Perhap you didn't see what i wrote earlier.

The prosecuting attorney in his closing arguments told the jury that the very act of a forced small and big blind makes poker illegal outside of the reservations because its an unfair advantage.

For what its worth, thats bologna on rye and its not something he could have even tried to prove as a fact. It gets into the whole "poker is a contract game" comcept.

We, of course, disagree on that prosecutor's opinion. Closing arguments aren't fact, they're hyperbole used to incite a jury.

...and we both know that's not what Judge Lee's case was about. [Can we call him Harold now? Do you get to be Judge forever, even with a felony record?]

The rooms are illegal because they benefit from gambling, and Harold Lee conspired with the room owners to run that criminal enterprise (a fact now, awesome!), and pocketed money because of it.

...that's what the case was about.

Don't overreach, rake has always been a part of poker because nobody is open to the public without making money for the hassle. They absolutely did grant a monopoly to people born into the correct race. However they is the Supreme Court of US and the rest of the Fed gov. Arizona was just following the law doled out back east.

It's not a monopoly on poker.

It's a monopoly on poker as a business.

That's the difference. All of the Felon Harold Lee fans want to pretend that they're somehow prevented from playing poker. They can play all the poker they want.

What if they said anyone can play poker but no real money may change hands. Would that be a monopoly on "poker as gambling"?

Is your question, "If they made it a monopoly, would that be a monopoly?"

What point does your disagreement begin?

How is your "larger point" ... Larger? My point is the core point, all that happens after to make benefit off dealers tips is illegal.

But please heed my point. The logic is messed up.

The fundamental problem is that you're not allowed to benefit from "providing a the services for other to gamble."

That's different conceptually (but not under Arizona law) from actually benefiting from the gamble.

You are, of course, allowed to rent chairs and tables to weddings, but not to gamblers.

So, I say, for what must be the hundredth time -- WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW.

You can argue poison pills all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we can change the law. Will it take time? Years even? Heck, the Felon Harold Lee trial took years. Start now. Think where you'd have been if you started years ago when you should have...

its a bigger issue because the room proprietors are strong-arming the dealers to earn a profit.
It makes it even more likely they will be noticed and that it is clear they (proprietors) are trying to benefit from running the game.

You mean... ...the people running dubiously questionably legal rooms are using dubious tactics with their "employees"?

[And I'm sure they're all getting their tax forms.. ..it is tax time...]

its a bigger issue because the room proprietors are strong-arming the dealers to earn a profit.
It just seems to me that point would clarify they are trying to benefit from running the game.

No it's what I said it was.

Lets stop talking in terms of yous and discuss concepts.

For example: some clubs have a mission statement on their website.

Some clubs, apparently, have formed to do just what you suggest.

Some clubs have been active in this mission since their inception.

In fact, some clubs make change their primary reason for existence.

The one thing the four cases against poker rooms had in common is the owners taking a percentage of dealer tips. We have all know such greedy motives spells benefit upside down till Sunday. Likewise, a direct rake of the pot or mandatory any fee can be construed as benefit for someone.

So if i organize a home game, and a professionally trained volunteer dealer deals for free, can the players tip the dealer without breaking the law?

What if i am that dealer? That would break the law, right?

But as the player who organized this home game, as above, I can tip the dealer, can't I? Or does that act make my home game illegal?

Now take a club setting. A club organized to enact change in the way the anti-gambling laws are being misapplied to poker. If the members of such a club want to play a purely social game of pristine untouched unraked poker with a volunteer dealer accepting only tips, is this still legal?

How about if the home game organizer also accepts a tip from the winner as gratitude for opening their house and cleaning up the mess?

Can the players then also voluntarily tip or donate to the club who's players/members organize the game?

The problem with 2+2 and the discussions that go on here is that the AG and ADG lurk here. And on facebook. And everywhere. Squeaking paints a target. And if the next example set is the squeakiest, as Prosecutor Lawson suggested, then all We discuss here is for naught. If Lawson said "the biggest" or "most popular" or "greediest" or "most unlawful", I would feel safer spouting rhetoric and debating the issues, but since Lawson said "squeakiest" ... Well, this is my last post for a while. Oh, and I am moving to a remote cabin in Montana tomorrow to write my memoires.

/unsqueak

No "club" has advanced that mission any further than opening their doors and pocketing membership fees.

It's laughable, pretending they're trying to make change. The only change they're making is change for a $20 at the register.

Unless you seek to change the law, those are currently questions for (a) the ADOG - who's job it is to publish policy, and (b) a judge.

Hope Ted K is not a hero of yours.

Should the thread title be changed to convicted?

The tribes in Arizona currently have a monopoly on blackjack (as a gambling vehicle), slots, and a few other tables games and electronic versions of live games. They also have a monopoly on for-profit jackpot-poker.

Then I don't understand your question.

You're asking what if they say that money can't change hands -- which means you're not gambling (because something of value must be wagered for it to be gambling)?

Then, if you can only gamble on poker at a tribal casino, then they'd have a monopoly on all poker play as well.

Right now we can gamble on poker all we want, there's just rules that prevent people from making money as a result of us gambling.

Yes, Mods, please change title to rightly "convicted" from indicted. I see the insane Judge couldn't get the jury or judicial system to see the light.

Oh, those Advantaged Indians win again!!!! When will this blight against the disadvantaged white poker players end?

Funny thing, many states do not even allow Home Games of any sort. Arizona is way ahead on this front as both casino and home games are allowed. Maybe Citizen needs to concentrate his efforts in Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin where social home poker is illegal. Currently, many states police routinely raid Home Games.

If I want to play a home game, I have learned how to shuffle cards and deal, I do not think it is such a big deal to have to hire a dealer to do this. In fact, Citizen, if you are so worried about shuffling, dealing duties that it keeps you awake at night (and making silly posts in this thread) just go out and buy a Shuffle Master and put it to use at your next home game without rake or profit. I am sure it is not illegal to do that.

Had not thought of this until now, but it is funny that to make up for what we did to them, we have put the Indians in charge of what many would consider a vice.

Au contraire Palimax. And when was the last time you attended a club meeting anyway.

Social home games used to be legal in Missouri until "riverboats" were voted in. Good luck in Kansas as state officials would probably feel home games threaten their state owned casinos.

News Release

For Immediate Release: February 6, 2012
Media Contact: Rick Medina, Assistant Director
602-255-3806 RMedina@azgaming.gov


A Strong Message Sent to Organizers of Illegal Gambling

(Phoenix) - On February 3, 2012, a jury in the Maricopa County Superior Court convicted 68 year-old Harold Smith Lee, Jr., of Tempe, for his involvement in the Ace High Card Room and Social Club; which operated in Surprise, Arizona from 2008 to 2010. Lee’s former gambling enterprises included The International Card and Game Players Association, The Arizona Card Room and The Arizona Card League. Lee was convicted on three felony counts, including conspiracy to engage in an illegal gambling business, promotion of gambling, and illegal conduct of an enterprise.

“We’re sending a message in the strongest terms possible,” said Mark Brnovich, Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming. “Illegal gambling will not be tolerated in our neighborhoods.”

Lee is a former Phoenix Justice of the Peace, who served for the Northeast Justice Court Precinct from 1973 to 1985, and an outspoken advocate for off-reservation poker rooms. Additional card room operators, Michael Orlando and Ronald Curcio, pleaded guilty to reduced charges in exchange for their cooperation against Lee. Orlando, age 76, of Sun City West, was convicted on the felony charge of Promotion of Gambling, and was sentenced today to 18 months of probation. Curcio, age 69, of Sun City West, was convicted on the misdemeanor charge of Attempted Promotion of Gambling, and was sentenced today to 6 months of probation. All defendants will be jointly responsible to repay the Arizona Department of Gaming's costs of investigation.

The sentencing for Lee is scheduled to take place on March 7, 2012, at 9:30 AM, before Judge Bruce Cohen in Maricopa County Superior Court.

"I commend the Arizona Department of Gaming for its work on this case,"
said Attorney General Tom Horne. "Illegal gambling is obviously unacceptable, and it is especially disturbing that an Officer of the Court, in this case a now-former Justice of the Peace, would be involved. Thanks to the cooperation between the Attorney General's Office and the Department of Gaming, the operators of this ring are being held responsible for their actions."

For more information or to request an interview with Director Brnovich, contact Rick Medina, Assistant Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming at 602-255-3806.