John,

You can gamble socially in Arizona all you want. You're welcome to come to my house and play poker. We're free to sit in the park and play poker. We can gamble on the patio at Starbucks. We can play nearly anywhere we want as long as we don't interfere with something else (like their liquor license). The State of Arizona has no qualms about it.

...unless I take a rake. If I take a rake, we're illegal. If "rent chairs" and pretend it's not a rake, it's illegal. If I charge "a button fee" and pretend it's not a rake, it's illegal. In short, the strip-mall games operate as businesses. They, without a doubt, benefit from other people gaming. Any benefit.

If you benefit from others gambling, you're a criminal enterprise in the state of Arizona.

I don't understand why that red part is hard to figure out. It may be unfair - oh, the Tribes get to but I can't, boo hoo - but it's true, and it's the law.

Or just play the game you love in the privacy of your own home or set up a few tables at home where your intent is NOT to operate as a business for profit!!! The only purpose behind establishing poker/gambling business is make a profit because if you want to play the game you love... You would play at home or in somebodies garage or at a park. The only purpose in having a separately owned business is to make money from the games/poker/gambling inside. You can go to a bar/restaurant/play cards at home if you want social. There are plenty of places to play cards or get together with friends socially.

You can have as many people in your home to play a poker game or multiple games of poker as you can in your illegally operating business. The difference is, you can't attract as many people at different times to your home in order to make the profit you want to make. Not to mention, all of the owners don't want most of the people who frequent their gambling businesses in their homes. So much for the bona fide social relationship. It may be a bona fide social relationship but most of these people are not your REAL friends outside the business you set up to make a profit from... I agree with the one here who said you are fooling yourselves in that regard.

You can play poker socially and legally at home but the bottom line is... That would not allow you to maximize your profit from the game/sport you love.

Harold Lee has, as best as I can tell, exactly one avenue of attack, and that's the fact that the ADOG may not have the authority to make any interpretations about "benefit."

A.R.S. Title 5, Chapter 6, Article 1 doesn't give the ADOG that broad of powers. It's mostly about Indian Gaming. ...and 5-602J seem to be their only obvious non-Tribal power:

13-3306 is use of a gambling device.

They get to decide if your poker table was used for something other then Social Gambling.

----

But here's the problem. 13-3301 is as clear as day. NO BENEFIT. What part of that is hard to understand? NO BENEFIT.

Making your living on tips only? BENEFIT!
Keeping the storefront which YOU have keys to open? BENEFIT!

So, you might be able to successfully attack the fact that the ADOG doesn't get to define benefit because the ADOG has only been specifically granted the power of determining what a gambling device is, but even if you win that battle, THE LAW is still black and white, crystal clear.

[QUOTE=Lottery Larry;21326008]And yet, your "cooperative" is just a cover, since you already intend for the members to profit somewhat.

Larry, damn your small pea brain! :P j/k. Who are you to state that our cooperative is just a cover? Or anyone for that matter. Until you know, don't make base assumptions. Innocent till proven guilty man. C'mon now!

Come sit on our regulatory board Larry. We need naysayers like you! And I'm serious.

I am not breaking any laws, nor do I intend to. I am sharing my concepts only. I have not opened my doors to members. The day I got my license was the day Bud's story broke. How much does that suck, being $5K into it and then having something like this break after a 4 year strip mall poker tolerance? WTF is going on Arizona!? Is it election time? I thought this might happen, but post-election. Terry, win or lose, is going all in on this. I don't get this though: Go after the Kingfish of Poker Rooms who has been BEGGING you to arrest him for 3 years now versus going after a club that has closed and that will roll over quietly... and then a week later busting down the doors of a veterans hall and confiscating 12K and 5 "Gaming Devices"... all in the interest of preventing organized crime and corruption. My butt.

The cooperative social gambling club is legal, at least more legal and more gray than any existing club anywhere in the world.

Socialist... ya, I'm just playing. Trying to stress that the cooperative is a SOCIAList concept. As is SOCIAL gaming. I'm a marketing guy. I see spin and spin back.

I gotta go meet my builder. May not be back till Monday. Have a good and safe Labor Day weekend everyone!

Oh, and Larry. Ya, I'll use my real name. I have nothing to hide. Our cooperative "books" will be posted on our website for all member-owners and the public (including ADOG) to see.

I've filed 3 LLCs. One for The Tilted Jack, a retail store. One for Phoenix Poker Clubs, a management company, and one more socialist to come. This way when we get pulled into court, at least we can say we tried to apply for a poker room license, but they City denied it.

More jury fodder.

I gotta stop peeking at this forum. I should be packing up to leave for the weekend. LOL

> ...unless I take a rake. If I take a rake, we're illegal. If "rent chairs" and pretend it's not a rake, it's illegal. If I charge "a button fee" and pretend it's not a rake, it's illegal. In short, the strip-mall games operate as businesses. They, without a doubt, benefit from other people gaming. Any benefit.

Good interpretation of the law. As expected Pallimax. If the statutes were written in such plain language, there would be no problems. So we don't rake the pot. We don't rent chairs. We charge monthly dues for all cooperative members to keep their monthly standing in good order. Just thinking out loud here.

>If you benefit from others gambling, you're a criminal enterprise in the state of Arizona.

More interpretation of statutes by a layman. I'm a layman too.

My "benefit", and indeed, every member's equal "benefit" (as a part and equal owner in the cooperative poker club) isn't profit. We don't WANT to profit other than on the tables. The State has pretty much FORCED us to conduct our social poker games out of our houses in this manner. We can't profit, so we try not to. LOL. But if we do, it's socially shared among all members. Pallimax, c'mon... your interpretations are flawed vs. the cooperative concept.

Every owner-member of the poker club cooperative is merely receiving the intangible benefit of playing in a common social environment like our homes, or a park, or the courthouse steps, in relative and regulated safety, and we benefit with the intangible pride of ownership.

Man, they're gonna shut us down before we even get started unless I shut up. LOL Larry and my not-so-silent are right. Just do it, under the radar, don't worry about the court of public opinion so much.

Stupid passion.

ADOG is not trying this case, the Attorney General is. ADOG, who is endorsed by Governor Brewer, will be the expert testimony that the AG will use or need in interpreting the law. You don't necessarily need the power but rather, in a court of law, be the authority on the expert testimony.

The AG considered prosecuting Harold Lee a few years ago but didn't think it was worth the time nor resources. Well something in all that has changed now. Like state, local and county governments having a major problem concerning issues with breaking gambling laws themselves as well as loosing billions of dollars with their violating tribal gaming compacts. I believe the later is most likely the reason this is all coming to a head. The provision of the "poison pill" stipulated in the tribal gaming compact states that if state or local governments turn their head to illegal gambling then the tribal compact is at that point broken. This would mean the tribes would also be allowed to operate gaming/gambling anywhere (off reservations) legally they would want as well. The fact is also that keeping gambling/gaming was voted on by the citizens of the state. The tribes have threatened to invoke the "poison pill" provision in the past and likely pushing the issue again.

If the tribal gaming compact is broken, millions of dollars would be lost to state and local governments and that is simply not a chance the State of Arizona is willing nor can afford to take at this point. I believe the elected officials of the state don't want to come off as hypocrites with the allowance of illegal activity now that the issue has surfaced and been pushed in their faces by citizens.

> Pallimax, you interpret the law, for the most part, in the spirit the law was written. "This seems to apply mostly to indian gaming", for example.

The laws against gambling were created to prevent organized crime and money laundering schemes.

The laws allowing the casinos, the state lottery, raffles and amusement gambling, oh, and social gambling, are there to allow us to...

play poker socially where no person or individual benefits.

The laws on social gambling exclusions are there so that we can have our home games, legally.

The poker cooperative is all about cooperative ownership. Every owner who wants a key can have one. I've already given out four keys and we don't even have a member yet.

Once we get 100 members, we'll likely vote on who gets a key and who doesn't. Or we can vote to give every member a key but then I would move that we also hire a security guard to watch the place 24x7. Could be ratified either way, I'm cozy.

> But here's the problem. 13-3301 is as clear as day. NO BENEFIT. What part of that is hard to understand? NO BENEFIT.

The place will have to be run by an elected body of volunteers. They can't benefit with a salary or anything extra. And honestly, I don't even want to be on that board. Better if I'm not seen as the "mastermind running the joint". LOL. Too easy to associate "benefits" with that. I'll step down as organizer once this board is elected, no problem.

We'd be able to hire a security guard, right? As a cooperative poker room. Or is that security guard then benefiting by the illegal gambling that he isn't even involved in? The housecleaner (btw another benefit of the club is you don't have to clean up the next morning), the window cleaner (keep the place nice), etc., is it okay for these people to benefit by being hired by our private social club to do what we hire them to do?

And then, here it comes... we've hired dealers, through an HR company. We pay them minimum wage. They benefit, yes, but then so did the cleaning lady, or the City of (expletive deleted) (fill in the blank) that took our money on 4 different occasions so far. They benefitted too. No?

Look, I'm trying to clear up the gray. But I'm also trying to point out what the arguments a cooperative would have going for it in a court of law. Vet it. poke it. I hear you loud and clear. "Benefit" is "Illegal". I guess I'm trying to avoid all forms of perceived benefit in running a poker room as a cooperative, so I can do so with impunity. Thanks for helping with your wisdom and insights. Seriously. Some people have a hard time detecting irony, and I assure you this is NOT me being facetious. I did in fact come on this board specifically hoping you might get involved in this discussion.

The spirit of the law is social gambling is okay provided someone isn't making money. "the house". I can't charge everyone $5 to cover the cost of snacks I provided for my home game. Is that really, honestly, what's in your heart when you argue what is social gambling versus what is running a criminal enterprise?

The matter of ADOG authority and so forth, it's all so secondary to the argument that the poker cooperative is a social animal at it's very heart.

And please, don't write any more... I gotta pack. LOL

Back Monday... ready to have my bubble burst.

Print my posts now, watchdogs, as I'll likely delete them when I return and go back to using my alias. If I can even remember what it was.

Yeah, because this is a cocktail of legal mumbo-jumbo.


That's pretty damned plain.


There's not much room for interpretation.


You may gamble in Arizona socially, so long as:

• Not conducted as a business.
• Players compete on equal terms.
• No player receives any benefit, directly or indirectly.
• No other person receives any benefit, directly or indirectly.

So, OK, you don't understand that? That's fine. The ADOG published a pamphlet that says what their definitions are.

You don't believe the ADOG has the authority to say so? That's fine. Stand before an ALJ and make your case.

Did you win your case in front of the ALJ? Ok, good. Now you can go before a "normal" judge and convince them that with the ADOG's notices set aside, that you STILL aren't breaking 13-3301, which is above, in astonishingly plain English for laws.

---

Harold Lee, ex-JOP, helped a bunch of clubs pretend that they weren't benefiting from the game, because they took $2 before the cards were dealt.

"Judge" Harold Lee is going to lose this, because he wants to attack the system.

Seriously. Go read this: http://www.icgpa.org/?p=3373#more-3373

He's off his rocker.

He might be "right" in some sort of abstract moral way, but he's going to lose on that tact.

[QUOTE=willbedone;21326508]Or just play the game you love in the privacy of your own home or set up a few tables at home where your intent is NOT to operate as a busin

Ah! Now this is getting to the crux of the argument about poker being different than all other forms of gambling and something I'll wait to reply on out of neccessity of time. Payson, here I come!

Quite possibly correct.

I don't argue, for a second, that 13-3301 isn't simple, obvious, and iron-clad against what "The Judge" does, and advocates that others do.

I was just suggesting that his plan of attack be something other than a racism cry against pro-Native gaming and the fascist state.

His argument has to be that he doesn't benefit from the gaming. The ADOG is clear that chair rentals and membership fees are benefits from gaming, so he probably first has to demonstrate that they don't have the authority to say what benefit is.

Once he gets a judge to agree that the ADOG doesn't decide what benefit does -- that only a judge decides what benefit under 13-3301 is -- then he might have a chance.

I have a craps table in my garage. I can play it too. I just need to allow all other players to compete on equal footing as me -- either by allowing them to croupier with their own bank and taking my turn as the shooter, or offering true odds on all bets.

...not a business
...no benefit outside of the wagers
...equal footing in the contest

...not a business
...no benefit outside of the wagers
...equal footing in the contest[/QUOTE]

Oh Palimax, I love you. You've just proven my point on why the cooperative is legal, is social and works. This doesn't mean that it'll stand up in a court of law. I'm simply a socialist populist who is crazily donating 20K to a club I can't even own.

We're not run as a business. We're not in this to make a profit.
Nobody gets any benefit outside of the wagers.
We're all on equal footing in every single respect of how the cooperative is run, including how the overhead is paid for.
We're adults. We have a right to freely do as we please with regards to how we collect our dues. We are not organized crime or money launderers. We hold ourselves, through both our club review board and member-non-member composite regulatory board, to a higher standard than the casinos.
We abide by the same laws the casino compacts do. 10% of our gross goes to the State. Our dealers are all certified 3rd party contractors. Yada.

> Yeah, because this is a cocktail of legal mumbo-jumbo.

It's a little convoluted and gray for me. Because if we are social gambling, and again, how can we NOT be social gambling in a cooperative where any excess "income" goes back to the member-owners, so we are... in both the spirit and the letter of the law, social gambling, then we are excluded from the laws on gambling. We're not run as a business (to make a profit), no person benefits over anyone else, and we're all 21 years old or older.

> There's not much room for interpretation.

I agree. It seems pretty lock tight to me.

You may gamble in Arizona socially, so long as:

• Not conducted as a business.
• Players compete on equal terms.
• No player receives any benefit, directly or indirectly.
• No other person receives any benefit, directly or indirectly.

> So, OK, you don't understand that? That's fine. The ADOG published a pamphlet that says what their definitions are.

ADOG's interpretation will hold up before a grand jury. It's what happens after that that makes this concept interesting.

> You don't believe the ADOG has the authority to say so? That's fine. Stand before an ALJ and make your case.

Honestly, I would rather just be left along to organize a self-regulating cooperative... but if the ADOG wants to convince the State to send us all 600 owners to the ALJ, then lets waste even more taxpayer's money going after something that is not going to go away, something that could, if we spent the money legislating laws to regulate (we're not pro that either, really, because as a cooperative we're fine with self regulating... any time the gov steps in to regulate morality issues I have a problem, as do most Americans) poker instead of wasting it going after cooperative poker club owner-members...

> Did you win your case in front of the ALJ? Ok, good. Now you can go before a "normal" judge and convince them that with the ADOG's notices set aside, that you STILL aren't breaking 13-3301, which is above, in astonishingly plain English for laws.

We're a social poker club. The statutes don't apply to us because we are not illegally gambling. It's up to the courts and prosecution to show how any one individual is benefitting more than another. If they want to prove that Player A benefitted by hitting his two outer on the river, that's ok because players are allowed to benefit from the wager. Just not anyone else.

IF the players are all equal owners... they ALL benefit from the "house" dues collected in excess and paid via right and frequency of use.

I wish my world was as cut and dry as some of yours. The laws are grayer than gray and no amount of telling me "it's so easy to understand" and quoting statutes verbatim matters much because in Title 13 of the Criminal Code, Chapter 33, 3302:

A. The following conduct is not unlawful under this chapter:
1. Amusement gambling.
2. Social gambling.

We're social gambling.

From 3301, definitions:

2. "Conducted as a business" means gambling that is engaged in with the object of gain, benefit or advantage, either direct or indirect, realized or unrealized, but not when incidental to a bona fide social relationship.

We're a social poker club, not a for-profit company. We are social gambling, and our activities are incidental to a bona fide social relationship. Honestly, what part of this plain language do you not understand? Or please tell me where my misunderstanding comes from, even if it's plainly obvious to you, it is not to me.

7. "Social gambling" means gambling that is not conducted as a business and that involves players who compete on equal terms with each other in a gamble if all of the following apply:

that kinda says the same thing as 2. above. And our cooperative adheres to this. We're all equal. Equal owners. Equal vote. Equal share. Yup. We got that covered. Show me how player A has a unequal terms over player B in the cooperative concept.

(a) No player receives, or becomes entitled to receive, any benefit, directly or indirectly, other than the player's winnings from the gamble.

Yup. We got that covered. Show me how player A has a benefit, direct or indirect, over player B in the cooperative concept.

(b) No other person receives or becomes entitled to receive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the gambling activity, including benefits of proprietorship, management or unequal advantage or odds in a series of gambles.

Well, we're all owners, so if there is a profit on the legal social gambling we've goofed up and refund it to the players. Retained earnings, dividends, equal voice equal right to say how we spend this.

This "profit", i the current landscape, would normally go to a club owner(s). In the cooperative poker club, it goes back to the members-players, equally. People just don't get this. It's hard to wrap your head around. We're social gambling too, btw. So we're okay.

We've hired a dealer, we've hired a security guard, we've hired a floor manager, through a third party HR company. If we can't tip them, then we won't, we'll just increase the wages we pay them enough so they can work for us dealing cards.

---

> "Judge" Harold Lee is going to lose this, because he wants to attack the system.
>He might be "right" in some sort of abstract moral way, but he's going to lose on that tact.

Ya, it's a losing battle vs. the system. Right or wrong, I think Lee is ready to go and it'll be an interesting trial.

So, everyone who plays, ever, in a raked pot in your social club has keys to the building, right?

If so, you're probably legal in Arizona.

If not, someone gains benefit that others don't.

....but you're arguing with the wrong guy. I help run a poker league in Chandler. We set money aside to keep ourselves in cards and table-table toppers. I do hours of paperwork every season and run a website that I am not compensated for. We know that the ADOG's strict definition would probably condemn us for using pooled funds to buy new table-toppers every year or so and new cards every couple of seasons, but we do our damnedest to stay within the spirit and (where possible) the letter of the law.

If you can run a poker game in a retail or commercial location, and you can do so within both the letter and spirit of the law, then more power to you. I approve 100%.

Your "solution" to the problem still has a party (the group) that makes money from the game. If that's a completely closed group,

My only problem is that the current model in phoenix is: Run the game as a business and keep doing so until I get busted.

In your suggested model: If your entire player pool is completely, 100% closed, nobody can join or leave, then you might stand a chance.

My God...Phoenix has one of the best poker rooms in the nation, plus many other card rooms besides. Many players would love to have even one card room within reasonable reach.

Just go friggin play there It will likely cost you much less to pay their legal rake then all this has cost plus the inevitable legal bills to come. And, with the huge increase in violent robberies at many home/private games growing across the country, just another reason to give it up.

Guess I will just watch papers for your arrest. Good Luck

Okay, sentence #1 and #2 don't work together.