The biggest joke played on us all...the PPA!
04-23-2011
, 12:29 AM
04-23-2011
, 01:13 AM
Quote:
It is interesting to me that in all of this you totally ignore the wins and also feel no need to examine the details.
1) The NC joker case occurred with no PPA involvement. It happened before the PPA began to work on the issue. Reading that opinion and hoping to get a different ruling was the motivating factor in the PPA doing litigation.
Fair enough. I couldn't determine if the PPA had involvement, hence my qualifying comments.
2) The jury in Colorado acquitted the defendants. The appeal was about using certain evidence and did not affect the verdict.
Misleading. The court actually ruled that the evidence of poker as a game of skill was irrelevant because poker was defined as gambling pursuant to Colorado law. That's a loss for the PPA position.
3) The initial decision in Dent was that the state had failed to make a prima facie case poker is game of chance. The appeals court disagreed 2-1 that a prima facie case had been made. It did not rule for all time that poker is a game of chance. The case was sent back for trial.
Extremely misleading. The appellate court did rule that poker was illegal gambling as a matter of PA law. The only reason a remand was needed was because the district court ruled otherwise, so the defendant had never had a trial
4) In SC, a case (as in CO and KS) where the PPA was actually involved in presenting the body of its expert evidence, both the trial AND appellate court ruled that poker is a game of skill. The SC Supreme Court has yet to rule.
Extremely misleading. The "appellate court" was merely a trial court sitting in appellate capacity over a magistrate level court. The decision has no precedential value, and is essentially worth nothing more than an initial trial court ruling. If the SC supreme court finds poker is not illegal gambling, I'll be happy to ship you a bottle of Dom Perignon.
5) In the Kansas case (which you don't mention) a trial level judge ruled poker is a game of skill over time but interestingly concluded that because a cash game of poker could be played as a single hand against strangers, it fit the KS defintion of game of chance. The case is pending appeal. *Interstingly, the Swedish Supreme Court recently made a similar ruling that allowed tournaments in Sweden but not cash games.
I didn't mention this case because next to nothing about it is posted online, so I can't make a meaningful evaluation of its merits. Still, by your description, it's a loss.
6) The Rousso case was lost. Direct PPA involvement in the Rousso case began at the Appellate level, which turned out to be a problem. Federal courts are free to disagree with this state court interpretation of Federal law.
Why yes, federal courts can ignore state court rulings. But without Rousso, they would never have to decide whether (and how) to distinguish it. There's no question having Rousso on the books is an unqualified loss. As for the claim that the PPA came late to the game, I simply would point out that Lee Rousso was the WA state director for the PPA.
The results are mixed and the fight continues. To say it is a "disaster" is wrong in my opinion and reckless if one considers the above points.
Mixed? Apparently we have different definitions of success. I only count as wins court rulings that matter. You apparently count as wins court rulings that are overturned on appeal. If this isn't the case, then point me to the big PPA appellate victory.
As a final matter, the PPA's actual litigation in these cases was led by attorney Thomas Goldstein (best known for producing the SCOTUS blog). Any person who wants to figure out whether to decide to follow the advice of Mr. Goldstein or the author of the above post and blog may wish to google their respective names.
If you read my numerous posts about the Rousso case, you will find that I am highly complimentary of Mr. Goldstein (and I also closely follow the SCOTUS blog). Yet the fact remains that the PPA's litigation strategy has been rejected every time it matters. This isn't because of the skills of Mr. Goldstein, or the other PPA attorneys. It's because the PPA's arguments are a loser on its merits. My posts about why are here: http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/04...windmills.html AND http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/06...ion-fails.html . My posts about the Rousso case are here:
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/05...d-very_24.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/05...-rousso-v.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/09...n-supreme.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/09...tory-with.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/12...o-v-state.html
Since you don't know me, I understand your instinct to belittle my legal experience without any information about me. I fully admit Mr. Goldstein's resume is more impressive than mine. Because of the professional need to keep my name separate from poker playing, I recognize that I can't do the resume-measuring game. But I will say that I was a National Merit Scholar in undergrad, and was editor-in-chief of my law review. I was recently asked by a justice of the Iowa supreme court to serve as the only attorney on a national law school moot court competition panel composed of Iowa appellate judges, and also was appointed by another Iowa supreme court justice to serve on the board of directors for a court-appointed procedural reform committee. I have spoken several times a year for over a decade at CLEs re appellate law and procedure. After 16 years as a trial and appellate attorney, I recently left private practice for an in-house position at a major regional insurer where my duties include supervising all litigation in the 15 states where our group of companies does business, including making the strategic decision as to what cases are structured for trial and appeal. In other words, I may not be a member of the D.C. bar elite, but I can more than hold my own in the trial and appellate arenas. And, in the only measure that counts, I can hold up my analyses of these poker litigation cases and simply observe that I was right, and the PPA was wrong.
1) The NC joker case occurred with no PPA involvement. It happened before the PPA began to work on the issue. Reading that opinion and hoping to get a different ruling was the motivating factor in the PPA doing litigation.
Fair enough. I couldn't determine if the PPA had involvement, hence my qualifying comments.
2) The jury in Colorado acquitted the defendants. The appeal was about using certain evidence and did not affect the verdict.
Misleading. The court actually ruled that the evidence of poker as a game of skill was irrelevant because poker was defined as gambling pursuant to Colorado law. That's a loss for the PPA position.
3) The initial decision in Dent was that the state had failed to make a prima facie case poker is game of chance. The appeals court disagreed 2-1 that a prima facie case had been made. It did not rule for all time that poker is a game of chance. The case was sent back for trial.
Extremely misleading. The appellate court did rule that poker was illegal gambling as a matter of PA law. The only reason a remand was needed was because the district court ruled otherwise, so the defendant had never had a trial
4) In SC, a case (as in CO and KS) where the PPA was actually involved in presenting the body of its expert evidence, both the trial AND appellate court ruled that poker is a game of skill. The SC Supreme Court has yet to rule.
Extremely misleading. The "appellate court" was merely a trial court sitting in appellate capacity over a magistrate level court. The decision has no precedential value, and is essentially worth nothing more than an initial trial court ruling. If the SC supreme court finds poker is not illegal gambling, I'll be happy to ship you a bottle of Dom Perignon.
5) In the Kansas case (which you don't mention) a trial level judge ruled poker is a game of skill over time but interestingly concluded that because a cash game of poker could be played as a single hand against strangers, it fit the KS defintion of game of chance. The case is pending appeal. *Interstingly, the Swedish Supreme Court recently made a similar ruling that allowed tournaments in Sweden but not cash games.
I didn't mention this case because next to nothing about it is posted online, so I can't make a meaningful evaluation of its merits. Still, by your description, it's a loss.
6) The Rousso case was lost. Direct PPA involvement in the Rousso case began at the Appellate level, which turned out to be a problem. Federal courts are free to disagree with this state court interpretation of Federal law.
Why yes, federal courts can ignore state court rulings. But without Rousso, they would never have to decide whether (and how) to distinguish it. There's no question having Rousso on the books is an unqualified loss. As for the claim that the PPA came late to the game, I simply would point out that Lee Rousso was the WA state director for the PPA.
The results are mixed and the fight continues. To say it is a "disaster" is wrong in my opinion and reckless if one considers the above points.
Mixed? Apparently we have different definitions of success. I only count as wins court rulings that matter. You apparently count as wins court rulings that are overturned on appeal. If this isn't the case, then point me to the big PPA appellate victory.
As a final matter, the PPA's actual litigation in these cases was led by attorney Thomas Goldstein (best known for producing the SCOTUS blog). Any person who wants to figure out whether to decide to follow the advice of Mr. Goldstein or the author of the above post and blog may wish to google their respective names.
If you read my numerous posts about the Rousso case, you will find that I am highly complimentary of Mr. Goldstein (and I also closely follow the SCOTUS blog). Yet the fact remains that the PPA's litigation strategy has been rejected every time it matters. This isn't because of the skills of Mr. Goldstein, or the other PPA attorneys. It's because the PPA's arguments are a loser on its merits. My posts about why are here: http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/04...windmills.html AND http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/06...ion-fails.html . My posts about the Rousso case are here:
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/05...d-very_24.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/05...-rousso-v.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/09...n-supreme.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/09...tory-with.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/12...o-v-state.html
Since you don't know me, I understand your instinct to belittle my legal experience without any information about me. I fully admit Mr. Goldstein's resume is more impressive than mine. Because of the professional need to keep my name separate from poker playing, I recognize that I can't do the resume-measuring game. But I will say that I was a National Merit Scholar in undergrad, and was editor-in-chief of my law review. I was recently asked by a justice of the Iowa supreme court to serve as the only attorney on a national law school moot court competition panel composed of Iowa appellate judges, and also was appointed by another Iowa supreme court justice to serve on the board of directors for a court-appointed procedural reform committee. I have spoken several times a year for over a decade at CLEs re appellate law and procedure. After 16 years as a trial and appellate attorney, I recently left private practice for an in-house position at a major regional insurer where my duties include supervising all litigation in the 15 states where our group of companies does business, including making the strategic decision as to what cases are structured for trial and appeal. In other words, I may not be a member of the D.C. bar elite, but I can more than hold my own in the trial and appellate arenas. And, in the only measure that counts, I can hold up my analyses of these poker litigation cases and simply observe that I was right, and the PPA was wrong.
But please, feel free to dismiss me as a crank simply because I criticized the PPA. It's easier than debating the merits of a legal strategy.
04-23-2011
, 03:28 AM
My first post is to ask for Grange's hand in marriage 
No srsly. great work ITT plus this:
"Let's gloss over the fact that the head of a supposed national advocacy group can't find a tie or a camera not previously used for Chat Roulette. While we're at it, let's pretend PPA Executive Director John Pappas' subsequent stumbling performance on national TV never happened. After all, nobody puts the "ROFL" in "professional" quite like John Pappas!"
ROFLMAO
No srsly. great work ITT plus this:
"Let's gloss over the fact that the head of a supposed national advocacy group can't find a tie or a camera not previously used for Chat Roulette. While we're at it, let's pretend PPA Executive Director John Pappas' subsequent stumbling performance on national TV never happened. After all, nobody puts the "ROFL" in "professional" quite like John Pappas!"
ROFLMAO
04-23-2011
, 11:59 AM
04-23-2011
, 12:31 PM
04-23-2011
, 12:47 PM
04-23-2011
, 01:54 PM
Quote:
My first post is to ask for Grange's hand in marriage
No srsly. great work ITT plus this:
"Let's gloss over the fact that the head of a supposed national advocacy group can't find a tie or a camera not previously used for Chat Roulette. While we're at it, let's pretend PPA Executive Director John Pappas' subsequent stumbling performance on national TV never happened. After all, nobody puts the "ROFL" in "professional" quite like John Pappas!"
ROFLMAO
No srsly. great work ITT plus this:
"Let's gloss over the fact that the head of a supposed national advocacy group can't find a tie or a camera not previously used for Chat Roulette. While we're at it, let's pretend PPA Executive Director John Pappas' subsequent stumbling performance on national TV never happened. After all, nobody puts the "ROFL" in "professional" quite like John Pappas!"
ROFLMAO