How is it possible for Doyle's room to remain open?

[Mizzles]

Isn't he a US citizen living in the USA?

[tsrcess]

hmmmmm, i think the legality of internet poker is still pretty much up in the air. some would certainly say internet poker is clearly illegal. others disagree. the recent law did not change what was legal or illegal. maybe at some point in the future it will become more clear that internet poker is illegal. if so, sites like doyle's room may be forced to close (at least to united states residents)...

[flafishy]

Doyle doesn't own Doyle's Room. He gets paid for the use of his name and image, which is not illegal.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle doesn't own Doyle's Room. He gets paid for the use of his name and image, which is not illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some prosecutors might disagree. I'd say that as time goes on we might see a further crackdown with various factions of the government chasing after celebrity sponsors ala Doyle. I hope this doesn't occur, but its within the realm of possible.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doyle doesn't own Doyle's Room. He gets paid for the use of his name and image, which is not illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some prosecutors might disagree. I'd say that as time goes on we might see a further crackdown with various factions of the government chasing after celebrity sponsors ala Doyle. I hope this doesn't occur, but its within the realm of possible.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The feds going after Doyle Brunson would be the best thing for poker. You'd hear a rallying cry from our community like never before!

[JPFisher55]

I think that such litigation is how the new law will be tested in court. But if the WTO permits sanctions, especially ignoring copyright laws, then this type of case may not occur. FWIW, it interests me that the DOJ has not gone after any professional associated with poker sites still accepting US players.

[Osprey]

I do think the celebrity endorsers will be in trouble when the DOJ starts moving.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Some prosecutors might disagree. I'd say that as time goes on we might see a further crackdown with various factions of the government chasing after celebrity sponsors ala Doyle. I hope this doesn't occur, but its within the realm of possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible but it is very difficult. To build a criminal case you have to start with a specific violation (e.g. Sarah G. in Seattle deposited and then played poker) and then work step-by-step through the organization to link this offense back to Doyle. That's extremely difficult when almost all the records and witnesses are offshore and not cooperating.

Maybe the site violated his contract by using his name in Washington state. Perhaps he called them on the phone and screamed for an hour when he found out and they said "so sue us".

You think the preceding paragraph is unlikely? Prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt using legal evidence to twelve people who probably don't want to be convinced. Then prove a hundred other essential elements all beyond a reasonable doubt. Be prepared to spend millions of dollars doing so and have it all go down the drain because juror #6 hangs the jury because they like poker and/or Doyle's hat.

The people with the responsibility for enforcing the laws against online gambling as a group are decidedly uninterested in doing anything. How many cases have they built in the last five years? About two? These people have a lot of sense. They have better things to do with their careers and their limited resources. Congress can pass laws but they are going to have to try a lot harder than this if they want anyone to enforce them. From a prosecutor's point of view the UIGEA is a piece of junk. If the prosecutors were actually expected to do something then online poker would be a direct Federal offense. All the nonsense about accepting deposits for the purpose of violating unclear state laws is just a nightmare to prove in court. So why is a career professional supposed to work on that instead of drugs or securities fraud?

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle doesn't own Doyle's Room. He gets paid for the use of his name and image, which is not illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. He does own it. In an interview in one of the poker magazines a few months ago, he said he was considering selling it because it takes up so much of his time.

[JPFisher55]

In general, I agree with this post. I am not sure how hard it is too prove the taking of bets. Also, the prospect of a judge throwing out such prosecution on legal grounds such as WTO, poker=skill, etc. further discourages such prosecution.