Can someone explain how Full Tilt is still in business? Doyle?

[schilling38]

Aren't these pros taking quite a risk by continuing to advertise to US players with their likenesses - when it's clear that they are profiting from this?

Doyle, FT Pros, Pamela Anderson, whoever else? What kind of protection can they have against aiding and abetting if they're hiding behind some kind of barrier that a lawyer created?

I'm interested to see replies from people that know more about all of this than I do...

[Fhil Ivey]

don't you know? All the FT pros are collectively going to jail soon. It's a matter of time until they pack up their [censored] and run. Don't leave more than 10% of your roll there.

[Sniper]

Simple answer, some sites are willing to take the risk...

[Texibus]

I imagine they are just trying to keep their servers running for as long as legally possible. I've heard a lot of talk about a 270 day period for banks to gear up to stop these sort of transactions. Also, I think a lot of them are in the belief that poker is a game of skill and will get the excemption or is excempt.

I also know that the sites that are still primairly are POKER sites and not online casinos.

[LotteryOrPoker]

All of the statements from the sites staying open are about as reassuring as Dutch Boyd after PokerSpot started to collapse.

[BlufforNuts]

I am amazed that this site and the other famous forum still have links and ads. Oh and I am a lawyer. Its not clear cut. But US Attorneys can very aggressive and innovative when they want to attack an area.

I sure wouldn't be taking those chances. Sometimes I think people minimize how serious the potential criminal exposure can be.

One other example--all the emphasis on the New Orleans federal district court opinion holding that poker is a game of skill and therefore covered under the Wire Act. I haven't read the decision but I did read a summary of the facts. Debtors sued by their credit card company claimed that their poker wagers constituted illegal wagers and therefore they should not have pay charges incurred on their credit cards.

This reasoning sounds to me to be result oriented. Our conservative pro business federal courts are unlikely to side with individuals looking to escape their debts on such a technicality. To believe that this precedent will hold up in a different fact context--where the US government pursues a criminal prosecution of individuals on notice of this law and who flaunt the law, is much more of a gamble in my view than going all in with Ace Rag after two early position raisers.

Way too much smug confidence here. I don't mean to be the
bearer of bad news. But I do not think there is enough healthy respect about the power and resolve of the US government and its law enforcement arm when it pursues an agenda.

[LotteryOrPoker]

Calvin Ayre needs to have a chat with Manual Noriega about the resolve of the U.S. government.

[martindcx1e]

aren't the owners the only people who have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
aren't the owners the only people have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Andrew Fastow was only an employee at Enron, so he had nothing to worry about? Wait, if I sell drugs but I am a mid level employee in a cartel, does that mean I have nothing to worry about? Last question, are you retarded?

[JPFisher55]

Maybe lawyers like Professor Rose, Ms. Shuman and others who doubt the legality or enforceability of this law know something. Maybe all the doomsayers are not right.

[martindcx1e]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aren't the owners the only people have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Andrew Fastow was only an employee at Enron, so he had nothing to worry about? Wait, if I sell drugs but I am a mid level employee in a cartel, does that mean I have nothing to worry about? Last question, are you retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow wtf is your problem you idiot? i ask a simple question, and you're asking if i'm retarded? if one of the people from the support staff from stars comes over to america do they go to jail? i don't think so. i'm asking a serious question here.

[LotteryOrPoker]

Executives from a number of online sports books have come to the United States and gone to jail. Could their support staff end up in jail, probably if they are part of a conspiracy. Would the US government waste their time prosecuting them, who knows?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aren't the owners the only people have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Andrew Fastow was only an employee at Enron, so he had nothing to worry about? Wait, if I sell drugs but I am a mid level employee in a cartel, does that mean I have nothing to worry about? Last question, are you retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow wtf is your problem you idiot? i ask a simple question, and you're asking if i'm retarded? if one of the people from the support staff from stars comes over to america do they go to jail? i don't think so. i'm asking a serious question here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This question cannot be answered, until (if) the gov't starts prosecuting...

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
Executives from a number of online sports books have come to the United States and gone to jail. Could their support staff end up in jail, probably if they are part of a conspiracy. Would the US government waste their time prosecuting them, who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to tone it down bud. You're being a drama queen aren't you?

The "executives" that came to the US and were arrested were from one company, who was determined by the government to have Gambino crime family connections. This company is also known for being "thugs" and they set up a bus in Miami for people to come sign up for their site. A little too aggressive.

That's the only people to be arrested.

The Sportingbet (owners of Paradise poker, sportsbook.com, and many others) guy who was detained in NY was for a state charge in La. that carried a max fine of $500 and one year in jail. When La asked for him to be extradicted from NY, Gov. Pataki said no and released the executive back to the UK. Did the feds come in and try to arrest the Sportingbet exec? Nope, they weren't interested in him.

Just some facts for the drama queen. Not sure why you're wasting time on a pokersite when you're so convinced the poker world is coming to an end. If you're going to be an [censored], at least get your facts start.

Now who's retarded?

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aren't the owners the only people have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Andrew Fastow was only an employee at Enron, so he had nothing to worry about? Wait, if I sell drugs but I am a mid level employee in a cartel, does that mean I have nothing to worry about? Last question, are you retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even near the same thing. Andrew Faston was the main criminal in the enron case. trust me, I know, I worked for Arthur Andersen at the time.

I don't know if the DOJ would go after Doyle and others or not, but I can assure you the mailroom boy doesn't have anything to worry about.

The conclusions drawn by the above post are a little over dramatic, again.

[AndyH69]

Exactly right.

Bet On Sports had a dubious history, which is why David Carruthers was arrested. Although the Feds were, as MagCFO notes, ultimately after the Gambinos.

The Peter Dicks (of Sportingbet) episode was all a bit of a joke. Louisiana's extradition warrant was thrown out after being considered by Pataki and Spitzer, and Dicks was freed to go back to the UK.

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
Calvin Ayre needs to have a chat with Manual Noriega about the resolve of the U.S. government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again. Retarded, overdramatic. So we're going to basically invade other countries to stop online gambling huh? Why are you even on this site.

You clearly like to stir the post and watch the reaction you can get. You're a douche and I'll be blocking your terrible posts. Seriously, get a life.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Executives from a number of online sports books have come to the United States and gone to jail. Could their support staff end up in jail, probably if they are part of a conspiracy. Would the US government waste their time prosecuting them, who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to tone it down bud. You're being a drama queen aren't you?

The "executives" that came to the US and were arrested were from one company, who was determined by the government to have Gambino crime family connections. This company is also known for being "thugs" and they set up a bus in Miami for people to come sign up for their site. A little too aggressive.

That's the only people to be arrested.

The Sportingbet (owners of Paradise poker, sportsbook.com, and many others) guy who was detained in NY was for a state charge in La. that carried a max fine of $500 and one year in jail. When La asked for him to be extradicted from NY, Gov. Pataki said no and released the executive back to the UK. Did the feds come in and try to arrest the Sportingbet exec? Nope, they weren't interested in him.

Just some facts for the drama queen. Not sure why you're wasting time on a pokersite when you're so convinced the poker world is coming to an end. If you're going to be an [censored], at least get your facts start.

Now who's retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Detained, that is different than arrested? You may want to ask one of the attorneys in this forum, they will tell you differently.

What about Gold Medal Sports, Paradise Casino, Bestlinesports, Betcris, SafeDepositSports, BetWTTS, BetTheDuck and others. All online gambling sites (mostly sportsbooks), where the site operators have been arrested and indicted in the US. Get a clue before you call me out with erroneous info.

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Executives from a number of online sports books have come to the United States and gone to jail. Could their support staff end up in jail, probably if they are part of a conspiracy. Would the US government waste their time prosecuting them, who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to tone it down bud. You're being a drama queen aren't you?

The "executives" that came to the US and were arrested were from one company, who was determined by the government to have Gambino crime family connections. This company is also known for being "thugs" and they set up a bus in Miami for people to come sign up for their site. A little too aggressive.

That's the only people to be arrested.

The Sportingbet (owners of Paradise poker, sportsbook.com, and many others) guy who was detained in NY was for a state charge in La. that carried a max fine of $500 and one year in jail. When La asked for him to be extradicted from NY, Gov. Pataki said no and released the executive back to the UK. Did the feds come in and try to arrest the Sportingbet exec? Nope, they weren't interested in him.

Just some facts for the drama queen. Not sure why you're wasting time on a pokersite when you're so convinced the poker world is coming to an end. If you're going to be an [censored], at least get your facts start.

Now who's retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Detained, that is different than arrested? You may want to ask one of the attorneys in this forum, they will tell you differently.

What about Gold Medal Sports, Paradise Casino, Bestlinesports, Betcris, SafeDepositSports, BetWTTS, BetTheDuck and others. All online gambling sites (mostly sportsbooks), where the site operators have been arrested and indicted in the US. Get a clue before you call me out with erroneous info.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, detained, then released when the government did not let La get their man. Much different than being arrested.

There have been several arrests of online sportbooks execs over the last 10 years.

Again, you're just a little over dramatic.

[LotteryOrPoker]

Definition of arrest courtesy of the Delaware courts website:

"To take into custody by legal authority."

Do you even know why the definition of arrest is important? Because it changes your legal rights.

Another definition:

"This is when the police detain someone, telling them they are not free to leave until further notice. Often, an arrest will take place at the same time as a person is charged with an offence, but not necessarily."

BTW, in your previous post you said the people from BetOnSports were the only to have been arrested. At least you revised that in your last post. Now it is "several." lmao.

[ravenfan1733]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't these pros taking quite a risk by continuing to advertise to US players with their likenesses - when it's clear that they are profiting from this?

Doyle, FT Pros, Pamela Anderson, whoever else? What kind of protection can they have against aiding and abetting if they're hiding behind some kind of barrier that a lawyer created?

I'm interested to see replies from people that know more about all of this than I do...

[/ QUOTE ]


I do not understand why Full Tilt people would be worried. The recent legislation did not change any poker laws whatsover. If online poker was considered illegal before the legislation, it is still illegal. If online poker was not considered illegal before the legislation (and most experts say it was not considered illegal because Congress never amended the 1961 Wire Act to say so), it is still not considered illegal.

This legislation only affects the mechanism of funding gaming web sites and specifically addresses banks. Since Full Tilt (and other poker sites) do not interface directly with banks, they will be fine. Neteller is basically an online bank, is not based in the US, and the feds will have no ability to enforce anything.

Who knows how it will all turn out but that's my take on this and I'm not alone.

[LotteryOrPoker]

That is your take on it, here is the Justice Departments:

"Online poker is online gambling. And online gambling, we would say, is illegal," Justice Department spokeswoman Jaclyn Lesch said.

[primetime32]

The new law has done nothing to increase or decrease the criminality of online poker. at the worst it makes it harder to deposit and may effect peoples attempts to gain access to their accounts.

Everyone that posts things like "shouldn't these pro's be worried" are either ill informed or morons. I would guess the latter. I am sure millionaires like ivey and doyle aren't going to risk jail time for some added revenue. THey have sought legal counsel and determined nothing has changed.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The new law has done nothing to increase or decrease the criminality of online poker. at the worst it makes it harder to deposit and may effect peoples attempts to gain access to their accounts.

Everyone that posts things like "shouldn't these pro's be worried" are either ill informed or morons. I would guess the latter. I am sure millionaires like ivey and doyle aren't going to risk jail time for some added revenue. THey have sought legal counsel and determined nothing has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they like to gamble (pun intended).

[UF_Gators]

[ QUOTE ]
That is your take on it, here is the Justice Departments:

"Online poker is online gambling. And online gambling, we would say, is illegal," Justice Department spokeswoman Jaclyn Lesch said.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have said that for a long time, but have not enforced the law. The real question is if the Facist Party did this as a political stunt to get the conservative vote this year or if they really intend to go after online gambling. Since the law doesn't directly address gambling as a crime (left to the states and the unenforced wire act), I think it's more politics than policy. It does leave some at risk, but poker is their livlihood. They are not going to quit and go back to bartending over a new law that doesn't change what they have always been doing and the possibility that a 1961 might finally be enforced. Even if they did enforce it, they would probably come after one high profile person to make an example of and not the entire professional poker community. And there is a good chance the defendant could prevail. I think the EV is way positive on this one and they are right to continue.

[lfairban]

[ QUOTE ]
One other example--all the emphasis on the New Orleans federal district court opinion holding that poker is a game of skill and therefore covered under the Wire Act. I haven't read the decision but I did read a summary of the facts. Debtors sued by their credit card company claimed that their poker wagers constituted illegal wagers and therefore they should not have pay charges incurred on their credit cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you refering to the decision cited in this article, about half way down, in the section titled, "Online Poker Is Not Illegal"?

Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3272)

"Judge Duvall ruled that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on sports events and he dismissed all 33 cases, . . . "

[GoSox]

[ QUOTE ]
Definition of arrest courtesy of the Delaware courts website:

"To take into custody by legal authority."


Do you even know why the definition of arrest is important? Because it changes your legal rights.

Another definition:

"This is when the police detain someone, telling them they are not free to leave until further notice. Often, an arrest will take place at the same time as a person is charged with an offence, but not necessarily."

BTW, in your previous post you said the people from BetOnSports were the only to have been arrested. At least you revised that in your last post. Now it is "several." lmao.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow Lottery you are a dck.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Andrew Faston was the main criminal in the enron case. trust me, I know, I worked for Arthur Andersen at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting, since you don't even know the guy's last name.

[Lawman007]

Full Tilt recently relocated their United States operations from the United States to Ireland. If you think that's just a coincidence, then you probably also think that the government won't enforce the new law. LOL

[crzylgs]

LotteryOrPoker and Lawman007 should get their own private forum where they can post about how [censored] everybody is. And they should be banned from this one.

[mhcmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
That is your take on it, here is the Justice Departments:

"Online poker is online gambling. And online gambling, we would say, is illegal," Justice Department spokeswoman Jaclyn Lesch said.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DOJ doesn't write code. Their opinion is just that. If they thought they had a case in respect to on-line poker they would have brought charges long ago.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Full Tilt recently relocated their United States operations from the United States to Ireland. If you think that's just a coincidence, then you probably also think that the government won't enforce the new law. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't that Crypto that relocated to Ireland? Or did FT bolt across the pond as well?

Either way, no, it ain't no coincidence.

[invisibleleadsoup]

are lottery and lawman the same person?
surely there couldn't be two people this lame on the same forum

[eastbay]

It is no guarantee of anything, but I think the Feds are aware that there might be a public outcry and backlash if they arrested a bunch of popular pros that millions of people know from TV. It seems unlikely they are going to round all these guys up soon.

eastbay

[thetruest]

[ QUOTE ]
It is no guarantee of anything, but I think the Feds are aware that there might be a public outcry and backlash if they arrested a bunch of popular pros that millions of people know from TV. It seems unlikely they are going to round all these guys up soon.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

this especially pertains to Doyle, who is somewhat of an American icon.

I really wish they would go after him in fact, and I think he even wants that to happen to. It would utterly seal our victory.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amazed that this site and the other famous forum still have links and ads. Oh and I am a lawyer. Its not clear cut. But US Attorneys can very aggressive and innovative when they want to attack an area.

I sure wouldn't be taking those chances. Sometimes I think people minimize how serious the potential criminal exposure can be.

One other example--all the emphasis on the New Orleans federal district court opinion holding that poker is a game of skill and therefore covered under the Wire Act. I haven't read the decision but I did read a summary of the facts. Debtors sued by their credit card company claimed that their poker wagers constituted illegal wagers and therefore they should not have pay charges incurred on their credit cards.

This reasoning sounds to me to be result oriented. Our conservative pro business federal courts are unlikely to side with individuals looking to escape their debts on such a technicality. To believe that this precedent will hold up in a different fact context--where the US government pursues a criminal prosecution of individuals on notice of this law and who flaunt the law, is much more of a gamble in my view than going all in with Ace Rag after two early position raisers.

Way too much smug confidence here. I don't mean to be the
bearer of bad news. But I do not think there is enough healthy respect about the power and resolve of the US government and its law enforcement arm when it pursues an agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it also true that when indictments come down, and people from the sites try to prove poker is a game of skill that it won't matter? Even if they prove it, they will have violated the law BEFORE it was proven, and thus, still be in trouble regardless of whether poker is proven as a skill or not?

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[mackem]

[ QUOTE ]
The new law has done nothing to increase or decrease the criminality of online poker. at the worst it makes it harder to deposit and may effect peoples attempts to gain access to their accounts.

Everyone that posts things like "shouldn't these pro's be worried" are either ill informed or morons. I would guess the latter. I am sure millionaires like ivey and doyle aren't going to risk jail time for some added revenue. THey have sought legal counsel and determined nothing has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing has changed why did the biggest poker site kneejerk and kill 80% of their profits overnight?

[Canard]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it also true that when indictments come down, and people from the sites try to prove poker is a game of skill that it won't matter? Even if they prove it, they will have violated the law BEFORE it was proven, and thus, still be in trouble

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, what? That is the function of a trial, to establish whether an offence has been committed or not. If I kill someone and the trial establishes that I acted in self-defence, they ain't going to lock me up on the basis that I acted before it had been established that I was acting in self-defence!