jamie gold is nothing more than a bankrupt lottery winner looking for attention (as far as poker is concerned, know nothing about him outside of poker)

is it revenge for all the ridicule

This is the response I got from my Senator, I grew up a few blocks away from her so she remembered & responded in less than an hour, honestly I was shocked, then excited, then let down...

Kelly,
The last I heard on the Senate side that on line poker playing bill is going to be studied for one year. I do not sit on this committee, but that is what I was told. There were some questions about it that was not answered and that is why during the summer these items will be addressed.
I am sure that this will be discussed again.
Good to hear from you.
Mary Jo

The Honorable Mary Jo Wilhelm
Iowa Senate
Iowa State Senate
Des Moines, IA 50319

I am truly at a loss for words, I have done everything in my power, and still other than this less than desirable response, have nothing...

If poker is outlawed, only outlaws will play poker I guess...

Late

K

Legal minds please help me here.

Did PS/FTP suspend U.S. players only because there are no viable payment processors available to handle the money transactions (clearly the life blood of the sites)?

I ask because they obviously, and likely rightfully, believe they are not violating the law and they believe these charges to be bogus (and after reading so many opinion pieces from lawyers and others, they are likely correct).

Assuming that is their position, I am confused as to why they would suspend the players and significantly impair their operations.

To that end, why are they not immediately countersuing or having the charges stayed so that they can continue to run their businesses uninterrupted? I am obviously not a lawyer so the above might sound silly as I do not know how these proceedings actually work.

Finally, I read in one editorial that it was disgraceful that the DOJ was wasting taxpayer money on such a harmless activity. I could not agree more. I just hope all the affected parties fight back with vigor.

Wrt why the sites shut out US players, im just speculating here but i assume its a mixture of not being able to process transactions, trying to work out a deal to get player funds back which would be a lot harder if they essentially gave the DOJ the finger by still trying to allow US play, and trying to allow their business to continue in non US countries without further interruptions while they plan their legal strategy in the US. As to a countersuit, i have no idea.

In dec the senate was working on passing legislature to legalize online poker. At the last minute they pulled out and decided not to pass it.

For whatever reason the powers that be decided to carry on business as usual.

I have two separate theories as to why they didn't pass the law and the DoJ jumped the big three.

1.They are planning on legalizing and everything will be fine.
2. They are planning on keeping it illegal and we are all screwed.


Legalization Theory:
It seems a bit odd that when seizing funds the DoJ went after only poker sites and went after only the three biggest.
The proposed Dec legislation cut out an exception so poker sites currently running in the US would be punished by locking them out of the market for a year.
The major players such as party poker have legitimate concerns that they gave up their huge market share to ftp and stars when they pulled out of the US market. It's possible the DoJ is forcing the big three out of the market for a period of time to even the playing field out a little bit for party poker as well as brick and mortar casinos.
With this theory online poker will soon be legalized in the US. The state and fed gov. sure could use the money.

Shut down theory:
It's very possible they decided after getting all the information together that online gambling has to go.
Grabbing the most money and doing the most damage by shutting down the big three 1st to show the smaller and more numerous gambling establishments that the US govt means business and if they want them out of the market they have the power to do so.
This theory is very possible and very scary but I would assume less likely. It would fall in line with the lobbying of the big casinos but at the same time hurt Harrahs when it comes to attendance in the wsop.

Comments and further ideas much appreciated.
Mods if this isn't the best place for this thread please move it to a better place.

1. In December the Senate was not working on passing legislation to legalize [sic] online poker. Only Senator Harry Reid was doing that. He simply was unable to attach it to anything - which would have been required to pass it. It's not like the Senate took and votes on it and decided to not pass it.

The DOJ investigations and indictments have been in the works for many years. They aren't a result of any of last year's bills.

2. The recent actions of the DOJ don't mean that Congress is never going to pass an Ipoker licensing bill. These actions are simply the culmination of years of investigations, funds seizures, indictments and settlement deals.

There have definitely been benefits to certain vested interests in the U.S. from the DOJ actions against the big three poker sites. However, I really don't see this as any sort of conspiracy with these vested interests. I think it is just what it appears to be: a systematic enforcement of law against offshore online gambling in an attempt to shut down all US-facing sites. I'd hazard a guess that the motivation for it has simply been a reaction to what the DOJ (and many Congresscritters) would consider a flaunting of US law, more than anything else.

why did they go after only the poker sites when they could have gone after sports betting or traditional casino game sites?

A counter suit against the DOJ = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ win or lose....it's a huge gamble

Probably was their best targets based on the evidence trail they were able to follow. Big fish, lots of accessible funds.

In a press release our arch foe in the House, Spencer Bachus (R. AL) credited the bills demise to himself and 2 other incoming House Chair's; one was Lamar from TX and the other I do not recall, there is a tread here someplace with his statement.

obg

Seems like an agreement to get paid back is in the works: still seems unclear when.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2011/0...safe-10249.htm

I was able last night to order items for my points with full tilt. When this first happened they didn't allow any cash outs of points.

FYP.

Just confirming that cashouts work fine within the EU if anyone's worried. Mine used to go through to MB withing a few hours, and took about 90 hours this time - but the P* support was responsive and helpful as usual. They said they have a huge backlog of cashout requests (mass panic ldo), hence the delays.

I already miss the platform, so will probably be coming back soonish.

Does anyone know why cashing out to MB doesnt work with FTP? I'm also in Europe

When the announcement was made by the DOJ, PS came out and said that they would start processing returns and cash outs, but FTP's statement was less optimistic. They said, "But, unfortunately, there remain significant practical and legal impediments to returning funds to players in the immediate future." Although this statement mentioned these difficulties as allowing payment processors to return funds to US players, maybe this also affects all players and the mention of US players specifically was only because it was newsworthy to say. Perhaps FTP and PS have different agreement terms with either the DOJ or the payment processors. ???

ANY NEWS about absolute poker? did they agree to the same deal ftp and ps agreed on? any news on them returning the funds to usa players?

No news from them. The last was that they hired council and intended to work with the DOJ on an agreement so that they too can return US players' monies.

Interesting Rasmussen poll on internet gambling...one encouraging thing is that it suggests many of our opponents are people who don't use the internet much. This number will obviously be going down over time.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...oker_42_oppose

What are the chances that online poker becomes completely illegal in the US by the time this is resolved? I'm interested in playing on cake/carbon but I'm scared that they could be shut down in the future as well.


I know you guys are 100x smarter than I'll ever be so just asking

Encouraging but good god it is depressing.

I was playing UB as of last night. Now I opened it up and got a popup about stopping money games, but I am still able to register and play for real money. lol

"We have suspended real money activity for players located in the US"

So I'm still playing.

I also found this article regarding this popup, UB further encouragement to keep playing, and the legal assistance they are now taking since the PS and FTP deals with the DOJ.

UB.com Reps Encouraging US Players to Enter Cash Games (dated Sat, 04/23/2011 - 16:55)

(BTW, the law firm mentioned is not "Black, Rome", it is "Blank, Rome")

I noticed that the Rasmussen site is kinda biased in one direction. Anti US, but pro Obama at the same time. Even if the findings are 77% or 73% against something Obama is involved in, they say something like "23% of Americans Agree with Obama", stating a negative as a positive, as if to ignore the finding percentage. Same in the other direction stating positive finding as a negative. Like Americans being selfish or x% STILL beleive something, as if they shouldn't.

That being said, I am not sure what to think about the fact that they say "mixed signals" about the online poker issue. The wording of the questions also lean towards linking poker, gambling, and political and economic betting as the same issue. The first question asks about poker, then the following questions ask about "poker and other games for money" including raw betting on media related issues. The last question drops the word poker altogether and just says "online gaming." Just sayin.

BTW, how can 101% respond to a question?
"when asked if individuals should be allowed to play poker or other games for money on the Internet, 41% of adults say yes, and 42% say no. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure."
And 99% total on another issue.

I have no real opinion of the survey, I didn't really look at it, but most likely this is a simple rounding issue. 1% off isn't bad, it's when they're off by much more then that, that it's a real WTF.