It will be evidence that any change in the interpretation of the law was basically bought.

https://www.sec.gov/foia/nfoia.htm




Freedom of Information Act Exemptions

The Freedom of Information Act entitles the following exemptions on documents being requested by the public:

1. Those documents properly classified as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;

2. Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices;

3. Specifically exempted by other statutes;

4. A trade secret or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information obtained from a person;

5. A privileged inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letter;

6. A personnel, medical, or similar file the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

7. Compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which

(1) could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings,

(2) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,

(3) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

(4) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source,

(5) would disclose techniques, procedures, or guidelines for investigations or prosecutions, or

(6) could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual's life or physical safety;

8. Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports about financial institutions that the SEC regulates or supervises; or

9. And those documents containing exempt information about gas or oil wells.

If the DOJ decides the same thing that covers interstate lotteries applies to the poker pact then it could be lights out 6/14 In assuming.

I hate to say it but I might have to vote Democrat. Online poker is that important to me.

The peer-to-peer element of the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement (MSIGA -- between New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware) is already generally accepted as being among the most vulnerable "verticals" in light of the Wire Act re-interpretation.

Former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement official George Rover and Ifrah Law managing partner Jeff Ifrah made reference to statewide, U.S. online poker's exposure to a potential federal government crackdown in a free webinar they uploaded earlier this year (which was moderated by current NJDGE Technical Services Bureau Chief Robert Moncrief, Jr).

MORE INFO POSTED ITT: Post #110, Post #116, Post #128

In other words, the plight of formally licensed, cross-state "online poker" has seemingly already been decided, unless there is some formal clarification of the new Wire Act opinion, on or before June 14th, that would lead these and other qualified individuals within the regulated industry to conclude otherwise.

Punctuation and spelling count, and truly come into play in the legal realm. I recall a number of cases back in the day when amphetamine was a thing (before kiddies found methamphetamine), many cases got kicked when a Grand Jury had misspelled the drug by using '-imine' at the back instead of '-amine.'

We see the same thing with some of the designer drugs that came into being in the past few decades, which is how we came to get laws related to isomers and other vague things that really almost require a chemist to interpret.

We have even had justices in the Texas Supreme Court who had weighed in on the Oxford comma.

Many a Legislature has been taken to task in statutory interpretations as well...sometimes in what was NOT present as much as what WAS present. And yes, there is a small cottage industry in identifying those sorts of outliers...

Sorry for the derail but if ever you wanted grammar and punctuation nits in one room, it is a courtroom...provided, however, that the interpretation is in your favor. If not, then you want the least educated mofo who ain't havin' none of that punctcheation crap

Well, that is likely the least direct approach possible. It allows NJ AG to say he is doing "something", aside from filing an amicus brief in the lottery litigation ?

This gets a big "So What ?" Unless there was a bribe involved, what would that lobbying amount to ?

Is a judge or DOJ likely to extend the enforcement date because this FOIA were filed ? Perhaps.

I think that, and five bucks, will get you a drink at Starbucks. It's not illegal to lobby your government, it is your right. Most legislation has lobbyists' fingerprints on it

That's my take on it, precisely a big "so what?"

But then again, gotta let those trumpet players herald in the news too... lest thy breaking news be relegated to unfair, one-sided takes.



FWIW I agree that it's yawn-worthy as is, but perhaps there's some salvation in the crack-analysis former PPA executive Rich Muny provided on the topic (here and on Twitter) just a few days after the new OLC opinion was publicly released.



For better or for worse, this stuff is becoming easier to analyze -- at least if basic puzzle game theory is applied -- than it is to lobby for.

I'm just not seeing an environment in which a formally licensed, "interstate" U.S. poker site could provide reasonable customer service without formal clarification of the new Wire Act opinion along with the potential threat of incoming OCGS enforcement following June 14th.

If banks don't come along (and why would they without formal clarification?), then at the very least formally licensed, cross-state online poker is going to get red-lit imo.

Calling ex-Senator Al D'Amato .... who was handsomely paid for years to lobby quixotically on behalf of the PPA FOR legislation at the Federal level regarding online poker.

I see the residue of the PPA remaining staff weighing in ... "taking the fight to DOJ", lol, par for the course for the PPA....

This December 2018 article sheds some light on "Whatever Happened to Online Poker in California."

I'm posting it here because a couple of the quotes directly relate to the topic of regulated U.S. online poker.

The direct quotes below were obtained by Steve Ruddock on behalf of OPR.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/33...-online-poker/

"The arrogance and ignorance of PokerStars f—ed it up." -- Victor Rocha (Pechanga tribal gaming)

"...the tribes saved themselves a lot of money by not investing in the financial death spiral we now call online poker." -- Victor Rocha (Pechanga tribal gaming)

"There were three main beneficiaries in Sacramento that were pushing for iGaming and iPoker... these being the lawyers, lobbyists and legislators. All three could monetize this space by convincing the operators that there was a potential of iGaming or iPoker becoming a reality — and they did. I still believe that it was all a myth." -- Richard Schuetz, former Member (California Gambling Control Commission)

There's a difference between the PPA hiring D'Amato and Adelson hiring nearly two dozen experts. From the Washington Post, (2013)

"Advisers to Adelson say he is intensely focused on the coming battle {online gambling}and talks about it every day with his staff. He has about two dozen experts working nearly full time on the issue."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.cbe7420d6b97
___

Adelson has said in an interview on Youtube when asked how much he is willing to spend (on the online issue) that he will spend "Whatever it takes". When somebody worth about 35 billion says he will spend whatever it takes, that is saying something.

I believe what that Freedom of Information request is trying to do is to find out just what that "Whatever it Takes" money is doing at the Department of Justice with regard to this issue.

Unfortunately, the above is key and I concur with it. However, what I also think is key imho is the prosecution in the courts showing what is the legal rationale or main reason (if any) to change their position around 180 degrees from the 2011 first interpretation of the wire act to this most recent 2019 version.

If the DOJ cannot only NOT provide such legal rationale but also is surrounded by this contextual ancillary motive, then the DOJ position before the courts looks all the more incredulous. In other words, the NJ attorney general tactic does not help much but it does not hurt to press that denial of the FOIA request either.

Congratulations on that epiphany. Welcome aboard mate.

This is a tangent of sorts, but likely will resurface re sports betting sooner or later.

And I am still (unfortunately) all-in on the aforementioned. Here is to hoping I am wrong and go bust (eventually) on that. How ironic,pathetic and sad the state of affairs is for interstate online poker in the U.S. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - my arse!!

TwoPlusTwo forum contributor John Mehaffey reports that partypoker has taken another step in potentially entering the regulated Nevada online poker market via its partnership with MGM. This is a very small, yet positive signal IMO regarding state-licensed, regulated online poker in the U.S.

Here's the Twitter discussion so far. It includes some observations about the uncertain timeline with linking other states to MSIGA because of the new Wire Act interpretation.





A ruling on the New Hampshire Lottery Commission suit could be issued this month. But as already mentioned in the thread, presiding Judge Paul Barbadoro believes the issue will eventually make its way to the SCOTUS regardless of what is decided at the U.S. District Court level.

And that is where/when interstate online poker will get buried. SCOTUS judges Cavanaugh and Gorsich are so in the bag for corrupt crony capitalist crooks like Sheldy and Trumpy. And so will the other 3 Thomas, Alito, and Roberts follow along like bought and paid for bots. 5-4 will be the decision in DOJ's favor - done imho.

that difference is 'effectiveness'

Bovada and ACR are unlicensed, unregulated foreign sites - they are high risk, with or without this ruling.

PokerStars NJ is licensed and regulated in NJ, and backed by the Pokerstars corporation. It is unlikely that player funds will be "seized" (if you strictly play from NJ). Worst case scenario, funds could get tied up for a time until you get them back while court cases get sorted out, but more likely you will just get refunded if the site has to close.

Great timing bud. Move to Pennsylvania

I may actually do that. I’m in Delaware now and without the Interstate Player Pool we will have a player pool so small that major events will be $1000 guarantees with $50 buy ins. I currently live walking distance to the PA border so it would drastically alter my life to move.

Also can't play bovada in NJ fwiw

Just curious, you mean Bovada will not let you play from there, or you are just not supposed to?

They froze my account a while back for playing there. I can reopen when i move I think. Of course they originally told me I could play there, LOL Bovada

I tried to sign up from Delaware and got blocked. Assuming it will happen to anyone in NJ and NV as well.