@Ford, none of the cases you cite address the issue at hand.

You seem to be arguing against the information you posted that DOJ does recognize claims made by estates of deceased victims.

In other news, Yesterday I received a package in the mail from a friend in London. It was a condolence card for Sugar and a book. The card was one of those blank ones where you have to write the words. The words she wrote were wonderful. The book is titled "A Street Cat Named Bob". It is a true story and has/had been on the bestseller list for quite some time in England. They saved each other's lives.

Thank you for your indulgence.

That is not the case at all. What I am arguing is the fact that your contention that the DOJ must do something specific regarding a claim from a decedent estate or face a civil suit is bunk. These cases are all directly on point when refuting your claim that the DOJ "has" to recognize a claim from an estate. They do not. They never have and they never will "have" to recognize and allow a claim from anybody, including the decedent estate of the victim of a crime, unless and until the current laws change. But, if you care to read some of my old posts on the subject it has always been my position the DOJ can (not must) do whatever they like with respect to remissions. Nothing here that I have written is apposite to that position. So, if they want to pay decedents estates they can. If they choose not to pay decedent estates they can. If they want everybody with a petition that is allowed to go to a local Taco Bell to pickup their checks they can. It is all up to them.

Their current "official" policy, as told to me by a DOJ attorney and that I shared with you yesterday is that they ARE allowing properly documented decedent estates to petition for remission. Good news for those impacted by this sad situation. But, they are NOT doing it because there is some mystery statute that requires them to do so. They are doing it as part of the "act of grace" that is remissions and in much a publicized effort to help "innocent victims" minimize the impact of crime on their lives.

You claim the "DOJ has always recognized claims filed by the estates of deceased bona fide victim claimants and my source at the DOJ, an AFMLS Attorney, tells me it has only been the policy of the DOJ since 2010. Are you correct, or is she? I don't know. I would expect similar matters have been very subjectively handled for some time on a case to case or even claim to claim basis. I have, however, read the horror stories of the families of victims in other Ponzi schemes being denied remissions because the original victim died. Are they true? I don't know. But, I have to wonder why a newspaper would print a story they know to be false.

You claim that if the DOJ does not allow a petition for remission from a decedent estate it would face a civil suit for violating Equal Protection under the law. Nonsense. Remissions is not even equitable relief, much less part and parcel of rights protected by the EPC. If remissions were so subject then every single "victim" that ever suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of illegal conduct in every single civil or criminal case where there is a forfeiture or civil fine paid would be entitled to file for remission and the DOJ would have no say in the matter.

You claim the decedent estate has an "underlying property right" to the forfeited money. It does not. No victim, as defined by regulation, has any underlying property rights to the forfeited funds.

You want people here to understand your position on this matter as if you are a fountainhead of information, yet you offer absolutely zero proof or even law to support your position. When offered the law as evidence of a different position you say those cases or regulations have nothing to do with the discussion. Yet, they are the controlling case law regarding the courts ability to intervene in any executive decision made by the DOJ with respect to remission.

How about you present some real law, like....let's say the "statute" you cite that "requires the DOJ to recognize claims filed by the estates of deceased bona fide victim claimants". Will you at least give us that much? I would be happy to look at any law you can find to support your position and would gladly capitulate if you could present a valid legal argument supported by law to prove up your contentions regarding a decedent estates statutory right to assume the position of the original victim for purposes of remission.

I doubt though that you can because no such statute exists. In fact, the state of the one regulation regarding the definition of a victim for purposes of remission specifically would prohibit a decedent estate from being a subrogated substitute for purposes of filing a petition for remission. There is no absolute right granted any person the right to petition for remission under any statute, law or regulation. The sole authority to grant remission is the AG, who has deferred this right to the Chief of the AMFLS.

I have questions about two aspects of the wording of the definition of victim in CFR 28 §9.2 "A victim does not include one who acquires a right to sue the perpetrator of the criminal offense for any loss by assignment, subrogation inheritance, or otherwise form the actual victim, unless ..."

1. Is "form" a typo for "from" or what is being meant by "or otherwise form the actual victim" here?
2. Is the lack of a comma between "subrogation" and "inheritance" signficant, or is it just another typo?
3. If there is no comma intended, does the term "subrogation inheritance have some sort of specific meaning less general than "subrogation or inheritance"?

It would seem that combining the two words could either mean a special type of inheritance - "subrogation inheritance" - that was distinct from regular inheritance, or it could mean the inheritance of a subrogation, i.e. person B had gained rights to something orignally belonging to A by means of subrogation, and now person C had inherited them from person B.

Furthermore, to repeat something I brought up earlier, but to pose it as a more direct question, is subrogation any legal substitution or does it only occur through the process of one party fulfilling the obligatons of another? (The usual example being that of an insurance company obtaining the right to sue the person who damaged the insured by means of paying the victim. I have never seen the process of an heir taking over the property, or right to sue, of a decedent being referred to as subrogation.

They are typos in whatever document you are reading, not a government conspiracy. Here is a link to the Official Electronic Code of Federal Regulations as published by the US Government Printing Office.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....0.1.2&idno=28

Man I'm so excited for Monday, it's been a long time coming, but we are finally one giant step closer to being reunited with our FT money. So is this how it's going to go down?; They send us an email telling us how much we are owed in this remission and if we agree that's pretty much the final sweat right? Although there shouldn't be any more sweats, I'm still a little worried that they won't get the correct number on the balance or something like that Just based on how poorly we've been treated throughout this entire process. But yeah does anyone know how it's going to happen? DTM? FORD? Let's have a good week everybody

Other than the press release linked/quoted in the (updated) first post of this thread, I haven't heard anything more about how they are planning to handle inaccessible email accounts.

bro we have AT LEAST 3 more sweats. one sweat to see if our end balance matches up with what they're ready to remission us for, another sweat is to wait till middle november for no good reason, then the third sweat is after middle november to when they start sending out money, then of course the sweat between when they start sending out money and you get your money. so 3.5-4 sweats to go.

For those of us who were getting rakeback, are we in the clear or does that make us an affiliate and ineligible for remissions?

For the record, there has been no official announcement regarding remission eligibility. In my opinion, until otherwise stated through official channels, it should be assumed that any player with a balance on Full Tilt is entitled to get it back. The sky is not falling yet. No need to assume it will.

Can't blame me for being pessimistic.

Let me make one thing very clear: According to what was posted as the criteria obtained from GcG:


Affiliates will NOT be paid their player account balances.

That said, it remains to be seen whether rakeback payments, made to a player account, will bar any recovery of the BF balance in that account.

The criteria cited were explicit as to affiliates and vendors. However, GCG may not recognize player receipt of rakeback as creating or the proceeds of an affiliate/marketing vendor relationship.

FWIW, I saw another post in this thread which suggested that an account holder contact GCG to explain he received "rakeback" as a "personal affiliate". I will offer some black letter advice here: If you tell anyone you ARE an affiliate, your chances of a recovery of your account balance shrink to near zero.

If they have not already done so, the PPA, and its crack legal team, should represent the interests of former FTP rakeback players and brief/lobby the distinction between a "rebate" on play and an "affiliate marketing fee". ( It seems a way more relevant use of resources and directly related to player interests than waxing philosophically about skill games.)

the line on doj or gcg even knowing what rakeback is: +600

Does the IRS have access to "the system" and any cashouts sent ?

I would agree, EXCEPT, it seems highly likely that FTP tagged transactions crediting rakeback to player accounts with a specific accounting code. In analyzing the FTP balances in player accounts, it seems likely that someone would have noticed transactions coded "RB2P" or whatever.

I would lower the posted odds to +200 that DOJ or GCG knew or cared what the accounting code "RB2P" stood for, so long as they thought it was not an "affiliate" code or a "vendor payment" code.

Players should just hope the payments were not tagged by accounting as "affiliate" related ...... because then someone, like a player representative organization, would have to explain that "rakeback" was in the nature of a rebate for playing, not a marketing payment.

(Side bet, think John McCain knows what rakeback is ?)

This would have happened with relative certainty even 2 weeks after BF.

we can only dream of a world where an established US senator COULD legitimately want a safe legal environment to play online poker 'for real'. and for him to be even somewhat aware of the player's perspective, psh, wouldn't that be ****in wild? seriously, we'd ****.

i mean it's a damn shame this multimillionaire has to slum it with the playmoney donks. maybe he dedicated himself to playing playchips so as to earn a hatred for playmoney poker and to drive himself to earnestly support creating a legal structure to host internet poker games where they respect the senator's goddamn raises.

Also to be clear, that was NOT an official announcement and I believe it came from a user whose first and only post was that one.

Well, it might not have been official but 'The Engineer' also posted the same thing and people would be inclined to believe the PPA.

It's amazing to me that ROW players have been paid, but some US player who might have been affiliate for a few friends could end up with nothing.

You're assuming this didn't happen to ROW affiliates. Don't I remember Pokercast Adam talking about getting screwed?

Thanks. I find this very disconcerting though.

I emailed Fulltilt a few months ago and got my balance and it was correct. Is there any thing else that I have to do to get my money from DOJ? I have skimmed some of these last few pages, and I am reading that they are going to email us on Monday and tell us what is owed to us, that is true? thank you

having rakeback and being an affiliate are two different things... right?

You're getting nervous over info from a dolt with 12 posts quoting his "friend in the know" ranting about people having an edge over him. Just look at his 12 posts and you will see his attempts to start "shocking rumors ". Too bad people like that get people to freak out because they believe everything they read