n sorry i dont re read check spelling n all that lol not here 4 that

While we're at it, should we start a petition for that guy that lives across the street to buy you a new car too?

for all we know mayb stars is done with the deal or there isnt gonna b 1..but either way it sure as heck cant hurt!! n its alot better then people just argueing n talking about what if this what if that or this n if that .. that does or means abs nothin.

People really think a 2+2 thread is going to have any bearing whatsoever on a nine figure business deal?

How far gone are you?

Pokerstars lawyer (David zornow) is no joke. Best of the best. That motion is strong. Maybe he bought them a discount on a settlement with his scary good work. (i.e. scared DOJ a lil getting them to back down on some demands)

That being said, I'm always easily persuaded while reading one-sided complaints and motions to dismiss.

what's the FTP $ market at these days?

FTP is currently in a loss position .. with no revenue and no market share it seems as tho ftp has gone tits up

To many lawyer fees

I think the letter modifying the scheduling order gives until July 30 to file a memorandum of law and fact in opposition. If the response contains something unusual, such as an affidavit regarding facts, the USAO might ask for leave to file a response, that could add another couple of weeks; but assuming that does not happen, the judge (and his clerk) would review the memo's, probably do a little legal research of their own and write a decision and order. Give them 30 days or so to do that and you're at Sept. 1. Then the losing parties have 30 (normal persons) or 60 (the USA) days to file an appeal (I am assuming the order would be a final appealable decision and that the forfeiture statute doesn't change the normal appeal time, I'm too lazy and old to research all that) (the order isn't really final for clear title purposes until that appeal time expires or a party irrevocably waives their right to appeal). So we're at Oct. 1 or Nov. 1. just to clear title of filed claims. I think that assumes everything going well, if the judge went on vacation for August, add a month; if the judge ruled in favor of the claimants; i.e. denied the motions, all bets are off. There are about a zillion other variables that could change things but, assuming the motions are granted in a normal fashion, I would think around October 1 is a probable date for the motions to dismiss to be resolved.

No matter how good their lawyer is. Don't see them get DOJ off their back without paying some huge bucks one way or another.

As you noted, I indicated I was speculating on what I thought was most probable. I think the two most important things I considered was the letter requesting an extension and the Bitar email indicating PS would be paying salaries of PK employees (I'm assuming that is true, if not my opinion would change); I don't think either of them would have happened without a signed letter of intent, a memorandum of understanding or an agreement with numerous conditions precedent existing between the two major players. I could be wrong but in my experience it would be highly unlikely that PS would begin to cover FTP's employee expenses without something in writing that PS felt was highly likely to close.

On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. The situation is still very fluid and one unexpected ruling from the court and everything could be reversed.

Ignore the $750M if you wish (its not a made up number, its a very rational assumption made by people with far greater intelligence and logic than you). If you truly believe you can influence a multi-million dollar deal between three parties (one being the US Department of Justice) by distributing e-leaflets and chanting under your breath, then you're a delusional mong.

When I read the Campos/Ellie motions, which primarily focused on the 'poker isn't gambling' arguments, I didn't think Judge Kaplan would be swayed (and he wasn't), but this one is compelling.

My fear is that it might be enough to strike the government's claim to PokerStar's assets (and money), without actually establishing a criminal precedent that would allow offshore poker sites to serve Americans.

That would be the worst of both worlds; no settlement required so no FTP player repayment, yet still no US poker.

It's posts like these that put you off the deep end and and make you seem like that guy who just gets off on being cynical. The notion that settlement talks have been ongoing and progressing and then ZOMG PokerStars files some unbelievable and totally unpredictable motion that will change everything is totally laughable. This was no surprise to any party involved and it is certainly expected that these feelings have already been incorporated at the negotiating table......

So am I understanding this correctly?
PS filing a motion to dismiss is bad for us because if the judge dismisses their case, they will have no need to buy FT in exchange for leniancy?

What part of my post was pessimistic?

I found myself excited reading PokerStars motion, because it makes a legitimate argument that licensed offshore poker (not other forms of gambling, where the betting decisions are made at the bettor's location) sites which properly segregate player funds, may not actually violate the laws of most states nor the IGBA.

It would be irresponsible of me not to couch my excitement for that possibility with the reality of the law, which is that Judge Sands could very well dismiss the government's claims based on this argument, but his opinion would be mere dicta as it pertains to current/future criminal rulings.

As it pertains to the FTP settlement, I posted just yesterday in this thread that this isn't actually a case PS wants to win; at some price, they would likely rather have a settlement with the DOJ than have the entire force of the US government stalking them in the future.

I'm sure the DOJ has already considered this possible argument, because I did, and posted as such in the legislation forum, so of course it was no surprise, but it might help to understand the DOJ's motivation for making a deal, because their claim is not the slam dunk the media is reporting it to be.

If anything it might be favorable to us, because if their argument was nothing more than 'poker isn't gambling' the DOJ might be less motivated to make a deal.

But if the DOJ were to play hardball and/or back out of a deal I believe has already agreed in principle, there is a worst case scenario where PokerStars could walk away with no fine, yet the legality of online poker in the US would remain unchanged.

I dont understand, if their argument makes the DOJ less motivated to make a deal, how is that good for us? Us meaning FTP players who want their money back

If a judge dismisses the case, couldnt stars go back to doing what they were doing pre BF in the US?

Im just super confused and trying to understand better

Hasnt Partypoker already paid a fine? If so i dont think stars can just walk away with no fine.

like this quote from pokernews. I dont get it. They say the filing to dismiss is a threat to the deal, but if approved it is good for the deal. It seems contradictory.

Sorry, I said if their case was 'poker isn't gambling' it would be bad for us, because that argument has been shot down repeatedly.

That isn't PokerStars argument though, they admit to be a gambling business, but argue that they are a licensed gambling business on the IoM, not an illegal gambling business in the US.

They could, but a ruling that strikes the DOJ's civil claim to their assets wouldn't be a criminal precedent/authorization for a bank/processor to begin processing their transactions, and any 'conspiracy' to get around the UIGEA could still be prosecuted.

Ah ty sir

Yes, PartyPoker settled for $105M (the CEO paid $300M), but that deal was motivated by them being a public company, it was less expensive for them to seek out a deal than to be indicted and see their stock price dissolve while arguing their case.

A private company where one man owns 75% of is harder to bully, so there has to be something in this deal for both sides.

just when u thought this thread couldn't get any lower...

"lets start a petition because it will def influence their xxx,xxx,xxx dollar decision"

People this dumb>obv no money on FTP>why even post here?

Makes me sad.

Yw, just to clarify what I'm saying, since some think I'm couching my argument to apply a negative spin, not only does PS argument make it more likely we see a deal, there is now a legitimate possibility that that deal includes an admission that PS did not violate the laws of any State that does not have an internet gambling ban.

So yes, there is a chance that PS could just decide to fight this battle, win and walk away leaving FTP players hanging, but there is also chance that the fine they accept in settlement is for the business they did in at least 10 States illegally, making both the possibilities of players being repaid as well as US players from the other 40 States being able to play again a possibility.