Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP) FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)
View Poll Results: Do you want the AGCC to regulate the new FTP?
Yes
1,156 56.58%
No
887 43.42%

07-25-2012 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicarius
Dear Judge Sand:
As counsel for Defendants and Claimants Tiltware LLC, Kolyma Corporation A.V.V., Pocket Kings Ltd., Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd., Fileo Ltd., and Vantage Ltd., ("Full Tilt") we respectfully write to request a brief extension of the current deadline of July 23, 2012 for pleadings in response to the Verified First Amended Complaint. Full Tilt requests this extension in light of ongoing settlement negotiations.

Specifically, Full Tilt requests, without opposition from the Government, the following amendments to the current scheduling deadlines in regard to the Government and Full Tilt:
1.
Full Tilt shall have until July 27, 2012, to file a motion to dismiss and the Government shall have until that same date to file a motion to strike the claim of Full Tilt.
2.
Unless further amended by the Court, opposition to any motion to dismiss filed by Full Tilt and to any motion to strike the claim of Full Tilt filed by the Government shall be filed by August 17,2012.
3.
Replies regarding such motion to dismiss and such motion to strike shall be filed by August 24 2012.
This would be good news or neutral news, right?
07-25-2012 , 11:18 AM
[QUOTE=aggo;33926299]i honestly would rather her not post anymore at all


Right. Lets not get all confused by facts.
07-25-2012 , 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneonth3run
This would be good news or neutral news, right?
Requested deadline delay from Monday 'til Friday. Can't characterize it as bad.
07-25-2012 , 11:22 AM
Fwiw the PPA requested to be amicus curiae.

“Leave to participate as amicus is granted.”
07-25-2012 , 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex_Striker
Do you think he charges them per email?

And you really don't realize that there's probably a reason that most people in contact with Ifrah have been less inclined to freak outs than a lot of other people here...and there's probably a reason for that.
Lawyers charge for time spent on phone or emails. Not sure if you really don't know this or you are trying to be funny.
07-25-2012 , 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
Requested deadline delay from Monday 'til Friday. Can't characterize it as bad.
Putting on the speculation hat, but doesn't asking for a deadline to be moved back what seems to be such a short amount of time imply that they're expecting it to be resolved very soon? I mean, why apply for a short extension when you could apply for a long one?
07-25-2012 , 11:30 AM
"In light of ongoing settlement negotiations"
07-25-2012 , 11:32 AM
This is the first time I recall someone actually referencing "settlement negotiations."

The actual letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101040987
07-25-2012 , 11:39 AM
**** is gonna go down on Friday.
07-25-2012 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
.
I am assuming that if that 2nd rumor is true and there was a point where owners could have contributed to make players, when it got turned down is right about where Ivey filed his lawsuit?
So I am right in saying this Pokerstars deal isn't completely dead yet? We still have a chance of rivering our gutterball?
07-25-2012 , 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
Requested deadline delay from Monday 'til Friday. Can't characterize it as bad.
Can companies/the Government keep requesting extensions indefinitely in a case like this? Obv asking for just one week at a time when we know negotiations are ongoing has to be good, but it seems like they could just do it forever.

And now that I look at the scribd link Judge Sand singed it, so it's a wait till Friday? And shouldn't PS being requesting an extension too?
07-25-2012 , 12:00 PM
Currently have Rebecca Black's 'Friday' on repeat for good Friday karma.
07-25-2012 , 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
Requested deadline delay from Monday 'til Friday. Can't characterize it as bad.
Quick, can someone analyze this?!
07-25-2012 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Get It
Can companies/the Government keep requesting extensions indefinitely in a case like this? Obv asking for just one week at a time when we know negotiations are ongoing has to be good, but it seems like they could just do it forever.
Courts are well experienced with attorneys' procrastinations; because of that, extensions tend to have a sort of half life as they become more numerous. Commonly, first extension, 30 days; then 2 weeks, then 1 week, then very short time periods if any. That may be what we are seeing.

My other speculations are:
1. They think it will be settled in this time frame or it will take a lot longer.
2. They need this long to get their brief done and know they can keep on negotiating.
3. They ran it by the judge's clerk and were advised that any longer request would most likely not be approved.
4. A zillion other explanations we can't even imagine.
07-25-2012 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicarius
Dear Judge Sand:
As counsel for Defendants and Claimants Tiltware LLC, Kolyma Corporation A.V.V., Pocket Kings Ltd., Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd., Fileo Ltd., and Vantage Ltd., ("Full Tilt") we respectfully write to request a brief extension of the current deadline of July 23, 2012 for pleadings in response to the Verified First Amended Complaint. Full Tilt requests this extension in light of ongoing settlement negotiations.

Specifically, Full Tilt requests, without opposition from the Government, the following amendments to the current scheduling deadlines in regard to the Government and Full Tilt:
1.
Full Tilt shall have until July 27, 2012, to file a motion to dismiss and the Government shall have until that same date to file a motion to strike the claim of Full Tilt.
2.
Unless further amended by the Court, opposition to any motion to dismiss filed by Full Tilt and to any motion to strike the claim of Full Tilt filed by the Government shall be filed by August 17,2012.
3.
Replies regarding such motion to dismiss and such motion to strike shall be filed by August 24 2012.
More Stall Tactics. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Drag it out and suck some more money out of Bitar and suck some more life out of the players, FFS..........................
07-25-2012 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
I'm not sure where to begin here, because you keep changing gears to fit new hypotheses, but I would be happy to have mpethy or Skall et al correct me if I am wrong...

The Attorney General of the US is not required to sign off on this deal. The decision would rest with Preet Bharara (via his subordinates) and the AFMLS

As for your information regarding the disentitlement doctrine and potential "fugitive" status, you should remember that there is no request at this time for anyone to rule whethere Isai Scheinberg is a fugitive or not. Nor has the government filed a motion to invoke the doctrine. All that was filed is a request for expedited discovery, limited in scope to possibly determine connection to that doctrine. Even that request can be dropped at any time, if there were a settlement reached.

I can give you cites from the resources to back up that there is still discretion even IF a fugitive label were attached to Scheinberg, but again, it has not.

The regulations require that a settlement above certain thresholds (more than $5M being one) be approved by the Deputy Attorney General, and given the Fast and Furious debacle, I doubt anyone is approving anything without Holder being in the loop.

The request for Alter Ego discovery is a necessary step in order to 'exhaust all pretrial motions including fugitive disentitlement' as is US policy, as I quoted directly from the asset forfeiture policy manual.
07-25-2012 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CANUCKEH44
More Stall Tactics. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Drag it out and suck some more money out of Bitar and suck some more life out of the players, FFS..........................
Gotta watch out for those 2 day stall tactics. So sneaky.
07-25-2012 , 12:22 PM
Are the extension and discovery linked? I would have thought they would have ask for more than 4 days.
07-25-2012 , 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyrulesall
Lawyers charge for time spent on phone or emails. Not sure if you really don't know this or you are trying to be funny.
Well, he's answering most of these e-mails during the day. Unless he's overestimating and clocking hours upon hours to answer the e-mails he gets from poker players, I doubt he's raking it in hand over fist answering questions sent his way.
07-25-2012 , 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyrulesall
Good idea asking the lawyer of the company multiple questions so he can charge FTP more and get even more of our money. You guys that have been talking to Jeff really don't realize that he isn't going to tell you anything of any importance?
Do you think I would have sent him 50 emails if he didn't say anything I consider valuable in them? He can't say much but most of the time he tries to answer your questions in a way he is allowed .

Quote:
Originally Posted by CANUCKEH44
More Stall Tactics. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Drag it out and suck some more money out of Bitar and suck some more life out of the players, FFS..........................
I have zero information on the matter, but I think it's fair to assume all the money is gone at this point? They couldn't pay the July salaries iirc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyrulesall
Lawyers charge for time spent on phone or emails. Not sure if you really don't know this or you are trying to be funny.
Obviously you're right and most likely it is the case but I don't consider it a fact that Ifrah bills the hours he spends answering poker players their emails. I have never gotten the feeling he considers it as part of the job he was hired to do, and is doing it because he feels like it's the right thing to do. Maybe that's the optimist in me, but I think there's a decent chance he isn't billing for that .
07-25-2012 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
The reason the AGUSA may have refused to sign off on the deal which everyone seems to have thought was going to be approved may actually be quite simple, it would have been against US policy to have done so.

The policy manual requires the AUSA to exhaust the fugitive disentitlement motion prior to making a settlement with a 'fugitive' - anyone avoiding US criminal jurisdiction.

While I thought the motion was so weak that it was likely only being used to allow time to negotiate, it would appear that it had to be made before the government (Attorney General) would ever sign off on a settlement.

So perhaps there was no 'bluff' by PokerStars nor a conspiracy by the government to hand over these companies to the casino interests, and the current delay is simply procedural.
Quote:
Absent compelling circumstances, prosecutors should not negotiate with fugitives. Before undertaking such negotiations, prosecutors should exhaust all potentially viable pretrial motions, including any possible fugitive disentitlement motion. Even when the case cannot be resolved by pretrial motion, prosecutors should enter into negotiations reluctantly. In many instances, the policy considerations of declining to negotiate with fugitives will outweigh the potential benefit to an individual civil forfeiture case. Only in instances where other considerations, e.g., the cost of maintaining the asset subject to forfeiture, militate towards negotiating a settlement should prosecutors entertain fugitive negotiations. In such circumstances the prosecutor handling the negotiations should consult closely with the prosecutor handling the parallel criminal case.
I wish I could agree with your analysis.

You claim that
The policy manual requires the AUSA to exhaust the fugitive disentitlement motion prior to making a settlement with a 'fugitive' - anyone avoiding US criminal jurisdiction.
but what you quote doesn't support that claim. The quote doesn't mention concluding or signing off on a negotiation, or making a settlement; it talks about entering into or starting a negotiation. All the reports say that the DoJ has already done what the quoted passage advises against doing with a fugitive: enter into negotiations, undertake negotiations, and negotiate. Either the DoJ is ignoring its own guidelines, or more probably, this partof the guidelines does not apply because the negotiations are with the Pokerstars claimants, and those companies are not fugitives.
07-25-2012 , 12:50 PM
i still keep my black card in my wallet, hoping one day i'll flash it and get out of a speeding ticket or something. anyone else still do this?

On topic, wonder if the fact FTP asked for an extension that is 1 business day after the next iGaming hearing on the hill means anything?
07-25-2012 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
The reason the AGUSA may have refused to sign off on the deal which everyone seems to have thought was going to be approved may actually be quite simple, it would have been against US policy to have done so.

The policy manual requires the AUSA to exhaust the fugitive disentitlement motion prior to making a settlement with a 'fugitive' - anyone avoiding US criminal jurisdiction.

While I thought the motion was so weak that it was likely only being used to allow time to negotiate, it would appear that it had to be made before the government (Attorney General) would ever sign off on a settlement.

So perhaps there was no 'bluff' by PokerStars nor a conspiracy by the government to hand over these companies to the casino interests, and the current delay is simply procedural.
Whether you can nitpick the settlement manual to find an exception; the sequence of events: a request for an extension for the purpose of certain "settlement communications," a failure to settle, and then a motion to conduct discovery for the purpose of supporting a disentitlement motion; suggests that direction was given, and received, with regard to settling certain issues, and following a process, precedent to a settlement. BTW, the settlement manual is not a criminal statute to be parsed for exceptions; rather it is a guideline to be followed in both substance and spirit.
07-25-2012 , 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunders
i still keep my black card in my wallet, hoping one day i'll flash it and get out of a speeding ticket or something. anyone else still do this?
I keep it in my wallet to earn back my FTP bankroll equity, one CCR at a time...
07-25-2012 , 12:58 PM
Maybe when PS made the offer the DOJ forgot to do it.....

      
m