I'm good with all opinions. I'm unclear about official PPA policy.

Are you saying Senator Al, PPA Chairman, has an opinion that IP "already is" legal and that opinion could differ from the PPA stance on current legality of offering and playing IP?

Maybe his opinion is just about the game of poker and / or playing, but he hasn't opined on legality of promoting IP?

We're going to be waiting years for the return of good online poker. Even if the DOJ stops actively hunting down sites, they aren't going to suddenly announce that i-poker is OK and passing something in Congress+finalizing regs+getting sites up and running is years away.

The best chance for good i-poker fast would be an intrastate bill in a big state, which obviously has its own problems.

LOL...go right ahead and put me on your ignore list. By making this post, you prove you are a troll and are being a complete hyprocrite since you continue to reply.

You are another prime example of someone that posts about "fighting for poker", but I have yet to see a single example of anything you have done yourself to contribute to the effort. You and many others talk about action and then reference what others have done. What have you done, given that you have been so "wronged" by your government?

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, you won't get much discusssion on this point. Most folks here are convinced the government has irrevocably harmed them by going after Stars and FTP on Black Friday. And they are unwilling to listen to any intelligent explanations regarding the fact that the DOJ might actually have valid concerns regarding the illegal activites the sites may bave been engaging in, such as attempting to bribe and "buy" banks.

And I'm sure to get flamed as an "Evangelical Christian" for saying this (even though I don't go to Church..LOL), but this situation here on 2+2 is just plain moral relativism, although more so in a legal sense. But, I'm not sure legal relativism is an actual term. Based on the indictment, Stars and FTP seemed to do whatever the execs felt was right or justified in their own minds, regardless of the law. Now, you can go and take that attitude..."I think I will do whatever I think is ok by my standards"....but don't be suprised when you get arrested once in awhile when you do things that are considered illegal by the rest of society.

To top it off, there are avenues the poker sites could have pursued to force the government to make a legal decision regarding poker and it's relation to the UIGEA. They chose not to, and instead potentially put player's money at risk by engaging in illegal activities. If someone considers that ethical and fair, I would love to hear what their definition of unethical is.

Indicting foreign nationals you know you will never bring to trial so you have a legal basis to seize money that you know belongs to law abiding Americans.

TBH, at first I didn't think they would ever be so dumb. I figured it was what they had to do because they were so big. But the more I read & hear about it - http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/29/poker-websites-actions-were-risky-experts-say & Chuck Kidd's quadjacks interview http://******/AYGA6c - the more baffled I become and the more I think your right.

PokerStars player funds are never at risk. Player funds are held independently in trust and would survive complete bankruptcy / destruction of the parent company.

PokerStars has potentially risked itself. Not anyone else's money.

You could say the founders have risked their lives to protect your freedoms, lol. doesn't sound unethical to me.

You still don't get it. PartyPoker was PUBLICLY TRADED. If they weren't PUBLICLY TRADED, they could have very well stayed in the US along with FT and PS.

WE WERE LUCKY that FT and PS never offered IPOs (they were about to before the UIGEA passed). Because if they had, they likely WOULD'VE LEFT the US like PartyPoker did.


No UIGEA, none of these things happen.

And lol @ you for thinking for the last 5 years I and all the angry posters on 2+2 have done nothing. Have you ever heard of the PPA? I won't even get into the respect I've lost from my peers who fail to understand how online poker works and how it is nothing like pulling a slot lever and praying, despite my efforts to educate.

Bull****. You imply it with your arrogant and condescending posts, for which some posters are even putting you on ignore for. The way you used that quote also implies it.

Are you ****ing kidding me? You wanna talk about morality and ethics? Do you even know how the UIGEA was passed? Do you know why it was passed? I can guarantee you it wasn't in the name of improving port security.

GUYS, stop replying to the trolls! FFS this thread has gone to complete ****.

Once again, I'm glad to hear that you no longer practice law. If the DOJ wanted to seize funds belonging to law abiding Americans, then why did they allow the poker sites to make a deal so quickly to expedite the return of those funds? Now you are just convieniently ignoring facts. You should check the "fail" in your own posts before you insult others who can figure things out on their own and don't need your legal "expertise".

It's sad when there is a thread in NVG dealing with the legal aspects of this case and it's far more accurate than similiar threads in Poker Legislation, even though we are blessed with the opinions of legal "experts" like mpethybridge

The player money seized in the hands of processors will be forfeited by plea agreement with the processors, in exactly the same way it has been forfeited in in a prior seizure case.

You're fighting above your weight class, sir.

Does any member of Congress think that Online poker is currently legal in the US I doubt it, so why do we continue to make this argument when it gets us nowhere. Of course they think there's a "massive financial black hole".

Does any member of Congress think that poker is or might be a game of skill played between players rather than against the casino and therefore either might be or should be exempt from the laws banning slots and sports betting?

I think so .... http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...poker-1028630/

Does any member of Congress think that licensing and regulating online poker would be a far better method of avoiding a "massive financial black hole" than creating a black market?

I think many do, Barney Frank comes to mind first.

Why must we abandon the first point in order to make the second?

Granted most Congresscritters are incapable of holding two distinct thoughts in their minds at the same time, but how do you know in advance which single thought is going to resonate with any individual Congresscritter?

Skallagrim

They are scared, they don't stand up to the bully, they run, for one, and two they know the USA does whatever they want anyway laws be damned.

I think your right and I agree, but hope for better. I can speak for myself and say that is what I have to deal with as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th class citizen. It's just the long, hard slog now towards justice and gaining civil rights, while we wait for the rest of America to grow up and become aware as we are now.

We are already aprox. 5 years into it. And the DOJ's recent action is, well, look at it this way when ever evil tries to take a step forward, inside that step is its demise. Because it just fuels the anger of the people who see injustice. Haha, talking about DOJ and injustice, very Orwellian.

You don't see the ridiculous irony in that?

The UIGEA was written to "stop terrorist funding."

The DOJ goes, "Oh ****, there's a ****load of shady money going around. We know it's from online poker and not terrorism, but it COULD be."

They then use the UIGEA to cut it off.

The only thing is, this massive black hole never would've existed if they hadn't written the UIGEA in the first ****ing place.

It's not that they don't think it's legal, it's that they never cared. And the only reason they care now is because there's lots of money involved, which has garnered the interest of people like Gary Loveman and politicians salivating to get on camera and say look I helped teh economiez by bringing tax revenue and teh jobz!"

For the uninformed, a person who hasn't done a damn thing for his country (US) other than being born here, has just as much right to speak his mind as anyone else, including you.

And yes, law enforcement does pick and choose what to enforce/who to go after.

And as far as you planting your foot in someone's ass, keep dreaming that dream. You obviously aren't old/wise enough to realize that no matter how badass you think you are, there's always someone ready, willing, and able to make you their bitch.

Military service definitely hasn't taught you much.

I agree. And surprised that someone else thinks that people behave in such a way. Interesting too the different perspective from someone watching this from the outside. Thanks. From inside, this is hell, and very frustrating, like some 2 foot, 5 year old hitler/satan ordering people around. I don't know what the USA is devolving into...like if capitalism and greed is falling apart make it fascist that'll save us. The USA really needs to join the rest of the world out there in the 21st century, meanwhile a minority of uneducated, rich, crazies try to take us back to the turn of the 19th century.

Maybe the difference between the USA and other countries, is that we have so many "baby boomers".

The goal here is to create guilt within others (you "whine" too much) so then you will submit to the accusers will.

"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance.' It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option."

~Noam Chomsky

I am old and wise enough to realize this. I'm just not concerned about Internet chumps like you or the clown who wrote that idiotic reply to begin with.

When you think about it, poker sites would actually be ideal for funneling money. Let's say Person A is a terrorist financier and person Z is a terrorist. Person A deposits money online to "gamble," and initiates person-to-person transfer to Z, who then withdraws the money and claims it as "gambling income." Or you can have intermediaries, players B through Y, and A transfers to B, who transfers to C, etc., until Z gets the money. These transfers don't leave any money trail outside of the site itself, so the FBI cannot tell where the money is going. For a more subtle way of transferring money, A and Z could sit down at a high stakes HU table, and A could just fold his money to Z pre-flop incurring no rake. Or you could do the same with the intermediaries.

The point is, governments don't like when they can't see where the money is going. The fact that it might be *possible* to finance terrorism through poker sites means from their perspective that it's a liability. Several years ago a company called E-gold was indicted by DOJ on similar charges (money laundering). E-gold was a digital gold currency system where users could buy digital gold through third party market makers, then transfer it to other users' accounts. E-gold themselves didn't do anything illegal, but their system was very useful for money laundering, since users could register with fraudulent personal information (there was no verification system), and transfers only showed the account numbers, which were anonymous. The transfers were also irreversible. It was very easy to move money around, and the DOJ couldn't see what was going on, so they indicted E-gold and shut it down.

Basically the government is going to shut down anything whereby users can move money around without government oversight. Messed up, I know, but that's how it is.

Shai is right.

Another way of putting this is that before the internet, offshore banking was only available to a few rich Americans. It was viewed with great suspicion by the government and they did their best to track money flows offshore because they were often associated with tax evasion or crime.

The internet, including internet poker, made it possible for millions of Americans to move significant amounts of money offshore for the first time.

The federal government's response to online poker has everything to do with this development and the potential harms that could result from it.

How so? If I get a 30K transfer and try to withdraw it, doesn't/couldn't it raise flags and warrant security investigations etc.? I'm pretty sure FTP was pretty diligent about even smaller amounts. I mean how many transfers-->withdrawals over 10K does a site get? I'm not even talking about chip-dumping at those levels: I'd assume the whole process is pretty transparent. If the whole intent of the BF was to stop the money laundering, it made things even worse, since the security of smaller sites is so much worse... They can't be that short-sighted/stupid? I mean the whole thing cries for legislation.

Black holes, fraud, morality come on guys this is politician talk. All excuses to divert attention from the real reasons for the crack down.

If there is one thing everyone should know by now about the current state of this government is that any move it possibly makes is pushed from behind by giant corporations and there lobbies. It's the major players in the US gaming industry we should be talking about and pointing the finger at. This is a power play by casinos to either rid them selves of online poker or to take over online poker nothing more nothing less.

I for one am really hoping the major casinos are going to move in on the online poker market. Not that I like them or the way they've treated ipoker it's just the only shot we've got at the legal regulated ipoker market every is hoping for. We should be sending letters to casino owners forget sending letters to your congressman/woman or senators unless they're filled with millions of dollars in campaign contributions.