I suppose if we are in attack mode, calling Lee a kook is as acceptable as calling Palimax a troll or even more accurately, a hypocrite.

While you're certainly welcome to your opinion that I'm a troll, to suggest that I'm a hypocrite is absurd.

I help organize two recurring poker games; both of which return every last dime wagered to the players in the leagues - and both of which I do at considerable expense to myself as a host and organizer.

--

And, again, I take no issue with the stance that it's not "fair" that the tribes can gamble south of Pecos or east of Pima, but Lee's trial is about being fair.

LEE MADE BENEFIT OF OTHERS GAMBLING

There's no denying it.

The room owners made a profit, and he took a cut. So, every time you paid a $1 button fee at a Lee-chartered room, he got $0.15.

Judge Harold Lee got $0.15 of your gambling money every time you played a hand of poker at select Phoenix strip-mall rooms; and he got a $5,000 check when they opened.

Lee's conviction won't be about his crazy blood-soaked lands nonsense. It'll be because HE TOOK MONEY FROM PEOPLE'S GAMBLES!

Stop pretending this is some sort of crusade so that you can play poker. If you don't like tribal poker in Arizona, don't play any.

If you don't like tribal poker in Arizona, work to change the law.

...but don't pocket checks and pretend you're a crusader.

That's laughable.

Thanks for reminding me to check.

The latest blog post on Lee's site is a hoot.

http://www.icgpa.org/?p=9645#more-9645

I wonder into which file all of the notices he sends to go...

The circular one, perhaps?

Who, exactly, outside the Lee camp believes this train is a'comin'?

It wouldn't really matter if Lee's conspiracy theory is right [it may be]. that's a political question and courts don't care why the law was passed, just what it is.

If you read this entire mess (and I wouldn't, at this point), The Lee Camp (TLC!) was even pinning hopes on jury nullification a while back.

I wouldn't count on that either.

It'll be like any other jury. The judge will remind them that they're being asked one simple question -- did he break the law or not.

Lee is not charged wuth taking $5000 up front. Nothing like that is even i. The State's discovery. Quite the opposite n fact. Curcio and orlando approached Lee for advice, and flat refused to pay him anything for it. Lee and ace high agreed only to charge $20 memberships for members to belong to the icgpa, a non profit players union. Poor misinformed, speculative hypocrite... Go troll for another stone to toss. Absurd is being judge jury and executioner when all you do is guess at what is going on while touting your own illegal forced-rake home games that give unfair advantage in a wsop tourney with. Class iii gambling per dog is class iii gambling. At least in Lee's case we are dealing with class ii poker and not silly chance schemes that benefit the few with an unfair advantage.

I didn't say that's what he was charged with.

I said that's something he's done - as reported by the New Times and confirmed by the Poker Nation folks.

I don't pretend to be judge, jury or executioner. I'm just an interested observer.

...and speculation and discussion is what these boards are for.

There is no gamble involved in paying $20 to become a member of a third party non profit players union for a professional international sports and entertainment commodity. The icgpa doesnt care where or what you do with your card and game players membership. Lee didnt own club royale. Lee didnt own ace high. He didnt get any sort of franchise fee from ace high or korza, tho it may have been part of the negotiation, it is not an item of interest in the case against him.

If it is so crystal clear that Lee broke the law, where is the criminal intent whn he noticed not only the AG in 2005, but every enforcement and municipal agency that ICGPA rooms dealt with received the same notice.

Ifnit is so easy to prove the guilt of the pied piper of poker, then why is lee and his sanctioned rooms, the recipient of 2/3rd of the prosecuting action brought against poker rooms in the past 6 years? Why are there 50 others in the same span that have come and gone, as Lee did, as ace high, as deal me in, and club royale did? Does the AG not know how to find phxpokermap.com or Phoenixpokerclubs.com?

why will b. done's cruasade and complaints go unheard?

Which brings me back 'round to my original point. You began in this speculative blog as the judge and jury condemning the judge to prison without even knowing the facts. You still dont know all the facts even after hooting at the latest icgpa.org post. No comment, just more hooty owl noises over the din of mouth breathers munching popcorn.

If Lee is aquitted, would that not force the state to step up, poison pill or no ppison pill, and take an active role in licensing and regulating poker rooms? It would for Lee and the ICGPA and his permanent double jeopardy.

If Lee is mistrialed, or if a motion for a special action advances past jury to appeal?

What happens if he is convicted?

A blow to a fledgling cottage industry? More indictments? Injunctions? Or contimued tolerance as long as no one talks about blud soaked lands or encroaches too close to Indian Country?

Speculate away. My point, and the fact of the matter is, Lee is the only player/owner/organizer to stand before the bar and claim poker is his civil right to play in Arizona, and if he wins, we all skip past legislative process and join the ICGPA and play in safe, sanctioned rooms that the state may or may not brighten up and attempt to get a piece of thr pie. Lose, and we are back to the same gray tolerance we have had for 6+ years in Arizina, or worse, the thousands of players in these social poker clubs are forced to contend in underground clubs, rooms, and homes where the criminal elements and the cheats are the only real winners.

Or you could patronize an illegal and unethical racist slave compound in another domestic dependent nation where their monopolistic claims over the sport of poker on their blood soaked lands allow them to rake your poker pots with impunity and, like Palimax's home game WSOP CRIMINAL SCHEME, bastardize the game and rake the pots for class iii chance gambling schemes an unfair advantages.

Him sending out notices of his intentions doesn't make it legal. The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly.

It's crystal clear to me that Lee broke the law, but ultimately his trial will determine that.

Obviously the state thinks he broke the law. A judge thinks the trial is worth having. The DA's office thinks it's worth pursuing. So I'm not alone in my opinion.

Oooh, hooty owl noises. Thanks.

Here's the deal: I'm entitled to my opinion. I spend most of my time, of late, posting what little information the court offers in a fairly neutral format.

I doubt it. I think the best that we'll end up with is a model like Ohio, where everyone knows the clubs make a profit (from gambling) and the state turns a blind eye as long as they keep their noses down.


Since I'm free to speculate, my guess is that the dominoes start to fall. I think that his conviction paves the way for the state cracking down on other "clubs" that exist -- not for some sort of freedom against tyranny, but to make a buck dealing poker.

On this we HALF agree. I think the outcome is the same. Rooms go ignored or his trial shines a light on them and they get closed (or pressured to close) too.

...but what we don't agree on is that Lee doesn't have the right to play poker.

PLAY POKER. NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU.

Why don't you people get that?

The only think you can't do is organize other people's poker play for profit. That's it. Gamble all you want.

PLAY POKER. NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU.

Two quick points:

1. It's hard to tell anymore where the sarcasm and irony starts and the actual crazy Judge Lee blood-soaked-lands rhetoric ends. Seriously. It's comical.
2. I've demonstrated, repeatedly, that my game is perfectly legal and meets the criteria for social gambling.
   1. No player receives any benefit of any sort except from the gamble.
   2. No person has unfair odds or a house advantage.
   3. Everyone is 21 or older.
   4. We all play by the same rules.

The gamble that we engage is in simple:

I'll bet you all that we can play a year's worth of cash poker, and use money we set aside to send people to the WSOP.

• If you don't keep playing, you lose the gamble.
• If you lose at the final tournament, you lose the gamble.
• Every single last penny in my game is returned to the players.

> If you don't keep playing, you lose the gamble.

So we have another mandatory optional rake. Case and point. Check please. Off topic. Hoot. Pop pop pop.

Fairly neutral Palimax? Haha. That may ne the funniest thing you have said on this blog yet.

My point is you do not see the trees for the forest. You profess you want poker like Ohio or California or any of the other 11 or 13 states that regulate commercial poker rooms, yet in your opinion the only viable way to get there is one of two options: legislate or ballot initiative. Ol' Lee is an ex JP and he knows a third, secret way apparently. It's called double jeopardy and if you just sit there and look at the forest instead of getting off your couch and going into that forest to count the trees and then and only then will you appreciate that if Lee wins we all win because the State is then forced to concede Lee (and all other wannabe Lees) the right to play organized, professional poker in Arizona.

You are so damn obtuse when it comes to knowing the difference between a home game, even one as supposedly posh as yours, and going to play at a true professional class casino or card room. So damn obtuse. I give up. My point has been made.

Btw, next time you have a professional dealer at your home club, let me know. I will come play. Even if only to see how the dealer benefits.

A rake is money that leaves the gamble. Any money we set aside remains in and is part of the gamble. Odd that you don't understand the most basic definitions of gambling terms.

Q.E.D. No money leaves the gamble. There is no rake.

In addition to regulated charity rooms, Ohio also has "social clubs" which are poker rooms in disguise, taking memberships fees instead of rakes. Does it skirt the law? Quite possibly. That's the new tact rooms in town are taking. It might even end up working like Ohio -- illegal, but nobody gives enough of a crap to do anything about it.

I have no problem with the rooms in CA. I've played in a few of them as I've traveled for work.

...and yes, again and again, I'm all for changing the laws here.

Uh. Wow. Uh. No.

If Lee gets tried for this particular crime and is acquitted, it doesn't grant him license to commit the same crime in the future. Every time he makes benefit from gambling (without a deal with the state like the tribes) he breaks Arizona law and creates new jeopardy for himself.

Similarly, the state not winning their case - while it certainly might give future combatants against the state some ammunition - doesn't grant the rights for everyone to run a card room.

You don't rob a bank, get off on a technicality or lack of evidence or a sympathetic jury, and then get the freedom to endlessly rob banks.

And, FINALLY, why do you keep pretending that the ability to organize and play poker is somehow contingent on Lee's trial?

PLAY SOME POKER.
ORGANIZE A GAME.
NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU.

[Just don't make money doing it. ...because that's what you're fighting for.]

FYP.

So you believe in guilty until proven innocent?

Of course not; just expressing my opinion. Nobody denies he did it. It's just a matter of if he's going to get convicted for it. I'm voting yes.

The quotes below are from the free-at-the-newsstand paper here in town:
If it's even partly true, it tells you two things:
(a) Room owners made profits, and shared them with Lee
(b) Lee's room made profits, not just the 10k/year he admits his non-profit making.

Lee's getting his day in court, but based on what information I have, I'll go with "gonna get found guilty."

Quite a difference between thinking a person guilty before a trial has even been held and thinking a person will be found guilty after a trial is over.

The former makes you ineligible for being a juror.

If having an opinion about Lee makes you ineligible for his jury, I guess we're all disqualified.

Opinion about Lee, no. Opinion about his guilt, yes.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who's followed this thread doesn't at least have an opinion as to if he's guilty or not. ...but hey, if you don't, you're a better man than I.

---

This is like me betting on the Super Bowl. I'm not a football expert, and I'm not privy to all the facts, but I'll gladly wager a guess based on what I know. ...and we'll wait for the game to see who was right.

Opinions man. People have them.

It's not so much the presence of an opinion as it is having a bias against Lee in particular that would limit how you receive facts.

Actually knowing about Lee's grand conspiracy theory may mean that you know some excluded evidence, which would disqualify all of us. of course our poker experience would probably zap us anyway.

Well sure, anyone who's even read this thread would be disqualified, likely.

How much anyone willing to bet CitzAgainstTyranny is a 2+2 multi-accounter. Too close to another wind-aided, kook poster. Yeah, I think kook fits. Maybe just another of the Cult followers of Lee. Isn't Lee up for Nut of the Year?

On 12/3 I got sent a form mail about the usual changes the case... [You can sign up for them and get notifications of change automatically.] They, unfortunately, never list the actual changes -- you have to try to figure it out.

Trial is still set for 1/26, with pre-trial on 1/17.

So, not sure if there's any actual change.