Latest AP press release

[scott1]

[ QUOTE ]
please don't let this go away. I can feel interest is waning on this subject and by the numbers AP's business seems to have gone on rather unaffected. Their lies in the beginning totally contradict so many things in this statement it's insulting to anyone who has kept up

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe anyone still plays there. The best punishment they could receive would be for every poker player to boycott the site and never sign up for a any site these people try to start in the future. It would send a message to the rest of the sites as well.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was also told confidentially that one of the other four is the account known as #363 that appeared in the suspect Excel file, but I am not at liberty to state which of the four is #363. The NDA [Non-Disclosure Agreement] that I signed at the AP offices prevents me from stating the aforementioned information.

[/ QUOTE ]
A question: Can you reveal the scope of this agreement? Did the agreement censor any information previously known to you, that you had obtained through your third party sources prior to Costa Rica?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if I can. But if the following is against the agreement, so be it:

It does not apply to information already known to me.

On a sidenote, I know that it is largely unenforceable because I could claim, oh, yea, I knew that. But I am an honest person and I will not violate the spirit of the agreement, so I will comply in an accurate manner. To anyone who might ask me via PM to just send it to them and they'll pretend they found it out on their own (I always seem to get PMs like that), don't bother.

[PoorSkillz]

Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[ASPoker8]

Does AP ever intend to address the false statements they released? How about the numerous lies? The cover ups? The deceit?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be talking about this as extensively as possible. But the general summary is that I think he retains his ownership interest and is probably at least more removed than before from operational control.

[mntbikr15]

[ QUOTE ]
Does AP ever intend to address the false statements they released? How about the numerous lies? The cover ups? The deceit?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[mntbikr15]

Nat,

If their statement were to contain:

-Flat out lies
-Half truths

or neglect to include something very noteworthy...ie the rouge "employee" was scott tom

and you know these things to be false, but it falls under the NDA.

Will you still honor the NDA?

[mntbikr15]

Nat,

I think many would also like to know how the trip was ultimatly funded.

Personally, my last previous understanding was that you were not even sure you were going. Until I saw your link.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Nat,

I think many would also like to know how the trip was ultimatly funded.

Personally, my last previous understanding was that you were not even sure you were going. Until I saw your link.

[/ QUOTE ]
PSO housed me and fed me. PokerNews paid for the trip outside of that.

PokerNews is also paying me as a reporter, although the amounts are not substantial and, net, I cost myself money in the short term by spending time there.

[LuckyMux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why has AP insisted that Nat sign an NDA saying he cannot reveal who was using account #363? WTF?

Is it possibly anything to do with the fact that account 363 was being used from Scott Tom's home IP address...?

The cover-up has become worse than the offence. Deleted hand histories, press releases so full of lies they hurt your eyes to read, and all because AP is still protecting the people (yes, plural) who, it claims, swindled the company out of $1.6m.

Bullsh*t.

(BTW, Nat - any information you had already heard, from any source, whether you knew it to be correct or not at the time, is NOT covered by the NDA.)

[/ QUOTE ]
LuckyMux,

I appreciate your efforts in this whole thing, but I am bothered by your lacking of reading comprehension here. That is not what I said about #363. It has nothing to do with who was using it or what the name was on the account, but simply which account name was connected to #363.

Please be more careful in the future about stuff like this.

-Nat

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Nat, I must be in dim mode at the moment.

Are you saying it's which of 'the other four (not POTRIPPER)' accounts was #363 that you cannot tell us?

I must be missing something. Apart from the link between #363 and Scott Tom himself, why does it matter what name #363 called itself?

If #363 is Graycat, Doubledrag or whatever, what difference does it make? It's who was using it to cheat that matters, surely?

BTW, AP said you would not be allowed to examine the cheating accounts, at the request (order?) of GA. Did the GA people explain why they did that? Wasn't as if you could tamper with the evidence or anything.

EDIT: re. the NDA: I've never heard of one that would apply retroactively, and I've seen - and signed - loads. They're all much of a muchness.

An NDA is simply a promise to not share a secret. If it isn't actually a secret, the NDA is invalid. Not really sure why AP demanded one when they flat-out refused to let you see the really important stuff anyway.