TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players - Page 6

TruePoker CEO · #51 10-02-2006, 01:10 PM

There is nothing in the Act to restrict cashouts, period.

If some ewallet service decides to cut off ANY US transactions, in OR out, we have other ways to get you the money for a cashout .... altho, it likely would not be a instant as we all have enjoyed in the past.

We cannot know what Neteller or Firepay is planning to do yet ... We have asked.

westmt01 · #52 10-02-2006, 01:18 PM

Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.

Hey, more power to you, but I don't think Congress or the DOJ are willing to screw around with this. I know a guy who swears paying income tax is not mandatory (he can site statute after statute), so he doesn't do it. When the IRS catches up with him, they're not going to care about his agrument, they're going to come down on him hard. I think this issue is the same: you might be completely right, but the gov't is going to intrepret things the way they want to, and the consequences will be handed out accordingly.

I support your position but I hope you have some heavy-duty legal power to back you up. I also wouldn't be changing planes in any U.S. airports in the near future.

suzzer99 · #53 10-02-2006, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but clearly one angle of attack for the poker sites is to take the stance that poker is not covered under this act, then let the US courts figure *that* issue out. It's a shot. I really hope PS has the balls to sign on to the fight.

Kneel B4 Zod · #54 10-02-2006, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but clearly one angle of attack for the poker sites is to take the stance that poker is not covered under this act, then let the US courts figure *that* issue out. It's a shot. I really hope PS has the balls to sign on to the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, if Party thought this was a reasonable argument, then why wouldn't they just shut down the 12% of their business that is non-poker?

pokerraja · #55 10-02-2006, 01:25 PM

Thank you sir. I have played almost exclusively at PartyPoker over the last 4 years, full-time. This is the best news I have heard all weekend. I will download TruPoker tonight and make a deposit.

TruePoker CEO · #56 10-02-2006, 01:25 PM

"This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.'

This "pure nonsense" as you put it comes from the definition of "bet or wager" under this Act.

A purely poker site does neither, as it has no stake in the outcome of the games and risks no money in the pot. Since we do neither "betting or wagering", how can you assume us to be in the "business of betting or wagering'? We are not a sportsbook or casino.

There is an argument that if it is illegal for a player to bet or wager under State law, then a State law might reach bring us under the Act somehow as to new deposits. We will look at those issues of course.

TruePoker CEO · #57 10-02-2006, 01:32 PM

... I wish everyone would stop saying that.

We are not going to be breaking any laws.

Additionally, even if we were somehow covered by Section 5362, we just do not see how taking a US player deposit would break any law under any poker business model, provided the player is not banned from playing by State law.

I do not want to be the tallest weed in the garden, but the law is the law and nothing more than it says .... assuming it gets signed before a pocket veto takes effect LOL.

TruePoker CEO · #58 10-02-2006, 01:40 PM

I agree about PStars, but they have not come out with an answer definitely as to where they stand.

TruePoker CEO · #59 10-02-2006, 01:44 PM

Thanks.

Phil153 · #60 10-02-2006, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.'

This "pure nonsense" as you put it comes from the definition of "bet or wager" under this Act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does the word "facilitate" mean anything to you? I don't mean to be rude (why do people think this gives them the leeway to then be rude? -P), but your interpretation of the legislation is shockingly wrong.

Why do you think Party Poker, a multi billion dollar company, took swift action to block US players from their site, cutting of 75% of their revenue stream and losing a billion in market value? They could just as easily disable access to casino games for US players and just offer poker, and then be in the same legal position as you claim to be. The simple fact is, your interpretation of this legislation is whack. Do you even have a lawyer on your staff?

edited to remove some extemporaneous attacks that really weren't necessary. -P