Reply to comment

Please go call a lawyer or twenty so they can all give you the same advice. There is a HUGE difference between the courts saying you have violated a law versus someone trying to BUY their freedom by willingly claiming they violated a law in a PRIVATE SETTLEMENT. A JUDGE RULED that violating the wireact in a Mastercard COURT ROOM CASE PERTAINED only to SPORTS BETTING. That is actual PRECEDENCE set by a LEGAL COURT. The fact that DIKSHIT desperately went in and signed whatever doj papers they asked for means nothing. His actions do not setup LEGAL precedence. In a legal courtroom you would find I am correct which is why there have been NO pure poker arrests (A poker site with ZERO attachment to SPORTSBOOKS). If somebody had the guts to fight the DOJ on it they would lose. The DOJ was offered a fortune by DIKSHIT and why wouldn't they take it if nobody is going to fight them on it? Also how about you go and read the actual WIRE ACT. The language is quite clear. Please refer to http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case151.cfm for the evidence from me you asked for. THE DOJ NEVER APPEALED THE RULING. They knew they were dead on the matter. Again if you do not believe, go consult a REAL LAWYER. "[P]laintiffs strenuously argue that the Wire Act does not require sporting events or contests to be the object of the gambling. However, a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest. … Since plaintiffs have failed to allege that they engaged in sports gambling, and internet gambling in connection with activities other than sports betting is not illegal under federal law, plaintiffs have no cause of action against the credit card companies or the banks under the Wire Act." ALSO The PPA Chairman, Alfonse D’Amato, said the following: “The Poker Players Alliance is disappointed to learn of Anurag Dikshit’s guilty plea to the Department of Justice under the Wire Act. To be clear, as a private settlement between two parties, this plea does not change existing law in the United States nor does it establish any kind of precedent moving forward.”