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

WEC

WEC

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Total posts
5,730
Chips
0
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
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.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
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:

In their new filing, the feds claim that Congress did not intend to exclude poker from UIGEA and that if it wanted to do so, lawmakers would have done it in a clearer fashion. Federal prosecutors point out that lawmakers changed the wording of the bill so that it would apply to games “subject to chance” as opposed to “predominantly subject to chance” for this reason.

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.
 
cardriverx

cardriverx

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Total posts
1,441
Awards
1
Chips
0
well, charade, if online poker is legalized it will be a rider on another bill, just like the UIGEA was.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
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 statement makes me want to scream:

Quote:
In their new filing, the feds claim that Congress did not intend to exclude poker from UIGEA and that if it wanted to do so, lawmakers would have done it in a clearer fashion. Federal prosecutors point out that lawmakers changed the wording of the bill so that it would apply to games “subject to chance” as opposed to “predominantly subject to chance” for this reason.

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?
 
R

rugby0

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Total posts
599
Chips
0
This is very interesting. Keep all of us uptodate.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
well, charade, if online poker is legalized it will be a rider on another bill, just like the UIGEA was.

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.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
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?

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.
 

Attachments

  • recursion.JPG
    recursion.JPG
    16.6 KB · Views: 13
Top