That's true. What's your point?

SDNY admits that PS wasn't illegal in all 50 States, but they maintain that their profits were dirty (money laundering) in all 50 states because unlicensed gambling is unlawful.

They have come close to saying they are working on a deal. Eric Hollreiser retweeted someone saying that he said the Pokerstars FT deal is not dead. Which is as good as saying that he did indeed say that.

http://twitter.com/erichollreiser/

There is no simple answer to this. But to simplify, IGBA is not the only issue. There is UIGEA, there is money laundering and fraud, and there is the issue of what constitutes forfeitable "proceeds" of any particular violation. DOJ threw in the kitchen sink and asked for everything, putting it on the judge to give them less than everything, rather than seeking less than everything themselves.

But what if the licensesystem is unlawful?

A government licensing system can't be unlawful if all of the profits are earned within that governments jurisdiction, and PokerStars contends that their tables are all raked in the Isle of Man so all of their profits are accumulated within the IoM.

SDNY argues that PokerStars advertised in the US, which their licensing doesn't cover, but PokerStars only advertised for their free money site.

Kentucky argues that the site itself should be considered an unlawful gambling device when it interacts with a person in a State where it is unlicensed, but since the gambling is peer to peer and not against the site, PS could argue that their site is no more of a gambling device than a deck of cards.

Why can a license sytem not be against the law. If the executive powers interpreted a law in the wrong way, can't a judge then rule that the license system is against the law?
It happens all the time in history that judges rule that a certain law is against a higher law or against the constitution.

Whose licensing system are you questioning? There is only one licensing system currently in the US for online gaming, the State of Nevada, Delaware passed a law but only their own lottery will be sanctioned to offer online gaming.

The courts to this point have always ruled that licensing is a State matter, even going so far as to say that there is no such thing as federal constitutional rights in regards to gambling licensing, it's literally the one area where discrimination is not illegal.

If the Federal government were to pass a licensing system it would certainly meet constitutional challenges, but given the expansion of federal power the courts allowed for heath care, I doubt any challenges would stand.

I wasn't thinking (again). In the US you have federal laws and state laws. Thought that the federal government licensed the states. But of course, the states have their own laws.

He did no such thing. Read the retweet instead of parroting what everyone is saying.

DF, pretty sure you are a NY'er from your posts and your ability to be in the thick of things. As a fellow NY'er I will gladly buy you lunch any time you say. Thanks for all of your efforts.

I know this post will garner a lot of hate but I just feel very uneasy every time I hear the PPA mentioned.

There may be some good people working for the organisation but I just can't get it out of my head how deeply FTP was entrenched in everything.
Two of the FTP board members were in control (on the board) and they were sending FTP money to the PPA via a third party to hide the source of the funds.

For all the good work they have done or continue to do it still leaves me with very mixed emotions when I see them mentioned, especially as they have been mentioned recently in legal dispatches.

Sometimes bad people do some work for good organizations. There is hardly a group of any kind that hasn't found out at some point that one of its supporters had done bad things in other areas.

In fact, it is also true that sometimes bad people work for good organizations precisely because they want to compensate for the bad they do or have done.

It is important to be able to distinguish between the human person and the organizations and causes the person supports.

PokerStars and a number of other smaller gaming sites also contributed to the PPA and they are not accused of stealing from their players or being involved in the bad deeds of FTP. Does that make any difference?

Skallagrim

PS - FTP's donations were through a third party, but that fact was never hidden.

Well this is the retweet. And I stand by what I said.

"Andrew Feldman‏@AFeldmanESPN

The Head of Corp Communications for @PokerStars @erichollreiser says the Twitter rumors of PS folding on the FTP deal is "false" "

PS deal or no deal - does not matter.

GBT deal was totally unacceptable. That is all.

While you are suggesting they were working for the PPA it could be suggested that PPA was really working for FTP as their legislative mouthpiece.

Thats the problem, I personally can't.

Thats my personal opinion.

While its true that pokerstars hasn't been accused of the deeds that FTP perpetrated, im not sure using an example of a company with its own legal problems with the US government is a good idea.

I guess we all agree Stars is less dishonest than FTP.

I guess FTP having a number of shell companies wasn't really hidden either.

Its the honesty and perception of the process.

This is what I saw.


@LaneyLV: PokerStars' @erichollreiser told me a bit ago that there are many false tweets out there in regard to PokerStars and FTP.


My Apologies apparently he retweeted Feldman also.



twitter

Emphasis added.

Well, maybe, sort of and sometimes:

When giving testimony before a congressional committee, Senator D'Amato, appearing as a PPA representative, was directly asked if PPA received contributions from FTP and responded, "No we don't."

His response was technically and legally correct because FTP gave its money to Interactive Gaming Council who then washed it by re-writing a check in IGC's name and forwarding that check to PPA, with PPA's knowledge of where the money originated, but some would characterize Sen. D'Amato's answer as deceptive, misleading and evasive.

I guess it all depends on what you think "hidden" means.

c'mon, get this deal done and everyone repaid.

miss the sound and environment of FTP..

If Stars is guaranteeing FTP salaries through this month does that essentially set a deadline of early August before they give up the ghost? I'm assuming those employees are necessary to any future FTP.

That would only be true if something significant changed between the start of the month and the end. We really have no idea. Could be that they expected this to take two months or more. Could be that there was a set back but they are hopeful there will be a resolution in which they own FT by the end of August.

No, one month's FTP salaries is obviously buttons to PokerStars. I'm sure they could extend this arrangement on a month-by-month basis if they desired.

There is no deadline and trying to conjure one up is futile. PS could make an announcement next week, next month, next year, whatever.

The rumours of the deal and the later detailed article by D_F when it fell apart were untenable to the ROW and SDNY IMHO. The plan in the article for player repayment where a group of players gets paid off and another group has to pay money in to get their original money back is almost the definition of a ponzi scheme.

The ROW would have blocked it probably by maintaining the restraint orders on the foreign assets of which their courts have constructive control.

Footnote pg. 8 in Bitar's bail response acknowledges this important fact:
It's also why any forfeiture settlement deal for FTP in the US Courts doesn't really "wash the assets" IMHO unless all meritous claims and players worldwide have demonstrable loss are settled. The specific use of a US in-rem action doesn't recognise players as a party as they aren't the identifiable owner but this doesn't preclude non-US courts from taking this same view and these are the ones that ultimately have constructive control over most of the assets.

It's why I said early on I disagreed with the use of in-rem action here when it's a foreign located and conducted business.

AFAIK when a Court makes an order that this property now belongs to the Govt. and communicates this to another foreign Court that has the actual assets in its domain but there are potential challenges in that foreign location then the original in rem ruling isn't really binding (and makes the original court look a tad impotent) if it relies on another Court to interpret and not just directly execute the order and most orders need to be translated into the local law.

However, I would say it appears in actuality that the process is administrative and proceeding albeit at a canter (which is too slow for players ). If the Webb claim and Segal et al. claims are struck and players are repaid then I think there would be no issues with enforcement of a ruling.

In Neteller the DOJ kept the restrained monies under it's control that became forfeited and the companies compensated customers out of their own pocket - I expect similar to occur here if a settlement is reached here.

Could you please stop digging up old dirt?
This has been posted ages ago.

Maybe learn to read before commenting ?