Features
The Dark Side of Albert: Einstein and Mileva Marić, his First Wife

By DAVID TOPPER Albert Einstein was the most photographed scientist of the 20th century. The scope of emotions depicted range from the serious to the silly: from looking like a secular saint with hands folded and deep in contemplation of supposedly solemn thoughts, to the image hanging in front of me on the bulletin board over my computer table, showing him sticking out his tongue at the cameraman. Living during the heyday of the development of the film camera, he and the press surely took advantage of it. The positive persona of the genius was formed out of these visual images. This visual disposition was supplemented with endless quotations on not only science and the universe, but also with homilies on life and how to live it, with much of that which you will find quoted, being things he never said. Overall, the general image of him and his personality has him coming out seemingly squeaky-clean.
Nonetheless, those of us who have looked into the man in more detail are aware of episodes of less than saintly behavior by Albert – the famous scientific idol. If, for example, you read any of the half-dozen or so lengthy biographies about him, you will find scattered therein stories of him speaking inappropriately or behaving, one might say, as a jerk. Having read all those books, and others – and even written three books on him myself – I knew this. So when I started reading a recent long biography of his first wife, Mileva Marić, I had no reason to think I’d be shocked, since I had already read a lot about her, including a book of letters to and from her best friend, which also contained a brief biography. But to my surprise, I was staggered in reading over 400 pages of his nasty behavior concentrated around this one woman – a woman whom he fell in love with as a university student, and who was the only mother of his children.
Here is the sad – and probably surprising to most readers – story of Mileva and Albert.
Mileva Marić was born on December 19, 1875, into a Christian Orthodox Serbian family. With a dislocated left hip, she walked with a limp throughout her life. (Her sister, Zorka, had the same congenital condition.) Forced to wear an orthopedic shoe, she was teased and mocked in school. Nonetheless, this very bright girl filled her lonely childhood with her studies (she was especially good at math) and piano lessons. Encouraged by a very loving father, she excelled in school, and was the first girl to attend high school physics courses in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After graduating in 1896, she applied to the prestigious Zurich Polytechnic, since in Switzerland women were admitted to all classes. She passed the entrance exam and majored in mathematics. It was a small freshman class of about two-dozen students, she being the only woman. That’s where she met, in the even smaller physics course, fellow student, Albert Einstein.
One of the earliest pictures we have of Mileva is dated 1897. In this portrait, I see a very serious, confident, determined woman with large penetrating eyes, a full crop of dark wavy hair and full lips. I would call her plain but attractive. I say this, because I was shocked at several instances when someone, upon first meeting Mileva, is quoted as describing her as “ugly.”
As a fellow student, Albert Einstein was attracted to her, and they quickly became a couple. He probably was the first male to take a romantic interest in her, overlooking her “handicap.” I suspect he was attracted to her gutsy attitude and her smartness. Plus, being Serbian, Mileva exuded an exotic “otherness” to the “German” in Albert. They spent most of their free time together, studying and falling in love. She did well in her courses, initially passing all of them, as Albert did too (of course). That is, until she was pregnant – a fact she tried to hide until she could not. And so she went home to her parents to inform them of this, and eventfully to have the baby.
Her parents were very supportive, which was unusual for the times. A girl was born early in 1902; they named her Lieserl (probably a Yiddish diminutive of Liese, a shortened Elizabeth). Albert stayed in Zurich and never saw his daughter; she was raised by Mileva’s parents, as Mileva returned to Zurich to continue her studies. No one knows what ultimately happened to Lieserl; she has seemingly vanished from all records. She may have died from Scarlet Fever as a child; or, she may have been adopted and grew up. One thing I do know: Mileva never forgot her. I believe that the loss of Lieserl is the major reason for Mileva’s depression and lingering melancholia throughout her life – as will be seen. As a result, she didn’t take care of her grooming and was a bit overweight – as seen in photos of her later in life. This, I suspect, may be a source of her “ugliness.”
Back to Zurich in the late 1890s and her studies: she passed all her courses over the first three years, and in her fourth year she started her thesis, hoping for a diploma and further work toward a PhD. But in 1900 she failed her final exams, while the other male students all passed. In July 1901 she repeated her final exams and flunked them again. I find it hard to believe that this sudden change in her performance was due to the tests being too tough for this woman, in light of all we know of her up to this time. Look at the last date above: she was pregnant with her child. I’m convinced that she just couldn’t concentrate on her studies. Albert passed, graduated, and started looking for a job – as well as working toward his PhD.

On January 6, 1903, they were married in a small civil ceremony. Mileva became a housewife; no more thinking of going any further in her studies. She then became the mother of two boys: Hans Albert (born in 1904) and Eduard (nicknamed Tete; in 1910).
All that promise came to nothing, not even a university degree. If she had not met Albert, who knows what she would have achieved? But that was not the path taken, and since she married what became the most famous scientist of the 20th century – if not the most famous person, as Time Magazine said at the end of the millennium – that’s why there is a plethora of documentation about her life, terribly sad as it was.
Now briefly fast forward a century or so, to around 1987, and the publication of the early love letters between Albert and Mileva, which had only been known by a few, and purposely suppressed. For example, Hans Albert, who had the letters much earlier, had wanted to publish them. But he was thwarted by Helen Dukas and Otto Nathan, who threatened litigation. Dukas was Albert’s lifelong secretary and Nathan was an economist and close friend, who eventually was the executor of Einstein’s will. And so, the letters never surfaced until Dukas and Nathan were both dead.
Even today, writing about these letters is an ideological minefield. Here’s why. The letters date from 1899 to 1903, when a new theory of physics was brewing in Albert’s mind. The result, in the so-called miracle year of 1905, was the publication of five papers that changed physics forever: two on what became his Theory of Relativity; one on a particle theory (much later called a photon) of light, as part of the emerging Quantum Theory; and two supporting the reality of atoms, which were still only hypothetical entities at this time. Knowing this, how much can we read into the love letters when Albert, in talking about his scientific ideas, uses “we” and “our work”? Well, it seems, a lot; for the initial response from primarily feminist quarters was that Mileva should at least be seen as a co-author of the famous papers, since it seemed that they conceived of the theory together. Given, as we will see, Albert’s shabby treatment of her later in life, then all the more sympathy was directed toward Mileva and her plight by history. Indeed, some went so far (you will still find websites saying this) that Albert stole the theory of relativity from Mileva. Nonetheless, after that initial flurry of debate, the consensus has moved away from this viewpoint, so that today the select scholars looking over the Einstein Papers Project in Pasadena, California assert unabashedly that Mileva made no input to Albert’s theory.
Nonetheless, I am one of the few “Einstein scholars” (if I may call myself such), who gives Mileva some credit in the 1905 marvel. She was good at mathematics, she had patience in her life and work, and she was a thorough researcher – all qualities severely lacking in Albert. Let me put it this way: over his life as a physicist, Einstein hired a series of companions (whom he called “calculators”) to do the tedious and complicated mathematics required for his theory, especially as it developed over the later years with the use of tensor calculus in his General Theory of Relativity. All were men; except, famously, his last calculator was the Israeli-American woman, Buria Kaufmann – about whom you will read in the literature as his “first female calculator.” (Incidentally, there is a website giving her credit for Einstein’s later theory, which is complete fiction.) I, however, would assert that Buria was the second woman; for Mileva was Albert’s first “calculator.” She was also his researcher and proofreader. Since she knew the physics, as we know from the letters, she also was his sounding-board – Albert bouncing ideas off of Mileva, as they say.
So, what about Albert speaking of “we” and “our work”? Let me put this into context by quoting from some of the letters in chronological order. In a letter Mileva wrote to Helene Savić (née Kaufler), her closest and longest friend throughout her life (they roomed together in a boarding house in Zurich when they were students), she speaks of a paper “written” by Albert that will be published soon that is “very significant.” She then says that “we” sent it to an important physicist – revealing how much she was involved with Albert’s work. Later in a letter from Albert to Mileva, let me quote from the opening lines to give you a trace of their intimacy: “Thank you very much for your little letter and all the true love that’s in it. I kiss and hug you for it from all my heart, exactly the way you would want it & are entitled to, love.” He then goes into a discussion of other people, followed by his going back to how much they love each other, and ending with this key sentence. “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion.” I put in italics the famous (or is it infamous?) phrase: our work. But there’s nothing more on this, although a bit later in the letter he goes on to talk about another physics problem he is working on: specific heats. He discusses the physics problem in detail, with equations and his proposed solution, and he ends the topic with this: “Don’t forget to look up to what extent glass obeys the law of Dulong and Petit.” My guess is that it was this sort of task that was part of their work together. The letter ends where it began. “Tender greetings and kisses, my dear little dumpling, from your … Albert.”
I’ll leave the topic there, nonetheless aware of the possibility that Mileva did help Albert in even more significant ways, and that hence she’s been slighted by history.
Back to Zurich in 1903. Initially, their life together was harmonious, a reflection of the camaraderie in the love letters, as she kept house and raised her boys. But by around 1909, when Albert was being seen as an important physicist, there clearly was a severe strain on the marriage. For example, in a letter that year to Helene, she says that Albert “lives only for his work” and the family is “unimportant to him.” By 1914, when they moved to Berlin for Albert’s prestigious position at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics, their marriage entered a new phase. In fact, Albert had been having relations with a divorced cousin, Elsa Löwenthal, who lived in Berlin. Moreover, Albert made it clear to Mileva that their previous relationship was over. He went so far as to give her a list of demands: that she do the laundry, prepare him three meals a day, and keep his office clean – all without any personal relations. No intimacy in the house, and no being together in public. It was degradingly cruel: Mileva’s role was reduced to being a maid and cook. She tried to accept it, but quickly found that she couldn’t endure the humiliation; and so she took her two boys back to Zurich, where she remained for the rest of her life.
They officially divorced in 1919, and Albert immediately married Elsa – all in the same year that he became the world-famous scientist, because of the solar eclipse experiment that proved that light from a star is bent around the sun, as predicted by his theory. He got the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 and transferred the money to a bank in Zurich for the support of their boys, where Mileva had access to the interest in the account.
What happened after all that infatuation seen in the love letters and in their early life together? In retrospect, Mileva surely realized that she had ignored or overlooked what we might call the dark side of Albert. As a student he was overly sarcastic, often mocking and even degrading people whom he saw as inadequate or not too smart. He even teased her in ways that revealed an underlying hostility. When she pointed this out, he would laugh it off – and she’d forgive him. In a letter to Helena in 1900 she writes of Albert’s “wicked words with deeds! What an insolent boy he is, and yet I love him so much!” Telling words. Even after the acrimonious divorce, she still, as will be seen, was under Albert’s spell. I believe that she never got over that initial infatuation when they were students. It became a pattern: she was always trying to get on his good side.
Overall, Albert was very much a 19th century male chauvinist in his attitude and communications with women. Here are some of his words about women that reveal his overt misogyny: they are “passive, insecure, needy, and wanting to be dominated.” I knew that he liked to flirt with women throughout his life. But seeing him do so with other wives, with Mileva present, made it less frivolous and more malicious. In short, he was a cad and a rake, rolled into one.
The turnaround in their relationship seemed to bring out the worst in him. He was petty and vindictive, and especially very cruel towards her. There is no direct evidence of any real physical abuse. However, there was an incident in the spring of 1913 when a friend reported seeing Mileva with a badly swollen face, which was attributed to a “toothache” – and hence she and Albert missed some social events. Possibly the swollen face was a sign of something more malevolent, but we will never know the truth. Nonetheless, pondering this, I wish to quote something Albert wrote in a letter in 1925: “Not only children need a bit of thrashing, but also grownups and especially women.” And I’ll leave it there.
After the divorce, he accused her of poisoning his relationship with the boys – a common trope between divorcing couples. But it got more vicious as her financial situation became grave, and she asked for more money. She made some extra money tutoring students in math and giving piano lessons. But it wasn’t enough. Albert’s letters to her contain nasty personal attacks: saying she is “abnormal,” a “nonentity,” and that her pleading is “rubbish.” I can only imagine how Mileva felt being called this. At the time, she was in severe physical pain with chronic back problems, often forcing her into bed for long periods, even stays in hospital, when she was trying to raise two boys alone. Moreover, all this was exacerbated by problems in her Serbian family. Her sister Zorka was diagnosed as schizophrenic and was in and out of asylums; her only living brother disappeared into Russia after World War I; and her parents had serious financial problems.
Could it get any worse? It could. And it did. Tete became a handful. He was very bright and creative; he had musical talent on the piano, and he wrote promising poems and stories. But he was also prone to falling into depressive episodes, for apparently no reason – anger fits, throwing things, being out of control. I suppose Mileva saw this coming: Tete, like her sister, eventually was diagnosed as schizophrenic.
Albert, of course, knew all this, but being in Berlin, he didn’t have to deal with it. He did make occasional visits and took summer trips with the boys (giving Mileva short breaks), all while he was still living in Europe. But when he moved to Princeton, N.J., in 1933, with Hitler in power in Germany and Einstein’s name being high on a hit list, their meetings were over; until 1938, when Hans Albert (now with a wife and two children) moved to the USA. The last meeting between Albert and Tete is recorded in a 1933 photograph that bears a close look. Both are seated in a room, with Tete looking over a large, open portfolio – perhaps reading it. Albert is facing in a different direction (about 90-degrees away), holding a violin and bow, and staring off into space. It may be that Tete is reading to him, but more likely they are inhabiting two different worlds.
In the years during World War II, living in Zurich, Switzerland (a country surrounded by a Nazi-occupied Europe), Mileva was terrified that the Nazis would swoop up this last free space. Moreover, she knew that they were rounding up Jews by the trainloads and moving them to Concentration Camps. She was somewhat safe as an Orthodox Christian, but Tete was “Jewish,” being a child of Einstein. She wrote pleading letters to Albert, asking him to take Tete to the USA. She even contacted the Red Cross, and they agreed that the best bet was to get Albert to sponsor him. “Bring us to safety,” she wrote. But being Mileva – ever still the dutiful wife, even though they had been divorced for two decades – she added (and I assert that she was not being sarcastic in saying this), “[I am] not intending to disturb your peace and freedom.” Petrified that “Tete is in danger because he is your son,” she concluded: “you can’t just leave him in the lurch.”
In fact, Einstein, Dukas, and Nathan were diligently rescuing Jews from Europe by using Einstein’s name to get emigration papers and such. Albert once spoke of this, saying that they were running a little refugee office over his cluttered “lawyer’s desk.” And they did save lives. Relevant here is a 1939 letter from Albert to Helena on this very topic. Helena’s father was Jewish, and she had numerous relatives whose lives were in peril, and so apparently, she was asking Albert for help. He wrote in response. “How gladly would I help! But I am desperately trying to at least get younger people out. Relocation of old people must under present horrible conditions be set aside.” In the end, we know of two aunts of Helena who died in gas chambers. Interestingly, in this same letter, Albert mentions that Hans is now in America, but that Tete is with Mileva in Zurich, saying that Tete is “incurably mentally ill.”
So, what about Tete? And Mileva’s pleading letters? As far as we know, these pleading requests were never answered. Albert, it seems, did leave his son “in the lurch.” My guess is that he just couldn’t fathom the chaos in his life of dealing with someone with such a severe mental illness. Listen to what he later wrote to Hans about Tete after learning of Mileva’s death. “If I had been fully informed [apparently referring here to what he saw as a genetic mental illness in Mileva’s family], he [Tete] would never have come into the world.” I can only imagine how Hans must have felt after reading these appalling words from his father about his beloved brother. Sometimes Albert’s behavior is plainly pathetic. Fortunately, the Nazis never invaded Switzerland.
Much of Mileva’s adult life was centred on Tete, as she watched him descend into the depths of mental illness. Overweight and chain-smoking, he was in and out of mental institutions. For Mileva, he was a full-time job. She, being the caring mother, was obsessed with making sure he would be safe after she died. And she succeeded; for seven years after his mother died, he lived in the renowned Burghölzli psychiatric clinic in Zurich. He was 55 when he died.
I believe Mileva never got over two things: the loss of Lieserl and her infatuation with Albert. We don’t know what happened to Lieserl; but Mileva surely did, and it haunted her all of her life; as seen, she flunked her final chance for a university degree because of it. Lieserl was a source of her constant despondent behaviour and possibly her so-called “ugliness.” In a letter to Helena in 1925 she wrote of “my unfulfilled desire for a daughter”– another telling phrase, since she had a daughter, but was forced to abandon her.
Regarding Albert, no matter how abusive he was, Mileva still was open to forgiveness. She once asked herself this question: “When has a man ever listened to reason, when a woman is involved?” She should have listened to her own words.
Mileva Marić died on August 4, 1948, at the age of 72.
This story of Albert falling in and out of love with Mileva was not the first such episode in his life. It was previewed by and even overlapped with his first sweetheart: Marie Winteler.
In 1895 he spent a year enrolled in the cantonal school in the town of Aarau, near Zurich. He had taken the rigorous entrance exams for the Polytechnic (which Mileva later passed) and had flunked the non-science and non-math parts. But since he did so well on the science and math parts, it was recommended that he do a year of make-up in Aarau; plus, he was applying at age 16, a year early. He boarded with the family of Jost Winteler, a teacher at the school. Jost and Pauline had three daughters, the prettiest being Marie, two years older than Albert. Albert quickly fell for her, and she for him. She was an accomplished pianist, and so their love interests were supplemented with piano and violin duets. After that year, and after passing the entrance requirement at the Polytechnic, Albert moved to Zurich – where he met Mileva, and then broke off with Marie. In short, he jilted her, as he would later do with Mileva.
Marie, however, thought the relationship was to be forever, and wrote pleading letters when he stopped writing to her. After all, he was still mailing her his dirty laundry to wash and send back. (I am not making this up.) Being deeply hurt, she fell into a depression that (may have) plagued her throughout her life. She became a schoolteacher (whose records show that she missed a lot of classes due to sickness); in 1911 she married a man whose first name was Albert. They had two boys, but divorced in 1927. We also know that she tried to reach the first Albert in the 1940s about emigrating to the USA, but there is no record of his having received her letters. (Albert’s secretary was known to censor his mail.) She died in a mental institution in 1957, two years after Einstein died.
I mention this for two reasons. One, the obvious – this being a preview to the story of Albert’s shabby treatment of Mileva and the parallel terrible consequences. The other reason is the dirty laundry. This, also obviously, needs to be explained.
In 2019 I published an historical novel on Einstein’s life, called A Solitary Smile. In it, Marie is one of the characters, especially near the end and in a dream sequence that has Einstein recalling their time together, where he realizes how he hurt her. In recalling this part of my book, while writing this story of Mileva, and now Marie again – I suddenly realized that I didn’t include the dirty laundry bit. Why? I knew it then, as I do now. So why not mention it? Ruminating on this, I can only surmise that I was subconsciously protecting Albert from more scorn. Why dig up all the dirt (seemingly, literally in this case). How interesting this is. Me, being part of the problem. Protecting Albert’s image.
Well, I caught myself. And here I acknowledge my error – to supplement my saga on the dark side of Albert Einstein.
* * *
Readings: Mileva Marić Einstein: Life with Albert Einstein, by Radmila Milentijević (United World Press, 2010). In Albert’s Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić: Einstein’s First Wife, edited by Milan Popović (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). A Solitary Smile: A Novel on Einstein, by David R. Topper (Bee Line Press, 2019).
Features
Ottawa police detective Akiva Geller and the case of the famed purloined Yousef Karsh photograph

By MYRON LOVE It had all the elements of a novel, heist movie or televison episode – a brazen art thief and forger, an iconic work of art, secret storage lockers, DNA and an international trail of crumbs to follow ..and Ottawa police service detective (also a former Winnipegger) Akiva Geller was right in the middle of the action.
The case revolved around the theft from the Fairmont Chateau Laurier Hotel of an iconic photograph of Winston Churchill, taken in 1941, \by the world famous photographer Yousef Karsh. Karsh and his wife, Estrellita, lived at the classy hotel for 18 years. Toward the end of his life, the photographer donated that print – “The Roaring Lion” – along with several others to the hotel. The print, valued at $20,000, was hung in the hotel’s reading room. It was reported stolen – and replaced with a forgery – in the summer of 2022.
Geller joined the Ottawa police force in 2012 following a 14-year career in the Canadian military.
He recalls that he initially considered becoming a pharmacist. He was inspired to change his plans by the yeoman work of the Canadian soldiers who helped stem the tide during the great flood here in 1997.
“That kind of community service resonated with me,’ he says. “I appreciated the hands-on aspect of it all.”
He enlisted the next year.
While serving in the military largely in a series of administrative and teaching capacities, Geller began taking classes at Algonquin College in security management that led to his taking a criminology program – and degree – at Carleton University.
He left the military in 2012 to join the Ottawa police force. He began his policing career as a patrol officer. He was promoted to the investigative branch in 2020.
Now, unlike what we may see on television, being a police detective is not a case of investigating the murder of the week. Geller notes that much of his time is spent looking into suspicious deaths – including overdoses. A high profile case such as the Karsh photo heist comes along once in a lifetime for most police detectives.
This articular story begins, according to Geller, somewhere between late December 2021, and mid-January 2023, when an individual who has since been identified as Jeffrey Wood,walked into the hotel, removed the framed portrait print from the wall, and replaced it with a copy on which Wood had forged Karsh’s signature. At the time, the hotel was largely shut down due to the Covid lockdowns; thus few people were around.
The switch wasn’t discovered, Geller reports, until the following August, when hotel engineer Bruno Lair noticed that the framed print was a little off kilter. When he went to straighten it, he saw that the portrait was hung by a wire – with holes in the wall where screws had held the portrait in place.
“Wood was identified as the seller after we obtained the response to a ‘Mutual Legal Assistance Request’ sent o the United Kingdom,” Geller recalls. “In the response, Sotheby’s London gave us his information, including scanned copies of his passport and IDs.”
The Hotel GM and staff contacted the Yousuf Karsh estate and spoke to the director, Jerry Fielder, who, it was assumed, could verify whether the fraudulent portrait signature was forged, Geller continues. He was sent a picture of the signature and fake portrait, confirmed it was forged and that the portrait was a fake. The hotel reported the theft of the authentic Roaring Lion to Ottawa Police, at which time
Geller began his investigation. Geller goes on to say: “In searching for the authentic portrait I sourced two photos of the authentic portrait on the wall before it was stolen, one from Trip Advisor and the other from Twitter. Both had the portrait signature clearly visible so I could compare them to other signatures I found.
“I came across the Sotheby’s London Auction from May 2022 in which a portrait with a very similar size and signature was sold,” Geller says. “I compared the signature to the ones I sourced from online and determined they were the same. I asked Library and Archives Canada to assist in examining the fake print and also in comparing the signatures. While signature analysis is not in their expertise, they were able to advise that it was highly probable that they were the same. With this I was able to complete a Mutual Legal Assistance Request to the United Kingdom for assistance in obtaining the details of the Sotheby’s Auction. London Metropolitan Police assisted in obtaining the information on the auction and sent it back to me here in Canada. This took almost a year to obtain because of the levels of approvals, editing and paperwork involved.”
Sotheby’s London’s documents identified the seller of the Roaring Lion portrait as well as details about him, communications they had with him and photographs of the portrait before it was obtained by Sotheby’s. Wood was identified as the seller.
“I wrote numerous production orders to all of Wood’s known bank accounts, phone numbers, and credit cards,” Geller recalls. “Once I received the return from his phone company I had to go line by line through his phone bills. There I found a phone call to a storage unit here in Ottawa.”
I wrote a search warrant for the storage locker and a production order for the information on the locker and owner. I executed the search warrant and, in the locker, we found a second fake Churchill print,” he reports. “We also found a toothbrush which we believed would have Wood’s DNA on it. We sent the toothbrush directly to the Centre for Forensic Sciences in Ontario. They compared the DNA from the toothbrush to DNA obtained from inside the fake portrait which was put up in the real one’s place.”
The next piece of the puzzle was to reclaim the portrait to return it to the Chateau Laurier. The drawback here that the buyer of the portrait was an Italian lawyer – one Nicola Castinelli. In Italy, Geller notes, if you buy stolen items in good faith – in other words, if you didn’t know the item was stolen – you have a legal claim to the property, which would mean that you would have to be taken to court to have you relinquish it.
Geller reports that the Italian carabinieri in Rome sent officers to visit the buyer in Genoa and persuaded him to return the portrait in return for what he paid.
Wood was arrested last April. At his hearing on March 14, he pleaded guilty.
Geller reports that, although the maximum sentence is 14 years in prison, the prosecution is requesting of the court a two year sentence while his lawyer is asking for a suspended sentence.
As for the portrait, it was reframed and remounted at the chateau Laurier in the former reading room, which has been converted into a lounge. He adds that the hotel now has a lot more security in place.
“It was a nice reinstallation ceremony,” Geller says.
Mrs. Karsh (who is in her 90s) even wrote a letter to the hotel expressing her appreciation about the portrait being “back home”, he adds.
Features
Sheldon Adelson’s Campaign Against Online Gambling Regulation

Sheldon Adelson, the late billionaire casino magnate and founder of Las Vegas Sands Corporation, was a towering figure in the gambling industry and a polarizing force in the debate over online gambling regulation in the United States.
While many casino operators saw the internet as a new frontier for profit, Adelson waged a relentless campaign to block its legalization, citing moral, social, and business concerns.
His efforts, primarily channeled through the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, left a lasting impact on the regulatory landscape.
Let’s explore Adelson’s motivations, strategies, and the role of initiatives like Jackpot Sounds, a platform aggregating big online casino wins, in the broader context of the online gambling debate.
Jackpot Sounds: Celebrating Big Wins Amid the Debate
A 2023 report estimated that online gambling generated $5.7 billion in revenue in the U.S., a figure amplified by spotlighting success stories. It caused the rise of gamblers’ desire to address the big win replays. Platforms like Jackpot Sounds emerged, highlighting and aggregating big win replays as the enticement of online gambling.
The platform showcases real-time highlights of significant payouts, from slot machine jackpots to poker tournament victories, fostering community among online gamblers.
Jackpot Sounds captures the excitement of virtual jackpots, offering players a way to relive thrilling moments.
By curating content that celebrates high-stakes wins, Jackpot Sounds underscores the appeal that Adelson sought to suppress.
But what preceded this success of online gambling in the USA? How is Sheldon Adelson’s name related? While Adelson argued that such accessibility endangered society, Jackpot Sounds reflects the industry’s resilience and the public’s enthusiasm for digital gaming.
The Rise of Sheldon Adelson and His Casino Empire
Born on August 4, 1933, in Boston, Massachusetts, Sheldon Adelson grew up in modest circumstances.
By 12, he sold newspapers, showcasing an entrepreneurial spirit that defined his career. By 1995, Adelson had amassed wealth through ventures like the Comdex trade show, which he sold for $860 million.
He then focused on the casino industry, founding Las Vegas Sands Corporation. By 2019, his net worth was estimated at $35 billion, making him one of the world’s wealthiest individuals. His flagship properties, including The Venetian Las Vegas and Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, solidified his status as a global casino titan.
Adelson’s influence extended beyond business. A major Republican Party donor, he contributed over $90 million to political campaigns in 2012 alone, earning the moniker “kingmaker.”
His financial clout gave him significant leverage in Washington, D.C., which he later wielded in his fight against online gambling.
Adelson’s Stance on Online Gambling
Adelson’s opposition to online gambling emerged publicly in 2013, when he declared his intent to block its legalization in the U.S. Unlike competitors like Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts, who embraced online platforms, Adelson argued that internet gambling posed unique risks. In a June 2013 Forbes article, he claimed it could lead to financial ruin for vulnerable individuals, including those with student debt.
He also expressed concerns about underage access and the potential for money laundering, calling online gambling “a danger to society.”
Critics, however, pointed to a potential conflict of interest. Adelson’s brick-and-mortar casinos thrived on in-person gambling, and online platforms threatened to divert revenue.
A 2001 Las Vegas Sun article revealed that Adelson had once supported online poker, suggesting his later opposition might have been strategic. By 2014, he was unequivocal, stating, “I am willing to spend whatever it takes” to stop online gambling.
The Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling
In January 2014, Adelson launched the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling (CSIG), a lobbying group designed to rally support for a federal ban on online gambling.
Headed by prominent figures like former New York Governor George Pataki, former Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, CSIG aimed to influence lawmakers and the public.
The coalition’s website warned that online gambling “crosses the line of responsible gaming” by bringing casinos into “living rooms and smartphones.”
CSIG employed aggressive tactics, including:
- Media Campaigns: In February 2014, CSIG released an ad titled “Don’t Let the Games Begin,” claiming online gambling could fund terrorism and harm families.
- Lobbying Efforts: By 2015, CSIG had enlisted dozens of lobbyists, including former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, to push for legislation.
- Political Alliances: Adelson secured support from governors like Rick Scott of Florida, who received $750,000 in campaign contributions from Adelson between 2010 and 2014.
The coalition’s efforts gained traction. In March 2014, 16 state attorneys general co-signed a letter to Congress urging a ban on online gaming. CSIG also influenced the American Gaming Association, which dropped its support for online gambling in 2014 after pressure from Adelson.
Legislative Push: The Restoration of America’s Wire Act
Adelson’s campaign focused on reinstating a broad interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibited interstate wagering.
In 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had issued an opinion stating the Wire Act applied only to sports betting, opening the door for states like New Jersey, Delaware, and Nevada to legalize online gambling. Adelson sought to reverse this.
On March 26, 2014, Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Jason Chaffetz introduced the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA), a bill backed by Adelson to ban most forms of online gambling.
The legislation gained co-sponsors, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Marco Rubio, and was reintroduced in February 2015. Adelson met House Speaker John Boehner in January 2015 to push RAWA, leveraging his $13.2 million in donations to Republican causes in 2014.
Despite these efforts, RAWA faced opposition from a coalition of casino operators, poker players, and states’ rights advocates.
By 2016, the bill had stalled in Congress, unable to overcome resistance from figures like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who legalized online gambling in his state in 2013.
Adelson’s Influence on the Department of Justice
Adelson’s campaign reached a high point in 2018, when the DOJ revisited its 2011 Wire Act opinion.
On November 2, 2018, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a new memo, released publicly on January 14, 2019, declaring that the Wire Act applied to all forms of online gambling, not just sports betting.
This reversal threatened the legal frameworks in states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which had generated $200 million in tax revenue from online gambling by 2017.
The timing raised suspicions. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, donated $113 million to Republican causes in 2016, including $20 million to Donald Trump’s campaign. In January 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who received campaign support from Adelson, expressed shock at the 2011 opinion and vowed to review it.
A February 2017 memo from former CSIG lobbyist Charles Cooper mirrored the DOJ’s 2018 arguments, prompting speculation of Adelson’s influence. In 2019, New Jersey and Pennsylvania attorneys general filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking evidence of lobbying by CSIG and Adelson.
Resistance and Industry Pushback
Adelson’s efforts faced significant opposition. Caesars, MGM, and the American Gaming Association formed the Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection (C4COP) in February 2014 to counter CSIG’s narrative.
Led by former Representative Mary Bono and former Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley, C4COP argued that regulation, not prohibition, ensured consumer safety. A January 2014 poll by North Star Opinion Research, commissioned by C4COP, found that 74% of voters favored state-by-state legalization over a federal ban.
The Poker Players Alliance also mobilized, urging members to flood lawmakers’ social media with pro-gambling messages.
By 2015, states like Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware had generated $2 billion in online gambling revenue, bolstering arguments for regulation. Critics like Jan Jones Blackhurst of Caesars called Adelson’s approach “counterproductive,” accusing him of fostering an unregulated black market.
Adelson’s Legacy and Ongoing Impact
Sheldon Adelson passed away on January 11, 2021, at the age of 87, but his campaign against online gambling left a complex legacy. While RAWA never passed, the 2018 DOJ memo slowed the expansion of online gambling, creating uncertainty for operators.
By 2023, only seven states had fully legalized online casino gaming, compared to 38 for sports betting, partly due to Adelson’s influence.
However, the industry continued to grow. A 2024 report projected U.S. online gambling revenue to reach $7.6 billion by 2026.
Adelson’s moral arguments resonated with some lawmakers, but critics viewed his campaign as defending his land-based empire. As Mary Bono noted in 2014, “It’s impossible to stand in the way of the internet.”
Conclusion
Sheldon Adelson’s battle against online gambling, spearheaded by the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, was a high-stakes effort to shape the industry’s future. From launching CSIG in 2014 to influencing the DOJ in 2018, Adelson used his wealth and political connections to advocate for a federal ban.
Yet, platforms like Jackpot Sounds highlight the enduring appeal of online gambling, celebrating wins that Adelson sought to curtail. While he delayed regulation in some areas, the momentum for legalization persisted, reflecting the challenges of containing a digital revolution.
Adelson’s story is a testament to the power—and limits—of influence in a rapidly changing world.
Features
How To Earn Money with Cryptocurrency From Home

If you’re looking for new ways to make money from home, there’s a modern way to do it. Cryptocurrency has opened up new opportunities for making money online. With the right approach, you can generate income without leaving your house. Whether you want to invest, trade, or earn through other methods, there are various ways to profit from digital currencies. For instance, Canadian poker players take advantage of crypto-friendly platforms to play from home and cash out in Bitcoin or other digital currencies. These platforms provide customers various benefits and attractions that make online gambling a great way to earn money from home, while also having fun.
Understanding Cryptocurrency
Before diving into ways to make money, it is important to understand what cryptocurrency is. It is a digital form of money that operates on blockchain technology.
Unlike traditional currencies, it is decentralized and not controlled by any government or central bank. The most well-known cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, but there are thousands of others, including Ethereum, Litecoin, and Solana, and even plenty of meme coins to choose from.
Trading Cryptocurrency
One of the most popular ways to earn money with cryptocurrency is through trading. This involves buying and selling digital coins to take advantage of price changes.
Day Trading
Day trading is for those who want to make quick profits by buying and selling cryptocurrencies within the same day. It requires monitoring price charts and market trends. Since prices can be volatile, traders must act quickly to capitalize on short-term price movements.
Swing Trading
Unlike day trading, swing trading focuses on medium-term price trends. Traders hold onto their assets for days or even weeks, waiting for a better price before selling. This method requires patience and a good understanding of market trends.
Holding
HODLing is a long-term investment strategy. Investors buy cryptocurrencies and keep them for an extended period, expecting the value to rise over time. This method is ideal for those who believe in the long-term potential of digital currencies and prefer a hands-off approach.
Earning Through Staking
Staking allows cryptocurrency holders to earn passive income by participating in the network of a blockchain. By holding certain cryptocurrencies in digital wallets, users help validate transactions and secure the network. In return, they receive rewards in the form of additional coins. Some popular staking coins include Ethereum, Cardano, and Polkadot.
Mining Cryptocurrency
Mining is another way to generate income from home. It involves using computer power to validate transactions and add new blocks to the blockchain. Miners are rewarded with cryptocurrency for their efforts.
While Bitcoin mining requires expensive equipment and high electricity costs, other cryptocurrencies like Litecoin and Monero can still be mined using regular computers. Some mining pools allow individuals to combine their computing power with others to increase their chances of earning rewards.
Earning Through Airdrops and Forks
Airdrops occur when cryptocurrency projects distribute free tokens to wallet holders as part of a promotion. These giveaways help new projects attract attention. To receive airdrops, users often need to hold a specific cryptocurrency or complete simple tasks like signing up for a newsletter or following a project on social media.
Forks happen when a blockchain splits into two. If you hold a cryptocurrency that undergoes a fork, you may receive new coins based on the amount you already own. This provides an opportunity to make money without additional investment.
Participating in Play-to-Earn Games
The rise of blockchain gaming has created new opportunities for earning cryptocurrency from home, while also having a little fun. Some online games reward players with digital assets for completing tasks, winning battles, or progressing through levels. These assets can be sold or traded for real money.
Many play-to-earn games operate using NFTs, which allow players to own and trade in-game items. Popular games in this space include Axie Infinity, The Sandbox, and Gods Unchained.
Creating and Selling NFTs
Non-fungible tokens have created new earning possibilities for digital artists, musicians, and content creators. NFTs are unique digital assets stored on the blockchain, representing ownership of artwork, music, videos, and virtual collectibles.
Artists can create NFTs and sell them on marketplaces making them a great way to raise your income from home. Some NFTs have sold for thousands or even millions of dollars, making this a profitable option for those with creative skills.
Earning Crypto Through Affiliate Programs
Affiliate programs allow individuals to earn cryptocurrency by promoting products and services. Many crypto exchanges, wallets, and investment platforms offer referral programs where users receive rewards for bringing in new customers.
By sharing referral links on social media, blogs, or YouTube channels, users can generate a steady income stream. The more people who sign up using their link, the more they earn.
Crypto Lending and Yield Farming
Crypto lending allows investors to earn interest by lending their digital assets to others, of course, you will need to have a crypto to lend in the first place to make money through this method.
Yield farming is another way to earn passive income. It involves providing liquidity to decentralized finance platforms and earning rewards in return. This method can be profitable but carries risks, including market fluctuations and smart contract vulnerabilities.
Freelancing for Crypto Payments
Many online platforms and businesses pay freelancers in cryptocurrency for their work. Writers, developers, graphic designers, and marketers can find gigs that offer digital currency as payment.
There are plenty of websites out there that can help connect freelancers with clients who prefer paying in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
By offering services in exchange for cryptocurrency, freelancers can avoid traditional banking fees and receive payments faster.