My letter to ESPN regarding the Dutch Boyd/PokerSpot.com issue

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oliver - tell the truth here. Did that photographer really say, "I won't let you bring down the industry?" I have an extremely hard time believing that these words were spoken.

PS I'm baffled by how seriously you're taking yourself in this whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baffled? No, you have an agenda here just as Oliver does. The difference is that his is clear. You just seem to shoot down anyone or any theory that puts Boyd in a bad light.

I totally believe that the photographer said that. Do you know any of those people? You accuse Oliver of taking himself too seriously. That accusation could be leveled against 90% of the poker media. The lot of them are pompous. That is why they will get away with blackballing him instead of slapping him a little for posting the letter publically BUT defending his right to ask questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't defended Boyd once. He sounds like a real piece of shit. And he has all the right in the world to ask whatever questions he wants. I don't know what part of this I'm not explaining - ESPN is not obligated to answer his questions. I've said this like six times in this and the other thread. How should ESPN defend his right to ask questions? By answering them? Exactly, that's where the logic in this argument is dead.

EDIT: The reason I questioned the "I won't let you bring this industry down" line is because this is language that's usually reserved for prime time television dramas. This is the sort of dialog that sounds really good when relaying a story of importance. I just don't see anyone, and particularly a photographer, to be so threatened by Oliver's "investigation" that they would fear their industry being ripped apart. Doesn't fly.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: The reason I questioned the "I won't let you bring this industry down" line is because this is language that's usually reserved for prime time television dramas. This is the sort of dialog that sounds really good when relaying a story of importance. I just don't see anyone, and particularly a photographer, to be so threatened by Oliver's "investigation" that they would fear their industry being ripped apart. Doesn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Particularly since it's not as if Dutch's past exploits are closely-guarded secrets, the photographer's comment makes even less sense. If the photographer truly said that, then the photographer is just some self-inflated, melodramatic blowhard anyway. Trying to prevent media access to Dutch Boyd in an attempt to 'protect the industry' is akin to trying to prevent media access to Barry Bonds, lest the steroids story tarnish MLB. The cat's already out of the bag.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: The reason I questioned the "I won't let you bring this industry down" line is because this is language that's usually reserved for prime time television dramas. This is the sort of dialog that sounds really good when relaying a story of importance. I just don't see anyone, and particularly a photographer, to be so threatened by Oliver's "investigation" that they would fear their industry being ripped apart. Doesn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Particularly since it's not as if Dutch's past exploits are closely-guarded secrets, the photographer's comment makes even less sense. If the photographer truly said that, then the photographer is just some self-inflated, melodramatic blowhard anyway. Trying to prevent media access to Dutch Boyd in an attempt to 'protect the industry' is akin to trying to prevent media access to Barry Bonds, lest the steroids story tarnish MLB. The cat's already out of the bag.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
Oliver is a journalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see some evidence to back this up. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Richter]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you also think employees pension and 401k money shoul dbe available as capital to fund a business? Players money is not capital to fund the business. It never should have been comingled with the bussiness capital. If the bussiness was hosted in the US I am sure he would have faced charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

[integrate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People who invest in start-ups know there are risks involved; I would think that poker players would be particularly aware of these risks.

Is it really fair to say that Boyd "scammed" players? That makes it sound like he intended on stealing their money from the outset. It sounds like his business failed, perhaps due to his incompetence, but not due to any desire to cheat his players. I'm sure there are many things he could have done to make the enterprise more successful, and you can criticize his business sense, but I don't see any criminal motive here.

If you really think this was a scam, send this letter to Congress and maybe they will try to do something about it. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, let's not be ignorant. There is no similarity between investing in a failed business, and having a business misappropriate your money and then fail and become unable to give you back the money they stole.

If I was still an attorney, and you paid me a retainer, that is your money. If I mismanage my business, and go bankrupt, your retainer money is supposed to have been kept in a separate and safe account, not to be touched by me (unless and until I do work for you, at which point I bill you and deduct the money from your retainer) and beyond the reach of creditors of mine. If I take your retainer money out of its separate account, and use it to run my legal business, I am guilty of theft. It is that simple. I will be disbarred, and put in jail.

This is exactly what Dutch did. He may not have intended to do this from day 1, but once his business started running out of operating capital, he ransacked the player's money and used it to keep the business afloat. When that money was all gone, he then went bankrupt, and left the players with nothing. His proper course of action was to have declared bankruptcy before he ever touched the player's money, and then give that money to the players.

While it is easy to understand how somebody could make this bad decision, as at the time it probably appeared to be the only way for his company to succeed, that doesn't make his actions any less illegal. It is similarly easy to understand why somebody who sees a bag of hundreds sitting unprotected in the back of an armored car might take it. It is a crime that appears easy and has lots of upside if you don't get caught. Dutch took the easy and illegal route, but escaped jail because he committed his crimes outside US jurisdiction. There are no excuses for what he did. I will never forgive him until he pays back the players. If he should win this event today, which has a prize of nearly $1M I believe, and he doesn't pay it all to the players from PokerSpot, he is just proving he is scum.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawyers have very stringent ethical rules against comingling their own funds, or the fund of their firm, with the funds of a client.

In the case of a bank, the customer accounts are the bank's operating funds.

It is not clear to me which case an online site is closest to. AFAIK, there is nothing stopping an online site from investing player accounts and keeping the interest. A lawyer cannot do this...if he puts his client's funds in a interest bearing account, he must pay this interest back to the client. So it seems like the online site is somewhat more analogous to a bank.

But do we actually have any legal guidance as what an online gambling site can and cannot do with customer deposits?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mentioned bank, but you COMPLETELY left out the FDIC.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Dutch Boyd did is 1000x times worse than what Zee Justin did.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not even in the same [censored] ballpark.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]

Please, let's not be ignorant. There is no similarity between investing in a failed business, and having a business misappropriate your money and then fail and become unable to give you back the money they stole.

If I was still an attorney, and you paid me a retainer, that is your money. If I mismanage my business, and go bankrupt, your retainer money is supposed to have been kept in a separate and safe account, not to be touched by me (unless and until I do work for you, at which point I bill you and deduct the money from your retainer) and beyond the reach of creditors of mine. If I take your retainer money out of its separate account, and use it to run my legal business, I am guilty of theft. It is that simple. I will be disbarred, and put in jail.

This is exactly what Dutch did. He may not have intended to do this from day 1, but once his business started running out of operating capital, he ransacked the player's money and used it to keep the business afloat. When that money was all gone, he then went bankrupt, and left the players with nothing. His proper course of action was to have declared bankruptcy before he ever touched the player's money, and then give that money to the players.

While it is easy to understand how somebody could make this bad decision, as at the time it probably appeared to be the only way for his company to succeed, that doesn't make his actions any less illegal. It is similarly easy to understand why somebody who sees a bag of hundreds sitting unprotected in the back of an armored car might take it. It is a crime that appears easy and has lots of upside if you don't get caught. Dutch took the easy and illegal route, but escaped jail because he committed his crimes outside US jurisdiction. There are no excuses for what he did. I will never forgive him until he pays back the players. If he should win this event today, which has a prize of nearly $1M I believe, and he doesn't pay it all to the players from PokerSpot, he is just proving he is scum.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's about time that someone prominent in the poker community stepped up and called the guy what he is. I heard those moron hosts on Sirius radio interviewing Dutch this evening and treating him like he was the second coming of Doyle Brunson.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I chose to pull an unauthorized "stunt" by making the issue public instead of asking the same question to ESPN/441 Productions in private, I have done considerable damage to my reputation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like that "stunt" you pulled when you squealed on that college kid to the NCAA for endorsing an online poker site, uh, Oliver?

I wouldn't worry too much about your so-called reputation if I were you. I've never heard of you or seen anything that you've written other than the drivel that you post here, and this latest fiasco of yours just confirms the opinion that I already had of you.

[Borgland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is the purpose of this letter? isnt this common knowledge about his past? the reason why espn isnt going to report it is because NOBODY GIVES A RATS ASS!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is common knowledge at all for the larger non-internet poker community.


[/ QUOTE ]

True. I had never heard of this until I joined this forum. I have seen every ESPN poker broadcast at least once and played online for 5 years before joining. Glad I know about it now.