I'm not sure why you want to lash out at me, as I don't know you personally, and my critique of the PPA's litigation strategy was based on my extensive experience as a litigator and appellate attorney, and was directed at the merits of the PPA's litigation strategy. I understand that the PPA's litigation strategy was your pet project, and I know full well how it stings when you spend a great deal of time setting up a case for an appeal, only to have a court seemingly just not "get" your argument. So maybe you take the criticism more personally than it was intended.

That being said, the PPA's litigation strategy is fair game for comment and analysis. I've extensively discussed on my blog why the PPA's litigation strategy was not only doomed to fail, but how losses like Dent and Rousso actually are extremely harmful to the poker legalization effort by establishing additional bad case law for other courts to cite (and you can bet both of those cases will be cited by the DOJ in the current cases against the Big Three, et al.). That's a significant factor that has to be weighed in any decision whether to litigate or appeal in a particular case. My analysis has consistently been that these cases were extreme longshots, and would cause serious collateral damage if courts ruled against the PPA, and thus the cases should never have been litigated. Events have proven my analysis correct.

I take no joy in being correct, as I love poker as much as anyone on this forum, and I want online poker (and home games, etc.) to be legal. What's done is done as far as the PPA's past litigation efforts. But the PPA does a great disservice to the poker players it represents when its leaders refuse to acknowledge mistakes, and more importantly, learn from them and adapt their strategies going forward. A petulant "you're a nobody, your opinion doesn't count" or "I know better, how dare you question me" response is hardly conducive to helping the PPA and its poker players decide how best to address new legal challenges.

If I said something that was a personal attack, I apologize as no personal attack was intended. However, I stand by my criticism of the PPA's litigation strategy as ill-advised and detrimental to the poker legalization efforts. Hopefully the PPA will focus its efforts on finding an effective legislative strategy going forward, whatever that might entail.

I invite you to further this discussion in the Poker Litigation Forum:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...54/index5.html

For here all I will say are two things: 1) you attacked my integrity in believing in this issue by insinuating this was all done to somehow benefit the sites (you also showed bias in analysis: why is the single appellate judge in SC irrelevant but the single appellate judge in CO is a"loss"?), and 2) you claim losing here causes "collateral damage" but that is patently not the case - if people and the courts are already dead set in believing poker is a game of chance, and we argue with them that they are wrong, and we lose that argument, all we are left with is the situation being exactly the same as when we began.

Skallagrim

Exactly why we're in this position.

is the PPA napping?

We have established that some people are upset with the PPA. IMHO, some of the criticism is justified (like the recent media coverage). Some of it is just donktard flaming.

I am waiting for the critics to start up an alternative organization. If they are so terrible then certainly someone could do it better.

I'm one of the ones who has criticised the lackluster response of the PPA since 'Black Friday' and I think that it is justified criticism, however I for one am not ready to give up on the PPA, I DO think that changes need to be made in the organization. I've been giving it some thought and here's some of what I think needs to be done:

1) True membership, meaning that all members PAY for membership, I'd personally feel comfortable with a 'stepped' system, say $12/year for a basic membership $25/year for an associate membership (or some such) $50/year for a Premiere membership and $100+/year for a Leading membership. This accomplishes 2 things, it gives the players more of a 'stake' in the organization, and it broadens the monetary support for operations.

2) The PPA needs to forge more ties with onshore B&M gaming interests and some other companies who don't currently have ties to 'gambling' such as zynga or perhaps Google (companies who MIGHT want a piece of a legalized pie).

3) With more money in the coffers from #1 and 2 the organization needs to hire more professional day-to-day management and better Lobbying, PR and Legal assistance.

4) Greater use needs to be made of 'celebrity' players, I'm talking about both celebrities who play and poker players who have become celebrities, if some are unwilling to do it gratis, fine then hire them as spokespeople for a nominal fee. Rightly or wrongly Americans are obsessed with celebrity and will follow what they say and do.

5) Organized use of 'Social Networks' needs to be undertaken on a massive scale, use it to educate non-players and organize actions by current players (yes some of this occurs now but it needs expanding and coordinating).

6) Educate the public... FDR was in particular a big poker player in his White House:

http://fdrsdeadlysecret.blogspot.com...and-poker.html

A sponsored History Channel/Discovery Channel show anyone?

Anyway, those are just some of my broader thoughts on the matter, since people have been asking critics for their ideas and not just criticisms.

Re point #1: There is no doubt that the PPA's poker litigation strategy was heavily influenced by the Big Sites. The PPA forum, is a post written by you, specifically acknowledges that Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, and Andy Bloch were key people in initiating the "poker as game of skill" litigation strategy. http://theppa.org/forums/topic/72 This background, coupled with the obvious financial connection between PokerStars / Full Tilt and the PPA, certainly raises real questions about who is driving the PPA litigation strategy and why.

Also, the CO court decision is a loss as the single judge ruling against poker stands because the state supreme court denied an appeal. It is not binding precedent like Dent or Rousso. The Chimento case in SC is being reviewed by the state supreme court. Thus, the single judge ruling not only has no precedential value, it won't even be the final decision in the matter. As an attorney, you are well aware that the trial court decision has no legal significance beyond the parties to the case. And as I mentioned before, I fully expect a negative decision from the South Carolina supreme court. If I'm wrong, I'll happily ship you a bottle of Dom Perignon; you'll have earned it if you pull that victory out.

Re Point #2, adding appellate court decisions specifically rejecting the skill argument does in fact change the current state of relevant case law. Those are modern cases which buttress what is generally speaking older case law that is anti-poker. These cases matter to other pro-poker litigants in other states. And there is no question Rousso is a new decision re online gaming that sets the initial bar in that area of the law (application of the dormant commerce clause to online gaming). The cause of legalized poker has certainly been set back by the PPA's litigation strategy, at least in my view. At the very least, the PPA's litigation strategy is worthy of critique and discussion.

The Rousso case was not initiated by the PPA.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

1) Lee Rousso was the WA state PPA director; and,

2) The PPA intervened, filed briefs in the trial and appellate courts, and argued before the state supreme court.

Actually, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who ...

I have significant criticisms about the PPA litigation strategy. However, I do think the PPA deserves credit for its efforts on the legislative front, both at the state and federal levels. Passing laws favorable to your constituents is tough work, and the PPA did do some good work in developing a favorable base in Congress to launch the Frank and Reid bills. Of course, there are plenty of strong opponents and "frenemies" like the religious right and the B&M or tribal casinos who have positions that run into the ideal PPA position. The PPA's failure to get a "perfect" bill doesn't mean they failed on the legislative front. Only time will tell re the PPA's ability to represent poker players against some of these heavyweights.

Correct, but that's a volunteer position. It's not like everything Lee (or any other state director) did while serving in that capacity was on behalf of PPA.

Once filed, surely it was best to put our best foot forward.

Anyway, I was not trying to take anything from your post. I was simply sharing a point of fact about the cases you cited.

I can't believe there's even a discussion about this. The ppa was proven to be an absolute joke, I bet the doj hasn't even heard of them. They bailed on sports bettors and now they've bailed on poker players and anyone who donated is a sucker.

Fair enough. And as I previously noted (http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/05...-rousso-v.html), I thought the PPA's attorneys did a good job at oral argument. The problem was, their argument simply required the court to make too big of a lift to have any real chance of prevailing. In other words, the problem wasn't in the execution, the problem was in the initial decision to initiate litigation.

lol. i remember back in i think it was 09 in the WSOP some PPA rep wanted me to wear a patch so badly when I final tabled an event they had some cameras at. i asked the guy why, and he said if i played online poker and wanted it regulated i'd care to wear it. i told him i didnt play, and i could think of half a dozen better channels to go through to seek regulation. he told me i had no clue what i was talking about. i asked him to educate me, and show me anything they had accomplished and he couldn't provide a single thing. the kicker is he wanted me to wear it for free, and i think that irritated me more than anything. asking people to put their name alongside a brand they've never heard of, benefited from, or seen results of, just because it attempts to represent a game i just happen to like to play is just plain foolish and insulting.

turns out i wasn't alone

I'm rather loathe to comment here, being from the UK, but here's my $0.02

Small organisations and minority interests will always struggle to get newstime, you've got to get creative and noisy.

Westboro Baptist Church may be hated, but at least they aren't irrelevant.

Set up a poker game outside Bill Frist's church - only takes a half-dozen people - protest at a FoF event - whatever it takes without breaking the law. Make enough noise and the media will come.

If you make your bandwaggon loud enough and get enough media interest, then prominent people will rally to your cause if only through their own desire for the spotlight.

Time to fight dirty imo.

Yes, I respect the effort but Lee Rousso clearly made a huge mistake.

my 2 pence:

The PPA reflected more the active poker players who cared about legislation and protecting freedom to play vs various legal challenges where they could.

Alot of poker players were apathetic or maybe just willing to complain online. There were many who didn't want the earlier Reid Bills and wanted the 'status quo', fair enough complain to get blackout period changed e.t.c but it was progress.

Now there is vastly reduced ability to play online, alot of players are mobilised and the PPA will change as it's member's ranks swell and become more active. That is true of any grassroots type organisation.

My second point is although online poker players are more online aware- sending emails is all very good but writing short good coments on all media stories and spreading the word online is maybe better. The problem is the political creature inhabits less this online world -a world of surgeries/opening ceremonies and photo shoot opportunities.

The online world is less visible - turning up at these people's events and asking questions and just showing you exist and in numbers will register more with these people.

A walk to congress protest -well organised and designed for maximum impact
e.g. good social media build up so many are aware, exponential recuitment -say every player has to bring 2 friends and they must bring 2 friends, on weekend ideally sunny day -make into a party atmosphere, other internet freedom groups, e.tc. and just show by sheer numbers in a visible way how many people care about this issue.

Sometimes the oldest ways of protest are the best.

This
If members of 2+2 (not just posters itt) who are complaining and whining would do something, then we'd be better off. Yes, the PPA isn't perfect, but they were fighting for us when we completely ignored them for years.

Some of us tossed them twenty bucks. Most of us just joined and did nothing more. I gave them a donation early on, but I thought nothing more of it and rarely even read their emails (sorry).

We all can take action whether we back the PPA or not.

If each one of us participates in educating the public, holding demonstrations, and protesting, then our voices would have to be heard!

Right now they (our opponents everywhere) are laughing at us because we aren't doing anything to fight back after they effed us.

I can imagine the surprise & delight one of them would have if they, through their nifty intelligence, found out that 2+2 represents the internet poker scene and decided to find out how we're reacting to the whole thing. What would they see? What threads are out there? What kinds of posts?

Move out of the country rather than fight? Blame someone else rather than do something?

I think we can all agree that they're not sweating in the least. Don't you want them to at least squirm a little bit? Don't you want them to take us seriously?

I realize a few of you are doing something (calls/letters/emails/etc.), but most of you aren't.

If you want to take some individual action like emails and calls, go here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...hread-1021812/


If you want to join a local group and take group action, go here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...hread-1024101/

or here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...hread-1024948/



We need to get together and organize. Then the whole nation will see that we're not degen losers who will hide in a hole until the gov't gives us some shtty deal which we'll have to take because we made no effort to speak out for fair regulation.


Or we could bitch about how the PPA didn't work hard enough for us while we twenty tabled sngs in our boxers scooping peanut butter out of the jar with our fingers and did nothing to help them.



btw, the personal attacks against Skallagrim are disgusting, and you (those who attacked, obv) should really think about how utterly horrible that is to do to someone who is working so hard for all of us.

Those interested in my reply can find it here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=83

And those interested in actual discussion of strategy should go to the thread I linked before. If enough participation and actual discussion happens, I will ask the mods to make a new thread on PPA litigation strategy alone.

Skallagrim

Just give Greg Raymer a cheese burger

I just wanted to share that 2+2 members are in the process of organizing groups by states for protests. So far, 12 states are represented. We are just getting started but we intend to coordinate protests across the nation simultaneously, with an eventual march/rally in DC. See the "Official Group Protest Organization Thread" if you'd like to join or start a group. We have created a website http://goipp.********.com/blog.php. You can also follow us on Twitter @goipp.

standard PPA PR, quote and disparage the most poorly spoken and ignore the many intelligent posters who make valid points against you.

and when all else fails, just martyr yourself

im not from the US but obviously want US regulated poker as its good for the overall game.

to my mind the PPA is finished. its connection with now fraudulent and money laundering sites has done irreperable damage to anything the PPA can accomplish. This has been noted by the press and and opponents to online poker will find such stories with a swift google search.

time to get a new group together - maybe you guys will get more support which i think everyone admitts you guys didnt get enough of from the players.

I would disagree with you. You have to understand that the PPA can't just tell the government what they want and expect it to be done. The President can't even tell the government what he wants and expect it to be done. Certain things like the full legalization of poker would need to be voted, most likely multiple times, before being enacted. While you may think that the PPA isn't doing anything, I would suggest NOT donating money and just keeping your thoughts to yourself. The PPA is doing what they can to protect our freedoms and if you believe you can run the organization better, create an organization and do it better.

+1