So nothing since the 'stars' rumor?.... seems the last pages of this thread are going nowhere real fast

This thread is a good thing. Damaged people can talk garbage having the hope this situation will be solved soon. If you dont like this thread why the **** you come read this. I often read the last 3 posts of this thread in order to check what is going on. Me as many others have hope we will get our money back. (ftp owes me about 1.5k, I know its not a lot but it feels terrible being robbed like this)

Thanks for the very clear explanation.

A few points:
But, but, but...

It's not supposed to be this way! The three branches are supposed to be mutually independent so they can check and balance each other. If this is normal, then the outcome of the FTP cases is a minor problem compared to the bigger issues this raises.

This assertion seems to ignore almost all of the arguments put forward, not only by the DoJ and perhaps the Judge, but also by other lawyers who have posted on this site and other sites about the legal ownership of the funds.

The funds seized from FTP were almost certainly derived from players. You seem to be just making the leap that since the players gave the money to FTP, the money belongs to the players. Most people think that. The problem is that there is all sorts of established law about the relationship between depositors and deposit holders to the contrary.

Yet this is only one of many arguments as to why the funds do not belong to the players. Is this the only one which the judge claims to have found convincing? I thought it was one of the more obscure arguments, myself, and was merely there as a test of wherther possession and control (and hence ownership) had passed to FTP from the player.

They were represented as such by FTP and assumed to be such by the players. Does this actually make them cash accounts? (I have no idea.)

Also, I thought it was established law that when cash is deposited in a way such that it is not kept segregated, that the ownership of the cash actually changed hands, and a debt obligation was created in return. IOW, the cash in your safe deposit box is yours, but the money in your bank account is the bank's, but the bank owes you an amount equal to the balance of the account. There may also be a fiduciary duty to the account holder, but the mere creation of a debtor/creditor relationship by means of a bank deposit does not automatically create a fiduciary duty.

It doesn't sound fair to me, but I long ago gave up thinking that the law actually was fair. There is a reason why one rarely finds fifth graders on
juries, and even less often on the bench.

Wouldn't a fifth-grader conclude that the money in her bank account is hers? Yet, legally, it is not. Are you asserting it is?


Two things:

• If the site owes the player a debt, then the property being held is not the player's.
• It is not any promise, but rather a promise of a specific sort. I am reasonably certain that a promise to make funds available, or to keep player funds separate from working funds is not sufficient under Canadian law (see Galambos v. Perez, [2009] S.C.J. No. 48) to trigger a fiduciary duty. (Canadian law seems to be considered generally more likely to establish fiduciary responsiblity than American law.) Rather a fiduciary duty arises only if the proposed fiduciary promies to act in the interest of the other party, ahead of the fiduciary's own interest. I don't believe FTP ever did that.

Really? You don't think anyone disputes that? I might agree that FTP made representations, but not necessarily that they made them in connection with the act of depositing, or that they were the sort of representations that would give rise to a fiduciary duty. I don't remember anything from the actual agreement/terms that I thought would create a fiduciary duty. I think that you are assuming the existence of a fiduciary duty too easily. For instance, I'm not sure that a web posting by an ostensible employee in response to a general question constitutes a representation that establishes a fiduciary duty.

Perhaps you could quote the specific representations made by FTP that you believe give rise to a fiduciary duty, and show why those representations are sufficient to create such a duty.

Would I be correct to presume that you think that banks have a fiduciary duty to depositors? I think that it would be a lot easier to establish that a bank owes a fiduciary duty to depositors, yet, alas, it seems this is not always the case. If a bank does not necessarily have a fiduciary duty to depositors, I think there can be some doubt as to whether a poker site does.

Finally on fiduciary duty: you seem to be saying that since a fiduciary duty arises from FTP's representations to players, the money belongs to the players. As I understand it, a fiduciary is the legal owner of the funds or property WRT which the duty arises. The fiduciary manages the funds or property in the best interests of the other party, but the ownership lies with the fiduciary. A fiduciary duty does not cause a transfer of ownership. Rather, it puts restrictions on the actions the owner can take wrt to the money or property. So, even if FTP had a fiduciary duty to players, the money was still legally owned by FTP.

Did they argue that? I missed it. I certainly do not accept that. I think it is quite likely that a significant portion of deposits were received through non-fraudulent means (not fraudulent toward the players, at least. There may have been bank fraud.) Also, I think that in most of those cases, there were no explict representations amde by FTP and actually received by the depositors.

I am surprised to learn that fraudsters have a fiduciary duty to their victims. I was not aware that any fraudulent promise would create an actual fiduciary duty.

The parts of your post that I have bolded show that you have little faith in the honesty or competence of the government players in the US legal system. You are better placed than I am to make such judgements, but it is sad you have reached such conclusions. I'm just not going to go there.

I wish you were correct about almost all of this. I wish the law was simple enough for a fifth grader to understand. I wish justice trumped legality. I wish FTP had a fiduciary duty to players. I wish the court would grant players an interest in the money.

I hope you are wrong about the competence and honesty of the DoJ and judges.

You're welcome. Did it perhaps occur to you that his similar post wasn't there when I hit the reply button, but was there before I finished typing up my own reply?

No, I guess it didn't, your desire to get in a random shot for no reason was just too much I suppose.

Sigh.... how many times has the distinction between "gossip" and saying, "omg guys I totally have a source that is giving me very specific information that is 100% legit, but I'm not telling you my source, just trust me" trolling been gone over ITT?

You can gossip all you want. You just can't make **** up out of thin air and then claim that it's fact.

*sigh*

I think this thread should be compulsory reading in schools and they should make a movie about it.

just tried to login to tilt again, still nothing... i think ill try the rush app on my ipad just a second....

nope, cant log in on rush either...

+1 when they hold auditions iam trying out for Chinamanic !!

Lol

Howard will be played by this guy.



Marty Feldman can play Jesus.



And starring as Joey:

I tried and got the user name and password promt. I have long forgotten my password so I didn t try anything

Troll is obvious. Didnt stop me from trying though.

roflmao.....

How much do you have on there?

really, i said it before, dont kill yourself

so it goes so far that some people actually think about killing themselves?

what have you done your whole life? just playing cards? didnt learn anything?

I would rob a bank before killing myself

Some people are actually poker players. They enjoy what they do, have a great deal of passion for it, and have no interest in engaging in the slave life style so many think is necessary. And yes many of us have quite a bit of education and could enter high end slavery at any point. Personally though, the thought sickens me.

If someone's aspiration and passion is to be a full time online poker player, they are very much slaves to PS and FTP's ability to operate their sites....

Being reliant on someone/something is not slavery. Slavery is doing degrading things you hate at the direction of others.

So...every job is degrading and every person who doesn't play poker hates their job? I'm so confused.

Shout out to agilitybob!!! SUP BOBBY

Right, most punch a clock jobs require doing degrading things. Got it.

Sitting by your monitor for the last 16 months, unable to financially support yourself, because you can't do a thing in life to earn that doesn't depend on being able to click a 3-bet button, is self-imposed slavery.

The original point was "why don't you just learn something and get a job." If you enjoy what you do, you're clearly not a slave. I have seen more examples then I can count of people who hate their jobs but don't quit them. Those people are slaves. I find the need to speak up when such people tell others that they are lazy and stupid for not being as miserable as they are.

I agree.

You're mistaking ability with desire.