SDNY filed a motion to deny bail asserting Ray Bitar to be a flight risk, hence, "the DOJ attempted to deny bail...".

I have seen lots of people post that PS said the "deal" is not dead but I must have missed when they confirmed there was a "deal" in the first place!
The only thing I saw was when the rumours started they said "we are in negotiations with the DOJ and cannot comment" there was never any mention that part of those negotiation included FTP .

or did I miss that "tweet"
yes we have heard it from DF but when did PS say they were working on a deal "INCLUDING" FTP?

Happened last night. I'm still not sure what to make of it considering that many people came forth to talk about the amount of credibility Eric had...

As far as I can tell this guy is totally talking out of his ass? I don't get why Pokerstars would need to fake a deal at length to prevent a GBT deal that was never going to happen regardless of Stars' involvement or lack thereof.

The only reason the stars deal got mentioned the same day as the GBT deal being dead, is because GBT was the one that name dropped Pokerstars, and they did it in the announcement saying their own deal fell through. So.... I guess GBT is in on the big bluff to push....GBT...out of the market.... wait....

If GBT hadn't mentioned a stars deal in the works, we likely would have gone weeks without even knowing about it.

Agreed. And, we'll all have the geniuses at the DOJ to thank for their great judgement.

The first thing saying this is the retweet by Eric Hollreiser yesterday.

Wizzard89,
^^ if its considered ray bitar's letter to Pocket kings employees is not false, he confirmed deal talk is going on with PS and PS is paying salaries of PK employees.

Nice find.

We haven't heard anything specifically mentioning FTP from Stars, because (wait for it....) they're not saying anything.

People very likely to be in the know , including GBT and Ray Bitar, have mentioned Pokerstars by name. That's about as close as you get get to an inside source without having sexual relations with Isai himself.

Cross posting from the locked thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/pokerstars-ftp-offer-just-bluff-1221006/#post33707253

Diamond_Flush posts:

She also confirmed that Pokerstars are paying FTP employees' July salaries.

[QUOTE=starvingwriter82;33717604]We haven't heard anything specifically mentioning FTP from Stars, because (wait for it....) they're not saying anything.

People very likely to be in the know , including GBT and Ray Bitar, have mentioned Pokerstars by name. That's about as close as you get get to an inside source without having sexual relations with Isai himself.[/QUOTE]

and yet---everybody is saying that they "tweeted" last night saying the "deal" is not dead. If they are not saying anything in regards to there even being a "deal" to start with then i have a small problem with the reports that they "tweeted" last night that the "deal" is still alive.

The first mention of a Pokerstars deal was when it was posted on this forum. Not from GBT.

Eric Hollreiser who is the head of corp communications for PokerStars has retweeted claims that he said the FT deal is not dead.

https://twitter.com/erichollreiser

I love the fact that he doesn't tweet directly that the deal isn't dead, but retweets others saying that he said it isn't dead

Subsequent events be damned!

I hate to say "Source?" but... where do you think the forum poster(s) got their info? AFAIK the first time Pokerstars was mentioned by name by anyone not purely speculating was GBT.

People had mentioned Stars as a potential buyer before, sure, but where is the first time it was mentioned where it didn't come directly from someone using their anus to form human speech?

Maybe a retweet doesn't violate the terms of the NDA or the requirements of confidentiality in settlement negotiations, whereas, a direct tweet does. Not much has been settled in the area of twitter law.

(That's a joke)

So maybe if people just tweet to him, "@erichollreiser There is an agreement in place to buy Full Tilt", he can just retweet it and let us know.

(Again, a joke).

No there was I post that got deleted then undelted when a mod was told by sources that it was ture. This was hours before any cooment by GBT.

First mention of PS/FTP deal

If my memory serves me right, this thread was posted early on 4/24

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...pm-pt-1197424/

then followed by GBT announcement and DF article later that same day

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/04...ct-vs-fiction/

I can't find it now but i believe that someone else posted the same thing on internet poker that day saying he was told vy a relative that works for PS.

...at least this is how i remember the progression of events.

There was also the tweet by Chilligaming's CEO:

Alexandre Dreyfus ‏@alex_dreyfus

Pokerstars buys FullTilt for a consideration of $750m, including settlement with DOJ and full balances of players (330m). I'm impressed.

I'm just thinking there is no way IS wants to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars for fines and FTP and still do prison time. I think it's possible he said FU, I'm not spending whatever the amount is and still go to prison, we will take our chances in court. Especially if they feel their case is strong.

(At the risk of sounding like a nit...) Then the proper phrasing would be something like:

"DOJ attempted to have the court deny bail."

Or better still, "DOJ's motion sought/requested/asked the federal judge to deny the defense's motion that the defendant be released on bail."

Procedurally, what undoubtedly happened was that the defense made a motion for Bitar to be released on bail, and the government then filed a pleading captioned, "State's Opposition to Defendant Bitar's Motion for Bail Hearing and Review," or some sht close to that...

A "motion" is the form of pleading one files to the court when it is requesting that the court do something (anything). E.g., a bail motion, a motion to suppress evidence, a motion for reconsideration, etc., etc., etc. Motions are either "consent motions" (meaning both parties consent to the action requested of the court), "joint motions" (meaning not only do both parties consent to the requested action, but that both parties have actually agreed to request the same thing of the court), "unopposed motions" (meaning that the non-moving party does not offer its express consent that that motion be granted, but that it also doesn't expressly oppose the relief, either), or--as is the case with the vast majority of motions filed--is a contested motion to which the opposing party will file an opposition motion or response.

It does not surprise me at all that DOJ does not wish for the court to grant Bitar bail in this case. At least outside-looking-in, it appears that the DOJ has not received the level of cooperation from the defendants in this case that one would expect to be commensurate with the government assuaging to a defendant's request for bail. While it is certainly true that white collar criminals are MUCH more likely to be released on bail pending a trial verdict or plea agreement than are violent criminals, this case has clearly become one of those high-profile matters in which the government feels it must set an example at every turn. This means that, even if bail would be granted to Bitar as a matter of course were he involved in some other financial scandal, the government believes it must oppose bail here to send a message that illegal online gaming operators will be pursued and will face jail time. I suspect that at the heart of the matter is the truth that there exists no financial disincentives sufficient to make other site operators close down their businesses (certain sites are just way too profitable--any monetary fines or penalties really don't amount to much relative to the profits of a business like FTP), so the threat of prison is the only real weapon in the DOJ's arsenal. For this reason, I also can't see any eventual plea agreement being offered to Bitar which does NOT include some time at Club Fed. As for the "flight risk" business, I believe that this argument was likely set forth in earnest. I have represented folks in the past whom the state has argued were "flight risks" because they've committed some crime in the U.S. but are citizens of other countries or otherwise have "strong ties to," relatives in, or assets located in another country. In such cases, I have been able to get my clients released on bail by offering to the court to surrender my clients' passports. Here, I doubt very much that DOJ feels this will be a sufficient safeguard to ensure no flight: clearly Bitar would have the financial means to acquire faked documents, and I suspect DOJ believes that Bitar likely knows how to attain the same. But that's just a guess... I haven't even read the pleadings.

Pokestars did not, AFAIK, actually confirm that the deal is alive. They have never really confirmed that there is a deal. They claimed that the tweets were false that said Stars had given up on the deal and it was all a ruse to get rid of GBT. Stars statement would be true if the deal was alive OR if there never was a deal, OR if the DoJ had given up on the deal.

Government Files Motion to Deny Bail for Bitar, Conditions Satisfied but Bail Stayed

This is true.

However, the odds PS would go out of their way to deceive players is unlikely.
Especially when considering,they had remained silent until that point.
To me the tweet may signal frustration if zbt is right about the fact that a deal was supposed to be done Monday.

I think it puts pressure on the DOJ when PS speaks out bc the public opinion at this point is that pokerstars wants a deal and the DOJ is being difficult.

Disclaimer ianal , no sources, just speculation from someone who follows rather closely and has 5 figure funds tied up