Sigh... More illogic from The Palimax...


Such a typical The Palimax move to take a perfectly legit and valid complaint about a forum being closed for "debatable legality" and turning into back into some sort of blood soaked conspiracy theorists claims of BIA questionable legality after being convicted for illegal benefit from gambling.

Yawn. So 2010 Matt.

Answer the damn question The Palimax, dont skirt the issues as u always do by turning this always into something about judge lee being a triple high felony convict. Your side wins round 1 of that battle and you didnt even show up for the free popcorn. Marc Andreani even showed up for one day of the trial, but "poker advocate" The Palimax was stuck in his couch.

And the word used by the honorable Rapini was DEBATABLE -- not dubious. Which was kinda the whole crux of my complaint. Closing a forum because the issue is "debatable" seems absolutely counter culture to a message board... The logic -- if Rapinis explanatiin can be so loftily elevated -- is so daft. Its as tho 2+2 is saying "we dont like traffic on our website".

The actions of Ace High, Deal Me In, or The Nuts DO NOT make the actions at Poker Play, Pete's Poker, or The Tilted Jack Social Poker Club Cooperative any more or less legal than before Judge Lee was convicted.

IMHO AND IANAL---If any of these rooms is making a profit/benefit, direct or indirect, for anyone besides the players involved in the gamble(s) then they too are operating just as illegally as Lee or Andreani or Glazer, according to the new state case law established in Arizona vs Lee. Didnt we already know that benefiting from others gambling was illegal? All the State needed to do was prove Lee was paid by the Ace High owners for his advice and "sanctioning" as it were.*

The State/County/City prosecutor bold enough to attempt to prosecute any cardroom operator or player for exercising their civil and constitutional rights to play professional poker (and professional here means with a licensed or trained professional dealer), just because the ADG recommends the operation for prosecution, is silly. Even rooms operating clearly outside the law like Poker Union's new 10-20 raked game at The Gold House are safe from prosecution if the agents from ADG or SIS are unable to prove benefit is being made. And the ADG has a real problem getting their undercover cops invited to these private invite-only cardgames operating behind shell corporations.*

That's like saying that anyone who steps foot into the street is automatically a jaywalker just because someone was arrested and convicted for not properly crossing the street.

Direct rakes, button fees, door charges, monthly dues, or a charging dealers as if they were operating a booth in a hair salon... These alone do not make a cardgame illegal, and sovereign citizens habe as much right to form their own substantive interpretations of the statutes as any quasi-state pribately funded agency with an executively appointed director.*

Its what happens with those funds after the overhead that matters to prosecutors.

And if cardroom activities make up less than 1/2 of 1% of all crime reported in this State, it might just be easier and make more sense to license and regulate the 26 cardrooms operating in maricopa county today than to spend $1M per investigation/raid/prosecution vs tapping into this well-established resource begging to be regulated and taxed so as to be legitimized and as socially accepted as pawn shops, strip clubs and payday loan outfits i see everywhere daily in our neighborhoods.

Far better to tap that poker. If the atate cant, thrn why not municipalities or a county? There is no specific and explicit ban on poker OR cardrooms. Arizona is what is known post-Cabazon as civil-prohibitive, not criminal-regulatory. This logic is the sane logic that indian lawyers used to legitimize their own unquestionably (per az attorney general woods formal opinion to ADG dorector husk in1997-8) illegal cardrooms. And it worked for the Indians Matt, probably because there was no citizen or legislative review of the Poker Memo of Understanding... No room for folks like you and me to voice an opinion.

And it is equally legally important how that overhead, especially in the case of third party contractors, is procured, approved by the members/owners, and lawfully conducted.

Now matt, lets not just be a devils advocate because you can. Think before u speak again, and please dont continue to twist this into some crusade to save the Indians from America. It grows tiresome.*

Perhaps it would be easiest if i provided u with a list of grievances that i would like the government to redress and u can explain to me how you, and your bff the ADG, are right and we, the poker players of Arizona, are wrong.

Sigh... More illogic from The Palimax...


Such a typical The Palimax move to take a perfectly legit and valid complaint about a forum being closed for "debatable legality" and turning into back into some sort of blood soaked conspiracy theorists claims of BIA questionable legality after being convicted for illegal benefit from gambling.

Yawn. So 2010 Matt.

Answer the damn question The Palimax, dont skirt the issues as u always do by turning this always into something about judge lee being a triple high felony convict. Your side wins round 1 of that battle and you didnt even show up for the free popcorn. Marc Andreani even showed up for one day of the trial, but "poker advocate" The Palimax was stuck in his couch.

And the word used by the honorable Rapini was DEBATABLE -- not dubious. Which was kinda the whole crux of my complaint. Closing a forum because the issue is "debatable" seems absolutely counter culture to a message board... The logic -- if Rapinis explanatiin can be so loftily elevated -- is so daft. Its as tho 2+2 is saying "we dont like traffic on our website".

The actions of Ace High, Deal Me In, or The Nuts DO NOT make the actions at Poker Play, Pete's Poker, or The Tilted Jack Social Poker Club Cooperative any more or less legal than before Judge Lee was convicted.

IMHO AND IANAL---If any of these rooms is making a profit/benefit, direct or indirect, for anyone besides the players involved in the gamble(s) then they too are operating just as illegally as Lee or Andreani or Glazer, according to the new state case law established in Arizona vs Lee. Didnt we already know that benefiting from others gambling was illegal? All the State needed to do was prove Lee was paid by the Ace High owners for his advice and "sanctioning" as it were.*

The State/County/City prosecutor bold enough to attempt to prosecute any cardroom operator or player for exercising their civil and constitutional rights to play professional poker (and professional here means with a licensed or trained professional dealer), just because the ADG recommends the operation for prosecution, is silly. Even rooms operating clearly outside the law like Poker Union's new 10-20 raked game at The Gold House are safe from prosecution if the agents from ADG or SIS are unable to prove benefit is being made. And the ADG has a real problem getting their undercover cops invited to these private invite-only cardgames operating behind shell corporations.*

That's like saying that anyone who steps foot into the street is automatically a jaywalker just because someone was arrested and convicted for not properly crossing the street.

Direct rakes, button fees, door charges, monthly dues, or a charging dealers as if they were operating a booth in a hair salon... These alone do not make a cardgame illegal, and sovereign citizens habe as much right to form their own substantive interpretations of the statutes as any quasi-state pribately funded agency with an executively appointed director.*

Its what happens with those funds after the overhead that matters to prosecutors.

And if cardroom activities make up less than 1/2 of 1% of all crime reported in this State, it might just be easier and make more sense to license and regulate the 26 cardrooms operating in maricopa county today than to spend $1M per investigation/raid/prosecution vs tapping into this well-established resource begging to be regulated and taxed so as to be legitimized and as socially accepted as pawn shops, strip clubs and payday loan outfits i see everywhere daily in our neighborhoods.

Far better to tap that poker. If the atate cant, thrn why not municipalities or a county? There is no specific and explicit ban on poker OR cardrooms. Arizona is what is known post-Cabazon as civil-prohibitive, not criminal-regulatory. This logic is the sane logic that indian lawyers used to legitimize their own unquestionably (per az attorney general woods formal opinion to ADG dorector husk in 1997-8) illegal cardrooms. And it worked for the Indians Matt, probably because there was no citizen or legislative review of the Poker Memo of Understanding... No room for folks like you and me to voice an opinion.

And it is equally legally important how that overhead, especially in the case of third party contractors, is procured, approved by the members/owners, and lawfully conducted.

Now matt, lets not just be a devils advocate because you can. Think before u speak again, and please dont continue to twist this into some crusade to save the Indians from America. It grows tiresome.*

Perhaps it would be easiest if i provided u with a list of grievances that i would like the government to redress and u can explain to me how you, and your bff the ADG, are right and we, the poker players of Arizona, are wrong.

It is a shame I couldn't watch the trial. My work schedule changed significantly since this whole mess started.

The Lee conviction doesn't make the existing rooms any more or less legal. They've all been illegal since day one.

You can pretend that "sovereign citizens" have the right to form substantive interpretations of state statues, but YOU ARE 100% WRONG. See, we've got this thing called a state constitution that defines how regulatory agencies get to interpret state law. You, me... ...we don't get to decide how to interpret ARS 13-33xx. You get to abide by the ADG's interpretation or take it to an administrative law judge; a judge who will stand by ADG's interpretation unless you can demonstrate to the ALJ that the ADG is completely off its rocker -- and as long as ARS 13-33xx defines benefit as "any benefit direct or indirect" it's not a hard stretch to assume a fairly draconian interpretation. [See below, since you ignore this every time...]

That said, I STILL have absolutely no objection to changing state law to regulate or exempt the providing of dealers and tables to gamblers for a fee.

But that doesn't change the folly of your current crusade. Please detail how changing Maricopa county ordinances has any impact on state law.

---

And, once more with feeling. This is why you or I get to abide by ADG's definitions of social gambling, and exactly what we'd need to do to change it.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

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!

"Jobo" doesn't want to make the simple remedy. If he did, he'd have been working on it for years, and he'd have his representative to sponsor his change or he'd have signatures.


There's simply no proof that anyone wants any change... ...except change for a $20 when they skim their 15% of gross profits for providing bull**** legal advise.

See below accidentally double posted.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....93-16609.html

Nit note #712. when disputing relevance make sure you let the nit know that you havent taken any time to read, let alone comprehend, irrelevent links, lest said nit resort to potshots at your IQ.

Sadly matt, each one of your enumerated and faulty reponses requires a rather lengthy explanation. Perhaps a good place for you to start your enlightenment is here: http://thetiltedjack.com/JanTRF2012.pdf

And after you get back to me, ill link you the prosecutors 50 page response about why Lee's jury didnt get instructions for regulated or amusement gambling. But read the link above and ket me know when you are finished.

Your PDF contains the same silly garbage you've been spouting since the beginning.

The state has defined gambling in ARS 13-33xx, and the ADG (as well as numerous cities) have determined that includes poker. It's not health insurance, and it's not covered by some laws of contracts exclusion. Playing poker isn't a business transaction. It's not selling stocks. You're a fool to pursue that tact.

And, again, SHOW HOW CHANGING A MUNICIPAL LAW EXEMPTS YOU FROM STATE LAW or quit pretending it makes a difference.

...

But I've explained to you why you're wrong.

THE ADG GETS TO INTERPRET ARS 13-33xx, not you.

What part don't you get? I've spelled it out to you in clear concise terms. Publishing your own propaganda PDF doesn't mean anything. Your opinion on the matter is MEANINGLESS. The ONLY opinion that matters is the one the ADG has.

Change the law.

...or, you know, ignore the law and lie to your customers and do your damnest to make a buck or two before you end up as the next contestant on Superior Court.

Sigh. Attack attack attack matt. Careful or u will be banned like mrpoker. So back on point, which of the pdf points are you wanting to discuss or debate or be further enlightened about? Go ahead. Pick any one. Lets discuss it like grown men, lets not attack and belittle and besmirch viewpoints or things we dont understand or even care to try.

Pick your best one.

State "law" as you call your beloved ADG POLICIES TO PROTECT INDIAN GAMING INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF AZ CITIZENS THEY WANT TO SEE BILKED BY CLASS III GAMING is trumped as soon as any city or county issues their ordinance. See, the municaplity, like some cardrooms, isnt breaking state law by providing cardrooms in a licensed regulated and taxed setting. And the state that disagrees with that county ir municipality and wants to shut it down has an impossible battle to win. Basically im saying cities have the same righta that you and i have. Gotta provlem with that? Change the US and AZ constitutions. Thanks and that is all.

They're all easy to debunk, but here's the most obvious lie you tell your customers:

It's hard to type here through the laughter, but....

Poker is, unquestionably, gambling in the state of Arizona.

• The ADG says so, and they get to interpret ARS 13-33xx, as described in excruciating detail above.
• The State of Arizona just finished finding multiple persons guilty of operating an illegal enterprise because they ran POKER rooms.

You do realize, tribal compact or not, ARS 13-33xx still says you're illegal?

ADG policies have nothing to do with the fact that ARS 13-33xx all exist and all say that you can't gamble unless you're one of the narrow exceptions of which a business will never be.

The state could light the tribal compact on fire, and guess what... ...you're still in violation of ARS 13-33xx, except now you don't get to complain about blood soaked lands.

CHANGE THE LAW

Wanna know how they do the "impossible?"

They walk in and arrest the owners and operators and charge them with violating the law. WHEE!

One more thing Matt... It bums me out that i can be banned for attacking your illegal home game with only half as much tenacity as you bring against me. thats just ine of my beefs with your little fifedom.

[QUOTE=The Palimax;32022691]They're all easy to debunk, but here's the most obvious lie you tell your customers:



It's hard to type here through the laughter, but....

Poker is, unquestionably, gambling in the state of Arizona.

[\QUOTE]

So refuting my evidence that poker is not STATUTORY GAMBLING in ARIZONA until you add a bad beat jackpot which turns it, at least in part, to a class iii game...

I mean that argument even superceded the exclusions, well picked palimax. Tis a good one. So what part of INCLUSIVE dont you understand for the millionth time?

Seriously dude...you are two.

This is beyond dumb.

If running a business offering poker isn't illegal, why is former Judge Lee now a felon?

You can read ARS 13-33xx all you want, and there's nothing about class-anything games. It's completely and utterly irrelevant. The tribal compacts mean nothing when interpreting ARS 13-33xx. A court complete with a jury of Felon Lee's peers decided that the gambling going on in those rooms made what he was doing illegal and they convicted him.

• The state law is clear.
• Even if it weren't the ADJ has authority to interpret it.
• The ADG's interpretation is clear.
• Even if it weren't, we're arresting people for it.
• The state prosecutor's interpretation is clear.
• Even if it weren't, we're sending those people to court.
• The bench at the State Superior Court sees it as clear.
• Even if the Judge was crazy, we have trial by jury.
• A jury of Felon Lee's peers sees it as clear.

You might be the last person left in AZ who hasn't figured it out yet.

You can argue all you want that poker isn't gambling in Arizona, but the burden is on your side -- since every authority on the subject from soup to nuts agrees that you're completely out of your mind.

You lie to your customers. Your PDF is a sham, and if you had any faith in it, you'd put your real name on it.

Sad all you can do is attack things u dont get Matt. Sad you dont use your real name here too. Touché

Sad all you can do is attack things u dont get Matt. Sad you dont use your real name here too. Touché

And as with earlier, if you are unable to connect the dots, its no secret.

Sad all you can do is attack things u dont get Matt. Sad you dont use your real name here too. Touché

And as with earlier, if you are unable to connect the dots, shame on you... its no secret.

Sad all you can do is attack things u dont get Matt. Sad you dont use your real name here too. Touché

And as with earlier, if you are unable to connect the dots, shame on you... its no secret. Just because Lee jaywalks doesnt make xrossing streets in arizona illegal.

Im not alone in this Matt. Seems ur the one on the island. 26 maricopa cardroom operators feel the same way i do, plus thousands of players that patronize these cardrooms. You matt, are the one stuck staring at the tree windering where the forest went. Dont like it? Change the constitutions.

Sad all you can do is attack things u dont get Matt. Sad you dont use your real name here too. Touché

And as with earlier, if you are unable to connect the dots, shame on you... its no secret. Just because Lee jaywalks doesnt make crossing streets in arizona illegal.

Im not alone in this Matt. Seems ur the one on the island. 26 maricopa cardroom operators feel the same way i do, plus thousands of players that patronize these cardrooms. You matt, are the one stuck staring at the tree windering where the forest went. Dont like it? Change the constitutions.

Sad all you can do is attack things u dont get Matt. Sad you dont use your real name here too. Touché

And as with earlier, if you are unable to connect the dots, shame on you... its no secret. Just because Lee jaywalks doesnt make crossing streets in arizona illegal.

Im not alone in this Matt. Seems ur the one on the island. 26 maricopa cardroom operators feel the same way i do, and we know that at least 20 are illegal... plus thousands of players that patronize these cardrooms. You matt, are the one stuck staring at the tree windering where the forest went. Dont like it? Change the constitutions.

Bullet and enumerate all the rhetoric you want, it doesnt change the facts.

I don't hide my real name. It's all over my WSOP reports, my G+ links, etc. I don't object to you calling me by my real name. ...but if I ran a business, I wouldn't hide behind a fake name.

Your PDF is rhetoric.

I'm posting facts. Facts supported by the laws of the state; facts supported by the conviction of Lee and those before him. It's laughable to say that poker isn't gambling when every last point along the line disagrees with you.

If running a business offering poker isn't illegal, why is former Judge Lee now a felon?

SECTION 1. FINDINGS
Based on public testimony and other evidence before it, including information, studies and court decisions from other jurisdictions, and in accordance with A.R.S. 11-821, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors makes the following legislative findings and statement of purpose:
The Maricopa Board of Supervisors recognizes that some activities which occur in connection with cardroom businesses are protected as expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, protected as equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in some instances protected under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Maricopa Board of Supervisors further recognizes that these constitutional rights are among our most precious and highly protected rights, and wishes to act consistently with full protection of those rights. The Board is aware, however, that cardroom businesses may and do generate secondary effects which are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Among those secondary effects are (a) infiltration by organized crime (b) money laundering (c) crimes of opportunity that are presented in any cash-intensive business and (d) other illicit conduct. This ordinance is not intended to interfere with legitimate cardroom operations but to avoid and mitigate the secondary effects enumerated above. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors finds the licensing of persons who operate and manage cardroom businesses and persons who provide cardroom services will further the goals of the ordinance by enabling the county to ascertain if an applicant is underage or has engaged in criminal or other behavior of the sort the ordinance is designed to limit. This information will enable the county to allocate law enforcement resources effectively and otherwise protect the community. The fees established for licenses and permits in this ordinance are based on the estimated cost of implementation, administration and enforcement of the licensing program.

Now, YOU may SAY that Indians own poker, but Indians only own Class III games of chance. And they own class iii and even class iii poker outright. Nobody owns poker. Even u play it at home without regulatory oversight.

And i dont gamble when i play poker matt. I calculate the reverse implied pot odds just as i study the P&L statements from Apple before i buy or sell stocks and yes, poker is calculated risk taking and as such is exempt from statutory gambling laws.