[aeest400]

Mr. Treesong's analysis of the situation is not "vastly different." First, he only references one post I made, where I was thin on legal argument and long on bluster (he was correct about this, but it's a post on an internet poker forum, not an appellate brief).

Second, his analysis shows that he does not understand the overriding point of the post, which is Party's vulnerability if personal jurisdiction is found (regardless of the underlying merits).

Third, he states that both JJ and Zee are underage, and this it the principle reason he advances for why he thinks Party would have a good case. Zee is 20 and JJ is 16--and I believe that Party requires players to be 18. So, while Zee may be underage to play legally in California, he is old enough to play according to Party. This fact is not in Party's favor. Also, while JJ is 16, Party apparently does not make it difficult for him (or other minors) to play. Who gets into more trouble when a minor buys alcohol, the minor or the proprietor that sells it to him? Hmmm.

His second "argument" is that he'd "be comfortable defending either site on the merits." So would I. But who has more to lose in the case, they guy who has already had everything confiscated or the public company doing the confiscation without any hearing and without adequate notice of the consequences? Hmm.

His final arguments is that "equity abhors" a pig. This is true. However, who the pig is depends on the facts (of which Mr. Treesong admits he has very little knowledge). If I were party's lawyer and wanted to use equitable arguments on its behalf, I'd bring a lot of lipstick to court.

Mr. Treesong's post has an underlying snide tone re "plaintiffs lawyers." I recognize the tone because my legal career had been spent defending large corporations against plaintiff's lawyers and "patent trolls." Thus, I know from where he speaks, and his factual premise is mistaken there as well.

Additionally, Mr. Treesong actually concedes a lot when he says "he may be right there", etc. In lawyer's jargon, this means there is an acceptable argument you could make to a court and that would stand up on appeal.

The particular post to which he responded contained fairly insubstantial legal analysis and was rather "off the cuff." Knowing this, in subsequent posts I discussed various issues in greater detail and in a more moderate tone. I'd be interested to hear Mr. Treesong's thoughts on the points I make in those posts.