PPA provides DoJ with recommended path to refund FTP players

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

1) The reason no "poker is legal" or "poker is a game of skill" argument was presented to the letter sent to the DOJ regarding remission is that those issues are not relevant to remission (other than in the convoluted incorrect legal theory that only you have put forward and that absolutely no one at the DOJ would even consider, much less adopt).

2) The lawyer hired to write the letter has done work for PokerStars. He has also done work for numerous other clients. But, more importantly, he began his legal career at ... the DOJ.

3) The biggest proof of your flawed thinking is now apparent: at one point you criticize the PPA for not urging the DOJ to accept positions it has consistently argued against in court - specifically a) that online poker is "played" where the server is located, and b) that poker is a game of skill. It apparently never occurred to you that taking on the DOJ over these two issues in the context of remission might lead to an argument with them rather than an opportunity to work together.

And yet when Pappas publishes an opinion piece that can be read to imply that he thinks the DOJ supports legal online poker even though they have not said so, you rail against Pappas and worry about the PPA shooting us in the foot and possibly causing the DOJ to adopt anti-player positions in response to Pappas' writing.

Only a fool would believe the DOJ would react more negatively to a political position piece in a magazine by an advocate than it would to an invitation to engage in a direct dispute over its legal positions by lawyers for a group claiming to want to help get money back to victims.

If I were to apply Tamiller thinking to the above set of facts, I would say that unless he passes a polygraph, I must conclude that all Tamiller really wants to do is say bad things about the PPA regardless of whether the criticisms are legitimate or not.

Skallagrim

That's actually a reasonable argument - I was expecting another insult to my intelligence, that the PPA deliberately walked on egg shells when making it's recommendation to AFLMS as not to agitate SDNY.

That was actually my original guess as to why that timid position was taken though no one would voice it, until I saw Pappas' Op-Ed and added 2+2 together.

The problem I have with that argument is that not only do I need to suspend rational thought to accept that two and two weren't part of a strategic equation, the alternative if I do so is that Pappas ignored the position of his legal team (that the PPA should be careful not to provoke SDNY) when writing his Op-Ed.

So again I'm left to choose between Pappas being in conspiracy with PokerStars at the risk of FTP poker players, or that he was negligent in a way that put FTP poker players at risk.

Edit: Could a mod move this thread into the PPA forum? It's not at all my goal to harm the only effort we have, regardless of it's failings.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

...
PokerStars wanted desperately to handle cashouts so that they could say to future US regulators that they couldn't have violated US gambling laws or a US court could never have transferred liability for US FTP player balances to them....

.

While Poker Stars may have wanted to control FTP player information, I doubt it was "desperate" to make the argument you outline. PStars hit a pretty good long ball over the fence with the Settlement language they got, re that the Settlement did not bar them from licensing where permitted under relevant law.

Having obtained FTP player info already, why not let someone else handle the headaches and ill-will of slicing up the pie Stars brought to the table.

Listen, forking over hundreds of millions of dollars for paying FTP players is already a pretty strong argument of mea culpa for any future regulatory licensing proceedings. They have already bought and paid for the very argument youthink they were desperate to secure.

(You also may not appreciate the value of a complete FTP payees contact list to folks other than Stars. I suspect that payjment processors will be beating down the doors to get that list, so they can license it out to MGM or whoever desperately needs liquidity come Legalization Day. hey, someone like GCA should offer to do it for almost free, just for the list and the experience. )

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

While Poker Stars may have wanted to control FTP player information, I doubt it was "desperate" to make the argument you outline. PStars hit a pretty good long ball over the fence with the Settlement language they got, re that the Settlement did not bar them from licensing where permitted under relevant law.

Having obtained FTP player info already, why not let someone else handle the headaches and ill-will of slicing up the pie Stars brought to the table.

Listen, forking over hundreds of millions of dollars for paying FTP players is already a pretty strong argument of mea culpa for any future regulatory licensing proceedings. They have already bought and paid for the very argument youthink they were desperate to secure.

(You also may not appreciate the value of a complete FTP payees contact list to folks other than Stars. I suspect that payjment processors will be beating down the doors to get that list, so they can license it out to MGM or whoever desperately needs liquidity come Legalization Day. hey, someone like GCA should offer to do it for almost free, just for the list and the experience. )

I've heard that the agreement that was leaked in April was actually approved by SDNY but someone further up the chain of command wouldn't approve of PS handling the payouts, and the three months of negotiating since then revolved around PS stance on this one issue, which makes 'desperate' seem a reasonable assessment.

The price tag was dropped from $750M to the $731 and they eventually accepted a deal in which they admitted no wrong doing, but that wasn't nearly as satisfactory of a victory as a settlement that would have required the DOJ to declare winnings lawful in order to transfer the liability for them to PS.

So I believe that they felt having Pappas come out and declare that the DOJ had given them their blessing would be the next best thing to actually getting it as they had hoped.

Whether 'daring' the DOJ to repay based on winnings hits the players in the foot or the pocketbook is yet to be seen.

[northeastbeast2]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

That's actually a reasonable argument - I was expecting another insult to my intelligence, that the PPA deliberately walked on egg shells when making it's recommendation to AFLMS as not to agitate SDNY.

That was actually my original guess as to why that timid position was taken though no one would voice it, until I saw Pappas' Op-Ed and added 2+2 together.

The problem I have with that argument is that not only do I need to suspend rational thought to accept that two and two weren't part of a strategic equation, the alternative if I do so is that Pappas ignored the position of his legal team (that the PPA should be careful not to provoke SDNY) when writing his Op-Ed.

So again I'm left to choose between Pappas being in conspiracy with PokerStars at the risk of FTP poker players, or that he was negligent in a way that put FTP poker players at risk.

Edit: Could a mod move this thread into the PPA forum? It's not at all my goal to harm the only effort we have, regardless of it's failings.

Listen you sound like an idiot. They are not going to argue the entire case about poker being a skill game as part of the remission process itself. It would muddle the entire conversation and opens up cans of worms that make no sense strategically.

If you start making those arguments you put them in a position where they might feel the need to make the payment process more arduous in order to counter the perception that they agree with the context of those arguments in the record. If you put stuff like that in the record they know it is going to be used against them later. People will start using the argument "well we must have been right because they rolled right over and gave us everything we wanted even though we made these arguments".

So no it is stupid to spit in their face or even reference gambling or poker at all in the request to be paid. It is better to SEE WHAT THEY DO FIRST.

If you start making those arguments too early YOU GIVE THEM OUTS to do bad things that they wouldn't normally be able to get away with if more pure arguments were made that focused strictly on the fraud aspect.

That is how this thing should be framed. Like this:

1. No gambling happened because no money was backing the chips
2. Players are not being paid their account balances but are getting money from PokerStars
3. The accounts are a guideline to what the players should be paid as agreed to by PokerStars in the settlement

That argument allows you to blame the entire thing on Full Tilt Poker and there is no counter argument by them for that because you are giving them an argument that exactly agrees with their original reasons for bringing the cases in the first place.

If they come back and try to mess around with the details you then respond to whatever arguments they make at that point.

Ideally what you want is the players to get paid and the taxation on the POKERSTARS MONEY to either be newly taxable or not taxable at all. If you start making games of skill arguments you put yourself in a position where it sounds like you are agreeing that the players were gambling even though Full Tilt didn't have any money to pay anyone.

I think the entire letter to the DOJ should have been avoided. It should have strictly focused on HOW the players would get paid. Not IF. If is not even a question at this point unless they respond by making it a question.

Yeah so anyway back to my point. Stop trying to get them to make stupid arguments that have nothing to do with the players getting paid. After we get paid then go back into advocacy mode. The two things are not related to each other.

[LetsGambool]

Those arguments are all pretty terrible for trying to get full balances repaid.

[northeastbeast2]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Those arguments are all pretty terrible for trying to get full balances repaid.

They already agreed to pay the balances. You make the arguments to control the TAXATION of them. They are going to pay the balances because it is part of the agreement with PokerStars. They are basing the payments off the numbers that are in the accounts.

The deposits themselves were invalid in many cases. They just credited the accounts. So if you just pay back the balances that is pointless also. Paying back the deposits should be the minimum standard.

There should be cut off dates and a priority of claims to determine how much money is leftover after all claims have been made.

1. Pay account balances
2. Pay claims of people with no account balances but lost deposits
3. If money is exhausted and claims still exist evaluate options

They always have the option of doing step one in two parts. They could pay 80 percent of the account balances right away. They then proceed to step two and then step three. If the 20 percent is needed to pay claims from step three they use whatever is needed to do so. If there is money left they make a second payment to the people who had account balances.

[LT22]

Gosh you guys are tilting the crap out of me. Just quit arguing over nonsense and enjoy the ride

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

...For the government to not respond to an inquiry for weeks is routine...

Or months, or years, or never.

The Reid-Kyl letter is dated July 14, 2011. The response came on December 23, 2011.

Medical marijuana advocates requested a cannabis reclassification from the DEA and it finally took an order from a Federal judge for the DEA to rule one way or the other. The DEA then ruled that they wouldn't reclassify. The time between the request and the ruling? Ten years.

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

...

(You also may not appreciate the value of a complete FTP payees contact list to folks other than Stars. I suspect that payjment processors will be beating down the doors to get that list, so they can license it out to MGM or whoever desperately needs liquidity come Legalization Day. hey, someone like GCA should offer to do it for almost free, just for the list and the experience. )

My first thought was, "That must be illegal", but I can't think of a law that's violated.

My second thought is, wouldn't the DOJ write the contract to prevent that from happening?

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by northeastbeast2

Listen you sound like an idiot.

No offense, but coming from you I have no choice but to take that as a compliment, as none of your rambling drivel about taxes is even relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by northeastbeast2

They are not going to argue the entire case about poker being a skill game as part of the remission process itself. It would muddle the entire conversation and opens up cans of worms that make no sense strategically.

If you start making those arguments you put them in a position where they might feel the need to make the payment process more arduous in order to counter the perception that they agree with the context of those arguments in the record. If you put stuff like that in the record they know it is going to be used against them later. People will start using the argument "well we must have been right because they rolled right over and gave us everything we wanted even though we made these arguments".

So no it is stupid to spit in their face or even reference gambling or poker at all in the request to be paid. It is better to SEE WHAT THEY DO FIRST.

If you start making those arguments too early YOU GIVE THEM OUTS to do bad things that they wouldn't normally be able to get away with if more pure arguments were made that focused strictly on the fraud aspect.

That is how this thing should be framed. Like this:

1. No gambling happened because no money was backing the chips
2. Players are not being paid their account balances but are getting money from PokerStars
3. The accounts are a guideline to what the players should be paid as agreed to by PokerStars in the settlement

That argument allows you to blame the entire thing on Full Tilt Poker and there is no counter argument by them for that because you are giving them an argument that exactly agrees with their original reasons for bringing the cases in the first place.

If they come back and try to mess around with the details you then respond to whatever arguments they make at that point.

Ideally what you want is the players to get paid and the taxation on the POKERSTARS MONEY to either be newly taxable or not taxable at all. If you start making games of skill arguments you put yourself in a position where it sounds like you are agreeing that the players were gambling even though Full Tilt didn't have any money to pay anyone.

I think the entire letter to the DOJ should have been avoided. It should have strictly focused on HOW the players would get paid. Not IF. If is not even a question at this point unless they respond by making it a question.

Yeah so anyway back to my point. Stop trying to get them to make stupid arguments that have nothing to do with the players getting paid. After we get paid then go back into advocacy mode. The two things are not related to each other.

You typed so many words that the theory about infinite monkeys being able to duplicate Shakespeare may have just been proven by the fact that you managed to make a point; while my hope was that the PPA would make the argument that while accepting deposits for poker from Americans violated US law (UIGEA), the gaming itself was licensed and therefore legitimate.

I had hoped they would cite the one higher court case relevant to this issue, which set the precedent that the sale of gambling chips by poker only sites does not violate US gambling law, and since losses were ruled legitimate, winnings should be extrapolated to be so as well.

I had also hoped that they would have made the argument to AFLMS that they could pay remission without even addressing the issue of the legitimacy of the games, since a remission payment would not preclude a losing player from filing his own litigation either against the former FTP owners or even directly against the player(s) to whom they lost.

While I was surprised that the PPA didn't spew their default 'skill game' argument to justify the legitimacy the gambling, and felt it must have been politically motivated for them to bite their tongue, I'm not at all disappointed that they didn't - because as you say that would just be opening up an irrelevant can of worms.

So in an ironic way, their omission of an argument for the legitimacy of the gaming in fear of provoking SDNY could actually be celebrated since the 'skill game' position which they likely would have taken might have been a negative, whereas failing to address the only relevant issue was probably neutral.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by LT22

Gosh you guys are tilting the crap out of me. Just quit arguing over nonsense and enjoy the ride

I tried to make the case that this argument is now moot days ago, but since people keep trying to defend an indefensible position, I feel compelled to respond.

AFMLS has already approved SDNY's petition for remission, as evidenced by the fact that SDNY has posted a job listing indicating that they have $159M available for remission, which happens to coincide with US player balances and if they deduct phantom deposits, should also be enough to cover the administrative fees allowing all players 100% remission of balances.

I even tried to give the PPA credit for influencing this turn of events by pointing out that the outcry the DOJ received via the DAP may have influenced AFLMS to approve SDNY's petition.

But that isn't enough, the PPA wants to say that both their unusual decision to not provoke the DOJ in their recommendation as well as the inconsistent (with that position) decision to write an Op-Ed which directly assumes the DOJ took a position it struggled to avoid taking were in the best interest of the players.

Whatever, the bottom line is that we should be celebrating like you say LT22, and instead we are bickering, I can't promise I won't respond to anymore intellectually dishonest rebuttals so I again request this thread be moved to the PPA forum.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by northeastbeast2

They already agreed to pay the balances.

No they haven't. That's part of the reason the PPA wrote the letter and why TEs action plan told us to contact the DOJ and let them know we should have balances repaid.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

No they haven't. That's part of the reason the PPA wrote the letter and why TEs action plan told us to contact the DOJ and let them know we should have balances repaid.

Correct.

FWIW, I thought the PPA Letter to DOJ was excellent. The reference to PStars players receiving balances should be instructive for readers here. It argues for similar treatment, built upon past practice re PStars BF payments.

I doubt there is any intention by DOJ to pay anything other than balances, although they may offset uncollected deposits for those same accounts against the stated acount balance. This offset would allow them to cut the amount by up to say $15-20 million, (plug in some % of the ACH float ?), without having to chase down deposit-floaters who had zero BF balances.

As for non-balance items, such as promotional loyalty points, et cetera, good luck; if itheir value wasn't reflected in the poker account current balance on BF, it won't be paid out in this mechanism.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

I tried to make the case that this argument is now moot days ago, but since people keep trying to defend an indefensible position, I feel compelled to respond....

But that isn't enough, the PPA wants to say that both their usual decision to not provoke the DOJ in their recommendation as well as the inconsistent (with that position) decision to write an Op-Ed which directly assumes the DOJ took a position it struggled to avoid taking were in the best interest of the players.

Whatever, the bottom line is that we should be celebrating like you say LT22, and instead we are bickering, I can't promise I won't respond to anymore intellectually dishonest rebuttals so I again request this thread be moved to the PPA forum.

FYP. (If someone wants to emerge from behind the barricades after the battle has passed, I have no problem with them helping the player victims of the fight...... so long as they also don't set about bayoneting the wounded.)

I thought the Letter was well done, that the Op-Ed was expected spin, and that both actions were taken in what the PPA perceived were the best interests of their members.

Look, "deposits" likely would outstrip 'balances", by what degree is a factor of two elements rake and net won/loss v ROW. However, the PPA really can't choose between "winning players" with FTP balances and busted losing players as of BF with zero or lower balances than "deposits". I think they made a choice fo speed and simplicity over recommending a complex system, which complexity likely fell outside the range of consideration by DOJ and PStars in fixing the dollar amount.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

FYP. (If someone wants to emerge from behind the barricades after the battle has passed, I have no problem with them helping the player victims of the fight...... so long as they also don't set about bayoneting the wounded.)

I thought the Letter was well done, that the Op-Ed was expected spin, and that both actions were taken in what the PPA perceived were the best interests of their members.

Look, "deposits" likely would outstrip 'balances", by what degree is a factor of two elements rake and net won/loss v ROW. However, the PPA really can't choose between "winning players" with FTP balances and busted losing players as of BF with zero or lower balances than "deposits". I think they made a choice fo speed and simplicity over recommending a complex system, which complexity likely fell outside the range of consideration by DOJ and PStars in fixing the dollar amount.

"Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in!"

From telling the government that poker wasn't unlawful gambling after the UIGEA was passed, amicus briefs saying that online poker isn't an illegal gambling business after SDNY seizures, support for lawsuits in Washington and other States, a public 'declaration of war' after black Friday, to an amicus brief on behalf off the poker sites just weeks ago in the BF case, you are now 'fixing my post' to say that the PPA's usual position is to avoid provoking the government?

Seriously?

And somehow both the decision to not provoke the government in the recommendation as well as the decision to deliberately (or negligently) provoke the government in the Op-Ed were somehow in the best interest of the players?

Defending either may deserve a facepalm, but defending both deserves a psychiatric evaluation for possible bipolar disorder, one or the other (since they are polar opposite) had to be the wrong strategy.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

"Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in!"

From telling the government that poker wasn't unlawful gambling after the UIGEA was passed, amicus briefs saying that online poker isn't an illegal gambling business after SDNY seizures, support for lawsuits in Washington and other States, a public 'declaration of war' after black Friday, to an amicus brief on behalf off the poker sites just weeks ago in the BF case, you are now 'fixing my post' to say that the PPA's usual position is to avoid provoking the government?

Seriously?

...

Defending either may deserve a facepalm, but defending both deserves a psychiatric evaluation for possible bipolar disorder, one or the other (since they are polar opposite) had to be the wrong strategy.

LOL, I am used to being called a lunatic, but here goes ...

1. My FYP was merely to note that the PPA USUAL m.o. has been to avoid action to antagonize the DOJ, why that is, whether due to some grand litigation strategy, out of fear of being laughed at, or due to an inability to find the Courthouse in the SDNY without PStars help/blessing, is not relevant.

2. As for the Op-Ed piece, I think your fears of "provoking" DOJ are unfounded. DOJ is not that "sensitive". In that regard, the piece was a calculated attempt to sway the political discussion.

Am I defending the strategies taken by the PPA, not really. But, I don't think the Op-Ed piece hurt their federalist cause or that the interests of poker players.

What could hurt poker players would be positions re a number of possible issues which might crop up during negotiations on federal legislation:

1. Forced Balkanization of the US market, instead of allowing the market to encourage States to allow poker. This could hurt the interests of players in likely opt-out States if their States are forced to rush to a decision in 2013,
Powerball is a nearly national game, it was not forced on any State.

2. Federal Criminalization of online poker sites under the Wire Act versus the interests of players who play on current US-facing sites, at least in the interim until licensed online poker comes to their neighborhood.

3. Protectionist provisions for current B&M operators, even for a so-called ramp-up period of a year or two.

However, those issues are WAY outside the scope of this thread.