Grinder, Esfandiari, Seif Cut From Team Ub/ap

[Shizzmoney 0]

http://thepokerbiz.com/professional-poker-...muth-and-othersTeam UB tables are down and only Phil's bio is on the homepage now.

UltimateBet and Absolute Poker have made the decision to distance themselves from professional player endorsements and have essentially fired Antonio Esfandiari, Michael “The Grinder” Mizrachi and Mark Seif.The futures of Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth are a little bit cloudier given their ownership status. Rumor has it that Hellmuth will no longer promote the UltimateBet brand in the United States, but will continue to do so in Europe and Asia.The players were told that “legal issues” were the central concern and the official reason for the contract termination. There is also some thought that company executives were worried U.S. authorities may attempt to make an example out of one of their players and arrest them, probably using similar reasoning to the NETeller arrests.The endorsement deals were worth upwards of $500K per year and included provisions for buy-ins and bonuses for final tables made and logo exposure through interviews and photographs.The move by Absolute Poker, which purchased UltimateBet late last year, could be their first step towards leaving the US market altogether or could simply be a move to provide their brand with some security knowing that they have no employees on U.S. soil.

[iowahawk09 0]

Sucks for them, I guess Hellmuth will actually have to be good at poker to get paid now.

[bdc30 0]

Can a DN-less FCP be far behind?Not that it would be as big a blow as when the ongame site was in it's day, but it sure would hurt any chance they had to get back to that level.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Can a DN-less FCP be far behind?Not that it would be as big a blow as when the ongame site was in it's day, but it sure would hurt any chance they had to get back to that level.

FCP has a poker room? Since when?

[iowahawk09 0]

FCP has a poker room? Since when?

They have poker rooms? Since when?

[nutzbuster 7]

Grinder, Esfandiari, Seif Cut From Team Ub/ap

Ow.

[scram 1]

The first "paid spokesman" poker player to be in-processed by a US Marshal and dunked in the holding tank until the bond hearing will probably come around to a similar line of thinking awfully fast (God, I hope it's Hellmuth. Please let it be Hellmuth. I bet you will see tears in his mugshot)There is no question in my mind that a US Attorney/AUSA somewhere will eventually go after a poker site for violating that remarkably dumb law and they very well may snag a "high profile employee" to make their intentions known. IIRC, there aren't too many sites still taking deposits from US banks (FTP being an exception). What will happen is that the justice department will issue warnings to sites that they believe are "violating the law" and the first one to tell them to pound sand or fail to cooperate is the winner of charges. Your attorney says you aren't doing anything illegal?Well, come on down! You're the next contestant on the Feds are Right!Any given US Attorneys office is like any other Federal government law enforcement arm. They erally don't have anything better to do. Honestly. I know. They don't. There just aren't enough inside traders, Bin Ladens and/or Martha Stewarts to go around, so they must fabricate them in order to prove that they're "doing their job". The passage of yet another law assists them in creating a new class of criminals and reasons to keep on prosecuting. They're overpaid, terribly overstaffed offices stuffed with 3 piece suits, their assistants and assistants for the assistants who help the attorneys find something to do (when they're not too busy bitching about how understaffed and overworked they are).Bet your butt that an AUSA somewhere is in the process of making an "online poker" case as we speak.IF anyone wants to lay an over/under of 2 years before we see a case, I'll take a piece of the under.

[flyingdonkey 0]

[iowahawk09 0]

I hope its Seif, I just hate that guy. Ever see his commentary on the PPT...dude is a straight up idiot

[WashaUffizi 0]

I hope its Seif, I just hate that guy. Ever see his commentary on the PPT...dude is a straight up idiot

Mark is a good guy and far from an idiot. Multiple WPT final tables and back-to-back WSOP bracelets are pretty high accomplishments, your post makes you sound like an idiot.

[StrippersNBlow 0]

I hope its Seif, I just hate that guy. Ever see his commentary on the PPT...dude is a straight up idiot

How's law school coming along for you?

[flyingdonkey 0]

I hope its Seif, I just hate that guy. Ever see his commentary on the PPT...dude is a straight up idiot

So because he is not the best commentator, he "is a straight up idiot"??????

[terex 0]

I bet that if any poker player is arrested for involvement with these websites, it'll be Lederer. FTP still heavily advertises in the US, he has an ownership role at FTP, and he is a well-known player. They went after the founders of NETteller. I bet the feds will do the same with the poker sites, if they choose to go after them also.

[psujohn 0]

The feds will have a much harder time going after poker only sites. Neteller and all other other targets so far have been involved with sports betting which is more clearly illegal. Non sports betting is in more of a gray area - remember that UIGEA doesn't do anything to make any activity illegal - it just seeks to prevent financial companies from doing transactions with illegal gambling sites. If the feds go after poker and lose it could easily set a precedent that they don't want to see. Lawyers don't like to prosecute an "optional" case like this unless they KNOW they can win.

[WashaUffizi 0]

iowahawk09 is the most worthless poster on this forum. If he's not making ridiculous comments like the Mark Seif one, then he is telling Daniel not to listen to the people who disagree with his blog for the 10,000th time. He is obviously a kid who is attention starved and doesn't know how to appropriately articulate his posts.

[Kestral123 0]

I hate Bill Frist. He is making my entire state look bad.I went to a breakfast this morning and, unbeknownst to me, good ol Billy was introducing the keynote speaker. I want to go up and kick him in the nuts, tell him "see how it feels?" and then tell him that I'd transfer him some settlement money from the inevitable lawsuit via Neteller....if I could. Sucker.

[scram 1]

The feds will have a much harder time going after poker only sites. Neteller and all other other targets so far have been involved with sports betting which is more clearly illegal. Non sports betting is in more of a gray area - remember that UIGEA doesn't do anything to make any activity illegal - it just seeks to prevent financial companies from doing transactions with illegal gambling sites. If the feds go after poker and lose it could easily set a precedent that they don't want to see. Lawyers don't like to prosecute an "optional" case like this unless they KNOW they can win.

Actually, that isn't accurate.There isn't anything about sports betting that is more "clearly illegal" compared to poker. Federal control over wagering is done via the Wire Act of 1961 (due to its nexus with interstate commence).The first title in the abstract of HR 4411 (109) is "Modernization of the Wire Act of 1961".HR4411 Title 1 Section 101 "defines "bets and wagers" to include bets for contests, sporting events, games predominantly subject to chance, and lotteries."Now, you and I know that poker is a game of skill and there is some limited precedence in the courts that hold as much, however, "predominantly subject to chance" is sufficiently broad so as to include internet poker, seeing as the entire game is predicated on a random number generator. Title 1 Section 102 holds:

Prohibits any individual from accepting, in connection with the placing of bets or wagers to or from the United States: (1) credit, or the proceeds of credit; (2) electronic funds transfers; (3) checks, drafts, or similar instruments; or (4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction as prescribed by Treasury regulations.

This is extremely dangerous to simple players, not just sites or financial institutions, as the statutory nomenclature very much leans towards "anyone" who wagers with the "proceeds" of a financial transaction.Title 1 Section 104 shows that they're serious about making an example of "someone".

Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Justice in FY2007-FY2010 for investigations and prosecutions of unlawful Internet gambling.

This means that they didn't just "pass the law" and plan to ensnare whoever happens to trip up about it at some point in the future- they actually drafted funding for proactive investigations from fiscal year 07-10 right into the law itself. Like I said earlier. I'll take the under on prosecutions in 2 years or less.Title 3 of HR4411 (109) is a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.In short, the feds don't have a single impediment in going not only after "poker sites" but "poker players" if they so chose. The likelihood that they will go after online poker players is very slim, but HR 4411 gives them the statutory authority to do if if they want. Criminalizing "the proceeds of any other financial transaction in connection with unlawful Internet gambling" is the head shot.

[MikeJohnson724 0]

iowahawk09 is the most worthless poster on this forum. If he's not making ridiculous comments like the Mark Seif one, then he is telling Daniel not to listen to the people who disagree with his blog for the 10,000th time. He is obviously a kid who is attention starved and doesn't know how to appropriately articulate his posts.

QFT

[a__thekevlar__2 0]

none of these players need to worry about sponsorships, its probably a good thing for them to not be with ub anymore as that site has really taken a turn for the worse and may not be around much longer.

[snooptoddd 0]

Actually, that isn't accurate.

Actually, it is ... several courts have held that the wire act only cleary applies to sports betting and the rest is a gray area. Why do you think the DOJ hasn't gone after any poker folks yet? Because they aren't certain they can win. They go after the sports betting crowd because they're certain the law is on their side. They'll say anything to make Americans believe that Internet poker is illegal, but actions speak louder than words.

[scram 1]

Actually, it is

Nope. Still isn't.

... several courts have held that the wire act only cleary applies to sports betting and the rest is a gray area.

Good. Provide me with case numbers and I'll look them up.

Why do you think the DOJ hasn't gone after any poker folks yet?

Uh, golly.... Maybe because funding for investigations and prosecutions of unlawful Internet gambling only started two months ago with the passage of the bill? It has nothing to do if they "think they can win". It has everything to do with their hands being effectively tied up until the passage of this bill. It takes more than 3 months to build a case.Like I said before, and I'll say it again.Over/Under on prosecutions in 2 years, I'll take the under and put my money where my mouth is.

[snooptoddd 0]

Good. Provide me with case numbers and I'll look them up.

Don't have the case number, but this should help add to the confusion ...http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm

The language of the Wire Act clearly prohibits the use of the Internet for transmission of sports bets or wagers or information assisting in the placement of such bets or wagers,[72]unless transmission falls within one of the two exceptions noted above. The statute, however, does not expressly discuss its possible application to other forms of gambling. As a result, differing interpretations have arisen over the construction of the phrase "any sporting event or contest," and over whether the 40-year old Wire Act prohibits Internet gambling.The interpretation of this language turns upon the determination of whether "sporting" is an adjective intended to modify both "event" and "contest." [73] Neither section 1084 nor the definitional section 1081 defines the term "sporting event or contest." A narrow construction would seem to suggest that the phrase is limited to sports-related activities. [74] There is support for this argument in the language of the statute, in the legislative history and in case law.

[snooptoddd 0]

Uh, golly.... Maybe because funding for investigations and prosecutions of unlawful Internet gambling only started two months ago with the passage of the bill? It has nothing to do if they "think they can win". It has everything to do with their hands being effectively tied up until the passage of this bill. It takes more than 3 months to build a case.Like I said before, and I'll say it again.Over/Under on prosecutions in 2 years, I'll take the under and put my money where my mouth is.

Oh yeah, and the current cases on trial are Wire Act prosecutions, not UIGEA prosecutions. Nothing in the UIGEA makes it illegal to have a promotional relationship with an Internet gambling compay, it only makes it illegal for financial institutions to transfer your money to those Internet gambling companies. So unless you're sending Phil Hellmuth money on Pay Pal that he's depositing in your UB account, I think he would be safe.

[SilentButDeadly3 0]

iowahawk09 is the most worthless poster on this forum.

He does go to the University of Iowa. Heyoooooooooooooooo Go Cyclones

[scram 1]

snooptodd- It really boils down to much of this being test case territory. If people are willing to risk being "the tested", then they can safely adhere to the interpretation you posted above.The language of the statute that address "anyone" and "the proceeds" very much makes this a law that has absolute potential to reach further than financial institutions.I am of the opinion that, based on the Wire Act and it's most recent modifications. they have footing to really screw poker sites if they choose. Paid employees of online poker sites could very easily (and conceivably) be targeted to "make an example". One thing about arguing law on the internet- it is a whole different world than arguing it in front of a judge who is making abstract decisions in real time. When ones well-thought interpretations and rock-solid understanding of the statutory nomenclature are shot down by a real Judge in a real courtroom who simply says "I disagree with your assessment of this law", it is an awfully frustrating thing- and it's just how it happens in the legal system.Y- "Buh, buh, but Judge! I read on the internet that it only applies to financial institutions!"J- "See this line where it says "anyone"? Well, that would mean your poker website."