Holy cow man? What planet are you from?

? POKER or CARDROOM, right? Where do these appear?

Did you really just libel me a liar Matt?! -- again!? -- more personal attacks.

Nice.

I would respond but i am laughing too hard -- did u actually attempt to prove it (for once) by quoting where POKER or CARDROOM appear in statutes? Because unless I am getting blind in my old age, i didn't see either word mentioned in your quoted text.

So how about the amusement registration question?

Whats distracting is you quoting me 8 times in one message asking 8 questions and not answering my own quesrions in any if your quoted excerpts and yet all you is gripe about something you cant even bother to quote or back up?

Im not gonna go looknat the post 2 before yours doc. Wtf!! Do u have a question or something useful to add or are u just trying to be a distraction?

Or, you checked out rational discord a long time ago.

Of COURSE the words don't appear in the state lawbooks.

...but the rules that allow the ADOG to define them are there, in black in white.

...and the ADOG has defined them.

So, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA has made it perfectly clear.

And so I'll ask again: YES or NO.

Is it your belief that poker for money (e.g. bets and raises, calls and folds) in the State of Arizona is exempted from gambling because it is covered by the laws of contracts? And if so, do you advise your customer/partners this in your newsletter?

If our feeble minds have missed it, please, enlighten us. A simple one word answer will suffice.

I think your newsletter does a pretty good job of demonstrating that.

He's just moved to straight trolling now. He knows he can't defend his own positions. He refuses to accept that he's telling his customers that poker isn't gambling in Arizona (Arizona disagrees). He had it shown to him that the ADG's statements have weight, and he ignores it. He's watched the other rooms get busted, and the only thing he has to do is keep beating his drum to drive in foolish customers.

It's hard to blame him. It looks like probation is the strongest penalty you can get for running an illegal card room. Seems like a good deal, actually.

ARS 13-33301(4):
*
*“Gambling” or “gamble” means one act of risking or giving something of value for the opportunity to obtain a benefit from a game or contest of chance or skill or a future contingent event but does not include bona fide business transactions which are valid under the law of contracts including contracts for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guarantee and life, health or accident insurance.
*
Notice: “Poker” and “cardrooms” are not explicitly prohibited. You won’t find them mentioned anywhere in statutes. That is because Arizona, in the post-Cabazon era, is considered a civil-regulatory, not a criminal-prohibitive state when it comes to gambling laws.
*
Not that any of that matters to you or me.
*
Unless we believe in the 14th*Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
*
And the Arizona Constitution, See Article 2, Section 13: “Equal privileges and immunities: No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.”
*
Also from our State Constitution (which should trump any state laws right?);
*
Do municipal corporations have the right to grant a franchise for a cardroom? We purport that they do, pursuant to the Arizona Constitution – Article 13, Section 5: “Every municipal corporation within this state shall have the right to engage in any business or enterprise which may be engaged in by a person, firm, or corporation by virtue of a franchise from said municipal corporation.”
*
Most city charters we have examined, including the City of Phoenix, grant a city council the authority to enact such ordinances and measures that would allow cardrooms to be municipally licensed and taxed as an amusement.
*
So then Matt, to answer your question (if I even need to now that I’ve pointed out several constitutional rights that kick the snot out of some privately-funded pseudo-state agency with a conflicted interest’s substantive policy statements…. )
*
As if your head isn’t spinning already, here’s my answer, and btw, this text is used by permission of the author, one Thomas X. Jackson:
*
Is Poker Gambling?
*
Before we examine the “Big Three” exceptions, we need to determine if poker, since it is not explicitly mentioned by name in the statutes, is even “statutory gambling”. Is the sport of poker possibly excluded from illegal gambling by the very definition of “gambling” itself?
*
Gambling is defined in §13-3301(4) of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Attention is called to the language “bona fide business transactions”, “which are valid under the law of contracts” and specifically the word “including”:
*
First, the word “including” is obviously inclusive, not exclusive. Most people read the list provided at the end and think “Oh, this about stocks and insurance”. True, the statute, as written decades ago, intended to allow specific calculated risks like playing the stock market or buying additional life insurance. But the statute does not exclude all other bona fide business transactions that aren’t explicitly listed. Quite the opposite. The statutory language is inclusive. Poker players can assert that their sport is a bona fide business, which in turn, nullifies any attempt to qualify card rooms for the social gambling exception. Social gambling cannot be “conducted as a business”. (Note: not “run as a business”, or “registered as a business”, but actually “conducted as a business”, which has a specific statutory definition that essentially means “for profit”.)
*
Secondly, “bona fide business transactions” is a valid description of what happens in a hand of poker. Bona fide simply means “in good faith”, and when playing poker, we are playing in good faith that we will be bound by the accepted, written rules of the contest. The pot in each hand is essentially an auction, where the highest bidder usually, but not always, wins – a matter which is predominantly determined by player skill.
*
On the personal business level, Billy Baxter won a landmark case against the Internal Revenue Service in 1986 that changed poker and Class II gambling from that point forward. Billy was a pretty good poker player and won a few bracelets in his day. He also earned a lot of money ($1.2M) while playing poker “as a self-employed professional” and “as a business” from 1978-1981. The I.R.S. wanted Baxter’s poker earnings taxed as unearned income at a 70% rate. Billy filed his taxes under protest for those years, while he went to court to fight for his right to be called a professional poker player. Billy won, and saved more money than Geico ever could; by being taxed on his poker winnings as earned income and a much lower rate.
*
Since that decision, and subsequent appeal (in Baxter’s favor again), the federal government has recognized that poker can be played professionally and as a business. Such transactions can be considered implied common law contracts.
*
From the commercial business standpoint, poker today is a multi-billion dollar, global commodity in the sports, entertainment and television industries. First, the “hole cam” was introduced in 1997 and made its U.S. debut in 2002, then, in 2003, “common man” Chris Moneymaker, an accountant from Nashville, won $2.5 million in the internationally televised World Series of Poker via a $40 online satellite tournament.
*
Legislators prior to the 2003 “poker boom” could not have foreseen the transformation poker has made this past decade. Nor could the State, the Tribes or the ADoG have anticipated the poker explosion when, five years earlier, the first MoU ceded the rights to the international sport of poker to the Tribal casinos.
*
In 2010 the International Mind Sports Association (IMSA) officially declared poker as an intellectual sport similar to chess or contract brige. Certainly Poker is not an “athletic” contest, at least no more than NASCAR. You sit in a seat for hours (requires stamina) and apply what skills you have against others with similar skills. Both sports share the common element of calculated risk taking, more akin to buying stock than pulling a lever on an admittedly rigged slot machine.
*
Lastly, “transactions which are valid under the law of contracts”. Higher court cases that deal with a game of poker as a “contract” do not exist except in matters involving debt collection for unpaid legal gambling markers, or personal checks written to a casino that check-writers later cancelled (after losing, no doubt).
*
Playing table stakes, nobody is tossing in the keys to their car or deeds to their property (we’re all upside down on our homes anyway, right?). Only chips representing money that has already been put into the contract for consideration is in play.
*
Simply put, when we agree to play poker, we understand the rules and agree to any variants in advance, and we know any wagers put into the pot are no longer considered ours. We also know that if we fold our hand, any money we have invested in that pot is forfeited to the eventual winner.
*
The essential elements of a contract are: an OFFER and related ACCEPTANCE (“Hey, you want to play some poker?” “Ya sure, what are the stakes?”); MUTUAL CONSENT (We’ll agree to post blind bets to build the pot for each hand, and if I call your big blind, you can raise, or check); CONSIDERATION (There’s our pot, that’s what we’re playing for); and COMPETANT PARTIES (“Haha, are you Nuts? Who calls with that?!”). All of the required elements of a contract are evident in a hand of poker. As equal member-owners in a co-op, we have a self-regulated and self-enforced rule of common law contracts that dictates how we conduct our activities.
*
The legal formation of the cooperative and its Operating Agreement work together to make poker “not gambling”. Members are playing in the ultimate strategic competition of skill recognized worldwide as a leading business, sports and entertainment commodity. If members want to play poker for money then that is something that consenting adults, in a private, equally-owned and cooperatively operated club, with mutually agreed upon rules, have the sovereign-self right to do. Money is, for both amateur home game players and professional players alike, simply the traditionally way we “keep score” in poker.

Unfortunately for poker fans, we were a few days late in getting a look at the AG’s notice of forfeiture sent out to the 52 people detained in The Nuts raid. The cops bagged and tagged everyone’s cash and chips, including those chips that were in the cash game pot when the raid happened.*

To illustrate my point on poker and common law contracts -- The three folks that were involved in the cash game pot were able to successfully argue that they were each entitled to one third of that pot, since everyone else folded. That pot does not go to the house. It does not go to the magistrate’s coffers. And those players that folded are not entitled to a share or return on their money (except maybe the poor guy who folded when the P9 was shoved in his face).

*
What’s this do? If the court agreed that the three people filing for a claim on that pot did indeed have a claim on that pot… boom, looks like poker can lawfully claim that it is subject to common law implied contracts.
*
It’s a shame you didn’t read the whole 16 pages Palimax. I’d be surprised if the law of contracts argument is the only thing you walked away with questions about. But I hope that this, once and for all, puts the argument to rest.

In sum,

1. Poker is a bona fide global business (personal and commercial).
*
2. Poker involves calculated risks, more akin to stock trading than slot playing, even if a player does play poker like blackjack. Good players calculate the odds.
*
3. Poker has rules, the players understand those rules. They abide by them. They are enforceable rules in court. Common law implied social contract elements are all there.
*
What I don't understand is why Matt has repeatedly asked me the same question now for days, while quoted excerpts from the above copyrighted material, which appears to answer his own question... with answers I wholeheartedly agree on.

But I'm not talking about the law of contract and the word including until we tie up the amusement gambling registration requirements with the ADG's SPS(s) on charity poker tournaments. Answer my fun questions now that I've answer yours, eh?

Portions © 2012 Thomas X. Jackson, The Tilted Jack Social Poker Club Cooperative LLC - a not-for-profit cardroom. Used by permission.

Ask yourself this: if citz is trolling for more customers here, why has he completely and repeatedly lowered himself to nit-troll levels to dispute lies, libel, hypocrisy and Matt?

Am i winning any new coopertive members here? I doubt it. Peoplentell me to get off 2+2, its a bad thing. Meh, for me, it is a good thing. I stand for justice. The constitution. What is right and fair.

Matt, i think you stand for the law, and home games and leagues, and dont give a damn about cardrooms getting the muni licesning they deserve and are entilted to. Most peole like you have found home games and leagues as a happy alternative to BiA casinos.

I have apparently challenged the law, as i am constitutionally permitted to do. You may not like the way i choose to do it. You may not think i am doing it the way you would do it. But that doesnt make me wrong or a liar.

But its still my right. I come to 2+2 as a proponent for municipally licensed cardrooms. I lobby for those rights. I volunteer my time and efforts for the public good. I challenge you and the tree you stand beside in the middle of the forest you still do not yet see.

Its all there is 16 pages Matt. And each week we move one step closer to our goal. This week we met with city council members. Next week we hope to talk to a mayor in the west valley. The week after maybe the adg director will be ready to meet with us and answer one questiona for us before our path is set.

The other 25 Maricopa cardrooms must love this. Out here squeaking away as though i have no worries in the world and the adg has never been to my club or perused these boards.

I gotta give ya credit tho Matt... Much if what we have discussed these past three years or so has been instrumental in my drive and passion and founding TTJ. It is, as far as i know, the world's first not-for-profit cooperative cardroom and a viable and not unlawful entity. We contend we need no exclusion except to say that the poker we play in our private adult club is gambling, but NOT statutory gambling. It has more in common with the type of gambling we do buying stocks than buying a WSOP lottery scratcher. For the love of Job man, please tell me you at least agree with me that much!

Ok matt... I have tried to answer your question tonight. I feel baited into your trap now, so waiting for you to spring it...

If your response is "the courts disagree, to wit: Lee, et al.)

Then i point out that these cases all were charged with illegal benefit from not social gambling. None were cooperatives. None were not-for-profit. None were primarily political activists in a grassroots movement.

Matt - seriously, this aint no laughing matter. The indians went from habimg cease and desists on their federally regulated class ii non banked poker to state regulated class iii jackpot poker while feloms like lee were criminally prosecuted for the same crime.

One of the arguments the teibal lawyers made: "poker and cardrooms are not explicitly prohibited by state law".

Now what the indians got after the cease and desists from the adg which they ignored altogether, was not 12 months unsupervised probation and a ceiminal record... No! The indians got to negotiated with the state, add a house-banked bad beat jackpot and call it class iii gaming because thats all the state gets to participate in.

Matt - seriously, this aint no laughing matter. This point is a critical violatiom of equal protection. The indians went from receiving cease and desists on their federally regulated class ii non banked poker to state regulated class iii jackpot poker while feloms like lee get indicted and criminally prosecuted for the same exact crime.

One of the arguments the tribal lawyers made: "poker and cardrooms are not explicitly prohibited by law in Arizona."

What the BIA got after the cease and desists from the State (which they ignored altogether for years), was NOT 12 months unsupervised probation and a criminal record... No! The indians got to negotiate with the state, add a house-banked bad beat jackpot to poker (as casinos love to do) and call it class iii gaming because thats all the state gets to participate in.

The state did not have to step in on the NIGC class ii regulatoey authority to collect on a federally classief non-banked card game. The fact that they did is okay though, as long as they do the same for all citizens. What you do in this case for tonto, the lone ranger must also have. Its constitutional whem it comes to poker and bingo (class ii games).

I can't tell. Was that yes or no?

A simple one word answer will suffice.

I don't know, because you're making a simple question difficult.

YES or NO.

Is it your belief that poker for money (e.g. bets and raises, calls and folds) in the State of Arizona is exempted from gambling because it is covered by the laws of contracts? And if so, do you advise your customer/partners this in your newsletter?

Is that, or is that not your position? If you want me to understand, be plain about it.

So is the Jackpot Poker played in tribal casinos "class iii" because its a house-banked game in the form of the promo fund? I have never really given this much thought till now. It could be because, as the prosecutor in Lee's case said in closing "the forced blinds are unequal advantage". But then that line gets us back on the law odf contracts. The promo fund isnt "house banked" like blackjack and other table games. And if the tribes take 10% or anything from that fund, it just becomes another form of rake... I mean its still player vs player with no house edfe or participation. Anyone know the real reason why tribal cardrooms are not federally regulated as non-banked class 2 card games and instead regulated as a class iii game (again, how and why?) by the state?

At the risk of derailing the thread... why are tribal cardrooms "federally regulated" at all? Isn't each reservation considered as its own sovereign nation? If a crime is committed on tribal lands, it is not tried in a U.S. federal court, as I understand it, but in the tribal court system. I've always heard it said that once you "cross the border" into tribal lands, it's essentially like you've left the country, just the same as if you have driven into Mexico or Canada. Even tho the speed limit going to the casino is absurdly, artificially slow (35 mph at Talking Stick), I do it... because I never want to be pulled into tribal court and deal with that unknown, and that hassle.

America is so messed up with all the BS over this crap.

Well congress defined non-banked card games like traditionally olayed poker with no house-bank, as a class II game in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. This came on the heels of the landmark california v cabazon indians case that opened the doors for certain types of indian gaming. the Cabazon case revolved around "high stakes" bingo games held in reservations. Many tribes at this time wete doing this. I think it started in Florida. But the State of California was the first to push the issue into court and politicize it. And when the State lost, the feds had no choice but to step in and federally regulate Indian gaming. In so doing, they classified games. In so doing, congress grAnted and encouraged states, for the first time ever to my knowledge, to negotiate directly with the tribes.

The BIA reservation system does not make Indian Country another nation with the same sovereignty as all other nations. The supreme court in the 1800s called tribes "domestic dependent nations" and yes, they do enjoy a kind of limited sovereignty. But the indians are dual citizens of the tribal nation-state and of Arizona.

When it comes to poker tho, arizonans have as much right as the tribes do to provide games in a professional, regulated, safe environment. The law clearly provides for a home game. That fact is what he indians argued meants they could play poker without having to adhere to state laws.

Enjoy the fed opinion supported by congress:

http://www.nigc.gov/Reading_Room/Gam..._Games-11.aspx

Ill post attorney general grant woods formal opinion that contradicts the nigc opinion and that of congress.

Ill post the secret Memorandum of Understanding that resulted in appendix F2 of the compact.

Therein lies the problems.

This gets dumber and dumber by the minute. You can't possibly believe what you're typing...

Is it your belief that poker for money (e.g. bets and raises, calls and folds) in the State of Arizona is exempted from gambling because it is covered by the laws of contracts? And if so, do you advise your customer/partners this in your newsletter?

Please, just answer that with a simple yes or no.

Not playing your game of entrapment palimax. Poker CAN be, not is. if it was, all the cases before us woulda been tossed. YES poker CAN be considered common law implied social contracts as i described.

And yes, i advise you of my opinion that poker CAN be considered played under common law contracts. It doesn't even matter on the circumstances and what type of "convoluted" charter/bylaws/operating agreement you operate under. But if those legal, self-regulating documents (a) remove aby benefit incentive and (b) define the type of games being played explicity as a common law contract, then hey, more power to ya.

I hope this answers your question well enough to spring whatever trap you plan to spring. Better you than the DA.

It seems you are once again play semantics with me and arguing the meaning of the words is and can.

And i know by the word change you made from the quoted material and the question you have asked a dozen times that your trap involves some twistdd reasoning to accuse me of fraud, lies, or conspiracy, but three years of research and a rock solid moral compass has me standing out here all alone squeaking as you paint more targets on my back.

You obviously mistake me for a cash grabbing fool.

Is it my belief that poker for money (e.g. bets and raises, calls and folds) in the State of Arizona can be exempted from gambling because it is covered by the laws of contracts.

/citzagainsttyranny/

Hopefully that satisfies his need to hear my confession and get off his pulpit and join the discussions i wanna hear about constitutional rights, adg powrr to regulate municipal cardrooms, and the whole class ii/class iii nigc-state-tribe negotiations that took tribal gaming from the same illegal benefit Lee is convicted of and turns it into regulated gambling.

Palimax, the only thing i dint csre for is your weaseliness. Your a smart kid. Yiu know the law as it pertains to adg and statutes. You like poker. You may want more choices or not with your vested interest in your home game league, but why ih why do you continue to try and bait and trap me instead of help protect poker remain the exclusive domain of the tribes? PROFESSIONAL poker i mean, of course. And by that i hope yoy know i mean "with a paid dealer".

We have met with two ohoenix council members. A west valley city mayor is next. We have requested thru the city council office a meeting with adg director. I have a call in to an agent in addition to that. Are these the actions of the criminal you paint me out to be?

Look, i get that you dont like that i am involved in this cardroom industry that is reaching adolesence. Its time we did something. You have always said that you would support our cause. Are you in tempe or ahwatook? Lets you and me get together... I will come to you. Lets forget that i am involved in cardrooms for a minute and, like you, am a pruvate citizen and i want to open a cardroom. Lets meet and plan our strategy and then go to your city mayor, or any councilman, and present our findings and suggest forming an exploratory committee or taking the next step.

Setting aside for a moment that I simply don't believe that you've got the right next step, I live in Ahwatukee (Phoenix), and I work in central Phoenix.

The majority of my home games happen in Gilbert. [Poker is expressly illegal in Phoenix, no?]

You're going to be supremely disappointed in that whatever perceived bias you think I have is a result of trying to protect my home game. I've got a dozen people who enjoy each others company and like poker -- and for that, we play, and we send people to the WSOP. It has nothing to do with anyone else and their game, and it doesn't factor into my global view of how poker is legislated in this state.

Enjoy the opinions, facts and research conducted by someone far more reputable than yours truly:

Gambling and the Law: Loan Called for Playing Poker
http://rose.casinocitytimes.com/arti...%2Dpoker-58452
---
Gambling and the Law: Making poker legal as a public service
http://rose.casinocitytimes.com/arti...Dservice-58780
---
Gambling and the Law: In defense of lobbysts
http://rose.casinocitytimes.com/arti...lobbysts-59004
---
Gambling and the Law: D.C. proposes rules for Internet non-gambling
http://rose.casinocitytimes.com/arti...gambling-59930
---
Gambling and the Law: Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!
http://rose.casinocitytimes.com/arti...2Dafraid-60079

>Setting aside for a moment that I simply don't believe that you've got the right next step, I live in Ahwatukee (Phoenix), and I work in central Phoenix.

But is it a viable step and any less valid than a statewide initiative or a jury by peers trial in criminal court?

Tookie isnt an incorporated municipality?

So why did your put (Phoenix) in parenthesis and not (Maricopa county)?

> The majority of my home games happen in Gilbert. [Poker is expressly illegal in Phoenix, no?]

Misdemeanor if not excluded. Yes.

> You're going to be supremely disappointed in that whatever perceived bias you think I have is a result of trying to protect my home game.

Why would that disappoint me? Im just trying to figure out if you are willing to explore this with 91 municipal corporations or not, even if you think an initiative is more effective than lobbying. I disagree. On an issue like this, it is better to win the support of our local community legislators anf ask them, as us their state constitutional right to license regulate and tax any lawful business.

Are poker rooms lawful businesses in this state?

Lets ask the state.

State said "yes, they are. And they can be run as a business and for a profit if you let us (state) participate. But only for a racially exclusive group of citizens."

Sorry state, that is unconstitutional AND that same section of the AZ Constitution gives the state power to grant special immunities and licensing powers such as this ONLY to municipal corporations.

So as for tookee, their CoC appears to be a group of business advocates, and as it doesnt appear to be incorporated, local legislation must either fall on a neighboring city or the county. Who handles gaebage and water services in tookie?

Not sure where residents in these county islands or annexes go to ask local legislators to look into the matter.

Too much on plate as is, but this isnt the first citizen who has asked the question.

Ahwatukee is Phoenix. It's merely a neighborhood descriptor like Encanto or Alhambra.


The problem is that "any lawful business" doesn't include poker for benefit (e.g. running a card room) because state law trumps whatever those municipalities might thing.

Are you asking me? I don't think so, and it seems the state doesn't think so.

Pretty sure that's already made it to court...

You're free to work out regulation with the state. That's the only legal requirement. Sorry the tribes beat you to it.

You're not good at homework are you. Ahwatukee is Phoenix.

---

That said, my stance, as always, is that you (and pretty much everyone else) are welcome to buy me a beer whenever you want.

Those are all possibly compelling arguments to CHANGE Arizona law.

...but none of those change what Arizona law is - and what it has been interpreted to mean.

Some if those articles do in fact serve as case law regarding the law of contracts.