The PPA should not fight for licensing - Page 4 - Poker Legislation

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

The information you seek has been out there for years. You might start with the stickied threads in this forum and/or the ones in the poker legislation forum. You can also check out my lengthy explanations at the PPA forum: http://theppa.org/forums/topic/67 ; http://theppa.org/forums/topic/578 ; http://theppa.org/forums/topic/577 .

Skallagrim

I am sorry, Rich, and I know you are frustrated and feel unappreciated at times by a community who does not understand what you do,, but this sort of response is why you get some of the heat you get.

2+2 is not very good at aggregating infomration and my questions should be simple ones to answer, rather than referring me to other threads and links where I would have to sift through 99% filler, fluff, and conjecture.

I give up (again).

GL.

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 11:03 AM

Ok fine I don;t give up....

I checked the stickies....and I see this:

Does the UIGEA make playing Internet poker illegal?

No, the UIGEA does not make it illegal to play Internet poker. Nor does it make any Internet gambling illegal. It only makes it illegal for a business to accept any sort of money transfer from the U.S. for the purpose of “unlawful Internet gambling”. However, the UIGEA does not itself define what is unlawful but rather relies on existing federal, state and local laws to determine if the player who transfers the money is making Internet bets or wagers that are unlawful in the jurisdiction where they are located.

Ok so.....since you said Washington State is the only state which has outlawed internet poker, then is internet poker legal? If so then what gives?

obviously there are ambiguities intentionally written into the law, and these need to be clarified....IMO.

Ok tell you what...since i have been admittedly lazy over the last 5 years with this, I will look at all the threads you referenced and come back later with followup.

KingKongGrinder · 05-12-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

Ok tell you what...since i have been admittedly lazy over the last 5 years with this, I will look at all the threads you referenced and come back later with followup.

For a lawyer, you are kind of terrible at researching stuff.

JK, but not really.

Skallagrim · 05-12-2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

I am sorry, Rich, and I know you are frustrated and feel unappreciated at times by a community who does not understand what you do,, but this sort of response is why you get some of the heat you get.

2+2 is not very good at aggregating infomration and my questions should be simple ones to answer, rather than referring me to other threads and links where I would have to sift through 99% filler, fluff, and conjecture.

I give up (again).

GL.

So I would not get heat if I copied and pasted here the answers I made to your questions (years ago)? But I do get heat if I provide a link (to information without the 99% of filler, that is why those posts were "stickied") that requires one click of a mouse? You wouldn't find that frustrating?

Anyway, glad to see from your second post that you are willing to take the time to do some reading.

Skallagrim

PS, as you will soon learn there are no simple answers to your questions.

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingKongGrinder

For a lawyer, you are kind of terrible at researching stuff.

JK, but not really.

Yes I am the worst....hence never practiced

Working on these threads now.

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

So I would not get heat if I copied and pasted here the answers I made to your questions (years ago)? But I do get heat if I provide a link (to information without the 99% of filler, that is why those posts were "stickied") that requires one click of a mouse? You wouldn't find that frustrating?

Anyway, glad to see from your second post that you are willing to take the time to do some reading.

Skallagrim

PS, as you will soon learn there are no simple answers to your questions.

I cannot imagine anyone giving you heat for answering questions rather than directing people to other times you answered them

But maybe! lol

Cleaner44 · 05-12-2011, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingKongGrinder

Once again, I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the laws as it relates to gambling and online poker. But, why do I feel that some very smart people on these forums keep discussing the wrong thing. The question isn't if playing poker is illegal, as it clearly isn't with the exception of online poker in Washington state, it's if running an operation that offers online poker is illegal. Isn't this the real legal issue?

Let's spell out what we know:
Playing poker online = legal

Running a poker game = legal (because UIGEA did not make any gaming/gambling illegal that was not previously illegal)

UIGEA = prohibits a business from receiving deposits for online gaming (not sure if that can apply to non-U.S. based businesses)

The recent actions by the FBI were based on bank transactions (UIGEA) not on playing poker. So it seems the real issue is the movement of funds.

I see that we should have two different goals. First, find a way to specifically and clearly establish in written law that both playing poker and operating a poker game is legal. Second, establish a lawful way to move funds back and forth for this lawful activity.

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 12:34 PM

Update after 90 minutes of research....

I feel even more embarrassed that I did not take the time to look at all of this before, as it is not that much work and I feel a bit crappy about my earlier posts in this thread.

I now understand the pushing of the skill vs luck argument as it is critical to many state laws, which seem to be the key to this whole thing....

Still digging....but Skallgrim please forgive my earlier ignorance. Still dont like the tone too much but that is not relevant..

All of the information is pretty easily obtained from these stickies and your website/blog, and it is far more useful to read it than to demand a one post summary.

**TheEngineer** · 05-12-2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

I am sorry, Rich, and I know you are frustrated and feel unappreciated at times by a community who does not understand what you do,, but this sort of response is why you get some of the heat you get.

2+2 is not very good at aggregating infomration and my questions should be simple ones to answer, rather than referring me to other threads and links where I would have to sift through 99% filler, fluff, and conjecture.

I give up (again).

GL.

Sheets,

Hi. Skallagrim's first name is Patrick. I'm Rich. I mention that just to clarify who's responding to what.

The bottom line to your question is that there are many instances where it's unlawful to sell something that is legal to use. Here in Kentucky, there is no law against wagering, even if the underlying activity is unlawful under state law. I can walk into an underground casino and bet on games of chance, sporting events, or poker to my heart's content. What I cannot do in KY is host or promote unlawful gaming. This is because our state has chosen to place its enforcement efforts on operators and promoters, rather than on players.

The federal laws are less clear. PPA has a position that offering the game does not violate federal law, while the DoJ has a different position. Winning a case is no slam dunk, nor will bringing such a case be free and easy. If it were, U.S. B&Ms or offshore sites not in the U.S. market would have taken their free roll at this law long ago.

**PokerXanadu** · 05-12-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

Again you make sense while the PPA and other poker players seem not to care. If poker is legal how is it that the "feds" consider it illegal. Who are the feds? Does that mean the FBI? Does the FBI get to create or interpret law? I was under the understanding that the Legislative Branch creates laws and the Judicial Branch interprets laws.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) which is an Executive Agency within the Executive Branch?

You are correct and the FBI is wrong:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007...ambling_060607

Unfortunately, the FBI has more power than you or I. Seems they get to enforce laws pretty much however they want, even to the exclusion of federal district court decisions:

http://pub.bna.com/eclr/1321a.htm

Quote:

As the plain language of the statute and case law interpreting the statute are clear, there is no need to look to the legislative history of the Act as argued by plaintiffs. See In re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1995). However, even a summary glance at the recent legislative history of internet gambling legislation reinforces the Court's determination that internet gambling on a game of chance is not prohibited conduct under 18 U.S.C. §1084. Recent legislative attempts have sought to amend the Wire Act to encompass "contest[s] of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of [the bettor]" while exempting from the reach of the statute data transmitted "for use in the new reporting of any activity, event or contest upon which bets or wagers are based.'" See S.474, 105th Congress (1997). Similar legislation was introduced the 106th Congress in the form of the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999." See, S. 692, 106th Congress (1999). That act sought to amend Title 18 to prohibit the use of the internet to place a bet or wager upon "a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game of chance..."Id. ."Id. As to the legislative intent at the time the Wire Act was enacted, the House Judiciary Committed Chairman explained that "'this particular bill involves the transmission of wagers or bets and layoffs on horse racing and other sporting events." See 107 Cong. Rec. 16533 (Aug. 21, 1961). Comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act's prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests. Plaintiffs' argument flies in the face of the clear wording of the Wire Act and is more appropriately directed to the legislative branch than this Court.

Hopefully we can overcome this blatant mis-applicaton of law:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...wOE_story.html

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Sheets,

Hi. Skallagrim's first name is Patrick. I'm Rich. I mention that just to clarify who's responding to what.

The bottom line to your question is that there are many instances where it's unlawful to sell something that is legal to use. Here in Kentucky, there is no law against wagering, even if the underlying activity is unlawful under state law. I can walk into an underground casino and bet on games of chance, sporting events, or poker to my heart's content. What I cannot do in KY is host or promote unlawful gaming. This is because our state has chosen to place its enforcement efforts on operators and promoters, rather than on players.

The federal laws are less clear. PPA has a position that offering the game does not violate federal law, while the DoJ has a different position. Winning a case is no slam dunk, nor will bringing such a case be free and easy. If it were, U.S. B&Ms or offshore sites not in the U.S. market would have taken their free roll at this law long ago.

Thanks Patrick.

novahunterpa · 05-12-2011, 01:23 PM

If offering the game of poker is deemed illegal under state law then it also could violate federal laws such as Illegal Gambling Business Act and then laws like UIGEA could apply. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder...l-gambling.htm

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 01:24 PM

Part of winning a debate is knowing the opponent's arguments, so let me ask this.....

You say that the fbi doesnt care about case law they can just enforce whatever they want..but I am sure the fbi does not characterize their actions that way. How would the FBI/DOJ reconcile their actions in light of the cases you cited?

RainMan77 · 05-12-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
"So, you want us to go to poker players and promise to fight a doomed fight on general principle? That should go over well.

Sorry, but my general principle is standing up to those who seek to ban the game. I'm proud that we're doing just that."

Q. Who said this supid quote?
Quote:
"I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."

A. Bob Knight
B. The PPA
C. Thomas Jefferson
D. Random Idiot

The government is not interested in banning poker, they are interested in getting a piece of the pie. This is about generating revenue of the Federal Government and the PPA is not fighting against a ban but rather they are working to help the Federal Government gain that revenue. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Absolutely OP. We need more smart people like OP and maybe the USA would still be a free country. Until then lets all bend over with the PPA and ask for our taxes!!

Cleaner44 · 05-12-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

Part of winning a debate is knowing the opponent's arguments, so let me ask this.....

You say that the fbi doesnt care about case law they can just enforce whatever they want..but I am sure the fbi does not characterize their actions that way. How would the FBI/DOJ reconcile their actions in light of the cases you cited?

Let's keep in mind that the FBI and black Friday were about money movement, not playing or offering poker. This is one reason why the PPA is misguided in their efforts to licence poker. A better goal would be to clarify the laws and create a legal way to move money in and out of poker sites.