Story has hit nytimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/10poker.html

Guys, this is so clearly a move for the Gov to erase the competition so they can sell sell monopoly online gambling rights to MGM or something when they decide to legalize and tax online poker.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/ind...stId=undefined

time to go on the offensive

imo

-G911 mentions PPA's lack of standing in KY. Which is odd since they had standing.

-They're going to cut their player base in half or worse? It doesn't matter if they could still turn a profit, you don't go from 30K players to 15K.

Party left with a peak of 10k players. They're now up to....10K. They've stagnated since they left.

So if I cashout now can I assume that the money will be frozen/seized and/or the check would bounce? Does it matter if I use an e transfer or a paper check?

As of now, cashouts being processed are fine.

it depends on the pre processor, but if your paper check your prob def find...transfer might bounce but youll get the money back

doesnt that mean the cashouts made after this day

Yes, cashouts requested at the present time to clarify, are as of now fine according to the sites latest statements. I received a check from 6/2 yesterday and it does appear to have hit my bank account.

Well not all banks are bouncing checks right? Wasnt the problem in Arizona and California??

I wonder what it's like living in a free country.....

I dont think anybody
really knows.. what
places are free now days...
Kinda **** if you ask me...

I think they just need to let everybody play
poker and stop this ****...

Its pissin me off i wanna deposit haha.

I want you to deposit too

Lately i hve been using
other sites such as
tilttraders and maketransfer.
and some others and sending paypal funds
for poker funds just so i can play...

So right now i just got my roll up enough
to where im good for awhile until everything clears up.

Do you purposely type like a poet or do you have fat fingers and hit the return key accidentally sometimes

I'm waiting for one from the same date, or possibly from the third, which I haven't received yet. Can you tell me something? Is it drawn using the processor name that's been plastered all over the news?

Even if it's a different account, I see two problems: 1) It shouldn't be too hard for the DOJ to be able to find all other accounts from that processor and shut those down and 2) Depositing a check, even if it it's good, with that processor name seems unfavorable.

Because our GOV'T makes a ****load of money taxing that stuff.

Coming from someone who posts as if they were an adolescent in heat, I find your statement amusing.

This is a simple copy and paste from wikipedia's entry on the Wire Act

The Interstate Wire Act of 1961, often called the Federal Wire Act, is a United States federal law prohibiting the operation of certain types of betting businesses in the United States. It begins with the text:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The law has been interpreted by some, including the Department of Justice, to mean that all online gambling is illegal. However, U.S. Courts have ruled to the contrary. Also, many believe the phrase "in the business of" means only businesses are affected. Some argue that the law only covers sports betting, and not other forms of gambling such as poker.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling.

The justice departments seizure of the money is solely based on their idea that online poker is covered by the Wire Act while the courts have already ruled that it doesn't. The cases simply haven't reached the US Supreme Court yet and given that the 5th district mentioned above doesn't cover the New York assistant attorney, he believes that he has authority to seize the money in districts not covering the 5th district.

The important thing here is that most, if not all, of the money being seized belongs to sites who's sole business is online poker. That is the good thing so that when this makes it through the courts, the feds can't say that there is a real violation of the wire act as it pertains to sports betting and such and cite previous caces.

The real idea here is simply to try to scare the industry and it's players as a whole. The fact that PPA doesn't have a say is inaccurate. They represent players from all over the US and as such have a direct say as representing those as such.

I don't really see how the Supreme Court could possibly rule for the government given that ftp, ps, and ub, to name a few are all operating solely for the purposes of online poker and don't run sportsbooks and the such.

Anytime Im criticized by the likes of you, Greg, or your ilk, I consider it the highest form of compliment. Thank you.

I wonder if it would bounce or will the government seize the $?

The government will take it but the poker sties are reimbursing

Please go away Buster.

Are you speaking from experience CCuster? I haven't read anyplace that the sites are reimbursing. Of course there are so many threads about this I haven't had a chance to read them all yet.

I read that people had money placed back into their account after a check bounced, but it wasn't clear whether or not the money was seized.

In other words if the checks clear then it seems to me that pokerstars would wash their hands of it. If, however the bank doesn't allow the check to be processed then I can see them putting the money back in my poker account.

So I guess I wonder what the process is? Does the bank process the check and then seize the money or do they not allow the check to be processed (i.e. it bounces) and the money goes back into my poker account?

edit: I could see a poker site saying, "Well we paid you and the money was released into your bank account so why would we reimburse you? This is between you and the bank now, not you and our site"

Umm, yeah the threads are all full of stories the sites reimbursing. The only customers who havent been reimbursed yet are Stars e-check customers.