
  amounts.
          Q.     Now, let me ask you some more questions
  about these -- this chart.  The reference to Politzer, et
  al. 1981, that is a shortened reference to something, it's
  a fuller cite in the reference material, right?  So if we
  turn to the back of Exhibit 5 on page -- would it be 221?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     There is a citation for Politzer, Robert M,
  James S. Morrow and Sandra Leavey, 1981 Report on the
  Societal Cost of Pathological Gambling and the
  Cost-Benefit Effectiveness of Treatment by the Johns
  Hopkins Compulsive Gambling Counseling Center?
          A.     I believe that that was at the time part of
  Johns Hopkins Medical, and it was leading edge, and it was
  subsequently published in 1985, and I'm sure it was
  updated somewhat.
          Q.     Okay.  But --
          A.     Published academically in '85.
          Q.     But the -- in the chart on page 172,
  Professor Grinols has the indication Politzer, et al.
  1981?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Does that indicate to you that he is using
  the --
          A.     The '81.
          Q.     -- Politzer '81 --
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     -- article, okay, that's listed in the
  references?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  And I would say, being
  familiar with both the 1981 paper by Politzer, again, that
  had more numbers in it than the actual published version
  in '85, and that may be -- I don't want to second guess,
  but that may be one reason why he started with, Professor
  Grinols started with a Politzer '81 study as well as the
  fact that it's extremely well known and was very leading
  edge when it came out, and so it's cited everywhere, and
  it's really fairly easy to find.
          Q.     Okay.  In the references, could you -- on
  Exhibit 5, can you just either make some indication in
  this column that -- right by the Politzer one, something
  to indicate this is the one that's relevant to the table
  that we're talking, just in case we have to refer to it
  later it's going to be easier so you could do -- if you
  want to do a check or --
          A.     I think I can remember that, if you're
  looking for me to do this in testimony in the future.
          Q.     Yeah.  I'm sure you can remember it.  I'm
  thinking if we discuss it in front of the judge, I'd like
  to be able -- you know, let's do your original exhibit.
          A.     You want me to do it on my copy?
          Q.     Yeah, do it on that copy.  And then --
  however you want to do it, just something to pull that out
  of the list.
          A.     Okay.
          Q.     I've got -- I've got -- if you want a
  highlighter or a pen, whatever you prefer.
          A.     I thought I'd just put Table 7.1 next to
  it.  Would that work?
          Q.     Yeah.  Just so we can easily find it and
  point to it.
          A.     Okay.  Do you want to go through the
  others?
          Q.     Yeah.  Let's do the other ones.  So the
  next study listed is the -- it's under the heading
  Florida, FL Executive Office of Governor 1994 on Table 1.
  Are you familiar with that study?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  It was done by an economist,
  Dr. Subhasis, S-u-b-h-a-s-i-s, last name, Das, D-a-s.  He
  was the head of an economics team which did that study.
  How's that for memory?
          Q.     Good.  And now is that study the full
  reference in the reference pages in the back?
          A.     Yes.  I'm marking that Table 7.1 in the
  back on page 217.
          Q.     Okay.  And it's under the Executive Office
  of the Governor?
          A.     Executive Office of the Governor, 1994,
  Casinos in Florida, page 217.
          Q.     Is it - the next study is Wisconsin,
  Thompson, et al. 1996.  I believe we've mentioned --
  you've mentioned that study today already?
          A.     Yes, ma'am, and --
          Q.     Where does it appear in the references?
          A.     It --
          Q.     Is it on 223?
          A.     223, and it's Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and
  Dan Rickman, 1997A, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute
  and Forum.
          Q.     All right.  The next study that is listed
  in Table 7.1 is for Connecticut, Thompson, et al. 1998.
  Where is the full reference to that study?
          A.     Yeah.  Let me back up for a second.
          Q.     Sure.
          A.     On page 223, it looks to me like he's
  referring to the '96 Thompson, et al. report from
  Wisconsin.
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     What I referred to was the '97, but it
  looks like he's doing Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan
  Rickman from 1996, A, Casinos and Crime:  Is There a
  Connection.
          Q.     Oh, okay.  So you previously had referred
  to the one that's two up from the 1996?
          A.     Yes, the Wisconsin Policy Research
  Institute report.  And I would have to check my own
  footnotes, but I'm thinking that there was a '95 version
  of that report, 1995, he's got 1997, but I would have to
  recheck.
          Q.     Do you know what the differences were
  between the reports in the various years?
          A.     Basically, it's like the Politzer report or
  like my report that I indicated earlier, we keep updating
  and refining the numbers.  We get feedback from other
  academics that say, oh, you need to adjust for this or do
  this.  So I would tend to focus on the most recent vetted
  and published academic report.
          Q.     When you mean vetted, do you mean like peer
  reviewed or is that --
          A.     Including that.  Going through a -- a
  process of -- of being, yeah, being reviewed by other
  professors or comments, either official or unofficial,
  from other professors saying that you should look at this
  or how about adding in this new cost or did you see this
  other report.
          Q.     And that sort of thing is fairly common in
  academic  --
          A.     Oh, sure.
          Q.      -- circles?
                 And it's generally considered better to
  have something peer reviewed or vetted because -- I mean,
  what is it, general thought processes?
          A.     Academics is about finding the most
  authoritative, relevant, current information to address a
  particular issue, and that's -- and that's why I made this
  distinction about the dates, and I would want to go back
  and double check on them before answering any specific
  question, but I trust Professor Grinols has utilized a
  rigorous process in doing this.
          Q.     But I mean, not specific to the Thompson
  settings, but in general, in academic circles, peer-
  reviewed publications are -- have a little bit more
  credibility than non-peer-reviewed?  There might be
  exceptions in certain cases, but as a general rule, they
  have some more credibility?
          A.     Well, I think it depends on the discipline
  as well.  I mean, every discipline has different
  qualifiers associated with them.
          Q.     What about economics?
          A.     Well, let's take the Casinos, Crime and
  Community Cost by Professors Grinols and Mustard.
  Generally -- well, that would be what we call blind
  reviews, which means that it was sent out probably to
  numerous other professors for blind reviews, but it was
  also --
          Q.     And blind review --
          A.     Sorry.
          Q.     Just to make sure, blind review is when the
  names of the authors are not provided to the reviewers?
          A.     And vice versa.
          Q.     And vice versa.  And then -- so people are
  not making decisions based on reputation or whatever, but
  on the strength of the particular paper?
          A.     Right.  And that would be one side of the
  spectrum.  The other side of the spectrum would be
  professors throughout the college looking at something or
  reading through papers.  I regularly pass -- I've got
  three professors looking at things that I've written right
  now, and they're going to give me feedback response on
  that before I submit it for publication for marketing, the
  law review.
          Q.     Now, with the Grinols and Mustard 2006
  article that was published through the Harvard/MIT -- I
  can't remember the name.
          A.     Right.
          Q.     You said that's a blind review process?
          A.     I believe it's a blind review because I --
  I believe that I passed Professor Grinols in the hall and
  he was saying, well, it's going back through review again.
  This is typical, and -- and that's one thing that makes
  this so good is because it's been vetted for ten years.
  He's had preliminaries that he's sent out.  He's sent back
  suggestions.  And I don't think there'll be another
  article close to the Grinols and Mustard article published
  here by Harvard and MIT for 10, 20 years.
          Q.     Well, with the peer review process, just --
  I'm not particularly familiar with academic publishing,
  but in law reviews it's something -- it's different, it's
  a student run organization?
          A.     Right.
          Q.     But in academic circles, the journals are
  edited by academics in a particular field?
          A.     Yes.  That would be the ideal situation.
          Q.     And then a review process -- articles
  considered for submission are given to reviewers who might
  know something in a particular field, and they have --
  they make decisions about whether or not something would
  be a contribution to the field, and that's part of what
  the publication process is designed to vet out, get
  articles that make a contribution versus articles that
  just may not contribute to academic discourse?  Is that
  the theory at least?
          A.     Journals would be looking for leading edge
  articles, and they would tend to give precedence to what
  they thought were their best articles.  The -- so
  I -- I -- in an ideal world, that's the way it should
  work.
          Q.     But it doesn't always work that way, is
  that what you're indicating to me?
          A.     Well, I think what you're getting at and
  perhaps what I'm thinking about are that special interest
  groups can try to incorrectly influence the process.
  Let's say, for example, tobacco, if they knew that a
  particular study was about to be published, and as a
  matter of fact, when my associate, Professor Frank Vandall
  at Emory Law School has written at least one, I think
  maybe two law review articles on this, and there have
  been some law review articles out about how academics were
  harassed as they published and/or tried to publish
  articles critical of the tobacco industry.
          Q.     But you believe that that sort of improper
  attempt at influencing exists with gambling articles in
  academic journals?
          A.     I have written an academic journal which I
  believe I've cited already which has several instances in
  it that I thought were improper influences, and that was
  the University of Southern California Interdisciplinary
  Law Journal, and it's on that list that you provided me,
  Exhibit --
          Q.     4, I think it was.
          A.     Yes, ma'am, Exhibit 4.
          Q.     And so in that article, you outline what
  you believe are improper influences from the gambling
  industry?
          A.     Yes, ma'am, I did.  It caused me enough
  concern that I wrote an academic article on it, which they
  made -- I think that was their lead article in that
  journal issue.
          Q.     This is No. 8 on the Exhibit 4, the
  Gambling Industry and Academic Research:  Have Gambling
  Monies Tainted the Research Environment?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     That's right.  All right.  Are your views
  on potential tainting of the research environment and the
  gambling research field accurately represented in that
  article, No. 8?
          A.     It's loaded with footnotes, and I think
  it's a good -- well, I'm the author, so over about 20
  years, that would have instances exemplifying my concerns
  and I think what the concerns of academia should be.
          Q.     Have your views changed significantly since
  you wrote that 2003 article?
          A.     Changed in what way?
          Q.     Do you still have the same concern about
  potential tainting of the research environment for
  gambling?
          A.     Yes, I believe that that's a concern, and I
  should probably add to that that I'm ruthlessly
  independent.
          Q.     What do you mean by ruthlessly independent?
          A.     Nobody's going to influence what I do from
  a research perspective.
          Q.     What do you mean by that?  You mean that
  you -- do you not undertake consulting work because of
  concerns?
          A.     I have -- well, the first thing is, I
  should state that I and some of my colleagues upon
  occasion, but I for the last 20 years have not accepted
  any honorary or consultant fees for any of this work.
  Your fees, when I receive the expert witness fees here,
  will go straight to the Salvation Army.  So anything that
  I bring in goes straight to charity.
          Q.     Okay.  So you do actually obtain money, but
  you send it to charity?
          A.     100 percent.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Sometimes the groups themselves will send
  it directly, you know, as an honorarium on my behalf or
  something of that nature to the charity.  I do accept
  travel expenses.  I don't want to come out short.  For
  example, you mentioned the Cisneros case earlier.  I think
  last year they sent me a check for $13,000, a little more,
  somewhere around there, and I took that down to the
  Salvation Army myself.  That's right where it goes, and
  then sent them a receipt so they knew where it was.  So
  you can go as long as you want on this deposition.
          Q.     We're helping the Salvation Army?
          A.     It all goes charity.
          Q.     Okay.  Well, let's get back to Table 7.1.
  I think that we've been talking about the two Thompson
  studies that were cited, and there was Wisconsin 1996 and
  the Connecticut 1998 study.  And I don't -- did you
  identify in the references which show the wrong citation
  for the 1998 Thompson study?  And if not, would you please
  do so?
          A.     If he has that as a Connecticut study, I
  don't see it listed here under Thompson.  You see it
  listed in the bibliography?  It might be under one of --
  it might be under a co-author's name.
          Q.     Are you familiar with a study by Thompson
  from 1998 involving Connecticut?
          A.     What I am -- hang on a second here.  There
  was one by Lesieur in '98 out of Connecticut, and I'm
  wondering if it was listed under him as a co-author and --
  I'm thinking that it was not -- that it's not listed here
  in the -- in the references, and since he only has the
  name Thompson here in 1998, I'm not sure which -- to which
  one he's referring.
          Q.     Would it be in the -- in their 2001
  article?
          A.     That's a good point.  Yes.  That's a good
  point.
          Q.     That article is on McKaskel 140 -- I'm
  sorry.  McKaskel 99 to 118.
          A.     Well, I have it on McKaskel 20, which is
  probably a repetition of the same citation you have.
          Q.     That's -- I believe that's just the table,
  and then the full article is at 99.
          A.     Oh, right, Professor Grinols' article.
          Q.     Right.  Okay.  If I can --
          A.     I would have to ask him --
          Q.     Let me just direct your attention to
  McKaskel 109.
          A.     I don't want to speculate on what -- I
  would note that Thompson did several studies in a
  four-year period there.  Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  So McKaskel 109 has this Table 2?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And this is what I believe an earlier --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     -- the 2001 version of this what would be
  Table 7.1 in Exhibit 5, and then the -- if you turn to
  McKaskel 118.
          A.     I'm sorry.  We're looking at 109?
          Q.     109 is the table of social costs that was
  in Grinols' 2001 article?
          A.     Correct.
          Q.     And then if you turn to McKaskel 118,
  that's the end notes or references for his 2001 article,
  and there are a couple listings by Thompson, and it
  appears then that there's one 1998 with Thompson and
  Gazel, and it seems to be the same one that is -- or at
  least not -- not a Connecticut one in there either.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Is Connecticut the nutmeg
  state?  It says nutmeg and cheese.  We know the cheese is
  Wisconsin.  That was a thought.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Nutmeg and cheesecake, it
  could be.
                 THE WITNESS:  I'm actually -- I don't want
  to speculate, but having read through these, of course
  it's been some years, I'm thinking that he's referring to
  this one in Gaming Research and Review Journal.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Because -- right.  I believe that's where
  that's coming from.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     But I would want to double check that.
          Q.     Do you feel comfortable enough to just flag
  the 1998 study in the references in Exhibit 5 in case we
  need to discuss it later at the hearing?  At least sitting
  here today, your best guess is that's the one he's talking
  about, the Thompson, Gazel and Rickman 1998?
          A.     I'm familiar with Thompson, Gazel and
  Rickman, and -- but if you want to ask me specific
  questions on these, I would like to have the opportunity
  to pull the documents off my shelf and review them --
          Q.     Sure.
          A.     -- to make sure that I've refreshed my
  memory properly.  Okay.  So we were looking at Thompson
  here again?
          Q.     Uh-huh.
          A.     Okay.  Next?
          Q.     Then on Table 7.1, then we have South
  Dakota, and Professor Grinols is referencing a South
  Dakota Legislative Research Council, 1998 to '99.  Point
  me to the full reference for that.
          A.     I believe that's also on page 223, and it
  looks like it might be a combination of the first two on
  page 223 since Professor Grinols puts both '98 and '99 on
  this table.
          Q.     Are you familiar with this -- the studies?
          A.     Yes.  But I haven't looked at it recently.
          Q.     Have you read both of them?
          A.     It would be my normal procedure to go
  through all of these, yes.
          Q.     All right.  Going back to Table 7.1, the
  next one is Louisiana, Ryan, et al. 1999.  Is that
  reference on page 222 of Exhibit --
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     -- 5?
                 Are you familiar with this study?
          A.     I am familiar with all of Tim Ryan's
  studies up through 1997, and I've been trying to get my
  hands on this one since -- we were looking for it in our
  library not long ago and it was missing.
          Q.     Who is Timothy Ryan?
          A.     Timothy Ryan was a professor of business in
  the College of Business at the University of New Orleans.
  He later became the dean there, and I believe, last I
  heard, was now the chancellor of the University of
  New Orleans.  And he and his associates have done good
  work.  I've cited to him several times.
          Q.     Do you know who did the South Dakota
  Research Council studies?
          A.     I may be getting confused, but I think
  there was a -- I wouldn't want to say.  I have a name, but
  I would want to go back and look.
          Q.     To the best of your recollection sitting
  here today, was it an academic that did the study?
          A.     Well, the people coming to mind are -- was
  a professor that was -- and I -- I'm drawing a bit of a
  cloud on this, but I believe it was Professor Michael
  Madsen, M-a-d-s-e-n, out of the University of South
  Dakota, but I may be -- he has done two reports, and I
  don't want to go any further with that.  I'm not sure that
  he was part of this team or not.
          Q.     And what about Professor Thompson, where is
  he?
          A.     Professor Thompson is at the University of
  Nevada at Las Vegas, and his co-author, Ricardo Gazel, the
  last time I heard was originally at that University and
  then left.  I think he was at that university, and then
  went to the Federal Reserve Board, I think here in
  St. Louis or Kansas City, and now he's with -- last I
  heard he was with the World Bank --
          Q.     Is --
          A.     And -- I'm sorry.  And Dan Rickman I think
  at the time he did the studies was at a -- a -- one of the
  universities in Georgia, and last I heard, I think he was
  at, I want to say Oklahoma State, at an Oklahoma
  university.  I want to be accurate.
          Q.     Is Thompson a professor of economics?
          A.     He is a professor of -- he is not a
  professor of economics.  I can't remember what his precise
  title is, but he has published in economic circles.
          Q.     Let's move on to Louisiana.  This says
  Ryan, et al. 1999?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Did we just do that?
          A.     That's the one we were just talking about.
          Q.     Then we have U.S.  Is that the whole United
  States?
          A.     Yes.  That's Dean Gerstein and their
  reports, as a matter of fact, several of these reports
  were cited in the University of Southern California
  citation that I just gave you.
          Q.     The law review article?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  Well, it's a law --
  technically a law journal article.  And -- and his --
  well, what do you want to know?  You just want me to mark
  this?
          Q.     Yeah.  I'd like to know what is the right
  citation?  Is it on 218, Gerstein, Hoffmann, Engelman, et
  cetera?
          A.     Yes.  That looks right.
          Q.     This was a report to the National Gambling
  Impact Study Commission?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  Let me state that my hesitancy
  at times on some of these citations is that I'm used to
  Bluebook format, and so when I see a different format, it
  can cause me a bit of pause.
          Q.     What do you know about the Gerstein study?
  So far as-- I mean, was it commissioned by the National
  Gambling Impact Study Commission?
          A.     Yes, it was, along with a study that from
  the -- that was commissioned from the National Academy of
  Sciences, and a third study, this was one of three as I
  recall, which was commissioned by the National Gambling
  Impact Study Commission as part of its work from 1995 to
  1999.
          Q.     Going back to Table 7.1, we have South
  Carolina and a Thompson/Quinn 1999?
          A.     Yes, I believe -- well --
          Q.     It's on page 223.
          A.     Well, I see the reference here to Thompson
  and Quinn in '99, and I was thinking that was with
  another -- I wanted to check under Quinn here, too, to
  see.  Sometimes they're done differently in this format.
  That looks likes the '99 one to which he's referring.
          Q.     On page 223?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And then you've marked it on your copy?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.  All right.  And the last one is
  Nevada, is it Schwer?
          A.     Yes, and --
          Q.     2003?
          A.     -- and actually that's Thompson and Schwer.
  Again, I'm not sure which one was given primary -- yeah,
  here it is.  It's under Schwer and Thompson, 2003.  That's
  out of Las Vegas, Nevada.
          Q.     And this is a paper presented?
          A.     Yes.  Yes.  And the fact that you have
  Thompson as one of the co-authors makes it significant,
  because he has a good reputation for doing good work.
          Q.     But a paper would not be something
  that's --
          A.     No.
          Q.     -- peer reviewed?
          A.     But -- well, it would be -- it would be
  vetted at the conference.  In other words, people would
  come up and say, well, did you do this, did you do that?
  And Professor Thompson has come up to me at conferences
  and said, what did you think of my paper?  And I would
  make a couple of suggestions, and then sometimes
  thereafter -- it takes two or three years for it to
  actually be published.  But -- but when -- you can see the
  book that came out here in 2004, you've got a paper here
  by Thompson and Schwer in 2003, and it fills in a couple
  of holes, it looks like, or adds something new to the --
  to the data.  I can see precisely why Professor Grinols
  would include Thompson in there.
          Q.     And the final column on Table 7.1 is the
  adjusted row averages for studies?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Are those figures that Professor Grinols
  derived from the previous studies we've just referenced?
          A.     That -- the way I read that and have always
  understood it would be that these are the adjusted row
  averages, the costs that have been calculated in the
  studies wherein those costs have been calculated.  I would
  point out that none of these studies has touched the costs
  of the suicide.  We know that suicides go up in high
  concentration gambling areas according to a very good
  report by Professor David Phillips, also at the University
  of Southern California, and you can see that on these rows
  there's no value given to a human life.  So how do you
  calculate new suicides attributed to gambling addiction?
                 And if you want the numbers from the
  Phillips study, they are -- that's one thing that's
  appended to -- I don't know what we marked this exhibit,
  but that's in my Table 14.
          Q.     Oh, that was, what, was it 3A?
          A.     3A.
          Q.     Your presentation to Gambling Impact --
          A.     It's on the bottom of Table 14.  It has
  Phillips, the conclusions out of the Phillips study, which
  the conclusion here was non-gambling communities there was
  a .97 percent suicides by out-of-state visitors, and in
  gambling communities it was 4.28 percent in Las Vegas,
  2.31 percent in Reno, 1.87 percent in Atlantic City.
          Q.     Now, which table are you referring to?
          A.     This is my Table 14, which is reporting on
  the results of the Phillips study, David Phillips, et al.
  out of the University of Southern California, and I would
  refer you to his study for specifics on -- on those
  numbers.
          Q.     Now, on the left-hand side of Table 7.1 in
  Exhibit 5, there's a listing of, I guess, categories of
  social costs?
          A.     I'm sorry.  Where are you reading from?
  The left side here (indicating)?
          Q.     Yes.  So we have crime, for example,
  business and employment cost, bankruptcy, suicide.  Are
  those -- to your understanding, are those all included
  under the rubric of social costs?
          A.     Generally, under the rubric of social costs
  we talk about what are called the ABCs, and those ABCs are
  new addicted gamblers, new bankruptcies, new crime.
          Q.     What is the definition of a social cost?
          A.     I would say that would be a cost occasioned
  by some activity in society.
          Q.     And who is it a cost -- to whom is it a
  cost, or to what is it a cost?
          A.     Well, these costs are calculated as the
  increased costs of one new pathological or addicted
  gambler.  So comparably, what is the cost to society of a
  drug addict?  What is the cost to society of a person
  addicted to tobacco?  These are the costs attributed to
  one new addicted or pathological gambler.
          Q.     Well, let's start with the first one that's
  under the heading crime.  We have apprehension, increased
  police cost, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Then under Politzer there's a blank, the
  Maryland, the Politzer study there's a blank, then under
  Florida there's a blank, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Under Wisconsin, we have the number 26?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     What does the number 26 represent in terms
  of apprehension and increased police cost?
          A.     Well, if I could refer to the entire row,
  there are six studies which have struggled with how to
  calculate increased police costs, including apprehension
  associated with a new addicted gambler.  And those are the
  six different numbers which have been calculated in these
  studies and then have been adjusted by Professor Grinols
  to make them comparable types of numbers, so that we're
  not moving from one category into another.
                 And the difficulty admittedly has been that
  different professors would tend to define or calc -- to
  make a different definition of certain types of costs, and
  so the really great things that Professor Grinols -- we've
  all struggled with this -- did in his book here, is that
  he has provided a template of definitions which sets the
  standard for future studies in calc -- and definitions in
  future studies.
                 In my University of Southern California
  Interdisciplinary Law Journal -- and notice it's called
  the Interdisciplinary Law Journal, which is one reason why
  I chose them, is to try and bring all the disciplines
  together, and I addressed these different types of costs
  using the different definitions which were used by various
  professors in various studies.  And so we were trying to
  establish some type of template norm or standard, but that
  does not take away from the fact that these are costs,
  that they are real.
                 And the fact that Professor Grinols has
  used slightly different definitions, for example, from
  what I would use or some other professor would use does
  not -- I think we would all bow to his judgment because,
  as I said, he's a Nobel Prize caliber economist.
          Q.     What does -- what would Professor Grinols
  include under the heading apprehension and increased
  police costs?
          A.     I would have you ask him that.  I mean, I
  would go to his book.  I would look at his definition,
  and -- but he has established his category, and I'm sure
  that he has his template in his book for each of these
  categories.
          Q.     Well, starting with the first dollar amount
  for apprehension and increased police costs that you have
  under the Wisconsin study, $26, would I be correct to
  understand that the $26, is that an amount of money that
  would be required to pay for increased apprehension and
  police cost services that were needed for every additional
  problem gambler in a particular community in Wisconsin?
          A.     Well, again, I would say that you would
  have to ask Professor Grinols his rationale for the --
  doing this table the way he did.  I would, however, say
  that every time I ask him these types of questions, I
  receive a -- an answer which gives me confidence in the
  numbers that he is providing and in his rigor in so
  providing.
          Q.     But sitting here today, you can't tell me
  why or what the $26 figure relates to in Table 7.1?
          A.     I would be glad to go back and look at this
  study again and come back to you with an opinion, but I
  wouldn't feel comfortable just -- because if you look at
  what you're basically asking are to coordinate all these
  definitions of costs between eight different studies, so
  you're asking for a large permutation here.
          Q.     Well, and there is a lot of variation
  between the figures because we have in this first row
  under crime, apprehension and increased police costs, we
  have Thompson 1996 at $26, and then South Dakota is
  $1,129?
          A.     That's correct, and I have talked to
  professor Thompson about some of his low numbers,
  specifically in this category as well as the bankruptcy
  category, and he said -- his response was that he was
  being extremely conservative on his calculations on his
  numbers, and I suspect that you will find most of these
  academics being very conservative on their numbers because
  they know it's going to undergo this type of scrutiny.  I
  suspect that if you call these experts, they will say that
  these are very conservative numbers.
          Q.     Have you -- you've discussed the crime
  number with Professor Thompson?
          A.     Some years ago, and bankruptcy is one that
  I remember, I think.  That's one I remember specific
  discussing with him, too.
          Q.     Did you discuss any of the figures from the
  South Dakota Legislative Research Council?
          A.     I would as -- as, of course, any number
  that I had some questions about, similar to you, I would
  ask one of the authors at a conference upon running into
  them, and I would perhaps give my opinion, well, this is
  too low or this was too high, or how this was calculated.
  I would first ask how it was calculated and defined, and
  then what methodology is utilize to make the calculations.
          Q.     But you don't recall ever doing that with
  the persons who conducted the South Dakota Legislative
  Research Council Report?
          A.     I was at a national conference in Sioux
  Falls, I believe, in 2001.  I think it was 2001, was the
  national conference there in Sioux Falls, and Professor
  Thompson was there.  I remember him specifically.  I'm
  sure that these various academics were, or intermittently
  there, It would surprise me if I had not discussed this
  with them, but I do not specifically remember the
  conversation.
          Q.     With the persons who conducted the South
  Dakota Legislative Reserve Council?
          A.     No, I don't recall.
          Q.     What about the numbers with Ryan 1999, did
  you discuss any of those numbers with Professor Ryan?
          A.     Well, he's now the chancellor.  He's not
  answering phone calls.
          Q.     All right.
          A.     We have just -- we have just recontacted
  his office to get one of about ten reports that we found
  missing from our collection, and they were gracious enough
  to say they would forward it on to us again.
          Q.     But you haven't spoken with him or his
  colleagues about the specific number?
          A.     Not recently.  Not since the '90s.
          Q.     Did you speak with him about it in the
  '90s?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And this was published in 1999?
          A.     Well, I would reference -- I don't know if
  it's in the bibliography here, but again, I would state
  that if you look, for example, at Ryan's publications, his
  report was, I believe, 1990.  I think he then did
  something in '92, something in '94.  He did a five -- not
  -- I don't want to say five volumes, because they really
  weren't volumes, but they were five task reports in '97.
  And if you -- if you track these reports from Ryan or from
  Thompson, we'll see that their methodology tends to stay
  on a similar track.  The numbers may change somewhat, they
  may go off and publish a paper at some juncture when they
  feel they're -- that they're ready to do that.
                 So I feel confident just recently being
  through Ryan's reports again, and -- on his numbers, he
  does good -- good work.  So I would have to go back and
  check the '99, but I just saw the '97 one the other day,
  and I --
          Q.     And you spoke with him sometime in the '90s
  about an earlier iteration of this study; am I
  understanding it correctly?  Is that right?
          A.     I think I probably talked to him about the
  '97 study when it came out in '97.  Normally when
  something significant and new comes out, you will make an
  effort -- or I will make an effort, as any other academic
  would, to contact a person because you work in a similar
  area and say, could you send me a hard copy of that
  report, or may I get a preliminary copy of that, and as an
  academic courtesy we get these reports in and out all the
  time.  I get numerous requests, you know, are you working
  on something?  What are you doing?
                 Then we go to conferences and we compare
  notes, and so to -- all I can say is that's the general
  process, and occasionally I will remember a specific
  conversation, particularly if we had a little bit of a
  disagreement.  But normal course, we'll just be rubbing
  shoulders with these people as part of academic circles,
  and I can't remember often when the last time was we've
  talked.
          Q.     Do you recall having a specific
  conversation with Gerstein about his numbers?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And when was that?
          A.     I talked with Dean Gerstein a couple of
  times after his report came out.
          Q.     What was the substance of those
  conversations?
          A.     If you look at his -- at his numbers, my
  colleagues and I were very supportive of the National
  Gambling Impact Study Commission because one of the
  problems of -- of all these is that there is an enormous
  amount of work involved, and to do --
          Q.     When you say these, you're referring to the
  studies?
          A.     All these studies, right.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     And to fill in these gaps requires a large
  amount of money and concentrated academic effort, and so
  the federal commission commissioned the National Academy
  of Sciences, I think it's National Institute of Mental
  Health and some other groups, including Dean Gerstein, to
  calculate some of these numbers.  Well, as you can see,
  here in 19 -- that they didn't do the calculations in some
  of the categories, and they were the most well funded
  study, and they just didn't do the calculations.
          Q.     And why didn't they do the calculations?
          A.     If you read the University of Southern
  California, my article there and footnotes, it explains
  some of the hinderances under which this group was
  working.
          Q.     Do you believe they were hindered by the
  gambling industry?
          A.     If you read my citations, they're well
  documented from the University of Southern California.
  They're in the law journal article.
          Q.     So yes, based on citations that you have in
  your --
          A.     In the -- I would say yes, based on the
  cited information in that law journal article.
          Q.     Did you discuss with Schwer -- or do you
  recall discussing with Schwer some of the figures in his
  2003 work?
          A.     No, I don't recall discussing with Schwer,
  and remember his co-author was Thompson, and I -- I don't
  recall discussing those numbers with either Thompson or
  Schwer.  I do recall discussing them with Grinols,
  Professor Grinols in a phone call, and probably more than
  one, because it would have been significant when it came
  out, and I've discussed the Schwer numbers, which was well
  done.
          Q.     So you don't have an issue with some of
  Schwer's and Thompson's numbers?
          A.     No, I don't.  I indicated previously that I
  tried to be very independent, and although Professor
  William Thompson is at the University of Nevada - Las
  Vegas, he has established a reputation as being
  independent and accurately reporting the numbers even
  though the gambling industry has been distressed with him
  at certain junctures, and that's been recorded in the Los
  Angeles Times.
          Q.     And that's something that's cited in your
  law review article in the Southern California --
          A.     I would say it's a -- you can find it in a
  series of Los Angeles Times articles, December, I think
  about the 10th through the 13th, front page articles, and
  Thompson is cited in there as feeling he was somewhat
  intimidated.  1997 was the date of those articles, I
  believe.
          Q.     Going back to the types of costs that
  Grinols identifies, he has adjudication and then in
  parentheses criminal and civil justice costs.  Do you know
  what's included in those types of costs?
          A.     I would have to look back at his book and
  see how he has defined and grouped these costs, and I
  would not try to second guess his definitions.
          Q.     The same with incarceration and supervision
  costs, you would defer to Professor Grinols?
          A.     I would defer to him.  In my Southern
  California -- or my University of Southern California Law
  Journal article, you will find that I give some of the
  original definitions as defined by Politzer and other
  professors different categories of costs, and then the
  question is, how do we become uniform on those definitions
  so that future studies can calculate this specific cost.
                 The reason I like Professor Grinols' work
  in this book so much is because I think he's gone a long
  way toward setting the standard of the definitions and
  then giving the benefit of the doubt to the gambling
  industry and gambling in general on costs and fitting very
  conservative costs, and you can see that with the Thompson
  numbers, $46 and $41, I think they're very conservative
  cost estimates.
                 But we can't -- he can't adjust the
  figures, so to speak, of what the findings of the studies
  were, so we accurately report the studies.  We try to put
  their definition into the cost category that -- or
  template that Professor Grinols has established, and I
  will defer to his definitions in that area.
          Q.     All right.  On business and employment
  costs, we have lost productivity on job.  Is that
  essentially costs to employers?
          A.     Well, again, I would have to say that these
  are -- we would have to look at his definitions, and I
  would have to refresh my memory, compare his definitions
  with the definitions that I originally reviewed in 1994 in
  my Drake Law Review article, from other academic sources
  and see if these tracked together, but again, I think that
  I would be -- since he is the most authoritative, I think
  he has set the template here for definitions in these
  categories, and that makes his book very leading edge and
  noteworthy.
          Q.     So I don't want to go through a meaningless
  exercise, but if I asked you about, say, bankruptcy,
  suicide, illness, social service costs, government direct
  regulatory costs, and family costs, with each of those you
  would defer to Professor Grinols on what the definition
  should encompass?
          A.     I would defer to him, and next time I see
  him at a conference, if I had a concern about a particular
  category, I would say maybe we ought to tweak this -- or
  you ought to tweak this category a little bit and include
  these indirect costs or not include these indirect costs
  and he may agree or disagree.  That's what academic
  debate's all about.
          Q.     Now, you mentioned the term direct and
  indirect cost.  What would be a direct cost?  What does
  the term direct cost mean?
          A.     Well, if somebody were to steal your car,
  that would be a direct cost to you, and you will have also
  indirect costs of -- of not being able to get to work,
  having to find other modes of transportation.
          Q.     With the types of costs that are listed in
  Table 7.1, which would be direct costs and which would be
  indirect costs?
          A.     Well I would have to look at the
  definitions of -- of Professor Grinols again, but --
          Q.     In your example that you gave, you also
  said that the loss of somebody stealing my car is a direct
  cost to me, and then I would have other indirect costs.
  Are there direct -- so I'm -- something may be a direct
  cost to a specific person or type of entity, right?
          A.     Well, let's -- let's jump back into how we
  talk about compensatory and punitive damages if we're
  going to talk in the legal terms.
          Q.     Well, I'd like to keep it on -- I'd like to
  tie it in to costs of gambling and some of these types of
  things here.  For example, I -- one question would be,
  would apprehension and increased police costs be a direct
  cost to a city or something?
          A.     That would be my understanding from the way
  I have viewed most definitions, so we're talking about
  increased costs to the budgets of police departments when
  it comes to increased crime.
          Q.     And the same would be with like
  adjudication, that would be a direct cost to the county or
  municipality?
          A.     Well, just theoretically, if you have an
  extra 1,000 people who are committing criminal acts, you
  would have increased apprehension costs and police costs.
  The budget would go up.  You'd have increased costs of
  adjudication, court costs, and increased incarceration
  costs.  So we would see direct budget increases from that
  increased criminal activity.
          Q.     What about lost productivity on the job,
  would that be a direct cost to an employer?
          A.     That would be a direct cost to the
  employer.  For example, say that an employee simply leaves
  his job for the afternoon.  Well, you have the --
  technically you could calculate that as lost wages where
  that employee took off that particular time.  So if an
  employee becomes hooked on gambling and they're missing
  work days and those work days are more than their
  allocable sick days and leave days, then you've got a cost
  to the business, and that would be loss of productivity on
  the job.
                 You would also have increased health care
  costs.  Say you've got 10,000 people working in your
  company, and if you have an extra hundred of those become
  addicted gamblers, well, we're already paying employee
  assistance program funds for alcohol or for tobacco.  Now
  we've got new costs on top of that for addicted gamblers.
          Q.     Now, with lost productivity on the job, if
  it's a direct cost to an employer, it is not also a direct
  cost to, let's say, the municipality where a particular
  person is working?
          A.     Well, if the person's a government
  employee, it's a direct cost to the municipality.
          Q.     But if they're not a government employee,
  it's not a direct cost in your view?
          A.     It's not fair to say that.  If you have
  someone who becomes addicted to gambling and you have
  their lost productivity on the job, but then they're going
  to go home as an addicted gambler because they probably
  lost their job, so then you have increased social welfare
  costs to your social agencies, if you look at these
  studies --
          Q.     Well, but aren't those, like, social
  service costs captured by the cost for social services
  costs in -- farther down in Table 7.1?
          A.     No.  I don't think so.  You're talking
  therapy and treatment costs.  That's if the person goes in
  and says I'm hooked.
          Q.     But then there's unemployment and other
  social services, including welfare and food stamps?
          A.     Well, I think that those are under-reported
  in most of these, and the reason is because they haven't
  had the money that Gerstein had who could have filled in
  these blank spots.  For example, costs which have not been
  calculated here, what are the increased costs of -- let me
  pull up -- spousal abuse or the increased cost of child
  abuse.
          Q.     Well, let's talk about direct -- let's keep
  on the topic of direct costs.  I think you agree that lost
  productivity on a job is a direct cost to the employer of
  that person?
          A.     (Witness nodded.)
          Q.     And you are not prepared to say that lost
  productivity on a job is not a direct cost to a particular
  municipality, even where the employee is not a government
  employee?
          A.     I don't understand your question.
          Q.     Well, I'm trying to make sure I understand
  what you said.
                 If you have an employee, a private employee
  who misses their job because of gambling, what -- are
  there any direct business and employment costs to the
  particular, let's say, municipality where that person
  lives as a result?
          A.     Well, there will be increased costs to the
  hospital system, which may be directly or indirectly
  subsidized by local and state and federal governments.
  It's just like a drug addiction, and so you will have not
  just therapy costs, you will have costs addressing -- we
  talked about -- or mentioned -- I mean, I can list some of
  these costs here for you, but I don't think -- which would
  give a better idea of these -- of what's included here
  under these costs.
          Q.     Well, but you wouldn't know unless you
  looked back at Professor Grinols' book what costs are
  included in these various categories in Table 7.1, right?
          A.     Well, I wasn't sure that that was the scope
  of what we were doing today, but I can probably go back
  and refresh my memory and address these a little better, I
  should say in more detail for you.  Here's my Table 9 on
  crime costs that we talked about.
          Q.     You're referring to --
          A.     Table 9.
          Q.     In Exhibit 3A?
          A.     My testimony to the National Gambling
  Impact Study Commission, Table 9.  And you will see that
  the range that I have for regulatory and correction costs
  reporting on various studies and, again, trying to fix
  them into different categories ranges between 8 and
  $10,500.  Now, that's -- and you can see from the
  footnotes that there's plenty of documentation on where
  these numbers come from.
                 But back to your social costs, if you look
  at Table 13, we have --
          Q.     Now you're referring to Table 13 in
  Exhibit?
          A.     My Table 13 from my testimony before the
  National Gambling -- National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission.  We find here, and I don't even put down cost
  for these, but these are for the new addicted gamblers who
  have 44 percent stealing from their employer in one study,
  34 percent fired from or quit work, the average wage loss
  or looming is 33,000, from a Minnesota report it's
  $35,000.  We have 26 percent divorced or separated.  We
  have all these increased in separations 59 percent,
  divorced or separated 26 percent, divorced 17 percent,
  separated 10 percent.  These are different studies done by
  different academics.
                 And notice -- now, I don't fill in any
  costs for these because we're not quite sure how to
  calculate these costs, but the costs are there.  They're
  real costs, and they translate into costs to social
  services throughout government, local, state and federal.
          Q.     Let's go back to Table 7.1.  The last
  category of cost is called abused dollars.  What are
  abused dollars?
          A.     The definition of abused dollars is in that
  Southern California article again, and generally abused
  dollars would -- this is not the exact definition -- tends
  to track into money which is not being used for food,
  clothing and necessaries of life in a household.  In other
  words, a person is either an addicted pathological or
  problem gambler and they are gambling away the kids' lunch
  money, gambling away the money for clothing, gambling away
  the necessaries of life, and that would generally be
  probably a generic definition of the abused dollars
  category.
          Q.     Does the term abused dollars, is that
  something you came up with?
          A.     Politzer, I believe, is the first who came
  up with the concept of abused dollars, and -- and you'll
  see here, he has very high calculation on that, and over
  the years we have debated what should be included in that,
  and as you can see across the columns here, this has been
  an ongoing debate, and various professors have come up
  with varying answers, including Thompson, who in two
  different studies only two years apart had a difference of
  $3,000 in two of his numbers.
          Q.     Well, the highest one is the Politzer was
  29,055.
          A.     Right.
          Q.     And the lowest one is in the Table 7.1 is
  the South Dakota one at 271.
          A.     I'm sorry.  Yes.  Well, again, they can be
  partial categories under the abused dollars.  For example,
  the South Dakota study might have just included reduced
  expenditures on clothing and not even included food in
  their calculation.
                 And so -- and I would also point out that
  it looks to me like Professor Grinols has taken the
  $29,000 and -- and probably removed it from the average as
  being he has to report it because that's where it fits,
  but it doesn't look to me like he included it in the
  weighted averages because his weighted average is $2,880.
          Q.     What was included in the -- in Politzer's
  abused dollars?  Was it -- was it -- for example, is the
  $29,055 their estimate of what an average pathological
  gambler takes from their budget or other people to use for
  gambling inappropriately?
          A.     A generic definition would be money that
  should have been used to support the family and was used
  in a different fashion, that was used for gambling.
          Q.     Do you believe that's what Politzer used to
  come up with this $29,000 figure?
          A.     That's one that I do tend to remember even
  though it's been some years, because that was the first
  definition in '81, and I remember struggling over that
  with other professors and saying, what do we include in
  abused dollars and what don't we include in abused
  dollars?  And -- and so we have -- and I tend also to go
  with the more conservative amounts of abused dollars,
  which I think you can see those professors tend to track
  with lower amounts of abused dollars.
                 But again, the -- let me perhaps summarize
  by saying that we have concentrated on the $3 in costs for
  every $1 in benefits, but if you look at the press release
  on Grinols' book, which came out of the University of
  Illinois -- and did they get copies of that?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I don't know.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Of course not.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I didn't get a copy of that.
                 THE WITNESS:  Well, which I'm sure
  Professor Grinols reviewed.  They had up to a five to one
  ratio of cost.
                 You're welcome to make a copy of that.  So
  what I'm saying is that there -- if you look at some of
  these studies, the costs are much higher than the three to
  one ratio, and the tendency has been to be very
  conservative and give the benefit of the doubt to
  governments and groups that have an interest in gambling.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Can I see that press
  release, please?
                 THE WITNESS:  Sure.  I just happened to
  have that sticking in my book when I brought it here.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Do you want to take a
  five-minute break?
                 (A BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     During the break we've marked what is now
  called Exhibit 3C, and this the news release --
          A.     Right.
          Q.     -- for Professor Grinols' book.
                 Can I use this?
          A.     Sure.
          Q.     I'll look through that copy and you've got
  your copy there.
          A.     Sure.
          Q.     Now, we've just talked about Table 7.1 in
  Professor Grinols' book, which is in Exhibit 5, and based
  on -- Professor Grinols, as we discussed, makes adjusted
  averages for each of the studies and comes up with an
  averaged total cost per pathological gambler in 2003
  dollars at $10,330 per gambler; is that right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  And you trust the accuracy of his
  work in calculating that, correct?
          A.     I will accept it.  I think it's
  conservative.
          Q.     It's at least that much in your view?
          A.     I think so, yes.
          Q.     Now, in Table 7.2, Table 7.2 in Exhibit 5
  is social cost per problem gambler in 2003 dollars?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And here Professor Grinols is putting
  together information from three studies, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Ryan, et al, 1999, for Louisiana, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And that's the same Ryan article that was
  referenced in Table 7.1, right?
          A.     I believe so.
          Q.     And then there's a citation to Gerstein, et
  al., 1999, and that is the same study from the -- that was
  commissioned by the National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I believe so.
          Q.     And then a third one is the South Dakota
  Legislative Research Council, 1999 -- 1998-'99, and that
  one was also used in Table 7.1, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  That would be my conclusion.
          Q.     Basically using the same methodology and
  categories of costs, Professor Grinols takes these
  available estimates from Ryan, Gerstein and South Dakota
  and comes up with figures for the cost of problem
  gamblers, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  And he comes up with an average
  adjusted total cost figure of $2,945 per problem gambler?
          A.     It appears correct.
          Q.     And you have confidence in his figure being
  at least a minimum figure for that?
          A.     I think that that's a conservative figure,
  yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And you believe Table 7.1 and 7.2 are the
  most auth-- or the definitive or most authoritative?
          A.     I would say they are the most authoritative
  current relevant tables.
          Q.     In the area of social cost of gambling?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Now, you have referenced in your testimony
  and previous testimony before legislatures and in other
  places that there is a one to three ratio for benefits and
  costs?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Is that ratio derived from or evident in
  Professor Grinols' book?
          A.     As I recall, I think he references that in
  his book.  I believe he also references that in his 2001
  article in Managerial and Decision Economics.  He has
  personally told me that when we were discussing both his
  book and his article.  I do remember the specific.  He
  said, John, back in 1994 we said three to one ratio, and
  that's what these show.
          Q.     Well, to get a cost and benefit ratio, you
  have to estimate the benefits also, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And Professor Grinols estimates the
  benefits in his book Gambling in America, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And he does that in Chapter 6 of his book;
  is that correct?
          A.     I'll have to look at the book here.  Yes,
  that appears to be correct, Chapter 6.
          Q.     Is his estimate of the benefit for casinos
  listed in Table 6.2 on page 129 of his book?
          A.     I'm sorry.  Did you ask me a question?
          Q.     Yes.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Could you repeat it, please.
                 THE REPORTER:  "Question:  Is his estimate
  of the benefit for casinos listed in Table 6.2 on page 129
  of his book?"
                 THE WITNESS:  That appears to be what
  Table 6.5 analyzes.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Are you familiar with Table 6.5?
          A.     This is the first time I've looked at it in
  perhaps a year.
          Q.     But you've looked at it before?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Do you consider Professor Grinols to be an
  authoritative source for estimating the benefits of
  gambling?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Am I correct to read Table 6.5 to say that
  he estimates the benefits of gambling to be $34 per adult?
          A.     If I look at his conclusion on page 128, he
  says, the long-term benefits appear to be on the order of
  $34 per adult per year.
          Q.     When you're calculating the three to one or
  one to three ratio, what numbers do you compare in
  Professor Grinols' book to?
          A.     Well, let me preface my remarks by saying
  that I would use his conclusions as -- and his
  interpretations as he's indicated here in the University
  of Illinois news release where he summarizes these
  numbers.
          Q.     This is Exhibit 3-C?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     All right.
          A.     Yes.  And here it says up to $46 in
  economic benefit.  So again, we're talking about range of
  benefits and range of social costs, and within those
  ranges the question is what are the conservative
  appropriate numbers for decision-makers?  So if you look
  strictly at $289 in social costs, and I believe he's
  calculating that per person per year, and $46 of economic
  benefits per person per year, maybe an adult person -- I'd
  have to go back and look at that again -- that's about a
  one to five ratio overall nationally speaking.
                 Now, that having been said, another
  calculation which is frequently utilized involves a look
  at the new numbers of anticipated pathological addicted
  gamblers plus the new numbers of problem gamblers to be
  anticipated from increased electronic gambling in
  particular, video gambling machines and slot machines, and
  then multiplying those anticipated numbers by these
  conservative social costs in Table 7.1 and 7.2.
                 And if you compare those costs to the tax
  revenues coming in, that's often a similar three to one
  ratio.
          Q.     Let me make sure I understand where -- how
  this numbers in Exhibit 3-C, the 289 number, relates to
  the numbers that are in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2.  Can I
  ask you a series and then you can point me in the right
  direction if I'm getting off track?
                 The $10,330 that is the adjusted row
  average in Table 7.1 is a cost per pathological gambler?
          A.     The 10,330.
          Q.     Right.
          A.     Each new addicted pathological gambler,
  $10,330, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     But pathological gamblers are not -- not
  everyone is a pathological gambler?
          A.     No, ma'am.
          Q.     There is a certain percentage of people who
  might be problem or pathological gamblers?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     So you have to reduce the $10,330 cost to
  account for the prevalence of pathological gamblers in
  society?
          A.     No.
          Q.     No?
          A.     This is for each new pathological gambler
  or addicted gambler costs society increased costs, like a
  new drug addict, a new addicted gambler would cost
  $10,330.  A new problem gambler would cost approximately
  $3,000.
                 The -- I think perhaps a slight confusion
  in the way your question was phrased is that Professor
  Grinols here in -- the $289 in social costs vis-a-vis $46
  of economic benefit is a national cost estimate versus
  what he has calculated as the economic benefits as a
  function of per adult, and I believe that's what it is.
  I'd want to go back and double check that, but generally
  when I see these numbers from him, he's talking about
  per -- cost of $289 per adult in the U.S. versus $46 of
  economic benefits per adult in the U.S.
          Q.     So if I'm understanding you correctly,
  let's assume that there would be 100 more pathological
  gamblers in society, and he's estimating that each
  additional one costs about $10,000, and so then you
  multiply $10,000 by 100 to get you the total cost it's
  going to cost society, and then you would divide that
  number by the number of people in society to get a per
  person average?
          A.     That sounds correct.  I'm -- I think that's
  accurate.
          Q.     How does Professor Grinols come up with the
  total cost of additional pathological gamblers?
          A.     Across the country?
          Q.     Across the country.
          A.     Well, again, if I could refer you back to
  my 1998 testimony before the National Commission, on
  Table 3 --
          Q.     We're back into Exhibit 3-A?
          A.     I don't have a number on mine.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Yes.
                 THE WITNESS:  The starting point for
  addicted -- the numbers of pathological addicted gamblers,
  the baseline is from the 1976 U.S. National Commission on
  Gambling, and their baseline at that time indicated that
  .77 percent of the public could be considered addicted
  gamblers, pathological gamblers.  And I believe it was an
  additional 2.33 percent -- that doesn't sound right.  Let
  me check back.  Getting tired at the end of the day here.
                 The baseline in 1976 for pathological
  gamblers was the .77 percent, which I indicated, and it
  was the 1976 U.S. Commission on Gambling.  The report is
  called U.S. Commission on the Review of the National
  Policy Toward Gambling, Gambling in America and it's on
  page 73.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Page 73 of --
          A.     Of the gambling -- of the old 1976 report.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     I did say 2.33 percent of problem gamblers,
  and that's correct according to his footnotes.  So those
  were the baselines.  And then we -- the gambling industry
  itself sponsored a report out of Harvard, Division on
  Addictions, and it indicated that with the increase of
  gambling throughout the United States, the baseline for
  addicted gamblers in 1994 was .84 percent, and by 1997 it
  had increased to 1.29 percent of the public.  So that is
  an increase of -- from 2.2 million at the time to
  4.4 million, approximately.  Just about doubled the number
  of addicted gamblers in the country.
                 Table 2 shows the increase in problem
  gamblers.  The Harvard study used a baseline of
  2.93 percent in 1994 to be compared with the 2.33 percent
  of 1976, and there had been a slight increase.  And the
  increase they reported in problem gamblers was up to
  4.88 percent in a three-year period or roughly one and a
  half -- or 150 percent increase.  Is that right?  Roughly
  50 percent increase.  So it went from 7.6 million up to
  11 minimum, so you had an increases of 3.5 million new
  problem gamblers.  That's in Table 2.
                 Let me -- and the footnotes there will show
  these estimates in costs.  Now, as of 1998 before the
  National Commission in Table 3, we have the total costs in
  the far right-hand column.  Professor Shaffer would not
  make an estimate of the costs of this increase in
  pathological gamblers.  Professor Kindt put the costs at
  $45 billion nationwide.  Professor Thompson put the costs
  at between 24 and 41 billion.  The American Medical
  Association put the costs at between 40 and 61 billion,
  adjusted for current dollars at that time.  Professor
  Goodman put the costs between 40 and $50 billion.
  Professor Eadington would not make an estimate.  And
  Professor -- or Dr. Lorenz put the estimate between 40 and
  $88 billion nationwide.
                 So if you compare these social cost
  estimates nationwide with the new revenues that are coming
  in to governments, you come out with about this three to
  one ratio as well on cost to benefits.  So that is the
  basic way for the calculations on a strategic scale occur.
          Q.     So if I understand you correctly, the
  studies on new pathological gamblers found there was an
  increase in the total number of pathologic gamblers over a
  certain period that they studied?
          A.     Correct.
          Q.     And then they estimated the costs
  associated with these new pathological gamblers in total
  numbers?
          A.     Just like new drug addicts.
          Q.     But if there wouldn't have been an increase
  in pathological gamblers, there wouldn't be increase of
  social cost for pathological gamblers, correct?
          A.     It would be nice if the number of
  pathological gamblers went down.  Then it would be an
  overall benefit to society, if you could unhook gamblers.
          Q.     Are there studies that suggest that the
  number of pathological gamblers is going to increase in
  the future?
          A.     I would have to say that most psychologists
  and psychiatrists talk about what's called the
  accessibility factor and the acceptability factor.  The
  accessibility factor says if you put something close by,
  more people are going to participate, and if you legalize
  it, that's acceptability factor, that encourages people to
  participate in that activity, at least with regards to
  gambling.
                 And so most experts that I run into
  anticipate that as gambling continues to become more
  accessible and more legal, that the numbers of
  pathological addicted and problem gamblers will continue
  to increase.
                 And that is one reason why the Congress in
  2006 passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
  Act, signed into law, because the testimony before
  Congress showed that when you have it legal on television,
  so to speak, or on the Internet, you've maximized the
  acceptability factor, and when you put it in everybody's
  living room, work station and school desk, you've
  maximized the accessibility factor.
                 And that will explode in the number of
  anticipated pathological addicted and problem gamblers,
  including youth, which are showing double the addiction
  rates and problem gambling rates of the older generation,
  and the industry sponsored studies indicate that it's the
  fastest growing addiction among young people, and they're
  showing double the addiction rate that our generation is
  showing.
          Q.     Is this true all across the country that
  there's increasing --
          A.     Generally it's a function of the
  accessibility and acceptability of gambling.  Let me help
  you visualize this perhaps.  Video or electronic gambling
  facilities, slot machine facilities, casinos, racinos,
  which are race tracks and casinos together, talk in terms
  of feeder market.  And so the National Gambling Impact
  Study Commission summarized that within 50 miles of a
  casino basically, the study showed that the numbers of
  pathological and problem gamblers doubled.
                 John Waltee, I saw him at a conferences a
  couple of years ago, and I think he subsequently published
  this paper, indicated -- this is in my Missouri testimony,
  by the way -- indicated that within ten miles the numbers
  of pathological and problem gamblers doubles.  My summary
  of reports over the years used a 35-mile feeder market and
  reported similar conclusions.
          Q.     So if I'm understanding these studies
  correctly, the closer, let's say, the casino might be to a
  particular community, the greater increase in pathological
  gambling around a certain physical distance?
          A.     That would be anticipated.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Just as if you opened up a store selling --
  legalized cocaine and opened up a store, there would be
  people going in there and buying the cocaine, and we would
  anticipate more people with addiction problems in the
  area.
          Q.     So in general, the more casinos there would
  be, the greater accessibility, the more pathological
  gamblers there would be, according to these studies?
          A.     I would focus not on the casinos but on
  video gambling devices, slot machines, modern day slot
  machines.
          Q.     Are those in casinos?
          A.     Pardon me?
          Q.     Are those -- I don't know.  Are video slot
  machines, is that something that's in a casino?
          A.     They track to about 80 to 90 percent of all
  revenues going into casinos.  It's all about the slot
  machine.  Some casinos have nothing but slot machines.
  Then they don't have to have employees.  They just dust
  them off and collect the money.
          Q.     So if you had --
          A.     No health benefits.
          Q.     -- more casinos with more slot machines,
  you would expect to have more pathological gamblers?
          A.     We're talking, well, the video gambling
  machines, gambling on the Internet is in this category,
  are known as the crack cocaine of creating new addictive
  gamblers.  That's not my terminology.  That's the
  terminology of the psychological and psychiatric
  community, and it's a term used in the National Gambling
  Impact Study Commission.
          Q.     But because of this addictive nature of
  slot machines, the more accessibility of slot machines
  either via casino or some other location, the greater
  number of pathological gamblers you would anticipate?
          A.     That would be the general anticipation.
          Q.     Okay.  Now, are you aware that the
  Initiative Petition in this case has several provisions.
  Two I will talk about.  One is that it would remove a $500
  loss limit that Missouri currently has for individuals,
  and second, it would limit the number of casino licenses
  to those that are currently issued or being built.  You're
  aware of that?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Are there any studies that measure the
  anticipated increase in pathological gambling as a result
  of a removal of an individual loss limit?
          A.     There are several studies that show that
  the faster -- it's all about the speed of the gamble, and
  that the faster a person can gamble, the more likely they
  are to get hooked and the more quickly they will get
  hooked.
                 And so the psychological and psychiatric
  community talk about the $500 loss limit or other limits
  such as closing the casino or closing the gambling
  establishment as providing a stop for the person who is
  gambling too much.  And I think most psychological and
  psychiatric personnel almost uniformly say that those type
  of stopgap measures are important to -- they slow the
  process of a person gambling too much into either problem
  or addiction.
          Q.     Are these speed-related studies that you
  just referenced listed in your testimony before the
  Missouri Joint Legislative Committee on Gambling?  This is
  at McKaskel 54.
          A.     They would either be -- they would probably
  be in the footnotes to those, some of those studies.  I'm
  sorry.  You're referencing what now?
          Q.     McKaskel 54.
          A.     I would have to check again, but I would
  imagine that Frank Quinn would reference some of those.
  Henry Lesieur down here in his articles almost uniformly
  would reference associated studies that would confirm that
  analysis.
          Q.     But to your knowledge, there are studies
  that are about the general problem of speed of
  accessibility but not one that is specific to studying
  effects of removal of an individual loss limit?
          A.     The studies would focus on the lack of
  limitations in general or stopgap measures, and I'm not
  familiar with one offhand that specifically talks about
  $500.
          Q.     There's currently no estimate in academic
  research that you are aware of that would project a
  percentage increase of pathological gamblers due to a
  repeal of the loss limit?
          A.     Would you repeat that again.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Would you please read it back.
                 THE REPORTER:  "Question:  There's
  currently no estimate in academic research that you are
  aware of that would project a percentage increase of
  pathological gamblers due to a repeal of the loss limit?"
                 THE WITNESS:  The academics would focus on
  the lack of limits, and the implication would be that the
  repeal of a limit, of any kind of limit would speed the
  process of pathological -- of descent into pathological
  problem gambling.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     You've referenced studies that suggest the
  greater the speed and lack of limits there are to
  gambling, there's a greater likelihood of pathological --
  new pathological gamblers, right?
          A.     As I think what you're saying, yes.
          Q.     And you believe those studies are relevant
  to the question of whether removal of a loss limit would
  lead to an increase in pathological gamblers, right?
          A.     If I understand what you're saying, yes.
  May I --
          Q.     Sure.
          A.     -- give you an example?
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     If I were to go to a conference, including
  one sponsored by the industry, and argue what I think
  you're starting to argue, it would be embarrassing for me
  to pose that type of an argument.  I'm not trying to be
  presumptuous.  I'm just saying that it's so well
  established, it's just sort of a given that the studies
  say that you've got to have some limitation, you've got to
  slow down the gambling, and that anything which operates
  against that speeds the development of these types of
  gambling problems.
          Q.     But there's not a percentage prediction
  that the research you're aware of is making based on
  removal of loss limits, is there?
          A.     We can expect increases, but I could not
  give you a specific anticipated number of increased
  gamblers.  Let me pause, do a caveat on that for a second.
  The proper focus would be on the amount of projected new
  money coming in, and based on the amount of new money
  coming in, that would -- a percentage of that would be
  coming out of new pathological and problem gamblers.  And
  so yes, given some numbers, we could make some estimates.
          Q.     What I'm asking is, you're assuming based
  on the studies that you reviewed that there's going to be
  some increase of pathological gamblers if a loss limit is
  removed; is that correct?
          A.     I don't think I'm making assumptions here.
  I think that the literature shows that there will be an
  anticipated increase because it's a function of the amount
  of money coming in, where's the money coming from.  And so
  if you're projecting that you're going to have another
  $500 million coming in, where's that money coming from?
                 Well, Professor Lesieur's table here shows
  that 25 to 75 percent is the range of the studies on video
  gambling machines.  That's where most of it will come in.
  It's coming out of pathological and problem gamblers.  So
  you would be exacerbating perhaps existing problems, and
  it would be anticipated that you'd be creating new
  problems.
          Q.     And there's going to be a certain number of
  pathological gamblers with a loss limit, right?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.  And you take away the loss limit,
  you believe the literature shows that there's going to be
  more problem gamblers than there would be with the loss
  limit, right?
          A.     We would find a more rapid descent into
  problem and pathological gambling.
          Q.     But you can't point to a specific
  percentage number of however many more pathological
  gamblers there might be with removal of the loss limit?
          A.     I'm tempted to say give me enough money and
  I'll find out.
          Q.     It's currently an unknown?
          A.     I mean, do the study.
          Q.     No one has studied that specific question,
  right?
          A.     To the best of my knowledge, I don't
  believe.  I don't know.
          Q.     Okay.  Now, if a particular measure is
  going to limit the number of casino licenses in the state,
  that will have -- as opposed to letting there be more
  casinos in the future, that will have an anticipated
  result of not having as high of an increase in
  pathological gamblers as there would be if there had been
  more casinos, right?
          A.     I would not say that.
          Q.     Why is that?
          A.     I think it's a function of the number of
  slot machines and video gambling devices.  If you've got
  100 video gambling machines in a casino, that's one thing.
  If you've got 2,000, that's something else.  Each one of
  those slot machines is bringing in, on average, $100,000
  per year.  That's national average, what the industry says
  each slot machine brings in.  So you can make the
  calculations.
                 There's a second part to your question, and
  that is, remember the 35-mile feeder markets.  If you have
  a casino every 70 miles or every 60 miles, they're not
  really impinging on each other's feeder market or primary
  feeder market.  They would be hitting a secondary feeder
  market, which is a wider radius.  And so that would go to
  the argument from the casinos' perspective of why they
  have a quasi-monopoly where the entire demographic
  population is divided into these feeder markets so that
  the casinos don't overlap their feeder markets and compete
  with each other.
                 I'm somewhat familiar with -- I'm just
  giving that as an academic example, and I'm somewhat
  familiar with what the situation is in Missouri, but I'm
  not referencing that to Missouri.  I'm just giving that as
  an example of the reason for perhaps limiting the number
  of casinos.
          Q.     Well, the -- let's assume, just so we can
  simplify the conversation, let's assume that each casino
  only has 100 slots.  We'll pick some easy numbers here.
  And let's say we have 10 casinos.  They each have the same
  number of slots.  If we had -- if we add five more casinos
  with 100 more slots each, you would expect there would be
  more pathological gamblers when you have more casinos than
  you would if you would only have the ten casinos?
          A.     I would once again focus on the slot
  machines and where those slot machines are positioned.  I
  think it's a function of the slot machines, not of the
  number of casinos.
          Q.     Well, each casino only can hold a certain
  number of slot machines, right?
          A.     Well, theoretically, you can add on to
  casinos, particularly when they don't have to cruise.  You
  can add -- in Illinois we're adding slot machines every
  other year to the casinos.  So theoretically you can just
  keep on adding slot machines into the future.
          Q.     So you don't believe there's any
  correlation between the number of casinos and the number
  of slot machines?
          A.     Well, I mean, you can make that correlation
  by limiting a certain number of slot machines to a certain
  number of casinos, but it depends on where the slot
  machines are placed.  I want to get past the idea of
  casinos.  It's where are the slot machines concentrated,
  and I think that's the proper focus.
          Q.     In terms of predicting pathological
  gamblers, predicting increases in pathological gambling,
  the focus should be on the number of slot machines, is
  that what I'm --
          A.     I think that the number of slot machines is
  the proper focus.  Generally speaking, more casinos would
  mean more slot machines, but that doesn't have to be the
  case.   I think the focus has to be on the slot machines,
  and that's where -- that's where we focus the numbers.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Tend to.
          Q.     And am I right that the more slot machines,
  in your view, the greater the likelihood of more
  pathological gamblers?
          A.     I believe that's the conclusion of the
  National Gambling Impact Study Commission after reviewing
  the existent literature, and I think that the literature
  tends to continue to show that.
                 THE WITNESS:  If we're breaking for a
  second, may I use the restroom?
                 MS. VOLLET:  Sure.
                 (A BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Professor Kindt, we have discussed at
  length the Table 7.1 and 7.2 in Professor Grinols' book
  Gambling in America in Exhibit 5.  I'd like you to turn
  now to McKaskel 99.  This is the article by Grinols and
  Mustard in Managerial and Decision Economics?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  And there's a similar table in this
  article on page McKaskel 109 and McKaskel 110?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     I think you may have testified to this
  earlier, but if you could just verify that the tables on
  McKaskel 109 and McKaskel 110 are essentially earlier
  versions of the tables that we've been discussing in
  Professor Grinols' book?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     In a sense, he updated it for his book?
          A.     Yes, and --
          Q.     So you would believe that the tables in the
  book are more authoritative than the 2001 article?
          A.     Well, I like the 2001 article.  It was
  leading edge for three years, and then his book came out,
  and so I would tend to use his book now, but I still think
  that what he did here is well done.
          Q.     The book would just be more current?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Well, he has -- he has added some new
  study, the Schwer study from 2003, and he's also refined
  some of the numbers and given more -- to my mind, given
  more benefit of the doubt to the gambling industry on some
  of these social costs.
          Q.     Now, you have referenced some figures about
  percentage of expenditures by problem gamblers?
          A.     Be more specific.
          Q.     Well, in the materials that were provided
  to us and mentioned in the interrogatory responses in
  Exhibit 1, there was a table that was included from your
  2001 article in Management Decision Economics --
          A.     Oh, right.
          Q.     -- correct?
          A.     Can you give me the McKaskel page?
          Q.     It's McKaskel 65.  I think the copy there
  is somewhat poor.  You may want to turn to Exhibit 6,
  which is your full article.
          A.     Actually, I think there's a better copy
  than that attached to my congressional testimony, which is
  McKaskel 22.
          Q.     All right.
          A.     It should be the same table.
          Q.     Yes.  It appears to be.  So this is a table
  that you put together that is principally based on
  Professor Lesieur's 1998 work?
          A.     Let me refresh my memory here for a second.
  As I look at the footnotes here on the sources, Professor
  Lesieur and I discussed the need for such documentation
  back in the early '90s, and he put together an initial
  table which he presented while he was at Illinois State
  University at a conference in Chicago, Illinois September
  3rd through the 5th, '96.
                 I'm sure that I and others then added
  suggestions, whether he took them or not, and he then
  published this table.  And as I recall, I then updated
  this somewhat for its publication in this particular
  journal article, after communicating with him and getting
  his permission and adding some notes here at the bottom.
                 The reason I mention that is to show the
  process of how we continually try to improve the accuracy
  of the issues that we're exploring.
          Q.     I'd like you to turn back to McKaskel 21.
  This was another attachment to your --
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     -- testimony, and this is the excerpt from
  Thompson and Gazel, Economic Impact of Native American
  Gaming in Wisconsin, 1995.  I believe we discussed this
  earlier.  Is this 1995 work by Thompson and Gazel an
  earlier iteration of one of the Thompson and Gazel papers
  or publications that Professor Grinols relies on in his
  book?
          A.     That was what caused me a little confusion
  earlier in that I originally thought that maybe one of the
  dates was off and -- because he has 1997 in his Exhibit 5,
  and, I think that this was the original report in '95.
          Q.     You're referring there to McKaskel 21?
          A.     Yes, ma'am, McKaskel 21.  It looks to me
  like they did an update in '97, which is what he is
  referring to, because you can see that it's also by the
  Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, but it's the Social
  Cost of Gambling in Wisconsin.  So I would simply say
  here's another example of where people keep -- academics
  keep refining, vetting their work, refining more and then
  publishing their results.
          Q.     Let's turn to McKaskel 119 in Exhibit 3,
  The Cost and Consequences of Gambling in the State of
  Delaware.  You are not familiar with this particular
  study, are you?
          A.     I believe that I have flipped through it at
  some point, but it was not part of what -- that I provided
  in this endeavor.
          Q.     Do you know who prepared this report?
          A.     Do we have some authors here at the back?
          Q.     I don't see anybody.
          A.     Says School of Urban Affairs, University of
  Delaware.  It looks like -- well, I couldn't comment on it
  because I would need to take some time to look over it.
          Q.     Okay.  But sitting here at this moment, you
  don't have any personal knowledge of who wrote this
  report?
          A.     Well, it looks familiar, and I'm trying to
  remember because I had a national conference in
  Rhode Island about this time period, 2003 I think it was,
  and my guess is that there might have been members
  preparing this report at that conference.  We may have
  rubbed shoulders.  I mean, I look at some of the citations
  in here, which is the first thing I look for, and I see
  cites to Thompson, Gazel, Rickman, Lesieur, Volberg,
  Goodman, that guy Kindt again.
          Q.     Not to Grinols?
          A.     Let's see.  I don't know.  Is he here?  I
  would have to read it over before I could make a decision
  on whether or not I would include it in my future
  footnotes --
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     -- as a reputable source.  Do you want me
  to do that before our next meeting?
          Q.     I'm not going to request it.
                 Let's turn to McKaskel 414 in Exhibit 3.  I
  believe this is an outdated version of your resume?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     You have a degree from -- in international
  law and policy.  What does that SJD stand for?
          A.     That's a doctorate of juridical science.
  It's the equivalent of the old LLD that used to be awarded
  by law schools, a doctor of laws.  They changed the name
  at most law schools a few years ago to either an SJD or
  some schools call it a JSD.
                 I would -- let me indicate that I prefer a
  more abbreviated resume.  This is typed up by grad
  students every six months they hire somebody.  So there
  are typos in here.
          Q.     Okay.  Well --
          A.     And I don't review it all the time.
          Q.     Let me just -- we won't have you vouch for
  everything that's in here, but I will just use it as a
  point to ask you some questions about some things on
  there.
          A.     Sure.
          Q.     And you have an LLM from UVA also?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     In international law.  And MA from the
  University of Georgia?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And a JD from the University of Georgia or
  UVA?
          A.     University of Georgia.
          Q.     Okay.  And your undergraduate degree is
  from College of William and Mary?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Did you ever practice law?
          A.     No, not really.  I'm an active member of
  the Bar in Washington, D.C. and in Georgia.  I was an
  active member in Virginia, but then I went to associate
  status some years ago.
          Q.     You have -- have you taken -- what courses
  have you taken in economics?
          A.     Well, as part of my MBA while at William
  and Mary, I, of course, was in the school of business and
  took the basic economics courses as part of my MBA.  I had
  advanced economic courses or graduate economics courses.
  Let's see.  And I was getting a JD MBA, so at the time I
  was taking those econ courses, it was part of an JD MBA
  program.
          Q.     Do you currently teach any courses in
  economics?
          A.     No, I don't teach any courses in economics
  per se.
          Q.     What courses do you teach?
          A.     Right now I am teaching course -- undergrad
  courses in what's called the legal environment of
  business, and one section I've received special grant --
  not grant monies, but supplemental monies to incorporate
  what's called community informatics initiatives and
  entrepreneurship.  So one section of that course
  emphasizes informatics and entrepreneurship cases and
  another section emphasizes just general legal environment
  of business cases.
          Q.     What is informatics?
          A.     Basically, it involves applying new
  information technologies.  It involves the analysis of
  information, determining authoritative information.  Look
  again is it relevant, is it authoritative, is it current,
  can we rely on this source of information?  There are
  analysis issues as well as new technologies, providing
  information, much of which is not necessarily good, but
  comes in off the Internet, and then the library is going
  to try and pull me into the 20th century with some new
  technologies.  I'm still at Thomas Jefferson and William
  Mary.
          Q.     What about courses in statistics, did you
  take any courses in statistics?
          A.     Yes, and I'm a little bit rusty on
  statistics, but when I -- I feel comfortable talking about
  gambling economics types of issues within the context that
  we've discussed here today.  I have published in the econ
  journal there.  And if I have questions or if I'm
  concerned about something that I might not be as sharp on
  as I used to be, I will go to my colleagues, and that's
  part of our interdisciplinary interface.
          Q.     What were your courses in statistics?  Was
  it as an undergraduate?
          A.     I can't quite recall.  As you can tell, I'm
  a bit older these days.  I think, as I recall, there was a
  statistics component at my undergraduate degree, and I
  believe there was a statistics component in my MBA work,
  but I can't quite recall.
          Q.     And you don't teach any courses on
  statistics?
          A.     No.
          Q.     What about accounting?
          A.     I had several accounting courses at William
  and Mary, which along with -- I shouldn't get into telling
  stories.  But as -- well, at William and Mary is my
  undergraduate, and I believe that there was some of that
  component as part of the MBA program.
          Q.     You mentioned that you had been retained as
  an expert in the Cisneros case?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Have you been retained as an expert in any
  other litigation?
          A.     Not that I can remember.  You're talking
  court cases?
          Q.     Right.
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     So if you testify at a hearing in this
  case, will that be the first time that you've testified as
  an expert witness in litigation?
          A.     It will be the first time I've testified as
  an expert witness in litigation, but I've testified before
  Congress and before multiple state legislators and
  legislatures as an expert witness.
          Q.     With the legislative testimony, you've
  testified twice before the United States Congress?
          A.     I have testified twice.  I've been invited
  more than twice.  And I submitted statements in 1994 and
  1995 suggesting that someone else testify instead of
  myself on both those occasions.  And recently I was asked
  to testify again in 2007 before Congress.
          Q.     But you declined that one?
          A.     I declined.
          Q.     What about state legislatures?  We've
  discussed your testimony before the Missouri.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And that was on one occasion in 2005,
  right?  You're nodding yes?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I'm sorry.  This stage of the
  game, I'm nodding off as well as nodding.
          Q.     Okay.  And you've -- how many other state
  legislatures have you testified before?
          A.     Well, I would just roughly guess that I've
  either testified or briefed legislative committees or
  councils in roughly half the states, including the
  Canadian Parliament comes to mind.
          Q.     You indicated earlier that you know Mark
  Andrews?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     I think you indicated you've seen him at
  conferences and that sort of thing?
          A.     Right.  Mainly at conferences.
          Q.     Do you know either of the Plaintiffs in
  this lawsuit?  The first is Edwin McKaskel.
          A.     I don't believe I know him.  I may have run
  into him at a conference.  I run into hundreds of people,
  and when I give my testimonies before legislatures and
  briefings, but it doesn't ring a bell.
          Q.     What about Harold Hendrick?
          A.     Over the last 15 years or so, I think that
  I have done radio interviews in his studio twice that I
  can recall, and I think I did one over the phone from my
  office.
          Q.     Did you have any other contact with
  Dr. Hendrick?
          A.     Well, again, I suspect that we've rubbed
  shoulders at a couple of conferences over the years.
  Probably more than two.  I think he was at -- I think he
  was at a Washington, D.C. conference last fall.
          Q.     You are --
          A.     I meet a lot of people, so I don't remember
  everybody.
          Q.     Are you charging a fee for your services as
  an expert in this case?  I understand you will donate the
  money to the Salvation Army if you do, but do you have a
  fee agreement with the Plaintiffs in this case?
          A.     No, I don't.
          Q.     Are you providing your services at no
  charge to the Plaintiffs in this case?
          A.     At this point, providing my services pro
  bono to them.
          Q.     But not to us?
          A.     No, because you should know better.
          Q.     Now, you have indicated that your fee for
  testifying is $500 an hour, right?
          A.     My fee as an expert is $500 an hour, yes,
  ma'am.
          Q.     And what do you base that figure on?
          A.     On what my time is worth to be here and
  educate the government.
          Q.     Do you have any examples of other experts
  having comparable fees?
          A.     I don't ask people what they charge as
  expert witnesses.
          Q.     You just came up with the figure yourself?
          A.     Correct.  It's within the ballpark of what
  I charged in the Cisneros case.
          Q.     And what did you charge in the Cisneros
  case?
          A.     I don't remember what it was, but it was
  less, generally speaking, than I've charged here.  That
  was two years ago.
          Q.     Do you recall whether it was $300 in the
  Cisneros case?
          A.     I can't recall what it was.  I just can't
  recall what it was.  It would be a typical attorney's type
  of fee.  Just think of it as a donation to the Salvation
  Army.
                 MS. VOLLET:  I need to make a very quick
  telephone call.
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Professor Kindt, are there other economists
  who study gambling other than Professor Grinols, Thompson,
  Mustard, those we've mentioned today?
          A.     Well, remember Thompson's officially not an
  economics professor, but he's published in this economics
  area.  I think that Grinols and Mustard are the most
  widely published and well-respected economists in this
  area.
          Q.     Are there other researchers, however?
          A.     There's Meyer Gross.  I think he might be
  an professor emeritus now.  He has done -- I'm trying to
  remember.  I think his last publication was in the
  economics -- well, don't quote me.
                 There's also Professor Robert Goodman, who
  is not an economics professor but publishes on economics
  issues.  He's a professor of urban planning at the
  University of Massachusetts, and he was the director of
  the U.S. Gambling study funded in part by the Ford
  Foundation and published in 1994, and he has maintained
  his reputation very well throughout the years.
          Q.     Are there any other economists who study
  gambling that you are aware of?
          A.     Well, there is Bill Eadington out of the
  University of Nevada at Reno.  I -- and I believe his
  training is in economics.  Let's see.  Who else?  In
  economics?
          Q.     Well, why don't I open it to researchers
  who focus on costs of gambling?
          A.     The cost of gambling, I would go to the
  citations that we already looked at, the bibliography for
  Professor Grinols and --
          Q.     You're referring to the Exhibit 4 of the
  website?
          A.     No.  No.  Exhibit 5, his book.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     If you look at his bibliography, that will
  probably trigger some of my -- well, there are multiple
  people who will publish an occasional paper here and
  there, and sometimes they're pretty good, but the names
  that I've given you are the ones that come immediately to
  mind.
                 Charles Clotfelter and Phillip Cook, I
  think at the University of North Carolina, did this book
  in 1989 called Selling Hope.  I'm not -- I believe one is
  an economics professor and I just -- they're both well
  respected and good, but they -- they publish
  intermittently in the area.
                 Let's see here.  I mentioned the Florida
  department -- I'm sorry.  The executive office of the
  Governor, and econ professor -- actually, he's not a
  professor, but he's an economist, Dr. Subhasis Das.  I've
  sort of lost track of him.  Ricardo Gazel that I mentioned
  before, and he's an economist now at the World Bank, but
  he's not publishing regularly.
                 William Thompson has published a lot.  Dean
  Gerstein we mentioned.  I'm not sure if he has an econ
  background or not.  Robert Goodman, if you see here, is on
  page 218 is listed three times.
                 Ernie Goss, I forgot about him.  I believe
  he's an economics professor at -- he's in, Neb-- I believe
  in a Nebraska school, and I'm trying to remember which
  one.  I can't remember offhand.  Of course you see Earl
  Grinols on page 218 with just multiple citations taking up
  half a page.
                 Oh, Tahira K. Hira, she was at Iowa State
  University.  That's spelled T-a-h-i-r-a, K, initial K,
  Hira, H-i-r-a.  And I believe her training was in
  economics, and I think she's now at Northern Iowa
  University, and she has done some good studies on
  bankruptcy, the cost of bankruptcy in gambling.
                 There's that Kindt guy.  Henry Lesieur
  is -- that's L-e-s-i-e-u-r, who's now professor emeritus
  from Illinois State University, I believe, and retired.
  Valerie Lorenz is a -- that's L-o-r-e-n-z -- is a
  psychologist, doctor in psychology.  She's testified
  before Congress multiple times.  Is very well respected.
                 David Mustard we mentioned, Professor David
  Mustard at the University of Georgia, econ professor.  We
  mentioned Robert Politzer, but he's in the -- on the
  medical side of the equation, and Dr. Frank Quinn,
  Q-u-i-n-n.  Oh, and Professor Timothy Ryan and his
  associates at the University of New Orleans.  I don't know
  if he comes from an economics background or not.  Let's
  see here.  You want -- you want econ people, right?
          Q.     Well, researchers in the area of social
  costs.
          A.     There's also Rachel Volberg.  I don't -- I
  think she has a doctorate, but I don't know that for sure,
  and she doesn't really do social cost.  She does numbers,
  calculations of the numbers of pathological and problem
  gamblers.
          Q.     Is there any disagreement in the field over
  social costs of gambling?
          A.     can you be a little more specific?
                 MR. ALLEN:  Talking in terms of
  authoritative studies or just some person who's whacko out
  here who's --
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     I would say is there disagreement over
  authoritative studies?
          A.     I don't think that there is a bona fide
  disagreement other than refining the definitions we talked
  about earlier.
          Q.     The definition --
          A.     The definition of the wording, some of the
  wording, and maybe tweaking, I think would be the
  terminology to be utilized for the -- for that.
          Q.     Can I stop you for a second?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     You mean the definition for types of social
  costs, is that what you're referring to?
          A.     Well, we had a long discussion involving
  the definitions and what categories fit, and there are
  still discussions of should this cost be in this category
  or in that category or should we -- how should we define
  this particular type of cost.
          Q.     And these are the costs that we were
  talking about in Table 7.1 in Professor Grinols' book?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  I have -- and I will give you
  the example that I have disagreement with some of my
  colleagues about how -- what some of those definitions
  should be, and I have decided to defer to Professor
  Grinols and his definitions, because I think we need a
  template and a standard.  And as I said, he's of Nobel
  Prize caliber in my mind, and I will go with his
  determinations.
          Q.     One of the materials that is listed in the
  answer to Interrogatory 4 in Exhibit 1 was Chapter 7 from
  the National Gambling Impact Study Commission report.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     That's starting on McKaskel 67 in
  Exhibit 3.
          A.     67?
          Q.     Uh-huh.  As I understand it, the commission
  issued a report in 1999?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Now, the commission was established by
  President Clinton; is that correct?
          A.     It was signed into law by President Clinton
  in 1995, I believe.
          Q.     So it was established by act of Congress?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Who was on the commission?
          A.     There were nine commissioners on the
  commission.  The chair was a lady named Kay C., middle
  initial, James, J-a-m-e-s.  Also on the commission was
  Richard Leone, L-e-o-n-e, Leo McCarthy, L-e-o, I think
  it's M-c, and I think it's capital C-a-r-t-h-y, like a
  three or four-term lieutenant governor of California.
  James Dobson a social person.
          Q.     Is this the same James Dobson with Focus on
  Family?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  Dr. James Dobson.  Let's see.
  Then there was Paul -- I forget his last name.  And then
  there were four representatives of the casino industry.
  Robert Losher I believe was one, Terry Lanni.  That's
  L-a-n-n-i.  That's a gentleman,
          Q.     I'm not testing you on your knowledge of
  each and every commissioner.
          A.     I've got them all.  I'm just getting tired
  at the end of the day here.  Well, there were two more
  representatives of the gambling industry.  So it was --
  basically, there were nine commissioners.  Two were
  considered by the press initially to be antigambling or
  critical of gambling.  Four were representatives of the
  industry, and three were considered to be leaning toward
  the industry.
                 And so in my -- in the reference that I
  gave you, the gambling industry had initially very strong
  presence on the national commission.  Excuse me.  I should
  state that the three that were leaning progambling,
  McCarthy, Leone and the doctor, Paul, then flipped into
  the antigambling camp after they -- or critical of
  gambling camp after they heard all the testimony.  They
  changed their opinions dramatically.
          Q.     In Chapter 7 -- actually, the commission's
  report is a report of the commission, right?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  And it's all over the web.
  It's easy to find.
          Q.     The commission wrote in Chapter 7, this is
  on McKaskel 67, on the bottom of the first column, what is
  even more astonishing is how little is known and has been
  studied regarding the social and economic impacts of this
  diverse industry upon our nation.  Despite the growing
  magnitude of the industry and the widespread involvement
  of a significant portion of the population, there is a
  paucity of research in this field.  Much of what does
  exist is flawed because of insufficient data, poor or
  undeveloped methodology or researchers' biases.
                 Do you agree with that statement of the
  commission?
          A.     To some extent, I think they make a point,
  but as I previously indicated, that there was very strong
  gambling industry presence on this commission, and they
  had a definite interest in discrediting as much bona fide
  academic information as they could.
          Q.     So you would attribute this statement to
  some of the progambling interests on the commission?
          A.     I would attribute it to being influenced by
  some of the progambling commissioners.  And if you read my
  University of Southern California Interdisciplinary Law
  Journal article, you will find in there the documentation
  of where at least one commissioner with the support of
  some others actually threatened Mr. Gerstein and his group
  from -- during a commission hearing, which you can see
  from the citations I found and I found inappropriate.
          Q.     On McKaskel 68, there is a statement
  under -- there's a heading Determining the Impacts of
  Gambling, and then the commission writes, as the
  commission noted earlier, and as the commission will
  explicate in other chapters, the gambling landscape is
  neither well studied nor well understood.  Studies have
  often been generally parochial, limited and fragmentary.
  Do you agree with that statement?
          A.     I can see where it comes from, but -- and I
  generally -- I'm sorry.  Let me answer your question
  specifically.  I can see where it comes from, and again, I
  would attribute it to a strong influence from the gambling
  industry.
                 However, I would state that if you look at
  the overall recommendations of the National Gambling
  Commission, you get a totally different perspective on
  what the commission is saying.  So I think that they are
  saying to gambling industry representatives, we're going
  to make note.  This is a very contentious commission.
          Q.     When you said you see where this is coming
  from, what do you mean by that?
          A.     There is an interest among the gambling
  industry obviously to obfuscate the academics that we have
  discussed earlier today.
          Q.     On McKaskel 70, there's another statement
  by the commission.  While the commission has some idea of
  what the impact of gambling -- I'm sorry.
                 While the commission has some idea of the
  impact of gambling on our citizens, we must acknowledge
  that the state of research is extremely incomplete and
  that much more work should be done in the future.  Then
  towards the end of --
          A.     Don't leave out the next sentence.
          Q.     Okay.  All right.  Now, the next sentence
  says, however, even without a complete range in
  measurement, the commission can begin the process of
  determining the net impact of gambling.  Okay.  Do you
  agree with this statement?
          A.     Well, I think people need to read this in
  the light of what was going on on the commission.  This is
  an extremely powerful gambling industry interfacing with
  those people who are trying to move forward the academic
  agenda.  And the press releases throughout this four to
  five-year period were -- this was a press bonanza of the
  conflicts that were going on between commissioners.
                 The bottom line is that the three
  commissioners leaning progambling wound up antigambling
  after going through all of this and considering it all,
  and the recommendations of the commission overall are not
  flattering to the gambling industry.  And in here you will
  find documentation of what I'd indicated earlier about
  some of the downsides of gambling.
          Q.     Let's turn to McKaskel 78.  There's
  subheading called crime that begins, historically there is
  a view that the introduction of legalized gambling will
  increase crime in a community.  It is also claimed that
  legalized gambling reduces crime because it eliminates
  incentives for illegal gambling.  Since the types of crime
  involved in each of these hypotheses are different, it is
  not surprising that proponents of both views are able to
  advance research to support their views.  The reliability
  of many of these studies, however, is questionable.
                 As one commentator observed:  The story of
  the relationship between legalized casino gambling and
  street crime is far from written.  The problem is that
  although a great deal has been written on the subject, so
  much of the writing on all sides is bombast and blather
  that it is difficult to discern any strong facts.
                 Do you agree with that statement?
          A.     Well, I would read the next couple of
  sentences for a starter.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Object.  It's nonresponsive.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     I'll ask you if you --
          A.     I will respond to that.
          Q.     Okay.  Go ahead.
          A.     May I read those next two sentences.
          Q.     Sure.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I'd object.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Go ahead and object.  Read
  them.
                 THE WITNESS:  Some of the more thorough
  studies examine crime and pathological gambling.  Not
  surprisingly, the findings reveal that many problem and
  pathological gamblers steal or commit other crimes to
  finance their habit.  Then they cite to the National
  Research Council, which is a very reputable U.S.
  Government research group.
                 But I would state that the Grinols and
  Mustard study that we mentioned earlier published by
  Harvard and MIT trumps most of this, if not all of it.  It
  is simply an outstanding study.  I think any objective
  academic would have to say that.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     On McKaskel 78, this is page 7-13 the
  internal cite, at the very bottom of the second column,
  last paragraph says, the commission attempted to
  investigate the relationship between crime and legalized
  gambling through two studies mentioned here and elsewhere
  in this final report.
          A.     Excuse me.  What page is that?
          Q.     McKaskel 79.
          A.     I'm sorry.  Thank you.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  You might have said 78
  there.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Oh, sorry.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     The results from these two studies suggest
  that a relationship may exist between gambling activity
  and the commission of crime, but concluded that
  insufficient data exists to quantify or define that
  relationship.  More study is necessary to isolate the
  exact relationship between crime and legalized gambling.
  This result highlights similar conclusions reached by many
  in the research field, scholars who lament the paucity of
  information.
          A.     I would refer you again to the Grinols and
  Mustard study, which trumps this and fills that gap.  I
  would also point out if read on there, you find several
  costs summarized by the commission here that support the
  table in the Grinols book.
          Q.     On McKaskel 85, which is page 719 in the
  internal reference, there is a section on problem and
  pathological gambling, and it discusses a Harvard
  University meta analysis?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Is that an analysis you mentioned
  previously?
          A.     That is the one that I referenced in my
  tables in Exhibit 3-A, and I should state that it was
  financed by the gambling industry, and surprisingly, a lot
  of this came back with these increases in the numbers of
  pathological and problem gamers.  It did summarize 152
  other studies and purported to give the summary results of
  what these studies had found.
          Q.     Let's turn to McKaskel 86.  This is a -- on
  the next page.
          A.     May I also point out that on that page,
  they're also reporting surveys which are significantly
  higher than the numbers of pathological and problem
  gamblers which I gave to you, which are conservative
  numbers of the numbers of the prevalence problems.
          Q.     And here you're referring to the Oregon,
  Mississippi and Louisiana material?
          A.     Right. So every time a new one comes out,
  we take a look at it, but I -- I tend to cluster them on a
  very conservative range while acknowledging that they're
  there with higher numbers.
          Q.     On McKaskel 86, this is a continuation of
  the section on problem and pathological gambling.  At the
  top of the -- on the fifth line down on the first column,
  it begins, while some believe that lifetime prevalence
  rates are overstated, others believe that past year rates
  are understated.  Reasonable people, including those with
  clinical expertise, disagree over the exact number of
  individuals suffering from gambling disorders and the
  relevance of problem versus at risk.
                 Do you agree with that statement?
          A.     Let me explain that statement.  Once the
  academic articles started coming out in the -- from
  Politzer in '81, this commission was started -- I'm
  getting tired.  Excuse me.  This commission was enacted
  and supported by people who wanted to get the good numbers
  and fund with federal money the studies that needed to be
  done to definitively accomplish some of these -- or answer
  some of these questions, and obviously there were special
  interests that did not want to see this happen.
                 I explained much of that conflict in my
  University of Southern California article.  Part of that,
  getting to your specific question now, is that the special
  interests wanted to -- found that there would be an
  advantage in funding and establishing standards that were
  different from what was regularly accepted throughout the
  '80s and the early '90s.  And so we find new terminology.
  It's not pathological gambling anymore.  It's compulsive
  gambling.  The industry itself has said we want to set the
  gold standard.  Well, that's the chickens -- the fox
  guarding the chicken.
                 So this terminology is -- when I see this
  type of terminology, I have to pause and ask if that is
  part of that problem.  The majority of academics still
  stick to the authoritative American Psychiatric
  Association delimitation in its Diagnostic and Statistical
  Manual of Mental Disorders of the terminology pathological
  gambling and problem gambling.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     There are people being funded by the
  gambling industry who have proposed new terminology,
  including compulsive gambling and to some extent the terms
  at-risk gambling.  The most frequent industry terminology
  is, quote/unquote, disordered gambling.  It's not
  pathological anymore.  It's not problem anymore.  It's not
  addictive gambling anymore.  It's disordered gambling
  according to -- according to industry associates.
          Q.     All right.  Professor Kindt, I'm going to
  hand you two exhibits that I believe we referenced
  earlier.  One is your article in the Michigan State DCL
  Law Review.  That's Exhibit 7.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And Exhibit 8 is your article from the
  Drake Law Review?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Now, I'm not going to ask you questions
  about these.  I'm giving them to you so my memory doesn't
  get off.  I think we've covered them sufficiently.
          A.     Well, I wish you had handed me the Drake
  Law Review earlier because it has the history of the
  definitions that we spent an hour discussing.  It's all
  here in the footnotes at the end of the Drake Law Review
  article.
          Q.     These are the definitions for social costs?
          A.     I have them in the footnotes.  Now, these
  were the original definitions.  Remember, this was
  published in '94, and so the definitions as they started
  out with Politzer are there in the footnotes.
          Q.     Which footnote are you --
                 MR. ALLEN:  That's Exhibit 8.
                 THE WITNESS:  Exhibit 8, and it would
  simply be Table 90.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     What is the internal page reference?
          A.     It's page 90 of the law review article.  I
  don't have the McKaskel number on it if that's what you're
  asking.
          Q.     No.  I was asking for --
          A.     Table 3.
          Q.     Okay.  And so the history of the
  definitions is covered in which numbered footnotes?
          A.     Well, let me take a look at it here.  Okay.
  For example, Footnote 280 on page 93, I used the
  definitions used by the most authoritative groups at the
  time.  We mentioned the Better Government Association
  report citing to Politzer, which was done by the former
  U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Terrance Brunner, B-r-u-n-n-e-r.
  Footnote 281, lost work productivity, again, quoting to
  Politzer. 282 was the definition of white collar crime, et
  cetera, regulatory costs as security costs.  238,
  intermediate incarceration costs are defined.  285,
  long-term imprisonment costs are defined.  286,
  rehabilitative costs.
                 So those -- those would have been some of
  the original categorizations that have developed now into
  the Grinols definitions.
          Q.     Now, looking at Footnote 280, lost
  consumers dollars equate with the sociological concept of
  abused dollars.
          A.     I -- that was my terminology, I believe.  I
  used the terminology lost consumer dollars.  Whereas,
  Politzer used the terminology abused dollars.  And this is
  one of those areas where you sit back -- it's the same
  number.  We're just sitting there arguing about what to
  call it.
          Q.     Okay.  The term or concept of abused
  dollars is a sociological concept as opposed to, say, an
  economic concept?
          A.     I'm sorry.  Were are we again?
          Q.     280.
          A.     280.
          Q.     Is the concept you write -- go ahead.
          A.     I'm sorry.  The terminology was from
  Politzer and his center at John Hopkins Medical Complex,
  and he used the terms abused dollars, as I recall, and
  that is -- the quote is to his definition of abused
  dollars, and I called it the sociological concept of
  abused dollars.
                 So I was trying to use a more business
  economic terminology, which I have abandoned in deference
  to discussions with my colleagues over the years, and I
  have to be bow again to Professor Grinols and how he wants
  to define it because he's the person to go to, he's the
  academic to go to.
          Q.     Do you follow his terminology now?
          A.     I would accept his terminology, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     May I ask, do you plan to ask me questions
  here two weeks from now on these articles?  Do you want me
  to be proofed and ready to go on them?
          Q.     I'm not advising you on your preparation.
          A.     Okay.  Well, I mean, we've only got a few
  thousand pages here.  I just wanted to -- wanted to narrow
  it down --
          Q.     I would, too.
          A.     -- to refresh my memory.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Was he just identifying this?
                 MS. VOLLET:  Yes, just identifying.  It's
  something we referenced earlier.  I don't have any
  specific questions about that, and that was Exhibit 7.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Now, when we spoke about the National
  Gambling Impact --
          A.     Study Commission.
          Q.     -- Study Commission, the commission worked
  with the National Research Council?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  And the National Research Council
  functions under the auspices of the National Academy of
  Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the
  Institute of Medicine?
          A.     I will accept your categorization.
          Q.     Those organizations are collectively
  referred to as the National Academies?
          A.     I'm not quite sure what is specifically
  included or not included at this point in time, but
  it's -- the NRC is very well respected.
          Q.     And they -- their origins date back to
  congressional charter signed by President Lincoln?
          A.     I wasn't here with Lincoln.  I'm from
  Illinois, but he didn't consult me on that one.
          Q.     But their mission is to improve government
  decision-making and public policy and increase public
  education understanding in matters involving science,
  engineering, technology and health, right?
          A.     That sounds good to me.
          Q.     The NRC does not receive direct federal
  appropriations for its work.  Individual products are
  funded by federal agencies, foundations and other
  governmental and private entities and the institutions'
  endowment.  Their work is made possible by 6,000 of the
  world's top scientists, engineers and other professionals
  who volunteer their time without compensation to serve on
  committees and participate in its activities.  Would you
  agree?
          A.     I'm not familiar with all the workings of
  the NRC.
          Q.     You have not served in any capacity on the
  NRC?
          A.     No, ma'am.
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 9.  This is a publication by the NRC called
  Pathological Gambling - A Critical Review.  This is
  excerpts.  This was published in 1999 by the National
  Academy of Scientists.  Turn to the second page of the
  exhibit.
          A.     Before we get going on this, may I ask to
  take a restroom break?
          Q.     Absolutely.
                 (A BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Professor Kindt, we're back on the record.
  You have before you Exhibit 9.  This is an excerpt from
  the book Pathological Gambling - A Critical Review by the
  National Research Council published by the National
  Academy Press.  The author of this study was the Committee
  on the Social and Economic Impact of Pathological
  Gambling, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     According to page 3.
          Q.     On page 9 of Exhibit 9, actually, starting
  on --
          A.     I don't have that page.
          Q.     It's within there.  If you look at the top,
  it's about --
                 MR. ALLEN:  They've got little numbers
  right here.
                 THE WITNESS:  I don't think I have those
  page numbers.  Am I missing something here?  Okay.  I'm
  sorry.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Before we get started, I have
  one objection.  I want to object to any questions posed of
  Dr. Kindt relative to asking him if you read from this
  study, does he agree or disagree with it, unless it's
  identified, can be identified by him as an authoritative
  study, because as I understand it, unless it's an
  authoritative study, then it's subject to objection as to
  you can't question on it properly as cross-examination in
  this form, and it's really kind of an objection as to the
  form of the question and the lack of it being identified
  as authoritative.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Let me ask you some questions about it.
  Professor Kindt, are you aware of the book Pathological
  Gambling - A Critical Review?
          A.     I'm aware of this that you have in front of
  me, yes.
          Q.     Have you heard of the entire book before
  today?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.  Have you reviewed it previously?
          A.     Not for a long time.
          Q.     Do you -- it is a publication by the
  National Research Council on measuring effects of problem
  gambling, is it not?
          A.     That appears to be what it is.
          Q.     Okay.  And the National Research Council is
  a prestigious organization?
          A.     I would agree with that.
          Q.     And the National Academy of Sciences is a
  prestigious organization?
          A.     I would agree with that.
          Q.     Persons who are asked to serve in the
  National Academy of Sciences consider it a prestigious
  request?
          A.     Yes.  My caveat would be that there are
  sometimes people placed there who have vested interest.
          Q.     Okay.  This book was -- Pathological
  Gambling was an outgrowth of work undertaken in
  conjunction with the National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission's work, correct?
          A.     I believe that's correct.
          Q.     And the National Gambling Impact Study
  Commission relied on material furnished to it by the
  National Research Council in some respects?
          A.     I would say in some respects.
          Q.     Do you consider some of the material in
  this book Pathological Gambling - A Critical Review
  authoritative as to some aspects of studies on
  pathological gambling?
          A.     I would have to see specifics to which you
  were referring.
          Q.     Do some members of the academic community
  consider this an authoritative book that they might turn
  to for information about pathological gambling studies?
          A.     I would say generally I would consider it
  to be something that academics could turn to, but I did
  notice a person here or renoticed a person here on the
  committee, and if they're referencing that particular
  person, I would look to it closely.
          Q.     Who is that person that you're referring
  to?
          A.     That person is Professor Howard Shaffer.
          Q.     And Dr. Shaffer is at the Harvard Medical
  School?
          A.     I believe he is an associate professor in
  the division of -- it says here Department of Psychiatry,
  which appears to be the part of Harvard Medical School.
          Q.     And you view his work with skepticism?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And why is that?
          A.     Professor Shaffer has been criticized on
  the front page of his native Boston Globe for having ties,
  including significant monetary ties, alleged to the
  gambling industry.
          Q.     Do you believe that Professor -- or
  Dr. Shaffer is a mouthpiece of the gambling industry?
          A.     I wouldn't use that terminology.
          Q.     What terminology would you use?
          A.     I would add to my previous statement that
  he's also been criticized by the Los Angeles Times, the
  Chronical of Higher Education, the Philadelphia Enquirer
  for his close ties to the gambling industry.
          Q.     Has he been criticized in academic
  publications?
          A.     I have raised those issues in some of my
  publications.
          Q.     Has he been criticized by anyone else other
  than you for his ties to the gambling industry?
          A.     I believe so, but I can't think of one
  right now.
          Q.     Your criticism that you raised regarding
  him is based on the newspaper articles you mentioned?
          A.     Let me back up.  The other person on here
  Richard Rosenthal who's also listed here --
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     -- I believe has had some concerns.  And I
  noticed that Professor Henry Lesieur is not on this
  commission, which I would -- which would cause me some
  pause because he's the dean of pathological and problem
  gambling from an academic standpoint.
                 Both Professor Lesieur and Professor
  Rosenthal were reported in the Boston Globe as resigning
  from the National Center for Responsible Gaming because of
  their concerns about his academic reputation and/or
  direction.  And Howard Shaffer is a -- has major
  connections with that group and influence with that group.
          Q.     What are Professor Shaffer's connections
  with the gambling industry?
          A.     I think if you go to the website for the
  National Center for Responsible Gaming, which was
  established by the lobbyist American Gaming Association,
  you will find his name frequently cited in their documents
  and in an administrative capacity and in an oversight
  research capacity.
          Q.     Are you aware of any criticisms in academic
  circles of the Pathological Gambling book as being biased
  by gambling interests?
          A.     Would you repeat the question.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Would you read it back,
  please.
                 THE REPORTER:  "Question:  Are you aware of
  any criticisms in academic circles of the Pathological
  Gambling book as being biased by gambling interests?"
                 THE WITNESS:  Not that I can think of at
  the moment, but I would want to read it closely.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     But you have read this before?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     When did you read it?
          A.     I have a generally favorable opinion of
  this.
          Q.     Okay.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Subject just to a continuing
  objection, if you want to go through it subject to that
  objection, you've certainly got the right to.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Okay.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Okay.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     The Committee on Social and Economic Impact
  of Pathological Gambling considered over 4,000
  gambling-related references --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Where are you reading from?
                 MS. VOLLET:  This is on page 9.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     -- with about 1,600 determined to be
  related to pathological or problem gambling.  Do you
  agree?  Correct?
          A.     That's what it says, yes, ma'am.
                 MR. ALLEN:  He's not agreeing to the
  figures, is that my understanding?  Are you just saying
  that's what it says?
                 THE WITNESS:  I will -- that's what it
  says, and I will accept what it says as being accurate.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Let's turn to what is -- Chapter 5 of this
  book is called Social and Economic Effects, correct?  This
  is on page 156.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     The committee wrote, and if you'll turn to
  page 157 at the bottom, they concluded that the state of
  research into the benefits and costs of gambling generally
  and into the costs of pathological gambling specifically
  is not sufficiently advanced to allow definitive
  conclusions to be drawn.  Few reliable economic impact
  analyses or benefit/cost analyses have been done, and
  those that exist have focused on casino gambling.
                 Do you agree with the committee's
  conclusion?
          A.     I would state again that this has to be
  viewed in the context of the National Gambling Impact
  Study Commission members and the considerable dissention
  between members of the committee.  And I can see why with
  a narrow construct that these -- some of these members
  would have reached that conclusion.
                 But I would point out that, of the members
  on this committee, as I look through them, I don't see
  them in the literature as having published in academic
  literature, with a couple of exceptions.  Richard
  Rosenthal was certainly good.  I have some concerns about
  Mr. Skolnick.
          Q.     What are your concerns about Mr. Skolnick?
          A.     I don't want to -- I would want to -- I
  don't want to go further on that.  I would want to look at
  what he's written again.
          Q.     Do you have concerns due to influence of
  the gambling industry?
          A.     The gambling industry has an enormous
  amount of influence.
          Q.     And you believe that reaches Professor
  Skolnick of the NYU Law School?
          A.     I would not say that.
          Q.     No.  Okay.  Are there any other persons on
  the committee that you have a concern about?
          A.     Not that I would care to express.
          Q.     Do you have concerns about anyone else on
  this study, on this committee as --
          A.     Well, my overall impression is I wonder why
  Professor Henry Lesieur and some others are not on this
  committee and why some people are on this committee, and
  if some people are on these committees, there should be a
  counterpoint who is bringing up some of the concerns that
  I've raised with you.
          Q.     Those being influence, influence of the
  gambling industry?
          A.     Yes, people who have written for years in
  the area, and I don't see people who have written for
  years in the area, with the exception of a couple.  So I
  think there's -- I think a case could be made that there
  is some lack of experience in the area by many members on
  these committees.  Prestigious or not, you still need the
  experience.
          Q.     Turn to page 163, I'm sorry, 162, Issues
  and Challenges in Benefit-Cost Analysis of gambling.  The
  committee writes, what seems to be a straightforward task
  of identifying benefits and costs associated with
  legalized gambling and with pathological and problem
  gambling is really more difficult than it first appears.
  Do you agree with that?
          A.     Well, I see that the citation at the bottom
  is to Mr. Eadington, and I don't know -- from 1984, so if
  they are drawing these conclusions from a citation of
  Mr. Eadington who is in 1984 --
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I'm sorry.  You've lost me.
  You're referring to the footnote?
                 MR. ALLEN:  No, no, no.
                 THE WITNESS:  Right at the bottom.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Such as.  It's in the parens,
  the very last thing in the text.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Oh, I see.
                 THE WITNESS:  And I think if you look at
  the sources being cited, they would cause me some concern.
  He is a well-known consultant to the gambling industry and
  has been for many years.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Do you agree that identifying benefits and
  costs associated with legal gambling is difficult?
          A.     Difficult but not impossible, and I would
  point again to Professor Grinols, and I know that
  Professor Grinols actually sent a proposal to the National
  Commission for incorporation into what they should look
  to, and that it was not utilized by this committee.
          Q.     He sent it to the committee or to the
  commission?
          A.     I'm sorry.  It had nothing to do with this
  committee.  Had nothing to do with this committee.  It was
  to the commission.
          Q.     Okay.  Also on page 162, the committee
  states that most reported economic analysis in the
  literature is methodologically weak.
          A.     We can say that about anything, academics
  can argue that.  And notice they say most reported
  economic analysis.  I would posit I don't see any
  criticisms -- maybe I missed it -- of anything on it by
  Professor Grinols or Professor Mustard in here.  And I see
  Lesieur cited on page 168 and 170, and again I ask, why
  was he not on the committee?  He definitely should have
  been.
          Q.     So you --
          A.     I'm sorry.
          Q.     You do not believe that Professor Grinols
  or Mustard's work is open to the criticism that it's
  methodologically weak?
          A.     No.
          Q.     And you do not believe that any of the
  studies on which they rely in doing their Table 7.1 can be
  criticized as methodologically weak?
          A.     Well, anybody can have their opinion.
  Excuse me a second.  I want to look at the references at
  the back here.
                 As I have relooked quickly at the
  references at the back, I am disappointed in the
  information that was included in their references and on
  their plate for review.  I think a more thorough
  examination would show that they missed some items.  That
  would be my quick analysis.
                 And I'm disappointed in some of the people
  who seem to have been reviewed here, including Frank
  Fahrenkopf, who is simply the main lobbyist for the
  gambling industry in Washington, D.C.  What is he doing in
  the references to this report?  I mean, if they're
  reviewing the literature, let's review the literature.
          Q.     Now, on page 189 there are two citations to
  Professor Grinols at the top, and there are at the
  bottom --
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     At the bottom of 189 and top of 190 there
  are seven or eight citations to Professor Lesieur.
          A.     I want to know why -- and there are three
  in there to Lorenz, actually four to Valerie Lorenz.  I
  want to know why Valerie Lorenz, Henry Lesieur, Earl
  Grinols, David Mustard, Robert Goodman, the economists
  that we have named, the experts that we have named --
  well, here's one to Goodman in 1994 -- were not on this.
          Q.     I'm sorry.  Lesieur has eight articles
  here.
          A.     That proves my point.  He should have been
  on this commission.  He should have been part of this --
          Q.     When they're reviewing his work?  When
  they're reviewing the methodology in his --
          A.     He would recuse himself if they're looking
  at his work, just like a judge would recuse himself if
  there was that scenario.
          Q.     And if you look on 191, the Politzer and
  Morrow and Leavey 1981 study is listed, correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And --
          A.     But not the published version.
          Q.     There are -- the 1981 version that
  Professor Grinols cites to?
          A.     Right, and I -- that is good.
          Q.     Further down the page on 191 there are
  three articles or publications by Thompson, Gazel and
  Rickman?
          A.     Yes.  And I think we saw from our review
  just in Grinols' bibliography that there were a few more
  by Thompson, Gazel and Rickman and by Thompson that were
  published before 1999 while this was in process, 1997
  reports.
                 Another one here is I don't see -- maybe
  I've missed something.  I don't see a single reference to
  Tim Ryan out of the University of New Orleans who's done
  like seven or eight total in a 15-year period and are
  quite good and are cited by Professor Grinols.
          Q.     Going back to page 162.
          A.     Excuse me.  Let me continue.  I mean,
  Goodman has done more than this one 1994.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Heidi, why are we going to
  let him continue?  Let's just answer the questions and get
  on with this.
                 THE WITNESS:  I just wanted to share my
  concerns.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Well, we're going to be here
  all night if you don't just answer the questions she's
  asking.  It's up to you.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I think he's trying to answer
  the questions, Chuck.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  No.  I think the record's
  pretty clear on what he's doing.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I still have my continuing
  objection.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Let's keep moving forward.  On page 162 the
  committee wrote, in the area of gambling, pathological
  gambling and problem gambling, systematic data are rarely
  to be found despite considerable pressure for that
  information.  Would you agree with that?
          A.     Would you read where that's coming from
  again, please?
          Q.     It's under heading Issues and Challenges
  and Benefit-Cost Analyses of Gambling, and this would be
  maybe 11 lines down, about the middle of the paragraph.
          A.     What was our sentence again?
          Q.     In the area of gambling, pathological
  gambling and problem gambling, systematic data are rarely
  to be found despite considerable pressure for information.
          A.     Well, they can reach that conclusion, but I
  think that if you pick through the literature well, you
  can find authoritative studies, and nothing is ever going
  to be perfect in the eyes of any given academic.  We're
  constantly looking for more information.  But I think that
  as of 2008, and this is 1999, almost ten years ago, I
  think that the literature's much better.
          Q.     Well, let's look at Exhibit 5, the excerpts
  from Gambling in America.  We've got the two tables on
  7.1, Table 7.1.  Would you characterize all the studies
  that Professor Grinols relies on in his table as being
  systematic?
          A.     I'm sorry.  On which?
          Q.     We're looking at Table 7.1, social cost per
  pathological gambler in 2003 dollars.
          A.     I'm not sure how you would define
  systematic.  If you're back to the continuing problem of
  definition, you might call that systematic, in which case
  I would tend to agree with that.
          Q.     Well, I would note that there are numerous
  parts in this table that there are data under certain
  costs.
          A.     That's right.
          Q.     Would you agree?
          A.     That's right.
          Q.     And so the existing studies that Professor
  Grinols looked to did not systematically cover all of the
  costs?
          A.     My -- that's true, but my question is, who
  provides the systematic methodology?  And I believe that
  as of current academic literature, Professor Grinols
  provides the best systematic methodology.
          Q.     We're talking about data.  My question was
  about systematic data here, and that's what the statement
  in Pathological Gambling was about, data, not methodology.
          A.     Well, I'm not quite sure what your
  distinction is here.
          Q.     Well, we'll let the table speak for itself.
  Let's turn to page 163.  There's a section called Real
  Versus Transfer Effects.  The committee wrote that one of
  the biggest stumbling blocks in economic impact analysis
  is determining which effects are real and which are merely
  transfers.  Are you aware of the term transfers?
          A.     Yes.  I believe that they are referring to
  the transfer of wealth.  For example, if somebody steals
  your car, that's a loss to you but a transfer of wealth to
  them.  And I believe that is the type of transfer to which
  they are referring, and I'm not sure that --
          Q.     Some economists do not count transfer
  effects as social costs; is that correct?
          A.     Yes.  But if somebody steals your car, I
  hope we can agree that there was some social cost
  associated with that and not just a transfer of wealth.
          Q.     I think if I understand --
          A.     Your insurance company is going to say that
  there was a cost.
          Q.     Well, there's a cost associated with -- the
  actual movement from the good to another person is a
  transfer, and there may be additional costs that are
  associated with getting it back or the lost time with your
  car, and those would be considered as costs and the
  transfer, just the movement of the car would not be
  considered?
          A.     Right.  That's a debatable point that I
  don't want to be involved in that particular debate, but
  I've heard that debated between economists at various
  conferences.
          Q.     And why don't you want to be involved in
  that debate?
          A.     I'd rather hear what the experts debate on
  that issue.  I haven't really made up my mind.
          Q.     So you have no opinion right now of whether
  transfers should be included as costs?
          A.     I can see both sides of the argument.
          Q.     Would you agree that whether or not one
  includes transfers as costs could affect the figures?
          A.     Well, if we're looking at simply a sterile
  transfer of wealth, I don't see that this particular issue
  as impacting on any of the tables to which I have referred
  repeatedly.  I don't see it as a significant issue.
          Q.     Whether or not transfers are included?
          A.     Well, maybe you're talking about transfers
  in a different method than I am, but I mean, if you gamble
  away a dollar to me, that's simply a sterile transfer of
  wealth.  So I would agree with that analysis.
          Q.     That that movement of a dollar would be a
  sterile transfer of wealth?
          A.     A sterile transfer of wealth.  I would tend
  to agree with that, but I would still like to argue that
  with some of my economics associates.
          Q.     And the debate in economics that you have
  witnessed is whether or not the transfer of one dollar to
  another should have an effect on the entire cost to
  society that's being measured?
          A.     The focus of the studies to which we are
  referring relate to the costs that are caused by that
  transfer.
          Q.     But what about the debate in economics of
  which you're aware of whether transfers should be included
  in overall societal cost?
          A.     Where do you see transfers included, is my
  question?  To what are you referring?  I don't see that
  anywhere.
          Q.     I'm going to come back to that one.  Let me
  turn to page -- direct your attention to page 170.  The
  last paragraph, the committee writes, a very difficult
  problem arises when assessing the costs of pathological
  gambling.  Lesieur and others point out that there's a
  strong correlation between pathological gambling and other
  addictive behaviors, such as alcohol and substance abuse.
                 Do you agree that Lesieur points out that
  there's a correlation between pathological gambling and
  other addictive behavior?
          A.     Well, I think that these are, with respect
  to the committee, somewhat simplistic statements because
  there are -- what the issue that they're getting at is
  what we call comorbidity, and that is whether or not a
  person who is addicted to alcohol is more likely to become
  a pathological gambler and vice versa.
                 And Lesieur raises that, but there are
  several other studies, I would say maybe close to a dozen,
  I'm just -- I'm just saying this off the cuff, that I've
  encountered that talk about these correlations, and I'm
  surprised that the only one they mention here is Lesieur.
          Q.     All right.  Do you agree that comorbidity
  is a problem with -- may be a problem with estimating
  costs caused by pathological gambling?
          A.     I think that the issue has to be addressed
  and that you have to adjust for that to make sure that
  we're talking about straight pathological and problem
  gambling.  And I also believe that Professor Grinols is
  aware and Professor David Mustard and others are aware of
  these debates and have adjusted for that.
                 I know that Professor Grinols and Professor
  Mustard in their recent crime -- their publication in the
  Review of Economics and Statistics by Harvard have
  addressed that scenario and similar scenarios, similar
  problems before reaching their conclusions.
          Q.     On page 174 there is an analysis of
  Politzer's 1981 work, which the committee calls the
  Chicago study.  The committee notes that Politzer -- this
  is under the heading Chicago study, first paragraph on
  page 174.
          A.     Well, when they use the word this study,
  I'm not sure which study to which they are referring.
          Q.     Well, if you look down at the end of the --
          A.     I'm not --
          Q.     -- paragraph, it says Politzer, et al.
  1981.
          A.     But I'm not sure that Pol-- Politzer was
  cited in a Chicago study that we mentioned by the Better
  Government Association and probably mentioned in other
  studies relating to Chicago, but I don't see -- I don't
  remember Politzer -- of course, you know, I read this
  years ago, and occasionally go back and review it.  I
  don't recall Politzer -- this makes it sound like
  Politzer's talking about Chicago, and I don't recall that.
  I may have forgotten that.  Do you see what I'm saying?
          Q.     Are you aware if the Politzer study relied
  on previously published estimates of prevalence rates in
  gambling class from other sites to estimate likely costs?
          A.     I would want to go back and look at that,
  at the Politzer study again because something doesn't look
  right in that paragraph to me.  The problem I have here, I
  mean, with the lack of footnotes and citations, it's a bit
  obscure to what -- to what they are referring.
          Q.     Okay.  Let's turn to page 177.  There's a
  heading called Florida Study.  The committee writes that a
  Florida study of the effects of casino gambling represents
  an improvement in the identification and estimation of the
  benefits and costs of pathological and problem gambling.
  Then they cite Florida Office of Planning and Budgeting,
  1994.  Do you see that?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  If you look back in the references,
  this would be on page 188, Florida Office of Planning and
  Budgeting --
          A.     Yep.
          Q.     -- The Anticipated Impact of Casino
  Gambling in Florida?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Is that the same study that Professor
  Grinols uses in his book?
          A.     That is referenced in the second column, I
  believe, of his table.  I would point out that if you lock
  at Professor Grinols' table, the only cost which he
  includes from this Florida study are the incarceration and
  supervision costs.  He and others, including myself,
  questioned some of the other categories, and I can tell
  you why there's nothing in them.  It's because he did not
  feel comfortable including the amounts in that particular
  part of the study in the rest of the table.
          Q.     So you --
          A.     But the incarceration and supervision costs
  were -- was a well-done section of the report and was
  actually leading edge at the time.  I don't think anybody
  else had done it, and it seemed to be quite good.
          Q.     There is a criticism on page 178 of the
  Pathological Gambling book of the Florida study saying
  that it was based on several key but untested assumptions
  that may have had the effect of overestimating costs
  associated with pathological and problem gambling and
  minimizing the benefits of casino gambling.
          A.     Well, I would -- wouldn't have a problem
  with that.  It was the -- it was one of the first studies
  that was a serious effort, and they were treading new
  ground.  And any time you're treading new ground, you're
  going to hit some rough spots, and -- but again, I would
  point out, as I just did, that this was taken into
  account, and that these numbers were not included in
  Grinols' study or in his table.
                 There's a good example of an active debate
  between the academics on what should be included and what
  should not.
          Q.     On page 181 of Chapter 5 there's a heading
  at the bottom called Wisconsin Study.  Turn to page 181.
  It's identified Thompson, et al. 1996a.  Look back in the
  references.
          A.     All right.
          Q.     This refers to Thompson, Gazel, Rickman,
  Casinos and Crime in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Policy Research
  Institute.
          A.     What's the connection, right, casinos and
  crime?
          Q.     Uh-huh.  Yes.  Yeah.  This is one of the
  studies that Professor Grinols uses in his table, right?
          A.     I think this is the 1996 one that he
  mentions or a derivation thereof.  I think this is it.
          Q.     Now, the committee wrote that this study
  makes a significant contribution to the literature.  You
  would agree with that statement?
          A.     Yes.  It was groundbreaking work by
  Thompson in the mid 1990s.
          Q.     But on page 184 the committee writes that
  even this study, however, is not without serious flaws and
  often counts as benefits things that would properly have
  been considered transfers.
          A.     Well, I would indicate that everything is
  going to have some flaws and some disagreements with it,
  and I think it's maybe what you're -- you're on page 184,
  you said?
          Q.     Uh-huh.
          A.     It's interesting to hear you attacking the
  methodology of calculating the benefits.  That was a poor
  attempt at humor.
          Q.     All right.  Then on page 185 of Chapter 5
  here, the committee writes that despite recent
  improvements made in the estimation of the benefits and
  costs of gambling, this area of inquiry is still in its
  infancy.
                 Do you agree that this area of inquiry was
  in its infancy in 1999?
          A.     A lot more could be done, yes.  I would
  tend to agree with that.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     But I'd also agree with the next sentence
  which says, few studies, very few studies have recently
  made large strides in contributions.  And I think those
  are incorporated into Professor Grinols' tables.  We've
  been -- as you can tell, there's been a very pithy debate
  over these issues, and the bottom line is, what has stood
  the test of the criticism and stood the test of time in
  its historical context.
                 And I think that the table, the studies
  which Professor Grinols has and Professor Mustard have
  chosen to include in their relevant parts have stood that
  test.
          Q.     And the committee also writes in 185, the
  benefit-cost analysis of pathological and problem gambling
  remains undeveloped.  Do you agree that it remains
  undeveloped?
          A.     On page 185?
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     Well, that would be an easy thing to say.
  It was in the process of developing.  It could have been
  better.  But we are also nine years down the road, and I
  think it's developed.
          Q.     You currently believe it is developed since
  1999?
          A.     I believe that it's -- it could always go
  further.
          Q.     But as of 1999, you would agree that it was
  undeveloped?
          A.     I wouldn't say it was undeveloped.  I would
  say it was in the process of developing.
          Q.     Would you characterize it as mostly
  developed as of 1999?
          A.     I would say it was in the process of
  developing.  We can debate how far along it was.
          Q.     But you disagree, then, that it was
  undeveloped as the --
          A.     I think --
          Q.     -- the committee believed?
          A.     I think that some conclusions could have
  been drawn, and I suspect the committee would have agreed
  with that, too, in large part.
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 10, article from the Journal of Gambling Studies
  in 1999, and it's an edition called The Social Cost of
  Gambling:  An Economic Perspective.  Are you familiar with
  this?
          A.     I'm familiar with the publication.
          Q.     Are you familiar with the articles,
  specifically the article The Social Cost of Gambling:  An
  Economic Perspective, by Douglas Walker and A.H. Barnett?
          A.     I am familiar with Mr. Walker's work.
          Q.     And Mr. Walker is an economist?
          A.     I believe he's associate professor of
  economics, and I think he's now at Charleston College in
  Charleston, South Carolina.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Go ahead and interpose an
  objection like I did before, that I object to any
  questions of this witness with respect to any articles or
  anything in this article generally gaming studies,
  Exhibit 10, as not being an authoritative source and, as a
  consequence, would be improper to examine about that,
  about those matters contained therein which is not
  authoritative.  Continuing objection.
                 MS. VOLLET:  That's fine.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Have you read this article, The Social
  Costs of Gambling:  An Economic Perspective?
          A.     It does look familiar, but I note that it
  was in 1999, so it's rather old.
          Q.     Do you believe that this article was a
  contribution to the literature on economic and social cost
  of gambling?
          A.     I don't believe it has any academic
  authoritative value.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I interpose the same objection.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     And why do you believe it has no academic
  value?
          A.     Mr. Walker -- first of all, it's published
  in the Journal of Gambling Studies, and my objections to
  the Journal of Gambling Studies are listed in Exhibit 6 on
  page 31, and I think that those -- that historical
  background succinctly shares my concerns that this is an
  industry dominated journal that is confusing and
  obfuscating the literature.
          Q.     Do you believe that every article printed
  in the Journal of Gambling Studies is industry biased?
          A.     Upon occasion I would -- I would find -- I
  could imagine myself finding an article by a person who
  was well respected and then I would look at that journal,
  that journal article closely.  For example, if there was
  an article by Professor William Thompson, I would read it
  favorably with my concerns.
          Q.     So Professor Thompson has been published in
  the Journal of Gambling Studies?
          A.     I believe so.
          Q.     And what about Lesieur, has he been
  published in the Journal of Gambling Studies?
          A.     I don't know about that recently.  I would
  have to check the tables of contents.
          Q.     He was a former editor of the journal,
  correct?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And you respect some of Professor Lesieur's
  work, right?
          A.     Excuse me.  He was a former editor of the
  Journal of Gambling Behavior, which was then taken over or
  I should say dominated by members of the gambling
  industry, and the name was changed to the Journal of
  Gambling Studies.  And the two lead editors were
  definitely consultants and too closely linked to the
  gambling industry.
          Q.     Why would a respected professor like
  Professor Thompson want to be published in the Journal of
  Gambling Studies?
          A.     Just to get attention, because he really
  would not need that at his -- he doesn't need, as I don't,
  need to be published in Harvard at this stage in our
  careers.  So there may be a reason for publishing in a
  certain place to get a particular readership involved.
          Q.     Who else in the academic community shares
  your views that the Journal of Gambling Studies is tainted
  by the gambling industry?
                 MR. ALLEN:  If you know.
                 THE WITNESS:  I would not want to speak for
  other members of the community.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Are you aware of anyone who believes that
  the Journal of Gambling Studies, other than yourself, is
  tainted by gambling interests?
          A.     I'm aware of several people who have raised
  concerns.
          Q.     Who are they?
          A.     Well, one example would be Valerie Lorenz,
  who's mentioned in this article that's public.  I think
  that -- I think that I would probably be relaying
  information -- or I don't want to put other people on the
  spot, so to speak.
          Q.     Has Professor Grinols ever published in the
  Journal of Gambling Studies?
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     What about Professor Mustard?
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     Gerstein?
          A.     He may have with Rachel Volberg, but I
  would have to go back and check my issues.
          Q.     Schwer?
          A.     I think he probably has, probably in
  concert with Thompson.
          Q.     What about Ryan?
          A.     I don't believe that Ryan has, but again, I
  would have to go back and check.
          Q.     Politzer?
          A.     Politzer published in the Journal of
  Gambling Behavior before it switched direction in
  approximately 1990, and Politzer was published in the
  Journal of Gambling Behavior I believe in '85.
          Q.     Do you believe that Professor Walker's
  views should be dismissed because he has ties to the
  gambling industry?
          A.     I don't find his writings to be
  academically -- adding to the academic literature in a --
  in any kind of an advanced way.
          Q.     Are they derivative of other works?
          A.     Well, everything to some extent is
  derivative of other works, and some by definition you
  should -- you should place into your articles what has
  come before and then say, now, this is -- this is where
  we're going or this is what this adds to the literature.
  I don't think any of his works add to the literature.
          Q.     What about --
          a.     That I have read.
          Q.     And you've read this particular article?
          A.     I read it at one time, yes, ma'am.
          Q.     What about Barnett, the co-author?
          A.     I'm not familiar with that person, and I
  don't know that they have published something else.  They
  may have.  It's not a name that I encounter frequently in
  the literature.
          Q.     Are you aware that Professor Walker and
  Barnett in this article critique social cost estimates?
          A.     I don't -- I don't find anything in what
  they say worth getting into an argument about, with them.
          Q.     And that's because you believe they're
  biased toward the gambling industry?
          A.     Mr. Walker has been criticized in academic
  literature as criticizing Professor Meyer Gross when he
  wrote an economics article.  He has criticized myself
  obviously.  He's criticized Professor Earl Grinols.  He's
  criticized Thompson and Schwer.  And he has indicated that
  he has been compensated to do some of those types of
  writings.
          Q.     He's been compensated to criticize your
  work by the gambling industry?
          A.     He has been compensated for -- I would
  refer you to -- there's an online economics journal
  called, I think it's the Economic Development Journal, and
  he wrote a criticism of Professor Grinols and Mustard that
  was posted online with this electronics journal.  The
  criticism is of a Harvard/MIT, the review of economics and
  statistics.  Grinols and Mustard responded.  He then
  responded again.
                 They then responded and said that -- you
  can read it for yourself, that his criticisms were
  baseless, they were misdirections of the issues, a
  misreading of the literature, and I think one of the
  footnotes points out his compensated criticisms of several
  other professors.
          Q.     He's been compensated by the gambling
  industry to criticize multiple professors?
          A.     I would ask you to check those citations.
  It's right there in the citations.
          Q.     But you believe those citations are
  accurate?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  Let me summarize and say, I
  just don't find his writings authoritative.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Or academically enhancing.
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked
  Exhibit 12.  I don't have an Exhibit 11.  Have you seen
  this document before?
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     Okay.  This is a book review by Ralph
  Lattimore of Professor Grinols' book Gambling in America.
  Are you familiar with Ralph Lattimore?
          A.     No, ma'am.  I am familiar with the
  Productivity Commission of Australia.
          Q.     And he's an assistant commissioner with the
  Productivity Commission of Australia, according to this
  book review.  What is the Productivity Commission in
  Australia?
          A.     They actually did a good report, and I'm
  trying to remember the date on it.  It was in, I'm going
  to say 1999.  I should say a comprehensive report.
          Q.     Okay.  In this book review --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Again, I'm going to interpose
  the same objection to any questions of the witness with
  regard to the content of the book review and whether he
  agrees or disagrees with it on the basis that it's not an
  authoritative study, it hasn't been shown to be an
  authoritative study and, therefore, it would be improper
  to examine him on that basis.  Go ahead.
                 THE WITNESS:  May I also say, not having
  read it yet, that I don't find book reviews authoritative.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Fine.
          A.     Unless they're, you know, in a Harvard
  journal or --
          Q.     This is in the Journal of International
  Gambling Studies.  Are you familiar with that journal?
          A.     I'm familiar with the name.  I would want
  to -- without being presumptuous, I would want to check
  its funding sources, similar to the Journal of Gambling
  Studies, and who is on its editorial staff.
          Q.     In this book review --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Continuing objection.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Duly noted.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Ralph Lattimore criticizes Professor
  Grinols' book, and I'll direct your attention to the
  paragraph that starts however.  It's the fourth paragraph
  down.  He criticizes Professor Grinols' book saying, his
  choices and methods for gauging social costs are not
  sufficiently robust for a strong conclusion to be reached
  about net social benefits, let alone a policy action like
  prohibition.  This reflects large problems in estimating
  social costs, the difficulty in causally linking gambling
  to social costs, let alone to one form of gambling, such
  as casinos, and estimating the impact of additional
  gambling on prevalence rates of gambling.
                 Do you agree with this criticism?
          A.     I -- Mr. Lattimore can write what he wants.
  I don't -- I would -- my first impression would be that
  he's not particularly authoritative.  His one and a half
  page book review in this publication, I would -- he's
  welcome to his opinion, but I don't find this
  authoritative.  I would not care to comment.
          Q.     Okay.  Lattimore also criticizes Professor
  Grinols' book saying that, moving on to the next
  paragraph, his empirical estimates take less notice of the
  fragility of the underlying numbers than does his
  discussion.  For example, he estimates social costs of
  problem and pathological gamblers by taking averages of
  result from various studies, when such averages are likely
  to be highly unreliable.  And then he gives the example of
  incarceration and supervision costs.  Lattimore criticizes
  the estimate because of the wide range of costs for
  incarceration.
                 Do you agree with that criticism?
          A.     Again, I would say I don't -- I'm not
  willing to comment on somebody that I don't know.  I've
  given my opinion of the Grinols book.  I don't know this
  publication.  I don't know who is -- if there is a -- if
  it's an academic publication.  I suspect that it is not.
          Q.     All right.
          A.     It's certainly not authoritative in
  my realm.
          Q.     Lattimore also criticizes Grinols saying in
  the next paragraph that his assessment of the extent to
  which an expansion of casino gambling increases problem
  gambling prevalence rates relies on too narrow a set of
  empirical data, namely just one before and after study
  undertaken in Iowa.  There are now many before and after
  studies both in the USA and other countries, and they do
  not consistently show the pattern found in the single
  study used by Grinols.
                 Do you agree with that?
          A.     I would say my previous -- it's not worth
  my time.  No offense, but it's --
          Q.     You don't --
          A.     I don't find anything authoritative here
  that's worth commenting.
          Q.     Do you acknowledge that Professor Grinols
  relies on one before and after study undertaken in Iowa in
  his book?
          A.     I don't know that that's the case.
          Q.     Are you aware of many other before and
  after studies that have been cited by Abbott?
          A.     Well, I would point out that this person
  uses only one citation reference, and that I know of one
  of the authors in this reference who has done some good
  work.
          Q.     This is Abbott?
          A.     But is closely associated with the gambling
  industry.
          Q.     You're referring to Abbott?
          A.     I'm referring to Rachel Volberg.  But I do
  like some of her studies.
          Q.     But then --
          A.     And I do wonder about Abbott because --
  well, I don't find it authoritative at all.
          Q.     Are you aware of any studies about before
  and after studies regarding prevalence rates?
          A.     I'm aware of probably the first classic
  study was -- is listed in my testimony before the National
  Commission, and I'll give you the exact citation in a
  moment.  The first was, I believe, a 1989 study tracking
  by the Iowa Department -- I'm sorry, by Rachel Volberg.
  I'm referring to Rachel Volberg again.  And this study, I
  believe, was funded by the State of Iowa.  I believe the
  date was 1989.  And the significance of this particular
  study was that it was replicated five years later in 1995,
  was the publication, by the Iowa Department of Human
  Services, and it showed a doubling in the numbers of
  addicted and problem gamblers in Iowa, with the casinos
  beginning operations in the year 1991.
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 13.  Turn to the internal page reference of 133.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     There is a book review by Dean Gerstein?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Have you read this book review?
          A.     No.
          Q.     It is a book review of Professor Grinols'
  book Gambling in America talking about --
                 MR. ALLEN:  I'm going to go ahead and
  interpose my objection.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Same objection, that's fine.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Same objections, improper
  examination.  Should be stricken.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  You object before she even
  asks?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I just go ahead and do it.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Before she even asks it it's
  authoritative?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I know what she's going to ask.
  She's got to ask if it's authoritative to begin with.
  Just object to it.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Before she even asks a
  question?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I know what she's going to ask.
  Go ahead.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     And this is a book review in the Society
  for the Study -- for the journal called Addiction.  Are
  you familiar with this?  Are you familiar with this term?
          A.     Pardon me?
          Q.     Are you familiar with the journal
  Addiction?
          A.     Not closely familiar with it, but I'm
  familiar with it.
          Q.     Is that a journal that is tainted by the
  gambling industry?
          A.     I do not believe so.
          Q.     Gerstein is one of the authors of the
  studies that Professor Grinols relies on in his work,
  correct?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Professor Gerstein in -- on page 133, the
  second column, second full paragraph, he criticizes
  Professor Grinols' book saying that the empirical
  estimates that lead to Professor Grinols' failing grade
  for casinos do not seem as compelling as his models and
  critiques.
                 Do you see that statement?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Do you agree that Professor Grinols'
  empirical estimates are not as compelling as his models
  and critiques?
          A.     Mr. Gerstein can give his opinion, but --
          Q.     I'm asking you whether you agree with
  Gerstein's opinion.
          A.     I'm not quite sure what he's saying, but I
  think I'm tending to disagree with his observation.
          Q.     In the second to the last paragraph,
  starting, the overall cost of local casino placement --
          A.     I'm sorry?
          Q.     The second to the last paragraph beginning,
  the overall cost of local casino placement.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.  Professor Gerstein notes that the
  overall cost of casino placement hinges largely on the
  degree to which the local option leads to increased
  numbers of problem and pathological gamblers.
                 Do you agree that the cost of casinos
  hinges largely on the degree to which it leads to
  increased numbers of problem and pathological gamblers?
          A.     I see the issue that Mr. Gerstein is
  raising, and I think that he and Professor Grinols should
  discuss this, but I don't see it as a failure of Professor
  Grinols' work.  It sounds like at the end of the paragraph
  he's adding new replication studies that he has done with
  Rachel Volberg, and just because there's some new data
  coming out doesn't mean that the -- that there's a problem
  with the conclusions drawn by Professor Grinols.
          Q.     Let me ask my question again.
          A.     I'm sorry.
          Q.     First let's focus on the first sentence.
  Do you agree that the overall cost of casino placement
  hinges largely on the degree to which the local option
  leads to increased numbers of problem and pathological
  gamblers?
          A.     I'm not sure what he's -- what point he's
  making there, and I would have to discuss that with Dean
  Gerstein and Professor Grinols.  That would be an
  interesting discussion.
          Q.     But you don't dismiss Professor Gerstein's
  views out of hand?
          A.     I'm not sure he's a professor, but I do
  respect his work, although it should also be noted that
  he's in a bit of competition academically speaking with
  some other academics.  There might be a little academic
  competition going on there.
          Q.     Then moving to the second -- the latter
  half of that paragraph, Gerstein raises the same concern
  as Lattimore that Grinols relies on survey findings from
  one before and after survey replication in a single state
  when there have been additional states which yield
  different results.
          A.     Right, but these -- assuming that these
  are, in fact, bona fide replication studies of before and
  after by Rachel Volberg, and again, I would like to see
  these 13 studies or 13 -- assuming this is -- I'm familiar
  with a couple of them, but I suspect I don't -- I don't
  see Dean Gerstein saying how this would modify.  He seems
  to imply that it might, but we don't know how it would
  modify either in a positive or negative fashion Professor
  Grinols' survey finding.
                 It looks like they're referring to this
  classic before and after, which was the only one done for
  ten years, and we have to make sure that the replications,
  in fact, adjust for any type of tainting.  But I think he
  raises an interesting point.
          Q.     Again, so you would agree, though, that if
  these 13 state replications are bona fide, that Professor
  Grinols should consider that?
          A.     I think that any new data coming in should
  be reviewed to see if it is authoritative, if it does what
  it purports to say that it does, and yes, I'd like to see
  both of them at a conference and see what they've got.
          Q.     So you would agree that Professor Grinols
  should at least look at this data mentioned by Gerstein?
          A.     Well, his book was done in 2004.  He's
  citing to Volberg in 2001, but -- oh, and I'm -- you know
  what?  I'm familiar with this When the Chips Are Down,
  2001, and -- well, I'd just want to rereview it, but I
  don't think that it causes Professor Grinols' conclusions
  to be treated less authoritatively in any way.  It's
  simply new information coming out that needs to be
  addressed and perhaps factored in, and perhaps not.
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 14.  This is a book review of Professor Grinols'
  book in the Southern Economic Journal in 2007.  Have you
  seen this review before?
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     And the Southern Economic Journal is an
  economic -- academic economic journal?
          A.     I don't -- I'm not familiar with it so I
  would have to go to the library and look it over to
  determine if I thought it was authoritative or not.
          Q.     The author of this book review is Doug
  Walker, who I think we've discussed previously.
          A.     I don't find him authoritative, and I don't
  find his analyses authoritative.
          Q.     On internal page reference of 831, go down
  to the second full paragraph, the paragraph beginning, the
  chapter on social costs.
          A.     Okay.
                 MR. VOLLET:  Are you going to put your
  objection in?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I was going to wait because
  Chuck was right before.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Now's the right time to
  object.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Okay.  Well, if you say so.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I do say so.
                 MR. ALLEN:  You help me.  I need all the
  help I can get.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  That's why I'm here.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Same objection as before.  It's
  not an authoritative source, and therefore the examination
  is improper.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Now, Professor Walker criticizes --
          A.     First of all, I don't believe he's a
  professor.  I believe he's an associate professor, and
  now, unless you're in academics, that's not --
          Q.     Associate Professor Walker?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  I'm just going to refer to him as
  Walker.  Walker states that he believes Grinols' chapter
  on social costs has very serious problems, and he points
  out that although Grinols addresses most of the standard
  social cost issues that have been examined in the
  literature, for example, crime, employment, productivity
  losses, bankruptcy, suicide, social service costs and
  regulatory costs, he completely ignores the tremendous
  level of controversy surrounding the handling of these
  issues.
                 Do you agree that there is controversy
  surrounding the handling of social costs?
          A.     Well, I have trouble -- I don't find
  writings by Professor Walker at this juncture, at this
  time period to be particularly worthwhile and
  unauthoritative.
          Q.     So you're telling me you disagree that
  there is any controversy surrounding the handling of
  social costs in the literature?
          A.     I didn't say that.  I think that my earlier
  comments indicate that there is controversy, but I would
  say that without referencing whatever he was saying.
          Q.     So you believe there is controversy
  surrounding the handling of social costs?
          A.     I believe that there is -- I would say that
  there is controversy occasioned by the gambling industry
  to obfuscate the issues.  I -- I don't think the
  implication should be made that that diminishes in any way
  the academic publications of Professors Mustard and
  Grinols.
          Q.     So you don't believe there's any true
  controversy among academics who are not tainted by the
  gambling industry over the social costs?
          A.     I believe that there are minor bona fide
  tweaking of, I don't want to say trivial, but small
  matters relating because everything can always be improved
  somewhat.
          Q.     One of those issues could be whether or not
  wealth transfer should be included as costs, social costs?
          A.     I'm not prepared to state that because I
  don't think wealth transfer is an issue in -- as I
  understand it, and as I believe we've discussed it here,
  in the socioeconomic costs associated with pathological
  and problem gambling.
          Q.     And you believe any academic who raises
  questions about transfer costs is someone who's tainted by
  the gambling industry?
          A.     No.  No.
          Q.     For example, the National Research Council
  raises the issue of transfer costs, right?
          A.     You would have to point that to me again
  because I'm not sure that that was what that statement
  said to which you referred earlier, if we're talking about
  the same statement.
          Q.     Professor -- or Walker also criticizes
  Grinols' book as leaving readers with an incomplete
  picture of the debate because, if you turn to page 832, he
  says Grinols generally does not cite the relevant
  economics literature in justifying his methodology, nor
  does he make any reference to gambling research that does
  not agree with his conclusions.  I take it you disagree
  with this criticism?
          A.     I disagree with that criticism.
          Q.     Because you are dismissive of Professor
  Walker's views?
          A.     I have listened to his views, and I
  don't -- don't agree with those, and I suspect his
  motivations at times.
          Q.     As being a mouthpiece for the gambling
  organization?
          A.     He has been reported in the press as
  being -- I think his most recent criticism with Professor
  Grinols was financed by the American Gaming Association in
  Washington, D.C., a lobbying group for the gambling
  industry.  So I don't find those comments authoritative.
          Q.     Professor Grinols also contributed a
  chapter to a 2003 book called Gambling:  Who Wins?  Who
  Loses?  Is that correct?
          A.     I believe I've seen that chapter.
          Q.     And it was on economic and social costs and
  benefits, was the subject?
          A.     I don't have it in front of me, so I would
  not want to comment.
          Q.     Give you what's been marked as Exhibit 15.
  This is a book review on the book Gambling:  Who Wins?
  Who Loses? in the International Journal of Mental Health
  and Addiction.  Are you familiar with the International
  Journal of Mental Health and Addiction?
          A.     I've heard of it.
          Q.     And the review is written by Christine
  McKay and Henry Lesieur?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     If you turn to page 83 of Exhibit 15, there
  is a heading called Section Two:  Economic and Social
  Costs and Benefits.  Do you see that?
          A.     Page?
          Q.     83.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And here Professor -- or Drs. McKay and
  Lesieur summarize Grinols' chapter in the Gambling:  Who
  Wins?  Who Loses? book as attempting to correct some of
  the common misconceptions about economic value of
  gambling?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I'm going to offer the same
  objection, although, you know, he can comment on whether
  it's authoritative or not.  Continue.
                 THE WITNESS:  My first concern is it's a
  book review, and -- but I do respect Professor Lesieur.
  Christine McKay I don't -- I don't believe I've met.  I
  may have at a conference.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Do you have a professional view of her
  work?
          A.     Pardon me?
          Q.     Do you have a view of her publications?
          A.     Like I -- I would have to see what else
  she's written.  I'm not -- it doesn't ring -- it doesn't
  ring a bell with me with Ms. McKay.  But Professor Lesieur
  does.
          Q.     McKay and Lesieur in the second paragraph
  under the heading Section Two:  Economic and Social Costs
  and Benefits, well, they criticize the book saying that
  Grinols and the other author, Goodman, were presented
  without rebuttal from those who have criticized their work
  in the past.
          A.     Well, everybody criticizes.  What's your
  point?
          Q.     Now --
          A.     That's how we --
          Q.     -- they say that this gives the misleading
  impression that there's more agreement than is apparent
  from earlier writings.
                 Do you agree with McKay and Lesieur that it
  would be misleading to suggest that there is -- that
  Grinols should have been criticized?
          A.     Repeat your -- I'm trying to read this at
  the same time.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Do you want to take a --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Can we take a minute and let
  him look at it?
                 MS. VOLLET:  Sure.  Go ahead.
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
                 MR. ALLEN:  With regard to my objections as
  to the propriety of the questions that I -- objections I
  raised with regard to these articles and book reviews, I
  want to make it clear as an authoritative source, not a
  learned treatise, and as a result constitutes hearsay and
  the form of the question is improper.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     All right.  In this review, McKay and
  Lesieur criticize Grinols for taking data from studies of
  Gamblers Anonymous members and generalizing them to
  general population problem gamblers, which they say may
  exaggerate the extent of the problem?
          A.     Criticism might be too harsh of a word.  I
  think they've raised an issue that should be reviewed.
  Again, I do not have the book or the chapters in front of
  me, so I'm unsure of what the actual analysis would reveal
  to me.
          Q.     All right.  I'm going to hand you what's
  been marked as Exhibit 16.  This is -- do you recognize
  this article?
          A.     Pardon me?
          Q.     Have you seen this article before?
          A.     No, I don't believe that I have.  It's
  relatively new.
          Q.     It's a 2007 article in the American Journal
  of Economics and Sociology by Douglas Walker, I believe,
  an associate professor of economics at the College of
  Charleston.
          A.     Okay.  Yes, ma'am.  I think that's the
  identifier I gave earlier with regard to Mr. Walker.
          Q.     And it is -- the topic or the title is
  Problems in Quantifying the Social Costs and Benefits of
  Gambling?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And you said you're not familiar with this
  article?
          A.     I'm trying to remember if I've seen this.
  I don't believe that I have read this article.  And again,
  I would point out that even though it says 2007 on it, as
  you know from publishing law reviews, this could be more
  recent.  They're often behind schedule.
          Q.     In this article Walker describes different
  approaches to evaluating costs and benefits of gambling,
  and I think he identifies three.  One is called cost of
  illness.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I'm going to go ahead and
  interpose my same objection as to the propriety of the
  question.  It's not a learned treatise.  It's not an
  authoritative study.  Form of the question, constitutes
  hearsay.  Continue.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     He identifies three types of approaches.
  There's cost of illness, economic and public health.  Are
  you familiar with these?
          A.     Would you show me what page you're on?
          Q.     All right.  If you look at page 610,
  Part 2, different approaches to evaluating costs and
  benefits of gambling, and then if you will turn to 611,
  there's a subheading A, cost of illness, and it says, one
  popular mechanism for estimating the costs of problem
  gambling is based on cost of illness studies.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     I see that.
          Q.     And then if you turn to the next page, 612,
  there's a subheading B called Economic, and he says
  there's an economic approach.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And then on page 613 he says, under C,
  public health, there's a public health perspective.
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Are you familiar with these three
  approaches to estimating costs of gambling?
          A.     I would not want to comment on this without
  reading through it in detail, but I'm familiar with
  Mr. Walker's -- similar pronouncements by Mr. Walker, and
  I don't find them authoritative, and I don't think most
  economists would find them authoritative either.
          Q.     Are you familiar with your review of the
  literature in this area of a cost of illness approach to
  estimating costs of problem gambling?
          A.     Not intimately familiar.
          Q.     But you've heard of it?
          A.     I would -- I would again refer to -- I
  would again refer to Professor Grinols who has really gone
  into this area in a large way in recent years.
          Q.     What do you mean by that?  Do you mean
  Professor Grinols is the only authoritative source?
          A.     No.  Just when I talk to him, he indicates
  that he is looking at these health care aspects in a --
  spending a lot of time looking at these health care
  aspects.
          Q.     Let me ask you quickly, are there any
  authoritative sources on the social cost of gambling other
  than Grinols' work and the works that he cites in his book
  and article?
          A.     I think he's -- he has utilized the leading
  edge authorities within their historical context.  And
  we're constantly monitoring the new publications coming
  out, and I would have to check with my assistants to see,
  but I've been focused on my Law of the Sea book until
  recent months, and I've got stacks of these to go through,
  and I suspect this one from Mr. Walker is in the stack
  somewhere.
          Q.     If you'll turn to page 630 of Exhibit 16,
  there's a heading B called Methodological Problems in
  Schwer et al. 2003.
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And this is a criticism of the Schwer 2003
  study that Professor Grinols relies on in his Table 7.1 in
  his book?
          A.     I wouldn't say he relies on it.  He reports
  on it on those pages.
          Q.     He relies on it in coming up with his
  overall average figure?
          A.     I would say it's part of his overall
  numbers.  I would point out that Mr. Walker was
  criticized, I believe, in the Las Vegas papers for
  publishing criticisms of Schwer, et al. and being financed
  by the gambling industry to do so.
          Q.     Is this outlined in your law review article
  in the Southern California?
          A.     No.  That would be too recent.  It's in
  this -- I believe it's the Online Economic Developments
  Journal where I mentioned before, there are several
  references in footnotes to the people that Mr. Walker has
  criticized and cites to newspaper reports of finances that
  he has received to assist him in preparing those reports,
  allegedly.
          Q.     Are you aware of a symposium called the
  Whistler Symposium?
          A.     No, I'm not.  I noted that it was published
  here in the Journal of Gambling Studies, and I previously
  indicated that that's an unauthoritative source in
  general, as dominated by the gambling industry interests.
          Q.     It was held in Whistler, British Columbia
  in 2000.  If you don't know, just state you don't know.
  The symposium, the first international symposium on the
  economic and social impacts of gambling.
          A.     Where are you reading?
          Q.     I don't have an exhibit here.  There is a
  description here of the Whistler Symposium.
          A.     All I see is Footnote 1.
          Q.     It's not in -- it's not in the exhibit.
  I'm asking you if you're aware of these things.  It was
  planned and funded by Canadian provincial government
  agencies, private foundations and gaming industry
  operators.
          A.     There are numerous symposium held
  throughout the world.  I try to attend the most important
  ones where I will find authoritative academic intercourse.
          Q.     You're not --
          A.     Or interchange.
          Q.     You do not believe the Whistler symposium
  was --
          A.     I don't know, but when you said to me at
  the end financed by gambling industry sources, at the end
  of your statement, I wouldn't have a problem to some
  extent of the gambling industry participating, but in
  recent years -- well, actually, for a lot of years the
  gambling industry has been too financially impressive at
  too many symposium.
          Q.     Are you aware of the Alberta Gaming
  Research Institute?
          A.     Are you talking about Mr. Wynne?  I believe
  that Mr. Wynne -- I am passing familiar.  I've heard of
  the -- of information coming out of Alberta, various
  studies.
          Q.     It's a consortium of the Universities of
  Alberta, Calgary and Leftridge, and its primary purpose is
  to support and promote research into gaming and gambling
  in the Provence.  Is that -- do you have any reason to
  disagree with that?
          A.     I don't know, but my first question would
  be, what are their major sources of funding?
          Q.     The institute is funded by the Alberta
  government through the Alberta Lottery Fund.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Was that a question?
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Do you have any reason to disbelieve that
  the institute is funded by the Alberta government through
  the Alberta Lottery Fund?
          A.     No.
          Q.     And the institute held the fifth annual
  Alberta Conference on Gambling Research in April 2006 at
  the Banff Center in Banff, Alberta.  Are you aware of
  that?
          A.     That does not sound familiar.
          Q.     Were you aware that Professor Grinols was
  listed as being on the program but was unable to attend?
          A.     I don't -- I'm unaware of that.  What was
  the date again?
          Q.     April 21 and 22, 2006.
          A.     No.
          Q.     And the purpose of the conference was to
  bring together researchers to discuss best practices for
  determining socioeconomic effects of gambling?
          A.     Sounds interesting.  And you said the date
  of that was 2006?
          Q.     Right.  One of the presenters was Eric
  Single?
          A.     Who?
          Q.     Dr. Eric Single, a professor of public
  health sciences at the University of Toronto.  Are you
  familiar with his work?
          A.     No, ma'am.
          Q.     And Dr. Rod Williams, a professor at the
  School of Health Sciences at the University of Leftridge?
          A.     Doesn't sound familiar.
          Q.     Are you aware that the Canadian government
  funds a number of gambling research through its gambling
  proceeds?
          A.     I have -- I'm familiar with -- these
  particular ones I wasn't sure of, but I've -- in Ontario
  I've heard of -- am more familiar with programs there, but
  it's been quite a while since I've been there.
          Q.     Do you have any reason to believe that
  conferences put on by the Alberta Gaming Research
  Institute would be tainted by gambling monies?
          A.     I wouldn't care to comment one way or the
  other.  I would just say that it has been a regular
  concern during the last 15 years and more of an inordinate
  influence, and I think people -- some influence is fine,
  but an inordinate influence I think should cause some
  concern to academic discourse.
          Q.     Are you aware that Professor Eadington
  holds conferences on gambling issues called the
  International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And those conferences are well attended by
  persons interested in gambling research?
          A.     Those conferences, I wouldn't have a
  problem attending one, but they are very closely
  associated with the gambling industry.  Professor
  Eadington receives a substantial amount of direct and
  indirect funding from the gambling industry.  And I'm not
  sure -- I would want to see who was attending some of
  these conferences, which would then draw me to those
  conferences.
          Q.     You've never been to one of these every
  three year conferences on the International Conference on
  Gambling and Risk Taking?
          A.     I think I may have gone to a joint one
  sponsored by Henry Lesieur and Bill Eadington.  I remember
  seeing them at -- I'm not sure that was this specific
  organization.  It may have been of co-sponsors.  This was
  at Illinois State University, and so I attended that one
  and talked with Mr. Eadington, among other people.
          Q.     And Eadington has been sponsoring these
  conferences since the early '70s?
          A.     I don't know how long he's been involved
  with those.
          Q.     Those conferences are attended by lawyers,
  social scientists, economists, medical research and
  anthropologists?
                 MR. ALLEN:  I'll object to the form of the
  question.  You're just stating something.  Are you asking
  if he knows whether it is?
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Do you believe any reason to believe
  they're not?
          A.     They're not what?
          Q.     Attended by lawyers, social scientists,
  economists, anthropologists, medical researchers or
  psychologists?
          A.     I was very interested in looking at these
  conferences during 1990 and thereafter for a few years,
  and then I became quite concerned about the direction of
  the published papers, which were not published in
  journals.  They were published by Mr. Eadington's
  institute as collections of essays.  And I did not find
  many of them to be of academic authority.
                 And I became increasingly concerned about
  the extent of the influence of the gambling industry
  involved in his conferences and the events which he
  sponsored.
                 I might also point out that Mr. Eadington
  when we were on -- talking more frequently in the early
  1990s would call us at the University of Illinois,
  particularly Professor Grinols, and ask how to do the
  economic analysis.
          Q.     Now, so you no longer have direct contact
  with Professor Eadington?
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     Not that I recall, not for several years.
          Q.     Do you know if Eadington still contacts
  with Professor Grinols?
          A.     I would not want to speak for Professor
  Grinols, but I think that there's been increasing concern
  about whether this is an academic endeavor out of Reno or
  if it's an industry endeavor.
          Q.     And your view is that it's more an industry
  endeavor?
          A.     My view is it's not worth my time given the
  concerns that I've expressed.
          Q.     All right.  I'm going to hand you what's
  been mark as Exhibit 17.  This is an article by John
  Donlon in the 1997 Gaming Law Review.  Are you familiar
  with this?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And it is entitled Excessive Zeal:  A
  Response to John Kindt The Economic Impacts of Legalized
  Gambling Activities.  This article is a response to your
  publication in the Drake Law Review.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Object to the form of the
  question.  Also object that this is not an authoritative
  source or learned treatise.  Contents is pure hearsay, and
  would be improper to examine him concerning anything in
  here, and it's a continuing objection.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Noted.  That's fine.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     You're aware it's a response to your
  article in the Drake Law Review?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Also on the basis this guy
  doesn't have any credentials.  Some kind of behavioral
  specialist.  Lacks authoritative credentials.
                 THE WITNESS:  I would indicate that this is
  not authoritative, that the journal itself is not
  authoritative, that the Gaming Law Review has no
  university affiliation of which I am aware or academic
  credibility, that the writer of this is designated as a
  leisure behavior specialist.  I think it exemplifies the
  type of attacks which the gambling industry will finance
  on academics publishing in authoritative academic
  publications.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     You believe this particular article was
  funded by the gambling industry?
          A.     The -- I would ask you to check the sources
  of money going to the Gaming Law Review.  I would note
  that this is Volume 1, and you could say that the
  establishment of the Gaming Law Review, I would say even
  the tobacco industry is not arrogant enough to have the
  Tobacco Law Review, but the gambling industry has
  supported the establishment of a Gaming Law Review.
                 And I have been told that this is in
  response to one law review written by Professor Kindt.
  There have been lots of law reviews since.
          Q.     So in your view the Gaming Law Review was
  established in response to your own law review article?
          A.     I have been told that some years ago.
          Q.     By who?
          A.     I don't recall, stating that they could not
  get their consultants published in regular law reviews, so
  they started their own.  So I find it unauthoritative and
  a disservice to academia.
          Q.     And you don't agree with any of the
  arguments that Donlon makes in this?
          A.     I read this when it first came out.  I
  haven't read it since.  I don't think it's worth any time.
          Q.     Now, two of the articles we've talked about
  today, one is -- were published in the January 2001 issue
  of Managerial and Decision Economics?
          A.     Which one?
          Q.     There was an article that you did in that
  journal.
          A.     Are you giving me an exhibit number?
          Q.     Let's see if I can find it.
          A.     Okay.  My article is Exhibit 6.
          Q.     Okay.  Exhibit 6 is your only published
  article in a peer-reviewed economic journal?
          A.     In an economics journal, yes, I believe so.
  I'm thinking I may have had another in some other area,
  but I would have to go back and check my publications.
          Q.     I think it was a political science.
          A.     I do have a political science.  I'm talking
  about a non-gambling article, but --
          Q.     Oh, okay.  So it wouldn't have been in the
  area of gambling?
          A.     I don't believe so.
          Q.     That would be the only one.  Okay.  And
  there was a 2001 article by Grinols and Mustard that was
  an earlier version of some of the --
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     -- things that went into his book that was
  also published in that same issue?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     That was a special issue of Managerial and
  Decision Economics, the 2001 issue that those two
  publications appeared in?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And that edition of Managerial and Decision
  Economics was co-edited by Professor Grinols and Mustard?
          A.     I guess so.  I remember -- yes, I believe
  so.
          Q.     And they are not normally the editors of
  the Managerial and Decision Economics, are they?
          A.     It's not unusual for economics journals or
  journals in other areas, political science, to have a
  special issue and have guest editors.
          Q.     The normal editor at the time in 2001 was
  Paul Rubin?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     And he is a professor at the Department of
  Economics at Emory University?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  He may have retired.  Is he
  still there?
          Q.     Okay.  Let me hand you what's been marked
  as Exhibit 18.  Do you recognize this document?  This is
  a -- it was -- it's a 2004 publication of Managerial and
  Decision Economics, and it was Introduction to Special
  Issue:  Comments on Costs of Addicted Gamblers?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Are you familiar with this --
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     -- writing by Rubin?
          A.     Uh-huh.
          Q.     In this introduction Rubin --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Same objection, and continuing.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Your objection is that the
  article that he published in or the journal that he
  published in is not authoritative?
                 MR. ALLEN:  No, no, no, no.  I am saying
  that this article is not authoritative.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Oh, I got you.  Just want to
  be clear what the objection was.
                 MR. ALLEN:  No, no.  I'm not talking about
  him.  I'm talking about this guy and this article.  I
  don't know if it is or not.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Your earlier objection was
  that the journal itself was not authoritative, but you're
  not objecting --
                 MR. ALLEN:  The journal itself and the
  article she was reading from, the people who certainly
  wrote those articles are not authoritative.  They're not
  authoritative sources.  They're not learned treatises.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  You're saying the journal
  itself is not authoritative?
                 MR. ALLEN:  In this case, what I am saying
  is that this article is not authoritative.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Oh, okay.  That's your
  testimony?
                 MR. ALLEN:  No.  That's my objection.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I'm sorry.  I understand.
                 MS. VOLLET:  I'm almost done, so don't hold
  me up here.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Now, have you had a chance to look this
  over to refresh your memory?
          A.     I would like to have another minute to do
  that.
          Q.     Sure.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  While he does that, just so
  we can be clear because I've got some questions, is it
  your position that I can't question him on hearsay in a
  deposition?
                 MR. ALLEN:  No, that's not my position.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Okay.  Just to be clear.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I can interpose any objection I
  want to.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Yes, you can.
                 MR. ALLEN:  You can ask him anything you
  want to, and I can object to the form of the question, and
  I can object also to the nature of these just to be very
  careful.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Absolutely.  I just want to
  be --
                 MR. ALLEN:  I'm not saying I'm right or
  wrong.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I just want to make sure I
  correct any mistakes I might make.
                 MR. ALLEN:  You don't make mistakes.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I thought you were saying it
  wasn't proper to question on pure hearsay.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I didn't say that.  Go ahead.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Go ahead and go off the
  record.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I don't want to go off the
  record.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Off the record, when you
  read --
                 MR. HATFIELD:  I don't want to go off the
  record.
                 MR. ALLEN:  -- in authoritative sources,
  one of the problems with it if it's an authoritative
  source, a learned treatise, then it overcomes hearsay
  objection, right?
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Right.
                 MR. ALLEN:  As long as we agree on that.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  As long as we agree on that.
  I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think I --
  you're not saying -- because I can be educated on this --
  that I can't question him on a hearsay statement.
                 MR. ALLEN:  You're the bright one, not me.
  I'm not perfect.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  You're the one making the
  objections.  If you've got a valid objection, I'd be happy
  to discuss it.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     So you've had an opportunity to review
  Exhibit 18?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.
          Q.     Okay.  Professor Rubin indicates in this
  article that after publication of your 2001 article in
  Managerial and Decision Economics, I'm sorry, that he was
  personally dismayed by your article?
          A.     Well, that's his opinion, and he does give
  two reasons there.  One seems to be -- talks about the
  connection with the tobacco industry, which he says was a
  public policy disaster and it involved mega lawsuits,
  which sounds to me like that's his -- he's dismayed
  because of an academic argument.  And the second says that
  deals with policy, not managerial issues.
          Q.     And it was therefore out of place in
  Managerial and Decision Economics?
          A.     Well, he's the senior editor, and my area
  is business and legal policy.  Legal policy is my
  expertise.  So this is a policy-type article.
          Q.     Okay.  So you agree that your article was a
  policy article, policy-type article?
          A.     I would -- I would state that it deals with
  policy in law and economics interface.
          Q.     And then --
          A.     May I also point out that he solicited a
  paper from Robert Levy, and I'm not sure if he's also
  critical of some things that, at least the way I interpret
  it, of what Mr. Levy said.  I may have misread that.
          Q.     Well, in the first paragraph of this -- of
  Exhibit 18, Rubin also notes that after publication of
  your article, he immediately began receiving strongly
  worded comments and critiques, and as a result he decided
  to publish a special issue of Management and Decisional
  Economics devoted to comments on this article and there
  means your article, right?
          A.     Okay.  I believe so.
          Q.     And isn't it an unusual decision for an
  editor of an academic journal to devote an issue --
          A.     I'm actually flattered.
          Q.     -- for comments and critiques?  It is
  unusual, however?
          A.     I'm not sure that it's unusual.  I've seen
  other special issues on special topics.
          Q.     Well, it's different from an issue on a
  special topic as opposed to an issue devoted to comments
  on a particular article.  How many other instances can you
  name in your own knowledge of special issues being devoted
  to critiques on a particular article?
          A.     Well, I'm not familiar with entire issues,
  but there have been -- for example, after Professor Meyer
  Gross was criticized by Mr. Walker, there was a comment
  and recomment that occurred.  After Professor Grinols' and
  Professor Mustard's Harvard study was criticized by
  Mr. Walker, there was a back and forth, back and forth in
  that regard.
          Q.     Have you ever seen an article or
  introduction similar to Rubin's here in Exhibit 18
  prefacing an special edition response with the statement
  that or an indication that the editor had been concerned
  as to the propriety of the publication of a particular
  article?
          A.     I'm sorry.  That word again?  Did you say
  the propriety?
          Q.     Well, how would you characterize --
          A.     That's what debate is all about.
          Q.     His dismay?  Do you have an example of
  anything similar to --
          A.     I imagine if we go through the libraries
  that we can find instances of pithy debates probably in
  the tobacco industry and in some other areas.
          Q.     I'm not talking about pithy debates.  I'm
  asking about another example where an editor of a journal
  has devoted a special issue to comments on an article
  because the editor had concerns that the article shouldn't
  have been published in the journal in the first place.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Object to the form.
                 THE WITNESS:  I don't think he says that.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Wait a minute.  Object to the
  form of the question.  Go ahead.  You can answer.
                 THE WITNESS:  I don't think he says that it
  should not have been published.  That may be his opinion,
  but that is not what I read this.  He disagrees with the
  selection process as dealing with policy, not managerial
  issues.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     He felt it was out of place in the journal
  because of the perspective that because it dealt with
  policy and not managerial issues, correct?
          A.     I don't see where he says perspective.  He
  says deals with policy, not managerial issues.  Well,
  that's a judgment call.
          Q.     And, therefore, in his view it was out of
  place in the journal?
          A.     And he could have -- that's his opinion.
  My guess is there were other editors also associated with
  this particular journal who were continuing editors, and
  they may agree or disagree with Mr. Rubin.  There were
  apparently two blind reviewers who liked the article and
  said it should be published, and he made a point of
  indicating that on page 178.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  To where are you referring
  to on the blind reviewers?
                 THE WITNESS:  Page 178, second -- or first
  full paragraph.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     It says the paper was refereed --
          A.     Refereed by two reviewers.
          Q.     Now, that doesn't say blind reviewers.
          A.     But they were blind reviewers.
          Q.     And how do you know that?
          A.     The process was blind reviewers.  Because
  that was indicated in our discussions that these were
  blind reviews.  They were blind reviewers.  I don't know
  who they were, and I don't know if they knew who I was
  when I wrote the article.
          Q.     Now --
          A.     I take back.  I remember now that Professor
  Rubin told me that they were blind reviewers, that these
  from paragraph 1, strongly worded comments, that there
  were demands to know who the blind reviewers were, and he
  refused for academic reasons to reveal those.  I think
  this perhaps highlights some of the issues I've mentioned
  earlier.
          Q.     What do you mean?  What issues?
          A.     Well, if you look at who's making the
  critiques here in the special issue, he indicates --
  President Rubin indicates he's got Professor Eadington
  criticizing Professor Kindt.  I don't think that's a
  surprise given my earlier comments about my disagreements
  with Mr. Eadington.
                 He has Mr. Walker, who is not mentioned
  anywhere in the journal, to the best of my knowledge is
  not even cited in the issue, approaching the journal and
  saying he would like to write a response.  Well, normally
  the people who write responses are those who are
  specifically addressed in the journal or whose research is
  addressed in the journal and have a response.  Well, to
  the best of my knowledge, Mr. Walker is not mentioned
  anywhere by any of the authors in this special edition.
                 And then the final one is Dean Gerstein,
  and my concern is what I had indicated before, and I do
  respect Mr. Gerstein and Ms. Volberg, but I was critical
  of their lack of filling in the blanks that we mentioned
  earlier, when they had very large federal funds to fill in
  the blanks and answer these questions, and we spent years
  trying to get this national commission through so that
  they would have the funds to do that and they dropped the
  ball, is my -- which was not entirely their fault.
                 And then I would point out that those
  supportive of Professor Kindt's article were law professor
  at Emory Frank Vandall, law professor at University of
  South Carolina, Randall Bridwell, and Dr. Valerie Lorenz,
  Ph.D., a well-known clinician.  So if you -- I think that
  those are three aces that say, may disagree with some
  points, but are basically supportive of Professor Kindt's
  article.  And then I think that there are two industry
  associated persons who are writing the criticisms.
                 And the reason that I did not write a
  response in this particular issue is that, which perhaps
  irritated Mr. Rubin, is -- which he really wanted -- is
  that he wanted it in an economic format, and I wrote
  instead the six law review articles which addressed many
  of the issues and then expanded them for publication in
  law reviews because he felt that they were too long to
  publish in his special issue.  But he did list them at the
  end of his comment here.
          Q.     Well, I'll direct your attention in the
  first page of Exhibit 18, Professor Rubin writes, in my
  letter -- this is about --
          A.     I'm sorry.  Where is this?
          Q.     Seven lines down from the first full
  paragraph -- in the first full paragraph on the second
  column.  It says, in my letter announcement -- announcing
  the symposium issue --
          A.     I'm sorry.  I still don't see that.  Where
  is that?
          Q.     (Indicating.)
          A.     Okay.
          Q.     -- I indicated that the comments, he's
  quoting, the comments and replies should avoid any ad
  hominem attacks.  Moreover, they should deal with the
  paper and comments as written, end quote.  Professor Kindt
  wrote replies that in judgment did not meet these
  criteria.  We had several attempts to reach an agreement,
  but I ultimately decided that he was unwilling to write
  comments that I felt were appropriate, and rather than
  delay any longer, I felt that I had to end the process.
                 You disagree with Professor Rubin's
  characterization?
          A.     I would point out that the comments by
  Mr. Eadington and Mr. Walker certainly involved ad hominem
  types of comments.  So my discussion with Mr. Rubin was,
  how can I respond if they're making ad hominem comments
  and violating your own guideline?  But I -- but
  eventually, and I did cut out a bunch of material, which
  he did not like, but the bottom line is my responses were
  too long and they were in blue book format, which was too
  difficult for their editors to cost-effectively adjust.
                 And so the decision was made -- and he's
  certainly welcome to his comments and opinions, and from
  my perspective, I'm going to get a lot more academic
  credibility from publishing -- by the way, notice one is
  in the Emory Law School Bankruptcy Developments Journal
  where I addressed several of the economic issues, the
  Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance out of the
  law school.  I believe both of these were lead articles.
  And the others were well receptive as well.
          Q.     So you disagree with Professor Rubin's
  characterization that I just read previously that your
  replies were not published in this issue because they did
  not meet the criteria of avoiding ad hominem attacks and
  dealing with the paper and comments as written?
          A.     I mean, he can say what he wishes, but I
  actually gave him the papers, as I recall, and had him
  take out all the things with which he had some concern.
  That is the way I recall that.  But he can -- he can go
  back and say what he wishes on that.
          Q.     So you think he's misrecalling what
  happened?
          A.     Pardon me?
          Q.     You believe he's misrecalling what
  happened?
          A.     I believe that a bigger issue was the fact
  that they were so long, that my responses were long.  He
  says they did not respond in the way that he had
  anticipated.
          Q.     I believe he says they should deal with the
  paper and comments as written.
          A.     Well, I mean, that's subject to
  interpretation, and as a matter of fact, one -- the
  University of Southern California article to which I
  repeatedly referred was one of the responses which I wrote
  in anticipation of being published in this issue by
  Mr. Rubin.  And I remember going back and forth, and it
  was simply too long, too detailed, and his editorial staff
  did not understand the blue book format, which I was
  willing to convert, but we're into academic technicalities
  here.
          Q.     I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
  Exhibit 19.  This is -- do you recognize this?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And what is it?
          A.     This would be Mr. Eadington's response to
  in the special issue that we just mentioned, I believe.
          Q.     And is Eadington not a professor?
          A.     I believe he's a professor.  I believe his
  background is economics.
          Q.     So Professor Eadington's response?
                 MR. ALLEN:  For whatever it's worth, I'm
  going to object to this article, not to the journal,
  Chuck, on the same basis as before, continuing.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Okay.  One of the general criticisms that
  Professor Eadington lodged at your 2001 article in the
  Managerial and Decision Economics was that -- here I'm
  referring to page 192 at the top of the first column, six
  lines down, that most of Professor Kindt's citations are
  either from his own prior writings unpublished or
  unrefereed, from unpublished papers, presentations or
  hearings or from newspaper or magazine articles.
                 Do you believe that's a valid criticism?
          A.     No.  And I would simply respond to all of
  his criticisms by indicating that my publications are
  published mostly in law review articles.  Most of those
  that we have indicated at issue here were published as
  lead articles in their respective issues of law reviews.
  So it did not bother the law reviews.  The citations here
  did not bother the blind reviewers.  And I think that his
  criticisms are designed to blow smoke and don't have much
  substance.
          Q.     He also criticized your 2001 article as
  having -- here I'm moving to No. 2 -- not so subtle
  editorial comments on the righteousness or deviousness of
  various organizations, researchers or publications.  For
  example, he points out some language like talking about
  apologists for the industry and using terms like classic
  articles, et cetera.
                 Do you believe -- and also your criticism
  that the Journal of Gambling Studies has become
  inordinately influenced by gambling interests and being
  labeled as primarily a gaming industry publication.
          A.     I'm sorry.  What's your question?
          Q.     Do you believe that he validly criticizes
  your article for having not so subtle editorial comments?
          A.     I think the article is the article and
  people can read it and accept or reject what they wish.
          Q.     He also -- in Point 5, he also criticizes
  your article for, quote, offering various conspiratorial
  theories that somehow link many established organizations
  that deal with problem and pathological gambling to the
  commercial gaming industry.  The implication is that such
  organizations exist only to hide the real negative truths
  about gambling.
          A.     Well, again, he's allowed to phrase as he
  wishes.  I think his phraseology is pretty contentious,
  but, you know, this is freedom of academic debate.  He's
  welcome to raise these issues.
          Q.     But you don't agree with those -- as that
  being a valid criticism?
          A.     I don't find Mr. Eadington's comments to be
  worth considering on my part, worth much time.
          Q.     You also don't agree with his criticism
  down at the bottom of the second column on 182 that
  your -- that your allegations that the Journal of Gambling
  Studies, the National Center for Responsible Gambling,
  National Council on Problem Gambling, the Gaming Law
  Review and Professor Howard Schaffer of Harvard Medical
  School, your suggestion that those individuals,
  publications and institutions are all controlled or
  significantly influenced by the gaming industry are
  offered in the spirit of Senator Joe McCarthy, with no
  real discussion of the issues, bur rather only the
  innuendo that the individuals and institutions involved
  have sold their souls to deceive the general public?
          A.     Again, I'm not going to comment on his
  opinions.  I think what he says can be taken however
  people want to take it.
          Q.     So you don't agree that it's valid to
  criticize your claims about these institutions and persons
  as irresponsible if not outright libelous and as having no
  place in an academic journal?
          A.     Do you want to say that -- repeat that
  again?
          Q.     You don't agree with his criticisms that
  your statements in your article, your 2001 article are,
  quote, irresponsible if not outright libelous and have no
  place in an academic journal?
          A.     He is entitled to his opinions.  I would
  point out again that law professor Frank Vandall also at
  Emory Law School, same campus, did not necessarily agree.
  Professor Randall Bridwell at the University of South
  Carolina Law School obviously did not agree.  And I
  believe that preliminary copies of these were floated
  around to all of the people who were writing for the
  issue.
          Q.     Professor Eadington also mentions an
  examination of the social and economic effects of gambling
  undertaken in 1990 by the Australian Productivity
  Commission, and he says that you ignored that.  Do you
  believe that's a valid criticism?
          A.     It was not in there, but I have
  subsequently addressed that in the publications that I
  just mentioned, and I found it to have some good aspects
  to it.
          Q.     Let me give you Exhibit 20.  This is
  Professor Walker's comments.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Mr. Walker.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Assistant Professor or Associate Professor
  Walker.  And you've read this one?
          A.     Yes, ma'am.  Not recently.
          Q.     And you are dismissive of anything that's
  written in here, correct?
          A.     I am dismissive of --
                 MR. ALLEN:  Same objection as to the
  article not being a learned treatise, authoritative
  treatise or whatever.  Go ahead.
                 THE WITNESS:  I'm dismissive of
  Mr. Walker's comments for the reason that I've given
  previously.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Now, Professor Rubin indicated that it may
  be important to be aware of funding sources for articles,
  but a piece of research stands on its own merits and can
  be criticized separately from its funding.  Do you agree
  with that statement?
          A.     Actually, I would tend to agree with that,
  assuming that the amount of funding is not inordinate, and
  I believe that the funding to Mr. Eadington is inordinate.
          Q.     Are you aware of how much funding
  Mr. Eadington gets from gaming concerns?
          A.     Not -- only what he has alluded to when I
  ran into him some years ago at this conference I
  previously mentioned.
          Q.     And what was revealed?
          A.     My impression was that it was a substantial
  funding source.
          Q.     But the only basis for your belief is this
  comment by him when you ran into him some time ago?
          A.     That's not the only basis.  It would be an
  impression gathered over a period of years talking with
  people at conferences.
          Q.     What about Associate Professor Walker, do
  you have any knowledge of what funding he might get from
  the gambling industry?
          A.     If you check the Economics Development
  Journal, I think that's the right source online, in the
  most recent response by Professors Grinols and Mustard, I
  believe that there is a footnote that cites to newspaper
  accounts of the funding which Mr. Walker has received to
  support his criticisms of other professors.
          Q.     Would you characterize that funding as
  inordinate?
          A.     I would have to look at -- I would have to
  rereview what it said.
          Q.     Do you recall if there's a specific amount
  given in this footnote?
          A.     I don't recall.  The number $5,000 seems
  to -- I believe that was in a newspaper report where he
  criticized Professor Thompson and Mr. Schwer.
          Q.     Do you believe he was paid $5,000 to
  criticize Thompson and Schwer?
          A.     I would refer you to the newspaper report.
          Q.     All right.  Let me hand you what's been
  marked as Exhibit 21.  Do you recognize this document?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And this is the response -- or I'm sorry --
  the Gerstein article?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     In response to your 2001 article?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     Okay.  Do you need a minute to review it?
          A.     Yes, please.  Okay.
                 MR. ALLEN:  I'm going to have the same
  objection, objections.
  BY MS. VOLLET:
          Q.     Now, this article was written by Gerstein,
  Volberg, Harwood and Christiansen, right?
          A.     Yes.
          Q.     And you respect --
          A.     I respect Gerstein, and I do like some of
  Ms. Volberg's work.  Mr. Christiansen is a well-known
  advisor to the gambling industry.  Consultant might be
  the -- I'm not sure that's the appropriate word.
          Q.     What about Harwood?
          A.     I'm not familiar with that -- oh, the Lewin
  Group.  I would have to recheck that.
          Q.     And the authors here are responding to two
  paragraphs of your article regarding social cost estimates
  developed by the National Opinion Research Center?
          A.     Right.
          Q.     And they also are -- they suggest that you
  were incorrect to argue that they left out or ignored many
  types of costs in prior studies?
          A.     I have to be very specific.  Where are you
  reading this?
          Q.     This is in the second column, second
  paragraph.  Specific citations aside, Professor Kindt
  implies that we left out or ignored many of the types of
  costs contained in prior studies.  This is false.
          A.     Well, I think that that is a legitimate
  academic debate.  They're stating that that -- Professor
  Kindt implies.  Well, let's be more specific, and --
          Q.     Well, they believe they quote you in the
  third paragraph on the first column as saying that you
  assert that NORC's cost estimates were, quote, notoriously
  low, lacked credibility and were, quote, criticized as
  being flawed and incomplete, particularly regarding
  methodology.
          A.     And I believe I put citations where those
  criticisms occurred.
          Q.     Now, in --
          A.     May I check?
          Q.     Sure.
          A.     Well, I would refer to the cited footnotes,
  and I believe the public report of this discussion was an
  article by Mr. Burns in the press, but I also believe that
  I saw the discussions, the transcripts of the actual
  commission hearing at which of this occurred.
          Q.     Now, the article here points out that the
  NORC worked with the -- with William Thompson and Henry
  Lesieur as consultants, correct?
          A.     Yes, and I have -- let me point out again
  that I have -- as I said, there were only two paragraphs
  where I mentioned NORC, and one was to show the
  disappointment in working so hard to get these funds and
  then not seeing as much results as anticipated from major
  federal funding.
                 The second was actually designed to support
  NORC, and they may have interpreted that a little too
  sensitively, but they do actually indicate more facts
  involving the potential of intimidation on pages 202 in
  the bottom paragraph and the top of the second column.
          Q.     This is where they're indicating that there
  was some intimidation but it didn't affect their work,
  correct?
          A.     They're saying that, but looking at the
  transcripts and the published reports, and I accept them
  at their word, but absent them actually saying that, the
  public perception was reported otherwise in the press.
          Q.     Okay.  So you do take them at their word,
  though, that they were not -- that they were -- they did
  not -- were not influenced by gaming industry
  intimidation?
          A.     Well, I think that there was quite a bit of
  frustration and disappointment with regard to the
  categories that did not appear to be addressed, and the --
  as you can tell actually from reading this, this
  substantiates from them the fact that, as academics, they
  received some inappropriate actions from members of the
  commission who had a special interest.
                 I mean, the goal of all of this was to get
  to the facts, to get the data, to get the information, and
  so that's -- but you obviously can see that the debate can
  get misdirected into other areas.
          Q.     Now, you believe the fiscal note in this
  case should have reflected the one to three cost-benefit
  ratio that's in Professor Grinols' book, correct?
          A.     I believe that it should have indicated
  that there are costs, and it did not indicate anywhere, as
  I recall the terminology, that there are any costs.  It
  was only benefits.  And the summary of the cost tables is
  a conservative three to one ratio.
          Q.     So it should have included at least three
  to one ratio?
          A.     Well, I would leave the terminology to the
  experts to decide how to phrase things appropriately under
  Missouri statutes.
          Q.     Okay.  But in terms of legal phrasing
  aside, there should have been some reflection of the
  Grinols research and reflecting three to one?
          A.     I think there should be some mention of the
  costs to be anticipated by anything which expands the
  gambling, particularly involving video gambling machines
  and video gambling devices.
          Q.     And where should the Secretary -- or the
  State Auditor have gone --
          A.     Excuse me.  May I interject a point here?
          Q.     Yes.
          A.     I would just note that you've given me the
  three exhibits that were critical and not the three that
  were supportive of Professor Kindt's work.
          Q.     Where should the State Auditor have gone to
  obtain this cost information?
          A.     I think that this information as you -- as
  you've demonstrated to me from all of your research, is
  widely available.  You've come up with a lot of
  documentation here on various issues impacting on this,
  and I have to compliment you on that, but it's widely
  available information.
                 And one local source that I mentioned
  earlier is comes to mind is the Missouri Department of
  Mental Health, which has several figures on -- has had on
  its website for -- since I think the oldest I had was 1998
  in my hand, but even currently it still has some of these
  costs that are associated with increased numbers of
  pathological and problem gamblers.
          Q.     Where would be the -- putting aside the
  Mental Health website, where would be the -- what would be
  the best and easiest way for the State Auditor to have
  found these other academic materials?
          A.     I think that one of the starting points
  would be to simply type in National Gambling Report or
  National Gambling Impact Study Report.  I think that would
  probably pop up with an official report under that type of
  a web search, and then there would be links to all of
  these other publications.
                 I think going to the Missouri Department of
  Public Health site, I would want to refresh my memory, but
  I think it had some links on it as well that people could
  link to to start to get into the literature, including
  some of the groups that I've criticized here today.  They
  would at least start the process.
          Q.     So they could do a search to link them into
  some of the publications, like an Internet search is what
  you're suggesting?
          A.     Yes.  And once they found, for example,
  just one article, you could then start looking at the
  other footnotes in those articles, particularly my law
  review articles or the articles by Professor Mustard,
  Professor Grinols, Professor Thompson.  Now, they would
  not necessarily be all up to date, but you'd find out who
  the experts were and you could make your phone calls, and
  they would tell you this is the best or I should say the
  most authoritative, relevant, current document summarizing
  the costs, which is what I tried to provide at the tip of
  all this iceberg.
          Q.     Okay.  For example, your congressional
  testimony and Missouri legislative testimony?
          A.     Those would probably come up on the web as
  well.
          Q.     Okay.
          A.     They're all over the web.
                 MS. VOLLET:  Are you ready to go, Chuck?
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Sure.
                 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD.)
  CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HATFIELD:
          Q.     Professor Grinols, my name is Chuck
  Hatfield.  I represent --
          A.     I'm Professor Kindt.
          Q.     Sorry.  I represent Everett Bake, who's an
  intervenor in this lawsuit.  We are now entering, I
  believe, hour 12 of this deposition, and I guess before I
  continue I need to know if there's any reason you believe
  you cannot continue and effectively answer questions as a
  witness if we go on with this deposition?
          A.     How long are we looking at?
          Q.     Depends on how long your answers are.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Make them short.
                 THE WITNESS:  Well, we can start.
  BY MR. HATFIELD:
          Q.     I mean, you're not too tired to go on right
  now; is that right?
          A.     I'm fairly tired, but let's start.
          Q.     Okay.  Well, I don't want you to tell me
  later that I proceeded with this deposition when you were
  not in a position to answer questions.  So I'm giving you
  an opportunity now to tell me if you don't feel like you
  can answer questions if we continue.
          A.     I'm going to take the opportunity to say
  that I am very tired.
          Q.     Okay.  Do you want -- are you willing to
  continue with the deposition or do you want to suspend it
  and continue it another time?
          A.     I hate to suspend it, but I'm very tired.
          Q.     Well, I'm asking a relatively
  straightforward question here.  I mean, this is up to you.
  I don't want to have this deposition all prepared, spend
  all this time here and then have you come to trial and say
  you didn't understand my questions, you couldn't answer
  because I forced you to stay here too late at night.
  That's all I'm trying to accomplish.
                 MR. ALLEN:  It's up to you, how you feel.
                 THE WITNESS:  I would rather continue it
  another time.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Okay.  Tomorrow morning at
  9 a.m. right here?
                 THE WITNESS:  How about 10 a.m.?
                 MR. HATFIELD:  That will work for me.  Is
  everybody else in agreement with that?
  BY MR. HATFIELD:
          Q.     So you're telling me you cannot proceed
  right now?  You said you'd rather --
          A.     I would prefer continuing tomorrow.
          Q.     But that's not what I'm asking.
          A.     I'm very tired.
          Q.     And you're not able to answer my questions
  right now; is that correct?
          A.     I think I've already made some tired -- I'm
  tired.
                 MR. ALLEN:  Let's do it tomorrow morning.
  BY MR. HATFIELD:
          Q.     Do you feel you've previously made
  misstatements in this deposition as a result of being
  tired?
          A.     I would like to read them over to make sure
  that I've not misstated myself.
          Q.     Well, you'll get that opportunity.  Do you
  feel that you've made misstatements in this deposition so
  far as a result of being tired?
          A.     I'm concerned that I may have.
          Q.     And what are those misstatements you're
  concerned about?
          A.     I can't recall because I'm tired.
          Q.     Are you aware that I offered to come to
  Champaign, Illinois to take your deposition?
          A.     I was advised by Mr. Allen that there was
  that possibility or there was a back and forth banter of
  do you want to come, do you want them to come to
  Champaign.
          Q.     And which was your preference on that?
          A.     I said I didn't have a problem in coming to
  Missouri.
          Q.     Did you decline to have your deposition
  taken in Champaign?
          A.     I didn't say absolutely no.
          Q.     Okay.  Did you tell Mr. Allen or
  Ms. McIntosh that you did not want to be deposed in
  Champaign but you wanted to come here?
          A.     I believe that I indicated that since all
  the parties were here, for convenience sake, I would not
  have a problem coming to --
          Q.     I asked you a pretty straightforward
  question.  Did you tell either Mr. Allen or Mr. McIntosh
  that you wanted to come here rather than stay in
  Champaign?
          A.     I don't recall using those specific words,
  and it was Ms. McIntosh, not Mr. McIntosh.
          Q.     All right.  Well, did you talk to
  Mr. McIntosh about this deposition?
          A.     Ms. McIntosh.
          Q.     Did you talk to Richard McIntosh about this
  deposition?
          A.     No, I don't believe so.
                 MR. HATFIELD:  Okay.  All right.  So based
  on the witness' representation that he would rather not
  answer questions, we're going to suspend this deposition
  until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
                 (THE DEPOSITION WAS RECESSED UNTIL JUNE 14,
  2008.)
                 (PRESENTMENT WAIVED; SIGNATURE REQUESTED.)

  

  

  
                    CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
  STATE OF MISSOURI        )
                           ) ss.
  COUNTY OF COLE           )
  
                 I, KELLENE K. FEDDERSEN, RPR, CSR, CCR, and
  Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri, do
  hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in
  the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the
  testimony of said witness was taken by me to the best of
  my ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
  direction; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor
  employed by any of the parties to the action to which this
  deposition was taken, and further that I am not a relative
  or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
  parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested
  in the outcome of the action.
  
                    _____________________________
                    KELLENE K. FEDDERSEN, RPR, CSR, CCR
                    Notary Public, State of Missouri
                    (Commissioned in Cole County)
                    My commission expires 3/28/09.

  

                         SIGNATURE PAGE
  STATE OF MISSOURI        )
                           ) ss.
  COUNTY OF COLE           )
  
  I, John Kindt, do hereby certify:
          That I have read the foregoing deposition;
          That I have made such changes in form and/or
  substance to the deposition as might be necessary to
  render the same true and correct;
          That having made such changes thereon, I hereby
  subscribe my name to the deposition.
          I declare under penalty of perjury that the
  foregoing is true and correct.
          Executed the ____ day of_________, 2008, at
  _________________________________________________.
  
                      ________________________________
                      JOHN KINDT
  
  Notary Public:
  _________________________
  My commission expires:
  _________________________

  
  KF/John Kindt
  McKaskel, et al v. Carnahan, et al.
  
                          ERRATA SHEET
  Witness:  John Kindt
  In Re:    McKaskel, et al v. Carnahan, et al.
  
  Upon reading the deposition and before subscribing
  thereto, the deponent indicated the following changes
  should be made:
  
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  Page    Line     Should read:
  Reason assigned for change:
  
  Reporter:  Kellene K. Feddersen, RPR, CSR, CCR
  
                  Midwest Litigation Services
             3432 West Truman Boulevard, Suite 207
                   Jefferson City, MO  65109
           Phone (573)636-7551  *  Fax (573)636-9055
  June 19, 2008
  John Kindt
  University of Illinois
  350 Wohlers Hall
  Champaign, IL  61820
  Jkindt@illinois.edu
  
  In Re:  McKaskel v. Carnahan
  
  Dear Professor Kindt:
  
  Please find enclosed a copy of your deposition taken on
  June 13, 2008, in the above-referenced case.  Also
  enclosed is the original signature page and errata sheet.
  
  Please read the transcript, indicate any changes and/or
  corrections desired on the errata sheet and sign the
  signature page before a Notary Public.
  
  Please see that the errata sheets and notarized signature
  are forwarded to Ms. Vollet for filing prior to the trial
  date.
  
  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  
  Sincerely,

  Kellene K. Feddersen, RPR, CSR, CCR
  
  Enclosure
  cc:  Heidi Doerhoff Vollet
       Chuck Hatfield
       Audrey McIntosh

  
                           COURT MEMO
              IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
                       STATE OF MISSOURI
  EDWIN P. McKASKEL, et al.,    )
  vs.                           ) Case No. 08AC-CC00205
  ROBIN CARNAHAN, et al.        )
                   CERTIFICATE OF OFFICER AND
                 STATEMENT OF DEPOSITION CHARGE
         (Rule 57.03(g)(2) & Sec. 492.590 RSMo. 1985.)
                            Volume I
                    Deposition of John Kindt
               Taken on Behalf of the Defendants
                         June 13, 2008
  
  Name and address of person or firm having custody of the
  original transcript:     Missouri Attorney General
                           Supreme Court Building
                           Jefferson City, MO
  TAXED IN FAVOR OF:  Missouri Attorney General
                      TOTAL: . . . . . .  $__________
  
  TAXED IN FAVOR OF:  Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP
                      TOTAL: . . . . . .  $__________
  TAXED IN FAVOR OF:  Audrey Hanson McIntosh, PC
                      TOTAL: . . . . . .  $__________
  
  Upon delivery of transcripts,the above charges had not
  been paid.  It is anticipated that all charges will be
  paid in the normal course of business.
  
                  MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
             3432 West Truman Boulevard, Suite 207
                Jefferson City, Missouri  65101
  
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal
  on this____ day of ________, 2008.
  
  __________________
  Notary Public
  Commission Expires: