Does this mean you'll buy my AP bankroll for the going rate?

LOL.

Seriously, it just means that nobody knows anything on the issue of money stored at these sites. I agree with just about everyone (accept Congressman Bach-ass) that the likely scenario is something like the Neteller resolution. But sadly, anything's possible.

Deeming something illegal until a court says it is legal!?! That is NOT the way America under our constitution works!

"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." - Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The "people" also can refer to the congress, which are the elected representatives of the people to pass laws that are nationwide. That being said, there are NO LAWS that make poker online illegal in ANY way, as long as the UIGEA is left open to PRIVATE interpretation regarding poker as a gambling endeavor or as a skill game.

If this goes like the Neteller/Party one did, Stars is now negotiating with the DOJ... "I'll give you this much and you leave me alone and..."

Also, there is the issue that the contract for Stars was clearly stating by the Isle of Mann that player's fund had to be guaranteed safe. That even in a case of bankruptcy player's fund would have to be kept separately as a trust fund.. (obviously not in the U.S.)

Let's hope this is the case again. I waited 8 months for my Neteller money, I'm marking my calendar for Dec15th to get it back this time. Not going to worry till then. If it comes sooner great, if not, there is nothing going to make it come faster that I can do.

Most "other" non poker playing U.S. citizens (moral majority) have no sympathy and are taking the attitude... "you gambled and this is how God paid you back.." I've talked with friends and neighbors who all knew I played poker online. They are good people, church going, etc... they didn't care. Said I'd probably be better off.. and these are friends, you go figure what the rest of the nation's non-gambling people think.

I think it's about time for Pennsylvania to finally secede from the union and sell our steel, oil, coal, and nuclear energy to the Americans. I hear the price of those things are going up. Plus we can sell them refined oil, since we have our own refineries too. Nah... If we become a separate nation, the US will just keep bugging us for loans. Lol

Hey Guys,

I've made a few cashouts on stars in the last 2 weeks. I have received 2 of the paper checks, and then on 4/14 I cashed out more using a paper check and a e-check transfer. I have not received either of these yet.

Has anyone else had a successful deposit since the 15th? I don't know if I should try to deposit these checks or wait until I open a foreign account. I'm sure there are a few people in the same situation and I'm curious as to what you plan to do. Any input is appreciated.

thanks,
john

I believe (not 100% sure)that now there are criminal charges filed that those would have to be resolved before any suit by the sites. Why didn't the sites file such a suit years ago when the DOJ started seize money......I guess it could be they didn't want to give the US jurisdiction over the matter and open themselves up to criminal charges but it looks like that day has now come regardless.

the case lawdude mentioned, Younger v. Harris, is on wikipedia and says what you say above.

yeah, I always wondered why the poker sites did not use separate payment processors for deposits and withdrawals, with the withdrawals being done in the open and followed with the corresponding suit against blocking.

Why do people believe that the UIGEA allows withdrawals? Here is the exact language from the Act:

"(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering"

Notice language includes "from", withdrawals are prohibited the same as deposits.

I'm having trouble finding the exact reference but here is what comes up with a quick googling:

Perhaps PX can cite the relevant passage. I will eventually try to look it up if no one else does but I will be slow.

This is a quote from the UIGEA, as taken from the Money and Finance section of the US code found at House of Representitives website.
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER IV > §§*5361-5367 (specifically 5362 D)

Looking up that section, I see that section 5362 consists of legal definitions of terms, and that the "D" portion you quote is actually, in context, a subportion of definition (1), which seems that it should be listed as 5362 (1) (D) or something similar (IANAL and IDK the exact formatting). 5362 (1) defines the term "Bet or wager." It reads "The term 'bet or wager' - " before going down an alphabetically enumerated list. (D) in that list is the quote being discussed: "includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering". So in context, this quote is defining transfer of funds from site to player as included in the definition of a bet or wager. It's not clear from this particular quote that it's defining such transfers of funds from business to bettor as "unlawful internet gambling". That question is probably addressed elsewhere in subchapter IV, and someone more knowledgeable and with more expertise than me can probably clear up what the actual law states regarding withdrawl of funds to players in general.

full text of the safe port act.

The text you quote appears in the definition section "5362. Definitions ... (1) Bet or Wager. -- the term 'bet or wager' -- (a) means ..."

i.e. it is defining a 'bet or wager', not a 'restricted transaction'.

later in the document 'restricted transaction' is defined

'unlawful internet gambling' is defined in terms of 'bet or wager' but restricted transaction is not.

I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to understand what I'm reading but I know enough about the law the the details matter.
Given what I've read so far, I see no reason to believe your interpretation (withdrawals are 'restricted transactions') is correct.

The definitions section does not define new law, it merely describes the terms used. Section 5363 is where the new rules are. As far as I can tell, section 5363 only prohibits deposits.

right. Although "unlawful internet gambling" is defined as transmission of bet or wager, this is only setting the stage (definitions) for the actual new prohibition the law creates (s5363).

In other words, the "definitions" section is not intended to create new prohibitions.

OP probably knew this already and was merely trolling. Still, it was an interesting exercise to reread various portions of UIGEA.

Thanks, I appreciate your clarification and the new information, as well as your ability to state these points more clearly and succinctly than I can.

Equally, or perhaps even more important is:

From 5362, Section E, Does NOT INCLUDE:

‘‘(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation
sports game or educational game or contest in which
(if the game or contest involves a team or teams)
no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the
current membership of an actual team that is a
member of an amateur or professional sports organization
(as those terms are defined in section 3701 of
title 28) and that meets the following conditions:

More than just "Fantasy" games and the usual life gambling transactions such as insurance, stocks, bonds, horses, etc....are not covered by UIGEA

Educational or contests have not been fully defined though it is generally agreed "skill" games are contests.

You know them; Hearts, Spades, Solitaire.....

obg


obg

"In 2007, Bachus made trades with a number of short term stock options, betting that stocks would rise or fall for a quick profit or loss. Bachus made up to $160,000, including a bet in March that the stock market would drop that earned him between $15,000 and $50,000. Most members of Congress hold some stocks or mutual funds, but Bachus' rapid-fire trades are unusual for a leading member of Congress, particularly one with the key role of ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services."

Can someone please tell me how this is a more skillful action than poker?

Wondering how come former majority leader Bill Frist who is responsible for attaching the UIGEA to the Safe Port Act is not in prison?

Are the laws different for politicians than normal americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist

FEC Finds Frist 2000 Violated LawThe FEC (Federal Election Commission) found that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s 2000 Senate campaign committee, Frist 2000, Inc. violated federal campaign finance laws. "In June 2000, Senator Frist took $1 million of the money that had been contributed to his 2000 Senate campaign and invested it in the stock market, where it promptly began losing money.

In November 2000, Senator Frist sought to collect $1.2 million he had lent his 1994 Senate campaign committee. As a result of the stock market losses, however, Frist 2000, Inc. did not have enough money to repay the loan. Senator Frist solved this problem by having the 1994 and the 2000 campaign committees jointly take out a $1.44 million bank loan at a cost of $10,000 a month interest. Frist 2000, Inc. did not report this debt on its FEC disclosure forms."[29] In both 2005 and 2006, Senator Frist was named one of the "Most Corrupt Members of Congress" [30] by government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for ethics inquiries stemming from his troubles with the FEC and an investigation by the SEC for stock sales potentially based on inside information.[31]

On his part it took no skill at all, it is ENTIRELY legal for members of congress an their staff to use "inside" info they have from their posisitions to buy / sell / short the markets.

BTW, they made that rule and when a recent rule was proposed to stop this, congress declined.

obg

Sounds dangerously close to insider trading...somehow I'm not surprised that this is totally legit in DC.

It is insider trading, they are exempt from the law though, that passed that rule for themself.

Each house makes its own rules, the HoR made that one and the GOP this current congress voted to keep it after it became known late last year.

obg

and Wall Street's Domain?

Is he talking about the federal government here?

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=122119071195720

obama holding a "facebook city hall" conference.. a great chance to let our opinions be heard.

http://www.pokerpetition.com/index.asp?msg=EAE

also petition for online gaming by PPA... please sign/pass it on EVERYWHERE YOU CAN!!! max exposure..

Im there