The DiCristina Ruling seems to have created a big stir, as predicted, in the poker community, with the latest reaction being that of Howard Lederer trying to get out of his charges on the ruling that stated that poker was not “illegal gambling.”

Click Here For Sites Still Accepting USA Players

After the US federal judge DiChristina dismissed a case against a man held for allowing online poker games in a small set up on the basis that poker was a game of skill and therefore not illegal gambling, it created an upheaval with the lawyers and legal team of Howard Lederer.

Lederer’s lawyers are of the opinion that in the light of the new ruling by judge DiChristina, several of the cases now pending against him carry no weight. As a result of this belief they sent a letter appealing to Judge Sand to have a sit-down with them and discuss the status of the poker law.

A letter from Lederer’s lawyers to Judge Sand stated, “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.”

Lederer has been charged with several crimes, one of which is money laundering, and yet another is fraud over the internet where they had deliberately misled banks and financial intuitions into accepting transfers from online poker players while thinking they were purchases of golf balls and other unrelated items.

They believe that now as per the federal ruling, online poker no longer constitutes a sector of the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) and therefore any charges based on this cannot stand.

Judge Sand responded to the letter in the negative stating that there was no need to sit down and discuss the matter, clearly outlining the lack of necessity of a status conference between Lederer and the court. “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.”

This site is registered on as a development site.