Live data from Hacker News

FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

forumserver.twoplustwo.com

331–340 of 402 posts

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#331
post #7

Reagan is the one who signed "asset forfeiture" into law. I remember at the time reading newspaper articles claiming this was "just going to be used to keep drugs off the streets" and how "law enforcement are outgunned and now can defend themselves against drug dealers". It was obvious to me then that this was a violation of due process. Also, it is not authorized by the constitution, and thus every act of seizure un…

I've made the legal case in defense of those wrongfully convicted.

No you haven't. Even though I happen to agree with you about this, you are talking through your hat and are arguing politics, not law. You are your own worst enemy, because you have so little knowledge of how your own system of governance or justice works that you spend all your effort on venting your anger without achieving anything. Get educated, then get organized. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#332
"Australian internet whiz Daniel Tzvetkoff, who has become a prized FBI informant in a bid to avoid a 75 year jail sentence in the US, may have brought down the multi-billion dollar American online poker industry.

The three poker sites - PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker - have been shut down."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/f...

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#333
post #281

If the press release is true, these guys are going away for a long time. They allegedly bribed the owner of a US bank with cash and allegedly purchased 30% of the bank in exchange for the bank allowing them to circumvent US money laundering and anti-gambling laws. There's a lot of civil liberty discussion in this thread, but I think this is actually a fascinating story about the linkage points between the internet an…

Over the line? Why did they have to bribe a bank to accept their business? That's crazy! The liberty to conduct everyday business is the most important liberty we have. It's what puts bread on the table. The fact that they had to bribe a bank to open and use an account is really really sick.

Online gambling is illegal in the United States. It is, by _definition_, not "everyday business."

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#334
post #281

If the press release is true, these guys are going away for a long time. They allegedly bribed the owner of a US bank with cash and allegedly purchased 30% of the bank in exchange for the bank allowing them to circumvent US money laundering and anti-gambling laws. There's a lot of civil liberty discussion in this thread, but I think this is actually a fascinating story about the linkage points between the internet an…

Over the line? Why did they have to bribe a bank to accept their business? That's crazy! The liberty to conduct everyday business is the most important liberty we have. It's what puts bread on the table. The fact that they had to bribe a bank to open and use an account is really really sick.

It's not over the line; they wanted to do a business that's illegal in the states, so they (allegedly) committed crimes. If they had wanted they could have banned US players, and only accepted money from players in other countries. They didn't want to do that.

I'm presuming most of the main people here don't live in the states, they are no doubt implementing their own personal Plan B's right now, and have already landed in their chosen spots.

The US citizens living in the US are in the most trouble, I'd guess.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#335
post #79
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". What is happening is here is reprehensible, but I don't think you will find any defense against it in due process.

> Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". If you can't read the document and deduce it's meaning, why use this document? Is this an emperors clothe type of thing?

If you can't read the document and deduce it's meaning, why use this document? Is this an emperors clothe type of thing?

Why teach the illiterate to read? What good are words if people need teachers to explain them?

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#336
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually read the document, you would see that the document includes provisions for a court system under the very correct assumption that some people would read the document and come to different conclusions about just what the document means. Ever played a board game and had people disagreed on what the rules said. If you play games of any complexity, it happens all the time. Life is considerably more difficu…

If you actually read the document, you would see that the document includes provisions for a court system under the very correct assumption that some people would read the document and come to different conclusions about just what the document means. The document does have a court system, but if you read it closely you'll realize that nowhere in it does it say that the courts have the ability to rule on the constitut…

Yes, but that decision was grounded in the courts' enumerated powers and strangely nobody has seen fit to overturn it by amendment despite having a whole 2 centuries in which to do so.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#338
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation" [citation needed]

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Right. Where's the bit about determining the constitutionality of laws? It's not spelled out

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#339
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land To the contrary, my point is this document is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. So, who interprets it? The judges of course! The very people this document is supposed to protect me from. Seems a bit circular. Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names. How can the constitution defend my right to free speech and a…

yes, who watches the watchers?

Ever heard of separation of powers? Three branches of government?
Post reply on HN