Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-09-2019, 03:35 PM   #101
Gzesh
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UTG
Posts: 2,733
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurtLocker View Post
Who or who not said the quote is not important in this case. If the logic and evidence are sound (quote stating and referring to reversal opinion document lacks signature(s)), then that is what counts. Even if it is just an opinion from the OLC, how can the document conveying the reversal be given any import (in terms of consideration for future DOJ enforcement) without anyone's signature at the end of it?? This basic rule of law is understood the world over.
That you do not understand about how the world works, how legal risk is measured, how law enforcement works or the financial world reacts to statements issued by a government, signed or not, is apparent.

Logic and evidence, and past government enforcement against providers to online gambling, actually strongly weigh against your illusory belief that "but it was not signed" is somehow persuasive in the marketplace. Your "point" does not count at all to the payment processors assessing their risk re online gambling.

A basic rule of law is that having a new last name of "Defendant" is seldom +EV, even if no conviction ensues. The basic rule of law is to" know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run".

Where we are is back pretty much to the day before the original OLC memo was issued .... The OLC memo is not now nor was whatever version you like, a "law".

The UIGEA is a law, the IGBA is a law, neither of those has a poker carveout, so this Wire Act memo discussion is less relevant than you may believe, even if you are correct....

Reality may suck in your view, but it is reality.

Last edited by Gzesh; 02-09-2019 at 03:40 PM.
Gzesh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2019, 05:11 PM   #102
Bobo Fett
2+2 Ad Man
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 47,641
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurtLocker View Post
Good anthology especially for anyone not familiar in this area with Sheldy and Trumpy. Here is the key:

"That document (aka DOJ's Wire Act Reversal Opinion on 2011 interpretation) conspicuously lacked a signature, leading some to wonder if this was even real or just a draft."

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that any legal documents lacking ANY signature(s) should be considered null and void, at least imho. I would also think this would be an excellent point of attack for the court challenges.

P.S. - I am not pessimistic in this area. I DO believe online poker is inevitable and Sheldy will ultimately lose one way or another - it is just a matter of when.
Let's assume that there is no signature, and the document was indeed a draft. How would the lack of a signature have any impact on a court challenge? The document is the legal opinion of the DOJ. It's something that guides the DOJ's work, not a law. I suppose you could argue that because it wasn't signed and is just a draft, that the DOJ haven't changed their opinion after all and won't be going after online poker. But if they do go after online poker, whether or not that legal opinion was approved or simply a draft would have nothing to do with any ensuing court case, unless there's something I'm missing.
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2019, 08:35 AM   #103
HurtLocker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 374
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett View Post
Let's assume that there is no signature, and the document was indeed a draft. How would the lack of a signature have any impact on a court challenge? The document is the legal opinion of the DOJ. It's something that guides the DOJ's work, not a law. I suppose you could argue that because it wasn't signed and is just a draft, that the DOJ haven't changed their opinion after all and won't be going after online poker. But if they do go after online poker, whether or not that legal opinion was approved or simply a draft would have nothing to do with any ensuing court case, unless there's something I'm missing.
The bold is key. That is important. The article, not me, intimates that because the document was not signed, this OLC wire act reversal opinion PROBABLY if not absolutely should NOT carry any weight of enforcement by the DOJ if it so decides to do so in the future. All I am adding is that the aforementioned makes a lot of sense b/c any future enforcement/execution upon any written document usually if not always has SIGNATURE(S) of SOMEONE in the organization behind it. This particular detail here should be challenged now in any court battles imho. At least clear the uncertainty knowing IF this opinion has ANY standing for possible future enforcement if the DOJ chooses to do so by demanding WHO in the OLC wrote this reversal opinion. IF that is too much to ask, then the U.S. is in even bigger trouble than I already thought when it comes to basic rule of law. The attorney generals of NJ and PA are already seeking FOIA requests finding the link behind any lobbying monies from any persons out of govt linked to individuals within govt to this document (cough Sheldy/Las Vegas Sands - Trump cough). Besides all of this, businesses and payment processors and banks need certainty. So far, this Reversal opinion adds more UNCERTAINTY. Unlike 2011, NOW the online casinos and lotteries in NV, NJ, PA, and DE have invested many billions since then based on the 2011 opinion. They're going forward, not backward with all the more money at stake than ever.

Last edited by HurtLocker; 02-10-2019 at 09:03 AM.
HurtLocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2019, 08:50 AM   #104
HurtLocker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 374
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzesh View Post
That you do not understand about how the world works, how legal risk is measured, how law enforcement works or the financial world reacts to statements issued by a government, signed or not, is apparent.

Logic and evidence, and past government enforcement against providers to online gambling, actually strongly weigh against your illusory belief that "but it was not signed" is somehow persuasive in the marketplace. Your "point" does not count at all to the payment processors assessing their risk re online gambling.

A basic rule of law is that having a new last name of "Defendant" is seldom +EV, even if no conviction ensues. The basic rule of law is to" know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run".



Where we are is back pretty much to the day before the original OLC memo was issued .... The OLC memo is not now nor was whatever version you like, a "law".

The UIGEA is a law, the IGBA is a law, neither of those has a poker carveout, so this Wire Act memo discussion is less relevant than you may believe, even if you are correct....

Reality may suck in your view, but it is reality.
Umn, many of the things you posit are aspects either I do not necessarily dispute nor asserted in the first place. Please see my reply to Bobo.
HurtLocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2019, 09:18 AM   #105
HurtLocker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 374
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett View Post
But if they do go after online poker, whether or not that legal opinion was approved or simply a draft would have nothing to do with any ensuing court case, unless there's something I'm missing.
Yes I believe you are missing something (if it wasn't already clear above): Should or will the DOJ base any future enforcement action based on 2011 opinion OR the new 2019 opinion? Businesses from existing online casinos and payment processor to banks NEED to get final certainty on this once and for all as A LOT of money has been based on the 2011 opinion and NOT 2019 opinion. And yes, any ensuing court case imho should if not will flush this out imho.
HurtLocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 02:36 PM   #106
Sideline
centurion
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 121
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

WSOP just announced the online bracelet schedule for this summers wsop. It looks like it just says players in Nevada right now, but at least they are planning to run intrastate poker still.
Sideline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 04:43 PM   #107
HurtLocker
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 374
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideline View Post
WSOP just announced the online bracelet schedule for this summers wsop. It looks like it just says players in Nevada right now, but at least they are planning to run intrastate poker still.
WSOP online only in Nevada sounds like words put together that are practically opposite in intent/meaning (aka "oxymoron"); but better than nothing for now. Sheldy and his connections in Washington (can you say Trump cough cough)are such corrupt crony capitalist crooks heh?
HurtLocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2019, 02:14 PM   #108
kneehall
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 74
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/35...re-act-window/

Looks like they've extended this another 60 days as states with regulated online gaming (NJ) are fighting back.
kneehall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2019, 05:37 PM   #109
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 26,942
Re: DOJ reverses the 2011 wire act opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by kneehall View Post
https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/35...re-act-window/

Looks like they've extended this another 60 days as states with regulated online gaming (NJ) are fighting back.
From DoJ's standpoint, it definitely makes sense. As the judicial branch has jurisdiction over the interpretation of laws, DoJ should be happy to have judges weigh in. If they rule against the DoJ's new interpretation, the DoJ will be able to take that ruling and apply it in making yet another interpretation. If they rule for the DoJ, it will serve to remove some "gray area" from their new interpretation.

I obviously hope for the former, but I think clarity will help the industry either way. They are too dependent on the financial system to be in anything even possibly seen as a gray area. And, a negative ruling could spur federal legislation to modernize the Wire Act, as many states would have interests in such legislation.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online