No, I don't think so. Someone thought there was a hearing today. I told them that no hearing was scheduled with that Judge this month at all. That has no effect on the one-week extension which is merely for the submission of documents.

I'm not really sure of the exact procedure if a settlement is reached. I believe they would submit the settlement proposal to the Judge for finalization. I don't know if he schedules hearings after that or just signs off on it.

I suppose they could submit the settlement to the Judge and request an extension just to preserve their rights if the Judge doesn't finalize, theoretically, but I'm not sure how it works in practice.

I know you say UIGEA trumps all when it comes to online poker in the US. But would it be unreasonable to think that the DOJ, or congress, or whoever could deem someone (ie PokerStars) exempt from UIGEA? Or that they could go back to operating the way they were pre-black Friday once the DOJ's banhammer is lifted? The word "Unlawful" being the keyword, in that they could decide that PokerStars is legit and therefore "Lawful"?

No, it does not. Judge Sand isn't even the judge assigned to the civil case (though even if he were, this would be irrelevant, today's deadline does not relate to a hearing, but to a filing deadline).

The judge does not even have to sign off on a settlement. This is a civil lawsuit. The procedure will be that, once the settlment is fully realized, the parties will file a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit (or DOJ can file an unopposed motion to dismiss the lawsuit). This will not require a hearing.

umm...

Yes, this would be unreasonable. The banhammer isn't DOJ's, it's the United States Code's.

It would be also more than unreasonable to think banks will process these transactions in the absence of repeal of UIGEA, particularly with regard to the bolded part.

Absent new legislation, you will not see PS or FTP operate games within the U.S, it's that simple.

My bad, thoguht it was Kaplan.

Still doesn't change anything wrt to the extension expiring today absent further request for extension.

I agree. Something needs to happen at some point today.

The reason the DOJ could go after them was because of the banking and NY state prohibited online gambling. Some pretty smart people had decided it was okay or they wouldn't have been able to advertise on TV without the DOJ coming down on the networks.

Is that a fact?

This. DOJ (Executive Branch) enforces law. Legislative Branch (Congress, passes and repeals laws). Executive branch can selectively choose not to aggressively enforce certain laws (see immigration laws), but they can't make something legal or illegal. They can say that they interpret something not to be against a Congressionally passed law (WIRE Act for instance) and if that's not what Congress intended, Congress could pass a clearer law. However, the DOJ could not say Pokerstars is all good, while other poker companies are not. That won't happen.

WHERE IS DF!?

let's email jeff

afaik there needs to be an extension, settlement, or answers need to be filed.

This.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Canada is becoming more and more appealing with each day that passes. I just wanna play the sunday mil. America sucks now.

I hate the Sunday Mil so much.

awesome

This is dumb.....

This is not correct. Remember, the sites were advertising their free play sites at that point, not their real money sites.

fyp

Need to have one of him in pinstripes.

Forbes reporter, Nathan Vardi, has tweeted Bitar will be released on bail today.

For jurisdiction to be proper, a court needs subject matter jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the type of claim) and personal jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the person/company).

Without looking at the complaint, I believe it was because they were violating federal law (federal question jurisdiction to give them subject matter jurisdiction) and doing so in New York (cited players in NY playing on the site, then cashing out to bank, etc.,) therefore, they had sufficient minimum contacts in NY such that they purposefully availed themselves/could reasonably be expected to be hailed into court there.

The federal question of law + sufficient minimum contacts in New York means that they have subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction is proper.

Yes but that was kind of a stretch. Even so networks would not have put the ads on if they thought the real money sites were illegal. Televised tournaments and cash games with millions in real money on the line and cutaway to a poker adds.

If I were going to sue I would go after the networks.