Player trying to sue pokerstars (and eventually drops case - KM) - Page 6 - Poker News

Todd Terry · 07-12-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davmcg

5.2. PERSONAL USE. The Service is intended solely for the User's personal use. The User is only allowed to wager for his/her personal entertainment. Under no circumstances shall a User be permitted to use his/her "real money account" with PokerStars for any purpose other than for using the Service. The User must provide full and truthful information in respect of all details and information provided by the User to PokerStars and the User is obligated to update such details in the event of any change thereto. A User may only have one account with PokerStars and shall only use the Service using such single account. Furthermore a User shall not permit another person to use the Service via his account.

Was this rule in place at the time of the tournament? My recollection is that it wasn't, but I could be wrong.

Gazillion · 07-12-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Drogo_

And YouTube is getting sued for this selective enforcement as we speak.

Well, that just makes my comparison fit even more snugly

Just like this case with Stars, we shall have to see how the ruling turns out. The act of suing in itself is no proof of anything (as I'm sure you well know), but if the ruling sets any kind of precedent, I'm sure it'll liven things up a little bit in both the online video AND online poker worlds.

Also, I kind of take issue with the term "selective enforcement", as I 'm not sure it accurately describes exactly what is going on here.

OodaThunkett · 07-12-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

You are definitely wrong. The "we can't comment on the matter because it's under litigation" which is so easily accepted by all media in the United States is not imposed by court rules or procedures, but by the parties' lawyers who tell them to shut up so as not to say anything that can be used against them in court. So tactics, rather than the law, are the reason for the general silence of litigants.

Unless a gag order is imposed by the court (which is extremely rare and only happens on occasion in very, very high profile cases), parties to the case are free to talk about it whenever they want and to whomever they want. Lawyers in the case theoretically are slightly more restricted by ethical rules prohibiting statements which could alter the outcome of the case (mostly relevant in cases which are or will become jury trials), at least in the United States. There are some jurisdictions in the United States which have adopted rules which impose more stringent rules on the lawyers (but never the parties, as that would violate the First Amendment). Of course, what I've written is applicable only in the United States, maybe it's different in the Isle of Man, but since I'm sure it's a British common law system, I strongly doubt it.

Quote:

(From wikipedia)In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.

In England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, India and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

In the United States, there are First Amendment concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case. Furthermore, there are still protections for criminal defendants and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned for a fairer trial.

It's a bit different over here (UK) to how it is in the US, from the look of it, but I accept that it probably wouldn't be a factor in this case.

NewTeaBag · 07-12-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davmcg

Just for your future reference, if you ever get charged with a criminal offence. Claiming that you should be acquitted because plenty of others have not been caught doing the same thing won't really do much for you.

Once again, I'm no legal scholar, but I seem to recall that if The justice system (Da's, AJs, Police and other enforcement parties) routinely ignore application and enforcement of a law on the books and then apply it fully and forcefully in JUST one high profile case there does exist precedent for this law actually becoming UNlawful...at least somewhere in Merica if I recall correctly.

Once again, not a legal dood and fully willing to standby to be rapidly vanquished on this legal point.

Also, this isn't a criminal matter.

SgtKyle · 07-12-2008, 11:20 AM

LOL @ MicroBalla. What a tool.

PokerStars has been extraordinarily dilligent in catching cheaters, this guy cheated and got caught. GG. She even admitted to not playing. I do not see what the problem is. Stars did the right thing, as they have shown they consistently do in these situations. They protect the players to the best of their ability who play within the rules.

Todd Terry · 07-12-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OodaThunkett

It's a bit different over here (UK) to how it is in the US, from the look of it, but I accept that it probably wouldn't be a factor in this case.

Interesting, thanks for posting that.

OodaThunkett · 07-12-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewTeaBag

LOLZ! You may notice the distinct lack on insults and personal attacks in my posts.

Do I have personal stake in this specific cas? No.

Do we all have a stake in striving for some sort of independent oversight of the companies which hold our money and determine, sometimes at a whim, to essentially steal from us with almost no recourse for us? YES. I think we all have a stake in that.

As for winning arguments on interwebz...not really interested.

PS Please to highlight what BIG ASSERTIONS without backup I have made.

A strange point to make, surely, bearing in mind that Stars have been taken to court?

davmcg · 07-12-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewTeaBag

Once again, I'm no legal scholar, but I seem to recall that if The justice system (Da's, AJs, Police and other enforcement parties) routinely ignore application and enforcement of a law on the books and then apply it fully and forcefully in JUST one high profile case there does exist precedent for this law actually becoming UNlawful...at least somewhere in Merica if I recall correctly.

Once again, not a legal dood and fully willing to standby to be rapidly vanquished on this legal point.

Also, this isn't a criminal matter.

A fair point at the extreme, but no one is claiming that Stars never enforced its T&C up until this case.

To use another posters speeding analogy, if you are the only one stopped by the police in a group of speeding drivers, it isn't a defence to say that you were singled out.

NewTeaBag · 07-12-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtKyle

LOL @ MicroBalla. What a tool.

PokerStars has been extraordinarily dilligent in catching cheaters, this guy cheated and got caught. GG. She even admitted to not playing. I do not see what the problem is. Stars did the right thing, as they have shown they consistently do in these situations. They protect the players to the best of their ability who play within the rules.

WCOOP ME 2005 winner.
WCOOP ME 2004 Fter.

Sponsored player NB multi accounting
Sponsored player ML multiaccounting.

Previous allegations of softplay/collusion between several 25-50 NLHE cash players.

All of these gone WITHOUT any form of known punishment/discipline/seizure of funds.

dilligent....I do not think this word means what you think it means.

NewTeaBag · 07-12-2008, 11:45 AM

IRT davmcg:

I agree in general, but would state it as Stars has highly selectively enforced it's T&C up to this point.

IRT speeding analogy, if its 50 cars speeding and 49 drivers are white christians and the ONE driver pulled over is a black Muslim, I think we just might be hearing more abaout than a normal copper ticketing. In this case the alleged speeder happened to win Star's highest profile tourney. Is it coolio and the gang for all that they enforce against her for multiple reasons whilst not enforcing or even bothering to put forth investigative effort for the alleged douche who douches me HU in the $10R for a $20K 1st prize?

A fair and level playing field (which Stars claims to strive for and I believe overall they actually do strive for) is not achieved with selective enforcement.

PS I am making NO claims to be a $10R 2nd place finisher, just using it as an example.

NewTeaBag · 07-12-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OodaThunkett

A strange point to make, surely, bearing in mind that Stars have been taken to court?

AFAIK this is a 1st for a pokersite to be taken to court and actually hae to answer to someone other than themselves and their own final decision.

Thus the keen interest.

Hoopie1 · 07-12-2008, 12:01 PM

FWIW - The Isle of Man is not part of the UK and is governed by its own parliament and legal system.

Todd Terry · 07-12-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewTeaBag

Once again, I'm no legal scholar, but I seem to recall that if The justice system (DA's, AJs, Police and other enforcement parties) routinely ignore application and enforcement of a law on the books and then apply it fully and forcefully in JUST one high profile case there does exist precedent for this law actually becoming UNlawful...at least somewhere in Merica if I recall correctly.

Once again, not a legal dood and fully willing to standby to be rapidly vanquished on this legal point.

Also, this isn't a criminal matter.

This is not right, to make out a case of selective enforcement in a criminal case in the United States, you have to prove: (1) that they singled you out; AND (2) that you're a member of a protected class (gender, race, etc.). And such claims rarely if ever actually succeed.

Gazillion · 07-12-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoopie1

FWIW - The Isle of Man is not part of the UK and is governed by its own parliament and legal system.

Technically, no. But the UK juggles an awful lot of its balls for it, if you'll pardon the expression, and there are certain aspects of UK common law that it is subservient to, and if needs be, the UK can overrule any Manx-generated legislation. It's sort of like the UK's pet dog, which the UK choose to keep off the leash (as a Manxman by birth myself, I don't mean this in any form of derogatory fashion, I'm just a little clumsy with the metaphors today

)

Gazillion · 07-12-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

This is not right, to make out a case of selective enforcement in a criminal case in the United States, you have to prove: (1) that they singled you out; AND (2) that you're a member of a protected class (gender, race, etc.). And such claims rarely if ever actually succeed.

I think the key point here Todd is that this is NOT a criminal matter.