Ha-ha.

You going to open one at the state fair, pretend one's life insurance, or put one inside of a skill-crane next to the stuffed animals?

I'm sorry. Are you asserting copyright on all the images in that document?

And when i said "that is illegal", i was obviously talking about the monopoly that the state allows to exist on for profit cardrooms operated as a business, because clearly eveyone can do that, regardless of race or gaming classifications.

Nope. Just the ones you steal. Lol no big deal, just pointing out that you are shady like you do to me. Go ahead and use 'em. Worst you face is a cease and desist.

But then someone like PU with that giant dogs playing poker as their window art used for commercial purposes... Now there is a crime someone like willy can probably sink their teeth into AND actually see some results.

Ya wanna know what sucks tho, is I own the PU logo. But can i charge a license fee to my former partner? No, i can't. Not knowing that PU owner(s) are running a game for benefit. If i also benefit thru such licensing fees, i am just as guilty as the owner(s).

I suppose I could issue a cease and desist. Asking politely did not work.

But relax The Palimax, i am not a litigious fellow... Unless forced to defend my constititional rights.

Im not always right. I will be the first to admit it. Reading earlier posts from my banned friends, i used to think poker was a class ii game by default and as such the state had no regulatory authority. But the ADG and tribes agreed to let slide the business for benefit in exchange for calling poker class iii gaming in arizona. It must be so, in irder fir the atate to participate and regulate at the state level.

But the fed says poker is a class ii game though, and as such, subject only to tribal and nigc oversight. But in arizona we can only play "jackpot poker" or what the nigc calls "arizona poker". The nigc still classifies this as a class ii game though.

Still not sure how a bad beat or jackpot poker is not class ii poker tho. The card game is still player vs player and not house-banked. Its raked, for the house and the jackpot, but that doesnt take away the player vs player aspect that makes class ii what it is.

Anyone?

Um, first option is viable. And lets not forget historical societies and special district events (or something).

>Changing state law may well invoke the "poison pill" clause in the tribal compact; but it still needs to happen.

What part of Constitutions trump statutes are we unclear about?

> You can change all the municipal codes you want, but it doesn't change the fact that state law (a) sees poker as gambling, and (b) forbids gambling except in a number of narrow circumstances.

I respectfully disagree with a and wholeheartedly agree with b.

Here is why, and again, borrowing from the nigc arguments the tribal lawyers used when told by the state to cease and desist their poker riom operations.

The state can "see" all the things it wants. It does not see poker as gambling because poker is not prohibited. The state has never proven that poker is illegal in and of itself, and gambling in and of itself is not illegal. To wit: the state lottery.

Anything you say to the contrary is probably gonna be more convoluted opinion.

But unless the statutes explicitly prohibit poker, which they do not, we are cleared to gamble at poker in this state freely and often.

...then you're blind.

This state sees poker as gambling. Just ask Goldfarb and Orlando and Curcio and Lee. Get ready to ask Glazier and Clark.

ARS 13-33xx, gambling illegal.
ARS Title 5, ADG gets to define what's in and out of scope.
ADG says poker gambling.
end.

He deleted his own posts.

That makes sense... As a high ranking ADG official, WillyB needs to be careful what he releases here as public information, what with all the ongoing investigations and stuff.

Who do i call to ask the state if poker is gambling?

Because i still don't see poker prohibited by the state.

Hell, even gambling isnt prohibited by the state.

If i ask any of those convicts serving probation time if the state sees poker as gambling, and they worked for the ADG, ya know how it would be spun?

"poker is illegal gambling unless it falls under one of seven statutory exclusions... Unfortunately, my enterprise did not."

I dont even see where the ADG sps's specifically say poker = gambling = crime.

Sorry Matty, looks like you lose this one.

Don't like it? Change the law to make poker illegal.

Thanks for playing.

/end

Meh, i do not like it when u paraphrase and the title of 13-33xx is not ILLEGAL gambling. It is simply gambling, as in civil regulatory and not criminal prohibitive. If poker (or cardrooms) were crim proh, we would not be having this conversation.

Still no answers as to why poker is class iii in az indian country. Guess i will have to call rick medina, adg.

A Glazier is a construction professional who selects, cuts, installs, replaces, and removes residential, commercial, and artistic glass. Glaziers also install aluminum storefront frames and entrances, glass handrails and balustrades, shower enclosures, curtain wall framing and glass and mirror walls.

I assume you meant The Harry Glazer?

Cuz glass cutting isnt illegal.

Can a moderator explain why anything CitzAgainstTyranny posts, even when it's actually occasionally on-target, is allowed, when things he has been banned for in the past have all been repeat violations of 2+2 forum rules?

What would your response be if i posted links to case law that shows poker debts from a home game were legally enforced through civil court actions such a small claims court?

Would you still argue that poker games are not subject to the law of contracts?

That's a yes or no question. Obviously contingent upon proof and content, but as a yea or nea, would civil court proceedings enforcing poker debts validate the opinion that poker is -- er, CAN BE -- subject to the law of contracts?

Is your question if the debts incurred in poker games are subject to contracts, or if poker is exempted from Arizona gambling law because of the law of contracts?

If it's the latter, the answer is a flat no.

Fortunately for you, any ambiguity in the law can be cleared up by the ADG.

My question, i thought was simple enough... And here's a hint at the answer Matt, its a simple "yes":

Q. If poker debts are enforceable in small claims court as a legal debt, then what part of "not subject to law of contracts" do i need to clear upnfor ya? Cuz i'll be happy to.

Now, about poker as a class iii game in arizona... Or more avoidance.

Fortunately for me, this is a non-ambiguous issue. Ambiguity only creeps into play when one attempts to misapply the states anti-gambling statutes to a legitimate non-profit card game.

If I borrow money to play blackjack, do I have to pay that back?

If I do, is Blackjack now subject to the law of contracts and not gambling?

And, again, the state disagrees with you, so until you manage to demonstrate your case in front on an ALJ, you're just a madman with a crazy dream.

...one that'll end just like Felon Lee's.

Convict at Large is the working title of my exposé on my never ending quest for freedom, liberty, and equal treatment for all, regardless of race, creed, or culture. A two part piece is posted on the players blog: www.icgpa.org (Memo of Understanding Grants a Poker Monopoly to Gambling Cartel)

The facts in the case of State vs. Lee are now recorded history; they are on the way to the Court of Appeals. Now, I plan to utilize the ordeal as an educational experience, which I intend to share with as many citizens as possible. I have gained a unique perspective of the Criminal Justice System and the origins of the gambling syndicate that operates against the people of Arizona with impunity.

I have the perspective of one who has been both a judge and a convict. This can be said to be rare if not unique. It does offer a more rounded viewpoint of the American system of jurisprudence. Frankly, the Arizona Poker War is an incredible story in and of itself. Of course, it is not nearly over. I remain confident of victory and expect to be vindicated by the Court of Appeals.

I am currently working on a presentation so I can share this experience with other interested groups. While the performance probably won't be a laugh fest, the plan is to keep it on the lite side. So, if anyone has need of a raw public speaker that is seeking to gain experience, I work for food and gas. I figure the lunch and dinner circuit is slightly more dignified than holding up a cardboard sign at the freeway underpass. Again, if you know of any group that would like to chit chat with a convicted felon, please let us know email invitations to: convictatlarge@hotmail.com

The staged presentation will be titled:

Omg doubletake.

The Palimax is asking this?

Sad.

Blackjack is not a bona fide business. There are no pro blackjack players. Even at 51-49 its still player vs the house. Therefore blackjack is a class iii game.

This inane question demonstrates to me how pointless coming here really is.

This is your twisted logic. You state that because A, B.

You said that because the debts are enforceable, then it's laws of contacts.

Because A, B.

Because of enforceable debts, laws of contracts.

Your crazy thought.

---

I demonstrated to you that's absurd.