1. No matter how many times you say otherwise, DOJ enforcement and UIGEA hurt B&M poker.

2. The fact that money was driven underground by their actions doesn't change the DOJ's motives. The DOJ does lots of things that are counterproductive or which have spillover effects.

1. Yes, this is why all those douchebags who pined for the protectionistic UIGEA in '06 are now pushing for legislation here in '11. They didn't know back then that it would hurt them. They're now realizing their collossal mistake thanks in part to the fact the PS, FT, and online poker in general kept growing after and despite the UIGEA.

2. Well, at least you acknowledge it. "They're just doing their job enforcing the law." What I want to know is, if they truly are such mindless automatons who do nothing but uphold justice, why would they do something like send a letter to college football asking why there isn't a playoffs system instead of the current bowl system? If they're going to ask a question about something as seemingly trivial as college football, why wouldn't they be curious about something as "massive" as these "black holes" of potential "offshore bank account tax havens?"

But no, let's not ask a simple question, for which the answer could quickly plug a leak in the justice and legislative system. Let's just continue on sweeping the "spillover" water coming from the "floodgates" with brooms.

"My differences with Skalla come from the fact that he reads that as meaning that they must be a bunch of moralists, and I read it as meaning they must be really concerned about opening up the floodgates to Americans moving their money offshore."

On both these points lawdude is wrong.

First I never said the SDNY attorneys were "a bunch of moralists." Never. But that fact will continue to be ignored by lawdude because he has already decided that I am a libertarian agent trying to indoctrinate this forum with libertarian ideology and it is his duty to prevent that from happening.

Nor are the attorney's at SDNY overly concerned with "opening up the floodgates to Americans moving their money offshore." Americans can move massive amounts of money offshore in any of a large variety of ways. For example, if I want to send $100,000,000 to a brokerage firm in Singapore to buy stock on the Singapore stock exchange, I can. Relatively easily. I can even do it with money I made selling deceptive mortgage derivatives to US investors. The SDNY has shown little concern with that however. And while the DOJ can easily become aware of this transaction (and all similar ones from $1 to $1 Billion) through US banking laws, the DOJ's ability to discover what the Singapore Brokerage firm does with my money is remarkably similar to the ability to discover what PokerStars does with it. The "financial black hole" (if it existed at all) was in the banks allegedly defrauded, not in the existence of overseas money transfers.

The little bit of "moralism" that is in play is a left over from the Bush era when a handful of overtly political US AGs decided to prosecute "culture war" cases more stridently than had the Clinton Administration. Gambling and pornography were at the top of these efforts.

The Political AGs of that era are mostly gone, but there legacy lives on. Their legacy lives on in the form of "task forces" and "strike teams" and the real prosecutors given those assignments. The real prosecutors are not moralists or im-moralists. They are attorneys seeking to advance their career through successful performance of the tasks they were assigned.

Google '"Arlo Devlin-Brown" and you can get the whole story. The SDNY anti online gambling task force goes way back and has been his baby for quite some time. Black Friday was his crowning achievement. Where it will lead him, who knows. But he will always have "the AG who crippled or shut down internet poker" to put on his resume.

Now Mr. Devlin-Brown, however, also reports to superiors. Those superiors are the ones responsible for setting objectives, deciding priorities and allocating resources.

Why they let Mr. Devlin-Brown continue with the prosecution of poker rather than transfer his obvious ability as a prosecutor to some other task .... that you will have to ask Bahraha, Holder and Obama. And you should.

Skallagrim

1. I would caution everyone, basically the one argument that marks one as completely clueless is the one that goes "well, they didn't go after Y problem which is bigger so they must not REALLY be concerned about X".

The DOJ being concerned about offshore money flows does not equal the DOJ must police every single offshore money flow or they aren't sincere. Especially since with online poker we are talking about billions of dollars and 15 million people who had offshore bank accounts.

2. The professionals who work for the US Department of Justice are some of Americas' best lawyers. They mostly come from top-15 law schools, many of them clerked for prominent federal judges or the Supreme Court, and many of them they carry on from administration to administration-- i.e., they are not political appointees. They are some of the most brilliant and least corruptible people in my profession.

And, as the first poster in this thread (remember him?) said, they have indicated that they are concerned about offshore money flows. And I would suggest to everyone-- BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE BOTH SMARTER AND BETTER EDUCATED THAN ANY OF US AND ALSO ARE PRIVY TO MORE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT-- that the reason they are concerned about this is because money flowing offshore is of great concern to federal prosecutors because of issues relating to money laundering and crime financing.

Skalla has never met any of these people who he casually libels. He has never, to my knowledge, worked in a US Attorney's office. He doesn't have any sources in the office of the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The ONLY thing he knows about them is that, like all the judges who have rejected his arguments over the years, they take legal positions he disagrees with. Apparently, in his mind, that makes one "corrupt" and dishonest.

3. Whatever Skalla thinks, it doesn't really matter. US Attorneys are duly appointed and they have authority under our Constitution to interpret and enforce the law. Skalla's opinions are worth exactly the pixels that they appear on. He can cry about oppression as long as he wants, and it isn't going to change the DOJ's concerns about movement of money offshore. It just makes him less credible when he makes claims about what the law is.

Winnar! So much more believable that that tripe about financial black holes (which reeks of rationalization).

None the less, let us move on topics that are relevant to how we fight for iPoker. I don't think we are going to be able to have any impact on SDNY so arguing about their motivation is pointless.

this thread getting heated.

at this rate, I'm going to have to step outside in the sun to cool off.

Agreed, funkyj. And I intend to let lawdude argue with the mythical "skalla" he has created in his own mind (rather than the flesh and blood Skallagrim who actually posts in these forums) from here on in. Just remember there is little similarity between the two.

No, I said they took out time to write a letter asking about problem X (bowl system), which is NOWHERE near as big a deal as problem Y (money laundering tax havens).

Why couldn't they simply ask Congress what the deal is? This isn't about whether they should or should not prosecute the sites for perceived crimes, this is about why the **** they would spend a half a decade and hundreds of thousands of man hours and taxpayer money seizing money left and right with no interest in making their job easier? It's beyond stupid. You say they're brilliant, incorruptible minds, yet they're running around solving symptoms and not the problem. If they cared so much about upholding the law, why not go to court right off the bat? What's so ****ing important about getting a conviction? At this point, the only thing I see is that they only cared about getting defendants to settle before even putting the laws to the test because they wanted the money.

None of this matters as they are directed by people who are directed by politics.

Smarter? Maybe. More educated? Definitely. Privy to more information on the subject? Probably. So what, who gives a ****? All this means is we both don't know what we're talking about, which leaves us back at square 1, where you think they're concerned about offshore money-flow and I think it's the biggest load of bull**** I've ever heard.

fyp

DUCY?

You're turning into TPexCEO. lol @ libel, and please stop the obsession with Skallagrim. Just post your opinions please. They're an excellent balance to his libertarian leanings, but there's no need for the two of you to go all Israel/Palenstine on the readers in every thread.

Not really the same. I have a pretty decent working knowledge of how the DOJ thinks, and I also tell you what the law is even when I don't agree with it.

Skalla pretends the law is whatever he says it is and pretends that people who are smarter and more accomplished than he is (which, by definition, DOJ prosecutors are) must all be corrupt because they don't agree with his libertarian politics and take different political positions than he does. Further, though, he ignores what are the pretty obvious motivations of a US Attorney's office that is literally obsessed with organized crime.

The problem, as I said upthread, is that Skalla paints too comforting a picture for poker players, as if all we need to do is get libertarians in the Justice Department and we will get to poker nirvana with unregulated offshore sites. And that's a really bad thing to be telling poker players.

He has to reply to every Skallagrim post. Checking his prior posts, especially the religion thread, leads me to believe he's a troll.

There's an easy fix though:

I have no idea how smart or accomplished Skall is, but this is a ridiculous statement.

This isn't the point. No one has ever expected law enforcement agencies to police every crime -- personally, I sincerely hope that they don't (not that they ever could). There has always been an explicit understanding between elected officials (and those they appoint) and constituents that significant crimes need be prioritized and insignificant crimes de-prioritized. Implication being, in this sense, that there is clearly political motivation here, thus the notion that the DOJ is enforcing the law "for the sake of enforcing the law" holds no water.

I notice your points keep effectively boiling down to these baseless flag-waving rimjobs that signify absolutely nothing besides your blatant partiality. So, we get it, you think that US law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies are the ultimate arbiters of justice, blah blah blah, and repeating yourself on this point is very important to you. Great.

I'm amazed at the level of trust you have in your government. This line of analysis brings something to mind..... it's an adjective we call "Kafkaesque". Keep assuming the best of intentions -- US government secrets have always been benign, after all. Yes, anytime your government tells you something based on privy information, you best believe it!

Part of my issue with your posts is your constant attempts to relegate viewpoints to association with "libertarianism" or "conservatism", when a) this proves nothing as far as points you are trying to make, and b) you often act quite hypocritically as you baselessly defend the integrity of US government agencies. Tying your obviously biased political views to this conversation and berating others on that basis is unnecessary, and very much takes away from anything you are trying to say.

And what, exactly, should we think about the value of YOUR opinion?

Gold star, sir. I can support your statements, as two, if a certain dude controls himself just a tad bit more.

See, the thing that TPxCEO never understood was you can post the EXACT same message you intend to spread to 2+2 WITHOUT sounding like it's all about some perceived libertarian freakazoid propaganda monster.

Listen young man.

I was 31 years old and working for a Bank when the whole War on Terror started. I woke up one morning and saw what the whole world saw on Television.

What was my response when I saw that attack?

I enlisted and SERVED. I spend six years in service, in this war. There were times that I didn't believe the things the Administration was telling me. I can recall getting ready to deploy in the barracks and hearing President Bush say "weapons of Mass Destruction" and thinking that "that BS" I've seen my brothers at arms come home to little or no VA Support or benefits for thier sacrifice. I've seen my brothers at arms die, not come back. I've seen those who aren't wounded physically suffer from some pretty bad PTSD Juju.

At no time Did I blatantly mistrusts the government. That their was some type of conspiracy to cause all these things to happen.

I came back got medically discharge and I joined Organizations like IAVA, The DAV and others. Under SOUND LEADERSHIP laws were changed people where taken care of.

I have to admit when I tried to play a tournament on April 15, 2012 and wen I realized what the DOJ had done I felt GUTTED. I my initial reaction was.

What was my years of service for if not Liberty. What was those deaths for if not Freedom.

I don't like this. I want to leave. This ISN'T the America I grew up in. The one I SERVED during war for.

I've change my mind. I've rallied my spirit. I see this as winnable. I look to history.

So you say lawdude whose stance and pretty much middle of the road thinking is "kafaesque" you say his views are "baseless flag-waving rimjobs"

Really ?

I say.

Poker Stars/ Full Tilt and the PPA has lead the young people on this board and countless others who follow their directives to have extremist views.

Its unfortunate that over the past three Years two plus two has allowed this corporate sponsored organization to masquerade as "volunteers" in a "grass roots" Lobby Group. They have poisoned countless young naive minds.

It's a shame.


So what is the end game?

Don't trust the government? Not Believe in the system?

NOTHING GETS DONE.

No man is an island

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne

Live and Learn Young People Live and Learn

In before -

That was an amazing level.

Wrong, just plain wrong.

I think anti-government libertarianism is very dangerous for poker players, because the solution of our problems lies in a legal and regulatory process and the government's fighting against attempts to play poker outside of that process is neither surprising nor particularly oppressive. It's inevitable.

Further, poker players really shouldn't hate the US legal system. There's no such thing as libertarian government-- government has to keep order and that requires that sometimes people don't get to do exactly what they want to do. Bear in mind I play a lot of brick and mortar poker, and I am very glad the games I play in are government-regulated and fair and not the sort of Wild West frontier games that Doyle Brunson had to play in when he was younger.

Finally, Skalla is very much in the minority of my profession. The vast, vast majority of lawyers-- including, by the way, criminal defense lawyers-- view federal prosecutors as basically the cream of the crop. The least corruptible, most brilliant and educated lights in our profession. I think people lose respect for the law and for the United States when lawyers go on public fora and portray these public servants-- who are paid far less than their labor is worth-- as if they are corrupt and power-hungry.

So in order to understand what is going on, you have to have a worldview that understands that DOJ prosecutors aren't a bunch of corrupt hacks. They have certain institutional concerns, and the opportunity of millions of Americans to move their money offshore is a huge one. And this means that the solution is going to contain the sorts of regulatory controls that prevents that from happening.

OK, I know this is a waste of my time. But since it is Saturday night, I figure why not kill a few minutes.

First, this:
This is so laughable as to make me really want to say things that some of you would no doubt criticize me for later.

So instead I will simply point our 2 facts:

1) Since I have yet to find a post by this notoriously evil "Skalla" that L-dude constantly refers to, it is not possible to know if this "Skalla" is truly in the minority. This is troubling to me because it might be easy for some folks to assume that "Skalla" = me, Skallagrim. But I have never made a post even commenting. never mind negatively commenting, on the integrity or qualifications of the typical AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney). If some one were to ask me my opinion on this subject, the answer would look nothing like what this "Skalla" L-dude seems so obsessed with would say. Now I admit I have posted on the ability of the typical AUSA, but that has always been positive.

2) I've never met a human whose sh** doesn't stink, nor a human without both strengths and weaknesses. Federal prosecutors are human (oh, and yes, I have met and even socialized with quite a few, so I can personally verify this fact).

To further illustrate their humanity, let me note that former federal prosecutors have even been charged with crimes, for example: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whi..._assistan.html. A simple google search can turn up a lot of other interesting stories involving US Attorneys and AUSAs.

I am not saying this is typical (and it is sad, really, that I have to make that a point, but there is one poster who will soon claim that that "Skalla" guy said that, and I don't want to be confused with that "Skalla" who always plays the straw man to L-dude's devastating ripostes).

What I am saying is simply this:

Only a complete fool would ever tell you to completely trust someone else just because of the position that person holds (especially if it's a government position, but that - and that alone - is, I admit, my bias).

Skallagrim

Skalla:

So your logic is that since a few federal prosecutors have been charged with crimes, this would show that the DOJ is acting from bad motives in its poker prosecutions?

That's an epic logic fail.

Yes, just like every other profession, there have been bad apples in the Justice Department. But as a whole my description of the esteem that federal prosecutors are held by our profession is accurate. More importantly, the INSTITUTIONAL prerogatives of the Justice Department-- including preventing money laundering and crime financing-- are well known and well-established.

You are making it sound like the classic, institutional biases of the Justice Department-- i.e., stopping the financing of crimes and stopping the movement of money to offshore financial institutions-- are some sort of careerism / political corruption / dishonesty. These are biases that are widely shared within the Justice Department and are based on the simple fact that being able to keep track of money flows helps prevent crime and facilitates taxation, and the federal government in general wants to make sure there is less crime and that they collect their taxes. And the DOJ hires lots of lawyers with law degrees from better schools and who clerked for better judges and who summered at better law firms than either of us did to make sure crime-fighting takes place and taxes are collected.

It really is that simple. You want to make the DOJ doing its job sound like government oppression, and the result is that a bunch of poker players don't realize who their real enemies are and why it really is that they can't play online poker at the sites they want to right now.

LOL. I just wish this "Skalla" fellow would post on these forums, it would truly be interesting to read these posts l-dude keeps referencing.

I know someone else already lol'ed at this BUT:

In order for anyone to commit libel, they have to have met certain elements, as I'm sure you know lawdude. Let's review those elements, since you obviously have for gotten them.

1)The written statements have to be false to libel
-In other words, if Skall is expressing a personal opinion, it can't be libel.
2)The untrue written statement must be made against a party or parties NOT in the public eye.
-I'd say the DOJ is a pretty public entity, and therefore, I'm PRETTY sure they get to take opinions off the chin.
3)The untrue written statements must be made maliciously.
-I sincerely doubt, and I'm sure a jury would agree, that Skalla, as well as the other members of this forum, would not be spitting venom at the DOJ were it not for a perceived overreach. Keep in mind though, that we'd NEVER get to this test, as the first two kind of blew up in our face. Might as well shred the complaint.
4)The statement must cause harm.
-I won't even bother typing out with my one good hand how we can't meet this condition with our libel case, bro.

I like a ton of your content lawdude. I think many of the posters here have provided a ton of insight that I never would have considered, since I'm only a paralegal, instead of a lawyer. That said, you missed the ball on the libel thing and it kinda tainted anything you said from there forward.



Bottom line -> We all need to figure how to attack the problem we face as a community and find a way to beat it. I'm of the opinion that we can't kill this beast, but we can tame it. So far I've not seen anyone mention compromise with regard to getting poker back, but I could have missed it, admittedly.

Regards,
Andy

I've got law on ignore but I saw this since it was quoted:

I ask you to reply with specificity and show where Skallagrim has libeled anyone from the DOJ or SDNY.