Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views and gossip.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2009, 04:27 PM   #426
JasonInDallas
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Foothills
Posts: 6,899
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Bid View Post
It's not about poker. It's about a violation of the Constitution
Free speech has always been limited by other laws in practice. Surely you know that.

I suppose you'd also argue that a person should be able to use free speech protection to verbally assault a cop? To conspire on the net to assasinate the pres? To yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? To sell national security secrets to the enemy?
JasonInDallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 07:03 PM   #427
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by absoludicrous View Post
Why does John Willems keep insisting that internet poker is illegal in Minnesota?

IT IS NOT

From the link in the post below yours…

Quote:
Five forms of legal gambling are present in the state: pari-mutuel betting on horse racing, a card club at Canterbury Park, Indian tribal casinos, charitable gambling and a state lottery…From 1945 through 1981, limited gambling for charitable purposes was permitted in Minnesota; no other type of gambling was lawful. In 1982, the Minnesota Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment to allow pari-mutuel betting in the state. Voters approved the amendment in 1983 and pari-mutuel horse racing was legalized. At the federal level, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, codifying gambling on Indian land. In 1989, the Minnesota Legislature created a state lottery. In 1999, Canterbury Park was granted legislative authority to operate a card club at the racetrack
…let’s see, they first made charitable gambling legal and nothing else, then added the listed items and nothing else. Nope, no internet poker business made legal, must be illegal, sorry.

Getting legal poker online in MN is a good thing to work towards, don’t you think?
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 07:09 PM   #428
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
AFAIK, he isn't citing MN law, he's basing this (falsely) on the federal Wire Act, and saying that makes playing poker online illegal nationwide. He's wrong.

Here's MN laws:
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/LRL/Issues/gambling.asp
The MN anti-gambling law has made internet poker business illegal; he is using the Wire Act to help enforce that law.

If MN didn’t have their anti-gambling law, he couldn’t use the Wire Act.(he never says the Wire Act made playing poker illegal)

Time to change the MN law?
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 07:14 PM   #429
Stellastarr
old hand
 
Stellastarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: 25 NL =(
Posts: 1,269
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Should I be cashing out?
Stellastarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 08:48 PM   #430
Machine Bid
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 91
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Yes, cash out. Do all you can to help the politicians win their battle against freedom. They will think kindly of you while they're relaxing on their yachts this Christmas.
Machine Bid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 10:12 PM   #431
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 28,003
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
The MN anti-gambling law has made internet poker business illegal; he is using the Wire Act to help enforce that law.

If MN didn’t have their anti-gambling law, he couldn’t use the Wire Act.(he never says the Wire Act made playing poker illegal)

Time to change the MN law?
Minnesota doesn't have the authority to make online poker illegal to offer (perhaps they can make it unlawful for players, but they've not done that). The Constitution grants authority over interstate commerce to the federal government. Expect PPA to fight vigorously just as we did in Kentucky.

The Wire Act has never been held to apply to anything but sports betting, and it's definitely never been seen as a bill that allows states to regulate or prohibit interstate poker.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 12:25 AM   #432
TheWorm967
grinder
 
TheWorm967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: gettin 19 callers on an 18 man table
Posts: 642
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonInDallas View Post
Free speech has always been limited by other laws in practice. Surely you know that.

I suppose you'd also argue that a person should be able to use free speech protection to verbally assault a cop? To conspire on the net to assasinate the pres? To yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? To sell national security secrets to the enemy?
huh? this doesn't go with the others.
TheWorm967 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 12:49 AM   #433
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Minnesota doesn't have the authority to make online poker illegal to offer (perhaps they can make it unlawful for players, but they've not done that)
TE - I'm not so sure that is the case. It looks like their statute 609.75 does make poker illegal to play in the state except in certain defined circumstances for social gambling, and of course depending on how you define "chance accompanied by some element of skill". Since they list Texas Holdem specifically, they are saying it falls under this definition.


609.75 Gambling; definitions.

...
Subd. 2. Bet. A bet is a bargain whereby the parties mutually agree to a gain or loss by one to the other of specified money, property or benefit dependent upon chance although the chance is accompanied by some element of skill.
...
Subd. 10. Game. A game means any game played with cards, dice, equipment ...
...
609.755 Acts of or relating to gambling.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(1) makes a bet;
...

609.761 Operations permitted.
...
Subd. 3. Social skill game. Sections 609.755 and
609.76 do not prohibit tournaments or contests that satisfy all of the following requirements:

(1) the tournament or contest consists of the card games of chance commonly known as cribbage, skat, sheephead, bridge, euchre, pinochle, gin, 500, smear, Texas hold'em, or whist;

(2) the tournament or contest does not provide any direct financial benefit to the promoter or organizer;

(3) the value of all prizes awarded for each tournament or contest does not exceed $200; and

(4) for a tournament or contest involving Texas hold'em:

(i) no person under 18 years of age may participate;

(ii) the payment of an entry fee or other consideration for participating is prohibited;

(iii) the value of all prizes awarded to an individual winner of a tournament or contest at a single location may not exceed $200 each day; and

(iv) the organizer or promoter must ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for players with disabilities. Accommodations to the table and the cards shall include the announcement of the cards visible to the entire table and the use of Braille cards for players who are blind.


...

Last edited by spadebidder; 05-03-2009 at 01:00 AM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:54 AM   #434
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 28,003
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
TE - I'm not so sure that is the case. It looks like their statute 609.75 does make poker illegal to play in the state except in certain defined circumstances for social gambling, and of course depending on how you define "chance accompanied by some element of skill". Since they list Texas Holdem specifically, they are saying it falls under this definition...
Thanks for posting that. I did read the statute prior to writing my letter to Pawlenty. I'm not a lawyer, but I think we'll have a pretty good shot at that definition of a "bet". The social gaming exemptions clarify that Texas Hold'em is clearly a social skill game, but it doesn't say it's a bet as described in 609.75.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 02:57 AM   #435
MicroBob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MicroBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 61,580
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

I'm going back and giving lots of infractions for the various political side-arguments that have nothing to do with the Minnesota thing.

I will repeat what I said before: If you want to bash Obama or Democrats or Bush or McCain or any other Republican you need to go to the politics forum. You are NOT allowed to do it here.

I'm sick of it and take a hard-line stance on it because, "Lets list everything bad/good I think Obama has done so far in his Presidency" is total topic hijack and has NOTHING to do with the discussion here.

Don't get there again. You'll just infractions again.

Thanks for your understanding on why it's necessary to take a hard-line stance on political arguing in this thread and this forum in general. It ALWAYS spirals out of control where on Obama defender gets 'corrected' by some Obama opposer and vice-versa.
MicroBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 03:12 AM   #436
MicroBob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MicroBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 61,580
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Okay done. No more political jokes. Even the simplest and most innocent little one-liner that either bashes or supports one party or person ends up drawing 5 responses in an argument back and forth completed unrelated to poker or the situation in Minnesota which is what this thread is about.

And again...it all started with just a simple little one-liner. So please keep your little political jokes/observations to yourself because they pretty much never go well.
MicroBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 08:56 AM   #437
absoludicrous
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
absoludicrous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: You like the stache?
Posts: 10,091
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Reading the .pdf of the letters that Willems sent out to the ISPs, and it makes me sick.

He comes off saying that "this gambling is illegal in Minnesota...The federal statute requires upon notice by a law enforcement agency that you do not allow your systems to be used for transmission of gambling information..."

Give me a break, law enforcement, gambling information. So sad.

I just really really hope the people that run these ISPs do some research about internet poker, and don't just bend over to the requests of some uneducated system.

Last edited by absoludicrous; 05-03-2009 at 09:20 AM.
absoludicrous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:37 AM   #438
pd07
journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: losing flips
Posts: 297
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

So let me get this straight, the US government, banks and large corporations can gamble for billions on derivatives and real estate using people's pensions and savings and leaving the US in dire straights, but people aren't going to be allowed to gamble their own money online if they want?
pd07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 10:08 AM   #439
broo7198
journeyman
 
broo7198's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ST. PAUL
Posts: 295
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pd07 View Post
So let me get this straight, the US government, banks and large corporations can gamble for billions on derivatives and real estate using people's pensions and savings and leaving the US in dire straights, but people aren't going to be allowed to gamble their own money online if they want?
that sums it up, unfortunately most lawmakers and people in the public eye arent going to veiw it this way obv.

Basically we in MN can just continue to express our views to our legislature via the emails and letters, and hope that this thing doesn't hold up in court (which I don't think it will). Also the PPA is going to be involved the whole way I am sure.. and hopefully we can get this thing ousted. Otherwise.. Im moving!!
broo7198 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 03:49 PM   #440
absoludicrous
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
absoludicrous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: You like the stache?
Posts: 10,091
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

I bet if John Willems started browsing 2p2, found BBV, and used his hundred thousand dollar per year salary to help bankroll himself into SSNL he'd probably be all for internet poker...
absoludicrous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:08 PM   #441
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 28,003
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

As posted earlier, Americans for Tax Reform has come out against the Pawlenty Internet Censorship Plan. The press release is at http://www.atr.org/userfiles/042909p...sorship(2).pdf and http://www.atr.org/minnesota-attempt...er-first-a3188 .

Click here to Twitter in only 10 seconds


----------------------

Minnesota Attempts to Censor Internet -- Taxpayer and First Amendment Groups Condemn Action

From Patrick Gleason on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:16 PM

Americans for Tax Reform and the Media Freedom Project today released the following press release:

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced today that it has instructed 11 national and regional internet service providers to prohibit Minnesota residents from accessing almost 200 online gaming websites.

John Willems, director of the MN Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division, warned the thousands of law abiding Minnesotans who enjoy online gaming that today’s announced state action will put their “funds in peril.” Referring to online gaming, Willems added, “I don’t have a law that authorizes it, so it’s illegal,” in a statement that would outlaw even the most mundane daily activities and routines.

“Minnesota state officials have aggressively sought to deter internet freedom over the past few months. First legislators try to tax digital downloads, now bureaucrats want to censor the web,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “This is nanny-statism at its worst – the government barging into a private matter because people are supposedly too stupid to make decisions and take care of themselves. Individual liberty should not be supplanted by the whims of politicians looking to soak even more money from an over-taxed, over-regulated population while feigning concern over safety issues.”

Kentucky is also trying to shut down online gaming by attempting to seize 141 websites. Already having consumed a considerable amount of scarce state resources and taxpayer dollars, that case is now heading to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

“Minnesota’s effort to block access to Internet sites that allow gaming is nothing more than an attempt to block competition the state doesn’t like. If Minnesota state officials were truly concerned about the 'societal impact' of gaming they wouldn’t have sanctioned more than a dozen casinos in the state and would be making efforts to close them, too,” said Derek Hunter, executive director of the Media Freedom Project. “In the meantime the Department of Public Safety’s action violates the principles that govern the Internet, that it should remain open and free to legal transactions. Since the federal government has yet to clearly define what constitutes 'illegal' online gaming, Minnesota is now seeking to arbitrarily do it. ”
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 10:16 PM   #442
PBJaxx
2010 WSOP November 9er
 
PBJaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,329
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Nice! Twittered.
PBJaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 10:11 AM   #443
domer3
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Manuel View Post
Send letters boys. That's all we can do at the moment. PPA has pre prepared letters sent mine today.

http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/home/

LETS DO THIS
I did this. Also, I will send a note to Pawlenty. I have given him enough money through the years.
domer3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 11:43 AM   #444
uppie_
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,673
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

609.75 Gambling; definitions Subdivision 3
What is not a bet
3) Offers of purses, prizes or premiums to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, endurance, or quality or to the bona fide owners of animals or other property entered in such a contest.

We need to get poker to fall under this any chance of this with some recent study's TE?
uppie_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 01:21 PM   #445
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uppie_ View Post
609.75 Gambling; definitions Subdivision 3
What is not a bet
3) Offers of purses, prizes or premiums to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, endurance, or quality or to the bona fide owners of animals or other property entered in such a contest.

We need to get poker to fall under this any chance of this with some recent study's TE?
It seems that would only cover tourney play, not cash play, and they have enumerated specific restrictions on poker tournament play elsewhere.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 02:23 PM   #446
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Minnesota doesn't have the authority to make online poker illegal to offer (perhaps they can make it unlawful for players, but they've not done that). The Constitution grants authority over interstate commerce to the federal government. Expect PPA to fight vigorously just as we did in Kentucky.

The Wire Act has never been held to apply to anything but sports betting, and it's definitely never been seen as a bill that allows states to regulate or prohibit interstate poker.
States have had strong anti-gambling business statutes for many decades. They prohibit business unless specifically authorized...like legal lotteries, racing, card rooms, casinos, sports betting, etc. A poker business operating in MN by using the internet is not one of the authorized gambling activities, it’s illegal.

Your claim about MN not having this authority also fails with a quick look at reality…hmmm, legal online poker business available per TE...and none exist? Makes no sense.

Your commerce clause argument might lead to all these state anti-gambling business laws falling, or not. For now, they are in force.

Hey, maybe it’s time to look at getting poker business allowed online in MN?
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 02:35 PM   #447
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Thanks for posting that. I did read the statute prior to writing my letter to Pawlenty. I'm not a lawyer, but I think we'll have a pretty good shot at that definition of a "bet". The social gaming exemptions clarify that Texas Hold'em is clearly a social skill game, but it doesn't say it's a bet as described in 609.75.

This social skill game section says that a game of chance, such as Texas hold’em, can be played if certain regulations are followed...then the game of chance is considered a social skill game.

For Texas hold’em, the social skill game rules include no entry fee, $200/day prize limit, etc.

Does all internet Texas hold’em played in MN follow those rules?

No?

Time to change the rules?

Quote:
Social skill game. Sections 609.755 and
609.76 do not prohibit tournaments or contests that satisfy all of the following requirements:
(1) the tournament or contest consists of the card games of chance commonly known as cribbage, skat, sheephead, bridge, euchre, pinochle, gin, 500, smear, Texas hold'em, or whist;
(2) the tournament or contest does not provide any direct financial benefit to the promoter or organizer;
(3) the value of all prizes awarded for each tournament or contest does not exceed $200; and
(4) for a tournament or contest involving Texas hold'em:
(i) no person under 18 years of age may participate;
(ii) the payment of an entry fee or other consideration for participating is prohibited;
(iii) the value of all prizes awarded to an individual winner of a tournament or contest at a single location may not exceed $200 each day
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 02:41 PM   #448
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

permafrost, why hasn't MN shown up on any of the 'banned state' lists?
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 03:34 PM   #449
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Um, if a state has a law saying you must obey the speed limit and drive at a prudent speed for the conditions and then later passes a law saying "driving 15 MPH less than the speed limit is officially prudent" does that mean that driving faster than 15 MPH less than the speed limit has been made illegal?



The answer is no. And for the same reason the "social skill games" statute does not decide whether playing poker is the same as making a bet under MN law.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 04:21 PM   #450
Pot Odds RAC
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Degentleman and a Scholar
Posts: 4,368
Re: Minnesota to Prohibit Access Between Residents and Gambling Sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pd07 View Post
So let me get this straight, the US government, banks and large corporations can gamble for billions on derivatives and real estate using people's pensions and savings and leaving the US in dire straights, but people aren't going to be allowed to gamble their own money online if they want?
Ok.

At the risk of being called "anti-poker" again, I'm going to try and give a little rational view to something like this.

Some people can drive 200 MPH on a track in a regulated environment with known safeguards. "Trusted" Agencies and Governing Boards ensure that rules are set, enforced, and applied effectively.

...that doesn't mean that anyone can drive 200 MPH anytime and anywhere that they want.
Pot Odds RAC is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive