Do you have plea bargains there?

50 posts in one day to reiterate the same point indicates you don't have much to do. If I were a lawyer, the last thing I'd want to do is argue my work with ******s in a forum on my day off. You must be a paralegal or something.

No, not like you have in the USA. Here we can agree to a client pleading guilty to certain charges in exchange for other charges being dropped, but the penalty is always up the Judge. I wish we did have them.

LOL...it's an interesting topic for someone like me. You on the other hand posting here just to insult someone makes we wonder about your life.

I've enjoyed all of the polite banter these last few pages (SGT RJ makes 994758663746 more 'don't call each other names' in the FTP thread than she has here) but I think that a step back, a return to square one, is in order:

This thread was started to gather stories because of what the OP did in the Secret Service thread in NVG. He was presented w/ incontrovertible proof that he had made online money transactions, was told that that processor was also being investigated for handling terrorism and child pornography transactions as well and he admitted that his transactions were poker related. Apparently that was the end of that for him. My replies were along the lines of 'this is one of the times that it's ok to talk to the authorities.' I went on to state something about being socially awkward or inexperienced to not be able to tell the difference in the times when it was ok and not ok to talk to the authorities and I stand by that.

I NEVER said that it was ok to talk to the authorities AGAINST the advice of counsel. And it's certain that every lawyer worth his salt is going to advise not talking to the police once you have called and told them you're having police trouble.

But I am certain, certain that this is how the convo would go if the OP of the SS thread had insisted on a lawyer:

SS: 'We have proof that your client made online money transactions using a payment processor that besides handling online poker sites also handled terrorism and child pornography.'
Lawyer: 'Are you interested in prosecuting the online poker cases (expecting that they would not be interested in taking on who knows how many similar 'criminals' esp when it being criminal in the first place is in serious doubt)?
SS: 'No.'
Lawyer: 'These transactions were all poker related.'
And end of case, send bill for $1,000.

In my hypo, if I'd said 'I will be down at the station tomorrow w/ my lawyer' I predict the convo:

Lawyer (pre-interview): 'Are you absolutely certain that the vids will show that you were at the poker room during the times in question?'
Me: 'Absolutely.'
Cops: 'We want to know where you client was during..........'
Lawyer: 'He was at a poker room. Let's go and check the surveillance vids RIGHT NOW.'
And end of case, send bill for $1,000.

As amusing at this exchange has been some of you have gone off on your own. It's not 'talk to cops against lawyer's advice', it's 'have you ever talked to the cops and what is your story?' in the attempt to back up my contention that a reasonably bright, aware person should be able to tell when it's ok to do so w/o a lawyer and when it's not.

As to that vid: If somebody were of a mind to I'm sure that they could compile an equally compelling vid of testimonies of people who would say 'Boy, it's a good thing that I told the police such and such because it saved me an incredible amount of trouble.'

Meh, I play poker for a living, so what else do I have to do (besides wait for the Secret Service)? But you won't see me arguing with donks over how to play a hand. I guess I'm just not as passionate.

That could be a lie though....they really are just prosecuting online poker and made up the terrorism/kiddie porn part to get you to admit to the only thing they are trying to prove.

The point is that they have already presented definite proof to OP that he HAS made online money transactions. In his OP he says that he's a pro player. He must know the pro/con arguments and one of them is that it's not illegal to play except, iirc, in Washington State, maybe elsewhere but he should know if he's in such a jurisdiction.

And that doesn't change the fact that they have him, proof-wise.

Yep Max, I agree with you. The OP could find himself hit with a subpoena to give evidence against one of the payment processors one day. I would assume they knew enough about his transactions to know he was a poker player, not a kiddy porn merchant. Had he got a lawyer, he probably never would have been pursued, and wouldn't have to worry about possibly going to court and giving evidence.

Even with the caveat there is plenty of evidence that this is wrong, and that when people err, they err on the side of being too willing to talk.

If they "had him" proof wise, then it was a waste of time to interview him, and making admissions was never going to assist him.

Sure...but why waste time coming on to this thread just to insult someone? Were you feeling passionate about it? LOL.

+1

Who did I insult?

LOL...is this a joke? The prisons are full of people who talked to police when they shouldn't have....would you take their testimonies from there? I'm flabbergasted if you believe the above statement to be true.

What trouble do you think the OP avoided by talking to Police? All he did was put himself in the middle of a criminal investigation and make himself a potential witness if required. It's obvious they were gathering evidence against the payment processors.

You obviously set out to insult me...but whatever, trolls will be trolls.

Nah, that was constructive criticism.

Wow...you sure are passionate about this. Why come on to a thread and post nothing on topic? What a loser you are.

lol, you criticized her use of free time then called her a paralegal. would be be insulted if, when you told someone youre a poker pro, they asked if you played .05/.10? good job playing (though not really playing?) dumb after needlessly giving **** to someone qualified who is using their time to help us.

Today I'm a loser; tomorrow, 5 racks of lawyer money. Tomorrow





You're only a day away.

IDK how it is in Australia but I don't think a lawyer is going to prevent him being called as a witness. And how is the lawyer supposed to keep him from being pursued? The FTP crew used expensive lawyers and spread their companies in multiple off shore locations presumably in order to shield them from prosecution/law suits but that's before the fact, not after.

Besides, if being required to give evidence is the worst thing to happen to that fellow it's no big deal.

Another story of mine:

I got subpoenad to testify against a bank robber that was using a former superintendant of mine as an alibi witness, saying that he'd been working w/ him, and therefor for me, at the time of the robbery. So I get to Federal Court in Newark, N.J. and the prosecutors say 'He's a really bad guy. He's threatened to kill all of the witnesses.'

Me: 'Gee, thanks.' Am still here though.

I've said before that I think they were doing grunt-work, just taking a look at him, sizing him up and while the admission might not assist him it also won't hurt.

You sure you're a lawyer? I hate the 'reading comprehension?' line but, IMR, re-read what I posted.

He avoided having the matter going any further, do you really not get that? And, as above, who gives a damn if the worst thing that happens is that he has to be a witness?

btw: 'obvious they were gathering evidence against the payment processor' backs up my contention that it was fine to talk to the police in that case.

Thank you.

I would only be insulted if I actually played those limits.

Where incredible amount of trouble is defined as missing a meeting and not 25 years in prison.

I'm pretty shocked the negative freeroll concept hasn't pretty well ended the thread, sure we had henry being henry, but even setting that abortion aside, it seems the general principle really hasn't been accepted.

He didn't avoid the matter going further...do you really not get that? A simple "I'm not willing to answer your questions" over the phone would have avoided the matter going further....where do you think it was going to go? They couldn't force him. It went further because he didn't say those simple words.