Bad News for OffShore Books

[BigdaddyQH]

With the capitulation of BetOnSports, the door is now wide open for the feds to pursue any and every offshore book they choose to pursue. They now have what is known in the legal profession as "Case History" to fall back on. While Case History does not necessairily help in convictions, it certainly makes things like injunctions, warrants, and other legal moves normally made by the prosecution much easier to obtain. No attorney can argue the legality of such warrants and subpoenas.

Let the buyer beware. From this point on, if your offshore book goes down, no one can say that they did not see it coming, because the precedent has been set. This is like shooting ducks at the carnival now for the feds. Guilt by association is not enough to convict, but it is enough to temporarily shut a book down now. This is like earthquakes in California or Hurricanes down South. You may not know when they are coming, or where they are going to strike, but you know they are coming.

[Dr. Jack]

Bullshit. You keep talking like you know everything. There are some strong accusations about BoS and the actions of BoS people. This has nothing to do with offshore gambling and right to shut everyone down. If you are a book and you cross the line you are not going to get away with any crap. But with saying that – this will have ZERO affect on legitimate sportsbooks. JMO

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by BigdaddyQH

They now have what is known in the legal profession as "Case History" to fall back on. While Case History does not necessairily help in convictions, it certainly makes things like injunctions, warrants, and other legal moves normally made by the prosecution much easier to obtain. No attorney can argue the legality of such warrants and subpoenas.

Once again you have wonderfully demonstrated just how completely out of touch you are.

Guess what BD, there is no "case history" yet as these charges against BOS and their minions have not even gone to trial. I would think that a retired police officer with your alleged standing would be able to recognize the difference between a hearing and a trial.

Furthermore, your post serves to better support the opinion of the majority of Americans that the LAPD does not know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground. If indeed you actually were a police officer at any point in you life, I would like to believe that you would have a grasp of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and just might have a hint as to the difference between charges filed and "case history".

I hate to go on but, please explain how “case history does not necessairily (sic) help in convictions”? You sir, are a clown and really have no idea what you are rambling on about.

[BigdaddyQH]

I stand corrected. They have not been convicted yet, though they are a cinch for conviction. It does not change the fact that the Case Law has been established. I though one copped out, but I may have been a bit premature in that, atleast for this forum.

I understand you being so defensive about this, because if they start closing down more books, a lot of you guys are out of business, gambling wise. I told you when MVP took that rediculous bet on the Belmont that something was not right. I guess I was right. And please do not tell me that one thing had nothing to do with the other. Which wager that they took on that race helped raised all the red flags? I'm sure you will do whatever you want, so go for it. Good Luck. They can close every offshore book tomorrow and it will not affect me in the least, so good luck guys. I am sure that a lot of you in here have more money than you want to admit to tied up in MVP, BetOnSports, and their subsidiaries. I hope they are true to their word and give you your funds back, and not at some B.S. foreign rate. Again, good luck guys. I sincerely mean that. If you are going to lose money, atleast lose going down fighting, not getting ripped off.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by BigdaddyQH

I told you when MVP took that rediculous bet on the Belmont that something was not right. I guess I was right. And please do not tell me that one thing had nothing to do with the other. Which wager that they took on that race helped raised all the red flags?

Please refer to the last sentence of my previous post.

[Dr. Jack]

Originally Posted by BigdaddyQH

I told you when MVP took that rediculous bet on the Belmont that something was not right. I guess I was right. And please do not tell me that one thing had nothing to do with the other.

This is 100% false. BoS purchased MVP. You really have no idea.

Originally Posted by BigdaddyQH

I am sure that a lot of you in here have more money than you want to admit to tied up in MVP, BetOnSports, and their subsidiaries. I hope they are true to their word and give you your funds back, and not at some B.S. foreign rate.

Who's not admitting it? I think people (including me) have said we are screwed and we know it. I mean seriously - come with some damn facts and not this constant bullshit you spew all over this forum

[Bobtheicon]

My guess is BD has a lot of cash in MVP or BOS himself and somehow these unfounded rants make him feel better.

[Jimmy K]

I for one am not worried, BOS was apparently doing some shady shit, including soliciting on college campuses. The USA has NO legal jurisdiction as far as I can tell over any outside gaming companies. The money that is being gambled by Americans is sent via 3rd party into an offshore acct, not only that the wire act (as i can tell) has no say in cable connections only phone connections. As long as books don't do stupid shit like BOS is accused of we should all be fine.

[robertg]

bigdaddy,

do you work for the justice dartment, or are u a local book? is this just sour grapes because you may have lost some offshore with bos shutting down?

you have been negative about all offshore books since bos troubles started, like you have inside knowledge of more to come. You have posted at least 10 times that we are all basically stupid to not have an in at a vegas book.

I have several questions for you, but its probably a waste of time. here goes anyway. if all offshore books are doomed, and stealing our money, am I just lucky, i have had a successful withdrawl from sportsbook and a succesfull echeck withdrawl from bodog since this all started.(i'm still down, but not because of some crackdown,but because over the course of 20 years, I have lost more money than I have won)

Isn't it clearly illegal for any of us outside of nevada to place wagers, directly or indirectly with someone in the US? and if I'm not mistaken, it has still not been ruled illegal for me or anyone else to place a wager offshore.


The only alternative to having a schill in
vegas or an offshore book would be a local book. Correct?
I have been stiffed by a local going out of business and I would just BET
many others have too.

As I see it offshore is much safer than any other way to wager......but of course everything is a GAMBLE. And that is what we all do!!! SO WHAT IS
YOUR POINT WITH ALL THIS NEGATIVITY?

[Jimmy K]

Originally Posted by robertg

bigdaddy,

and if I'm not mistaken, it has still not been ruled illegal for me or anyone else to place a wager offshore.

not really, very ambiguous at this point, the realm of the internet has not been clearly defined by any legal body.

[Bobtheicon]

I'm on DSL - that's a phone line.

[robertg]

this is splitting hairs, but i've had wireless internet at my house for 4 years.

[Deck]

Originally Posted by Bobtheicon

My guess is BD has a lot of cash in MVP or BOS himself and somehow these unfounded rants make him feel better.

i am sure he will correct me if i am wrong but i believe bdqh only uses vegas sportbooks. some of us aren't that lucky to live there or close by. I sure i will one day though.

[Bobtheicon]

Originally Posted by Deck

i am sure he will correct me if i am wrong but i believe bdqh only uses vegas sportbooks. some of us aren't that lucky to live there or close by. I sure i will one day though.

So, he is just pissing people off for no reason.
Nice.

[Jimmy K]

Originally Posted by Bobtheicon

I'm on DSL - that's a phone line.

I'm on broadband cable, no phone line whatsoever, wireless is the same deal. As I said, it is very ambiguous, but as far as non-phone lines, I do not believe they are covered by the wire act, perhaps one our lawyer members can clarify.