Fulltilt froze my account with 47 grand in it...ROUND THREE - Internet Poker

Hey Everyone,

It’s me sillysal…

2 years ago I came to the Internet gaming section of this forum to tell you my situation with Fulltiltpoker.com. I feel it only correct that I post this in this section as many of you have followed the story since the beginning. I have filed suit against Fulltiltpoker.com. If you would like to see the complaint you are welcome to click on the link below.

[link deleted]

Please mods keep this in this section…I feel it’s only fair to those, detractors and supporters, who showed great interests in these posts.

Just an FYI: I will let my website do all the talking for me.

Thanks sillysal

Last edited by Mike Haven; 10-03-2009 at 09:45 AM.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:11 PM

King Spew

Just average

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 15,227

oh my frist

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:12 PM

The Donator

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,825

Fasten your seatbelts.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:15 PM

sleepymonkey

banned

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 505

this should be fun.
sillysal, are you really accusing FT of using bots?

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:18 PM

JHair

Bagel Man

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,407

I lolled so hard

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:26 PM

chesterboy

adept

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,021

Sillysal I like that you are doing this, but I wonder, do you have any evidence that full tilt uses bots? Seems like they could sue you right back for slander if you can't back that accusation up with some evidence.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:26 PM

sleepymonkey

banned

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 505

gross

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:28 PM

Circadux

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 712

i Loled at THorpie : PLS LET ME PLAY AGAINST THIS BOT.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:35 PM

VP$IP

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,841

lawsuit

Quote:

5
10
15
20
25
1 Cyrus M. Sanai, SB#150387 CONFORMED COpy
OF ORIGINAL FILED . SANAIS - SURerior ('.oun of California
County of Los !~ngell'S 2 433 North Camden Drive
Suite 600
OCT 01 Z009
3 Beverly Hills, California, 90210
Telephone: (310) 717-9840
JohnA.
4
BY_~~~~ET'-'Deputy
Counsel for Lary Kennedy
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
LARY KENNEDY, an individual, and GREG ) Case No.
8
8C42S0S6 OMOTOY, an individual )
) COMPLAINT FOR:
11
Plaintiffs, )
) (1) FRAUD
12
vs. ) (2) RELIEF UNDER THE RACKETEER)
INFLUENCED CORRUPT
13 FULL TILT POKER, an organization; CHRIS ) ORGANIZATIONS ACT ("RICO"), 18 U.S.c.
FERGUSON, an individual; HOWARD ) § 1964 et seq;
14 LEDERER, an individual; RAYMOND ) (3) RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA
BITAR, an individual; PHILLIP GORDON~ an ) BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
individual; ANDY BLOCH, an individual; ) SECTION 17200 ET SEQ.
PHIL IVEY, an individual;, PERRY ) (4) UNJUST ENRICHMENT
16 FRIEDMAN, an individual; JOHN JUANDA, ) (5) LIBEL
an individual; ERIK LINDGREN, an ) (6) SLANDER
17 individual; ERIK SEIDEL, an individual; )
MICHAEL MATUSOW, an individual; )
18 ALLEN CUNNINGHAM, an individual; GUS )
HANSEN, an individual; PATRIK )
19 ANTONIUS, an individual; TILTWARE LLC, )
a California limited liablity company; and )
DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, )
)
21 Defendants. )
)
22 11---------------)
23 Plaintiffs, Lary Kennedy and Greg Omotoy hereby allege as follows:
24 THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, LARY KENNEDY ("Kennedy"), is a professional poker player who
26 resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiff, GREG OMOTOY
27 ("Omotoy"), resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
28
-1COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
COMPLAINT
2. Defendant CHRIS FERGUSON (“Ferguson”) is, and at all relevant times hereto
was, an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
3. HOWARD LEDERER (“Lederer”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an
individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada. Lederer was convicted of illegal
bookmaking, i.e. sports wagering.
4. Defendant RAYMOND BITAR (“Bitar”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was,
an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
5. Defendant PHILLIP GORDON (“Gordon”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was,
an individual residing in the County of County of Clark, State of Nevada.
6. Defendant ANDY BLOCH (“Block”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an
individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
7. Defendant PHIL IVEY (“Ivey”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an
individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
8. Defendant PERRY FRIEDMAN (“Friedman”) is, and at all relevant times hereto
was, an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
9. Defendant JOHN JUANDA (“Juanda”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an
individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
10. Defendant ERIK LINDGREN (“Lindgren”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was,
an individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
11. Defendant ERIK SEIDEL (“Seidel”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an
individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
12. Defendant MICHAEL MATUSOW (“Matusow”) is, and at all relevant times
hereto was, an individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
13. Defendant ALLEN CUNNINGHAM (“Cunningham”) is, and at all relevant times
hereto was, an individual residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
14. Defendant GUS HANSEN (“Hansen”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, a
citizen of the Kingdom of Denmark.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
COMPLAINT
16. Defendant PATRIK ANTONIUS (“Antonius”) is, and at all relevant times hereto
was, a citizen of the Kingdom Denmark.
17. FULL TILT POKER (“Full Tilt”) is an organization which developed software for
an on-line poker room and robots to play in such rooms and operates an internet-based website
called Full Tilt Poker at the URLs www.Full Tiltpoker.com and www.Full Tiltpoker.net. It was
founded by Ferguson, Lederer, Bitar, Gordon, Block, Ivey, and Friedman (the “Founder
Defendants”) in 2003. Each of the Founder Defendants holds an interest in Full Tilt. Full Tilt
originally comprised two companies under the common control of the Founder Defendants,
Defendant TILTWARE, LLC, a California limited liability company with an address at 10866
Wilshire Blvd. 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 (“Tiltware”), and Vert Enterprises, a company
ostensibly located in St. Kitts and Nevis. In fact Vert Enterprises had no independent existence
from Tiltware, and was operated from Los Angeles, California for more than two years. Lederer
and Bitar were ostensibly the head of Tiltware, and Ferguson, though playing no public role, was a
de facto if not de jure director and executive of Full Tilt. Of the Founder Defendants, all but
Lederer and Ivey have computer technology experience and all of them are professional or semiprofessional
poker players. Of the Founder Defendants, all but Bitar are held out to be part of
“Team Full Tilt” or “Full Tilt Pros” who act as spokespersons and representatives of the business.
18. At some time after 2003 Defendants Lindgren, Seidel, Matusow, Cunningham,
Hansen and Antonius acquired interests in Full Tilt and began exercising common control of Full
Tilt with the Founder Defendants, all such Defendants being hereinafter referred to as the
“Individual Defendants”. The Full Tilt organization was expanded to include corporate entities in
addition to Tiltware and Vert; however the actual organizational rights and responsibilities are
unwritten and exercised in common among the Individual Defendants, with Lederer taking the
pre-eminent position.
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that all Defendants
knowingly and willfully conspired to conduct the actions alleged herein. Each Defendant did the
acts and things herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy, or lent aid and
encouragement to the conspiracy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
COMPLAINT
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
20. The Defendants operate the websites Full Tiltpoker.com and Full Tiltpoker.net.
These sites are ostensibly on-line poker rooms. An on-line poker room is a Internet-based version
of California cardrooms such as the Bicycle Casino and the Commerce Casino (both located in
Los Angeles County). At a cardroom players engage in poker and other cardgames against each
other, and the owner of the cardroom has no stake in the outcome, instead charging a fee to play
each hand.
21. To play at Full Tilt, a person signs up for an account with Full Tilt online and sends
money to a bank account, on-line payment system or credit card. The person appears to other
players as a two-dimensional “avatar” selected from a pool of stock images, and chooses a screen
name There is no ostensibly “house” to play against; instead the Full Tilt takes a small amount
from each pot won by a player, called “rake”. On-line cardrooms are not illegal in California and
certain other American states, but unlicensed operation of a casino where the owner of the poker
room makes or pays out wagers is illegal in every American state.
22. Though Full Tilt represents that its business is not gambling and is a cardroom both
statements are false. Poker is considered a form of gambling in every American state, though
some states, like California, treat it differently from other kinds of gambling. Full Tilt has never
been a cardroom because the house, that it is to say the Full Tilt business, regularly plays. The
presence of the Full Tilt “house” is manifested in at least two different ways. First, the Individual
Defendants and certain other professional poker players sponsored by Full Tilt will play on the
site, utilizing the funds of Full Tilt as their stakes in the game. The appearances of the Individual
Defendants and the other professionals is in some cases open to other players and in some cases
not, however the fact that they play with Full Tilt’s money is completely hidden to players.
23. A second means by which Full Tilt takes a position in the games in which it
operates are through “robots” which are computer programs that play poker by interacting with an
on-line poker room in a manner similar to a human being. Ferguson and Bloch (graduates of
UCLA and MIT respectively) created poker robots to play on Full Tilt’s websites. The purpose of
the robots were twofold: first, they filled out virtual poker tables which were slow; second, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
COMPLAINT
poker robots play a very consistent game and can beat unskilled or moderately skilled players,
increasing the site’s revenues.
24. On-line poker players hate robots, because they play a boring, conservative and
error-free game. On-line players avoid those poker sites which allow or tolerate their customers to
play via robots, and many consider it a form of cheating.
25. The use of poker robots on Full Tilt created a customer relations problem, because
players would complain about other account holders they suspected where robots or whose card
play was dictated by robot programs. The Individual Defendants therefore created a “zerotolerance”
policy toward robots and robot-assisted players that were reported by its customers. Of
course, most of the robots reported were Full Tilt's own, but the player accounts for Full Tilt’s
own robots could simply be shut down and a new one assigned to Full Tilt’s robots in a minute. In
addition, certain players who repeatedly lost to a skilled player would start on-line jihads against
the successful player, accusing that player of being a robot. Full Tilt discovered over time that
cancellation of real player accounts accused as being a “robot” was another profit center, as the
player account money of the wrongly-accused player was confiscated. While a portion of that
money was handed out as bounties, Full Tilt kept a significant proportion.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD
(By Omotoy and Kennedy As Against Full Tilt and the Individual Defendants and Does 1 through
10, inclusive)
26. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive,
as if set forth in full.
27. Fulltillt makes many representations about its site through various means. Full Tilt
communicates through text on its websites, through emails to its account holders, through print
and television advertising, through use of the United States mails, through use of the interstate
telephone system, through statements made in public and in the press by the Individual
Defendants, and through statements made by the Individual Defendants on their personal websites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
COMPLAINT
which are transmitted through the United States interstate telephone communication system.
These statements, made and repeated from 2004 to date, include without limitation, the following:
a. Poker is a game of skill and is not deemed to be gambling under federal or state
law.
b. Full Tilt operates a cardroom where everyone plays for their own account,
including the Individual Defendants.
c. Full Tilt does not tolerate the operation of robots on its site.
d. The money of players deposited and won on Full Tilt is safe.
e. Full Tilt treats its customers fairly and consistently in accordance with the highest
standards of the poker community.
28. Kennedy is a professional poker player specializing in “heads up” play, which is
poker played between two persons only. She was aware of the statement made in the immediately
preceding paragraph through some or all of the modes of communication specified above. She
reasonably relied on these representations and sent money to Full Tilt to fund her player account
and played on that site for many years.
29. In November, 2007, a poker player whom Full Tilt has favored with his own
personal virtual tables, “TheComplainer”, accused Kennedy’s avatar, “pokergirl_z”, of being a
“robot” in various on-line poker forums and discussion groups. “TheComplainer” player regularly
compiled and distributed large lists of player accounts he contended were robots.
30. Kennedy has never used a robot or computer program to assist her play. To prove
her skill, she has even used webcams to broadcast images of her playing live online.
31. The Individual Defendants and Full Tilt ignored this evidence and confiscated in
excess of $80,000 in the Full Tilt accounts of Kennedy and/or Omotoy (whose account Kennedy
utilized after Omotoy abandoned the game) on or about January of 2008. Virtually all of such
funds were the property of Kennedy. From and after that time Full Tilt and the Individual
Defendants have publicly stated that Kennedy’s success as a player was due to her employing or
being assisted by a poker robot.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
COMPLAINT
32. Plaintiffs’ loss of funds was proximately caused by the fraudulent statements made
by the Individual Defendants as spokesmen for Full Tilt and by Full Tilt’s statements made as an
entity. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on such statements.
33. The Individual Defendants and Full Tilt took the actions and made the statements
set forth in paragraphs 27 through 32 with malice and/or willful intent to deprive players of
property rights, legal rights and money. The Individual Defendants were each aware of, or
recklessly indifferent to, the falsity of such oral statements each of them made or caused to be
made. This despicable conduct subjected Kennedy to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
disregard of Kennedy’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
RELIEF UNDER THE RACKETEER-INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
ACT ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1964 et seq;
(By Kennedy and Omotoy As Against the Individual Defendants and Does 11 through 20,
inclusive)
34. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 25, and 27
through 32, as if set forth in full.
35. The fraudulent statements described in paragraph 27 each constituted a separate
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. In aggregate those statements have been made and repeated by the
Individual Defendants hundreds of times. Each such statement has been made at least once
through the Individual Defendants’ use of the United States mail system, and at least once through
the use of the United States interstate telephone communication system.
36. Each wagering transaction conducted by or against Ferguson or Friedman on Full
Tilt, each wagering transaction conducted against a player in California by any Individual
Defendant, each poker wager conducted by or against a Full Tilt robot, and each poker tournament
or other prize paid out of the funds of Full Tilt to a player residing in California, constituted a
violation of California Penal Code § 330. There have been many thousands of such violations by
Full Tilt every year from 2004 onward.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
COMPLAINT
37. Full Tilt has conducted at least one Internet gambling transaction in violation of the
law of Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, New Jersey,
Nevada, Washington State, Missouri, Kentucky and Utah each year since 2004. As of the date of
this Complaint the state of Kentucky seeks to obtain control over Full Tilt’s domain names for
violation of Kentucky anti-gambling law, accusations that Full Tilt has declined to contest in the
Kentucky state courts. In addition the United States has confiscated millions of dollars of funds
dispatched by Full Tilt to its customers in the United States.
38. Each of the actions identified in paragraphs 33 through 35 constitutes a
“racketeering activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), and in aggregate they constitute a “pattern of
racketeering activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Full Tilt is an “enterprise” under 18 U.S.C. §
1961(4). Each of the Individual Defendants maintains an interest in and controls Full Tilt through
which they engage in the above referenced pattern of racketeering activity. Each of the Individual
Defendants participates in the conduct of Full Tilt’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering
activities.
39. Plaintiffs have been injured by the pattern of racketeering activities conducted by
the Individual Defendants, who are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for three times the
amount of economic losses arising from the pattern of racketeering activities plus attorney’s fees.
These include not only out of pocket losses but also the income Kennedy would otherwise have
made playing in lawful poker venues.
40. The Individual Defendants conducted the pattern of racketeering activity alleged
above with malice and/or willful intent to deprive players, including Plaintiffs, of property rights,
legal rights and money. This despicable conduct subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship
in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive
damages.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
COMPLAINT
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION CODE SECTION 17200, et seq.
(By Kennedy As Against the Individual Defendant, Full Tilt and Does 31-40)
41. Plaintiff Kennedy hereby incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 through 25, 27
through 32, and 35 through 39 inclusive, as if set forth in full.
42. The conduct the Individual Defendants and Full Tilt was and will be unlawful
business acts or practices because they repetitively violated, inter alia, Penal Code §330, 18
U.S.C. § 1323, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
43. The conduct of the Individual Defendants and Full Tilt set forth above was and will
be a fraudulent business act or practice and deceptive or misleading advertisement because it was
likely to deceive members of the general public to induce them to play on Full Tilt’s website and
send Full Tilt money.
44. In engaging in conduct that constitutes unfair competition and false advertising, the
Individual Defendants and Full Tilt have acquired money or property from members of the general
public who reside in California, including Kennedy.
45. It is impossible for Plaintiff Kennedy to determine the exact amount of money due
to the general public without a detailed review of the financial books and records of the Individual
Defendants and Full Tilt. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kennedy seeks, among other things, an
accounting of the Individual Defendants and Full Tilt and/or the appointment of a receiver over
Full Tilt.
46. The aforementioned business practices of the Individual Defendants and Full Tilt
are likely to continue and therefore will continue to violate the law and deceive the public.
47. The Individual Defendants and Full Tilt should be enjoined from conducting illegal
gambling enterprises in California and to California residents and should be required to restore all
money taken from players in California, including Plaintiff Kennedy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
COMPLAINT
48. The number of persons injured by the illegal conduct of the Individual Defendants
is too numerous to effectively litigate on a case by case basis. All of the persons injured by the
violation of California law have sufficiently similar actions in fact and law as to merit a class
action. Kennedy is an appropriate representative a class comprising all citizens of California who
have lost money playing on Full Tilt’s website.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(By Kennedy and Omotoy As Against Full Tilt and Does 31-40)
49. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 through 25, and 27
through 33, inclusive, as if set forth in full.
50. As an alternative to an award of damages, Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of the
amounts confiscated by Full Tilt plus prejudgment interest.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
LIBEL
(By Kennedy As Against Full Tilt and Does 41-50)
51. Kennedy hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 25, and 27
through 33, inclusive, as if set forth in full.
52. Executives, employees, and representatives of Full Tilt stated in writing to players
and the general public in numerous circumstances that Kennedy’s account had been terminated
due to her playing with or through a robot or other dishonest means. This was a false statement
made with knowledge of, or reckless disregard of, its truth or falsity and that a reasonable person
would believe implied that Kennedy was dishonest and incapable of playing as well as she did.
Because Kennedy is a professional poker player, this statement is of the kind that was inherently
injurious to her, allowing recovery of general damages.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
COMPLAINT
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
SLANDER
(By Kennedy As Against Full Tilt and Does 51-60)
53. Kennedy hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 25, and 27
through 33, inclusive, as if set forth in full.
54. Executives, employees, and representatives of Full Tilt stated orally, and by
mechanical or electronic means, to players and directly or indirectly to the general public in
numerous circumstances that Kennedy’s account had been terminated due to her playing with or
through a robot. This was a false statement made with knowledge of, or reckless disregard of, its
truth or falsity Because Kennedy is a professional poker player, this statement tended to directly
injure Kennedy in her profession by imputing to her general disqualification in those respects
which her occupation peculiarly requires, and imputed that Kennedy was dishonest and incapable
of playing as well as she did, which imputation has a natural tendency to lessen the profits of her
profession.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Lary Kennedy and Greg Omoty respectfully demands the
following relief:
On the First Cause of Action
1. Compensatory damages according to proof at trial;
2. An award of punitive or exemplary damages;
3. Reasonable costs incurred in this action;
On the Second Cause of Action
1. Compensatory damages according to proof at trial, tripled in accordance with 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c);
2. An award of punitive or exemplary damages;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
COMPLAINT
3. Reasonable costs incurred in this action, including reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);
On the Third Cause of Action
1. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Business & Professions
Code Section 17203 and restraining and enjoining the Individual Defendants and
Full Tilt from continuing the violations acts of illegal, unfair, or fraudulent
competition or advertising set forth above and requiring the Individual Defendants
and Full Tilt to take any acts needed to prevent further violations;
2. For an order requiring the Individual Defendants and Full Tilt to provide an
accounting of all moneys which they may have received from identifiable victims
in California as a result of the acts and practices found to constitute unfair
competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.;
3. For an order that Full Tilt and the Individual Defendants make restitution by
restoring to identifiable victims all funds acquired by the acts of unfair competition
set forth above, including payments acquired by defendants from players on Full
Tilt’s website, and all additional orders necessary to accomplish this purpose,
pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17203;
5. Reasonable costs incurred in this action, including reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 and/or as an equitable private
attorney general and prejudgment interest;
On the Fourth Cause of Action
1. Restitution of all amounts confiscated by Full Tilt, in an amount according to proof.
2. Reasonable costs incurred in this action;
On the Fifth Cause of Action
1. As to Kennedy only, General Damages in an amount to be determined at trial
2. As to Kennedy only, an award of punitive or exemplary damages;
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3. Reasonable costs incurred in this action, including reasonable attorney fees under
the law;
On the Sixth Cause of Action
1. As to Kennedy only, General Damages in an amount to be determined at trial
2. As to Kennedy only, an award of punitive or exemplary damages;
3. Reasonable costs incurred in this action, including reasonable attorney fees under
the law;
As to All Causes of Action
1. For costs of suit incurred herein;
2. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: OCt- t ,2009
BY:~~_~'
YRUS SANA! .." ~
Attorney for PlamtIffs
-13COMPLAINT

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:36 PM

#10

apefish

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 14,618

the most prominent part of the page is "Full Tilt Poker stole my money" as a link and I can't imagine linking something like that will be allowed to stand.

since I'm not a zoo mod I'm just giving my opinion and not doing anything further.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:37 PM

#11

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

Why the hell would you go to TMZ with this? That's ridiculous.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:40 PM

#12

VP$IP

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,841

"Ferguson and Bloch (graduates of UCLA and MIT respectively) created poker robots to play on Full Tilt’s websites."

devious, imo

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:41 PM

#13

apefish

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 14,618

Lirv- the whole saga is ridiculous so it feels kind of standard tbh.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:44 PM

#14

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

I don't really know a lot about the whole situation, but sure, if he (she?) had money (any amount) wrongfully confiscated, then it's obviously bull****. But seriously, TMZ? TMZ? wtf?

They make a career out of making celebrities look bad. With all the bull**** the UIGEA has caused for online poker, is taking this to TMZ really the best thing to do? Just a horrible horrible ****ing choice IMO.

Seen any of the comments on the TMZ site? They're full of ignorant people making ignorant comments.

"it's all gambling and no one can win." blah blah blah

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:47 PM

#15

apefish

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 14,618

I'd never say best- or even good- thing to do. I just think it's not surprising given the ridiculous drama involved in the original threads.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 07:51 PM

#16

bobboufl11

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 14,329

I doubt someone who looks like the average 2+2er finds a lawyer to take this case. Lawyers hittin that imo

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:00 PM

#17

steel108

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,217

Meh, good luck to you

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:16 PM

#18

eastern motors

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 9,213

Who is Greg Omotoy?

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:20 PM

#19

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by apefish

I I just think it's not surprising given the ridiculous drama involved in the original threads.

I can agree with that. (though I haven't read much of the threads)

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:23 PM

#20

mayday4379

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,733

good luck girl.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:25 PM

#21

coordi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 22,844

this is something a woman would do

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:29 PM

#22

novahunterpa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,244

I don't know about FT using bots or if you can prove that or not. As far as FT closing your account and taking your money, if this is what they did and can't prove they had a legit reason then it's good your going after them. Sites need to know they can't just seize players account's whenever they want and say "our decision is final" without evidence or some way for the player to prove they are innocent.

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:45 PM

#23

case3

adept

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 774

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a86580ec-a...44feabdc0.html

Quote:

Full Tilt declined interview requests, but a company linked to it in the suit said yesterday Ms Kennedy's account had been "appropriately terminated" for violating the site's rules, that the suit's claims "have no merit" and that the company "expects that this erroneous lawsuit will be dealt with accordingly".

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:47 PM

#24

Doc89

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,687

Why does the thread title say 47 grand, but your website says almost 80 grand?

Quote

10-02-2009 , 08:48 PM

#25

dbcooper279

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,678

Wasn't it proven that you multi-accounted, using your former BF's account? IIRC, that's against the T&C's, and that would make you about the 120994864th person to have their funds taken as a result.

Also, have fun proving that FT uses bots. I really hope Ferguson takes the stand and pwns you with some disgusting analysis and shows you how wrong you are.

Quote

Page 1 of 9

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 9

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last