Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
The DOJ has been very good at its campaign of harassment and selective indictments. They scared most online poker rooms away and most ewallets with one questionable indictment which was quickly settled and one maybe subpoena. I wish that the rest of the government was 10% as efficient and effective. So far they know better than to directly take on online poker, but eventually they will have to do so to remain credible.
i'm starting to suspect that their harassment campaign and the scare tactics used are because they don't have a legal foot to stand on. it's unfortunate that litigating in federal court is grossly expensive, so i don't totally blame some of the doj targets for opting instead for a economical solution rather than fighting it out and in the process wasting a ton of money just to call the doj's bluff and just to get a judge in the end that is not competent.
still, eventually someone out there with poker only business/personal interests has to stand up to them and drag their arse in court. we have a court system and a bit of case precedent that should be used.
whether that will be a bank, payment processor, poker site or individual i dunno. but it will probably have to eventually happen if the doj gets more bold and starts going after poker-only entities.
the flipside is that the doj may change their direction away from gaming after november and this will all calm down a bit.