6 replies to this topic

[Aardhart]

I have not seen any threads about the content of DN's final video blog, so I feel that this is a distinct thread from those just about the lawsuit. I still expect the thread fascists to lock this up, but ask that it not be locked immediately. If you are done with the lawsuit, skip it. This thread was clearly marked.Daniel has backed off his criticism to the merits of the case to just criticize the potential effects of the lawsuit. I think that much of his criticism comes from a lack of legal training and familiarity with the legal system. I know a lot of people jumped on Raymer for playing the Lawyer card, but I think there is some validity to it. I don't think the criticism is justified and want to explain some legal concepts as to why I think that.The following is NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I have some legal training, but you should not rely on the following for anything. It is very simplified. If you need help in a legal dispute, see a licensed attorney. Also, please do not dispute the following unless you have some basis for disputing it (such as your own legal training).LEGAL CONCEPTS:1. Relevancy and Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence: In a legal dispute, only relevant evidence can be introduced to the court. Additionally, evidence that is only a little relevant but very emotionally charged should not be permitted.In DN's example, the dispute is not between a pimp and the motel where illegal activity takes place, it is a lawsuit between the pimp and the pimp's brother over inheritance. To resolve the inheritance question, the court needs to decide what the will says. Can the brother introduce evidence that the pimp is a pimp? NO. It's not relevant. If the pimp is on trial for being a pimp, can the DA introduce evidence that the pimp was convicted 12 times for being a pimp? NO (with potential exceptions). That evidence is prejudicial and the jury would probably not look at the actual evidence before the court as they should.Here, the dispute is about the release and does not involve internet poker at all. Additionally, the plaintiffs appear on commercials endorsing the (.net) websites and on the .com websites. It's not a big secret waiting to get out.2. The Parol Evidence Rule: Contracts don't need to be in writing to be enforceable (with exceptions), but if they are in writing, lots of evidence contridicting the writing can't be considered in court. If a term in a written contract says one thing, but a party orally says another, the oral testimony can be excluded. Here the release says something everyone thinks is unacceptable. I have never read Daniel defend the actual content of the release. He only assures that the release does not mean what it says. There is a very, very good chance that this argument could not even be made in court if there was ever litigation over enforcement of the release. (It probably would not be admissible for interpretation of the terms, but may be admitted to prove fraud, which is very very difficult to prove, especially now that the release has been discussed extensively. The 7 could not claim now that they were tricked into signing.)Even though the release does not worry Daniel, there is very good reason for concern.3. Standing: Only someone who has been hurt by a behavior can sue over that behavior. If I see a man get beat up and the man doesn't want to sue for battery, I can't sue for battery since I'm not the one who got beat up. Private citizens normally can't enforce criminal statutes. I don't see how Lyle and the WPT can inject internet gambling (pimp behavior) into this lawsuit. If the police will not arrest the pimp or the DA will not press charges, the motel can't legally hold a trial and imprison the pimp in a private prison. The motel can only throw out the pimp and sue him civilly for trespass or an injury the motel actually suffered.Standing is also relevant to Daniel's objection over who the 7 are representing. The 7 are the only parties against the WPT in this lawsuit. They could have filed a class action on behalf of all players, and all this would have had to be litigated. They allege their own injuries and don't need to represent others. I don't think they claim that every poker player supports them. They believe that a change in the WPT release would be beneficial to every tournament poker player. I don't think Daniel disputes this.I find it funny that Daniel criticizes that the 7 claims to speak for all poker players, and then does it himself: "7 Players Vs The Wpt, It's actually 7 players against the rest of the players." I don't know what actual pros think or the percentage that support the lawsuit. I know that before the 2004 election, many people in NYC, Boston, or Chicago only had contact with Kerry voters and could not conceive that anyone would vote for Bush, and yet most voters did. Paul Phillips posted in favor of the lawsuit. In a 2+2 poll 49% supported the lawsuit, 30% opposed, 21% were undecided. Even 35% of this forum "think[s] the work the group of 7 is doing is commendable." I think these are indications that it is not actually "7 players against the rest of the players." It is 7 players (with the support of some others and opposition of some players) against the WPT (with actual support on the issues of ???).Anyway, I hope that these legal concepts are informative.

[rchang]

Aardhart, on Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 3:42 PM, said:

I have not seen any threads about the content of DN's final video blog, so I feel that this is a distinct thread from those just about the lawsuit. I still expect the thread fascists to lock this up, but ask that it not be locked immediately. If you are done with the lawsuit, skip it. This thread was clearly marked.Daniel has backed off his criticism to the merits of the case to just criticize the potential effects of the lawsuit. I think that much of his criticism comes from a lack of legal training and familiarity with the legal system. I know a lot of people jumped on Raymer for playing the Lawyer card, but I think there is some validity to it. I don't think the criticism is justified and want to explain some legal concepts as to why I think that.The following is NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I have some legal training, but you should not rely on the following for anything. It is very simplified. If you need help in a legal dispute, see a licensed attorney. Also, please do not dispute the following unless you have some basis for disputing it (such as your own legal training).LEGAL CONCEPTS:1. Relevancy and Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence: In a legal dispute, only relevant evidence can be introduced to the court. Additionally, evidence that is only a little relevant but very emotionally charged should not be permitted.In DN's example, the dispute is not between a pimp and the motel where illegal activity takes place, it is a lawsuit between the pimp and the pimp's brother over inheritance. To resolve the inheritance question, the court needs to decide what the will says. Can the brother introduce evidence that the pimp is a pimp? NO. It's not relevant. If the pimp is on trial for being a pimp, can the DA introduce evidence that the pimp was convicted 12 times for being a pimp? NO (with potential exceptions). That evidence is prejudicial and the jury would probably not look at the actual evidence before the court as they should.Here, the dispute is about the release and does not involve internet poker at all. Additionally, the plaintiffs appear on commercials endorsing the (.net) websites and on the .com websites. It's not a big secret waiting to get out.2. The Parol Evidence Rule: Contracts don't need to be in writing to be enforceable (with exceptions), but if they are in writing, lots of evidence contridicting the writing can't be considered in court. If a term in a written contract says one thing, but a party orally says another, the oral testimony can be excluded. Here the release says something everyone thinks is unacceptable. I have never read Daniel defend the actual content of the release. He only assures that the release does not mean what it says. There is a very, very good chance that this argument could not even be made in court if there was ever litigation over enforcement of the release. (It probably would not be admissible for interpretation of the terms, but may be admitted to prove fraud, which is very very difficult to prove, especially now that the release has been discussed extensively. The 7 could not claim now that they were tricked into signing.)Even though the release does not worry Daniel, there is very good reason for concern.3. Standing: Only someone who has been hurt by a behavior can sue over that behavior. If I see a man get beat up and the man doesn't want to sue for battery, I can't sue for battery since I'm not the one who got beat up. Private citizens normally can't enforce criminal statutes. I don't see how Lyle and the WPT can inject internet gambling (pimp behavior) into this lawsuit. If the police will not arrest the pimp or the DA will not press charges, the motel can't legally hold a trial and imprison the pimp in a private prison. The motel can only throw out the pimp and sue him civilly for trespass or an injury the motel actually suffered.Standing is also relevant to Daniel's objection over who the 7 are representing. The 7 are the only parties against the WPT in this lawsuit. They could have filed a class action on behalf of all players, and all this would have had to be litigated. They allege their own injuries and don't need to represent others. I don't think they claim that every poker player supports them. They believe that a change in the WPT release would be beneficial to every tournament poker player. I don't think Daniel disputes this.I find it funny that Daniel criticizes that the 7 claims to speak for all poker players, and then does it himself: "7 Players Vs The Wpt, It's actually 7 players against the rest of the players." I don't know what actual pros think or the percentage that support the lawsuit. I know that before the 2004 election, many people in NYC, Boston, or Chicago only had contact with Kerry voters and could not conceive that anyone would vote for Bush, and yet most voters did. Paul Phillips posted in favor of the lawsuit. In a 2+2 poll 49% supported the lawsuit, 30% opposed, 21% were undecided. Even 35% of this forum "think[s] the work the group of 7 is doing is commendable." I think these are indications that it is not actually "7 players against the rest of the players." It is 7 players (with the support of some others and opposition of some players) against the WPT.Anyway, I hope that these legal concepts are informative.

Let me break this down for those who don't want to read that whole thing.Daniel you friggin hypocrite, stick to poker and golf.

[stevedar]

I've said it once I'll say it at least one more time...you can conceivably, bring online poker into this since from what I skimmed from the lawsuit they are claiming financial hardship due to their inablitity to sign the release. Once their financials are in the open ownership stakes in online poker would become public matter. The lawsuit itself isn't going to cause problems...it's what might come out in the process.A different analogy would be that I as a cash only contractor sue "Mondo Builders" for infringing on my franchise territory causing declining revenue.This in itself could be a winning lawsuit, however if I have been operating without a license I could win the lawsuit but lose a seperate battle.

[Aardhart]

stevedar, on Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 2:56 PM, said:

A different analogy would be that I as a cash only contractor sue "Mondo Builders" for infringing on my franchise territory causing declining revenue.This in itself could be a winning lawsuit, however if I have been operating without a license I could win the lawsuit but lose a seperate battle.

In your analogy, the unlicensed (illegal) business is directly involved in the subject matter of the suit. In the present lawsuit, any connection between live WPT style tournaments and internet poker is far far more tenuous. I don't think that in order to have standing the 7 have to should hardship and an inability to make a living. I think they only have to show injury, e.g., suffering economic harm from not being able to play in poker tournaments. Regardless, their associations with poker sites are already well known (although the exact nature of the relationships may not be). I don't see this becoming an issue. The 7 certainly have not made it an issue. I don't see why they should be blamed if the WPT does something awful.

[showstopper24]

Daniel's pimp anthology was hilarious.

[stevedar]

Aardhart, on Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 5:06 PM, said:

In your analogy, the unlicensed (illegal) business is directly involved in the subject matter of the suit. In the present lawsuit, any connection between live WPT style tournaments and internet poker is far far more tenuous. I don't think that in order to have standing the 7 have to should hardship and an inability to make a living. I think they only have to show injury, e.g., suffering economic harm from not being able to play in poker tournaments. Regardless, their associations with poker sites are already well known (although the exact nature of the relationships may not be). I don't see this becoming an issue. The 7 certainly have not made it an issue. I don't see why they should be blamed if the WPT does something awful.

This is court...you have to show financial issues not just suggest themSecondly, I never in anyway said the WPT would do anything...I said that they would open their own books...FBI officials would be the ones to decide to charge people regarding the wire gambling laws.

[Aardhart]

stevedar, on Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 4:01 PM, said:

This is court...you have to show financial issues not just suggest themSecondly, I never in anyway said the WPT would do anything...I said that they would open their own books...

Injury from not being able to play in the WPT can be shown just from public information. All they have to show is that they have a +EV from playing in the tournament. This can be shown from past performance in the WPT and similar tournaments (e.g., total prize money minus entry fees), expert testimony, and other methods. (Can anyone dispute that Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer have +EV in a poker tournament?) They can also testify about revenue from endorsements. It is not necessary for them to open their books completely. If a car accident victim seeks lost wages, he only needs to prove the amount of wages and an inability to work; he does not have to show all his income such as investment income.All of this would only be necessary if the case goes to trial (and possibly only in the damages phase of the trial after liability is established). I do not see how the WPT can let it get to that. This whole thing is about a little, unnecessary, unfair, illegal provision in the release. (It's not about casinos being tied up, even though that was alleged. The casinos being tied up was in the complaint because everything gets tossed into complaints.) I'm sure the WPT can end this whole thing by modifying the release. (I do not have any relationship with either party and this is just speculation by an observer, but the WPT would be stupid not to try to end this as soon as possible.)

Quote

FBI officials would be the ones to decide to charge people regarding the wire gambling laws.

Yes, you are right. The Department of Justice ("DOJ", of which the FBI is a part) would be the ones that would pursue online gambling. They have done some stuff in the past. They seized money from Discovery Networks (parent of Travel Channel) and Paradise Poker for commercials. Many legal commentators said that the seizure was illegal, but it settled before going to trial. A Federal Court of Appeals held in a different case that there are no laws against online poker. Even though the facts contridict them, the DOJ still says that online poker is illegal. The seizure was several years ago. TV now openly runs .net commercials. The DOJ knows about the online sites, the commercials, and the live tournaments. They know Daniel is associated with Full Contact Poker. They could figure this out from his website and his wearing of FCP hats. They can charge anyone at anytime, but they haven't yet. Maybe they don't want to start a fight that they might lose. Maybe they are waiting for online poker to actually be illegal. Maybe they don't want a backlash that a prosecution might start.I don't see how an antitrust/unfair practices lawsuit about live tournaments would prompt the DOJ to charge anyone criminally or pursue anyone civilly. I do not see how an antitrust/unfair practices lawsuit about live tournaments would prompt lawmakers to pass any laws about online poker. I do not see how the DOJ needs any more information before doing anything.