Search
You searched for the word(s): userid:45099
-
Excellent post Skall, thank you.
-
TE, I have a question. The PPA now has seven members of its Board of Directors. They seem impressive to me. So why does the PPA need eleven directors? Why not just change its Articles of Incorporation to have seven directors and keep the current seven? You can't do better than yourself, Greg Raymer, Howard Lederer, Chris Fergueson, and Linda Johnson; not to forget a former Senator and the President who has done an excellent job.
-
Hey Skall, what do you think of this action by G911? http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/online-poker-gambling911-motion-have-seizure-warrants-unsealed-070209.html
-
G911 has an interesting update on the SDNY DOJ seizure. http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/team-full-tilt-worries-over-poker-echeck-seizures-070109.html Of course, anything in the G911 must be taken with a grain of salt. Still, it appears that the DOJ is not backing down since it has not unsealed the court documents behind this seizure. So I have a question for Skall and TE. Has the PPA planned for potential DOJ action (subpoena to testify before a grand jury or, much less likely, filing of
-
Great Post Skall. I look forward to your article about state laws and online poker. They will be very important to the SDNY seizure legal issues.
-
Excellent article TE. From now on I will be often visiting this forum and will place most of my posts here instead of you know where.
-
-
I don't know how accurate it is, but G911 has an article claiming that online poker players are still having trouble actually receiving cash from their accounts at FTP and PS.
-
TE, I would like to remove the paragraphs about Rep. Franks' bill and the UIGEA. It is too soon to further push Rep. Franks' bill because it is not finalized and the state opt out provisions are completely unacceptable. In addition, IMO it is not consistent for the PPA to push this bill in Congress and argue in a court of law that it is not necessary because no federal law covers online poker. I think that it is best if the PPA ignores the UIGEA on the grounds that it does not cover online
-
Excellent article Skall. IMO, if a player receives a check from a payment processor and the check fails to clear, then the maker of the check, not the poker site, is liable to the player. OTOH, if an echeck withdrawal fails to clear, then the player never received payment and the site still owes him the money. Either way, players have clearly suffered harm and costs. Many still do not have cash in hand and a question has been raised about the value of online poker accounts. If the DOJ does not reverse
|
|