You are the king of the non sequitur.

Regarding our government's priorities, the IRS showed up with an attitude at a car wash to collect 4 cents.

http://cbs5.com/local/irs.4.cents.2.1564124.html

Article in Financial Times that is probably related to this. There's a thread running in NVG.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e159faf4-4...44feabdc0.html

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...l-tilt-752507/

it's official, the sky is fallin

You're certainly consistent from thread to thread.

If this investigation and the rumored grand jury mentioned in the other threads are related it could definitely get interesting.

i'm sorry for being so negative, but i feel like i'm being disillusioned about the actual clout of the PPA. What if our requests for a delay last november comprised a small percentage in tim geitner's choice to extend it six months? And it was mainly the banks confusion about how to handle the P &P on UIGEA that was The Reason that it won't be enacted until June 1st?

It just feels like bad news is bombarding us from all over the place. And that we our being unintentially misled by the PPA's spokespeople bloated optimism so that we can keep fighting a futile war? I don't want to believe this naturally, but it's frustrating.

Maybe i can't see the big picture because i just got into poker and legistlation 6 months ago.

edit: I have decided that i won't let any more of my pessimism permeate through the ppa/legislation forums. I'm not going to post anymore until i have a different a brighter opinion of the political landscape on online poker.

That's probably what it is.

You should have seen how things were three years ago. We have optimism because we're actually in the fight. I don't know if we'll win or not, but I do know we'll give it our best shot.

I can tell you my optimism is real. If it weren't, I'd not be spending the time I spend on this.

x-post from nvg

anyone think ft has some stuff to worry about now?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...-court-875840/

It's probably more closely related to this

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...issues-752587/

idk why i couldnt find that thread since i started it lol. we'll see what comes of this i guess.

good read. and wow. F the police.

Bump for current relevance.

Well, it appears the o.p. was likely telling the truth. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported yesterday that the US Department of Justice has asked a Federal District Court for authority to seize $500,000 from a Canadian payment processor. There are some facts that are not completely shown in the news story (how a state investigation morphed into a federal one) but it's fairly easy to connect the dots at this point.

-- Russ Fox

This would explain a lot of the check problems from there lately.

And I might as well ask it.....
By specifically mentioning and going after online poker now, is the PPA thinking litigation? It looks like attempts to get anything through anytime soon isn't going to merit anything positive and the aggression against us is going to make it damn near impossible soon.

Or is this a Washington thing where they can say it is specifically a felony to play there?

I couldn't read the entire article. Made me too sick.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say... no

How exactly are they planning on seizing a processor in Canada?

Asking nicely and sending flowers.........and if that doesn't work, threaten to invade and nuke them.

I'm having visions of South Park right about now.

What's that supposed to mean?

just what it says... that the PPA isn't thinking about litigation.

You do know that WA state has a law against online poker, right?

I don't know if we will litigate this or not, but your belief that judges around the country are dying to make a determination that the Constitution guarantees the right to play online poker if only we'd ask is getting old.

I am aware of that. The merit (or lack thereof) of this 'case' is irrelevant. I am of the opinion that the PPA will never litigate. Hence, the out on the limb statement.

I am of the opinion that you will find something about which to complain regardless of what PPA does.

The article specifically mentions UB multiple times and never discusses FTP once. It further mentions an agent playing "undercover" - if FTP was the target, why wouldn't he play on FTP? How are the dots connected?

We'll assume that the investigation began by the Washington Gambling Commission. One of their employees played on UB, cashed out, and noted that his funds came back to him on a check from some bank.

They then subpoenaed the information on the bank account. They bring in the feds to assist in this. Indeed, this almost certainly occurred as the article notes that the payment processor in question had accounts (or activities) in Florida and Nevada.

The feds then look at the records of cashed checks from the processor, and they knock on some doors. The feds don't know from the checks which site(s) an individual played on (this is an assumption on my part; it could be that the processor had multiple accounts with each account tied to a site).

The feds would likely choose locations where the activity is undoubtedly illegal as to which checks to investigate fully. If you're going to bring charges against someone, you bring as many as possible with the hopes that some will stick. If I were the DOJ I'd choose Washington state given the state's law against online gambling.

That this took months to then work its way into an indictment is not surprising at all. Federal investigations move like molasses rolling uphill.

-- Russ Fox

This may be related:

http://blogs.forbes.com/nathanvardi/...hannelsections