I'm guessing that fine might have to do a little something with the simple fact that pp offered online casino and a sportsbook.

For some reason, 2+2'ers seem really afraid to make simple phone calls. Speaking to Lockard could be useful, but no one will pick up the phone to do so. The worst case scenario is busting a freeroll. There is no downside at all except for having to suck up talking to a professional adult. I have spoken with him and he is not afraid to speak to you, nor is he rude or unhelpful.


Michael Lockard
One St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Web Site | Press Releases (212)637-2200 (212)637-2685

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...must-read.html

I admit I know nothing about the Freedom of Information Act.

That being said, I have heard the Freedom of Information Act cited numerous times on the news with regards to people who want to get information out of government agencies, of course they have to sue first, but sometimes they get the information they were seeking.

Is there any possibility that one of us or some / all of us could sue the DOJ under the Freedom of Information Act to get some answers?

I thought they were supposed to be updating every 45 days (starting on April 15th), regardless?

On a scale from 0 to 10, i would rate it like this: creativity 3, effort 4, style 2, organization 5.

So overall, i would advise against reading it.

^ link has got to be bull****

Interesting reply, If FTP goes down I wonder how the DOJ will treat the millions of dollars given to the PPA by FTP?

Hopefully they wont make the PPA pay back the money?

If they are going down why wouldnt they drag the company funds all the way to zero.

The people at FTP dont care they are spending what is left of the players funds.

You don't need to contact anyone, Dean. (And I really don't want people bugging the DOJ too much.) The DOJ is not preventing FTP from releasing any true information, though of course they'd presumably have a problem with FTP lying about DOJ actions.

On 3 & 5.

The VIP program at Stars is essentially a form or rakeback but the recreational player benefits from that way less than from the 27% FTP rakeback. Pocket Fives founder I believe claimed on QJ radio that affiliates profited way less from Pokerstars than from FTP. All this led to more profit for Stars.
FTP rakeback combined with various bonuses was actually one of the best in the market. One could easily make 40%+ rakeback overall on FTP; sometimes even 45%.

what do u mean u dont want anyone to bug the DOJ? are u the boss?

It might ruin their day like we've already ruined ray bitar's and Howard lederer's

Who and What are these people (whistleblowers) afraid of since BF? If they have THE evidence or any evidence, bring it on! What can happen now? Likely BS IMHO. Prove us wrong in our dis beliefs!

Those bonuses were for depositing more money into FTP's coffers, most of which wouldn't be returned anyway. All it did was raise money, increase their traffic, generate revenue, effectively raising their hold % of deposit to payouts.

And regarding Stars VIP program, yes it was a form of rakeback but only realistic for heavy grinders who put in enough volume. Those grinders would create traffic that the recreational player would see as an opportunity to play.

Rofl, this made me feel better about having money on there.
+1

Hi Howard, are you there? stop sitting in your million-dollar mansion depressed. Like we should feel sorry for you. Many people who helped you pay for the million dollar mansion cant afford their rent now. Go find an investor or sell everything you have to pay players. Right now everybody know you are not a good businessman, but at the end of the day you can still choose to be an honorable human being. An honorable human being always pays his debt.

Not even close, it was miles away from being competitive and they had deductions for everything. It is easy to get 60%+rb with no deductions at a lot of sites,.FTP did give rb, but it sucked.

Is this a fact? Or is this from the Matusow interview? If this is true I am really, really pissed. GREEDY MF'ers!

Must make them feel good knowing they've gotten rich stealing their clients money. Sleep much at night?

It's sickening that they walk around as if it's no big deal. Like some crackhead stealing your TV while you watch...

~Z

I can't prevent anybody from doing anything. I simply don't want to encourage people to bug the DOJ because I don't think that that will help things.

Agreed, Noah your post comes off really weirdly and with no substance it just sounds egotistical (not implying that was the intention). What do you mean 'you' don't want that? Why don't you want the DoJ to hear from American citizens? It has no risk of hurting so what exactly is your purpose in claiming you don't want them bugging the DoJ? Just seems bizarre.

To the above, it has virtually no risk of hurting things, and the DoJ does have at least some concern for public opinion and taxpayer interests.

Ok, so everyone knows I am not a lawyer and I defer always to those that are, but I found the following a very good explantion for the layperson regarding relief defendants. http://www.abiworld.org/committees/n...defrauded.html

Typically, as I understand it, there can be no unjust enrichment, nor can a third party play the part of laundering the proceeds, even if seemingly unknowingly. This is also where the use of a constructive trust can come into play.

This is also the reason, I think, that during a bankruptcy or other proceeding,before rendering the final adjudication, that certain transactions, sales of property etc, going back for a specified period of time, would be reversed. Same as in the USA, when the elderly are committed to health care facilities for the rest of their lives in exchange for their possessions, anything they tried to transfer to thier kids etc, to avoid giving it up, reverts back to the persons living estate.This used to be a 2 year timeline, now I think its 5 years.

The reason I mention the latter, is because I think that would also apply in the case of FTP at this time. Even if the DOJ was found to have no standing in the Irish court, certain transactions could be reversed if they happened in some period of time prior to the filing of the bankruptcy.

Finally as to the civil/criminal thing... in the case of FTP...if someone was told by the court to hand over document XYZ and they did not, that would be a civil infraction. OTOH, they have been served with specific restraining orders forbidding anyone touching in any way, certain properties, bank accounts etc. By anyone, I mean anyone in a far reaching sense. If someone were found to have violated that restraining order (forbidden action), they could be facing criminal charges.
This is my citing: Popular Bank of Florida v Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, 180 F.R.D. 461.465 (S.D.Fla.1998): see also US v Cable News Network Inc. 865 F. Supp 1549 (S.D.Fla. 1994)

Again, I defer to the legal ppl who know this stuff much better than I

Are we still waiting on the questions/answers or have I missed them?

Lol, for the record, his shady background goes back a lot farther than just the last few years I gave a glimpse of. I had to stop, or it could easily have been 20,000+ words.

i thought they were supposed to be out yesterday, but i guess not, idk when they're coming out...anybody have an update on this? ifrah?

If you are talking about the value of bank accounts on the seized list, they won't release that info yet, because technically it is not yet property of the Government. It's still in limbo until the Judge actually grants the forfeiture.

Once that happens, its all public information. (Example...all those banks accounts that were seized in 2009 on the list attached to this case have actual amounts. Those properties had already been transferred to the goverment).

Fwiw, FOIA does not apply yet for the above reason.