The PPA should not fight for licensing - Page 9 - Poker Players Alliance

driller · 05-22-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

It's not PPA's position. It's the government's position, and it's one upon which they are acting.

Just because we wish government would not exercise power over this does not make it so, unfortunately.

I appreciate what the PPA is trying to do. However, I agree with the OP's position. What I want are the pre UIGEA of Oct. 06. conditions: I want to be able to play on PartyPoker and PokerStars or any site of my choice without any government interference.

I see posts on here all the time about how poker is not gambling and is not covered under the wire act. That the positions taken by the doj are illegal.

Well, why not file a lawsuit? Let's win the right to play poker online without regulation. Period.

I would be glad to participate in the funding of such a lawsuit, and I am sure I am not alone. Hell, I don't know why Party and PS haven't filed such a suit already. So what if you lost? At least you would know and you would not be any worse off.

LetsGambool · 05-22-2011, 11:58 AM

Given the government's recent actions, do you think that the government's response to a legal judgment that i-poker is legal would be to say "oh heck, guess we're done with that issue?" No, they would either regulate it or make a law more explicitly banning it.

Im not against pursuing a lawsuit. The reason the PPA hasn't done so in the past was that A) they were working on a political solution and B) since we could still play poker in 49 states on Stars/Tilt based on the site's opinions they werent violating laws a lawsuit carried huge risk. Given we have lost B, I actually think filing a lawsuit carries a helluva lot more merit at this point.

We'd certainly have a better hand to play when it came to crafting a political solution, and the government moves slowly so there might be a period of pre UIGEA conditions. That said, the end game eventually has to be a political solution.

I pull flags · 05-22-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Here's a letter I wrote to Rand Paul last year. Maybe it will help with some perspective:

Dear Dr. Paul,

On behalf of the Commonwealth’s tens of thousands of poker players and enthusiasts, I am writing to share with you my concerns over your statements and actions regarding online poker legislation. Specifically, I am concerned about statements you made to Liberty Maven last year. I am also concerned about anti-poker crusader James Dobson’s endorsement of your candidacy.

In your August 19th interview with Liberty Maven, at http://libertymaven.com/2009/08/19/r...rty-maven/6911, you stated that you would oppose pending Congressional legislation licensing online poker sites. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. The Justice Department has been seizing funds, and it now appears that the solution for poker players will go through the Congress. That is why Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring these bills.

Additionally, James Dobson’s endorsement of your candidacy is a major concern. Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family lobbied Congress extensively for an outright ban on online poker, even at the expense of laying off hundreds of employees. Since his retirement, both he and Focus remain committed to stopping online poker. In fact, his focus for this issue is so great that I am concerned that he sought assurances from you that you would support him in his quest.

While I would personally love for the federal government and the Commonwealth to leave us alone and let us play, the fact is that Congress has consistently opposed this. The House has continually voted against unregulated, untaxed online poker and gaming by wide margins. This most recently happened in 2006, when we lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. At the state level, the Commonwealth is attempting to seize the domain names of online poker sites.

It seems there is a less than 1% chance for federal and state recognition of unregulated, untaxed online poker, but perhaps a 50% chance of getting licensed and regulated online poker done. I realize some would expect Kentucky's poker players simply to give up on online poker, but I do not believe that would do anything to further the cause of liberty. In fact, a successful prohibition would be seen as a victory of statism over liberty, and would do nothing to preserve Internet freedom.

What's important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support my freedoms. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance -- including over 13,000 in Kentucky -- can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

In liberty,

Rich Muny
PPA KY State Director & Board Member
http://biggovernment.com/rmuny

Did you get a response from Rand on this?

**TheEngineer** · 05-22-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pull flags

Did you get a response from Rand on this?

No, but I did meet him in DC. He was supportive there, once we shared our perspective with him:

John Pappas, me, and Sen. Paul

I pull flags · 05-22-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

No, but I did meet him in DC. He was supportive there, once we shared our perspective with him:

John Pappas, me, and Sen. Paul

So jealous, voted for him imo.

**TheEngineer** · 05-22-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driller

I appreciate what the PPA is trying to do. However, I agree with the OP's position. What I want are the pre UIGEA of Oct. 06. conditions: I want to be able to play on PartyPoker and PokerStars or any site of my choice without any government interference.

I want lots of things too. I wish I could get everything I desire, but this is a tough fight.

Quote:

I see posts on here all the time about how poker is not gambling and is not covered under the wire act. That the positions taken by the doj are illegal.

Well, why not file a lawsuit? Let's win the right to play poker online without regulation. Period.

I'm not saying it cannot win, but if this were likely to win, it would have been done long ago by anyone who had a freeroll at it, like post-UIGEA Party Poker, Caesars, or many other interests.

**TheEngineer** · 05-22-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pull flags

So jealous, voted for him imo.

Meeting him in person was definitely cool.

There's actually an interesting story there. We met with one of his staffers and Sen. Paul came by to shake our hands and run, as he had pending business. As Pappas and I were leaving, I happened to see Sen. Paul drop back into his office. I quickly turned back and asked his staffer if he could see if Sen. Paul would let us get a quick picture with him. Paul agreed and we got the shot -- and about fifteen minutes of unscheduled time afterward to discuss the issue with him.

driller · 05-23-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

I want lots of things too. I wish I could get everything I desire, but this is a tough fight.

I'm not saying it cannot win, but if this were likely to win, it would have been done long ago by anyone who had a freeroll at it, like post-UIGEA Party Poker, Caesars, or many other interests.

If the lawsuit were filed and if it were won, then the ball would be in the govt's court to legislate and regulate. Instead of us waiting years and years for legislation the poker hating hawks in the govt and elsewhere would be.

Poker either has the law/constitution on its side or it doesn't. Naturally the sentiment here is that it does. Maybe Party's and PS's lawyers don't think so. And it's not exactly a freeroll or I would have done it.

Jake Da Mouth · 05-23-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driller

If the lawsuit were filed and if it were won, then the ball would be in the govt's court to legislate and regulate. Instead of us waiting years and years for legislation the poker hating hawks in the govt and elsewhere would be.

Poker either has the law/constitution on its side or it doesn't. Naturally the sentiment here is that it does. Maybe Party's and PS's lawyers don't think so. And it's not exactly a freeroll or I would have done it.

nothing will happen, everybody knows how the government works, you gotta bribe everybody to get anything done, and the PPA is too small to do it so nothing will get done, its sad but that is how our corrupt system works

TeflonDawg · 05-23-2011, 09:13 PM

I don't see the point in not going to court at this point. It's a freeroll now. TruePoker/Doyle's just got mugged, and Merge, Cake, and Bodog is a pretty sorry excuse for a big 3.

What have we got to lose at this point? What are we waiting for? Just curious.

JPFisher55 · 05-23-2011, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

I don't see the point in not going to court at this point. It's a freeroll now. TruePoker/Doyle's just got mugged, and Merge, Cake, and Bodog is a pretty sorry excuse for a big 3.

What have we got to lose at this point? What are we waiting for? Just curious.

IMO, the PPA may still have standing problems, depending on whether FTP and Cereus pay their US player-creditors. Also, does the PPA still have the money to fund this litigation which will likely cost over 500k if it gets to the Circuit Court of Appeals level.

Jake Da Mouth · 05-24-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

IMO, the PPA may still have standing problems, depending on whether FTP and Cereus pay their US player-creditors. Also, does the PPA still have the money to fund this litigation which will likely cost over 500k if it gets to the Circuit Court of Appeals level.

Yikes 500K, and the problem is a lot of the online poker players who want this stuff to get regulated have a lot of money stuck online like myself, and therefore have no money to send the to PPA

ChaosReigns · 05-24-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

IMO, the PPA may still have standing problems, depending on whether FTP and Cereus pay their US player-creditors. Also, does the PPA still have the money to fund this litigation which will likely cost over 500k if it gets to the Circuit Court of Appeals level.

Of the one million PPA members, how many are actually paying members? And is there a way to tier the membership so more money is brought in or can money donated to the PAC be used in a lawsuit?

And wouldn't the PPA have to have standing to file suit?

schlucky1 · 05-26-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake Da Mouth

Yikes 500K, and the problem is a lot of the online poker players who want this stuff to get regulated have a lot of money stuck online like myself, and therefore have no money to send the to PPA

You don't have $20?

There are an estimated 10 million Americans who have played online poker for real $. If we could get just 1 million of those players to join the PPA, that would generate $20 million/yr towards their efforts.

River Donk · 05-26-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

What a wonderful service the PPA is providing by helping the government tax more money from me so they can fund yet another war.

Don't forget about the funding of government assistance to millions of lazy people which totals more every year than the defense spending.