Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackaaron2012
Let's say that what gets paid out is only whatever you put in. For example, you put on 1,000, you ran it up to 80,000, but you get paid 1,000.
Is it possible that a player would sue the DOJ using the idea that all the money they won was theirs, and they were doing nothing illegal when they won it? I guess the question is could the DOJ have lawsuits on their hands if they don't pay back in full?
Technically, yes you could sue if you found a lawyer unethical enough to take your money knowing you couldn't win, or a player/lawyer could file his own suit and would still likely have the option of suing the FTP directors for conversion directly.
In the adsurf ponzi-esque case, the net 'winners' in the scheme who were denied remission along with company representatives and third party affiliates denied remission sued not only the government but also the administrator consulting firm that processed the petitions and then even the judge that ruled against them.
In the end all they managed to accomplish is cost taxpayers a lot of money and slow down the remission process for the net losers whose remission petitions had been approved.
The law clearly defines forfeited funds as belonging to the government, with the decision over who is granted remission entirely at the discretion of the Attorney General (delegated to AFLMS).
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
I was completely befuddled upon reading that the PPA Path to refund players included no mention of the tried and true PPA argument that online poker is not illegal, having been out of contact with the world for a week do to flooding here in the Philippines.
Which makes it now clear to me why the PPA chose not to make a legal argument for online poker play: Pappas insinuates that the DOJ themselves have declared that online poker is not illegal, and that they (the DOJ) are trying to send a message to Congress that it is time to regulate online poker.
I realize that the primary focus of the PPA is on getting legislation favorable to their benefactors pushed through congress, but on this one occasion I had hoped that politics could be put aside to do what was in the best interests of the players.
But no, the PPA chose to use this occasion as just another phase in their legislative chess game in which the players are the pawns, and risked upsetting the DOJ who has shown clear indication of a desire to make players whole for the chance to seize the tiniest of political capital.
I could write an a detailed rebuttal on why the argument that the DOJ was somehow granting their approval of online poker by reaching a settlement with PS/FTP is in no way beneficial to getting legislation passed, but that would just be dignifying the fact that the PPA ever attempted to make the argument at even the slightest risk of players not being fairly refunded.
I think Pappas OpEd is built on pretty weak logic and that the DOJ is making no such statement, but I think you're reading too much into this.
I highly doubt that the PPA is using players as pawns or that they are deciding to risk players money to help pass legislation. I think they, quite simply, don't have the same read on the legal situation that you do. Skall, who provides legal advice to the organization, has said as much repeatedly and publicly.
I'll let Skall and TE speak for the organization of course, but Id be quite surprised if legislative strategy was a factor in how to best address the DOJ on the remission process.
"...Further, Grange basically admits that the PPA can’t have a catastrophic impact on US payback right after getting as close as he comes to claiming that they will:
It seems foolhardy for Pappas to poke—and probably provoke—the DOJ by publicly asserting the DOJ wants to legalize the very conduct it has just spent years investigating and prosecuting in a high-profile manner. It’s certainly not the smartest public relations strategy.
Of course, the PPA probably has little or no credibility with the DOJ in any event. (emphasis added)
Well, which is it? Is the DoJ parsing Pappas’ every word like a starstruck schoolgirl triple-reading Tiger Beat? Or could they care less?..."
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
I think Pappas OpEd is built on pretty weak logic and that the DOJ is making no such statement, but I think you're reading too much into this.
I highly doubt that the PPA is using players as pawns or that they are deciding to risk players money to help pass legislation. I think they, quite simply, don't have the same read on the legal situation that you do. Skall, who provides legal advice to the organization, has said as much repeatedly and publicly.
I'll let Skall and TE speak for the organization of course, but Id be quite surprised if legislative strategy was a factor in how to best address the DOJ on the remission process.
Rich himself has money tied up on FTP and immediately added contacting the DOJ to his DAP after the settlement was announced so I have no concern over where his priorities are, and I doubt there was some conference call where the idea of politicizing the settlement was ever discussed.
I believe that the decision was made above the pay grade of anyone that comments on this forum regularly, so I don't hold anything against those individuals who work hard and do it sincerely (Rich and Patrick were fighting the fight long before being on the payroll).
Grange seems to give Pappas the benefit of the doubt of just not being very bright, but for the PPA to put out possibly their only official statement in six years that didn't mention the usual slogan of poker being a 'legal peer to peer contest of skill' by accident is a bit more than I can swallow.
It's actually possible I suppose that Pappas is so delusional that he honestly believes that the DOJ was somehow declaring online poker to be legal by reaching those terms in their settlement and therefore the idea of pointing the legality out to AFLMS would seem redundant to him, but would that actually make it better?
Which is more questionable, the leadership of someone willing to intentionally shoot players in the foot for the sake of a 'larger cause' or the leadership of someone that can't help himself from doing it for no good reason at all?
"...Further, Grange basically admits that the PPA can’t have a catastrophic impact on US payback right after getting as close as he comes to claiming that they will:
It seems foolhardy for Pappas to poke—and probably provoke—the DOJ by publicly asserting the DOJ wants to legalize the very conduct it has just spent years investigating and prosecuting in a high-profile manner. It’s certainly not the smartest public relations strategy.
Of course, the PPA probably has little or no credibility with the DOJ in any event. (emphasis added)
Well, which is it? Is the DoJ parsing Pappas’ every word like a starstruck schoolgirl triple-reading Tiger Beat? Or could they care less?..."
If that is the best defense for Pappas' delirious comments - that the DOJ might not be able to care less what he thinks - then the question about his leadership has been asked and answered.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
If that is the best defense for Pappas' delirious comments - that the DOJ might not be able to care less what he thinks - then the question about his leadership has been asked and answered.
Read it again, ta.
The quote you highlighted is what Grange said.
To which Chris Grove replied;
"Well, which is it? Is the DoJ parsing Pappas’ every word like a starstruck schoolgirl triple-reading Tiger Beat? Or could they care less?..."
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Rich himself has money tied up on FTP and immediately added contacting the DOJ to his DAP after the settlement was announced so I have no concern over where his priorities are, and I doubt there was some conference call where the idea of politicizing the settlement was ever discussed.
I believe that the decision was made above the pay grade of anyone that comments on this forum regularly, so I don't hold anything against those individuals who work hard and do it sincerely (Rich and Patrick were fighting the fight long before being on the payroll).
Grange seems to give Pappas the benefit of the doubt of just not being very bright, but for the PPA to put out possibly their only official statement in six years that didn't mention the usual slogan of poker being a 'legal peer to peer contest of skill' by accident is a bit more than I can swallow.
It's actually possible I suppose that Pappas is so delusional that he honestly believes that the DOJ was somehow declaring online poker to be legal by reaching those terms in their settlement and therefore the idea of pointing the legality out to AFLMS would seem redundant to him, but would that actually make it better?
Which is more questionable, the leadership of someone willing to intentionally shoot players in the foot for the sake of a 'larger cause' or the leadership of someone that can't help himself from doing it for no good reason at all?
I think he wanted to write an OpEd helping our cause and got a little bit over his skis.
I very much doubt TE and Skall would stand for the PPA board deciding to risk players balances by holding back a legal argument for political purposes.
Isnt the simpler explanation just that the PPA doesn't agree with your assessment of what's happening here, particularly since Skall has posted several times that he disagrees with your assessment of what's happening here?
Dont get me wrong, Im very glad you have shared your perspective on what the SDNY may be thinking and certainly think is substantive. However, your assessment of the PPA choosing to play politics here is heavily colored by the fact that you are confident in your read of the situation and have a completely different take on it than the PPA's braintrust/legal counsel.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
The respected "attorney/poker player/ blogger" is the same person who, on 4/20/11 asked: "Now that the Big Three have been indicted, what Representative or Senator will want to be associated with the PPA and its online poker masters / indictees?"
The names Campbell and Barton come to mind for Representative. And the name Reid fits the Senate part of the question. I'll not bother to list all the co-sponsors of their bills or remind readers of this forum that numerous Representatives and Senators have responded favorably to PPA members seeking to speak with them. Nor will I replay the favorable reactions to the PPA Fly-In in July of 2011. Perhaps another read of these articles would also help: http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...-america-12334 - http://www.pcworld.com/printable/art...printable.html.
This is the same blogger who in one breath says the PPA is nothing but a shill for the poker sites, and then in the next breath decrees that the PPA are fools for litigating poker as a game of skill on behalf of players because that might hurt the ability of the sites to raise the argument later.
He is a person who, when asked years from now "what did you do to help get online poker legal in the US" will only be able to say "I blogged a lot about what idiots those folks at the PPA were and did nothing on my own and never offered to assist them."
There will always be someone whose reason to exist is to denigrate the efforts of those individuals who choose to try and make a difference but also never offers to do anything to help.
Tamiller, if you and this blogger really believe what you say should you not be writing the DOJ AFMLS yourselves? The address is publicly available and since the PPA has it all wrong don't you think they should hear from someone who knows it all? It really shouldn't take you guys any longer than you spend on a blog or a 2+2 post.
And if the PPA is as useless and un-respected as the 2 of you believe, you can be confident that your letter will have at least as much impact as the PPA's, maybe more!
Skallagrim
Last edited by Skallagrim; 08-16-2012 at 04:05 PM.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by sba9630
Read it again, ta.
The quote you highlighted is what Grange said.
To which Chris Grove replied;
"Well, which is it? Is the DoJ parsing Pappas’ every word like a starstruck schoolgirl triple-reading Tiger Beat? Or could they care less?..."
I know, I highlighted the valid point and then besmirched the lame rebuttle to it, the author obviously doesn't understand the phrase 'shooting X in the foot', clearly Grange is aware that Pappas isn't significant enough to cause players a mortal blow, but he didn't do us any favors with the toe wound.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
I think he wanted to write an OpEd helping our cause and got a little bit over his skis.
I very much doubt TE and Skall would stand for the PPA board deciding to risk players balances by holding back a legal argument for political purposes.
Isnt the simpler explanation just that the PPA doesn't agree with your assessment of what's happening here, particularly since Skall has posted several times that he disagrees with your assessment of what's happening here?
Dont get me wrong, Im very glad you have shared your perspective on what the SDNY may be thinking and certainly think is substantive. However, your assessment of the PPA choosing to play politics here is heavily colored by the fact that you are confident in your read of the situation and have a completely different take on it than the PPA's braintrust/legal counsel.
Skall has made it clear that he is above all an attorney, what he believes none of us may never know, some of the poker isn't (legally) gambling arguments he has spewed over the years have me convinced that like most attorneys, he could say anything with a straight face.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
I know, I highlighted the valid point and then besmirched the lame rebuttle to it, the author obviously doesn't understand the phrase 'shooting X in the foot', clearly Grange is aware that Pappas isn't significant enough to cause players a mortal blow, but he didn't do us any favors with the toe wound.
You still don't get it, but this has become beyond tedious now.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Skall has made it clear that he is above all an attorney, what he believes none of us may never know, some of the poker isn't (legally) gambling arguments he has spewed over the years have me convinced that like most attorneys, he could say anything with a straight face.
OK. Im personally inclined to take Skall's posts on the subject at face value rather than speculating that Pappas and the PPA braintrust decided to knowingly risk players balances to score a super minor point related to legislation.
Re: PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
The respected "attorney/poker player/ blogger" is the same person who, on 4/20/11 asked: "Now that the Big Three have been indicted, what Representative or Senator will want to be associated with the PPA and its online poker masters / indictees?"
The names Campbell and Barton come to mind for Representative. And the name Reid fits the Senate part of the question. I'll not bother to list all the co-sponsors of their bills or remind readers of this forum that numerous Representatives and Senators have responded favorably to PPA members seeking to speak with them. Nor will I replay the favorable reactions to the PPA Fly-In in July of 2011. Perhaps another read of these articles would also help: http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...-america-12334 - http://www.pcworld.com/printable/art...printable.html.
This is the same blogger who in one breath says the PPA is nothing but a shill for the poker sites, and then in the next breath decrees that the PPA are fools for litigating poker as a game of skill on behalf of players because that might hurt the ability of the sites to raise the argument later.
He is a person who, when asked years from now "what did you do to help get online poker legal in the US" will only be able to say "I blogged a lot about what idiots those folks at the PPA were and did nothing on my own and never offered to assist them."
There will always be someone whose reason to exist is to denigrate the efforts of those individuals who choose to try and make a difference but also never offers to do anything to help.
Tamiller, if you and this blogger really believe what you say should you not be writing the DOJ AFMLS yourselves? The address is publicly available and since the PPA has it all wrong don't you think they should hear from someone who knows it all? It really shouldn't take you guys any longer than you spend on a blog or a 2+2 post.
And if the PPA is as useless and un-respected as the 2 of you believe, you can be confident that your letter will have at least as much impact as the PPA's, maybe more!
Skallagrim
I had sincerely viewed this player remission issue as an opportunity for the PPA to shine on behalf of the players, I do my best to be anonymous to stay out of the limelight, I find it good for the soul to conquer my ego.
Besides, guys like you and Rich have worked long and hard without really ever having a winning opportunity, and here was finally a lay up - SDNY has shown every indication that their desire is to hold the players harmless.
The regurgitation of SDNY's position surely didn't hurt the players, and Pappas likely could cause no more than a flesh wound with his provocation, but my hope was that the PPA would come out of this as heroes, not as the organization who didn't manage to screw it up.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
