The PPA should not fight for licensing - Page 5 - Poker Legislation

Skallagrim · 05-12-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

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.

This is a popular misconception.

7 of the 9 indictments rest squarely on the DOJ making the explicit allegation that offering online poker in the US is illegal. If offering online poker in the US is legal, those seven indictments will be dismissed. Another 1 of the indictments (money laundering) is 90-99% based on the assertion that offering online poker in the US is illegal.

Only the single bank fraud indictment can stand (and even that is arguable) without offering online poker in the US being illegal.

Skallagrim

Cleaner44 · 05-12-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

This is a popular misconception.

7 of the 9 indictments rest squarely on the DOJ making the explicit allegation that offering online poker in the US is illegal. If offering online poker in the US is legal, those seven indictments will be dismissed. Another 1 of the indictments (money laundering) is 90-99% based on the assertion that offering online poker in the US is illegal.

Only the single bank fraud indictment can stand (and even that is arguable) without offering online poker in the US being illegal.

Skallagrim

Thanks for clarifing that. Of course just because the DOJ makes an allegation, that does not make it so. At this point it seems very disputable whether offering a game in legal, which takes us back to sheetsworld's question... why is the law not clear?

Skallagrim · 05-12-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

Thanks for clarifing that. Of course just because the DOJ makes an allegation, that does not make it so. At this point it seems very disputable whether offering a game in legal, which takes us back to sheetsworld's question... why is the law not clear?

Because Congress and most states have never passed a clear law on the subject.

Those links to my posts at the PPA forum are not hard to follow and answer this question in significant detail.

Sorry if the tone of that statement is bad.

Skallagrim

ChaosReigns · 05-12-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

Thanks Patrick.

Are you saying you think Skall and The Engineer are the same person? Or are you saying you think they are virtual clones in their responses?

doctesseractyl · 05-12-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

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.

Wrong, playing poker = illegal, and it's a federal crime...

Quote:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 50--GAMBLING

Sec. 1084.

"the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers"

wire communication = internet
recipient = poker player

Who ever thinks poker is "not unlawful" yet it is clearly a crime and it is explicitly spelled out in the US Code is either lying or lied to. To me, this is not vague at all. The UIGEA makes "payment processing" a crime when it involves pre-existing illegal activities (such as spelled out in the federal laws, compiled into a consortium known as the US Code). Online poker is illegal because the law is the law: dura lex sed lex [the] law [is] harsh, but [it is the] law

Yet I'm still in the camp which says “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” but still, people are going to break the law due to causality, such as when the pros/cons make it +EV.

-Doc-

doctesseractyl · 05-12-2011, 04:58 PM

Also, I apologize for my tone too. This whole crappy mess we poker players are in gets me so frustrated. I just want to go back to my normal life before black friday...

Skallagrim · 05-12-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctesseractyl

Also, I apologize for my tone too. This whole crappy mess we poker players are in gets me so frustrated. I just want to go back to my normal life before black friday...

The statute you cited only makes criminals out of those "in the business of betting and wagering." This phrase has been interpreted many times by US Federal Courts and every single one of them has said that in order to be included under this phrase you must be something more than a "mere player."

Also, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled this statute only applies to sports betting.

Anyone who tells you this issue is simple is the one lying or being lied to.

Skallagrim

doctesseractyl · 05-12-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

The statute you cited only makes criminals out of those "in the business of betting and wagering." This phrase has been interpreted many times by US Federal Courts and every single one of them has said that in order to be included under this phrase you must be something more than a "mere player."

Also, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled this statute only applies to sports betting.

Anyone who tells you this issue is simple is the one lying or being lied to.

Skallagrim

I am familiar with the 5th circuit court of appeal's ruling, but I have not heard the "mere player" exception to this statute? Source?

Cleaner44 · 05-12-2011, 06:18 PM

I must repeat what I think is a better solution than licensing and taxing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

I can't say that I would win, but I can describe how I would wage the fight I describe.

1. I would focus on challeging Congress's authority on the matter. Congress takes many actions for which they have no authority. The recent healthcare law ia a good example. Congress passed an unConstitutional law which has already had many parts struck down and will be mired in the courts for quite some time. Just because Congress decides they want to get involved in a matter does not mean they have any Constitutional grounds to.

I would apply funds toward having lawyers work on this goal. All people have a natural right to be free and government's only legitimate purpose is to protect that freedom.

Nearly all of the specific, "enumerated" Legislative Powers of Congress are spelled out in Article of I, Section 8 the Constitution. Because these powers are delegated from the people, they are the only Legislative Powers Congress has.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I would demand Congress reference the specific clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution that grant them the power to enact laws on internet poker.

2. I would work toward crafting a very short and simple bill that poker players could use at their state level. The bill would have the goal of stating that poker should be free and legal. I would then encourage and assist poker players in each state to get that bill passed. Have the people vote it up or down. Getting poker declared legal on a state level would be huge. Maybe the people of Montana want it legal and the people of New Jersey do not. Let the people decide locally, much in the same way that Nevada has legal prostitution and Arizona does not.

3. I would work toward assisting poker players on a goal of working with their Federal Congressional representatives. Get players organized and have them remind the representatives that the Federal government should not be standing in the way of free people to play poker. Our Congressmen should be opposing all Federal legislation restricitng or regulating poker.

Bottom line is, we the people either want the freedom to play poker or we want it illegal. Taxing and regulating poker is purely about taking money from we the people and giving it to politicians. It is not about making it illegal and it is not about protecting our freedom.

4. Request that the Executive Branch back off until the Legislative Branch can clear up what is legal.

It is time to end the ambiguity. These Federal laws are either purposefully unclear or written incompotently. The goal of the PPA to help the government tax poker is a wrong goal in my opinion. Regulation and licencing is not the answer. Having the Federal government get out of the way of free people doing as they wish with their own money that they have already been taxed on is the right goal in my opinion.

sportsjefe · 05-12-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

ITs not about we or the PPA wants its about whats reality and whats attainable. The Gov isn't just going to allow a multi-billion dollar industry to operate without some regulation,standards and oversight. If the government can't find a way to license/regulate online gaming then in their view they have no choice but to outlaw it. Every industry operates under some regulations and standards and gaming is no different.

you have no idea how hard it is for poker players to understand the bolded.

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

I must repeat what I think is a better solution than licensing and taxing:

4. Request that the Executive Branch back off until the Legislative Branch can clear up what is legal.

It is time to end the ambiguity. These Federal laws are either purposefully unclear or written incompotently. The goal of the PPA to help the government tax poker is a wrong goal in my opinion. Regulation and licencing is not the answer. Having the Federal government get out of the way of free people doing as they wish with their own money that they have already been taxed on is the right goal in my opinion.

This is still my opinion as well, and I also am still of the opinion that I do not know how to accomplish this, but that the PPA and or other organizations might.

sheetsworld · 05-12-2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsjefe

you have no idea how hard it is for poker players to understand the bolded.

I think that poker players understand that seeking the impossible is a waste of time. Poker players do not call allins with 72 offsuit even though it is possible to win the hand doing so. In fact, I submit that poker players, by their training, are MORE likely to comprehend compromise and weighing risk vs reward than most people. Poker players know to pick battles they can win.

I think that what alot of people are saying is simply that the PPA and the lobbyists are not pushing as far as they could. Yes if a poker player has the nuts on the river, he could bet 1/100th the pot, but a good poker player willl bet more, trying to extract MAX value, not just what he is SURE he can attain.

I know NOTHING about lobbying or getting stuff done in washington, but I don't like to think that what players are asking for is beyond attainable.

It is just hard.

Big difference imo.

Cleaner44 · 05-12-2011, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

I think that poker players understand that seeking the impossible is a waste of time. Poker players do not call allins with 72 offsuit even though it is possible to win the hand doing so. In fact, I submit that poker players, by their training, are MORE likely to comprehend compromise and weighing risk vs reward than most people. Poker players know to pick battles they can win.

I think that what alot of people are saying is simply that the PPA and the lobbyists are not pushing as far as they could. Yes if a poker player has the nuts on the river, he could bet 1/100th the pot, but a good poker player willl bet more, trying to extract MAX value, not just what he is SURE he can attain.

I know NOTHING about lobbying or getting stuff done in washington, but I don't like to think that what players are asking for is beyond attainable.

It is just hard.

Big difference imo.

I really like your way with words sir. Another excellent post!

**TheEngineer** · 05-12-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheetsworld

Thanks Patrick.

Very funny.

**TheEngineer** · 05-12-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMan77

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!!

I guess you didn't hear about Black Friday or the fact that we no longer have the bigger sites on which to play.