no actually that isnt how he's acting!

i mean it depends on what he charges per hour obv

some absurd posts itt but not surprised that he's a mountain bum.

I don't feel like debating the merits of making a list public if it actually only contained dangerous sex offenders but releasing the actual lists(that don't differentiate between the offences) is horrible.

pageh on fiiiiiiiiiiiiiire

it's a big debate about making them public that we probably don't want to go into here, but one (semi funny) reason not to - there was a (genuine) case in England a couple years back where an alleged paedophile had grafitti painted on their house and threatening phone calls etc.

The guy was actually a pediatrician

It is a private leauge with rules and such he is a convicted 2 time child molester....why are we having a hard time not giving this guy a break?? I guess loads of you don't have children this guy is a sicko and I hope the noose of life never comes off and this POS dies lonely and in pain.

So many archaic and stereotypical responses itt. Time to grow up people. Wishing death on people you don't even know is sooooooooooooo mature.

yeah I was tempted to refer to that in the NVG thread where people are really spazzing out on the OMG PEDOFILE!!!1! line but it's kind of irrelevant tbh, the guy could be Hitler's right hand man and it would still be ethically wrong to boot him and not pay him his $20k.

fwiw I have a 4yo daughter and I don't believe there should be a need for a "public list" of individuals who are a known threat to children because these people should be in ****ing prison until such a time that they're not a threat any more. But it's irrelevant to the point here, pay the scumbag his money.

Here is perhaps a slightly different take....just for the sake of discusssion:

At some point during the super, someone at Epic discovered the conviction, and, faced with the recent chino nonsense, Epic was faced with the possibility of a result which would be a nightmare....if Devita made the FT of the main etc.

So they hoped that he would just bust out and go away, but when he won the seat, there was just no way they would risk him making the final table, so they were certainly willing to risk whatever fallout would come from sort of not adhering to their rules if they didn't let him play, so they decided to not let him play the main.

So the choice was between letting him keep the 20k and walking away, or keeping the 20k in what was bound to be a reduced prizepool already, letting Kaplan play in his place. They probably felt that Devita would never ever make a big deal about it as he would be so embarrassed about his past, it getting out etc, that he could be very easily bullied, which turned out to be correct.

I guess this take isn't too different , but try to look at it as just a business decision....is it better for them to let the guy have the 20k, or is it better to bully him out of it, knowing it would work, let another guy play, keep the prizepool higher with nothing more out of their pocket, for the small risk that a reggistered sex offender would garner enough support or want to fight it enough to be a big problem. Is it possible that part if their deal with the broadcasters involve a minimum number of players?

It is almost like the concept of efficient breah in contracts, where it is simply the better choice form an economic perspective to breach a contract rather than adhere to it. Not exactly, but sometimes it is simply the better business decision to risk some small PR fallout to protect against a larger one. This, plus the desire to keep the prizepool as high as possible, contributed to Epic's decision.

Do I agree with what Epic did....no. Do I understand why that made the decision? Absoultely.

this is how i know you're an idiot

They could have given him the $20K and not given Xaston a seat, sheets. That would have been same economics and they would have done the right thing.

AFAIK he was convicted once, for a 1991 crime. One of the charges related to a victim under 18. Do you know the age of the victim, or what specifically he did that led to his conviction? I can't find that info.

All I can find is what's under the Offenses tab at this site, namely:

220 ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SPECIFIED SEX OFFENSE
647.6 ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
243.4(a) SEXUAL BATTERY
243.4(d) SEXUAL BATTERY INVOLVING A RESTRAINED PERSON
243.4 SEXUAL BATTERY

As best I can tell -- but I'm not certain -- these were all charges stemming from the one 1991 event, not separate crimes over a period of time. It's quite plausible to me (I'm not an attorney) that charges of molestation, assault, and sexual battery would result from a single act. The current text of the cited statutes can be found by Googling "California Penal Code 220" or similarly with the other numbers.

The 2nd time, in '08 (I think) they couldn't convict because the victim wouldn't testify.

If I'm missing something it wouldn't be the first time, but... how else is anyone looking at EPL's decision and actions?

Well they guessed wrong on the backlash, people are already waiting for another reason to clown this epic failure and the thief running it and they gave us that reason x1000. I hope the third event goes off that much worse then the second.

Ok, I understand the choice of not wanting him to play because they are trying to filter out controversial participants, which is completely ******ed in the poker community, but I don't understand not paying him the 20K. Total reverse freeroll, totally unacceptable. They should have sucked it up, paid him 20 K and asked him to leave, the entire situation would have evaporated, but instead, they used it as an excuse to squeeze 18.5 K out of the guy because they thought he wouldn't put up a fight. That's how cheap the Epic Poker League is...

Put the 18.5K in perspective for a moment.... There is a 400K overlay in the Main Event... A 400K overlay and they want to screw someone out of 18.5K?? They obviously have the money or the event wouldn't even happen or they would reduce the guarantee.... Just money hungry grease ball millionaires looking to angle shoot someone who never broke any of the EPL's rules out of 18.5K..

If this was a business decision it was a terrible one, the PR fallout has far surpassed the 18.5K retained by screwing the guy over and the implications of the decision and the logic and process by which it was made may have many potential players thinking twice about being associated with the EPL at all...

Right. And is the implication that therefore's he's guilty? How about this scenario: some parent in the neighborhood becomes aware of DiVita's prior conviction, or more generally that he's a Registered Sex Offender. Said parent has a beef with DiVita, maybe a business complaint. DiVita and the parent's kid have some kind of interaction which involves no crime but which sets the parent off on an accusatory rant. The alleged victim, however, refuses to lie.

I am making this up, of course; does anyone have actual facts about the 2008 charge? But when I observe how much ignorant hysteria surrounds even a hint of adult sexual interaction with children (some of whom are 17 years old), my instincts lead me to be cautious in accepting the surface picture. I am skeptical of a lot of convictions -- in all areas, not just sex crimes -- not to mention accusations which are followed by dismissal of charges. (For one example supporting my skepticism, read Mike Matusow's book.)

But to get more on track... as best I can tell at this writing EPL decided to go along with the ignorant hysteria and (threatened to) bar DiVita for a crime committed 20 years ago, while permitting other convicted felons (some of whom I'm comfortably friendly with) to play as League Members; and further EPL deprived him without sufficient cause, in my view, of $18,500 in value that he won in the Pro-Am.

That would have reduced the main event field size and prize pool, which I guess was a significant factor in the decision. Meanwhile, nitpick: they gave DiVita $1,500, so your hypothetical is $1,500 different from what they did do.

Yeah thats the idea....I really think that there is real pressure to get the field size as big as possible, which is why they really did not want that 20k being taken out of it....at least that is a theory.

I really like the way you think Steve Brecher. Skepticism ftw. I am always curious why it seems like the majority of people love to jump to conclusions. How dreadfully boring.

My bad, I certainly should have stuck an alleged in my statement. I assumed you actually didn't realize what people were talking about. I didn't mean to imply guilt.

Meh, I was going to comment on what your implications were with the 17yo comment but whatever. IMO, there's likely more 17-22 year olds that aren't mature enough and have been taken advantage of by older men (say 25-30+ years old) then the other way around. I'm sure there's some older women preying on some horny boys, too. I agree that way too many people assume every instance of a relationship where the participants have a big age difference means someone is getting taken advantage of. lol, I guess that turned into a bigger comment then I intended and the first line of this paragraph is moot!

As far as your last paragraph, I think the tone is a bit off. Sheets nailed it, they probably didn't "go along with the ignorant hysteria", they likely made a decision they felt minimized negative publicity. That definitely doesn't mean we should just accept an unfair decision.

Because they Sheeps....

Hello Poker people...
I can't believe the number of e-mails and messages that I have received from all over the world regarding this "Epic" mess that I now find myself in.
I thank all (well most) of you for your support. The number of calls that I’ve received from people like yourselves, along with several professional Poker players and Celebrities that I’ve play with in various Charity Poker events is pretty overwhelming. Several of them have advised me on the legal issues and my right to take legal action, but I’m not going to take any immediate action against EPIC Poker or against Federated. I have discussed these matters with an attorney for EPIC (Stephen Martin of Los Angeles), and I’m sure that they will 'eventually' (with continued pressure from all of you) do the right thing.

For right now, I’d like all of the Poker players, and all of the Poker fans out there, to continue to support Federated and the EPIC Poker League. Although I do not agree with their recent decision regarding my situation, anger and bitterness towards them will only bring things to a level of immaturity that is best left behind, as it would serve no useful purpose to anyone.

Most of you have been very kind and supportive, while a very few chosen to vent a little anger towards me and my past. No problem. This is America, and we all have a right to our opinions.

I want to thank most of you for your kind words. Still, many of you have questions regarding the circumstances surrounding my 1991 conviction, and frankly, I have no problem answering those questions, or any other questions that you may have about me, my conviction, my rehabilitation, my Poker career, the charities that I support, or anything else that you have on your mind.

I have therefore set up a special telephone number to receive all of your calls. By calling this number, you may leave your comments, suggestions, ideas, or anything else that you would like to say. Yes, you may even vent your anger if you feel that it would make you feel better. If you would like me to respond to you personally, you may even leave your name and telephone number, or simply an e-mail address. I promise to respond to everyone, in the order that I receive their messages.

Again, I'd like to thank the Poker world for their support, and I am looking forward to communicating with each of you personally.

Finally, to the remaining players of the current EPIC Poker League Main Event, I wish you all the best of luck, and with a little luck of my own, I'll see you at the next Final Table.

God bless, all…


Michael J. DiVita
Post Office Box 1492
Banning, California 92220
(951) 207-1100 (24 Hour Message Line)

hey michael i think alot of ppl in this thread wanna know if ur a legit pedo or if u just peed in a park one night when u were drunk, otherwise gl getting ur $20k refunded.