I never made any mention whatsoever about the legality of his actions. I just personally feel that the stock market, with only basic knowledge of stocks, is more of a form of gambling than poker.

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to start Facebooking news outlets and personalities in order to draw attention to our situation? Pretty much all news anchors have Facebook and Twitter accounts now, so even if one of them talked about the poker crackdown on air, it would draw that much more attention to it.

If we can draw as much attention to a big name anchor as we did to the Department of Justice's Facebook page, I think we would have a good chance at some sort of response. The DoJ FB page is getting like one wall post every two minutes about poker.

Please do this, all of you. This is not just about poker but our rights as citizens.

Steve Wynn still calls for regulation: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/On-the....html?x=0&.v=1

what would be the pro's and con's of using something similar to bitcoin to gamble with?

yes this would be a great idea. We need to let anyone and everyone know about what is going on.

I have created a new thread here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...hread-1024101/ to help organize anything that can be done.

The Volstead Act did not say you can't drink beer. It prohibited the production, sale, and transport of "intoxicating liquors". There was nothing outlawed about drinking alcoholic beverages. I feel that this is an important distinction.

Of course the goal was to decrease the consumption of these beverages, but not done in such a way as to criminalize the activity of drinking them. I have to say that although I disagreed with Prohibition, avoiding criminalization of the use of alcohol was a rare show of common sense by the government.

Next time I have Steve over for our usual dinner of panda meat and unicorn blood I will have to educate him.

Perusing the 1999 National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report. Under Chapter 5, on Internet Gambling, poker is only mentioned once:

Also, the report recommended letting sites do their thing, before bringing the hammer down:

I think the implication is that Congress would then draft legislation to finish killing the beast. Did this ever happen?

Of course, you need to go after these operations at their source:

This members of the commission were:

Kay C. James, Chair - Kay Coles James was appointed in May 1997 as
the chair of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Had been Director of Public Affairs for the National Right to Life Committee.

William A. Bible - Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board

James C. Dobson, Ph.D. - social conservative and founder of Focus on the Family

J. Terrence Lanni - chairman of the board and chief executive officer of MGM Grand

Richard C. Leone - Richard C. Leone is president of The Century Foundation

Robert W. Loescher - president of Sealaska Corporation and Goldbelt

Leo T. McCarthy - president of The Daniel Group, a partnership engaged in international trade and other business enterprises

Paul Harold Moore, M.D. - Medical Director of the Department of Radiology at Mississippi

John W. Wilhelm - president of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) International Union

PIPEDREAM: Engage

If the poker sites and these processors were to prevail in court on all charges, then what? Its not like the next day will back to how it was, right? I am sure the DOJ will appeal every ruling against them until 2020 or something like that, right? Would the sites be able to operate during this appeal processes?

How will this go down in the best case scenario? I need to hear about some good news and I think this may be the only way.

A man, can dream, for a day, yes?

/PIPEDREAM

Can the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?

AFAIK, there is no appeal for a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal trial.

Pretty amazing to me that people don't know what their basic civil liberties are. Fifth amendment anyone?

Was this article ever posted on 2p2? I know it's the NY Post, but it was dated April 10.

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/feds...7x5XsE7kTHTnFI

You mean we still got some?

From what i can tell,That article is based on a Financial Times article.

Last year The Financial Times reported that a source told them that there was a Grand Jury looking in to FTP and their supposed Pro poker player "owners"
There was a thread in this forum on it at the time.

Who knows, maybe the DOJ isn't done and the investigations will continue and we could see more indictments.

The subparagraph you quoted is only the definition of a bet or wager.

Here is the section that prohibits certain conduct:

Basically, if you are in the business of accepting bets or wagers, you are prohibited from accepting any bet or wager in the form of a financial instrument from any person for whom it is illegal to place that bet or wager.

No payments TO bettors are prohibited by this section.

The DOJ, or any other prosecutor anywhere, can not appeal a verdict that finds the defendants not guilty. That's called double jeopardy and it's a substantial part of the the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.

The last time I was forced to explain that to someone I was trying to pass a 7th grade civics test.

Question: Could the fact that our funds are in the poker accounts, in realty the real money is in the sites banks account somewhere. might this cause an issue with getting our money. If the sites accounts are frozen by the DOJ, and we need to go to the DOJ get it back. Could the DOJ consider this money actually the sites and not ours?

The funds might be viewed differently if the were "seized" by the DOJ in transit, like if a processors money was seized while your money is in transit from the site to you for a cashout.

IIRC,wasn't this an issue brought up in the Account Services case when that processor was shut down by the DOJ?

I wonder if the DOJ can say **** you players if the money is in your poker account you could be screwed but maybe if the money was seized in transit (heading specifically to a player) you could claim those funds were yours (the players) and not the sites and the DOJ would/could have to give it back.

IS any of this somewhat correct or possible?

There are civil components to the indictments. Those are the ones in particular I am curious about the appeal of a judgement not in their favor.

MGM Grand, Nevada Gaming Control board, Century, Sealaska, Goldbelt, Daniel Group, and HERE IU (who no doubt has plenty of dues paying members in B&Ms)... The more I learn, the more I think this is about "Americanizing" online poker in the hands of US companies and politicians. And it seems like it can find it's roots in the lobbying efforts of Abramoff and Team Abramoff (which included Ralph Reed, Century founder and Pat Robertsen's org The Christian Coalition) playing both sides of the issues with the indian casinos, the elections of 1994 and 1998, 2008, and the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. Dobsen being involved as a close personal friend of Pat Robertsen and the Abramoff payrolled congressmen and the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama Whitehouses and elections. And funded by the money from both sides of the political isle from clients ranging from Microsoft (who paid $20,000 a month and only broke ties with Abramoff after he pleaded guilty to the Indian casino charges; also Bill Gates' father's company Preston Gates & Ellis the legal end of Abramoff's activities,) Naftasib (a Russian energy company that got the US to bail out the Russian economy in 1998,) the Marianas Islands (both the crime elements and the industry to hire cheap labor out of Laos as well as the government there in the supposed efforts to stop the crime and raise the wages and treatment of the labor,) the Choctaw, the Coushattas, the Saginaw Chippewas, and the Agua Caliente on matters of Indian gaming, SunCruz Casinos, eLottery, Inc., and ordering $20,000+ for skyboxes and concerts for gambling opponents John Doolittle and (you guessed it... Drumroll please...) Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member and current Chairman Max Baucus.

Really the only thing that has me baffled completely by the involvement of Dr. Paul Harold Moore JR MD. Oh well, I'll figure it out if it's important.

So in conclusion, it seems that all the lobbying that Abramoff and his "team" started are now strongly lobbied ideas on both side of the corruption that is money and politics. Abramoff started by rolling a snowball down the hill, but when it reaches the bottom, it will be so big it will wipe out whole communities, foreign countries, Washington DC, Internet gambling, the whole lot of us. Speaking of Lott, you don't think him, Gingrich, Baucus, Bushes 1&2, Abramoff, Reed, Scandlon, Cheyne, Obama, McCain, Bill Gates, and Richard "Quiet Lion" Brodie had a regular game goin on back on the Crawford ranch?

Abramoff once said, "I can make people happy to give me money so that I could screw them over with it. Then they would come back to give me more money to screw them again. Everytime they came to me, they left so happy the money was being used for good purposes on issues that mattered most to them." Well I can see the government playing both side of this now and causing a stir on all sides, but what the end game is, although obvious, will be a major shock. They will either leave online poker in the hands of US based B&Ms with heavy taxes from the rake and the winners, or it will fall down a set of stairs landing at the bottom crushed, broken, and ready to be trashed forever.

Nope, Double Jeopardy rules.

Edit: my pony last

reading the indictment ...bank fraud and laundering billions...the gov't hardly ever loses...odds they win are -2000

Only went 1/4 against Bonds.

I am curious about the flow in the other direction. How can the transfer of money from bettors be considered money laundering? When does money turn bad?

For if I have understood correctly, one of the key charge is money laundering (transfers disguised as payment for jewelry and golf balls) based on a questionable claim that online poker is illegal and ‘dirty’.

But let’s take a different example. Suppose I wanted to pay off a drugs cartel. Would the transfer of my hard earned cash to the drugs barons be money laundering? Does money transferred from a ‘clean’ source (me, a law abiding citizen using my hard earned cash) to a dirty one (the drug dealers) turn dirty even before it hits the dirty side of the fence? That sounds illogical to me – but then I’m an engineer, not a lawyer.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...resources.html