It's really, really, really hard to forget that. Infighting at its worst.

Skallagrim-

Just wanted to point out a few things:

1. I believe that there is a NY law aspect to the case and a federal law aspect to the case. Whether online poker constitutes "unlawful Internet gambling" under the UIGEA and "illegal gambling business" under another charged statute in the indictment (18 U.S.C. 1955) is a state law question because UIGEA/IGB define "unlawful Internet gambling" and "illegal gambling business" by reference to state (and other federal) law. My understanding is that NY criminal law doesn't target the players themselves, but the people who own / operate / host the game.

2. I agree that NY Penal Law does not specifically mention poker, but rather uses the phrase "contest of chance." While I agree that the only published NY court decision that addresses this question is the NY criminal court decision in People v. Taylor (1995 decision), don't you find it instructive that the NY police continue to raid and shut down underground poker rooms, and that nobody has been able to obtain a business license in NY to legally operate a poker room (other than poker rooms that operate under tribal jurisdiction, such as Turning Stone)? Given the fact that there is no adverse precedent re: People v. Taylor plus the continued crackdown on underground poker rooms in NY give weight to the DOJ's interpretation that NY state law deems the operation of poker games illegal?

3. I believe that there is actually a federal question involved that is completely de novo. And that question is what constitutes "game subject to chance" within the UIGEA. The UIGEA prohibitions apply to any person that is engaged in the business of betting or wagering, and betting or wagering involves, among other things, a "game subject to chance." IMO, that means that a federal court would need to interpret "game subject to chance" under federal law, which is something that has yet to be argued in federal court. Sure, the federal court might look at what state courts have to say on the issue, but the federal court is not bound by those state court decisions because this is a question of federal law.

So there are actually two ways to attack the DOJ's position on poker: (1) attack the interpretation of NY law (IMO, probably a tougher hurdle b/c NY courts and law enforcement agencies have already "spoken" on the issue) and (2) convince a federal judge that "game subject to chance" doesn't include poker as a matter of federal law (IMO, possibly easier because this is a new question of federal law interpretation).

thanks for the video's guys

FWIW, I would caution against "using Holder's words against him" in this case. He is not be qualified to definitively answer whether poker is a game of skill because it hasn't been tested in the federal courts (see my post above). In addition, I doubt Holder would reveal insight as to how the DOJ intends to address the skill / chance argument while a major case is pending. It's the job of Congress to pass the laws, the job of the executive branch (DOJ) to enforce the laws, and the job of the judicial branch to interpret the laws.

Unfortunately for the sites, the DOJ's stance is that enforcement of laws against the poker sites leads to charges stemming from UIGEA, illegal gambling business, bank / wire fraud, and money laundering. It's now up to the courts to interpret what those laws mean.

I agree with other posters that expressing disapproval with what the DOJ has done isn't going to make the indictments go away. I think a better area of focus would be to fight for enabling legislation for online poker.

The difference between the payouts from the various companies says more about the companies involved than anything with the DOJ in my opinion.

In regards to the remaining sites, I am admittedly ignorant to the options out there. Focusing on the solution going forward is why I made the ship has sailed comment. Just trying to clarify the difference between the DOJ and Congress. As seen in Holder's testimony, they are just enforcing the law as is, they aren't in the business of creating policy. It is a common theme in committee hearings for agencies to answer Representatives with a variation of "if you really don't like it, Congress is responsible for changing it."

I know you are aware of all this, just wanted to explain myself and clarify the fact the DOJ is not going to be changing it's policy without being told to do so.

Also sidenote- in regards to the frustration of everyone, including some of the people I saw leaving today's hearing, as has been said repeatedly it is going to take time. The legislative process in the US was designed to be slow, not fast. The more attention it gets over time the better.

8 of the 9 charges have a predicate offense ("unlawful internet gambling", "illegal gambling business", or "unlawful activity"). The only charge that doesn't have a predicate offense is bank / wire fraud. However, the bank / wire fraud charge has the highest maximum prison sentence (30 years) and harshest monetary penalties ($1 million or 2x gross gain/loss, plus forfeiture of proceeds of the offense). UIGEA violation is max 5 years in prison and fine of $250k or 2x gross gain/loss.

Also, counts 1 through 4 all relate to the UIGEA but are against different defendants, and counts 5 through 7 all relate to illegal gambling business but are against different defendants. That means that there are really only 4 major points of law at issue (UIGEA, illegal gambling business, bank / wire fraud, and money laundering).

You'll often see an indictment list as many charges as the DOJ thinks it can bring, but sometimes some charges are dropped (see, Barry Bonds).

FTW


I really wanted someone to say that in that meeting. "If you dont know anything about Poker, what are you doing prosecuting it".

Official PPA representatives should be careful about how childish they act on public forums. Are you guys honestly confused about why poker players aren't lining up behind the PPA? It's because of attitudes like this, where you think you deserve our support, rather than trying to earn it.

That's part of public life - you carefully and patiently explain something, and when idiots who didn't listen the first time repeat their questions, you carefully and patiently explain it again. And again. And you tread carefully so you don't end up jamming your foot in your mouth.

For example ...

Abso-****ing-lutely wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, the DOJ is not ******ed. They picked New York State to file their case in because it's pretty clear that poker is illegal, and unambiguous that skill vs. chance is immaterial.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/New-York/

"any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein."

Precedence in New York state is that poker is illegal; they've shut down live poker clubs and the like for years. Nobody's contested it, and unless the PPA wants to start waving that flag, it's pretty much a given that PS/FT violated state law. And once it's been established that poker sites have violated a state law, the subsequent allegations follow whether or not poker is also illegal on a federal level.

I understand that the PPA by definition always seeks to act in players' best interests. But blindly throwing up sham arguments in hopes that public opinion is going to dissuade the DOJ from following through with their felony cases is naive. These aren't flimsy charges, hastily drawn up by a bunch of bumbling politicians who have no concept of law. At the very least, it's a well-orchestrated set of charges pushed forward with full expectation of conviction.

It might be in another thread (I can't find it in this one), but TheEngineer - who by the way has represented the PPA with dignity and composure through this whole thing - nailed it right on when he advocated that nobody defend Pokerstars / Full Tilt for the bank fraud / money laundering charges, and that poker players should take extra steps to appear as if it were doing so.

Stop with the silly defenses. Get someone to draft a decent legalization bill, and poker players will fall in line. And FFS, if you've got "PPA" in your undertitle don't act like a child.

I don't think it's really this way, but could be wrong.

When I see people bashing the PPA for some of the sillier reasons (without offering any realistic alternative), it seems to be the same types of posters that make threads threatening Mason/Mat for their NC threads being locked (or for 3 huge news threads in 3 forums being merged into one thread! Gosh, the censorship!).

That's not to say nobody has valid criticisms of the PPA, 2p2 (or myself for that matter!), but I think crazies are crazies as far as your quote goes.

It's painful to do this, especially to Pokerstars, who second to my drug dealer has provided me the best customer service I've ever experienced.

i hope youre right.

Don't be an azz shooting off on another one of your 7000 over bloated posts.
Skall went home for the night.

That was a bad time. Certain folks around here really believed 'THEY' deserved some sort of Godfather status prior to ANY of a dozen different organizational efforts in 2006-7. The PPA was the only one that actually proved itself and earned the 2+2 blessing from on high AFTER becoming a success.

Revisionist history runs rampant round these parts.

which ones?

Forbes blog article:
U.S. Attorney General Calls Online Poker Crackdown Appropriate But Doesn’t Know If Poker Is A Game of Chance or Skill

I also agree they will prolly all plead to something.. it's what's become of our legal system. Charge people with crimes that can give them many years in prison.. or we can let u plead out with probation and a fine.

Hell I pled no contest to something I absolutely didn't do before, because it was trivial and the gap in consequences was so much different.

ML is not trying to avoid taxes (that is tax evasion) but it is tring to hide the source of funds. For example, you run an illegal business and make about 5k a month. You take those funds, buy a bunch of prepaid Visa cards at the grocery store and put the money on to a poker site. Maybe play a little, maybe not. Then cash out. Now you claim that money on your taxes as
"gambling winnings" and the money is officially "clean".

A big example of this is, I put 1000 on a poker sit and "chip dump" to a terrorist in the Middle East. I have just funded terrorism. This is why it was tied to the SAFE Port Act so easily. They are both marketed as anti-terrorism.

An interesting side note to all this. As you remember Rep. Bobby Scott was the first to raise the poker issue in the hearing yesterday and asked the question of Holder about poker being a game of skill, where Holder responded that he was not "qualified" to answer.

Last evening in Washington D.C., was the 7th Annual Bad Beat on Cancer poker tournament to benefit the Prevent Cancer Foundation. A number of Senators and Reps and their staff played. I actually sat at the table with Sen. Begich from Alaska.

You will be pleased to know, that Rep. Bobby Scott also played and he is a pretty skilled player. He final tabled the event and was eventually knocked out in 4th place. Obviously, he knows what AG Holder does not, poker IS a game of skill.

John A. Pappas
Executive Director, PPA

Would have been funny if Holder played in the tournament hours after saying under oath before Congress that he does not play poker.

So he'll read it in the morning. The Internet will still be here.

What, you think a public figure can just handwave away ridiculous behavior by logging off for the night?

Or do you think my information to be so fresh and current that Skall was factually correct when he posted but new information has made him look like an ass in retrospect?

Or do you think I'm being mean by being the nth person to point out his laughable lack of knowledge on the subject?

Why do you have such a hardon for defending someone who is both wrong AND dragging the PPA through the mud with his childish antics?

any discussions from anyone playing on path forward as they see it?

Attitudes like this lead me to conclude that my posting on 2+2 is no longer of value in the overall effort to get openly legal poker. And since I (childishly, I know) don't otherwise enjoy the abuse I get here, I plan to post far less, if at all.

But since this is a direct challenge, and since this poster has posted a number of posts with incorrect information, and since I have a few minutes left after lunch, I will make a short factual reply.

1) I never said online poker was legal under NY law. I said it was an issue not decided yet. callipygian ignored that distinction, and instead chose to proceed as if I had stated that poker IS legal in NY. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior, none of them favorable to callipygian.

2) The article callipygian links is by Chuck Humphrey, an attorney I know and respect and have spoken and worked with on a few occasions. Mr. Humphrey would be the first to tell you that the article is his considered OPINION. Not a definitive statement of law (because there are no definitive statements of law on this issue; as I previously noted, NY's appellate court has not ruled yet).

3) It is also rather silly to find one lawyer's opinion on the internet and think you have determined the issue for all time. While there is no link, perhaps callipygian can go to a library and find this article Chance v. Skill in New York’s Law of Gambling: Has the Game Changed?, GAMING LAW REVIEW AND ECONOMICS, Volume 13, Number 6, 2009 by Bennett Liebman, the executive director of the Government Law Center at Albany Law School in New York. He is then welcome to call Prof. Liebman and tell him how stupid he is. I can find other legal opinions out there that differ from Mr. Humphrey's, but I have to ask myself "Why bother?" - there is nothing that can open a nailed-shut mind.

4) Finally, whether poker could or could not pass the NY material element test does not end the inquiry. The NY gambling law was passed long before the internet was invented and curiously excludes players from prosecution. Was this NY law meant to cover online poker where only the players are in NY? Shouldn't the NY legislature have to pass a clear law about the internet and gambling first before we assume what their intent was? Other states have passed such laws, but not NY. I am sure callipygian already knows the answer to this question. But I am not sure anyone else does with certainty, at least anyone who actually researches in this area with an open mind.

You are now welcome to flame away, callipygian. Lunch is over and I plan to go back to doing things which might actually make a difference somewhere.

Skallagrim

Skallagrim,

Quick question for you. I have found an article from Bennett Liebman called "Poker Flops under New York Law." http://www.scribd.com/doc/2964543/Le...-Liebman-11106

In that article, Mr. Liebman states that "it is hard to argue that chance is not a material element of the game of poker . . . Thus, under New York Law, poker would be a contest of chance." (See page 28 of the link.)

I have not been able to obtain a copy of the Gaming Law Review and Economics article that you mentioned above. However, a summary of such article that I read (and you can obviously take this analysis with a grain of salt) stated: "Liebman makes a persuasive case that New York legislators did not intend to change [the dominating element] standard when they included the 'material degree' language in the new state penal code. At most, [Liebman] argues, they sought to establish a presumption that a game in which chance and skill play equal roles qualifies as gambling."

If anyone has a copy of the Gaming Law Review and Economics article handy, could you comment on whether Professor Liebman has changed his view from the article I linked?

Thanks.

-ck

that just seems an absurd conclusion to me. of course chance plays a role just as it does in investing, in baseball, in bridge, in virtually every "game" theres a significant element of chance. if there wasnt why even play the games - not picking on you ck but i just think thats a rather large leap to make

I find it funny how someone who is so clearly disconnected from political reality as to make the first statement try to speak with such authority. I challenge you to write a decent legalization bill outlawing gravity, I'm sure politicians and the world will fall in place shortly thereafter.

With regards to public abuse, I think people who work in a public position for a living should expect some aggressive posting. People who volunteer their time, not so much. It has to be pretty clear to anyone that it quickly becomes a negative experience if people just bash you repeatedly. Afaik Skallagrim is a volunteer and has done lots of pro bono work.