WCOOP main event sensation - winner under investigation - Page 39

boohaa12 · #**381** 10-10-2007, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's a ton of money at stake here, $673K, for ka$ino. He should demand an explanation from Stars, and if not satisfied, should sue Stars for the 1st place money. I think it's amazing that so much time has gone by without an official decision by Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

sue them under what body of goverment? lol, they would probably freeze everything if you tried to sue them. what evidence does he have to sue anyhow, PS has everything in their court. their logs are not public record. good luck even if there was a body to hear this case placing a case on hearsay alone. nice.

thanks for your well thought post.

Todd Terry · #**382** 10-10-2007, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a ton of money at stake here, $673K, for ka$ino. He should demand an explanation from Stars, and if not satisfied, should sue Stars for the 1st place money. I think it's amazing that so much time has gone by without an official decision by Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

sue them under what body of goverment? lol, they would probably freeze everything if you tried to sue them. what evidence does he have to sue anyhow, PS has everything in their court. their logs are not public record. good luck even if there was a body to hear this case placing a case on hearsay alone. nice.

thanks for your well thought post.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what law school did you attend sir? You could sue them in the United States. You don't need evidence sufficient to prove a case to begin a lawsuit, simply a good faith basis that a case can be proven -- Stars' admission that the 1st place winner was under investigation is more than sufficient. Whether their "logs" are public record is irrelevant, they would be forced to turn over all relevant material during the discovery process. It's rather amusing that you would write such a condescending post while having no knowledge of the subject matter.

augie_ · #**383** 10-10-2007, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's rather amusing that you would write such a condescending post while having no knowledge of the subject matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

L
O
L

edit: sorry for being condescending. you are also wrong. and i know nothing about law. pizownzored!!! try not to sound so smart next time.

Crispy · #**384** 10-10-2007, 07:49 PM

Sry Todd but you are wrong on this matter. Agree with augie, try not to sound so smart next time.

Todd Terry · #**385** 10-10-2007, 09:32 PM

So I'm assuming that those who disagree with me believe that the only decisions dealing with the issue of personal jurisdiction over offshore Internet gambling sites were wrongly decided. Do you believe that Internet gambling falls more toward the passive advertising rather than the active commercial activity end of the sliding scale promulgated in the Pavlovich decision? Or do you think that Pavlovich's scale is itself an overly expansive view of International Shoe?

shaniac · #**386** 10-10-2007, 09:37 PM

I have no opinion on the matter of International Shoe vs Pavlovich (or any idea what the case was about), but I don't understand why ka$ino is the only one with something at stake here--wasn't everyone who entered the tournament cheated, if the winner cheated? Class action?

gobbomom · #**387** 10-10-2007, 09:42 PM

I have thought that from the beginning. People keep talking about dividing the money amongst the final table, or the people he busted out, but it's much larger than that. The integrity of the whole tourney and PokerStars itself is what's at stake.

Todd Terry · #**388** 10-10-2007, 09:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have no opinion on the matter of International Shoe vs Pavlovich (or any idea what the case was about), but I don't understand why ka$ino is the only one with something at stake here--wasn't everyone who entered the tournament cheated, if the winner cheated? Class action?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, everyone was cheated and could theoretically join the lawsuit, ka$ino has by far the most to gain obviously. I'm guessing the person with the 2nd most to gain won't be suing PokerStars, unless of course they've terminated her sponsorship deal for some reason.

cardsfan04 · #**389** 10-10-2007, 09:47 PM

You don't really think you can sue somebody for screwing you in an illegal activity do you?

"But your honor, I had 100K worth of crack that he stole."

augie_ · #**390** 10-10-2007, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm assuming that those who disagree with me believe that the only decisions dealing with the issue of personal jurisdiction over offshore Internet gambling sites were wrongly decided. Do you believe that Internet gambling falls more toward the passive advertising rather than the active commercial activity end of the sliding scale promulgated in the Pavlovich decision? Or do you think that Pavlovich's scale is itself an overly expansive view of International Shoe?

[/ QUOTE ]

if anyone ever sues pokerstars i will give you 5 bucks.