Forbes prints DOJs Friday release that details position re:Online Poker is illegal...

...in Online Processing Prosecution Case involving the Utah Bank, SunFirst Bank, and its indicted banker. Department of Justice also claims that La Cosa Nostra had infiltrated the online poker business.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanva...ne-poker-case/

Also, the Bank involved in this prosecution was just closed this Friday by Utah Bank Regulators.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/no...oker-fraud-ca/

IANAL, but I've gotta say those don't sound like very solid arguments. Neither side really seems to have a slam dunk legal argument though, so the way this is going, I think the a judge/jury is going to be the one that decides this issue for the entire American population.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of faith in juries given the OJ and Anthony results and absolutely no faith in Eric Holder's Injustice Department. It's apparent they will say and do anything to continue their legalized extortion ring. I don't think the average juror will even be able to think through this thing. Even a lot of poker players bought the "ponzi scheme" headlines.

This statement makes me want to scream:

As if most of Congress actually knew they were voting on the UIGEA. The whole reason it was attached to the Safe Port Act was BECAUSE it couldn't pass on it's own. Cat killer Frist knew that and smuggled it into the Safe Port Act in an underhanded move to prevent opposition and debate.

Another good job by the men we send to Washington to represent US. And by Preet Bharara who can't sleep at night thinking that someone, somewhere might be playing poker.

well, charade, if online poker is legalized it will be a rider on another bill, just like the UIGEA was.

Exactly - for whatever reason, and for better or worse, passing bills by hiding them underneath other bills is something your population and your system of government seems to be OK with.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier: you're right, that argument is pretty lame. But let's be honest, poker's side isn't any more solid so this is all going to come down to the opinion of a few individuals.

Actually, does anyone know who decides the matter? If the case gets that far, I'm assuming Campos and Elie will be tried in front of a jury. But doesn't a judge have to decide on the interpretation of the law first? If they decide it doesn't apply, then (again, IANAL) that should be your precedent set before a jury becomes involved, right?

This is very interesting. Keep all of us uptodate.

What makes you say that? There are at least 2 scenarios:

1) The Super Committee includes it in its recommendations to congress--then you are right, but the case was made to the bi-partisan super committee, not shoved in a must-pass bill in the middle of the night just before congress was going on recess.

2) HR2366 gets out of committee and is debated and voted on by the House before going to the Senate. In which case it is it's own bill and not attached to anything else.

In either case, the bill has the light of day, unlike cat-killer Bill Frist and Jon Kyl's UIGEA which was a part of a separate bill that the Republicans knew could not get passed on it's own.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the accused have a choice of whether to have a jury trial or not. They have filed a motion to dismiss, but I don't think that will fly since the DOJ countered it. If the judge doesn't dismiss, I think the next step is the trial if they don't take a plea. Precedents are set as a result of a trial or appeal, not prior to one.

What I want for Christmas (any year will do): Campos and Elie to be found not guilty and Frist and Kyl and Preet to spend eternity solving recursive logic problems.

Attached Images

recursion.JPG (16.6 KB, 13 views)