London Times follow up: more info

[byronkincaid]

It's not the London Times it's just The Times btw

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the London Times it's just The Times btw

[/ QUOTE ]
Real British to insist on the proper term. Problem is for people in the US if you just said "Times", they would think New York Times. I think there are some other newspapers called the "Times" in the world, so the protocol of refering to it as "The Times" may only work in the UK.

[whangarei]

Good news. Some pushback is the only thing that'll slow these mother [censored] down.

[PocketAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Good news. Some pushback is the only thing that'll slow these mother [censored] down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I'm a corporate attorney and would advise you, and anyone else in the poker industry, not to ever, EVER, EVER underestimate the power, arrogance and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice. If they have the online gaming industry in its crosshairs, as appears to be the case, those in the industry are going to have a very rough go of it.

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I'm a corporate attorney and would advise you, and anyone else in the poker industry, not to ever, EVER, EVER underestimate the power, arrogance and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice. If they have the online gaming industry in its crosshairs, as appears to be the case, those in the industry are going to have a very rough go of it.

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very reassuring.

[Rigel]

[ QUOTE ]


And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal. In fact, the only federal district court decision to consider the issue says poker isn't even covered by the 1961 wire act.

I've got about $1500 in the poker sites and I'm not worried at all. Worst case scenario, there might be temporary delays in cashing out. The new law doesn't stop money from coming back to the US, and the feds certainly have no incentive to prevent hundreds of millions in US wealth from coming back into the country.

The tricky question is how hard it will be to DEPOSIT money, because that is what the new law makes difficult. But if we can't deposit, we can't deposit- it's nothing to be scared of. And I'm confident some deposit methods will remain- how are they going to stop you from Fed Exing a money order you got at the local convenience store? They aren't. It wouldn't be convenient compared to Neteller but if that's what I have to do to give the middle finger to Bush and Congress and keep playing, I will do it.

[JPFisher55]

See this article for explanation of case law on 1961 Wire Act.
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13599

[PocketAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that nothing in the new law makes *playing* illegal. I shouldn't have referred to players in that quote--only U.S. operators of such sites. In my haste to type a response, I didn't make that clear. What I meant to refer to were professional players like Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu who appear to own (directly or indirectly) such sites, though there is some question about that. I'm not privy to how the ownership of Full Tilt, Doyle's Room and Full Contact are organized; supposedly Lederer owns the company that developed the software for Full Tilt, but I don't know.

In any event, if those well-known players are receiving part of the profits generated by those sites, which are still catering to U.S. players, I think they are in legal jeopardy. And as I said, I think it's very unwise to mess with the U.S. Justice Dept. and its seemingly bottomless well of attorneys and resources to draw upon in comparison to most individuals.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that nothing in the new law makes *playing* illegal. I shouldn't have referred to players in that quote--only U.S. operators of such sites. In my haste to type a response, I didn't make that clear. What I meant to refer to were professional players like Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu who appear to own (directly or indirectly) such sites, though there is some question about that. I'm not privy to how the ownership of Full Tilt, Doyle's Room and Full Contact are organized; supposedly Lederer owns the company that developed the software for Full Tilt, but I don't know.

In any event, if those well-known players are receiving part of the profits generated by those sites, which are still catering to U.S. players, I think they are in legal jeopardy. And as I said, I think it's very unwise to mess with the U.S. Justice Dept. and its seemingly bottomless well of attorneys and resources to draw upon in comparison to most individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the federal case law, a lot of precedent exists that the Wire Act only applies to bets on sporting contests; not poker. I hope the DOJ does prosecute someone in the online poker industry so their intimidation falls apart when they quickly lose. But they have only prosecuted only parties in the online sports betting industry. However, their recent subpoenas may test the bounds of the Wire Act and money laudering under it.

[PocketAces]

[ QUOTE ]

If you read the federal case law, a lot of precedent exists that the Wire Act only applies to bets on sporting contests; not poker. I hope the DOJ does prosecute someone in the online poker industry so their intimidation falls apart when they quickly lose. But they have only prosecuted only parties in the online sports betting industry. However, their recent subpoenas may test the bounds of the Wire Act and money laudering under it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, I don't think the DOJ will "quickly lose" if they prosecute people in the online poker industry. The UIGA applies to poker, not just sports betting.