What if everyone holding uncashed Fla processor checks donated them to the PPA ?
03-04-2010
, 05:14 PM
The other issue with TV commercials is that to be worthwhile they need to cause some action on the part of enough viewers that it will move the cause forward. In our case that might be as much as writing to congress or as little as forming an opinon *if* that opinion is going to be measured in a survey or something that pertinent members of congress will hear about. What are the chances that commercials would sway enough *new* people to write to congress? My guess is not enough to be cost effective. IMO most of the people who might care enough to do that are already being hit periodically by emails from Starts, FTP, PPA, etc. Trying to sway opinon for an opinion poll of some kind also seems like it might not be cost effective. Even if it was I have doubts that the timing for this is right at this time.
03-04-2010
, 05:29 PM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Sorry for the confusion "Standing" is a legal term that encompasses a number of concepts.
"Associational standing" or "organizational standing" centers on the question of whether an association has the right to act in court on behalf of its members. No one seriously doubts that the PPA can represent its members in court actions and we have done so on numerous occasions....
Skallagrim
"Associational standing" or "organizational standing" centers on the question of whether an association has the right to act in court on behalf of its members. No one seriously doubts that the PPA can represent its members in court actions and we have done so on numerous occasions....
Skallagrim
As for a Declaratory Judgment action, that was your focus, not mine.
My idea was a bit simpler, the PPA staking an equitable or legal claim to some of the proceeds which were seized. This is very different from the Declaratory Judgment tangent you launched into.
Don't think EVERY DOJ action is seamless or identical. Focus on THIS opportunty. Unlike the SDNY defendant, THIS criminal case WILL proceed, as the defendant is in custody.
So, without going on a Declaratory Judgment tangent, can you address what process in THIS seizure case can be utilized to raise the legality of poker as an issue required to be decided.
(If the funds legally and rightfully belong to X, as evidenced byy the check issued to X, why does some action by Defendant need to cost X HIS rightful funds )
If there were NO underlying illegal activity, does a DOJ seizure create a constructive trust ? How about stating that claim, ask the Court to establish the trust ?
Let DOJ argue about whose funds they were when seized, but raise the issue of whether the seizure itself was tied to any illegal underlying activity. THAT is what can be gained, perhaps.
Thanks.
Last edited by TruePoker ex-CEO; 03-04-2010 at 05:37 PM.
03-04-2010
, 05:31 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,425
Quote:
Sorry for the confusion. "Standing" is a legal term that encompasses a number of concepts.
"Associational standing" or "organizational standing" centers on the question of whether an association has the right to act in court on behalf of its members. No one seriously doubts that the PPA can represent its members in court actions and we have done so on numerous occasions.
"Standing to file suit" (in the Declaratory Judgment context) centers on the dual questions I discussed before regarding "case and controversy" and "actual or imminent harm." It is on that last point, I am told, that the odds favor the DOJ; the DOJ would argue that players haven't suffered: they were owed money and they are still owed money and in fact they are still getting the money from the sites. This is why the question of who's money it was at the time of seizure is so important.
Skallagrim
"Associational standing" or "organizational standing" centers on the question of whether an association has the right to act in court on behalf of its members. No one seriously doubts that the PPA can represent its members in court actions and we have done so on numerous occasions.
"Standing to file suit" (in the Declaratory Judgment context) centers on the dual questions I discussed before regarding "case and controversy" and "actual or imminent harm." It is on that last point, I am told, that the odds favor the DOJ; the DOJ would argue that players haven't suffered: they were owed money and they are still owed money and in fact they are still getting the money from the sites. This is why the question of who's money it was at the time of seizure is so important.
Skallagrim
03-04-2010
, 05:53 PM
journeyman
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 369
Quote:
The other issue with TV commercials is that to be worthwhile they need to cause some action on the part of enough viewers that it will move the cause forward. In our case that might be as much as writing to congress or as little as forming an opinon *if* that opinion is going to be measured in a survey or something that pertinent members of congress will hear about. What are the chances that commercials would sway enough *new* people to write to congress? My guess is not enough to be cost effective. IMO most of the people who might care enough to do that are already being hit periodically by emails from Starts, FTP, PPA, etc. Trying to sway opinon for an opinion poll of some kind also seems like it might not be cost effective. Even if it was I have doubts that the timing for this is right at this time.
03-04-2010
, 05:56 PM
Quote:
No one seems confused. Yes, the PPA has organizational standing ... glad you nailed that concept.
As for a Declaratory Judgment action, that was your focus, not mine.
My idea was a bit simpler, the PPA staking an equitable or legal claim to some of the proceeds which were seized. This is very different from the Declaratory Judgment tangent you launched into.
Don't think EVERY DOJ action is seamless or identical. Focus on THIS opportunty. Unlike the SDNY defendant, THIS criminal case WILL proceed, as the defendant is in custody.
So, without going on a Declaratory Judgment tangent, can you address what process in THIS seizure case can be utilized to raise the legality of poker as an issue required to be decided.
(If the funds legally and rightfully belong to X, as evidenced byy the check issued to X, why does some action by Defendant need to cost X HIS rightful funds )
If there were NO underlying illegal activity, does a DOJ seizure create a constructive trust ? How about stating that claim, ask the Court to establish the trust ?
Let DOJ argue about whose funds they were when seized, but raise the issue of whether the seizure itself was tied to any illegal underlying activity. THAT is what can be gained, perhaps.
Thanks.
As for a Declaratory Judgment action, that was your focus, not mine.
My idea was a bit simpler, the PPA staking an equitable or legal claim to some of the proceeds which were seized. This is very different from the Declaratory Judgment tangent you launched into.
Don't think EVERY DOJ action is seamless or identical. Focus on THIS opportunty. Unlike the SDNY defendant, THIS criminal case WILL proceed, as the defendant is in custody.
So, without going on a Declaratory Judgment tangent, can you address what process in THIS seizure case can be utilized to raise the legality of poker as an issue required to be decided.
(If the funds legally and rightfully belong to X, as evidenced byy the check issued to X, why does some action by Defendant need to cost X HIS rightful funds )
If there were NO underlying illegal activity, does a DOJ seizure create a constructive trust ? How about stating that claim, ask the Court to establish the trust ?
Let DOJ argue about whose funds they were when seized, but raise the issue of whether the seizure itself was tied to any illegal underlying activity. THAT is what can be gained, perhaps.
Thanks.
As to the rest of your post ... do you read what I post before figuring out how to write an attack on it?
Rather than write anything new, let me just use statements from my prior post:
PPA member players have already suffered as much injury as is needed to seek return of the funds. No one has suggested that the PPA cannot file a claim to return of the funds. Apparently you forgot that the "weak-tight" PPA did exactly that after the seizure in the Account Services case. The reason the PPA has not filed such a claim in this case is because this case has BEGUN with a criminal complaint. You may have also forgot that what stopped the PPA's civil suit over the Account Services money was the institution of criminal proceedings. At least this criminal case has an in-custody defendant and is therefore likely to get resolved in due course. That due course is likely to be 1 to 2 years, after which the PPA can fight to have the money returned if the DOJ tries to forfeit it.
If the DOJ has not already filed a criminal forfeiture request for the FL money they would within 24 hours of our filing a request for the return of the money. So there is just no way to force the issues to be litigated in the FL case at this time.
Skallagrim
03-04-2010
, 06:07 PM
Quote:
OK, Skall, so why doesn't the PPA add a poker site, ACS, 2+2 or even CardPlayer as a member. Its by-laws or articles of incorporation can be amended to permit corporate members. Then it could file a Declaratory Judgment suit and prove actual or imminent harm to a member. This litigation is more likely than not to benefit its player-members. So why not do it?
And if any of those entities wanted to file such a lawsuit, they can. Right now. They do not need the PPA to do it for them.
Skallagrim
03-04-2010
, 06:14 PM
Quote:
IMO the commercial message should be inclusive, not just as narrowly framed as playing poker online freely. How about "we don't want Congress to restrict our freedom on the Internet"? This way general public can relate to and care about. If our Government is making unfair laws, fighting it in court can take a long time. So public opinion can be a huge wave to quickly turn the tides for us.
But if the goal is to get any concrete action I wonder how many would actually take the step of writing to congress about something specific that doesn't effect them (online poker) due to something else that *might* happen in the future. I don't disagree that public opinion could make a difference. If the PPA had an unlimited budget doing this would be a no brainer. But as NovaHunterPa pointed out, they don't.
03-04-2010
, 06:24 PM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,568
Quote:
No one seems confused. Yes, the PPA has organizational standing ... glad you nailed that concept.
As for a Declaratory Judgment action, that was your focus, not mine.
My idea was a bit simpler, the PPA staking an equitable or legal claim to some of the proceeds which were seized. This is very different from the Declaratory Judgment tangent you launched into.
Don't think EVERY DOJ action is seamless or identical. Focus on THIS opportunty. Unlike the SDNY defendant, THIS criminal case WILL proceed, as the defendant is in custody.
So, without going on a Declaratory Judgment tangent, can you address what process in THIS seizure case can be utilized to raise the legality of poker as an issue required to be decided.
(If the funds legally and rightfully belong to X, as evidenced byy the check issued to X, why does some action by Defendant need to cost X HIS rightful funds )
If there were NO underlying illegal activity, does a DOJ seizure create a constructive trust ? How about stating that claim, ask the Court to establish the trust ?
Let DOJ argue about whose funds they were when seized, but raise the issue of whether the seizure itself was tied to any illegal underlying activity. THAT is what can be gained, perhaps.
Thanks.
As for a Declaratory Judgment action, that was your focus, not mine.
My idea was a bit simpler, the PPA staking an equitable or legal claim to some of the proceeds which were seized. This is very different from the Declaratory Judgment tangent you launched into.
Don't think EVERY DOJ action is seamless or identical. Focus on THIS opportunty. Unlike the SDNY defendant, THIS criminal case WILL proceed, as the defendant is in custody.
So, without going on a Declaratory Judgment tangent, can you address what process in THIS seizure case can be utilized to raise the legality of poker as an issue required to be decided.
(If the funds legally and rightfully belong to X, as evidenced byy the check issued to X, why does some action by Defendant need to cost X HIS rightful funds )
If there were NO underlying illegal activity, does a DOJ seizure create a constructive trust ? How about stating that claim, ask the Court to establish the trust ?
Let DOJ argue about whose funds they were when seized, but raise the issue of whether the seizure itself was tied to any illegal underlying activity. THAT is what can be gained, perhaps.
Thanks.
Also, how is the PPA going to claim a stake of the money when all players have been reimbursed? The seized money is owed from the processor to the sites at this point I would think.
Finally, how does this work if the criminal complaint is only running an illegal money transmitting business and not violation of the Wire Act and UIGEA?
03-04-2010
, 06:46 PM
Quote:
What TruePoker CEO is saying which I agree, is that our cause need to be heard by the public. So far it's not! We need a plan to achieve that, may it be at the court of law, at Congress or perhaps thru media. I can see both sides from CEO and Skall's perspective regarding legal actions. However, I have not heard PPA using TV commercial as its weapon. Please use our poker super stars to be our spokesperson. As long as there is a way to get words about our fight out there, law makers will pay more attention. TV commercial is a powerful tool when deliver the right message. PPA please make some soon!
03-04-2010
, 07:24 PM
Quote:
Also, how is the PPA going to claim a stake of the money when all players have been reimbursed? The seized money is owed from the processor to the sites at this point I would think.
Before TPCEO rips me for it, this example is not meant to suggest that there are similarities between drug dealers and poker payment processors. It is only an example to illustrate the basic legal point.
So what we first have to establish is that this seized money is more like the payment for the plumbing job than the wad of dealer cash. Given the unique nature of a poker payment processor's business, we think we can. This is argued about in the PPA's Account Services brief (link previously posted ITT). Be forewarned, however, it is a very lengthy and complex legal argument. If we do not get around that juncture, however, we do not get to the point of being able to argue about the legality of the underlying activity (though of course the defendant still can).
Quote:
Finally, how does this work if the criminal complaint is only running an illegal money transmitting business and not violation of the Wire Act and UIGEA?
Skallagrim
Last edited by Skallagrim; 03-04-2010 at 07:30 PM.
03-04-2010
, 09:34 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,425
Really, they would refuse to join the PPA and refuse to provide it standing to initiate litigation that would likely benefit its individual members? Aren't some important of Cardplayer and FTP directors or former directors of the PPA?
03-04-2010
, 10:16 PM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,568
I think the point was more the by-law change rather than the force them to join point.
Wouldn't this cause potential problems with legislation down the road, especially since a court victory can be overturned in Congress?
Im not sure why you are so eager to rush to litigation today. Even if the law is on our side it doesn't mean we win the case. You know better than most that judges aren't always simply impartial arbiters that decide cases by the letter of the law.
Wouldn't this cause potential problems with legislation down the road, especially since a court victory can be overturned in Congress?
Im not sure why you are so eager to rush to litigation today. Even if the law is on our side it doesn't mean we win the case. You know better than most that judges aren't always simply impartial arbiters that decide cases by the letter of the law.
03-04-2010
, 10:39 PM
Quote:
I think the point was more the by-law change rather than the force them to join point.
Wouldn't this cause potential problems with legislation down the road, especially since a court victory can be overturned in Congress?
Im not sure why you are so eager to rush to litigation today. Even if the law is on our side it doesn't mean we win the case. You know better than most that judges aren't always simply impartial arbiters that decide cases by the letter of the law.
Wouldn't this cause potential problems with legislation down the road, especially since a court victory can be overturned in Congress?
Im not sure why you are so eager to rush to litigation today. Even if the law is on our side it doesn't mean we win the case. You know better than most that judges aren't always simply impartial arbiters that decide cases by the letter of the law.
In this day and age it is just as important (some would say more important) to make judges comfortable in ruling our way as it is to show them that logic, law and fact dictate ruling our way.
Also, JP, the more subtle point I was trying to make is simply that IF any of the businesses wanted a lawsuit such as you desire to go forward, there is no positive point to having the PPA amend itself to include them and then do it when they could do it themselves and the PPA could file an Amicus Brief.
The whole point of the PPA is to represent poker PLAYERS.
If the PPA were to become a representative trade group for certain poker related businesses, there would be little distinction between the PPA and the IGC or other trade groups. And I believe that distinction is important. Especially politically.
Skallagrim
03-04-2010
, 11:11 PM
PPA is a players' group, not a trade group. I absolutely oppose allowing corporate entities to join.
Everyone,
If we have a good case and, for some reason, find we absolutely need to have a business on board, we'll figure out a way without having the organization join PPA as a member.
03-05-2010
, 12:22 AM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,425
Quote:
+1
In this day and age it is just as important (some would say more important) to make judges comfortable in ruling our way as it is to show them that logic, law and fact dictate ruling our way.
Also, JP, the more subtle point I was trying to make is simply that IF any of the businesses wanted a lawsuit such as you desire to go forward, there is no positive point to having the PPA amend itself to include them and then do it when they could do it themselves and the PPA could file an Amicus Brief.
The whole point of the PPA is to represent poker PLAYERS.
If the PPA were to become a representative trade group for certain poker related businesses, there would be little distinction between the PPA and the IGC or other trade groups. And I believe that distinction is important. Especially politically.
Skallagrim
In this day and age it is just as important (some would say more important) to make judges comfortable in ruling our way as it is to show them that logic, law and fact dictate ruling our way.
Also, JP, the more subtle point I was trying to make is simply that IF any of the businesses wanted a lawsuit such as you desire to go forward, there is no positive point to having the PPA amend itself to include them and then do it when they could do it themselves and the PPA could file an Amicus Brief.
The whole point of the PPA is to represent poker PLAYERS.
If the PPA were to become a representative trade group for certain poker related businesses, there would be little distinction between the PPA and the IGC or other trade groups. And I believe that distinction is important. Especially politically.
Skallagrim
However, I have totally given up on the political system. It is nothing more than a mechanism to expand government and turn the US into a collectivist state. Rep. Franks has never had a mark up on any of his licensing bills, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid are on the record as opposing licensing online gambling, the Republicans are favored to take over the House in 2011 and may take over the Senate and the Obama administration has permitted the DOJ to step up its campaign against online gambling. The membership of the PPA is divided about the bills introduced in Congress. Now, apparently, some Congressmen, like mine, Rep. Clay, view licensing as a revenue raiser. Finally, states, CA and FL, are threatening to take action that even the PPA believes would be detrimental to the players. Somehow, the politics fail to give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Only two things stand in the way of the legislative system. One, is people like TE, Skall, many of you posters and the Tea Party people. I hope that they are enough to reverse the political situation, but I'm not optimistic. The other system is the US federal court system. Yeah, it's not a great barrier, but with the current majority seeming to be strict construction advocates it may be better than anytime since I was in law school, and IMO it's the only one with a reasonable chance to benefit online poker players.
Thus, having the PPA have a corporate member is just a way to provide standing so it can use the federal court system to attempt to benefit its players. I would like a better way for the PPA to obtain standing, but I don't see the DOJ providing one. IMO, it is time for the PPA to stop reacting to the DOJ underhanded (I could use the work despicable) campaign against online poker and online poker players and take legal action against it. LG, victory is not assured, but you are as pessimistic about the political process as I. So what other alternative exists?
I guess we could wait until the only deposit method is by cashiers check sent by Fed Ex and the only withdrawal method is by check issued by a foreign bank. But I would prefer not to wait.
Sorry for the long rant. I wouldn't bother if I did not greatly respect TE, Skall, the PPA, its member-posters on this forum and all your efforts.
Last edited by JPFisher55; 03-05-2010 at 12:38 AM.
03-05-2010
, 12:51 AM
Quote:
The whole point of the PPA is to represent poker PLAYERS.
If the PPA were to become a representative trade group for certain poker related businesses, there would be little distinction between the PPA and the IGC or other trade groups. And I believe that distinction is important. Especially politically.
Skallagrim
The whole point of the PPA is to represent poker PLAYERS.
If the PPA were to become a representative trade group for certain poker related businesses, there would be little distinction between the PPA and the IGC or other trade groups. And I believe that distinction is important. Especially politically.
Skallagrim
Quote:
+1
PPA is a players' group, not a trade group. I absolutely oppose allowing corporate entities to join.
Everyone,
If we have a good case and, for some reason, find we absolutely need to have a business on board, we'll figure out a way without having the organization join PPA as a member.
PPA is a players' group, not a trade group. I absolutely oppose allowing corporate entities to join.
Everyone,
If we have a good case and, for some reason, find we absolutely need to have a business on board, we'll figure out a way without having the organization join PPA as a member.
03-05-2010
, 12:56 AM
03-05-2010
, 01:02 AM
Can you imagine the reaction that would get from those who believe the PPA is just a shill for PS and FTP anyway.
03-05-2010
, 01:06 AM
JP, I largely agree with what you wrote above. The political process is long and may never yield the results we would like. IMO it's likely going be many years before we pass any legislation on Capital Hill and even if we do pass something it may not be the kind of legislation we as players really want. I just don't think we can give up on legislation, no matter how long it takes we need to build support politically for poker rights and that means working with lawmakers on the political front.
We may not gain much in the courts either, though this is an option it carries risks for us as well. One of the differences between the PPA and the NRA in litigating in the courts is that the NRA has the 2nd amendment on it's side when going into court. Poker players have no such amendment giving them the right to play poker, though they do have other legal arguments and the Constitution (just in a less direct way) on their side. Even going through the courts is going to be long drawn out process and will likely take years.
Everyone wants something to happen fast on the political front (which can happen) but I expect this fight to last many years if not longer.
Edit: Just because it's hard and may take a long time I don't think we can abandon our efforts on the political front, even if it doesn't result in legislation we need to lobby in DC to prevent further damage.
We may not gain much in the courts either, though this is an option it carries risks for us as well. One of the differences between the PPA and the NRA in litigating in the courts is that the NRA has the 2nd amendment on it's side when going into court. Poker players have no such amendment giving them the right to play poker, though they do have other legal arguments and the Constitution (just in a less direct way) on their side. Even going through the courts is going to be long drawn out process and will likely take years.
Everyone wants something to happen fast on the political front (which can happen) but I expect this fight to last many years if not longer.
Edit: Just because it's hard and may take a long time I don't think we can abandon our efforts on the political front, even if it doesn't result in legislation we need to lobby in DC to prevent further damage.
Last edited by novahunterpa; 03-05-2010 at 01:20 AM.
Reason: typo, and added somthing
03-05-2010
, 01:56 AM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,425
Quote:
JP, I largely agree with what you wrote above. The political process is long and may never yield the results we would like. IMO it's likely going be many years before we pass any legislation on Capital Hill and even if we do pass something it may not be the kind of legislation we as players really want. I just don't think we can give up on legislation, no matter how long it takes we need to build support politically for poker rights and that means working with lawmakers on the political front.
We may not gain much in the courts either, though this is an option it carries risks for us as well. One of the differences between the PPA and the NRA in litigating in the courts is that the NRA has the 2nd amendment on it's side when going into court. Poker players have no such amendment giving them the right to play poker, though they do have other legal arguments and the Constitution (just in a less direct way) on their side. Even going through the courts is going to be long drawn out process and will likely take years.
Everyone wants something to happen fast on the political front (which can happen) but I expect this fight to last many years if not longer.
Edit: Just because it's hard and may take a long time I don't think we can abandon our efforts on the political front, even if it doesn't result in legislation we need to lobby in DC to prevent further damage.
We may not gain much in the courts either, though this is an option it carries risks for us as well. One of the differences between the PPA and the NRA in litigating in the courts is that the NRA has the 2nd amendment on it's side when going into court. Poker players have no such amendment giving them the right to play poker, though they do have other legal arguments and the Constitution (just in a less direct way) on their side. Even going through the courts is going to be long drawn out process and will likely take years.
Everyone wants something to happen fast on the political front (which can happen) but I expect this fight to last many years if not longer.
Edit: Just because it's hard and may take a long time I don't think we can abandon our efforts on the political front, even if it doesn't result in legislation we need to lobby in DC to prevent further damage.
We don't have the 2nd amendment, but we do have court precedent that the DOJ's interpretation of the Wire Act is not correct. Any litigation will take years, but starting it could cause the attorneys in the DOJ to reconsider their expansion of their anti-online gambling campaign to the online poker industry. If the PPA files litigation, then these attorneys in the DOJ have to consider the consequences of this litigation on all the actions that they have taken to intimidate the industry. I favor action over reaction.
03-05-2010
, 02:16 AM
We're in an area notorious for astroturfing. In fact, the PPA is completely unique in that it's a permanent organization devoted to the interests of poker players.
A single corporate member with voting rights would destroy our credibility. Taking donations is fine, as that's a one-way transaction without quid pro quo, of course.
Quote:
However, I have totally given up on the political system.
Quote:
The other system is the US federal court system. Yeah, it's not a great barrier, but with the current majority seeming to be strict construction advocates it may be better than anytime since I was in law school, and IMO it's the only one with a reasonable chance to benefit online poker players.
Quote:
IMO, it is time for the PPA to stop reacting to the DOJ underhanded (I could use the work despicable) campaign against online poker and online poker players and take legal action against it. LG, victory is not assured, but you are as pessimistic about the political process as I. So what other alternative exists?
As we have to earn support anyway, IMO we'll want to do that while ahead.
Quote:
Sorry for the long rant. I wouldn't bother if I did not greatly respect TE, Skall, the PPA, its member-posters on this forum and all your efforts.
Last edited by Rich Muny; 03-05-2010 at 09:45 AM.
Reason: Added "federal" to If federal marijuana laws were found to be unconstitutional
03-05-2010
, 02:27 AM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,568
Dems are still favored to win the House this year FWIW to the extent you believe intrade
03-05-2010
, 03:07 AM
JP, I think we're in for a wait no matter which path we choice (maybe the choice will be made for use) legislation or litigation. I think the PPA needs to work in both areas and chose their battles carefully. Both legislation/litigation can have up sides and down.
I to worry about the legislative front, current bill or future ones. Even if some form of regulation of an online poker bill passes we don't know how it will affect players,what kind of sites receive a license, if there are added taxes,ect. ect. The bills we have today may not be the one we see tomorrow and could be better or far worse.
I feel litigation can also take a long, long time. What are the chances that the PPA can bring a single case before a court, win and have that be the finial word for all aspects of online poker. Wouldn't most cases only focus a narrow issue of law (like in some of these processor cases)? If we win we might have to go back to court all over again to argue against the DOJ because they site a different law in another case, involving a different part of the online poker world (instead of processing).
I'm not an legal expert but what are the odds that a court in a single case will rule that playing online poker is expressly legal in the US, for all citizens everywhere in the US ,giving them unrestricted access to poker sites everywhere? We could be fighting in courts for decades,winning small battles along the way.
Even though the NRA has had some success recently in the SCOTUS , the court only ruled on a narrow area and not on some of the larger issues the NRA would have liked. Plus it took decades of trying by the NRA (others) to get the SCOTUS to even here some kind of case. The NRA will likely be fighting in court's for many more decades to come. why wouldn't you think the PPA might not have to do the same?
I could be wrong but do you think if the PPA wins 1 or 2 cases in court that it will all be over? Would these 1 or 2 cases likely cover all the broad legal challenges we online players,sites and processors face, or would the ruling only cover one specific aspect at a time? I could be wrong but I think litigation covering all aspects of online poker could take as long or longer in some cases then legislation. Though I'm certainly not against trying.
I to worry about the legislative front, current bill or future ones. Even if some form of regulation of an online poker bill passes we don't know how it will affect players,what kind of sites receive a license, if there are added taxes,ect. ect. The bills we have today may not be the one we see tomorrow and could be better or far worse.
I feel litigation can also take a long, long time. What are the chances that the PPA can bring a single case before a court, win and have that be the finial word for all aspects of online poker. Wouldn't most cases only focus a narrow issue of law (like in some of these processor cases)? If we win we might have to go back to court all over again to argue against the DOJ because they site a different law in another case, involving a different part of the online poker world (instead of processing).
I'm not an legal expert but what are the odds that a court in a single case will rule that playing online poker is expressly legal in the US, for all citizens everywhere in the US ,giving them unrestricted access to poker sites everywhere? We could be fighting in courts for decades,winning small battles along the way.
Even though the NRA has had some success recently in the SCOTUS , the court only ruled on a narrow area and not on some of the larger issues the NRA would have liked. Plus it took decades of trying by the NRA (others) to get the SCOTUS to even here some kind of case. The NRA will likely be fighting in court's for many more decades to come. why wouldn't you think the PPA might not have to do the same?
I could be wrong but do you think if the PPA wins 1 or 2 cases in court that it will all be over? Would these 1 or 2 cases likely cover all the broad legal challenges we online players,sites and processors face, or would the ruling only cover one specific aspect at a time? I could be wrong but I think litigation covering all aspects of online poker could take as long or longer in some cases then legislation. Though I'm certainly not against trying.
Last edited by novahunterpa; 03-05-2010 at 03:13 AM.
Reason: spelling
03-05-2010
, 10:09 AM
Quote:
We don't have the 2nd amendment, but we do have court precedent that the DOJ's interpretation of the Wire Act is not correct. Any litigation will take years, but starting it could cause the attorneys in the DOJ to reconsider their expansion of their anti-online gambling campaign to the online poker industry. If the PPA files litigation, then these attorneys in the DOJ have to consider the consequences of this litigation on all the actions that they have taken to intimidate the industry. I favor action over reaction.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Toward the end of the 19th century a large majority of state constitutions banned lotteries. Finally, on July 29, 1890, U.S. President Benjamin Harrison sent a message to Congress demanding "severe and effective legislation" against lotteries. Congress acted swiftly, and banned the U.S. mails from carrying lottery tickets. The Supreme Court upheld the law in 1892, and that brought a complete halt to all lotteries in the U.S.A. by 1900.
When lotteries raised their head again in 1964, it would take many years of constitutional amendments by the various states before the lotteries were allowed to flourish again.
On March 12, 1964, New Hampshire became the first state to sell lottery tickets in the modern era.
When lotteries raised their head again in 1964, it would take many years of constitutional amendments by the various states before the lotteries were allowed to flourish again.
On March 12, 1964, New Hampshire became the first state to sell lottery tickets in the modern era.
03-05-2010
, 10:48 AM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
It is going to happen sooner or later LG, the trick is going to be getting it to happen in the right case and at the right time.
Its an arguable point. The DOJ's basic position, for which there is some support, is that ALL money seized from a provider of an unlawful service or product is "illegal proceeds" and therefore forfeitable. For example, if you are a plumber and you fix the sink for a drug dealer and just before he pays you the Feds swoop in and seize all of the dealer's money, you don't get to claim a share of that money just because he owes you and its a perfectly legal debt. On the other hand, however, if he has already deposited the money in your account you get to keep it even if it came from illegal drug sales (assuming, of course, you are not complicit in the drug dealing).
Before TPCEO rips me for it, ....
It is only an example to illustrate the basic legal point.
So what we first have to establish is that this seized money is more like the payment for the plumbing job than the wad of dealer cash. Given the unique nature of a poker payment processor's business, we think we can. ...
That does matter somewhat. If the money is not "illegal proceeds" then the Feds cannot forfeit it. So if the money is "clean" but was seized while merely being held by an illegal transmitting business, the money has to be given back to its rightful owner(s). This process, by law, occurs after the criminal proceedings against the defendant have ended.
Skallagrim
Its an arguable point. The DOJ's basic position, for which there is some support, is that ALL money seized from a provider of an unlawful service or product is "illegal proceeds" and therefore forfeitable. For example, if you are a plumber and you fix the sink for a drug dealer and just before he pays you the Feds swoop in and seize all of the dealer's money, you don't get to claim a share of that money just because he owes you and its a perfectly legal debt. On the other hand, however, if he has already deposited the money in your account you get to keep it even if it came from illegal drug sales (assuming, of course, you are not complicit in the drug dealing).
Before TPCEO rips me for it, ....
It is only an example to illustrate the basic legal point.
So what we first have to establish is that this seized money is more like the payment for the plumbing job than the wad of dealer cash. Given the unique nature of a poker payment processor's business, we think we can. ...
That does matter somewhat. If the money is not "illegal proceeds" then the Feds cannot forfeit it. So if the money is "clean" but was seized while merely being held by an illegal transmitting business, the money has to be given back to its rightful owner(s). This process, by law, occurs after the criminal proceedings against the defendant have ended.
Skallagrim
So if the money is "clean" but was seized while merely being held by an illegal transmitting business, the money has to be given back to its rightful owner(s).
+1, very good, Grasshopper.
.... and in litigating that the money was "clean", the issue of the legality of playing poker online must be addressed.
Do you see why playing a weak-tight strategy in picking a case may forgo the opportunity to prove what "we think we can". Collect a couple of unpaid checks and limp into the hand.
DOJ is prosecuting what it thinks is a crime, not avoiiding criminal cases it thinks fit in a master plan to avoid litigating this poker legality issue. The facts here SOUND pretty strong, and THIS criiminal process will be relatively quick,, as the Defendant is in custody.
Not every question is an "attack", learn the difference.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD