Senator's aide: DOJ source said sites created "massive financial black hole" - Page 17 - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

Senator's aide: DOJ source said sites created "massive financial black hole"

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 17 of 18

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Last

Page 17 of 18

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Last

05-10-2011 , 01:37 PM

#401

lawdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 10,305

I don't reply to every post from any poster, Skalla included.

I do correct errors, and some people here are quite prone to them.

My opinions are not only not baseless; I have one of the best records here in terms of accuracy. I told people the reasons for the DOJ's position months ago. Some people didn't listen because they wpuld rather believe that the US government is tyrannical. Then we get posts confirming what I was saying. I'd say that's a good track record.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them and make your own contributions here. As I said, I have a good record of posting lots of information here. Do you?

Quote

05-10-2011 , 02:01 PM

#402

sba9630

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,510

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawdude

I don't reply to every post from any poster, Skalla included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sba9630

...Not to mention replying to just about every Skallagrim post...

Quote:

I do correct errors, and some people here are quite prone to them.

My opinions are not only not baseless; I have one of the best records here in terms of accuracy. I told people the reasons for the DOJ's position months ago. Some people didn't listen because they wpuld rather believe that the US government is tyrannical. Then we get posts confirming what I was saying. I'd say that's a good track record.

Please look up the definition of fact and opinion, then compare.

Quote:

If you don't like my posts, don't read them and make your own contributions here. As I said, I have a good record of posting lots of information here. Do you?

See previous.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 02:12 PM

#403

TeflonDawg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,987

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawdude

You guys are being deliberately disingenuous on the "libel" issue. Again, when I say someone is "robbing" someone else, do you whip out the legal definition of robbery? Only if you want to look like a jerk who pretends not to understand standard English.

When people use robbery in a sentence, it is generally understood to be robbery of the dictionary definition. When people use libel in a sentence, it is generally understood to be libel of the legal definition.

Nobody here is being deliberately disingenuous, and the only one looking like a jerk at this point is you. You don't help things by maintaining a condescending attitude.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 02:26 PM

#404

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Come on guys. You're all great posters and are very valuable to the conversation. Group hug?

Quote

05-10-2011 , 02:29 PM

#405

lawdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 10,305

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

Really? Have you done linguistic research on this point? It certainly isn't my experience. Indeed, if the word did not have a non-legal meaning that people used, IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE DICTIONARY! Dictionaries, remember, don't include meanings that people don't use.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 03:21 PM

#406

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Not to be lost in all of this back and forth over a dictionary meaning of libel and a strict legal meaning (which are basically the same except for free speech considerations) .... is the fact that there is not one single post made by me which contains false factual information damaging to the reputation of any specific attorney working for the DOJ.

If having correct facts is important, shouldn't it also be important regarding the content of my posts?

Skallagrim

Quote

05-10-2011 , 03:31 PM

#407

lawdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 10,305

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

This statement is carefully parsed. Note the use of the term "any specific attorney". Again, making false statements about what a group of DOJ lawyers, say in the office of the Southern District of New York, were doing, and which damage the reputation of the people who worked in that office, wouldn't qualify.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 03:44 PM

#408

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawdude

OK, find the statement libelous towards a group of attorneys. Find a statement libelous towards the entire DOJ. Assertions without proof are a waste of time.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 04:09 PM

#409

lawdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 10,305

You can easily go back and look at the post I was responding to, Skalla. I don't have to repeat myself when the record is already there.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 04:19 PM

#410

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Hmm. Most lawyers readily accept the principle that it is the accuser who should present the facts, not the accused.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 04:25 PM

#411

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Almost libelous to throw an accusation like that around without facts.

I kid, I kid......

Quote

05-10-2011 , 04:26 PM

#412

flight2q

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,258

Street meaning of "slander" most commonly refers to libel/slander without any assertion that a compensatory judgment could be won. Street meaning of "libel" most commonly refers to defamation in a legal sense. Of course, not everyone walks the same streets. On lawdude's streets the people at the DOJ are underpaid benevolent dictators.

Only way to salvage this thread now is for someone to create the site Black Hole Poker. The spokesmodel could be Emma Taylor-Isherwood.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 04:38 PM

#413

lawdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 10,305

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight2q

Actually the funny thing is I used "libel" to be precise, because the statements were in written form, not oral.

And Skalla, you aren't in court. The post which I was responding to and the statement I made are right together upthread-- there's no way anyone looking in good faith can miss it.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 04:40 PM

#414

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Fine, I looked at the post. There is nothing libelous in there. End of discussion.

Quote

05-10-2011 , 05:41 PM

#415

SA_79

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 44

Saw that Newt is running and he has billionaire casino owners backing him. Will this have some sort of influence in online poker? (backers Sheldon Adelson (las vegas sands) gave 1 million and a total of 7 milioon throughout previous years. Frank Fertitta and Lorenzo Fertitta: The gaming billionaires gave $250,000 through the family’s Station Casinos. The two also own the successful Ultimate Fighting Championship martial arts outfit.)

Quote

05-11-2011 , 01:05 PM

#416

blutarski

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,436

Quote:

Originally Posted by SA_79

I wish we would all give up this idea that the GOP (as a whole) has any interest in legalizing ipoker, let alone set the precedent of allowing/regulating gaming on a federal level.

Forget Ron Paul, forget the teabaggerz, the religious right and the culture warriors control this party on all things social. Period.

Quote

05-11-2011 , 01:22 PM

#417

whynot?

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,691

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawdude

You can easily go back and look at the post I was responding to, Skalla. I don't have to repeat myself when the record is already there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Hmm. Most lawyers readily accept the principle that it is the accuser who should present the facts, not the accused.

are you guys really married in real life?

Quote

05-11-2011 , 06:11 PM

#418

SA_79

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 44

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutarski

LOL@ thinking that internet poker is never going to get regulated. Obv. that these top sites got shut down so that US corps can compete in the industry. Do you really think that the harrahs and the mgms are just going to sit back watch a billion dollar industry just disappear. We are all entitled to an opinion suppose, but a response such as yours obv just shows that you are lifeless being that you are looking at what you deem as "hopeless threads". gg

Quote

05-11-2011 , 06:12 PM

#419

SA_79

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 44

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutarski

LOL@ thinking that internet poker is never going to get regulated. Obv. that these top sites got shut down so that US corps can compete in the industry. Do you really think that the harrahs and the mgms are just going to sit back watch a billion dollar industry just disappear. We are all entitled to an opinion I suppose, but a response such as yours obv just shows that you are lifeless being that you are looking at what you deem as "hopeless threads". gg

Quote

05-12-2011 , 01:52 AM

#420

funkyj

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,416

"he said 'black hole', heh heh, heh heh"

Roger Ebert saying what most of us have been saying about the hypocrisy of SDNY

Quote:

The most visible centers of these crimes against the population are Wall Street and the financial industry in general. Although there are still many honest bankers, some seem to regard banking and trading as a license to steal. Outrageous acts are committed and go unpunished. Consider this case of money laundering by Wachovia Bank, now part of Wells Fargo. This Guardian article reports: "The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveler's checks and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts."

The bank paid fines of less than 2% of its $12.2 billion profit in 2009. No individual was ever charged with a crime. We need not doubt that Wachovia executives received bonuses over the period of time when they were overseeing these illegal activities. Permit me to quote one more paragraph:

"More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4 billion -- a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product -- into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business."

If a third of the Mexican GNP passes through your bank and you don't ask the questions required by law, you are either (1) a criminal, or (2) incompetent. I can't think of another possibility.

and then there is Magnetar and no indictments. You have to work really really hard these days (a la Bernie Madoff) if you want to actually be indicted for a crime when you are in Wall St.

Spoiler:

Quote

05-12-2011 , 12:20 PM

#421

ChaosReigns

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,974

Quote:

Originally Posted by SA_79

LOL@ thinking that internet poker is never going to get regulated. Obv. that these top sites got shut down so that US corps can compete in the industry. Do you really think that the harrahs and the mgms are just going to sit back watch a billion dollar industry just disappear. We are all entitled to an opinion I suppose, but a response such as yours obv just shows that you are lifeless being that you are looking at what you deem as "hopeless threads". gg

I have seen this same claim as to the reason behind Black Friday many times, but it makes no sense to me. If the US based gaming companies were behind it, they could have stiff armed enough people to get Reid's bill passed and made into law. They would have had a blackout period where Stars, Tilt, and other sites were unable to operate.

As to what the DOJ claims, I have two words for them. No, not those two words. The two words are prove it. If a politician or bureaucrat claims something, that claim should be met with those same two words.

Quote

05-12-2011 , 01:17 PM

#422

TeflonDawg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,987

Would you say "prove it" if you were facing a billion dollar fine and life in prison?

To date, nobody has. This is the closest thing we have to "prove it" and we still don't know if this will go to court other than surface denials originating from FT, PS, and AP's websites.

If it doesn't go to court, don't be surprised if Merge, Cake, and Bodog are next.

Quote

05-12-2011 , 03:43 PM

#423

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosReigns

There's a difference between "causing it to happen" and "taking advantage after it happened". The casinos weren't "behind it", but they certainly aren't going to sit there and do nothing when the golden goose gets dropped in their lap.

Quote

05-12-2011 , 04:44 PM

#424

blutarski

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,436

Quote:

Originally Posted by SA_79

LOL at 'lifeless being.' Reality is what it is.

Do you know anything about American politics? Who do you suppose is the king-maker in the GOP? The casinos or the religious right/social conservatives?

This is an easy no-brainer for the GOP, especially those who aren't social conservatives at heart- they can polish their 'family values' bonafides without pissing too many people off by not supporting ipoker.

If I'm so wrong, why is it that most of the GOP doesn't support 'legalizing' online poker?

Quote

05-16-2011 , 12:26 PM

#425

ChaosReigns

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,974

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

I am not saying that the sites should tell the DOJ to prove the allegations. I am saying that we, as citizens, should demand that of our officials when they make a claim. And I was talking about the idea that the sites were creating a giant financial blackhole.

Quote

Page 17 of 18

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 17 of 18

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Last