This stuff is so stupid. The doj is just making stuff up as they go along.

As ive said in other posts, gambling is undergoing a surprising period of legalization right now and we just added a 5th state that legalized online poker, and this stupid doj opinion can mess it all,up because of one freakin guy (sheldon obv).

I hope places like nj fight like crazy.

Sheldon, this past week, sitting at a Trump rally in Las Vegas, wearing his red yamulke that had "Trump" stitched on the back.

https://www.ebay.com/i/223300933639?chn=ps

You can order one too, for only $12.99

Too bad for players that online poker legalization never passed into federal law in Reid 2.0.....

You do recall that prior to States like NJ passing laws to criminalize online poker, unless they control it, online poker WAS already legal. (There was no Federal prohibition.)

What you are seeing is the real exercise of power at the Federal level, by the anti-Reid. Look, the poker operators tried to play at the federal level to capture the US market in one fell swoop. They ignored State level action for years, preferring playing the "Federal Solution" incessantly.

Well, they got a different "Federal Solution" shoved back in online poker players' faces.

IMHO, the "rule of law" that America used to pride itself on is gone. Specifically, if I were the plaintiffs for the New Hampshire and other (inter)state lotteries, I would plow ahead through the court case and appeals etc. to cement wtf is the real, permanent interpretation of the Wire Act. Only then, work from that, NOT go by what Rosenstein says today or tomorrow or whenever he wakes up on this or that side of Sheldon's bed.

Because the clowns and crony corrupt capitalist crooks running the DOJ (along with their pimp Sheldon Adelson at the top) is engendering too great a risk now for any further operation nor probably investment in interstate lotteries among other GAMES OF CHANCE AKA LOTTERIES AND GAMBLING, CASINO GAMES, ONLINE POKER ETC. into the future as long as this uncertainty remains.

Someone needs to make a sombrero like that.

Meanwhile in other news of the "high and mighty regulator for interstate commerce aka DOJ", how the hell does the DOJ defend itself allowing for the state spread of marijuana usage while it is STILL ILLEGAL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL?? That is what I mean by "having your cake and eat it too." This is in general why the banks won't get involved in this industry - for rightful fear of violating federal law.

But do we ALL (states so-called "legalizing" it) abide by ONE rule of law or not? I know society accepts certain aspects like cops going through red lights (with impunity when there is no emergency etc.) But this is getting ridiculous. And that is because one rule of law is a myth if not a joke now imho. (P.S. - I am all for the federal legalization of it along with allowing it in any and every state UNDER such law(s) if/when enacted.)

If Sheldy can do it somebody ought to wear a Catholic Cardinal hat to a Bernie Sanders speech that says "Feel the Bern" on it.

It sounds like you're getting into the "State's Rights" issue, and if you want to get into a discussion of how it should be, that might be better suited for the Politics forum. But to answer your overarching question, no, I don't believe there is "one rule of law" in the way you see it - IE the federal government creating laws on everything within which any state laws must fit. At least that's the understanding of this Canadian - I stand to be corrected by the more knowledgeable out there.

That would be great.

(I bought one of the yamulkes, I plan to give it to someone in my family who represents asylum seekers from abroad.

.....I'll ask some folks in Mexico if they can get sombrero made.)

Obv the Tweets embedded below are related to online sports betting and not online poker in the U.S. But this is what I mean by regulated vs. unregulated friction, particularly in statewide American markets -- where the topic is currently making its way into the mainstream players/influencers/media space -- and having an impact on existing/future commercial relationships.





FULL STORY: https://thebiglead.com/2019/04/09/pa...-dave-portnoy/

One rule of law means We the People are ALL under equal compliance with it for starters, let alone avoiding double standards, nepotistic agendas etc. It is not a matter of how things "fit" or the way I or you "see it." There is federal law by definition that states cannot be in conflict with in this matter period. That in and of itself is not a debate for states' rights (which I fully support like for gambling etc..)

In the US, I was trying to use the example of marijuana to illustrate how laws on the books are currently either hypocritically ignored/defied if not misinterpreted with bullsht abandon. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug meaning it is on the FEDERAL illegal list of drugs like heroin etc. currently. (Is that stupid and should the federal law in this matter be changed? Of course!) However, in the US as it relates to this area currently, federal law prohibits the usage of such and more importantly supersedes the states. The latter must comply by default. That IS THE LAW. Moreover, the banking industry (which is already heavily federally regulated) MUST be in compliance with federal law or else risk the loss of their license/charter etc. There is no gray or "fit". I cannot speak to Canada on their laws on this matter.

i think the fat cats enjoy making life miserable for the spectrum

I think you are over simplifying the federal system of laws and government in the US. I am not looking to debate federalism, just saying it is not as simple as your emphatic use of all CAPS, "by definition", or "period" imply.

For starters, "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" constitutionally leaves a lot of issues which are gray or open to disagreement. (I will abstain from that discussion, but it may be fruitful in this context for interested posters to consider that reservation of rights.)

One rule of law for the masses is understood in simple terms by many since our founding. It is major factor that (purportedly) distinguishes us from many other countries in the world since the founding. And in fact, it should be made simpler (less opaque and more transparent in its enforcement) than even I am doing so here. Maybe the problem is too many lawyers like to overcomplicate our laws lol. I am NOT debating federalism nor is it germane to point. Debate on states rights vs. federal rights does NOT nor should NOT apply to all issues. Certain usage of Schedule 1 drugs like narcotics/heroin just like some other issues like wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, homicide, grand larceny etc. for instance are NOT open to disagreement at the federal level nor are debated as a states right vs. federal issue (that would be ridiculous and chaos for a country otherwise). Reinterpretations like of the wire act, pay-offs from corrupt crony capitalist crooks like Sheldon Adelson, activist over complications of laws, above the law bribes, money carve outs for punishment of some but not others etc. are just some factors that clearly defy the ideal of one rule of law. Otherwise, it promotes the ideal that "democracies die in darkness."

BUT, if you want to disagree on federal law (like I have with classification of marijuana as Schedule 1 federal illicit drug), I do concur on that the federal law should be changed (amended). Like I said, one rule of law can be simplified in a many a context for otherwise you allow others to evade it all the easier through a cloak of corrupt opaque darkness (aka NO TRANSPARENCY). There is a reason it is said that "democracies dies in darkness." (even though we are a Constitutional Republic).

I think you are confusing sausage-making with the end product, sausage.

Federalism is what gives us different levels of sausage making. What the 10th Amendment states is federal sausage making is limited to powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federalism says there are rules about who makes sausage on various topics.

Generally speaking, laws prohibiting activity like homicide or grand larceny have been handled by State-level sausage makers.

No, state lawmakers or "sausage makers" as you like to posit have to still abide by and accede to federal law on activities like homicide or grand larceny. They may craft the actual state laws on these matters but they must still be in compliance with overriding federal statute. That is the point that perhaps was not clear earlier either to you or Mr. Fett. To put it simply - if your logic was correct, then that means every state could argue states rights on these matters too and then chaos erupts. Some things are governed by federal law that all states must obey and other things are left to the discretion of the states. That is just a fact. Like I said, this is not a debate on overall federalism vs. states rights.

That is why right now the states that are involved in marijuana activities are technically/legally NOT in compliance with federal statute - Schedule 1 classified drugs ARE federally illegal (unless a drug like marijuana comes off this federal list). I am sure you understand that. In fact, many who are or aren't legally versed in the aforementioned probably understand that too. And until the federal law is amended to exclude it, it is still settled law for now. There is no debate other than the DOJ turning a blind eye to enforcing some things under the law (like the federal laws restricting pot) and not to others like gambling, online poker etc. It is hypocritical at best. At worst in the words of George Carlin (God rest his soul), "it is ALL bull sht and it is bad for ya!"

You are confusing the Supremacy Clause scope with the 10th Amendment's principle of federalism.

The federal government cannot constitutionally legislate or declare by executive action anything it pleases.

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...marijuana-bans

For example, there is no federal overriding statute on homicide that I am aware of, nor one on online gambling other than sportsbetting. (The federal IGBA is premised upon a State law prohibition being violated, no prescriptive federal law in the area.)


The Wire Act was exceptional in 1961 because it enacted a federal prohibition, but tempered that Section by expressly carving out States ability to legalize otherwise prohibited activity between/among their respective territories, that is why Section 1804(b) was included.

You want to ignore Section 1804(b) perhaps ?

Never said it could. That was never stated nor implied. Moreover, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. But you are in fact somehow implying/if not stating to the fact that the states can override federal laws on the books like those for Schedule 1 federally prohibited drugs, e.g. marijuana. And that is simply not right (no matter how much I want pot legalized at the federal level otherwise) but moreover a mystery as to how the DOJ can be derelict in its duties of non-enforcement of such illicit activity defying federal law.

Indeed. That was exceptional. But by the same token, if you think I want to ignore Section 1804(b) after all this time, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, my point is how the DOJ cherry picks what federal laws it chooses to enforce and what it does not. And that is hypocritical if not bull sht.

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...marijuana-bans

You've got this lazer focus on Marijuana, so look at the above linked analysis on that topic.

You keep ignoring the actual Federal law re sportsbetting, the Wire Act, as well as other federal gambling laws like the IGBA which defer to State choices.

This thread and forum are devoted to gambling/poker matters, not marijuana. If you want to argue that Section 1804 (b) does not protect States' laws re sportsbetting or anything else prohibited in Section 1804(a), fine.

We would disagree.

Okay.

Lol. I previously stated it was exceptional. That means you and I acknowledge that the wire act is an exception to the rule. That means rare. By the same token, you think I as an online poker advocate want to ignore Section 1804(b)??? Of course not!! I guess I didn't make it clear above. But my other point in post # 169 still stands too.

Fat cats generally do not even consider the effect on life for the spectrum, if I get your terminology.

Relatively enlightened fat cats understand that their wealth may be based upon capture of the continued contributions of the spectrum.

The State seemingly exists to administer that system.

Here's a LIVE BLOG article from today's proceedings in the New Hampshire Lottery Commission suit. The article is being updated by Eric Ramsey, who is on-hand in Concord and providing updates as circumstances allow.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/36...uit-arguments/
---

Here's some Twitter commentary as the case is being heard.








---

EDIT: A 2:26pm ET blog entry by Eric Ramsey states that the judge has ruled "that the Rosenstein memo does not provide sufficient grounds for dismissal." This directly correlates to Post #110 ITT (from March 22nd, 2019), in which the USDOJ requested that the NLHC lawsuit be dismissed.

That is an excellent sign imho. It seems to me from above and other readings that Rosenstein was trying to use that memo as explicit documentary evidence to legally shutdown current lottery challenge (aka lotteries have "no current legal standing" to bring forth this lawsuit) BUT enable DOJ discretion to come back at a later time to only then say that the DOJ has decided lotteries are included in 2019 interpretation for purposes of enforcement. That is how I perceive it.