Perhaps I'm just being a fool like the judge here, but alas, what options do I have? Here's a letter I just wrote to District 2 councilwoman on how to go about getting the proposed changes made.

Just what changes? Sure, how's this for a start:

1) Cooperative, and non-profit in nature, every member equal voice equal vote.

2) Held to the same standards as applicable and reasonable, to the casinos, with regard to the BIA compacts.

And no, I haven't sat down with a single lawyer yet. I don't have the language crafted. MAn, I wish things worked that fast. All I've done so far is the following:

City of Phoenix, Councilwoman Peggy Neely's Office
200 W. Washington St., 11th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-262-7445
TTY: 602-495-5810
Fax: 602-495-0527
E-mail: council.district.2@phoenix.gov
Council Assistant: Sarah Dobbins

9/20/10

Dear Councilwoman Neely:

Chapter 23 Article 4 Division VII of the Phoenix City Code says that playing poker in Phoenix is a misdemeanor. Yet State statutes allow for social poker games. The city and state laws conflict here verbatim. Is that okay, or should we attempt to clarify? Because there's a case going on across the street which will affect us all.

I'm sure you are aware of the dozens of private poker clubs operating in Phoenix, in district 2 and others, and the State AG currently has indicted Harold "Bud" Lee and two others on illegal gambling charges in Surprise.

As a fan of poker, as a player, and as someone who has frequented these “amoral dens”, I am interested in your availability to talk to you about the issues, or someone on your staff, and see what steps are necessary to ensure that the people of Arizona are allowed to exercise their rights as granted by the constitution of the state and indeed this fine country of ours. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I am not a lobbyist. I am a concerned citizen of District 2 that has heard nothing back from my two state house representatives, so I'm trying this route.

I have plans to start a movement to enact the change necessary to allow a social poker club to operate as a COOPERATIVE where every member is equal owner, the club is run as a non-profit, but is free to collect dues from it's members as it sees fit. And in the case of poker, this may be a rake or button fee or seat rental fee. Pay per use. However, as a cooperative, with every member being equal owner and with equal vote, we're run as a non-profit, and any excess money collected each month becomes part of our retained earnings to be offered back to the members as refunds. We would like our cooperative poker club to be free of harassment from the Department of Gaming, which after the recent arrests and confiscation of our veterans “games of chance” being played for a free dinner each month scares us. It certainly appears to some of us that the DOG is more interested in protecting the profits of their bosses (the casinos) than protecting the interest of the people.

So I seek your counsel, guidance, advice, even opinions. Can you spare any time to talk to me about this?

Thanks!

What if the proposed venue in question is operating as a movement of the people to enact change in legislation? Are we not then involved in a bona fide social relationship? A common cause? The fact that we play poker too is secondary. We can promote our games, advertising and encourage our members to gamble, because that's what we've assembled for, and we believe it is our right, not the DOGs, to tell us how we can collect our monthly dues to make our pig as pretty as can be.

My point has been well defended, since we can't play how we want then "let's organize and enact the change necessary to legalize poker contests outside of state-arena's and casinos".

How do you argue that with me? I'm going about it the right, legal way, aren't I?

Nevermind the fact that I'm knocking on doors that don't want to be opened. Hence, the documentary. Human interest. This movement, from start to finish, and Bud Lee's history and the trial that took 4 years to gather enough evidence to convict him, when he provided the State with the evidence they needed in 2006.

All of the arguments and legal stipulations and verbatim statute quoting and paraphrasing is useless. You and I are not the law. We aren't even lawyers who love to argue the meaning of the word "is". We're players and fans of the sport who want the same thing I think. Maybe you're happy with your home game cuz you have clay chips, but I wasn't "attacking" you Palimax. Your glib response certainly provoked a glib response in return tho. Enjoy that tzatziki sauce.

Like Mark, er, willbedone, I have plenty of things to say about the argument you seem to think we are having Palimax, but I realized early on that the best place for those arguments will be in the supreme court in Phoenix during the coming trial. The issues and loopholes and black and white and gray areas of the laws have been discussed ad nauseam here, I think you agree.

But The issues and loopholes and black and white and gray areas of the laws is not my argument. My argument was originally "why a cooperative club can't work within the existing laws", and sure enough, we vetted that idea here and the popular believe was that the laws, as written, prevent such a socialist concept from falling into the social gaming framework.

The advice obtained from these forums, was legislate. Make the change. Power to the people! Yipee!

Some of us believe the cooperative poker club is the quickest and easiest way to get legitimitized at the local level, protected from the DOG, and if the rest of the state wants to follow, if the rest of the nation wants to follow, more power to 'em.

So we move.

Paraphrasing actually, trying to remove some of his acid-tongue and passionate bias from the rants. You wanna argue the elements discussed above regarding the BIA and tribal casinos? I'm ready. Probably too busy. Let's just take a moment here to answer your one question:

I care. I love Arizona. I want the same rules that that other place has within our state boundaries to apply to me and my friends too. Two sets of rule books is wrong.

I'm sure the measures we come up with will make sense, considering that they will be modeled after the BIA compacts. Economy of scale, logic and intelligent modification for our small time poker-only operations. Oversight by the department of public safety or DOG (ick). Rules of order, cooperative structure, non-profit. Definitely non-profit, just to stick it to the people who can't see the good we're trying to do because all they see are the non-existent dollar signs.

Palimax, I'm kinda disappointed in you. As "crazy" as you claim the judge is, you're just as crazy/blind on the opposite end. Willbedone is Mark Brnovich and Skallawig is really the only person who's opinions here I find of interest any more.

Let's try this Palimax... let's discuss the reasons why the judge is crazy, and why you think he's barking up the wrong tree. I've not written him off as a crazy eccentric, and I've tried to see what his points are, including a 2 hour videotaped interview with him. Strip away his acid tongue and biased passions and you are left with a rather stark reality that professional* poker is owned by the gambling industry, enforced by their police, and encouraged thru two sets of law books and a state-run monopoly.

*Professional poker is not meant to include your home game. The only place to play professional poker is the casinos. The only place to turn $40 into $4000 is the casinos. The only place to get a gyro at 2am is the casinos, or your house.

btw, to threaten a lawsuit is a form of extortion, which is why, Mark/Willbedone, your repeated use of my name (John) combined with earlier comments is amusing to me.

I don't agree. Because there isn't a loophole, and what little issues that might have been gray have all become pretty black and white in light of recent events.

You can, under Arizona State law, play poker as long as no 3rd party benefits.

Paying your dealers (even with tips) or using your game to promote anything other than the game itself (even as a loss leader), is illegal under Arizona state law. It's what the law says. It's what the ADOG says. It's what Gilbert said when shutting a room down.

There's no loophole. There's no, "Aha! I'll call it a cooperative!" There's nothing that isn't plain and simple, crystal clear, black and white. NO BENEFIT DIRECT OR INDIRECT EXCEPT FROM THE ACTUAL WAGER.

-----

John, I want to be perfectly clear with you: As a voting libertarian (with an "L" on my Arizona voter's card and everything), I'm in favor of the government not getting into my gambling -- and as such, I'd be fundamentally for allowing others to run poker games. As a realist, however, I see the need for some rules for how to go about doing things.

My advice to you, however, is not to follow "Judge" Lee's path. I honestly believe that there's not going to be some Arizona Supreme Court "showdown" happening. My bet is that he's going to go to court, and he's going to plead guilty, and it's going to end right there. Do you think his PD is prepping for some sort of, "Well, it should be legal, and if it weren't for racist Tribal compacts, you wouldn't be charging him with a crime" defense? You can't, for example, go into your marijuana case saying, "But your honor, pot laws are stupid!" He might plead not guilty and hope a jury sympathizes with him, but Jury Nullification in Arizona, while possible, is like getting killed by a shark while in your living room.

You're sort of doing the right thing. Write your state legislature. Get ARS 13-33xx changed.

...keep the racism BIA rants out of it.

Sure, your odds suck, but I thought that about marijuana reform in California, and that's making pretty massive strides.

John, I think you misunderstand me.

Don't confuse the message with the messenger. The law of the State of Arizona is crystal clear.

I'd be happy to see it change, and I'd be first in line to sign a petition or send a copy to my representatives if you come up with something that makes sense.

I love poker. I've devoted countless hours to it. I'd be happy to see for some sort of change to the laws of the State of Arizona that expanded "social" gaming to allow for it to operate as a loss-leader or for dealers to work for tips only, or to define a maximum amount that can be removed from the game for expenses to still qualify as social, etc. If you had a proposed change to ARS13-3301 Section 7 had a clause added to it that reduced the scope of "benefit" to allow for expenses and included a way to ensure that "expenses" didn't let you retire the in South Pacific, I'd gladly help you fight for it.

Have you read his website? It looks like the Gambling/BIA equivalent of Glenn Beck's chalkboard with links to Van Jones and Cap and Trade on it. He, like GB, might have a point - but he's going about it in a way that makes people think he's nucking futs.

The whole BIA thing is a straw-man argument. Forget the tribes. Forget what they do in Nevada. Forget what's allowed at Commerce. If you want to change the law -- WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW.

Have 13-3301, Paragraph 7 amended to include a broader definition of "benefit." I'll gladly rent a booth and buy the banner and sign people up for the petition with you.

Don't confuse the message with the messenger.

Nobody's made or lost more than $700 in my game in a single night, and I've seen $60 become $600 ...but that doesn't change anything. The $1000 worth of poker chips I own are because I love the game -- and it's less money for those chips than a place like Poker Nation rakes on a Friday night at their "club."

Some of you are going to get shut down. Fortunately for you, however, the petty penalties that await you are "worth" less than the money you'll make int he meantime building up your commune.

...I mean, someone has to keep all the flat-screen televisions and poker tables after you're out of business.

It seems to me that there are three possible groups that would be against the idea of a neighborhood poker club, social gambling, cooperative or private.

1) Those that have a vested interest in keeping the existing laws the way they are. This would be the gambling industry at large, as they are the only ones allowed to host high stakes professional poker games. All kidding aside, Palimax, you're pro-privatization of poker even with your high-end home game equipment. Neither your home game OR the casino poker rooms are in jeopardy here. We're merely slicing more pieces of the pie than what currently exists, which is, quite simply, an illegal monopoly on our sport.

2) Those that think we are trying to take away poker from the indians. And this is just ignorance, and easily re-educated. The indian sucking on the bottle of wine didn't just up and one day think "Hey, I wish we had slots so we could make some money". No, some smart lawyers got together with the BIA and congress and figured out a way not only to allow the people to vote to legalize gambling (we'll give it to the indians!) but in so doing forever sealed poker in with all other forms of chance gambling, and tied it to the laws the govern the citizens, and in the process, protected their own interests tied to the monopoly they created (on professional poker). If we really wanted to help the indians, we'd see to it that they actually owned these casinos, and that the tribal councils actually ran these casinos instead of Harrah's or Bally's. In fact, without going to far into it here, we should allow the indians to own the reservation land they live on. Instead, we allowed the gambling industry to dupe us, the people, into thinking we'd be helping them by allowing the gambling industry via the BIA to infiltrate their closed, racial societies. A human zoological experiment. Crazy rants of a madman or something that rings true? The jury is still out for me, but I can see the truth in some of it, and have yet to discover any real propaganda or hidden agenda. Freeing indians from the BIA and poker are really two separate causes, and maybe Bud is crazy to try to tie the two together. Bud gets angry with me sometimes cuz I think we should just focus on poker and only poker. He wants to free the indians. He thinks that the two issues are inseparable. Personally, that lightbulb hasn't gone off for me yet. I thought I almost had it earlier today, but it still escapes me.

3) Those that just like to argue for the sake of arguing. And these are the suffering fools I try to avoid. I came to 2+2 for opinions and debate on the cooperative concept, but when attacks start to get personal, especially from people that don't fall into the first two categories I've defined, then I just write them off as fools and move on.

None of us here are fools, and we all agree that it would be nice if we had choices that included a friendly, neighborhood poker club.

I'm done vetting the cooperative on 2+2. I was done a week or two ago. It is clear that a movement needs to take place, and I'll start working on some legislation. Maybe something I can discuss with the District 2 staff. Maybe something I'll put here on 2+2, or a link to one of my websites.

The cooperative has nothing to do with Bud Lee, and I'll be happy to discuss his rants in as much as they further my understanding of the issues as he perceives them.

This forum is about Bud Lee, and not the cooperative. I'll get vBulletin for the cooperative website though, and we'll have fun over there discussing the proposed legislation and assembly.

Well that's kinda what prompted me to write councilwoman Neely. She's proposed to the City Council that we prepare for legalized pot dispensaries in Phoenix NOW, before they become a reality here like in Cali. Cali got things pretty messed up at first and now it's finally starting to take shape into something that works. It's that kind of forward thinking that I think can work together with our cooperative initiatives.

> I don't agree. Because there isn't a loophole, and what little issues that might have been gray have all become pretty black and white in light of recent events.

Well I'm not trying to convince you that the laws aren't in plain English, and I'm not trying to say there are loopholes. I do think there is gray, and that gray comes from the all encompassing nature of the word benefit. We agree there too. I think we also agree that we need some legal representation and a movement to make the changes we wanna see made. So are you available to sit on the organizing committee Palimax?

In fact, you said yourself:

> You can, under Arizona State law, play poker as long as no 3rd party benefits.

That's paraphrasing and I thank you for that, because it can't be put any simpler than that. That's the gist. The spirit and the letter.

But in the cooperative model, there is no 3rd party that benefits. The dealers and the players are all equal member-owners. But we've already shot this idea down numerous times. The problem is that we can't legally rake or tip ourselves. And that's just silly.

I'm pretty naive in both politics and law. Combustion engines too. But I do know how to ask "why".

And I'd like to ask "Why is it illegal for me and my friends to pool our resources in a non-profit social poker club cooperative organized to first and foremost (a) assemble in our social club to discuss poker, laws, legislation and plans to organize and mobilize to enact change and (b) if we play a little nickel-dime after our meetings, it's okay, cuz we have a bona fide social relationship through our movement."

And if someone responds "It's illegal cuz it is... it says to right here."

Then I'll ask again "Why?"

And that's where the buck stops. BTW, that's a poker term. The button was commonly a buck-knife that moved around the table. If it's illegal just because it is, I say why? Why can't we pool our home game resources and create "the biggest home game on the planet?"

The common response is that poker and gambling needs to be regulated or we'll be overrun with mafia dons and drug dealers... then I say, ok, then let's regulate it. Casino gambling is regulated. Any initiatives brought forth for consideration would obviously need to address regulation, as well as licensing, taxation and government oversight. We can achieve this with minimal government intervention too, I really believe that.

It's nice that the BIA has provided us with the details of every compact every tribe has with every state. We have the framework from which to work in creating our own proposed bylaws and associated legislative efforts.

There is clearly at least a 4th group:

(4) Those who think that the necessary changes to the law would either be insufficient to allow for a large-scale cooperative, or that feel a change to the law that would allow for a large-scale cooperative would also invite gambling as a business.

Again, in a strictly political vein, I'm a libertarian, and how dare you tell me how I should do anything ...but I'm reasonable and understand we need order and Libertarianism isn't just anarchy for rich people...

If you changed ARS 13-3301, paragraph seven to include a new paragraph that explicitly said you could operate with $50 a day, maximum, in overhead, I'd be all for it. That's $1500 a month to pay for the clubhouse.

They may all be members. ...but they are not equal. The dealer benefits from getting paid (tips, salary, whatever). I don't.

...

This is similar to how games like blackjack and Pai Gow Poker are "player" banked in California. Everyone at the table has the chance to operate as the house, in equal turns.

I don't want to get off into a side-discussion about the unfair contracts that clubs in CA have with their third-party banking corporations, but at least they pretended that everyone took turns banking.

Just caught this and realize the error. I'm not saying by opening a poker club as a cooperative to start playing poker. No, I realize in doing so we would be shut down as quickly as any other club. But the cooperative poker club is a good way to go about bringing like minded people together, not to play poker, but enact change.

Doing it the other way, we'd be in the same boat with Lee & Co.

I think there are many other groups that would be opposed to it, and even more that can be segregated and targeted by group 1 with the media blitz campaigning against us.

But group 4 is easily remedied and nullified, imo, because we'll invite group 4 to help craft our... um... legislation is it? idk, like I said, I'm clueless here. That's why I've contacted my representatives. I need guidance.

> but I'm reasonable and understand we need order and Libertarianism isn't just anarchy for rich people...

Anarchy for rich people. LOL. I like that. Very funny. And I'm with ya, we need law and order. I'm not fighting for anarchy here!

> If you changed ARS 13-3301, paragraph seven to include a new paragraph that explicitly said you could operate with $50 a day, maximum, in overhead, I'd be all for it. That's $1500 a month to pay for the clubhouse.

See, NOW you're helping! I haven't thought about the existing laws and how we'd change 'em. I have looked at the BIA compacts and am amazed by how parallel their rules run in direct violation of the state statutes.

I'm thinking we'd set up our "rule book" to be similar to the casinos and their compacts. But limits, no big. $50 a day overhead. Cake. It'll likely be $30 per table, or is that what we call a "gaming device" haha, or something like that. I haven't thought that specifically about it yet Palimax. I'd sincerely invite you to sit down with me and talk about these things, these issues, and you clearly have a level head and can see much more for all sides of the equation than I do. Msg me if you can spare an hour or two sometime!

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the dealers are hired for minimum wage, they benefit, but at our request. They are also members-owners, and if we need to VOTE democratically for which licensed and certified dealers we want to hire on any given night, month, or quarter, we should be able to. In the cooperative, we can pay for our hired help, be they dealers, floor managers, or window cleaners.

You're stuck on the idea "a bunch of dealers get together and form a cooperative. They sink 20K into the place, and turn over ownership of the club to all the members, hoping their popularity and charisma, as well as awesome dealer skills, will win their favor and allow them to deal."

The self-regulating nature of the cooperative venture prevents dealers from benefitting in the way the statutes mean. It prevents dealers from forming a workers co-op for example, because then they are benefitting from the dealer tips. However, the co-op I've been describing all along is a service co-op, the members all equally own and pay for a service, that is, a social poker club where they can legally play in a professional environment with dealers, and rules, and regulations, etc.

I know, it's a moot point, but the devil is in the details, and the cooperative concept, like I said before, seems to be the fastest and most logical approach to moving legislation.