Well, it seems that it wasn't the UIGEA being used, as originally reported by G-911 (what - G911 gets it wrong - how shockin!). Rather, Louisiana law, which makes conducting a gambling business by the Internet illegal, was used. This is better than I first thought as at least the DOJ wasn't trying to entrap under the UIGEA. Still, it is another attack by our federal government on online gambling, and possibly online poker (Golden Casino does offer online poker to US players).

gotta the undisputed, most politically bankrupt and corrupt, low life state in the country, pursuing leo's.

People will be very lucky if sites like Full Tilt and Pokerstars are still taking US customers after Dec 1. If they are it will be virtually impossible to cash out.

this is based on nothing but pure speculation

things might get worse who knows... or the government could not assign this much priority... i think alot of people are just guessing as usual...

why is it such a bad thing to legitimately be unable to know what is going to happen? i mean you guys dont know anything at all... period...

Yeah, this is way too strong and not based on evidence. I still havent heard the mechanism for permanently blocking Canadian checks.

You have to understand overdrive is the resident extremist. He goes as far as playing only live now because of the "dangers" and "hassles" of online poker.

I too am having a severely difficult time getting e checks in 2 days paper checks in 4 days and wires in 1-3 days.

I do agree with you lg, e checks wont be around for much longer, imo.

UPDATE-G911:
Click link for full story

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...ng-092009.html

Looks like the fed's are getting serious, glad I don't own or operate a site or processor.

If they classify player winnings as profit from crime, that's pretty much game over isnt it?

It probably takes them winning an SDNY style court case first, but that is the one way I think the Feds can effectively shut this down.

I would like to know if IMEGA or the PPA are aware of this "Special Task Force" and if they have any info about the task force, and what if any plans are in place to mount a "legal" counterstrike.

Its is G911 so flip a coin as to whether its accurate

LOL exactly, it's not like the Times or the post is reporting this that's why I asked if the PPA is aware of this or not. Funny thing about G911 is half the time their wrong but the other half they actually do break an new and accurate story, we have to wait a see which side the "coin" will land on.

Which if they presented themselves as a rumor site would be fine and actually a decent hit rate, but they love to pat themselves on the back for breaking hard news like a real journalist site when they are right.

Hope they whiffed this one

+1

+1. But with all the exact details and quotes, it looks pretty solid. More evidence that the DOJ is going to do everything it can to shut down online gambling in the US. The writing is on the wall. Time to get everyone you know to help push for federal licensing and regulation of online poker. Online poker will disappear as a viable option in the US without it.

None of the quotes are related to online gambling, so its not clear that this is really a new task force. Its is the Feds' best route at shutting the game down,

I dont think things are bad enough to push through a bill that will end up with 40 states opting out so we need improvement on that front too. Online poker disappearing is not a fait accompli.

I have so far been reluctant to give any blame to Obama, but that time has come or is on the verge of coming. The one thing I know for sure is I am done donating money to any politician short of clear supporters (Frank, Wexler, Martinez, etc.) instead of based on a political party where I "hope" they are better.

Who are the "victims" that Rosenstein discusses here?

Taxpayers as a whole in order to justify seizing the money.

Im with you on your first paragraph. Ive told Obama that as long as this nonsense continues, Im not supporting his Health Care proposal.

Actually, this is right in line with his nanny state, Big Brother, we-know-what's-best-for-you health care aganda. What little freedom was left before this guy came into office will be gone by the time he leaves. The worst vote I ever cast in my life.

I put the blame squarely on Obama.

I wish we were that strong that we could push legislation through. We don't even have a Senate cosponsor. IMO, we're still in the mode of promoting anything and everything with the word "poker" in it to build our support. Hopefully we can use it to at least get the delay bill passed and to get others to notice, perhaps, that going after us is bad politics.

TE we've had this convo 1000 times, Im well aware of where we are politically. Like you, I wish that we had the choice of regulated, legal poker throughout the US.

We dont, we have choices between two bad options. Either keep fighting a battle of attrition with the Feds and a deteriorating status quo or pass a bill where we compromise a ton and get 40 states opting out. We should push to improve legislation, and good work is being done here, but make no mistake, both options suck.

We've discussed this before, but not since the DoJ made it clear that they are not backing off of their attacks and that they are willing to include poker. A lot of my prior confidence was in the DoJ ignoring us so, to me, that was a real game changer. IMO, we're now in a position where need a push for a win either via legislation or litigation.

The second option you listed would result in clearly legal, advertised, fishy poker in ten states and the deteriorating status quo that we have today in the other forty (and that's worst case...there will be lobbying from all around to optimize and smooth out the opt-out process), minus a couple of the bigger sites in the opt-out states. However, we'd have taxpaying, licensed sites lobbying the other forty states for inclusion. That sounds way better than the status quo to me.

That being said, needless to say I'm committed to getting improvements in the bill, and will continue to pester all levels of PPA to ensure they are pushing for changes.

In new news, PPA has been meeting with governors (or their staffs) to share with them the benefits of participating in this program. This has nicely coincided with our letters.

I do understand your concerns. The Menendez bill wouldn't be kind to me. Kentucky would likely opt out, and I have concerns about neighboring (to my house) Ohio and Indiana (though Ohio Gov. Strickland could use the revenue).

I read the G911 article. Problem for the DOJ is that the credit card processors that they would like to investigate are foreign ones. So are the online gambling sites. The DOJ will end e-checks, but cannot stop deposits by credit card and payouts by foreign bank paper check or even bank wire. In addition, foreign ewallets still permit players to deposit by credit card and transfer funds between some sites. Truthfully, all this means is that the status of online poker is like that of online sports betting or online casino gambling. The latter two have been thriving for a long time; so will online poker.

However, this will be the status quo for a long time. IMO, the PPA can prevent federal legislation that would prohibit online poker, but such legislation would not change much except maybe the poker rooms that US citizens can use. IMO, the PPA cannot obtain passage of any favorable legislation like the delay bill or a licensing bill.

Therefore, the only alternative to improve the status quo is litigation. I like the state litigation to get state courts to rule that poker is not gambling because it is dominated by skill. However, IMO federal litigation to challenge the ability of states to regulate or restrict online gambling under the Commerce Clause would be useful, but the Lee Rousso case in Washington may turn into this case if it reached the SCOTUS. I don't believe that Mr. Rousso can win his case at the Supreme Court of Washington, but IMO SCOTUS would accept an appeal of a negative ruling by the Supreme Court of Washington. If the PPA can establish that state laws do not or cannot prohibit online poker, then it can establish that no federal law prohibits online poker. This may help the status quo because then US banks, US ewallets and US payment processors could serve the online poker industry. However, such litigation will take a few years.

So I expect the status quo to remain for the duration of the Obama administration and maybe longer.

I agree with this.

If Americans fund their poker from banks outside the US, then the status quo is legal, and likely to remain unchallenged.

Offshore funding just needs to be better publicised to the poker community.

No doubt about that.

I think we'd see a lot of improvements with either legislation or a win via litigation.
We have a decent shot at the delay bill. The licensing bills are tougher, especially in the Senate.

This path grows more likely each day.