Lodge Card Club Raided / Grand Jury does not indict any Lodge employees
Came looking for some info on this, but I guess I will kick the thread off. Anyone there at the time or know more detail
No, and he cannot considering the possible implications if he did, especially if bankruptcy is on the table.
Depends on corporate structure but my guess is probably.
BK can climb up corp structure tree but not sideways or down usually. So the master LLC could be on the hook or even be part of the BK but leave the other sub LLCs untouched.
Again a good finance team will already have them retaining capital in the sub LLCs so the higher levels can legally drain assets down. But in the end depends on structure and where assets and liabilities exist.
Thats what I am alluding to…..is it possible they have far surpassed what they expected to make with the initial investments into the property/payroll, and maybe want to get out of the business….
So, they want the monthly gravy train of profits to stop because they are happy with what they profited to date?
So, they want the monthly gravy train of profits to stop because they are happy with what they profited to date?
Agree this makes no sense of how to get out of the biz. If they wanted out totally or just out of Austin, there are easier ways.
Now the related question (and more likely interpretation of H2H post), do they see the costs to fight the state, recover they seized funds and re-open in Austin as so "high" that it just makes more sense to BK Lodge Austin and walk away from that market.
That might make more sense but I still feel until we have a feeling of what the state actually wants to happen and how much effort the state is willing to put forward, no reaction or counter strategy makes sense.
If state is going to try to s/d poker across TX, why BK Austin now. Just mothball it, go into default and see what happens. If state succeeds BK the entire company including other rooms in other markets.
Or do a Austin re-org BK to freeze liability growth and pause further BK actions until outcome is more knowable.
If they just now want out, they could attempt to sell their interests (likely little value at least for the Austin assets/interests). But who would purchase? Maybe some of the other owners see this a way to get a much bigger piece of the company for cheap. But still a big gamble I believe.
Or "they" could just walk away by giving their ownership back to the rest of the owners proportionally. They might be able to 'freeze' the liability exposure to current state and not be on the hook for future actions and decisions.
Don't see a scenario where they don't dissolve their Austin locations incorporation. Even if they reopen it'll be under a different entity. Like I said before there's a ton of liabilities related to shutting down and legal fees are enough to bankrupt any equity the company had alone even if they win. There's also the added issue of past issues affecting future business if you keep the same incorporation that isn't worth risking. Literally no upside in not reincorporating but I doubt they even reopen ever anyways so it's an even bigger no brainer to dissolve.
Don't see a scenario where they don't dissolve their Austin locations incorporation. Even if they reopen it'll be under a different entity. Like I said before there's a ton of liabilities related to shutting down and legal fees are enough to bankrupt any equity the company had alone even if they win. There's also the added issue of past issues affecting future business if you k
I think it makes sense for other poker rooms in the State to want to see The Lodge win this fight, given the authorities are challenging the loophole/business model.
If the Lodge loses (provided it actually sees court and the model is challenged) then they ALL lose. How much they can or will support The Lodge if this makes its way to the court system remains to be seen.
At the moment it still seems like a money grab while delaying any charges being filed and putting pressure on The Lodge to be desperate to end this.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is just our government acting as organized criminals and it needs to go.
I think it makes sense for other poker rooms in the State to want to see The Lodge win this fight, given the authorities are challenging the loophole/business model.If the Lodge loses (provided it actually sees court and the model is challenged) then they ALL lose. How much they can or will support The Lodge if this makes its way to the court system remains to be seen.At the m
The Lodge has a chance when the simple no economic benefit law has been violated?
I think it makes sense for other poker rooms in the State to want to see The Lodge win this fight, given the authorities are challenging the loophole/business model.If the Lodge loses (provided it actually sees court and the model is challenged) then they ALL lose. How much they can or will support The Lodge if this makes its way to the court system remains to be seen.At the m
May seem that way at first glance but I think that's the opposite of reality. The lodge is toxic and its not a good idea to jump on a sinking ship. There are way better ways to create policy that is beneficial for you then take the gamble that is court rulings. Can't think of a single time I saw a competitor in trouble and my first thought was throw them a life raft also.
May seem that way at first glance but I think that's the opposite of reality. The lodge is toxic and its not a good idea to jump on a sinking ship. There are way better ways to create policy that is beneficial for you then take the gamble that is court rulings. Can't think of a single time I saw a competitor in trouble and my first thought was throw them a life raft also.
I mean IF this winds up in the courts and IF the outcome will clarify the laws, they wpuld have a vested interest in a win.
Otherwise they get shutdown/charged too
I mean IF this winds up in the courts and IF the outcome will clarify the laws, they wpuld have a vested interest in a win.
Otherwise they get shutdown/charged too
Doubt it gets to court but the claim by the prosecution could be since people who were not members of the club were allowed to play its not private and therefore illegal gambling and wouldn't really be bad for other clubs. Doubt prosecution pushes for a ruling on legality of time rake/whether it violates economic benefit of the owner or not seeing as they've been pretty adamant to not pursue cases that get a ruling on that for 10+ years but who knows.
I think it makes sense for other poker rooms in the State to want to see The Lodge win this fight, given the authorities are challenging the loophole/business model.If the Lodge loses (provided it actually sees court and the model is challenged) then they ALL lose. How much they can or will support The Lodge if this makes its way to the court system remains to be seen.At the m
The state has no need and little interest if filing charges. The state can choose to keep this as an administrative issue under TABC. Much easier urden of proof. No need to go before a jury. Etc.
The only reason to file charges would be to try to punish the charged individuals personally. If the intent is to sd the biz model just stay administrative. Find violation of liquor license for housing a gambling establishment. Pull license. Classify Lodge as a nuisance. Padlock doors for 365 days. Precedent established against biz model, certainly for any w liquor license but the gambling finding likely carries beyond those. So move on to next room. Even better. Local DA doesn’t even need to be in favor. AG or any private citizen or group can request local court to declare nuisance status.
So why even consider go criminally? No reasonable doubt burden. All that is required preponderance of evidence that TABC interpreted TABC rules correctly.
Doubt it gets to court but the claim by the prosecution could be since people who were not members of the club were allowed to play its not private and therefore illegal gambling and wouldn't really be bad for other clubs. Doubt prosecution pushes for a ruling on legality of time rake/whether it violates economic benefit of the owner or not seeing as they've been pretty adamant
Who is this “they”. Who have been adamant not to pursue this? It is now being pursued at a state level. Maybe the state got tired of watching it grow while no locality stepped up to tackle the issue. And it never has to see the inside of a criminal court with all the defendant protections that come with that.
They don’t need a court ruling just a ALJ opinion subsequently decision supporting such by the TABC commissioners.
Who is this “they”. Who have been adamant not to pursue this? It is now being pursued at a state level. Maybe the state got tired of watching it grow while no locality stepped up to tackle the issue. And it never has to see the inside of a criminal court with all the defendant protections that come with that.They don’t need a court ruling just a ALJ opinion
They=state agencies under the leadership of Abbott/Paxton for the entirety of their tenure.
I don't get what you're other points are but ya it's not a criminal trial... it's a civil forfeiture case which is easier for the prosecution. Even if there is a decision by an ALJ that is bad for the lodge it doesn't mean "THE DEATH OF TEXAS POKER"
They=state agencies under the leadership of Abbott/Paxton for the entirety of their tenure.
I don't get what you're other points are but ya it's not a criminal trial... it's a civil forfeiture case which is easier for the prosecution. Even if there is a decision by an ALJ that is bad for the lodge it doesn't mean "THE DEATH OF TEXAS POKER"
Well first the ALJ doesn’t decide they recommend. The commission, TABC in this case, gets to say. They can accept, reject or modify ALJ recommendation.
But yes, if the state wants TX poker dead a ruling that Lodge was illegal gambling would effectively end TX poker. Once such a ruling is in place that is prima facia evidence they are all public nuisance. But not only Lodge but every place with same biz model. And any private citizen or org can file to have a nuisance padlocked for a year. The other facilities would have to prove the ruling against the Lodge doesn’t apply to their biz model.
None of this depends on the civil forfeiture proceedings. Even better, those proceedings can have an opposite and conflicting finding on illegal gambling issue and both stand.
BTW if you are going to post quotes, especially with emphasis, make sure they are accurate and in context.
But yes, if the state wants TX poker dead a ruling that Lodge was illegal gambling would effectively end TX poker. Once such a ruling is in place that is prima facia evidence they are all public nuisance. But not only Lodge but every place with same biz model. And any private citizen or org can file to have a nuisance padlocked for a year. The other facilities would have to pro
Depends what the ruling says. If it's simply Lodge committed illegal gambling because it was not private because they allowed non members to enter/play which is what the investigation was targeting and seems to be the argument TABC was going after it doesn't mean much clubs just have to be stricter in their enforcement of membership. If it's focused on economic benefit and says time charge = economic benefit for host then poker is in bad shape.
Depends what the ruling says. If it's simply Lodge committed illegal gambling because it was not private because they allowed non members to enter/play which is what the investigation was targeting and seems to be the argument TABC was going after it doesn't mean much clubs just have to be stricter in their enforcement of membership. If it's focused on economic benefit and says
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading something that sounded like they were challenging the business model, claiming an economic benefit WAS derived from membership fees, hourly seat fees, tournaments, sale of food & beverage, the livestream, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading something that sounded like they were challenging the business model, claiming an economic benefit WAS derived from membership fees, hourly seat fees, tournaments, sale of food & beverage, the livestream, etc.
Texas Penal Code 71.02(a) - ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Texas Penal Code 34.02 - MONEY LAUNDERING
Texas Penal Code 47.03 - PROMOTION OF GAMBLING
Texas Penal Code 47.04 - KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE
Texas Penal Code 47.06 - POSSESSION OF GAMBLING DEVICE, EQUIPMENT OR PARAPHERNALIA
Was what was listed and I saw. Doesn't give a lot of information but the evidence they supplied seemed to be related to it not being private (one of the undercover stated he wasn't required to be a member to play. both stated they could enter the premises without membership) not economic benefit. They also had information related to money laundering (bank records) but that's secondary to the illegal gambling claim but I could have not seen everything/be wrong.
My general feeling is that things like membership fees or food/drink are not an economic benefit from poker because someone could theoretically join and eat without playing poker. I think anything that you have to pay if you want to play counts as an economic benefit derived from poker and that's a potential problem if it doesn't somehow become personal winnings. Tipping shouldn't count because no one is, in theory, required to tip.
If I had to be a judge in Texas hearing a case on this, I think I would have to rule that seat fees or tournament administration fees are an economic benefit that are not personal winnings, no matter what I wish would be the case. I'm not sure how an actual judge would rule.
Texas Penal Code 71.02(a) - ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITYTexas Penal Code 34.02 - MONEY LAUNDERINGTexas Penal Code 47.03 - PROMOTION OF GAMBLINGTexas Penal Code 47.04 - KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACETexas Penal Code 47.06 - POSSESSION OF GAMBLING DEVICE, EQUIPMENT OR PARAPHERNALIAWas what was listed and I saw. Doesn't give a lot of information but the evidence they supplied
It was shared via PokerNews here:
It states:
The investigation established that Tempus Holdings, Inc. DBA The Lodge Card Club was receiving an economic benefit other than personal winnings by charging membership fees and seat fees for individuals to gamble. In addition, Affiant had probable cause to believed and did believe that, in addition to the membership fees and seat fees, The Lodge Card Club was receiving an economic benefit through individuals gambling by selling food, beverages, alcoholic drinks, merchandise, streaming, poker play, and hosting poker tournaments. As majority owners of Tempus Holdings, Inc., POLK< ABDALLA, and LEVIN participated in a combination or in the profits of the combination regarding the economic benefits received by the gambling offenses of Promotion of Gambling and keeping a Gambling Place in violation of Texas Penal Code Sections 47.03 and 47.04
Based on how that reads, I'm not sure how people don't view this as a direct challenge to the model that the poker clubs have been operating under
It was shared via PokerNews here:
It states:
Based on how that reads, I'm not sure how people don't view this as a direct challenge to the model that the poker clubs have been operating under
O my bad I didn't see that part of the document. Ya that's not good for other clubs didn't think they were going to claim that it's a slippery slope... I mean technically country clubs/golf clubs that charge membership dues and/or have a restaurant but have a group of friends play poker games @ their establishments are breaking the law according to their interpretation. Also bad for bars that host poker tournaments.
O my bad I didn't see that part of the document. Ya that's not good for other clubs didn't think they were going to claim that it's a slippery slope... I mean technically country clubs/golf clubs that charge membership dues and/or have a restaurant but have a group of friends play poker games @ their establishments are breaking the law according to their interpretation. Also ba
Country clubs and similar operate as actual private places and the club doesn’t run the game. The people have other benefits they are paying for. They easily pass the duck test
Bars hosting tournaments are already violating license and know this.
Has Doug paid anyone?
