+1.

$0.99 -- you can't go wrong.

iTunes (USA store)

iTunes (CA store)

I enjoy listening to your show a lot but stopped because I got fed up with the weekly 10 minute whine about UB/AP (Cereus), we all know they are shady and you play their at your own risk.............now can we move on.

Yep, sorry gang. DOJ seized the video - they said it was proof bots were operating on FTP yuk yuk yuk. But srsly, the video's going to be something pretty special so we're trying to make sure we get it right. I'll post here (and everywhere) when it's up.

Had a really big laugh when I think it was Joe Tall said "In Australia they speak good English" That is one of the stupidest comments I have heard ever on the podcast. I don't know how History or Geography classes are taught in North America but one of the first things we are taught as children is what languages are spoken in different parts of the world.

So we should have just ignored the fact that Absolute's refusal to work with the DOj toward cashing out their US players was possibly the biggest story of the week, based solely on the fact that some of our listeners already know they are shady?

Not at all it's certainly relevant. My comment was a general observation after listening to a number of shows, not the last one in particular.

That's fine, but you specifically said this week. If you've listened we've been ignoring much of what goes on there for a while. This week it was kind of a story.

Mike,

I think you've made an unfair assessment of my blog, and I want to take the time to reply. Let me state right away that I have a lot of respect for you and Adam and highly enjoy your show, especially having been a guest in the past. That is why I took your comments so closely to heart.

Why are they very dangerous? Because in the online poker world we live in a media environment where people are often hesitant to speak poorly of the sites? What am I, a lowly blogger, going to affect that is so dangerous?

If I, or any part of the mainstream media, need to wait for alleged crimes to play their way out in a courtroom before passing judgment or analyzing corporate actions, then plenty of other people need scorn. Would you have made the same criticisms of those deriding Bernie Madoff? Ken Lay? The group at Lehman Brothers? Of course not, because after the indictments dropped on them, the evidence made them appear patently guilty. That is also the case here.

Was there a greater than 0 chance that they were not-guilty? Yes. Was it high? Absolutely not. Do we, as the public, need to be silent because of that non-zero chance? I sure hope not, or we'll all be sitting on our hands for a while.

To answer this point, I honestly wonder if you read the indictment. The indictment generally sums up some crimes, but also points to specific evidence attributed to each site. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.

It's also worth saying, as a side-note, that in order for the burden of a criminal conspiracy to be met, conspirators don't even need to know of the existence or identities of other partner conspirators. This can differ jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I assume is the case here.

However, here, in most cases they did know of each other. Because the indictment lumps them all together and says "the conspirators/defendants did this" does not mean one or the other may be exempted. It means exactly what the government is alleging: that they all did it.

I don't casually ignore those facts. Instead, I actually address your criticisms in your post and write out why I am able to be so bold.

I don't think they were working together every step of the way, but the indictment does allege some collusion. However, the collusion is a small part of the greater crimes. Whether they were working together or not, the facts are that they did bad things.

For this logic to hold, you must believe the DOJ blindly threw darts at a dartboard and just randomly indicted any company which COULD have committed the acts, rather than indicting the companies which the evidence suggested actually DID do it.

The DOJ does not lightly indict. They did not casually pick Stars, FTP, and UB/AP. They picked all 3 because they had strong evidence of all 3 committing these crimes.

Also, to say there aren't specific allegations or there is "such little information" is incorrect. I am currently reading a FIFTY-TWO page indictment while writing this post FULL of evidence of each site specifically doing things. (See: http://www.fox5vegas.com/download/20...5/27562410.pdf)

I have picked an example from PokerStars since, for whatever reason, you seem to be defending (defending is perhaps not the right word, but advocating on the behalf of) them more heavily than any other site.

From the indictment:

For example, in or around February 2009, two gamblers ("Gambler 1" and "Gambler 2") made e-check payments to Pokerstars and received e-mails immediately thereafter from Pokerstars that "oneshopcnter" and "mygolflocations," respectivly, would appear as the party initiating the charge on their respective bank statements.

From the next paragraph:

...Gambler 1 and Gambler 2 sent e-mails to purported customer service addresses listed by oneshopcenter.com and mygolflocation.com regarding attempts to purchase particular items. Gambler 1 and Gambler 2 recived responses not from those websites, but from individuals identifying themselves as customer service employees of Pokerstars replying from e-mail addresses associated with Pokerstars. (Page 16-17)

The indictment goes on to produce a POKERSTARS DOCUMENT expressing difficulty tracking all the phony merchants they are created. (Page 17).

Then the indictment states: To address the issue, PokerStars modified its software so, where possible, a consistent phony descriptor would appear n the bank statements of a given U.S. customer. (Page 17)

As you can see, Mike, this is patently false.

Furthermore, the evidence is overwhelming. Either the DOJ fabricated it or it's real. Your choice. I'm gunna go with the DOJ on this one.

Additionally, the DOJ had a conviction rate of near 95% in 2009 (and this rate holds for most years). In 2009, 94.1% of the DOJ's cases (all districts) ended in a conviction. (Source: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=7593302) I have heard figures citing SDNY's conviction rate on financial fraud cases is near 98%, but I don't have authority to site for that beyond this (and it's unclear what sort of financial fraud they mean): http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/fea...ious-fraud-uk/.

And here, on top of that, we have overwhelming evidence. Some of which we all PERSONALLY know is true. The definition of the crimes is pretty damn clear. Bribery, money laundering and bank fraud are wrong. Lying to banks is wrong. And the indictment goes to painful lengths not only covering the core case of each crime, but also pointing to SPECIFIC evidence for EACH site.

So either I can sit here and rest on the <5% chance they beat this, or I can speak out on the 95+% chance that they are convicted. The odds are actually quite a bit higher considering the weight of the indictment and the other context clues provided (they are likely to take a plea deal, for example). Looking at past and present similar cases also lends support for the DOJ's position (see: PartyGaming). Finally, we, as players, simply have seen some of this evidence ourselves in the past few months.

As for your comment that I alleged every single thing in the indictment was true and they were guilty of it, I never did such a thing. In fact, I've quite adamantly stated that it's a shame we won't get to test the UIGEA in court (seeing if it applies or not to poker play) as this case will likely result in a plea deal.

I hope you don't take offense to this post, but I simply must respond to allegations that I was being "dangerous" or irresponsible with my blog posts. There is lots of evidence that I am not.

I use the term "alleged" in this post a lot, because that's just the term of art. But if we, as the general public, may not condemn people who have very clearly done wrong or discuss the gravity of their actions, then we must sit on our hands while a lenghty court case plays out.

During that time player funds will be locked up (FTP and UP/AB, but all Stars payments haven't cleared yet, obviously) and people overseas and in the international audience will be depositing in those companies. Should those people have to wait for a trial to conclude before they get the information that they need, especially when the odds (as gamblers, we should understand this) are so high (and in my opinion 99.9%) that they are dealing with companies who did severe criminal wrongs in the US system?

how sick is this. just chased down seiborg in the Aus Itunes.

$1.69 AUD. not on my reckoning if its USD0.99c then it should be after exchange rate adjustment more like 0.91c AUD.

now i know its only a few cents and sure i can afford it and i will probably pay for it like always but its the damn principle of the matter.

if itunes US was open to Aussies what do you think would happen....price fixing it is. (plus our GST is less than US sales tax in the most part.).

anyway great show guys again.

Cheers

I'm fairly sure that was sarcasm. If not.........

I was asked in an interview recently "Why would Canadians be asked to help people with English in Korea?". The guy was being dead serious and I was so offended that I swore at him and cursed his mother!! Actually it was SteveD interviewing me and I laughed my ass off. I didn't get the job, but they are in good hands with guys like him in control.

Really? Are you sure that this is a fact? it might be a conclusion based on other facts but i dont think this is a fact.

just saying.

I appreciate the time you have put into this topic and respect your passion for the subject matter. As a non-American and my first time covering a story involving the DOJ, I guess perhaps I'm approaching it from a more skeptical viewpoint surrounding the altruistic nature of the DOJ's motives. Perhaps I am still really stuck on whether the DOJ's true M.O is always to vigorously prosecute relatively victimless banking crimes. There are definitely a few other theories.(financial gain, political aspirations, fame etc.)

Keep up the good work and great to see so many people enjoying and reading your new blog.

a little off topic but the use of the word "indictment"-- When I was a pipsqueek larval doctor and saw that "indictment" of a felony was one of the things that could get you kicked off a hospital staff or thrown out of a residency program or something else bad. I got all self-righteous with the "innocent til proven guilty" line. In fact I think some of our insu'urance contracts we successfully substituted the word "convicted" for "indicted."

The sad truth is, that a grand jury who issues an indictment might as well be Sly Stallone speeding on a motorbike yelling "I AM THE LAW!" because bascially, if you get indicted by a federal grand jury, you should start getting your papers in order, studying what you can on the sociology of the prison system. And working out a couple times a day wouldn't hurt. Sometimes your drawing thin, most of the time the decks stacked so your outs are already in the muck.

oh yeah, SFD Grandma-- HU4RLLZ!!!! lets go!!!

That was my 'giggity' and it went totally undetected by both Adam and MJ

Ninja giggity ftw

Is it confirmed that iTunes cater to the US still?

Anyway we can get this on Amazonmp3.com, 7digital.com, etc? I don't have an iTunes account and don't plan on signing up for one to buy one song. I'm really anxious to hear it.

+1

It's also available (or will be soon) on Spotify, Rhapsody, Zune, Nokia, Napster, and Thumbplay. I'm not sure how long it takes for it to show up their respective libraries, but we've sent it to them.

Sheesh, calm down. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Joe Tall knew that Australia is an English speaking country. He also listed the UK and Ireland among countries who "speak English well and play poker" along with non native English speaking Germany and Scandanavia. He even sounds like he added "well" as an afterthought to include the subscribers who come from countries where English is not the native language.

I'm just hoping I can someday learn Latin and travel to Latin America.

I just wanted to add one note to Karak's excellent post. In order for the DOJ to issue these indictments, it had to convince a federal grand jury that there was sufficient evidence to charge the defendants with the crimes in the indictments.

While the federal grand jury standard isn't the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that is required for a conviction or acquittal, the federal grand jury standard is akin to "probable cause" when it comes to issuing indictments.

A federal grand jury is selected from the general juror pool, which is comprised of residents of the Southern District of New York (Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester Counties).

Therefore, to some extent, the view of the "general public" (if you assume that the jury selection process results in a proper cross-section of the public) is that there is probable cause for the indictments.

Based on the folks I've seen in the courthouse when I show up for jury duty, if that is the general public not only are poker players f'd, but teh U.S. might well be too

LOL!

FWIW, I served on a jury (not a federal grand jury) in a state court case in New York City (same general juror pool as SDNY).

The general view is that there tend to be a higher percentage of retirees and unemployed actors in the NYC jury pool because many people who have day jobs try to find a way to postpone / completely get out of jury duty.

My jury panel did appear to be somewhat of a valid cross-section: 4 were late 20s/early 30s, 4 were late 30s/early 40s, 4 were obvious retirees. The racial mix seemed to be okay (3 Asian-American, 2 African-American, 1 Middle Eastern-American, I don't recall any Latinos, remainder Caucasian). The socio-economic mix, however, seemed to be skewed toward retiree or lower/middle class, with the exception that two attorneys from major law firms were on the jury panel.

Despite the fact that people HATE jury duty, I found it to be a fascinating look at the justice system at work and took some element of pride in performing my civic duty.

Maybe we need to get a bunch of out-of-work online poker players to start volunteering for jury duty in the SDNY if the case appears to be going to trial . . .

Jury question. How did these indictments make it all the way through the grand jury process without anyone catching wind that this was coming down the pipe. How was it such a blindside if they had to go through a jury process first. Is it really possible to do all of that secretly without media, the defendents or the general public getting even a sniff of what was on the horizon.