In a strange twist, all cases against those convicted of being involved in illegal poker, now seem to be being viewed in a different light, after a judge ruled poker was a game of skill. Now, on the basis of that ruling, other people like Howard Lederer are hoping to have several of the charges against them dropped.
The case was presided over by Judge Jack B. Weinstein and was the United States v. DiCristina; the ruling acquitted the accused on the basis that poker was not illegal gambling and was instead a game of skill.
Howard Lederer had his lawyers send a letter to the Judge requesting that his charges be reviewed. Lederer has been blamed for the Full Tilt Poker fiasco and is facing charges of money laundering and online fraud. Elliot Peters, the lawyer who is representing Howard Lederer addressed a letter to Judge Leonard B. Sand.
How the government approaches a potential amended complaint, and how the defendants approach moving for its dismissal, are both matters which can be more efficiently handled if the parties have an opportunity to make the Court aware of their plans and views in light of DiCristina
the letter stated.
Lederer and his legal team appear to believe that the ruling that online poker is a game of skill and not illegal gambling has changed the fundamentals in his charges. He believes that many of the crimes that he has been accused of have no legal basis with the new ruling. As a result, they want to have a status conference to find out where the law stands on the new ruling.
When legal representatives from Howard Lederer reached out to the judge handling the case, namely Judge S. Sands, in an effort to secure a private meeting with him, things did not work out as they had expected and no meeting was scheduled. The Judge responded to this attempt by saying,
The Government respectfully disagrees with many of the conclusions reached in the DiCristina Order…The proper forum for addressing the merit and impact, if any, of that Order in this action would be for Messrs. Lederer, Furst, and Ferguson to argue in any motions to dismiss the second amended complaint what persuasive weight the DiCristina Order should be given, and for the Government to respond. Addressing these issues now in a status conference would be premature and unworkable.
