pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:09:31
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
http://loveandcasinowar.com/blogarch/000467.php




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 22:23:09
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
The only thing I claim is knowing poker and cheating. Everything else
I dabble in. But, when you wish to debate me in the subjects I know,
you have less chance SLIM. Your chances are NONE. This is a newsgroup
on poker and yet you and many others talk as if you really know
something about the game. In the Valley of the Blind, Cyclops is King.
The problem here, is you're not in the Valley of the Blind, but you
are blind. Things like arguing law with lawyers show how smart you
are.

You've had an exchange with James Hankins who is a lawyer and think
you can interpret the law in a capacity beyond his. How stupid can you
be? TY, you already answered the question.





On Jan 27, 8:30=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 27 2009 10:10 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > First of all Wayne, WTF is an non-natural person? Next, the poster
> > above has stated he plays with cops in games and there is NO PROBLEM.
>
> For a man who claims to know how to use google, you're not very good at
> it. =EF=BF=BDA non-natural person is any legal entity that acts in most w=
ays like
> a person, but isn't actually one. =EF=BF=BDFor example, a corporation or
> partnership. =EF=BF=BDLike, oh say, the partnership that allows the pros =
to pool
> their money to play without getting raped by the IRS.
>
> The "cops" thing is totally irrelevant.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> --------=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 20:10:51
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
First of all Wayne, WTF is an non-natural person? Next, the poster
above has stated he plays with cops in games and there is NO PROBLEM.

But, the JACKPOT is the following. All these guys played in Larry
Flynt's Mansion in California, where playing poker is definetly
ILLEGAL. Many also played at the Pickford Estate when Jerry Buss ran a
game there. I couldn't get into that game.

So, these guys will play when it's against the law, if it suits them.
END OF STORY




On Jan 27, 7:59=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 27 2009 5:25 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> > TIME, no problem.
>
> Wrong question, Russ. =EF=BF=BDThe question is whether a non-natural pers=
on can
> engage in social gambling in Texas. =EF=BF=BDThe the law says no.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ----=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 22:57:35
From: Bill Clark
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
"RussGeorgiev@aol.com" <RussGeorgiev@aol.com > wrote in news:b621b391-
3332-4885-90b7-8eaeaa410244@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> First of all Wayne, WTF is an non-natural person?

A cloned poker player?

--
-bc-


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 20:30:00
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 10:10 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> First of all Wayne, WTF is an non-natural person? Next, the poster
> above has stated he plays with cops in games and there is NO PROBLEM.

For a man who claims to know how to use google, you're not very good at
it. A non-natural person is any legal entity that acts in most ways like
a person, but isn't actually one. For example, a corporation or
partnership. Like, oh say, the partnership that allows the pros to pool
their money to play without getting raped by the IRS.

The "cops" thing is totally irrelevant.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

-------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 22:32:50
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:8j3556xpqi.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 27 2009 10:10 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
>> First of all Wayne, WTF is an non-natural person? Next, the poster
>> above has stated he plays with cops in games and there is NO PROBLEM.
>
> For a man who claims to know how to use google, you're not very good at
> it. A non-natural person is any legal entity that acts in most ways like
> a person, but isn't actually one. For example, a corporation or
> partnership. Like, oh say, the partnership that allows the pros to pool
> their money to play without getting raped by the IRS.
>
> The "cops" thing is totally irrelevant.


The IRS is totally irrelevant. Income is income in Nevada just like it is
in Texas. You've just constructed this fiction that players pooling their
money suddenly turns them into non-people under the gambling statute in
Texas and it's utter horseshit. How many of the participants in The
Corporation have given this as the reason they won't play Beale?




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:25:14
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
TIME, no problem.






On Jan 27, 1:39=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 27 2009 3:09 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >http://loveandcasinowar.com/blogarch/000467.php
>
> Here are the actual statutes. =EF=BF=BDThey don't really bear any resembl=
ance to
> what's on that website anyways.
>
> But we're glad to know you know how to use google, Russ.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________=
=EF=BF=BD
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 19:59:29
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 5:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> TIME, no problem.

Wrong question, Russ. The question is whether a non-natural person can
engage in social gambling in Texas. The the law says no.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:06:26
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 10:59 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:

> On Jan 27 2009 5:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> > TIME, no problem.
>
> Wrong question, Russ. The question is whether a non-natural person can
> engage in social gambling in Texas. The the law says no.
>

You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know how to read a
legal statute.

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 07:55:33
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 9:59 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:

> On Jan 27 2009 5:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> > TIME, no problem.
>
> Wrong question, Russ. The question is whether a non-natural person can
> engage in social gambling in Texas. The the law says no.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?

Non resident?

Not born in Texas?

Wouldn't these two be easily identified in a statute?

----- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:18:37
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 28 2009 10:55 AM, Will_gamble wrote:

> On Jan 27 2009 9:59 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27 2009 5:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> > > TIME, no problem.
> >
> > Wrong question, Russ. The question is whether a non-natural person can
> > engage in social gambling in Texas. The the law says no.
> >
> > Wayne Vinson
> > http://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?
>
> Non resident?
>
> Not born in Texas?
>
> Wouldn't these two be easily identified in a statute?

A natural person would be 5th generation Texan. Less than 5th generation
would be an Okie, ie, non-natural person. Yankees are generally
considered non-persons.

------ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 28 Jan 2009 08:30:39
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
> I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?
>
> Non resident?
>
> Not born in Texas?
>
> Wouldn't these two be easily identified in a statute?

I already said it's any legal entity such as a corporation or partnership
that sometimes counts as a "person" for legal purposes, but isn't actually
a physical person. An example would be the partnership the pros would
need to pool money.

If you look at the Texas law, a non-natural person doesn't meet the social
gambling exception because people other than the player benefit, violating
clause (2) of the social gambling exception. This is a standard feature
of almost if not all social gambling laws, intended to prevent people from
running casino-like operations under their guise. It appears that there's
at least one current prosecution in Texas for someone trying to do exactly
that, so this is NOT a paper tiger. It's a real legal problem that anyone
with a brain would stay far away from, especially if they would have to
cross state lines to participate (which renders it a federal felony, not a
piddly state misdemeanor).

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 28 Jan 2009 11:20:38
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:fqd656xs34.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?
>>
>> Non resident?
>>
>> Not born in Texas?
>>
>> Wouldn't these two be easily identified in a statute?
>
> I already said it's any legal entity such as a corporation or partnership
> that sometimes counts as a "person" for legal purposes, but isn't actually
> a physical person. An example would be the partnership the pros would
> need to pool money.
>
> If you look at the Texas law, a non-natural person doesn't meet the social
> gambling exception because people other than the player benefit, violating
> clause (2) of the social gambling exception. This is a standard feature
> of almost if not all social gambling laws, intended to prevent people from
> running casino-like operations under their guise. It appears that there's
> at least one current prosecution in Texas for someone trying to do exactly
> that, so this is NOT a paper tiger. It's a real legal problem that anyone
> with a brain would stay far away from, especially if they would have to
> cross state lines to participate (which renders it a federal felony, not a
> piddly state misdemeanor).


OK. What basis do you have for your assertion that your legal reason above
is the reason given by Ivey et al. for refusing to play Beale in Dallas?
Your assertion all along was that this hypertechnical legal interpretation
was the reason they won't play. How do you know this?

And, I don't suppose you could provide some details about the "current
prosecution in Texas" on this matter?




      
Date: 28 Jan 2009 09:34:02
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
> OK. What basis do you have for your assertion that your legal reason above
> is the reason given by Ivey et al. for refusing to play Beale in Dallas?
> Your assertion all along was that this hypertechnical legal interpretation
> was the reason they won't play. How do you know this?

Because the players said as much. I don't remember where, but Todd
pointed out that given Texas law there was no way to get their money down
without creating a tax shitstorm and that Beal should just nut up and come
play at one of the Vegas casinos.

> And, I don't suppose you could provide some details about the "current
> prosecution in Texas" on this matter?

I'll try to dig it up tonight - a "rakeless" poker club was busted a while
back on the basis of what I described, and I believe it's still waiting to
go to trial.


Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



       
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:43:23
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
> Because the players said as much. I don't remember where, but Todd
> pointed out that given Texas law there was no way to get their money down
> without creating a tax shitstorm and that Beal should just nut up and come
> play at one of the Vegas casinos.

A tax shitstorm is way different than what you've been spouting here.

I would argue, as would any lawyer in this case, that a partnership (or
corporation), can actually play in a game of poker. There may be an
agreement to split profits and such after an individual plays in the game,
but the partnership sure as hell aint sitting at the table playing.

This whole argument of yours is retarded and doesn't have anything to do
with the real world.

Dean

"When you respond to me, you are responding to a troll." - Paul Popinjay
1/16/2009

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



        
Date: 28 Jan 2009 15:58:17
From: Mark B [Diputsur]
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
IF the corporation thought they had a big edge over Beal, they would have
been in their cars heading to the airport immediately after hearing his
terms. The fact is, he scares the shit out of them. He outplayed the fuck
out of most of them and had they not (admittedly) gotten hit by the deck
during a few key sessions, he would have put a HUGE dent in their rolls.
Wasn't there also an issue with the blinds? Beal had them raised at one
point and I thought I read somewhere that he wanted to continue where they
left off, whereas Doyle requested (on behalf of the corp) that the limits be
brought back down if there was to be another match. He scares them.
Period.




        
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:52:58
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
> A tax shitstorm is way different than what you've been spouting here.

No, it has everything to do with the facts I've been presenting. There's
only so much I can do to help you see the connection though. If you want
to remain confused, ultimately that's your choice.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



       
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:25:17
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 28 2009 12:34 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:

> > OK. What basis do you have for your assertion that your legal reason
above
> > is the reason given by Ivey et al. for refusing to play Beale in Dallas?
> > Your assertion all along was that this hypertechnical legal interpretation
> > was the reason they won't play. How do you know this?
>
> Because the players said as much. I don't remember where, but Todd
> pointed out that given Texas law there was no way to get their money down
> without creating a tax shitstorm and that Beal should just nut up and come
> play at one of the Vegas casinos.

LOL.

Texas has no state oncome tax.

They wouldn't go to Texas to play Beale because it would increase his
comfort level and decrease theirs, possibly negating any edge they might
have thought they'd have. (sleep pattern disruptions, sleeping in hotel
rooms, etc).


>
> > And, I don't suppose you could provide some details about the "current
> > prosecution in Texas" on this matter?
>
> I'll try to dig it up tonight - a "rakeless" poker club was busted a while
> back on the basis of what I described, and I believe it's still waiting to
> go to trial.

No, it was busted because its claim of "rakeless" was just a meaningless
pretense. A rake by some other name is still a rake -- revenue is revenue.


>
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 28 Jan 2009 07:59:31
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 28 2009 9:55 AM, Will_gamble wrote:

> I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?
> Non resident?
> Not born in Texas?

No cowboy hat, no pickup truck?

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 28 Jan 2009 13:16:55
From: BTSinAustin
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 28 2009 10:59 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 28 2009 9:55 AM, Will_gamble wrote:
>
> > I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?
> > Non resident?
> > Not born in Texas?
>
> No cowboy hat, no pickup truck?
>

Hey we are not all rednecks, just like you cheese heads are not all cheese
heads.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 28 Jan 2009 08:07:52
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 28 2009 9:59 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 28 2009 9:55 AM, Will_gamble wrote:
>
> > I still want to know what a 'non-natural' person is in Texas?
> > Non resident?
> > Not born in Texas?
>
> No cowboy hat, no pickup truck?
>
Small belt buckle and a big dick

I actually found his lame explanation later in the thread. I was thinking
about why some people on here will stay with an argument even though they
have to know they are wrong. They must not work anywhere they have to
actually deal with other people.

It really isn't a sign of weakness to say 'hey, I see what you mean and
you just might be right'

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 28 Jan 2009 11:17:24
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G

"Will_gamble" <a1794@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:ofc656xr93.ln2@recgroups.com...


> It really isn't a sign of weakness to say 'hey, I see what you mean and
> you just might be right'


It it's an unsettled part of Texas law then a person might have some
hesitation in playing a high stakes game under those circumstances. But,
Wayne's point is that the hypertechnical legal argument is the reason why
Ivey and the others will not go to Dallas to play Beale. It's just kooky.




  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:08:28
From: BTSinAustin
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 6:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> TIME, no problem.
>


Correct. I have played in home games with cops for years.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:04:30
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 7:08 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:

> On Jan 27 2009 6:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> > TIME, no problem.
> >
>
>
> Correct. I have played in home games with cops for years.

It's a little more complex than that.

First of all it has to be no charges or revenues of any kind, no tipping,
no collections for pizza, nothing.

Also, if the game is in a public place with a liquor license there might
be some TABC regs about card games in general (there used to be a bar in
Victoria which used card faced dominoes because TABC didn't allow cards or
dice in a room that served drinks).

Hiring a cop to kill your ex-wife is still a crime, even if the cop is
on-duty though.

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 07:32:52
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 7:08 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:

> On Jan 27 2009 6:25 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I called my TEXAS friends and they have all told me the same, NO RAKE/
> > TIME, no problem.
> >
>
>
> Correct. I have played in home games with cops for years.

that proves nothing, I drink beer on city property and smoke pot with
cops.

Chris

"NO! I want this shit to STOP! Right NOW! Nobody takes me serious
anymore." - Paul
Popinjay, 01/16/2009

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:39:43
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
On Jan 27 2009 3:09 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> http://loveandcasinowar.com/blogarch/000467.php


Here are the actual statutes. They don't really bear any resemblance to
what's on that website anyways.

But we're glad to know you know how to use google, Russ.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:46:05
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Poker Legal In TEXAS-----Russ G
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.47.htm

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com