Um, i don't really think that IAAL dude was really a lawyer, and as i recall, when he painted you and your home game manifesto into a corner, you had him banned. Too bad... For a Michigander, he seemed pretty knowledgable and on top of the AZ situation -- unless MI and other states find themselves similarly situated (more than likely i would think)...

But ya ... IAAL ... not really a lawyer i think. Mute poinr, my muse, as you got him banned long ago.

Btw, i hope you enjoyed your own 20 point violation for your recent personal attacks and libel. Careful now, or you too may be forced to resort to fraudulent multi-accounts as some banned users have managed to do... and this place wouldn't be the same without "The Palimax", champion of unconstitutional phantom SPS and hypocrtical opinions stated as facts.

Oops! Looks like you have your own disclaimer issues... The tiny handful of club owners that post here is actually down to just one. Moi. And although Lee will post here from time to time, he isnt, nor has he been, to my knowledge, a club owner... Unless u go pack to sierra vista and that poker room... Which, huh? Is still operating today. Quietly not squeaking away.

Keep coming they do. One or two a day usually.

Yes yes Matt, by old disclaimer i mean, as you stated, written in December, when we were considering the prudency of registering as amusement gambling for yet another layer of protection from a conflicted state prosecution.

Then, our policies resolved in our January issue of The Royal Flush, as you have read and seen, where we now state "can" be amusement, which arpaio evidently agrees with, as u may have read in that article link.

So yes, old disclaimer, newer PDF.

Moot. Moot... Probably a phone thing.

Regardless, I've never had (or got) anyone banned -- at least not to my knowledge.
My home game has nothing to do with this; and I've already answered everything remotely germane to my game and how it relates to the topic at hand. I refer you to the linked post.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1068

To ease your burden however, there are exactly zero players in my WSOP league who aren't immediately my friends, family and co-workers; or who aren't the immediate friends, family and co-workers of the friends in that first circle. There are no players solicited "off the street" if you will [although I do post for that game here from time to time]. I have met a number of my friends playing poker, of course.

So, we're 32 for 32 in that regard.

So "you know everyone" ... Except those friends of friends, and like me you go ahead and count those peeps as part of your 32 cuz they are just one person removed.

And there is no "open solicitation" ... Except for the posts or invites you send to folks like me, who you don't know, or others who see your 2+2 or Charter League website info and inquire abiut an invite.

If i played, your number would be 32/33 and you would have openly solicitated me. Or is OUR relationship considered bona fide thru our 3 years of discussions on 2+2?

Maybe the ADG has another PDF posing as an SPS that might help clarify.

And ya, this topic of convo is no MOOT point. It deals with legal definitioms and concepts we need clarification on.

I've answered every question I'm going to answer about home games that I play in. Anything remotely related to the topic can be found here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1068

Warning: do not follow the above poster's links to other forumserver threads if you hope to contest the OP non-lawyer theories on why his home game is not illegal due to "advantage", which State Law and phantom SPS's by the ADG tell us is just as criminal as "benefit".

The forum moderators that OP sends you to are prone to ban anyone who speaks ill of The Palimax or his illegal home game. Not that that matters or is any more relevant than the above quoted text, but users should be warned that challenging The Lawfulness of The Palimax's home game is NOT treated with the same leniency, apparently, as libel against legitimate and not unlawful co-operative cardrooms in this forum.

Just one of many issues with 2+2 policies and perhaps another reason why "the handful" is down to "the one".

The ADG opinions regarding poker center around the social exclusion and illegal benefit or advantage. The ADG opinion is based on Grant Woods 1997 formal opinion, as requested by the ADG director and regarding the unlicensed and unregulated (by State) poker rooms on Indian reservations.

The parallels between pre-MoU tribal poker rooms and standalone cardrooms today are neqrly identical. Most, if not all, of the 28 Maricopa County cardrooms today find themselves in the same situe as the 22 tribes back in the late 90's.

Except The solution for the tribes, namely the MOU and state regulation and participation, is a far cry from criminal prosecution folks like Judge Lee received... For doing THE EXACT SAME THING!

/Bump!

Change title of thread to "appeal"

Textbook libel, unchecked, undisciplined, and nonrepentant. Tsk tsk

<3 2+2

> Doesn't the guy bringing steak benefit the guy who brought a bag of chips (hey, I'm not the only person grasping at straws to prove a point).
Of course they do. But that's independent of the gamble, since no money from the gamble is involved or ever leaves the table to pay for these things, and no requirement is made of bringing steak or chips to participate in the gamble. Since the two have nothing to do with each other, it's benefit, but not benefit from gambling.

Interesting. Sounds like button logic. Sounds illegal.

I wont ask this question in your ban-friendly trap forum, but the premise of the alleged illegality is the unfair advantage in the single dollar ante home game and this was never addressed in your August 2011 wall of text defending the challenge that made your home game unlawful.

It is a poker legislation question too, so no need to run away.

Can a home league offer "bonus chips" to the players with the most hours logged without being construed as unfair advantage (for the hosts, or any of the "regulars")

I don't see how. Your strawman theory that its a series of gambles and a future contingent event doesn't change the fact that you have an unfair scheme going on in this situation.

We stopped doing bonus chips in our freerolls and tournament of champions series for this very reason.

Benefit is defined as anything of value or advantage, present or prospective.

I am quite certain any present or prospective ADG PDF (aka SPS) or any present or prospective "bathroom reader" PDF (equally an SPS with the burden of proof lying with the challenger) would agree too.

TTJ did host a charity poker tournament last month Matt. It was an informal implied common law contract with TTJ on behalf of Walgreen's to benefit the Phoenix Boys and Girl's clubs. We raised $65. I informed the Walgreen's corporate representative and everyone present at the meeting that the raffle should be registered as an Amusement.

We were also collecting for PB&GC all last month and raised $536.
The month before that we sent $578 to Phoenix First, and the month before that a similar amount to the Phoenix Children's Hospital NICU.

So in addition to all retained earnings going back to our bona fide social majority membership, we also give to local community concerns.

We are holding our innaugural elections starting in a few days. Surprising how many co-op member-owners are starting to see the lightbulb go off. I dunno... Maybe the reality is sinking in... We really are a not unlawful co-operative social poker club -- with an agenda.

How much do you pay for these advertisements?

I've answered every question I'm going to answer about my home game, and the summary can be found here.

To the general question of gambling in Arizona - you can gamble on whatever you want, and it doesn't have to be "fair" as long as you meet the exceptions. You can give me 3:1 odds on coin-flips if you want. All that matters is that you're amusement, social, regulated or State Fair -- none of which anyone operating as a business and taking money in exchange for dealing poker qualifies for.

I understand your new plan is to go the amusement gambling route. Good luck convincing the courts of Arizona that you're like skee-ball.

Palimax, why are you responding to someone who has a reading comprehension of an average 5th-grader?

To be honest, responding has gotten more and more painful in each reply.

There's two dozen rooms operating openly (or somewhat openly under the guise of "front" business) in Phoenix. They range from giant Play Poker Here signs to a table or two in the back room. Some of them have exactly the same business model as those rooms that have already been busted. Some of them (like the one who posts here) continue to come up with new and novel means by which they think (or at least by which they intend to pacify their customer base that) they're not going to end up like the rooms that have already been closed and had their operators convicted.

Will the state stop fighting their war, and will it end up like Ohio - where social clubs exist in a likely-illegal-but-ignored no-man's-land? I have no idea. My guess is we'll see more busts like The Nuts while the others of other rooms continue to rant about the injustices of being born on an Indian reservation.

Not necessary for a co-operative not-for-profit open books cardroom with a duly elected state statute-empowered board that regulates our games in much the same way as you regulate your home game.

2. "Conducted as a business" means gambling that is engaged in with the object of gain, benefit or advantage, either direct or indirect, realized or unrealized, but not when incidental to a bona fide social relationship.

A home game can be conducted "as a business" and therefore illegal, if you obtain ANY ADVANTAGE.

4. "Gambling" or "gamble" means one act of risking or giving something of value for the opportunity to obtain a benefit from a game or contest of chance or skill or a future contingent event but does not include bona fide business transactions which are valid under the law of contracts including contracts for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guarantee and life, health or accident insurance.

Lucky for poker players gambling at poker is more akin to playing the stock market than pushing a button on a slot machine.

The Palimax, why do you even bother replying to uninformed nits with the anal retention of an octogenarian?

Well, I suppose as long as you're not paying staff or rent with money from a gambling business...

...oh, wait.

Well, okay... 's'long as yer not running your home game as an illegal gambling enterprise with unfair advantage and forced rakes.

... Uh, (insert mouth breather sound effect)

> To be honest, responding has gotten more and more painful in each reply.

Anytime someine says "to be honest", prepare yourself for the lie that follows.

If it hurts that much, to suffer the same misplaced and misapplied finger pointing (can dish it but can't take it), then stop Matt. Pain goes away immediately.

> Will the state stop fighting their war, and will it end up like Ohio - where social clubs exist in a likely-illegal-but-ignored no-man's-land?

End up?! Aint that where we at are in Arizona for the past 6 years???

> I have no idea.

For once some honesty.

> My guess is we'll see more busts

Not that this stops the unqualified speculation, at least now Matt qualifies his guesswork and opinions as "guesses". Most likely since there is no direct personal attacks hidden in his conjectures.

> like The Nuts

So it's been 4 months +... Where are we at with The Nuts now?

> while the others continue to rant

Plural?!

> about the injustices of being born on an Indian reservation.

This statement illustrates the reading comprehension of a 4 year old. If my "rants" have beem about the BIA, i am missing something. If you refer to Lee's rants, the BIA is only a part of the picture... Again matt, the forst for the trees. You say "strawman", but we aren't the folks grasping at straws and equating poker to blackjack and cardroom operations to murder. We aren't the ones ignorantly bashing bona fide attempts at active change, or being hypocrital or throwing around libelous statements like they were panties on prom night. And we aren't the ones who can't take what we dish out, and cry about it when it hurts.

>A home game can be conducted "as a business" and therefore illegal, if you obtain ANY ADVANTAGE.

Shhhh... Ignore the obvious... Maybe we can sweep the hypocrisy under the rug. Lets go on the attack again. Get Lee in the picture. Talk about the blood soaked rhetoric... Anything but my own illegal advantage obtained... Shhhh!!!!

Get Lee in the picture again? ...since he's the subject of this thread? Great idea.

You're a betting man. What sort of odds are you giving that Lee will lose on appeal? ...or do I have to pay a membership fee to your oh-it's-not-benefit-because-its-a-collective before we can bet?

You're pretty confident. You must be giving great odds.

How about some other proposition bets - assuming I don't have to give you (er, I mean your collective) money to place them. Do you have an over-under date on another poker room getting raided? How about a by-city pool. You can offer me odds on what city the next bust will be in, and then you can only skim a little off the top for yourself (sorry, I meant your collective). [Can I pick a room in Phoenix, where dealing poker is explicitly illegal by city code, or is that too easy.] Maybe something less sinister. How about an over-under on the date the next room closes up in the middle of the night and stiffs its business partners? Or maybe an over-under on when one of these "self-regulating" rooms has to run a shady dealer out the door?

Offer me some odds and dates.

The answer to that and many other questions about "my" home game have already been answered here - and have nothing to do with Judge Lee's trial and the state of strip-mall poker in Arizona.

>Get Lee in the picture again? * ...since he's the subject of this thread? *Great idea.

because Lee is relevant in the thread that validates The Palaxism of referring to him as criminal or felon, which in turn makes it okay for you to avoid the issue of your own allegedly illegal home game.

Or in the alternative send folks to a forum thread where they get banned for questioning your ethics and lawful activity with the same silly notions that you use to attack Arizona standalone cardrooms.... Attack them, i might add, using the same logic used to attack you in your forum fiefdom. You have avoided the question, even while devoting an entire thread to explaining how and why your collective game is legal and others are not. Benefit and unequal advantage are synonymous in ADG SPS and statutory language. The rake or button or cover charge isn't illegal, until someone obtains a benefit. You benefit from unfair advantage just as Lee benefited by financial gain. Which is why, my friend, the topic of your likely illegal home game is relevant in the Judge Lee thread. And why, perhaps, you send people to another thread feigning having satisfied all questions. You have not, and oddly, merely offering a sniff of improprietary or unsavory comment in your link to another thread gets members banned and penalized.*

Well played Matt. I call, because I know you are a bluffing fool.

>You're a betting man. *What sort of odds are you giving that Lee will lose on appeal? *

For funsies? 20-1.

But not even the Indians can legally take that action.

20 to 1 lee wins.

> ...or do I have to pay a membership fee to your oh-it's-not-benefit-because-its-a-collective before we can bet?

Smart. Smug. I like ir. 20 to 1, and you can tip me if you like.

Ignorant fools who can't read or enjoy dumbing down the issues: Being a collective doesnt mean there is no benefit, but offering a tip is an option you or the State don't get to regulate. You can't make a legal, lawful profession criminal just because a dealer receives a tip. This is not murder. This is not blackjack. And not unlawful cardrooms DO NOT, as all the rooms that have been prosecuted have, take money, voluntary or otherwise... from the dealers tips to "help pay the electric". Haha right?

Matt, you rake your game at home for a wsop seat tournament. The people with the most logged hours (points) get bonus chips. That is unfair advantage.*

Yer your blithely blissful humdinger singsong nanananabooboo logic suggests that the mere act of money being taken from the table constitutes illegal benefit. U painted yourself into a corner. And yet still continue to painfully defend your hypocricy with further attacks on legit private cardrooms.

> You're pretty confident. *You must be giving great odds.

Pretty sure i have the moral high ground on this one.

> How about some other proposition bets - assuming I don't have to give you (er, I mean your collective) money to place them.

How about replacing "your" with "our" and trying the question again?

Or do i have to pay a mandatory rake to fund your annual wsop seats where you get more chips than me? Burn!?

> Do you have an over-under date on another poker room getting raided?

Well not till after the appeal, thats for sure. If not, a Stay keeps the next in line out of prison, if thats even a remote possibility. I seriously doubt that unless a cardroom has some serious issues with fraud or momey laundering or other organized or criminal elements, that the State is gonna push anything further. Thats perhaps why The Nuts is frozen in limbo too.

> How about a by-city pool.*

Why? Oh.. Are you being silly again? Sorry... Such a card !!! Hahaha

> You can offer me odds on what city the next bust will be in, and then you can only skim a little off the top for yourself (sorry, I meant your collective).

Sorry, did you just imply I am skimming? Seriously Matt? When does the libel end? Why the personal attacks? Why dumb it down and make it sound silly and ridiculous when your own home game is just as suspect? But do i accuse you of skimming? Ever? Sorry to be your bane, but just calling it like it is. You are uniformed, assuming and conjecturing all in the hopes of shading your own hypocritcal actions.

>[Can I pick a room in Phoenix, where dealing poker is explicitly illegal by city code, or is that too easy.] *

I dunno Matt, CAN you?

Sorry Matt, the City of Phoenix isn't shutting down or raiding any cardrooms for a misdemeanor on an antiquated law from the 60s. Besides, that old ordinance is only for games played with devices. If you wanna go there, the ADG and statutes have yet to define a card table as a gaming device, but even if they did, its a ticket... Not a raid... Not an indictment... And it would be preferable to go into a city court on a c&d than criminal court on another missapplication of law issue. That is why we are in talks with several cities. Moral high ground and all that, or... Conspiracy? You make the call, betting man.
*
> Maybe something less sinister.

Good word. Why must you be so sinister? All i have ever done to you is what you have wrongfully done to me (and, perhap$ rightfully, others similar to me).*

You are a hypocritical cyber bully pretending to be on a crusade to protect poker, while professing a desire to help by signing a petition or some other hair-brained idea that the state will go along with, or suggesting that we have $1M to launch a statewide petition to legitimize that which we already contend is legitmate now?

> *How about an over-under on the date the next room closes up in the middle of the night and stiffs its business partners?

Business? Illegal. Serves em right. Or how about the room that stiffs its players outta 3k? Shamefully despicable. But then, we are all about smoke and mirrors, arent we Matt? My home game is illegal, but whoa?! Look over there! What is that?

> Or maybe an over-under on when one of these "self-regulating" rooms has to run a shady dealer out the door?

Happens less often than it should in a completely unregulated environment. Probably happens in a regulated environment too. We havent had the issue, thanks to a rigorous background check. Oh but.. Ya... A background and certification policy that mirrors best practices in this worldwide industry probably doesnt carry as much... Sniff... Authenticity?... Validity?... If the same information is obtained through a state agency or other third party i suppose. Mmm. That is too bad. Nut we do what we can.

> Offer me some odds and dates.

Would this offer to wager be subject to the an implied common law contract?

I believe so. Caveats:

As you and i wager, if we go thru a third party provider, to hold our funds in escrow, (where we can earn interest), can that eacrow agent receive a voluntary tip from the winner? Or is that agents lawful professional service now illegal?*

And do you and i have a bona fide social relationship?

Answer those questions my friend, and we shall have our "meeting of the minds", one of the elements of our common law contract, and we shall wager away. I suggest $100.*

And i will be acting as escrow agent, for a voluntary 10% fee, which you dont have to pay if you do not want.*

Before offering a date too... Is this a guber election year? Because as the Indians will tell us, the gov'nah appoints the adg director, and a new adg director can mean major changes in policy. Thats because this executive appointed position is empowered with pseudo legislative authority.

Can we register this activity as amusement gambling with the attorney general? That would be fun, and interesting huh? Ya lets plan on doung that too. Just for funsies. This way we don't need to create an LLC to get us to regulated exclusion, because i feel you won't find favorably for our social exclusion. Past debates across 50+ pages would seem to indicate so, anyway.

I refer to him as a criminal or a felon because he is. A jury of his peers agrees.

My game has been covered in this forum in this thread here.

If you'd like to open a thread discussing the legality of home games in Arizona that cover a series of events, I'm sure the option is available to you.

I won't discuss my game any further IN THIS THREAD.

---

Which side of the 20:1 are you on?