Sigh .... I really have to LOL at the "grasshopper" statement. ITT I have had to explain to you 1) that PPA possession of the checks means nothing in terms of pursuing a legal strategy, 2) that seeking to get the seized money returned is not a new idea, the PPA has done it before, 3) that the PPA seeking the return of the seized money involves more than only showing it came from a legitimate source but also involves a complex argument that the money seized was player money and not merely money owed to players, and, 4) that, whatever else, none of this litigation can occur until the criminal proceedings are completed, a process you describe as being "relatively quick." Mr. Kaplan of the Bet on Sports case was also held in custody (first in jail and then under house arrest), do you recall how long it took for his criminal proceedings to resolve themselves? Was that "relatively quick" ? I do expect this case to go quicker, but I also have already expressed my opinion that we are looking at a year at least, probably closer to two, before filing anything regarding the seized money will make any difference.

And then in the end you urge the strategy I outlined in my second post ITT and imply that that I only discovered it thanks to your "questions."

So I guess the only thing I can say is: thank you Master, have you any other "questions"? Perhaps it is time someone took the legal position that poker is a game of predominantly skill and therefore not legally gambling? If you ask me a "question" about that perhaps you will teach me how to do that too.

Skallagrim

Good, you have developed a sense of humor. Can you then lay off whining about every question of legal strategy and the PPA's possible opportunities as being a personal attack on you ?

As for your analogy to Gary Kaplan's criminal proceedings, I am surprised you would make the comparison, given the assets available to Mr. kaplan for his defense against a phone book sized indictment and the assets he stood to safeguard by fighting for a plea. Do you really think this defendant, and this crriminal case, is in the same ballpark ? That the PPA would not have an opportunity to step up and contest the legality of the seizures on behalf of affected players ..... if it wants to, of course ?

One last question, there were a number of individual players whose names appeared in the complant. Is the PPA's going to step up and help them, for the benefit of all poker players ?

The problem with waiting for the appropriate case to test the legality of online poker under federal and state law is that the DOJ does not seem willing to provide one. It prefers to nibble on the edges, intimidate and threaten but avoid setting up a legal showdown on the issue. I just can't see a good alternative to counter this guerilla campaign except by direct legal action in the form of Declaratory Judgment Action. So IMO, the PPA needs to do what is necessary to pursue this legal action. I hoped that the progress in Congress and/or President Obama would halt or slow this guerilla campaign by the DOJ, but instead it seems to be continuing.

TPCEO, FWIW it isn't just Skall who thinks your posts are designed specifically to rile Skall up and purposely ignore or misinterpret what he's said. Others in this thread had implied the same and it sure seems that way to me as well. I thought in the section you quoted that it was clear he didn't think this case would take nearly as long as Kaplan's did to make it to court. But he did say he didn't think it was imminent ("a year at least, probably two"). Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Isn't criminal law Skall's area of expertise? I think it's also been pretty clear that at that point if the DOJ seizes the money the PPA will give serious consideration to filing again, just as with the Account Services situation, but that they can't until the DOJ actually moves to seize the money.


What harm has been done to them that the PPA could step up with help for?

Here's a question for you. Have TruePoker's player withdrawls all gone off with no money ever being seized? If not why hasn't TruePoker litigated?

I never found a reply answering nova's good questions...the answers would help in understanding and judging the topic.

I'm no lawyer, but IMO he answered the question himself. Obviously every win is a positive and would cause momentum to be in our directions. Just like the cases that have already been heard at the local level have done. But a single definitive case that is going to in and of itself get the DOJ off our back isn't likely to happen. If it doesn't go all the way to SCOTUS they may choose to ignore it as they've done with the Wire Act case. And that's just at the federal level. The potential for a case in every state exists regardless of what happens nationally.

As I have said before, I really do not think it is helpful to publicly post a specific legal strategy for our side. Still, this is an important issue for us to discuss. For those known and respected posters in this forum, I will be happy to answer more specific questions in PMs.

Let me try and put MY thinking in poker terms: we (the PPA) have sat down at a poker table with a significant but still smallish stack. The big stacks are the Congress and the DOJ. Then there are the banks and the casino interests. Then there are a few others with stacks about our size.

Generally in this situation, it is not a +EV move to raise "all-in" pre-flop against the first or second chipleader, even when we are pretty confident we have the (slight) best of it. It is important to raise and fight back though, of course.

What is happening right now is a series of hands between very skilled players. A climatic hand between us and the DOJ will occur at some point (unless Congress felts the DOJ first with new legislation). We want to make moves that allow us to build our stack in anticipation of that showdown. And lets not forget that while we do that we are all still playing.

Of course, our enemy may make a move that requires a total response. the PPA viewed the Account Services case as such a move. When the DOJ bet big, we did re-raise "all-in." The DOJ didn't exactly fold, the best way to describe their move is as an "angle-shoot" that keeps the last card from being shown and thus the pot from being awarded.

At this point the analogy breaks down. Collusion is encouraged in law and politics, but illegal in poker.

Anyway, my basic point is this: we have not yet reached a point where we need to make a headlong all or nothing charge. Until things change, a few stings here and there are not enough to make us attack the hive prematurely; attacking our enemy before having set up the final contest as much as possible in our favor is precisely what the enemy wants to happen.

Skallagrim

That is the single-most scariest sentence I've read itt

I was wondering the same thing. Why not go ahead and initiate such an idea with your own means? You have a vested interest with your own site, and are (were? whatever) a lawyer...wouldn't your time be better served shooting this angle yourself rather than trying to tilt (somewhat effectively imo) Skallagrim, who is clearly not budging, on an internet forum?

Just saying I don't see how "PPA" and "Yatahay" couldn't be interchangable in this thought process...unless I'm missing something...

One last note, this entire thread could have run a much different course if posters would just step back for five seconds to think about what they've said before clicking submit. wtf is the point of condescension and retorts in the name of seeking viable online poker? ffs I hope you guys don't tilt like this at the tables.

.

Well if that's the case, then I just mean TPCEO should talk to whoever is actually in charge since he implies he's an insider but not top gun.

Answer: Hookers and Blow

So it is clear I think TE, Skall, and the PPA have done a great job and made great gains using the political tactics they have used. I agree with JP that if there isn't a change in political tactics then things have run their course.

For years now we have followed the suggestions and written and called legislators to express our opinions and those actions have gained some victories, but as JP points out they have been mostly reactive.

The PPA could try to utilize the efforts of the grassroots members to show up at poker friendly campaigns and be visible. Heck a few counter protests against the F rated would be fun as well.

This cycle perhaps more than any in recent memory is more volatile and hence more ripe for achieving recognition for action by committed groups.