Poker Players Alliance ForumsPoker Is Not A Crime: Discuss The Fight

-- Choose a Forum -- Poker Players Alliance PPA Online Site Updates Ask Skallagrim State - AL State - AK State - AZ State - AR State - CA State - CO State - CT State - DE State - DC State - FL State - GA State - HI State - ID State - IL State - IN State - IA State - KS State - KY State - LA State - ME State - MD State - MA State - MI State - MN State - MS State - MO State - MT State - NE State - NV State - NH State - NJ State - NM State - NY State - NC State - ND State - OH State - OK State - OR State - PA State - RI State - SC State - SD State - TN State - TX State - UT State - VT State - VA State - WA State - WV State - WI State - WY

Poker Players Alliance Forums » State - PA

1. Mayor
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_11616405

   Pa. judge says poker tourneys are illegal gambling
   The Associated Press
   Updated: 02/03/2009 08:02:05 AM EST

   GREENSBURG, Pa.—A western Pennsylvania judge says poker tournaments are illegal gambling under state law and has refused to dismiss charges against three men.

   Attorney David Millstein has argued the state law prohibiting illegal gambling is vague because it does not specifically list poker. Millstein says poker is also not gambling because it involves skill, not mere chance.

   But Westmoreland County Judge Richard McCormick Jr. says previous court cases, combined with common sense, make it clear that poker is covered by the state law.

   Millstein represents 65-year-old attorney Larry Burns who has organized Texas Hold 'Em tournaments at volunteer fire departments. Burns doesn't deny doing that, but argues the tournaments aren't illegal under the state law.

   McCormick's ruling applies to two other men charged with similar offenses.

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. Skallagrim
   State Director & Moderator
   Visit User Profile

   Very bad article written by a reporter with no concept of criminal law.

   The judge (only) ruled that the PA gambling law was not Unconstitutionally vague. The defendants had argued that the definition of gambling in PA (whether a game's outcome is predominantly the result of skill or chance) is so confusing that a reasonable person could not understand whether it applies to poker or not. The judge said "no" only to that.

   Whether these defendants are guilty will be determined later at a trial where the State will have to prove that poker is game where the outcomes are mostly the product of chance. If the state fails to do this, the defendant's go free. If the state succeeds at this, the ruling says the defendant's cant complain that they couldn't see it coming.

   Skallagrim

   Posted 1 year ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.

Poker Players Alliance Home

Poker Players Alliance Forums is proudly powered by bbPress.