Yes the hyperbole is my friend sorry for my wounding words of fury! The Internet Is serious business.

You really don't? And lol @ frustrated.

I can only imagine how many grinders don't report a dime. You can't?

Nobody is gonna speak up and say, "I oppose regulation because I don't want to pay Uncle Sam. I pay enough god damn rake as it is. I don't need another quarterly/yearly hit to my bankroll on top of that!"

They're out there, just keeping their mouths shut.

Is it considered money laundering because the transactions were miscoded? Is this why all the echeck transactions are now showing up as pstars?

I wonder if that $733,804.92 covered the cost of the investigation.

Your solution was to reject even going to Congress in favor of litigation.

Have you noticed that no one else is litigating as a main course of action? Payment processors generally settle. Offshore sites aren't seeking litigation. Onshore interests with nothing to lose aren't litigating. In fact, aside from us in Washington state, no one with a big financial stake in this is litigating. Rather, ALL parties with real stakes (including players via the PPA) are focused on the democratic process to achieve this goal.

I believe we could win via litigation (though I believe we'd have a good chance of losing along the way before eventually triumphing at an appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court), but it's clear from following the money that this is not seen by any party as the optimal path.

Let me be clear, this is the Obama DoJ. However, there has been no change.

In addition, this is more aggressive than the prior DoJ, which did not seize funds from poker only businesses such as Pokerstars. There is no mistaking the clear intent of Obama to persecute online poker.

TE, if no bill passes by the end of this year, then I would expect litigating to become the main course of action because the GOP will take over the House and maybe the Senate.

Nonsense. He might not even know about the seizures.

You could ask him. I would take action that he has been briefed on it. This is a major DoJ story.

The more relevant question is why does he continue to escalate the persecution of online poker? Are there other, more important issues that he should be spending just a little more time looking at?

Litigation is fine but doesn't the PPA need an actual case that is likely to go to court first so they might have standing? Sites and processors haven't decided to fight in court (in most cases anyway), they seem to ignore the DOJ when funds are seized or decide to settle.

Even Douglas Rennick, who many thought would just ignore the DOJ because he was Canadian has decided to plea guilty and work with the DOJ instead of fighting them in court.

http://www.gambling911.com/poker/onl...ng-091610.html

I'm sure if a site or processor decides to fight the DOJ, it's the right case and the PPA will have standing, the PPA would litigate. If everyone keeps making deals with the DOJ and cases never make it to court then litigation becomes difficult for the PPA to initiate on their own.

I hope your wrong because if you're right, we are about to get screwed on both ends. Republicans are clearly bad for us in Congress, but a win by Republicans in November can only make Obama more like them, and actually increases the chances he will be reelected in 2012.

We'd have to see how things shaped up, of course. There are some things working for us. One is that we can keep even a GOP-led House from acting on any online gaming issues. Another is that few party leaders would welcome the appearance of the GOP putting a great deal of political capital into fighting online poker -- capital that could be used on other issues.

Our opponents could decide to get us out of the way and let us have poker while pushing SuperUIGEA for some other forms of gaming as a separate bill. I don't support SuperUIGEA for any form of gaming, but it's clearly worth noting the possibility of such a thing happening.

OTOH, if Kyl and Bachus disregard the will of the conservative movement and embrace big government for this issue, and if the Obama DoJ continues its assault on online poker rights, we could very well find our way in court. If we are forced into that action, we will fight to win.

Jesus man, you sound like JohnWilkes and Kavilla rolled into one. Your "relevant question" is erroneous, because you don't get to say Obama is "escalating the persecution of online poker" if you have no idea if that's true. And just because he's been briefed about it doesn't make him complicit in the same crusade as Frist and Kyl.

Look, I didn't want Obama for President either. But if your posts are going to be predicated on the fact that you despise him and not facts supporting opinion (and no "i'd take action" doesn't count), please take it to teh Politardium.

At best, he is not our friend.

The cards may begining to fall. One thing that is hard to not notice throughout the F.B.I press release is, the constant reference of "Pokerstars" and "Illegal gambling operation". I guess we all know exactly how the United States Goverment views these operations today and before, not good. The climates into a new age of online poker may be right before us. Bring on the competitors.

Also a question for PX or TE, anyone else with the right answer here.

What is the signifcance of this also being the United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York; which is the same office that just subpoenad the former Full Tilt employee to testify this week in this thread.

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

Being this was a bank in Arizona, why is it this Southern District of New York again? Are they tied together somehow into a bigger overall Criminal investigation?

The Southern District handles many financial cases as they are close to Wall Street. Most money flows through Wall Street. I would not read anything into the Southern District, other than they are more experienced with financial matters and investigation.

I have no malice for Obama. It is the almost contiuous adulation and apologies for his ineptness that I despise. Why is his DoJ hell bent on prosecution of online poker? The same can be said for MMJ and raw milk, for that matter. There is no limit to the Federal reach and he aims to prove it.

Certain Republicans are bad for us. Remember who signed the Indian gaming authorization? Reagan.

Press release about Indian gaming from the Indian Gaming Assoc

No, there is no way Obama will be reelected in 2012. The Republicans will win so long as Palin does not win the nomination. He will be impeached or resign long before 2012.

I am not a fan of Obama/ I do not believe he is a friend of poker freedom.

With that said, this is not the Politic Forum. If keeping on subject means attacking or supporting Obama fine. If it does not, then supporting/attacking Obama will only divide us.

SDNY seems to be the home of the DoJ's fight against online poker. They are actively investigating all of this and seek to shut it down.

Grasshopp3r's points seem focused on online poker to me. He's saying Obama wants more federal control, lists some examples, and then advocates poker players taking a tougher line on him as a result of the DoJ's continued actions against us.

The PPA would need the assistance of some poker site to get standing to litigate. It could just accept one site as a member.

Even better would be DOJ action against some party who had to fight. The DOJ offering a plea of 6 months probation to Mr. Rennick shows how anxious it is to actually litigate a case. I doubt that it will ever indict FTP or any of its owners. The DOJ will subpoena everyone and indict some payment processors who will not fight because the seized money belongs to some poker site and a short probation is offered in a plea deal.

The DOJ can't do anything about an intrastate poker site because it fits an exemption in the Wire Act. OTOH, the Indian poker site for play on all Indian casinos, in any state, may not fit an exemption. So what does the DOJ do about it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but would you actually want to be "that" guy? The pioneer so to speak, when faced with the D.O.J bringing a fairly significant case against you. Not many sensible people are going to take on that case, thinking in some way they are going to win in proving some suspect point, with alot of grey area legally. Although every few years there always does seem to be one. The one ultimately the example is made of, resulting in many good years of their life wasted. Im pretty sure the P.P.A wouldn't be donating to your "canteen" in the unfortunate case you were convicted, and relegated to a jumpsuit and some honey buns for 10+ years of your life. Most rational people are going to take the deal. Afterall, you probably dont want to be "that" guy.

Geez, you are way out there.

I volunteer to be that guy. I'm not doing anything significant with the rest of my life anyway. Just set me up to take the fall. I'm your man.

I am not sure what can be done before 2012, that we are not already doing.