An office manager for former state lottery commissioner Kevin L. Geddings broke down in tears on the witness stand Tuesday when she was asked to read for jurors an e-mail message that Geddings had sent her last year.
The message directed Cheri Moore Pfisterer of Charlotte to not disclose that lottery vendor Scientific Games was a client of Geddings' public-relations firm.
Geddings sent the message four days after House Speaker Jim Black appointed him to the lottery commission.
"Pls never acknowledge by phone that sci games is a client," says the message, which was shown on a screen to jurors as Geddings stands trial on fraud charges for not disclosing the relationship. Geddings denies any wrongdoing.
Geddings said in an interview this month that he sent the message to his assistant in case The News & Observer called asking questions about Scientific Games.
When the message flashed on the screen Tuesday, Pfisterer paused to compose herself, but then cried. She recalled that Geddings had asked her before not to reveal any of his clients.
Vendor had seat at table
An aide to House Speaker Jim Black testified that a lobbyist for Scientific Games made recommendations at a meeting with Black last year that were included in the lottery bill that passed the House.
The lobbyist, Meredith Norris, was a former aide to Black.
During a meeting April 5, 2005 — the day before the House passed the lottery bill — Norris said the commission that would oversee the lottery should have three appointees by the governor, three by the speaker and three by the leader of the Senate, according to testimony by Dianna Jessup, who attended the meeting as a member of the legislative staff. Jessup is now the legal counsel in Black's office.
Before the lottery became law, further changes were made in the bill, including the makeup of the commission. The commission has five appointees by the governor, two by the speaker and two by the leader of the state Senate.
As the meeting ended, Jessup said, Black told Norris to "get with your guy" and let Black or legislative staffers know whether other changes were needed. Jessup said she subsequently received a call from Norris to suggest changes in the percentage of lottery proceeds to be set aside for winnings. The change was not made, Jessup said.
Jessup said representatives from the other major lottery vendor, GTECH Corp., stopped by Black's office twice last summer. She said they spoke about the lottery only in general terms.
Judge agrees on co-conspiracy
Before Jessup's testimony, federal prosecutors argued outside the jury's presence that Norris, Geddings and Alan Middleton, a former vice president for Scientific Games, were co-conspirators, beginning in April 2004, in attempting to pass the lottery in North Carolina.
Judge James C. Dever III agreed.
As a result, hearsay testimony may be allowed from Norris and Middleton through other witnesses.
I have always said that there is something very rotten with the state lotteries and the companies who handle their business.
Not just Scientific Games, but all the others also such as Gtech.
They have formed what I call an unholy alliance, their lattest agravation is their RNG, they all (RNGs or not) are very likely picking winning numbers that very few people buy, as they know which numbers were bought long before the draws, with their computer lottery terminals and their main computer(s) it should be very easy to do.
They don't even have to worry too much about which numbers people predict here, they just pick the number (As winning number) that didn't sell too much.
Believe it or not a dollar is a dollar, they don't make so many billions every year out of their own stupidity, but out of that of ......
One dollar here another one there and one more, they add to and accumulate in time, every dollar counts, ask Losing Jef he will tell you.
Why he played a game that he knew that he could not win?
Only he knows.
Why do people play games that they know that they can't win?
Now, it might not be as bad maybe (Who am I kidding?) if at least the games were "Honest".
I wish that these numbers' games were still played on the street in the same way as they were, a person might have a better chance of winning in that way (maybe).
Now most crooks maskerade as honest and respectable people.
Your best chance of winning nowdays might be by playing the lottery online, as those "illegal" places have no control over the winning number unless they in some way are connected with or to the state lotteries, with so many crooks everywhere now you just can't know anything for sure.
Every action taken on a lottery central computer system is logged and monitored.
The actual play information is not stored in any fashion that can be read by a computer operator - in fact it is "scrambled" to help make sure no one can see what numbers have been played.
While not infallibale, (most) lotteries go to great lengths to ensure their "quick pick" algorithms are random. CA used the stats department at UCLA for many years and their "sign-off" was a necessary step in launching/upgrading any online game.
On the draw side, lotteries go to great lengths to keep their equipment secure (assuming we're talking about "big" lotto games here).
The lottery vendors get their cut on sales. They have no incentive to try to "rig" drawings...in fact they have every incentive to help make sure they are legit. All it would take is one instance (like what happened to the racing system in New York under SciGames) of what you describe happening to cause a lottery company to lose every US contract it has.
Conspiracy theories may sound good but they simply don't apply as you suggest.
SGMS had a terrible time with the SC implementation. They were trying to use access to get a deal favorable to them in NC and they got caught red handed.
Its the kind of thing that gives the industry a bad name.
Time ago either as LANTERN or as EXCALIBUR (I don't remember) I did a short study of Idiana's past draws and that study showed to me just how crooked that game was at that time, maybe still is (?).
How many people have ever gotten 5 winning numbers out of the 6 possible ones for a singles pick 3 winning number,1 straight and 4 boxed, in fewer than 80 numbers (Combos)?, I would like to think that I know the pick 3 games well enough that I was able to do that, the picks were posted here at LP long before that particular draw, the picks were made just for one particular state and draw.
A very long time ago, I made a pick 3 prediction for New Jersey among other predictions, I did fairly OK or well, I won on several of the predictions, that might have been my very first New Yersey prediction, anyhow it won straight, but it was meant to have been a boxed prediction.
Also, I have been known to make some good enough Texas pick 3 predictions.
I have always said that there is something very rotten with the state lotteries and the companies who handle their business.
Not just Scientific Games, but all the others also such as Gtech.
They have formed what I call an unholy alliance, their lattest agravation is their RNG, they all (RNGs or not) are very likely picking winning numbers that very few people buy, as they know which numbers were bought long before the draws, with their computer lottery terminals and their main computer(s) it should be very easy to do.
They don't even have to worry too much about which numbers people predict here, they just pick the number (As winning number) that didn't sell too much.
Believe it or not a dollar is a dollar, they don't make so many billions every year out of their own stupidity, but out of that of ......
One dollar here another one there and one more, they add to and accumulate in time, every dollar counts, ask Losing Jef he will tell you.
Why he played a game that he knew that he could not win?
Only he knows.
Why do people play games that they know that they can't win?
Now, it might not be as bad maybe (Who am I kidding?) if at least the games were "Honest".
I wish that these numbers' games were still played on the street in the same way as they were, a person might have a better chance of winning in that way (maybe).
Now most crooks maskerade as honest and respectable people.
Your best chance of winning nowdays might be by playing the lottery online, as those "illegal" places have no control over the winning number unless they in some way are connected with or to the state lotteries, with so many crooks everywhere now you just can't know anything for sure.
Every action taken on a lottery central computer system is logged and monitored.
The actual play information is not stored in any fashion that can be read by a computer operator - in fact it is "scrambled" to help make sure no one can see what numbers have been played.
While not infallibale, (most) lotteries go to great lengths to ensure their "quick pick" algorithms are random. CA used the stats department at UCLA for many years and their "sign-off" was a necessary step in launching/upgrading any online game.
On the draw side, lotteries go to great lengths to keep their equipment secure (assuming we're talking about "big" lotto games here).
The lottery vendors get their cut on sales. They have no incentive to try to "rig" drawings...in fact they have every incentive to help make sure they are legit. All it would take is one instance (like what happened to the racing system in New York under SciGames) of what you describe happening to cause a lottery company to lose every US contract it has.
Conspiracy theories may sound good but they simply don't apply as you suggest.
By the way - the whole lobbying thing IS scummy.
SGMS had a terrible time with the SC implementation. They were trying to use access to get a deal favorable to them in NC and they got caught red handed.
Its the kind of thing that gives the industry a bad name.
Tell that to people like losingJeff, He is back, read this:
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/142161
Time ago either as LANTERN or as EXCALIBUR (I don't remember) I did a short study of Idiana's past draws and that study showed to me just how crooked that game was at that time, maybe still is (?).
How many people have ever gotten 5 winning numbers out of the 6 possible ones for a singles pick 3 winning number,1 straight and 4 boxed, in fewer than 80 numbers (Combos)?, I would like to think that I know the pick 3 games well enough that I was able to do that, the picks were posted here at LP long before that particular draw, the picks were made just for one particular state and draw.
A very long time ago, I made a pick 3 prediction for New Jersey among other predictions, I did fairly OK or well, I won on several of the predictions, that might have been my very first New Yersey prediction, anyhow it won straight, but it was meant to have been a boxed prediction.
Also, I have been known to make some good enough Texas pick 3 predictions.