Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Judge Harold Lee convicted in AZ gambling probe Re: Ace High Card Room Judge Harold Lee convicted in AZ gambling probe Re: Ace High Card Room

12-08-2011 , 01:21 PM
Perhaps someone can explain to me how the State can voluntarily elect to regulate poker, a class II game per Congress (1988) but not elect to regulate poker on the other side of the tracks? Congress made non-banked card games like poker (player vs player) a class II game and in so doing, the regulation and oversight of poker in Arizona falls upon the 37-man National Indian Gaming Commission, and is NOT subject to State laws.

When i say that Arizona voluntarily elects to regulate poker on Indian land in Arizona, the history tells the tale:

DoG asks for NIGC opinion 3x about poker before going to AG (then Grant Woods haha) who says indian poker is illegal.

DoG issues C&D unjunctions to BIA casinos.

Indian Casinos and DoG conspire and secretly craft a MoU that turns poker in Arizona Casinos into Jackpot Poker, by attching Class III elements of chance to an otherwise pristine class II game where skill is the predominant factor. Aside from this, the MoU attaches Poker to the Poison Pill clause (as if nobody cares about Class II Bingo anymore, right?). The MoU also brings power and control over the international sport of Poker in Arizona under the jurisdiction of the DoG and not the NIGC. The MoU also subjects poker proceeds (Net Win) from BIA card rooms to the "slush fund" euphamistically named the Arizona Benefits Fund. That's the fund that the BIA casinos give back to specific Arizona budgets, education, roads, and DoG and nothing smacks "slushy" more than the discretionary portion of the Casino's 1-8% tithe than the percentage the tribal council can kick back to cities and counties of their own choosing.

So the State of AZ went to battle with the feds and won the right to control Poker in Arizona. My question is, how can AZ voluntarily regulate, modify and change the sport of poker, but only do so for one exclusive group segregated by race?

I get that Jews are stereotyped as moneymen. Sad. Not right. Bigots and prejudice. But other races are equally capable and certainly equally protected by the law of the land to become licensed traders an portfolio managers.

Jimmy got canned suggesting that Blacks were geneticallt better athletes, but they do not own a State-sanctioned monopoly on sports.

Many asians make good masseuses for some reason, but i know a few latinas and eurotrash girls that are licensed by the State regardless of race.

Saudis are all oil barons. French are all snobs. And The People are our bookies.

The State simply cannot elect to regulate a Class II game for one select racial group in its borders, they are no more sovereign than you or I are. Its a blatant misuse of law, abuse of power, and a grotesque violation of Judge Lee's constitutional civil rights guaranteed by our forefathers.
12-08-2011 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WEC
How much anyone willing to bet CitzAgainstTyranny is a 2+2 multi-accounter. Too close to another wind-aided, kook poster. Yeah, I think kook fits. Maybe just another of the Cult followers of Lee. Isn't Lee up for Nut of the Year?
Off topic but it always makes me chuckle when posters seem more concerned with who a poster is or on what authority they have to share an opinion. "Oh look, anothrr well-informed, intelligent first-time poster!"

Multi accounts exist because so much emphasis by chief nits is put on ensuring that this forum is not free speach, that topics stay on point, that real names or fake names don't matter, but controlling who can say what where and why does.

You can't ban someone and continually attempting to do so is futile. So open it up, actually MODERATE and enjoy the free flow of thoughts from some great orators.

Chief Big Fish Little Pond
12-08-2011 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Perhaps someone can explain to me how the State can voluntarily elect to regulate poker, a class II game per Congress (1988) but not elect to regulate poker on the other side of the tracks?
We have lawmakers. We elected them. You and I and everyone else went to the polls and voted for them. Those lawmakers wrote laws that said, you, me, and ANY ARIZONA ADULT WHO WANTS TO CAN PLAY ALL OF THE POKER THEY WANT WITHOUT REGULATION as long as that game is fair to all players and doesn't have a 3rd party making money on the backs of those people playing poker. Additionally, our representatives wrote a law that says you CAN make benefit of others gambling as long as you have an agreement with the state to do so.

You keep ignoring the fact that NOTHING stops you from playing poker in Arizona, except that you're not allowed to make money from other people playing it without a sweetheart deal from the state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
The State simply cannot elect to regulate a Class II game for one select racial group in its borders, they are no more sovereign than you or I are. Its a blatant misuse of law, abuse of power, and a grotesque violation of Judge Lee's constitutional civil rights guaranteed by our forefathers.
Good luck with that fight. You might be right, but good luck.

I'd be sympathetic towards Lee if he were fighting this without putting "button fee" and membership money (from the clubs he chartered who paid him as much as 15%) in his pocket.

...but he did. He made money from other people gambling.
12-08-2011 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Off topic but it always makes me chuckle when posters seem more concerned with who a poster is or on what authority they have to share an opinion. "Oh look, anothrr well-informed, intelligent first-time poster!"
Way, way, too many people here come and pretend to be people they aren't, and it goes to show how honest and credible they are. It's one thing to use the forum to remain anonymous -- but people don't need 2 or 3 or more names to remain anonymous.

Say what you want about me, but at least I'm honest about who I am.
12-08-2011 , 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
We have lawmakers. We elected them. You and I and everyone else went to the polls and voted for them.
Sorry. Wrong. More misinformed speculative opinion stated as facts that sadly, when many see how prolific you are, will generally assume you know what you are talking about.

One (1) elected official, our Governor, signed the MoU voluntarily crafted and conspired by the DoG and BIA casinos in secret. There was no public opinion or will of the people in this MoU that ties the hands of Arizona citizens that want to legislate to allow the State to regulate Class II poker off reservations as well as on.

The DoG director is appointed. The tribal chairman, president, chief ... Who knows what or how they got to where they are at, but you and me did not vote for them. And we did not vote in favor of allowing poker to be changed, modified to a Class III game, and subject to the State sanctioned monopoly when the AG told the Indians they were operating illegally. Taking 3 to 6 bucks per hand constitutes theft and conversion and its illegal
In Arizona. What you seem to be missing, Palimax, is that your FREE poker and the Indians RAKED for Benefit poker, isnt the same game. The indians offer professional poker. You and i do not. Why do only the indians get to offer professional raked poker like they do in the casinos? Why werent the indians secretly indicted like Lee? Selective prosecution, violations of rights and equal protection yada yada. That's why. Lee should just craft an MoU of his own, mirroring the one the governor signed, and walk out of court a free man, or, in the alternative, after a successful appeal, walk out of civil court with millions in punative damages.

Quote:
...but he did. He made money from other people gambling.
Wow. Nice hearsay Palimax. Read that in the DoG website? If you know he made money, since obviously you must as this is the basis of your bias, do tell how much money he made. Over what period of time. Can you show me checks or produce a witness that says Lee made money? Because if you try, its equittable estoppel. Already stipulated to in a May 2005 Notice to the States highest Legal Authority. No need for 5 years of coercive undercover operations and hundreds if not thousands of man hours involved.

Thankfully, that investigative cost is all on the Casinos, not the taxpayers. But that conflict of interest is a can of worms. If i was an Indian-owned casino i would be pissed the DoG milked me for years and millions to investgate a known criminal and produce not one shred of evidence that hasnt been made oublicly available on his website and official petition and notice to Terry Goddard in '05.

btw, Benefit = "made money"? ie., profit? Was not Lee's organization a 501(c) non-profit!?

He made money off gambling? More hearsay? Go to his website. He tells you how he makes money. $20 membership and $1 on the button -- all things that are not gambling, but fees. And if people do or dont gamble after paying a membership or button fee does not matter one iota. In Lee's case, the Poker Table is NO different than a pool table or bowling ball you just rented and gambled on with a friend for a beer.

Now Palimax, he isn't really the sharpest tool, and i hope that people can distinguish between opinion and fact, and between hearsay and hard evidence. WE DON'T need to start preamblinh everything with "i am of the opinion" or the ever collequial "in" imho. But i need to remind people that what you read here isn't always the truth.

All of my facts are verifiable. Palimax prefers to damage the sport of poker by tainting public opinion with his misinformed speculations and opinions about Lee and his motivations. He likes to make these accusations stated as fact when the truth is, the best he has is hearsay. Yes, newspaper articles and websites are hearsay.

Thanks for understanding.

Well, understanding everything except maybe your hardheaded "fact" that you still don't agree that your basement home game with grandma, Aunt Phylis (Ivy) and the neighborhood gossip nobody likes is not the same as the World Series of Poker, or any WPT event, or a game in any of the hundreds of Caliornia poker clubs or at any nevada casino.

I will be happy to discuss and debate opinions and facts about what differentiates the two with you, but i bet 99 out of 100 people can do the same as well or better than me (including your Aunt Phylis) -- so don't waste my time.
12-08-2011 , 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Way, way, too many people here come and pretend to be people they aren't, and it goes to show how honest and credible they are. It's one thing to use the forum to remain anonymous -- but people don't need 2 or 3 or more names to remain anonymous.

Say what you want about me, but at least I'm honest about who I am.
Hahaha... See previous post re control issues. I have one account. All others have been banned, including the coveted IP address ban at three of my four WIFI hotspots.

Does this make me dishonest? A liar? Cheat? Fraud? More speculative opinion without the facts. I will say this: all of my totally appropriate bans (per the forum rules) have come defending our rights to play professional poker off reservation and at the hands of people spouting false wisdom like Palimax.
12-08-2011 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Hahaha... See previous post re control issues. I have one account. All others have been banned, including the coveted IP address ban at three of my four WIFI hotspots.

Does this make me dishonest? A liar? Cheat? Fraud? More speculative opinion without the facts. I will say this: all of my totally appropriate bans (per the forum rules) have come defending our rights to play professional poker off reservation and at the hands of people spouting false wisdom like Palimax.
Get ready for your next ban.
12-08-2011 , 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Sorry. Wrong.
Either (a) we voted for them, or (b) we voted for the people who appointed them. That's how this works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Wow. Nice hearsay Palimax. Read that in the DoG website? If you know he made money, since obviously you must as this is the basis of your bias, do tell how much money he made. Over what period of time. Can you show me checks or produce a witness that says Lee made money? Because if you try, its equittable estoppel. Already stipulated to in a May 2005 Notice to the States highest Legal Authority. No need for 5 years of coercive undercover operations and hundreds if not thousands of man hours involved.
Sigh.

Phoenix New Times, April 16th, 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by PNT
ADOG says its three-month undercover probe revealed that Club Royale collected as much as $550 an hour on one table alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNT
Lee's organization, the International Card and Player's Association, essentially is a one-man band. For a starting fee of $5,000, he will issue a charter and a kind of business plan for an off-reservation poker room. He also collects as much as 15 percent of the profits from a room's owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
btw, Benefit = "made money"? ie., profit? Was not Lee's organization a 501(c) non-profit!?
Two things:
  1. You don't get to define benefit. The ADOG gets to define benefit with regard to gambling. If you still can't believe that, I challenge you to rebut where I had it spelled out for you by a specialist in Arizona Administrative law. Here's a link, again, one that nobody has been able to refute, to the original explanation for why the ADOG gets to define benefit: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=876
  2. Non-profits? Plenty of people benefit in non-profit businesses. I work for a non-profit, and we've got 4.6BN in assets and thousands of people make benefit of us through a variety of reasons every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
In Lee's MIND, the Poker Table is NO different than a pool table or bowling ball you just rented and gambled on with a friend for a beer.
FYP. The state disagrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Now Palimax, he isn't really the sharpest tool...
A pleasant fellow, you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Hahaha... See previous post re control issues. I have one account. All others have been banned, including the coveted IP address ban at three of my four WIFI hotspots.

Does this make me dishonest? A liar? Cheat? Fraud?
Yes. It most certainly does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosReigns
Get ready for your next ban.
A shame the Lee camp, so proud of their convictions, are so afraid to come out from behind their rocks.
12-08-2011 , 04:20 PM
A quick reminder of why the Arizona Department of Gaming gets to decide what "Benefit" means with regard to gambling in Arizona. This was written by a friend of mine, a bit of an expert on the subject of administrative law here in Arizona. He would, because of his position, like to remain anonymous.

Quote:
This is not legal advice and I am not your attorney. For legal advice, contact an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.

The Palimax has been doing just fine articulating on 2+2 the information I have passed on to him. But now with IAAL's post, it seems there is still some doubt about how the law applies to poker clubs in AZ, so I think I need to reinforce some aspects of what I have had him convey to you, so that the uncertainty can finally be put to bed.

I don't know whether IAAL is a real attorney or just MrPokerAZ's gimmick alt or buddy. I will grant the benefit of the doubt that he is a real attorney, however like many real attorneys, he seems to have overlooked the administrative line of authority, which is at the center of why ADOG is doing what they are doing right now and succeeding at it. This by no means disparages IAAL; most retired attorneys and a great majority of practicing ones are out of touch with the ascendancy of administrative law on the legal landscape today, so they know little about it. Administrative law is a dry specialization. It is not as glamorous as litigation or criminal practice, so few attorneys care about it. But the importance of the practice area has, in the past few decades, grown very significant -- as is easily evidenced by the thousands upon thousands of pages of Federal Register churning out regulations every month.

IAAL correctly emphasizes that statutory law is the top dog, but any layperson knows that. (Technically, U.S. Code would supersede state statute, and then there are things like treaties and Constitutions to deal with, but who's counting?) Actions of state agencies are governed by the state's Administrative Procedure Act, which is codified in statute at A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6. (A.R.S. §§ 41-1001 through 41-1092.12) and which basically tracks the federal APA and thus should hold no surprises for a lawyer from another state. In Arizona, among the provisions in that Chapter is Article 10, which governs Administrative Hearings through OAH (meaning the case is heard by an ALJ, an Administrative Law Judge). The ADOG is not included among the exempted agencies in A.R.S. § 41-1092.02(A)(1) through (A)(14). In fact, whaddya know! The ADOG's OWN STATUTE, A.R.S. § 5-602(F), states that its adjudicative proceedings are conducted according to A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6, Article 10!

This means an adverse party does not get to contest ADOG in a regular court until first exhausting the administrative adjudication process, unless that party had one hell of a threshold issue to press (and, paradoxically, this would be the one place where Judge Lee's BIA corruption folderol would actually be the type of issue needed, though I wouldn't want to have money riding on the strength of that particular argument) or unless ADOG waived the administrative hearing. ADOG does not maintain administrative rules at 19 A.A.C. 4 where they once existed (and it's strange that they do not, as A.R.S. § 5-601 exempts them from the formal rulemaking process, but whatever), so in determining the reach of ADOG's authority, all that must be considered is what they are allowed to do adjudicatively and then (after exhaustion) in regular court.

As The Palimax has painstakingly repeated, the fundamental case in administrative law is Chevron v. NRDC, a Supreme Court case from 25 years ago that established the legal test for an agency's authority: Did the agency have the statutory authority to interpret law on the subject matter? If yes, was their interpretation within the scope of that authority? If the agency did have the authority and the agency's interpretation was NOT CLEARLY CONTRARY to the underlying legislation, the ALJ or court is MANDATED to find in favor of the agency. This is not optional. The agency wins if those two elements are met. For the benefit of lay readers: Because the Supreme Court has ruled it, all lower courts are required to rule the same way. They don't get to decide case-by-case.

That is where Substantive Policy Statements come in. It is true that substantive policy statements are advisory only. It says so right on them, and A.R.S. § 41-1091 agrees. However, they still have legal weight when applied to a Chevron analysis, and because of the way Chevron works in practice, an SPS is EFFECTIVELY, for practical purposes, the law. This is the difference between a layperson reading the statutes and drawing conclusions, and someone who has been to law school and passed the bar who knows how a court conducts a legal analysis. See, to contest Chevron, an adverse party must either attack the agency's interpretation as being contrary to statute, or challenge that the agency did not make a clear interpretation in the first place. An agency, knowing that those are its two fronts to defend, can lock one front down by putting the public on notice as to what its interpretation is. The agency does this by issuing an SPS. This, in effect, shifts the burden to the challenger. In fact, it's stronger than a mere burden shift. It makes the clarity of the agency's interpretation into what is called a THRESHOLD ISSUE. This means an adverse party who takes on the agency in front of an ALJ or in court has to reach that issue before they can even get to the substantive interpretation, and that makes the entire case unwieldy and difficult to win. Pragmatically speaking, the issuance of an SPS or promulgation of a rule shuts down that line of attack entirely and leaves only the Chevron question of whether the agency acted contrary to statute. The SPS can be a powerful tool. Agencies know this. Why else would they spend time and money issuing statements that are "advisory only"?

I will repeat that because it is at the crux of why ADOG's "pamphlet" matters: By issuing a Substantive Policy Statement, an agency puts the public ON NOTICE as to what its interpretation is. An adverse party challenging the interpretation must pass the threshold question of whether the interpretation is clear or not, or forgo that line of attack, because if the interpretation was not clear, there would be nothing to challenge on substance, therefore if they are challenging it on substance it must be clear. An adverse party who wants to challenge the SPS has to do just that, in front of an ALJ, not in court, separately, before challenging the underlying interpretation. Few do. Then the only issue remaining is whether the agency acted contrary to its authority. Unless the evidence clearly shows that the agency did, the agency wins the Chevron analysis, wins in front of the ALJ, and then wins again in court if the case proceeds to litigation.

Thus, applying that to what has happened in Arizona:
  1. Per A.R.S. § 13-3302, social gambling is not unlawful, and regulated gambling IF "conducted in accordance with the statutes, rules, or orders governing the gambling."
  2. A.R.S. § 13-3301 defines "regulated gambling" as tribal compact gaming or other limited forms of gambling that meet a number of very specific conditions (i.e. not you guys.)
  3. Per A.R.S. § 5-601.02(C), an Indian tribe may conduct gambling as "regulated gambling." This statute is the functional authority of the tribal compact.
  4. Per A.R.S. § 5-601(D), ADOG HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER THE TRIBAL COMPACT. This is the cornerstone of their adjudicative reach.
  5. Because of the ramifications of A.R.S. § 41-1092.03(A)(1) and (A)(2), ADOG must provide public notice of their interpretation of any statute, rule, or other authority that would include or exclude a person from their jurisdiction. This would include A.R.S. §§ 13-3001 et seq. as those statutes determine what types of gambling are lawful by virtue of being governed under the compact or other law.
  6. In fact, if ADOG DOESN'T make rules or issue SPSes interpreting the statutes that determine what kind of gambling is lawful, the public can COMPEL ADOG to do so under A.R.S. § 41-1001.01(A), particularly (A)(8) and (A)(9).
  7. 1+2+3+4+5 = If you are conducting social gambling, you are outside ADOG's jurisdiction, and because of 6, you are entitled to know how ADOG interprets the meaning of "social gambling" in A.R.S. § 13-3301.
  8. Because of 7, ADOG issues an SPS explaining their interpretation of what "social gambling" means.
  9. By the authority in 4, executing as required in 5, ADOG's interpretation in 8 is the interpretation a court/ALJ will apply in determining whether gambling is "social gambling."
  10. To establish 9, a court/ALJ will decide whether a third party has obtained a "benefit." Fortunately, ADOG reached that issue in 8 as well.
  11. An adverse party is free to challenge ADOG's SPS itself under A.R.S. § 41-1001.01, though it seems pretty clear and straightforward as it is, so I doubt this approach would succeed.
  12. If an adverse party instead proceeds to adjudication or further to litigation, under Chevron, ADOG wins. Feel free to lose money appealing this.
  13. Don't like it? Change the underlying statute! The Arizona Constitution, Article 21, Section 1 provides you with a means to do this!

Most of what Schnaubelt and Mr. Poker posted are just wishful thinking, and IAAL appears to concede as much, though it sounds like he is engaging in some of the wishful thinking himself. Unfortunately that's not how the law works. You don't get to do what you want just because you wish the law were different. Hope is not a strategy. Stop pretending the law says something other than what it says, and work to change it. You know how. It takes a bit more elbow grease than typical internet slacktivism, but it's what will be necessary to achieve the result you want.

As to the debate over my legal credentials, people are free to draw the conclusion they like from the content of my statements. I have to work with the Office of the AG and with various people in and among the state agencies, and I'd rather not leave internet footprints that might even suggest the appearance that I have broken any professional courtesy of keeping my mouth shut about the specific work I have done with them. Plus I don't need random internet nuts looking me up in Martindale-Hubbell. So far I have no qualms about anything The Palimax has posted, and I'd like it to stay that way. If that's not good enough for you, I don't care.

My God, I've spent an hour writing this. That'll be $275. I accept cash or precious metals.
If you'd like to take shots at it, I'll gladly pass them along to my friend.
12-08-2011 , 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Wow. Nice hearsay Palimax. Read that in the DoG website? If you know he made money, since obviously you must as this is the basis of your bias, do tell how much money he made. Over what period of time. Can you show me checks or produce a witness that says Lee made money?
I'm not his accountant. I did, however, play once in a Lee chartered room. I paid a membership fee, and I paid fees on the button. I'm pretty sure my first-hand experience at providing strip-mall room owners benefit isn't hearsay.
12-08-2011 , 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I'm not his accountant. I did, however, play once in a Lee chartered room. I paid a membership fee, and I paid fees on the button. I'm pretty sure my first-hand experience at providing strip-mall room owners benefit isn't hearsay.
La la la la not listening to more misinformation to the detriment of poker. "benefit" is defined in statute already with little or no need for interpretation needed. When backed into a corner, people here tend to repost vast amounts of text already posted. Sigh.

DoG can interpret things one way, but we the people are allowed equal interpretation, and in fact, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. At least in america.

New times articles are hearsay.

Your first hand experience at PN was that before or after Lee disenfranchised Korza for not paying him? And even in your first hand case, i must ask... Did you see korza write Lee a check? Regardless, your info is irrelevent in this indictment.
12-08-2011 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosReigns
Get ready for your next ban.
Control freak
12-08-2011 , 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
La la la la not listening to more misinformation to the detriment of poker. "benefit" is defined in statute already with little or no need for interpretation needed.
That's fantastic argument, except the Arizona Department of Gaming has defined it, and they have the authority to do so, and no amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and wishing it weren't true doesn't change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
When backed into a corner, people here tend to repost vast amounts of text already posted. Sigh.
Lee's the one with his back against the wall. The vast amount of already-posted text is there because your side wants to ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
DoG can interpret things one way, but we the people are allowed equal interpretation, and in fact, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. At least in america.
Good lord, you're simply ignoring the facts. If you want to argue with the Arizona Department of Gaming's definition of benefit, lucky you, you can! Just go before an administrative law judge and challenge their interpretation. But walking into criminal court and trying to disagree with their definition -- that's dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
New times articles are hearsay.
This isn't court, and I ain't on trial -- Lee is. What's next? I can't mention World War II because I wasn't born until the 60's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Your first hand experience at PN was that before or after Lee disenfranchised Korza for not paying him?
So, you confirm that Korza was paying Lee, and by not paying Lee, they got kicked out of his (worthless) circle. Excellent. Thanks.

---

And, again, since we're on the topic of benefit, the ADOG (which has complete power to do so as described above) has provided us with a detailed reminder of things that might constitute benefit -- since obviously "No benefit, direct or indirect" is too hard for people to figure out.

http://www.gm.state.az.us/misc-pdf/G..._Pamphlet2.pdf

You could argue that the ADOG doesn't have the power to define benefit, but you'd be wrong - because it's been broken down in lay terms above by someone who actually understands Arizona administrative law. [e.g. not you or me]
12-08-2011 , 09:11 PM
Hmm, ..... what was that about "blood-soaked lands" or was it "hands" ?
12-08-2011 , 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
La la la la not listening ...

Your first hand experience at PN was that before or after Lee disenfranchised Korza for not paying him? ....
Wait ... a franchisor who wasn't paid kicked out a franchisee .... sounds like a benefit was expected for the franchisor ?
12-08-2011 , 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote
Wait ... a franchisor who wasn't paid kicked out a franchisee .... sounds like a benefit was expected for the franchisor ?
It's almost comical when they make awesome gaffes like that.
12-08-2011 , 10:32 PM
Palimax.....Why do you waste your time with the nutjob? Just isn't worth trying to debate point by exasperating wingnut point. The guy gets banned, but still can not help himself with diarrhea of the mouth by coming back. There are a lot of problems going on in the United States (and/or Arizona) involving scaling back of citizens freedoms, horrible intrusions on the USA way of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (including Govt war against online poker), but fing playing poker in a strip mall in AZ is not one of them (or is so far down the list of something important not to matter). Get your head out of your azz TyrannicalNutCase, and use your overblown hysterics to fight for something really meaningful, please.
12-10-2011 , 04:22 AM
Palimax, ever cedeing power over to the DoG haha... The DoG hasnt defined benefit, AZ statutes have already, as quoted in your post. They got it right. Benefit has already been defined by the state statutes. So ADoG gets to interpret what that means, and they have.

That is why The Nuts got raided today. The owner, one Mr. Glazer, has been benefiting ala Lee style, and taking 20% of the dealer tips on top of button fees and seat rentals and dealer appreciations and $5k+ bad beat jackpots.

Mmmm more popcorn!

Interestingly, http://www.gm.state.az.us/misc-pdf/s...amblingweb.pdf lists much of the same info you posted regarding the DoG interpretation of "anything of value or advantage, present or prospective. They do a good job covering all the bases on poker rooms. The thing missing from your pdf vs mine tho is the "games of skill" section, including billiards, darts, trivia or ither intellectual games ((( what?! No poker included!?)))

In skill games, which must include poker, the "benefit" only comes, per DoG when the "promoters benefit from the proceeds".

PROCEEDS!

thanks DoG!

Explain to me how the PGA can lawfully benefit by charging pro golfers for the TPC in Scottsdale every February.

RIP the nuts card room
12-10-2011 , 04:24 AM
Off topic and innappropriate WEC

Last edited by CitzAgainstTyranny; 12-10-2011 at 04:24 AM. Reason: innapproriate speled badd
12-10-2011 , 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
It's almost comical when they make awesome gaffes like that.
Gaffes. Nice palimax. Gaffe would be calling "an expected" benefit criminal.
12-10-2011 , 04:31 AM
Lee filed for a special action today, hopefully its on the icgpa website soon too. Its pretty good, and should allow the popcorn lovers to splurge for extra butter.
12-10-2011 , 04:40 AM
Lee's case is no longer so much about poker but his constitutional civil rights being violated on three different Amendments to the Constitution. A special action brings the blood soaked lands back into play! Yay popcorn!

WEC, wake up. I know puppies are starving in Somolia, and that's sad and all, and a "real" issue worth getting worked up about, but the issue of poker being voluntarily regulated by the State for one racial group bugs me. A lot. I want the choice. It aint right. POKER deserves better than to be subjected to the monopolistic claims BiA casino card rooms make on it, and so do the citizens of Arizona. Even Palimax and WEC, both pro poker and pro regulation... Well the DoG fought the feds for the right to regulate poker in Indian Country indians, and the state damn well owes it its citizens to do the same for a Class II game like poker for ALL races in Arizona.
12-10-2011 , 04:51 AM
Not sure how much truth there is to this but a player in at CAZ just told us that "The Nuts" cardroom got raided friday night. This guy said that they confiscated all the money, arrested the owner on felony charges and 65 others (players) were cited with something.
Anyone hear anything?
12-10-2011 , 05:39 AM
Friday night, as in 3 hours ago?

Color me not shocked.

I'm still waiting to see what happens to the new room opened precariously close to CAZ and how it fares.
12-10-2011 , 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitzAgainstTyranny
Lee's case is no longer so much about poker but his constitutional civil rights being violated on three different Amendments to the Constitution.
No. It's about him making money from other people gambling.

      
m