ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs - Page 245

lapoker17 · #**2441** 02-27-2006, 06:57 PM

diablo - i think stars rules!

your tourney superstar friend,
lapoker17

jman220 · #**2442** 02-27-2006, 07:02 PM

aeest400 · #**2443** 02-27-2006, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
aeest400,

I appreciate you taking the time respond to all of my argument. I am no lawyer, and it seems that you have followed Party's business (re: advertising funds siezed) more closely than I have. However, I still would ask these questions:

It doesn't matter what our opinion is of the merit of the contract and if it is worth the paper it is printed on. Does it break any of the laws of Gibraltar? Yes. Gibralter follows English common law, and English contract law is very similar to American contract law. The "contract" stinks under both systems. Party has no assets in the US that can be seized, what penalty can be extracted from them? It has tons of assets, just not cars and buildings Suppose we could hold the threat (as I think is implied in your post) that the US could solidify its laws and forbid all online gambling. Effectively, yes. But Party could just do what it does in India--block access to itself to avoid legal conflicts. That would appear to be the only thing the US can hold over their heads. Oh great, what a great solution. Yeah, it is a tough situation--right now the best apprach seems to try to be a "good guy" like Stars. I noticed Party just got its new casino up and running--its video poker payouts were lower than the "standard." I guess they need money. So now someone who has been a victim of these cheaters, is no longer going to be able to play poker online because these online casinos go after the cheats? Yes, it puts sites in the awkward position of having to use good judgment to manage unforeseen situations. If everyone had "good judgment" we wouldn't need all these damn laws and regulations (say the libertarians). Do you trust Party's judgment? Victimized again. Dang.

You bring up someone who cheats and wins $5 and should he lose $100k honestly gained. I could attack the ridiculousness of the extreme of your example because that isn't what is going on in these examples. Sometimes a reductio ad absurdum is helpful to clarify the issues. But let me ask you this. If you were a prospective cheater, are you willing to take a risk to cheat, even if it is to win $5, if you know you will lose possibly all of your funds that this company holds? Sites need to build bigger fences rather than having no fences and an inconsistently enforced "shoot on sight" policy. Though I'm not a big believer in rational markets, they are at least non-random and the sites that police effectively (and manage to eliminate the need for much policing (see party software loophole) will succeed.

There has been talk about seizing innocent peoples funds. Well, as we have seen in the forums here, there have been mix ups before and people have had their accounts frozen. Well, for example, I'm not as sanguine as some folks re Party's decision to confiscate the 40k JJProdigy had in his other account before he even opened the 2nd one.

They communicated with the proper company and after giving explanations they had their accounts unfrozen. I have not read one post so far where some innocent person had their funds taken, and I do not expect to. It seems odd to me to base Zeejustin's punishment on the level of his naiveté as measured by the amount of $ he left in his account. Had party ever enforced the prescription against multi accounts before they received a "hot tip" about one of the most recognized players on the net? It possibly achieved this earth-shaking discovery by reading the descriptions of his nefarious activities offhandedly mentioned on his website. Usually the law punishes crimes committed with greater awareness more than crimes committed with less. In law school, murder is generally taught as having 5 grades (purposeful, knowing, reckless, negligent, and strict liability). See Wikipedia Article re Mens Rea Which of these 4 mental states best describe ZeeJustin's thoughts? (or does strict liability apply)? At least, thank god,ZeeJustin (unlike JJProdigy) is old enough to be tried as an adult.) Does it matter, or should punishment be related solely to the amount of money he didn't take out of his account? Such measures will surely teach the world that cheaters don't prosper--except perhaps the careful ones.

We and our allies regularly freeze bank accounts and assets of people who are affiliated with terrorism and terrorist organizations (a practice I agree with...call me consistant). Do we only take money that was proven to be earmarked for terrorist activites and give the rest back, or do we take it all? Does this send a message to other terrorists about doing business in our country? Should Iran sue us in their courts and seize any of our assets that they can get their hands on since being a terrorist isn't against their law? I bring this up not because it is anywhere near the same level of what is going on here, but it is a case of two countries who&#8217;s laws contradict each other and who actually has the power to do anything about it. It seems to me the country/company who holds the money has the power. Questions like this are what make international law fun. Much ink has been spilled over them. I'm not sure our president understands them. 

Lastly, until there IS a case of an innocent person getting their money confiscated, I wish people would quit implying it is going to happen to us all. See above re JJProdigy and ZeeJustin It hasn't happened so far and to say it will happen to one of us is borderline slanderous (or libelous..you would know which one better). See above re JJProdigy and ZeeJustin. It's neither, because Party would never sue you in the US (thereby voluntarily availing itself of US jurisdiction). However, if I libeled Party ("Online Poker is Rigged!!!"), I'd try to stay away from Gibralter (it's not hard). If I get busted for stealing something and as I pay my fines and do my time I yell out to the innocent people "YA! Just wait till it happens to you!" well that is retarded. If I don't steal, it shouldn't happen to me.

I look at having my money offshore as an inherent risk of playing poker online. Because of that, I follow all the rules. I don't cheat, and I have never had trouble accessing my money. I don't expect this to change. I for one want to play on a site that is the least attractive to prospective and active cheaters. In the action so far, Party is leading the way in my opinion. As Socrates said, if I'm the wisest man in Athens, it is only because I realize how much I don not know. 

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem--I waded through 2k posts while having a background in internet law and jurisdiction and some serious issues with Party--I was just needed a good tee up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Jibbs · #**2444** 02-27-2006, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Uh, no, you didn't lose that money. If the DC abuser had called, then his disconnect saved you from losing more. The only thing the DC abuser cost you was the pot you would have won if the abuser had folded. I understand people don't like disconnections. I don't like them either, but at the level I play the disconnectors don't understand what the advantageous situations are for disconnection.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

example: I have a set, my opponent has 2 pair, I put him all in on the river, he has $500 behind, and I cover.

He disconnects and finds out his 2 pair are no good at a $500 discount. That's the $500 I have been cheated.

If my hand was a loser, I am glad he disconnected. obv.

Why did you assume I lost the hand, have you been watching me play? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Woodguy,

My reading of your original post on this led me to believe it was the following type situation:

You have trips and your opponent has something like a 8 high flush on a paired board. You push all in on the river leaving your opponent needing to call another $500. He sees that he may be up against a higher flush or a full house and decides to disconnect to get to the showdown with no more risk.

In this situation he may very well have folded the river bet instead of calling but since he could get to showdown for no more risk by simply disconnecting he did. He may have cost himself some additional money but it was a hand he would not have won otherwise.

Anyway. Good stuff so far, keep up the good work

Jibbs

EliotSpitzer · #**2445** 02-27-2006, 07:23 PM

If ZJ were to sue Party, wouldn't he be opening himself to a counterclaim? It would be quite humorous if ZJ were to sue Party only to see a judge award Party more money because ZJ's cheating netted him more than the $100K that Party seized.

betadecay · #**2446** 02-27-2006, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's very possible $5k is a pretty high punitive sum for the amount ZJ wagered grandmaing MTTs. Sounds like he only did it in a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

5k was the amount he illegitamtely won. So that money isn't his. They rightfully took it away and then banned him. Opening another account will not be hard for ZJ. So essentially all Stars has done to ZJ is ban him from playing satellites to land based events. I'm sure the majority of us believe that sooner or later, ZJ will be back at stars and party under a different guise.

aeest400 · #**2447** 02-27-2006, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If ZJ were to sue Party, wouldn't he be opening himself to a counterclaim? It would be quite humorous if ZJ were to sue Party only to see a judge award Party more money because ZJ's cheating netted him more than the $100K that Party seized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Eliot, I've been impressed with your analysis throughout this tread. Still in first year, or just spending all your mental energy on poker?

Reef · #**2448** 02-27-2006, 07:43 PM

graydot · #**2449** 02-27-2006, 07:45 PM

this thread needs new original material

excession · #**2450** 02-27-2006, 08:03 PM

Gibraltar has a perfectly functional legal system, probably fairer, quicker and cheaper than the USA's if you really must know.

But, as it's not as ridiculously pro-plaintiff as the US courts, I can't see a low of mileage in ZJ trying to sue Party though. In fact that would be the stupidest suit since Oscar Wilde sued for libel...and in common law jurisdictions the loser pays the legal costs of the winner,so as a foreign plaintiff ZJ would probably have to lodge an amount equal to the defendants' estimated costs before proceeding with his suit. Of course if he wins that's no problem, but it does make contingency fee 'having a go as a nuisance suit' a very difficult business..