Dragon Fortune

About Dragon Fortune

Kalshi’s compliance department uncovered a series of large trades made by Santos throughout February 2026 involving contracts that would pay out based on whether he attended the State of the Union address on 24 February. 

The exchange reported that Santos then issued public statements regarding his attendance, some deemed false or misleading, that were deliberately aimed at influencing the price of “Yes” or “No” contracts connected to his attendance. 

Kalshi stated that these statements successfully moved market prices and that Santos realised profits totalling $17,839.57 from the trades. After detecting Santos’ trades, Kalshi froze his account then referred the matter to federal authorities, NPR reported. 

What is Dragon Fortune?

But the expansion of Las Vegas beyond the Strip eventually gave its hospitality workers and performers their pick of nearby accommodations, including beautiful new houses that were also reasonably priced and more suited to raising families.

By the late 1970s, the Meadows Addition had become forgotten by almost everyone except drug dealers, gangs, and illegal sex workers. Locals and cops nicknamed it after “The Naked City,” a 1948 film noir about the New York City police hunt for a murderer that later inspired a gritty, 1958-1963 TV series of the same name.

In fact, that 1982 R-J story stated that the neighborhood is “called ‘Naked City’ by Metro police officers.”

About Dragon Fortune

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.