Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
Well, I'm obviously no expert, but I have clashed with some members of the same Greek chorus from time to time. I'm a little surprised you were unaware of the claim filed by Webb, a poker player, in the case. The court, persuaded by arguments presented by the DOJ in opposition to the claim, disposed of any notion of a player ownership interest or of a constructive trust. I have no idea how good Webb's lawyer was.
I am interested in your theory of how this is possible given the regulations regarding remission and the definitions therein.
To be honest, I sort of recalled some players filing claims in one or more of the seizure cases. I did not recall the specifics. It would be helpful to get a copy of the papers filed by the sides in the Webb claim litigation, especially if it were AP/UB. Any links ?
As TE noted, DOJ needs to want to do this, as an equitable matter. (That is a tall order, which is why a group representative such as the PPA is crucial. If DOJ can be persuaded of the equity in doing so, the challenge becomes mapping out a route to do so.
If the "player claim" has been tossed already as a category as you cite, that is an obstacle. Also, expect other claimants versus AP/UB to pop up. (Take a look at the AP/UB docket.)
However, much water has likely gone under the bridge since the Webb ruling, I expect. DOJ DID look out for players in the PStars/FTP context, and a pool of assets has been secured. DOJ has been given some discretion to use those assets to pay claims asserted against AP/UB in one notable instance I read about.
Keep in mind, this is a one-outer, but it is not drawing dead and the implied odds are hugely favorable ..... It seems worth a shot, at least a pitch to DOJ.
Good luck.