Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER

[AverageJoe]

[ QUOTE ]


It's not blackmail, it's a bargaining chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the bargaining chip (our money) is stolen. It does not belong to them; they just transfer it for us. They have illegally taken possession of it. It is theft.

If you give me your car for a day and I do not return it as agreed but continue using it – I have stolen your car.

If I tell your big brother I will return you your car as soon as your big brother does me a favor, I am blackmailing you both.

They are digging their own grave with this “bargaining.”

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that the bargaining chip (our money) is stolen. It does not belong to them; they just transfer it for us. They have illegally taken possession of it. It is theft.

If you give me your car for a day and I do not return it as agreed but continue using it – I have stolen your car.

If I tell your big brother I will return you your car as soon as your big brother does me a favor, I am blackmailing you both.

They are digging their own grave with this “bargaining.”



[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG!
The bargaining chip is forcing the DOJ to take the legally inconsistant position that Neteller is required to transfer funds which the DOJ says Neteller conspired to break the law by transferring in and out of prohibited gambling sites.

This is what I would be advising Neteller to do. Make the DOJ either be the heavy here with millions of Americans'smoney and (Billions of Dollars?), make the DOJ take a legally inconsistant position that may cripple their prosecutions, or get them to grant immunity for Neteller if they will return the money and agree not to conduct this business in the US again.

[AverageJoe]

[ QUOTE ]


WRONG!
The bargaining chip is forcing the DOJ to take the legally inconsistant position that Neteller is required to transfer funds which the DOJ says Neteller conspired to break the law by transferring in and out of prohibited gambling sites.

This is what I would be advising Neteller to do. Make the DOJ either be the heavy here with millions of Americans'smoney and (Billions of Dollars?), make the DOJ take a legally inconsistant position that may cripple their prosecutions, or get them to grant immunity for Neteller if they will return the money and agree not to conduct this business in the US again.

[/ QUOTE ]

DOJ will never request “transfer from poker site to player,” but might find a way to charge NT with taking illegal possession of the players’ money, and lying about being unable to pay. By the way, even if their untrue statements are not directed at the Feds, but the Feds read them in the course of their investigation, they are lying to the Feds, which is a separate crime, because they should know that the Feds might read them.

From the DOJ point of view facilitating Internet gambling is a crime. Your “they agree not enter the US market again” means “If you ignore our past crime we promise not to commit that crime in the future.” Things just do not work that way.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
From the DOJ point of view facilitating Internet gambling is a crime. Your “they agree not enter the US market again” means “If you ignore our past crime we promise not to commit that crime in the future.” Things just do not work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do all the time. Think Pinnacle as a recent example.

[momo_the_kid]

At least this article shows that our money is still there, which is good news considering all the panic about Neteller doesnt have the money. right now, the only question is when we can get it.

[AverageJoe]

Well, I hope I am wrong, for the sake of my money.

[alThor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are digging their own grave with this “bargaining.”


[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG!
The bargaining chip is forcing the DOJ to take the legally inconsistant position that Neteller is required to transfer funds which the DOJ says Neteller conspired to break the law by transferring in and out of prohibited gambling sites.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a bad theory. Neteller saying tongue in cheek "I guess we better not transfer the rest of this money, otherwise we will violate the law another X million times." Or at least getting "permission" first.

[AverageJoe]

They will never get “permission” from DOJ. All it can do is to turn some of the public opinion for NT, which is so trying to pay, and against DOJ, which does not let them.

However, since it is a scheme to benefit NT at the cost of its customers, public opinion might just as much turn against NT.

[N 82 50 24]

NETELLER probably wants to avoid sending out a million checks, then dealing with some sort of nightmare if the DOJ finds a way to block those funds from being cleared. It needs to be clear that everything will get through and that it is legal to return the money.

[ADBjester]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It's not blackmail, it's a bargaining chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the bargaining chip (our money) is stolen. It does not belong to them; they just transfer it for us. They have illegally taken possession of it. It is theft.

If you give me your car for a day and I do not return it as agreed but continue using it – I have stolen your car.

If I tell your big brother I will return you your car as soon as your big brother does me a favor, I am blackmailing you both.



[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to the Do(I)J, whose position (sadly, backed by legal position) is that they can confiscate material wealth even tangentially involved in crimes by claiming that the WEALTH committed the crime, and is therefore not the legal property of the innocent party who happens to possess it at the time.

Don't believe me? Look up drug forfeiture laws.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ited+the+crime

Among the links:

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/...efing/3_13.htm

[ QUOTE ]

The property is presumed to be "guilty" and, because it is property, not a person, none of the usual constitutional guarantees of due process apply. It is up to the owner of the property to file legal action to recover the property which often costs more than the value of the property.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

In a massive legal fiction, the property is considered to have committed the crime. Therefore, the property may be presumed guilty --even if the owner had no part in the alleged crime -- and held until the owner can prove the property is "innocent". This is exactly the reversal of the protections afforded to people. People who have had their property seized usually find that the DEA is conducting extortion -- in many cases, the people who lost their property are required to pay ransom in order to recover it -- even when those people are innocent and they had no part in any crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, just who is it that is stealing money?

Jester