FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)

[dontwork]

Would be nice to hear even a small update like negotiations are still ongoing or something like that.

[aggo]

no news today would be good news.

[bizzle03]

Originally Posted by dontwork

Would be nice to hear even a small update like negotiations are still ongoing or something like that.

If negotiations ended, DF or someone would have told us.

Negotiations are still ongoing or something like that.

Originally Posted by markksman

There is no requirement they be truthful about such things. Plus if they wanted to they could wait until Bitar was on his way and file amended charges then. I am not saying they did either of these. I am saying the DOJs primary goal was getting Bitar in custody nothing else. His lawyers ask "are there any other charges pending?" They say no and then go file the charges. From what we have heard it is likely Bitar's ability to hide in Ireland was not going to last forever do the DOJ had most of the leverage here.

What the DOJ argued was that his visa would have expired once the new owner (Pokerstars) fired him. So he didn't think he could stay in Ireland much longer.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

I think you are wrong about both of these parts. An officer of the court cannot lie to the indicted person's lawyer like the police can lie to a suspect. From what DF reported was actually said about extradition, there is no reason to believe that the DoJ was anywhere close to extraditing Bitar.

What was reported was that Bitar's attorneys requested assurances that no new indictment would be issued; the DOJ refused to give such assurances (ex. "no comment.") Bitar came back anyways.

Refusing to give such an assurance or refusing to tell them that an indictment is pending even if directly asked, are not lies.

I doubt the DOJ would directly lie about it or could do so without violating an ethical obligation, they would simply refuse to disclose whether or not an indictment was pending.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

So both you and DTM are right and both of you are wrong .... IOW, the issue is unsettled.

You've presented the analysis to show where markksman is wrong, but since I haven't argued that the matter is settled law, I am not sure where you see me being wrong. I'd appreciate an explanation if you make the claim.

[Wizzard89]

Originally Posted by bizzle03;33737149[B

]If negotiations ended, DF or someone would have told us.

Negotiations are still ongoing or something like that.[/B]


What the DOJ argued was that his visa would have expired once the new owner (Pokerstars) fired him. So he didn't think he could stay in Ireland much longer.



What was reported was that Bitar's attorneys requested assurances that no new indictment would be issued; the DOJ refused to give such assurances (ex. "no comment.") Bitar came back anyways.

Refusing to give such an assurance or refusing to tell them that an indictment is pending even if directly asked, are not lies.

I doubt the DOJ would directly lie about it or could do so without violating an ethical obligation, they would simply refuse to disclose whether or not an indictment was pending.

PS won't even confirm that negotiations were going on in the first place!!

[bizzle03]

Originally Posted by Wizzard89

PS won't even confirm that negotiations were going on in the first place!!

Originally Posted by bizzle03

... To seriously doubt the rumors that PS is in talks to buy FTP would be to ignore all other independent speculation and reports from people like DF, ZBHorton, Chiligaming CEO, the DOJ extension request to hopefully conclude settlements, etc., and the fact that Pokerstars is paying FTP salaries for this month (confirmed by DF). All of these combined give the reports plenty of credibility and makes any assertion that Pokerstars is not in talks to buy Full Tilt somewhat ridiculous.

I don't think any of those reports really speak to the likelihood of a successful resolution, but we can at least feel confident that Pokerstars is in negotiations to purchase Full Tilt as part of their settlement.

.

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by Wizzard89

PS won't even confirm that negotiations were going on in the first place!!

!!

[aggo]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

What you have stated here is true but is not what is actually being argued.

There is no question whatsoever that a country has the authority to make offering online poker illegal and to make playing online poker illegal.

Accordingly, if a country makes playing online poker illegal, it is no defense for the player that the site he played is legal where the site's servers and operation are located.

But just as clearly, if a country makes offering online poker illegal it cannot bring charges against a company that offers online poker in a country where it is perfectly legal.

In the world of tangible things, this is obvious: the Netherlands can allow coffee shops to sell cannabis and allow people to purchase it there. If you are in the Netherlands and buy it you so far have broken no law. If you bring it back to the US, you break US law and it s no defense that you bought the cannabis "legally." But just as clearly, US authorities cannot bring charges against the coffee shop in the Netherlands that sold it to you because the US has no jurisdiction over coffee shops in another country.

The internet, operating outside the world of tangible things, presents a new situation. The player is in one jurisdiction, the operator in another and the medium they use to interact, the internet, is not really anywhere.

So both you and DTM are right and both of you are wrong .... IOW, the issue is unsettled. Is PokerStars operating in the US because you and PS are sending internet messages to each other?

On the one hand to say PS is "in the US" at that point is clearly bad: it would also mean that you are in Iran and subject to Iran's Death Penalty if you post a blasphemous message on your blog. On the other hand it could be seen as good because surely a country has the right to regulate businesses that interact with consumers in that country. But that could also be bad because if a business has to be aware of every law in every country, state and lesser jurisdiction around the world, maybe it would be impossible or excessively costly to do business over the internet ....

In the end there is no "right or wrong" on this issue. It will ultimately be something that has to be decided by the world's governments and courts, and that decision will most likely be based on whether the "deciders" consider an open and free internet more important than the ability to control what is available on the internet.

Skallagrim

Skalla


I just realized something.

So a lot of people through the years (before this indictment and post UIGEA) warned us that litigating whether online poker is legal was a shaky proposition, in that, it wasn't clear whether we would prevail.

With the submission of the amicus by PPA and the subsequent MTDs by Pokerstars, other defendents, we've basically now used our big guns in this case as to whether online poker is legal or not. Is this not correct? Now all of the arguments that we've built as an industry and guarded until we needed them are now out in the open to be scrutinized (and ruled upon).

Although my understanding of the justice system is lacking, (so correct me if I'm wrong), let's say tomorrow a "deal" is reached between PS and DOJ to squash all their criminal and civil complaints. If this were the case, now the judge does not have to make rulings on the MTDs and amicus. Correct?

And that, we'd be back to square 1: online poker is probably illegal and we definitely need legislation that expressively says it isnt so that Americans can play again.

However, if a deal is not reached the judge will have to make such a ruling. This ruling would be monumental in that it will officially set tremendous amounts of precedence as likely no one in the US since UIGEA has made such specific and far-reaching rulings regarding online poker. It either, could affirm that online poker was expressively (at least) illegal in 40 states, or the opposite.

As such, a ruling on the MTDs (obviously in such a case i'm talking about 2% > probability that it will decisive) could provide a thumbs up or down as to the legality of online poker in the US. But it could also open it to further litigations where things are still in a perpetual foggy state.

Do I have the correct understanding as to the fact that we now sit at a fork in the road now that the MTDs have been filed?

[TONZ]

Since pokerstars is paying FTP's July salaries, I would assume that the deal is still alive if they continue to pay their August salaries as well. I guess we have to wait til August....

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by aggo

Skalla

....

Do I have the correct understanding as to the fact that we now sit at a fork in the road now that the MTDs have been filed?

I think you have it pretty much right aggo.

The Motions filed by PokerStars and the other active defendants raise all the big issues regarding online poker and US law. If any one of the defendants in either the civil or criminal cases (remember, virtually all the same arguments were raised by Campos and Ellie) refuses to cut a deal these issues finally get litigated. And then appealed. And then maybe appealed again.

But ultimately the Courts will have to finally rule.

I have to say, however, that as interesting as that would be from a legal perspective, it is not very appealing from a playing perspective. Litigation all the way from trial court to Supreme Court usually takes at least 5-6 years.

I truly hope our politicians get their act together and give us some openly legal US online poker long before that. I also hope more people will follow the PPA and demand that our politicians do precisely that.

Skallagrim

[oneonth3run]

Don't think this has been posted yet: http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...r-dead-587542/

Outlines some of the drama from this week and is generally positive about the deal.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by oneonth3run

Don't think this has been posted yet: http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...r-dead-587542/

Outlines the events of this week and is generally positive about the deal.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines: Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'

[jweez]

Originally Posted by oneonth3run

Don't think this has been posted yet: http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...r-dead-587542/

Outlines some of the drama from this week and is generally positive about the deal.

In terms of when we could see a deal finalized, our source speculated that it was in each party's best interest to hammer out terms before the November elections in the United States.

November?????????????

[Diamond_Flush]

Originally Posted by aggo

Skalla


I just realized something.

So a lot of people through the years (before this indictment and post UIGEA) warned us that litigating whether online poker is legal was a shaky proposition, in that, it wasn't clear whether we would prevail.

With the submission of the amicus by PPA and the subsequent MTDs by Pokerstars, other defendents, we've basically now used our big guns in this case as to whether online poker is legal or not. Is this not correct? Now all of the arguments that we've built as an industry and guarded until we needed them are now out in the open to be scrutinized (and ruled upon).

Although my understanding of the justice system is lacking, (so correct me if I'm wrong), let's say tomorrow a "deal" is reached between PS and DOJ to squash all their criminal and civil complaints. If this were the case, now the judge does not have to make rulings on the MTDs and amicus. Correct?

And that, we'd be back to square 1: online poker is probably illegal and we definitely need legislation that expressively says it isnt so that Americans can play again.

However, if a deal is not reached the judge will have to make such a ruling. This ruling would be monumental in that it will officially set tremendous amounts of precedence as likely no one in the US since UIGEA has made such specific and far-reaching rulings regarding online poker. It either, could affirm that online poker was expressively (at least) illegal in 40 states, or the opposite.

As such, a ruling on the MTDs (obviously in such a case i'm talking about 2% > probability that it will decisive) could provide a thumbs up or down as to the legality of online poker in the US. But it could also open it to further litigations where things are still in a perpetual foggy state.

Do I have the correct understanding as to the fact that we now sit at a fork in the road now that the MTDs have been filed?

I'm not Skall, but I will pop in a little bit until he has a chance to reply, (with the caveat that IANAL)...

As was evident after months of preparation of motions in limine in the pending Chad Elie and John Campos case, once they both reached settlement agreements just days before the start of their trial date in April, the Judge could no longer rule on motions before him, because they really were no longer before him. You will remember that these motions were specifically to be able to go before a jury as the triers of fact with the skill v chance argument and whether internet poker fits the category of "gambling" and "illegal gambling" per IGBA. (There were other related motions as well). Such rulings would have also affected obviously the validity of any UIGEA charges. AFAIK, at the time, that was the closest any SDNY case had come to seeing such a determination made, and although the defendants choices were personal ones with their liberty at stake and they shouldn't be blamed, it's still a lost opportunity to get something on the books. IF you believe the rulings would have been what we would call favorable. Rumors are, that they wouldn't have, but we will never know.

The important thing to remember though, is that such a ruling would not be binding on any other jurisdiction, so no national precedent would have been set. If I am not mistaken, it would take a Second Circuit Appellate decision to accomplish that (or higher).

I'll leave the rest of the questions to those better qualified to answer and I would also like an attorney to tell me whether my take on the cross-jurisdictional acceptance and precedent answers are correct.

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by oneonth3run

Don't think this has been posted yet: http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...r-dead-587542/

Outlines some of the drama from this week and is generally positive about the deal.

A lot of nonsense speculation in the mid/end of that article. Also like how they need an inside source to tell them that the DoJ told GBT they had 90 days to pay RoW players. That was in the GBT statement.