The DoJ has intelligent people, but their primary motivation in these cases is not the money amount. A dollar received voluntarily is worth less to them than a dollar received through involuntary forfeiture or fine. A conviction/judgement is more valuable than a settlement.

If you really want to think that the DoJ is motivated by getting the largest dollar amount, remember they are asking the court for in excess of $1.5B and Stars is reportedly only offering $700M, half of which doesn't go to the DoJ.

There is no good reason to think that all possibility of an eventual settlement has ended, so the DoJ hasn't thrown away anything.

The Stars guy said no such thing. He never said the deal was alive. What he said was that the twitter rumours about the deal were false. There were two rumours:

1. That the deal was just a bluff by Stars to get GBT out of the game.
2. That the deal was dead because Stars had pulled out of the deal.

Both of those rumours could be false and the deal could still be dead.

You have my sympathy, sir.

Ok its proven futile before, because you always fight for your theories even in light of facts refuting them, but in case it wont be futile, I will try one more time.

Just because you say "you doubt" something will happen unless x and y happen, does not meandoes not mean that x and y are required to happen. You said the AG was required to sign off on the deal, he is not.

The section you originally quoted does not say what you want it to say. There is a huge difference between should and must, and in the end the discretion lies with the Chief of AFMLS. I would be happy to give you her telephone number if you would like to check with her directly.

As to your threshhold comments, please don't quote out of context. The threshold you refer to does not preclude the AFMLS to make the final call unless certain parameters of amounts being released from restrained assets also meet certain limits. You've provided no evidence to say that anything is being released at all, and certainly none that say it would exceed 15% of the alleged amount. Those pesky little fact things always get in the way. Since you weren't specific about your cite material, allow me:


9-113.700 Settlement with Fugitives in Civil Forfeiture Cases
Prosecutors should first consult with the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Criminal Division, before engaging in settlement negotiations in civil forfeiture cases where the claimants are fugitives in United States criminal proceedings.

9-113.200 The Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section has authority to approve any forfeiture settlement where:
(1) the amount involved exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $5 million, and the amount to be released exceeds 15 percent of the amount involved, unless the amount to be released is more than $2 million; or

(2) the amount involved exceeds $5 million, unless the amount to be released exceeds 15 percent of the amount involved and is more than $2 million.

Approval: Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Criminal Division.
9-113.200 The Deputy Attorney General must approve any forfeiture settlement where the amount to be released exceeds 15 percent of the amount involved and is more than $2 million.

cliffs on the past 24-48 hours? i can't be assed to scroll through which posts are trolls / which ones are serious.

I always wonder who bought all those branded ten gallon hats with the FTP logo. Law enforcement in your state perhaps?

I was eligible for a black card for a long time - it was always "in the processed of being shipped" (like my check, apparently....)

I'm kind of jealous.

We have our first real 'sweat' in awhile with possible news by Friday as FTP filed a motion for a 4 day extension on the basis of needing more time for settlement discussions. Again, it'd make no sense for such a tiny extension request if they don't plan to get it (whatever it might be) done in that time period, but it's not like we haven't been here before

If nothing else, gives us something to watch for again.

This statement does not specify the scope of the negotiations, or which parties are involved. The usual interpretation would be negotiations between FTP and the DoJ. This may have no bearing whatsoever on whether the Stars deal is alive.

Is there really anything that separates this extension request from any others? Isn't it standard for one side (or both sides) to ask for more time in cases? I had to go testify against a drunk driver once, there were so many extensions asked for it didn't go to trial for 3 years. Just seems like this request is nothing to get excited about. It's happened at every deadline in every case related to black friday.

When you call a lawyer they actually start a timer and time the minutes they speak with you. I'm not sure of how emails work but I can't imagine it's any different. A lawyer in a case this high profile can be very expensive. What you may think is quick answers may have added up to a lot of money. Especially If its some of the geniuses that ask the same question 40 different ways because they don't get an answer they want.
I believe Todd terry said early on in this thread not to bother the lawyers for this very reason. Maybe he can chime in on this.

le sigh

someone please tell me DTM is wrong for once

he cant be wrong he said "may"

I am surprised that you don't seem to be able to distinguish the trolls from the serious. An additional category seems to be those that are in their own Private Idaho. Maybe this is part of your confusion.

Cliffs: A 4 day extension was granted to FTP for filing a motion and in the request it was mentioned that there were ongoing negotiation. Although the fact it was 4 days seems to indicate that things are imminent that is only one of many possibilities. It does however seem that it is the first time it was mentioned in these filings that negotiations were happening. But we knew this already.

Cliffs of my cliffs: The process is still ongoing and it may or may not end in a positive resolution for the players.

its surprising that you played like such a nit all those years on FTP, yet you claim to play CCR. prove it Haupt! I do NOT believe you. a nit would 100% rather safely pay his own bill rather then risk the chance of paying everyones bill.

http://www.madeinpoker.com/rumeurs/p...ews-10410.html

http://www.madeinpoker.com/rumeurs/p...r-ub-9590.html

probably bull****

^^

English?

Original source is PokerListings: "Opinion: PokerStars to Acquire PokerNews.com"

http://www.pokerlistings.com/opinion...okernews-60240

nb this is filed under 'opinion'.

the second link is tony dunst saying that the deal with ftp is almost done and they will try to get UB also

wasnt he joking when he said that? -.-

Yes. He answered tweets saying it was a joke

Yeah right, everybody is in the dark and going insane about the FTP 'possible' buyout, and now rumors start spreading about a UB thing, hell kill me with a shovel please !

But so did Chinaman! (cwidt?)

for only what 30 mil more they could get UB as well :-p

Here is an example from the manual which might help:

Of course it doesn't help. And let the aforementioned beating of the dead horse commence. It probably would help those that bother to try to follow if you actually posted your cite source, but in the interim, just based on the text of your cite, you refer to a criminal forfeiture proceeding. This in fact, as you know, is a civil forfeiture.

If they acquire UB make brad booth the face of the company and watch all the money end up in the pit much like Ivy did.