I sort of agree with mypethybridge. I understand the DOJ's position with regard to the sites use of the banking system and, for the most part, lawdude's ideas of why the DOJ wants a US regulatory regime.

However, calling the Isle of Mann a comparatively ineffective regulatory regime given the total body of work of US regulators strikes me as both jingoistic and counterfactual. Hell, if we passed a law today regulating online poker, when do we think the regulations would actually be written? 2015? How confident are you it wouldnt be a total cluster**** (see Dodd-Frank derivative regulations)? Then how confident are you that the actual regulators would be funded properly and do their jobs correctly?

So yeah, I get why the DOJ would prefer a US regulatory body and I even see why players are likely going to support a US regulatory body given the alternative options, but I have zero confidence the US is going to do a much better job than the Isle of Mann did at regulating the game.

eh, just caught a mistake in my tirade that escaped notice in my proofreading: frozen pizza regulation is either FDA or USDA, I have USDA twice. oopsie.

Whether or not the IOM, Aldernay, KGC or for that matter any gaming commission in the USA are effective regulatory bodies with strict rules and enforcement is largely left up to interpretation. As a player if you choose to play on a site, no matter where they are regulated, you are agreeing to terms set forth by those sites and under their respective licensing body. Some may be fair and honest others might not be and you might have little legal recourse open to you if you feel violated in some way. Players aren't being forced to play anywhere its a choice they made.

That said, I don't think the DOJ, the US gov, or any other nation has to accept any regulatory/licensing body outside its boarders. If the states or the federal Gov. feel that the IOM, Aldernay or KGC aren't qualified bodies, for whatever reason, then they need not recognize them as qualified.

<sigh> 1st lets toss out Kahnawahke - they are a unique Canadian situation.

Now lets talk about Europe. Who regulates the single malt scotch I drink to make sure it is actually what it says it is, is the correct proof, and is not contaminated? Are there US regulators in Scotland I have never heard about? There must be because that scotch tastes pretty good and has never killed anyone.

And you know, next summer I am going to get a job as a US regulator of French Cheese or Italian Wine.

Since all of these products are available for sale in the US the US must be regulating their production must it not?

Of course, I vaguely recall some odd news story about trade treaties that allow goods and services to move from one country to another. I guess the US must have insisted that all countries that import goods and services to the US have US regulators and inspectors to insure the goods and services are reputable. No US government official would ever trust some other country to insure that the food or drink it produces, food Americans might actually consume[!] was not subject to USDA or US FDA regulation and inspection.

Skallagrim

I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with lying sacks of **** (at the DOJ and, um, elsewhere) who falsely claim that the sites are currently unregulated, and then when caught out in their lie, say, "oh, well that is not effective regulation," when Stars' effective regulators are the exact reason Stars' customers have their money back already.

Yes they may be regulated but they are not regulated in he US. So i guess its incorrect for the DOJ and others to say unregulated unless they are referring unregulated in the US. Though I don't think that distinction means much to most lawmakers or to the DOJ.

Thanks for the sarcasm, but you did not answer the question.

"do you think that Russ Hamilton et al would have even attempted to cheat customers out of millions of dollars if UB were regulated in the US and they were subject to clear criminal penalties in the US? and, even if you think they would have done it anyway, do you think they would have gotten away with it to the same extent that they have?"

I will concede that I should not have tossed the IOM in there with the KGC.

You can simply point to Stars as one company that was run well (and I agree), and I can just point to AP/UB as being a company that was run extremely poorly and could have used better regulation.

And if that was the true concern the feds would have had a much easier time tracking all the money had they let a player like neteller remain doing the business. Instead they forced the sites into shadier and shadier processors, intimidated companies like epassporte to leave the market, and then they say "see now we had to really drop the ban hammer because look at this financial black hole...(::cough:: that we forced them into)." What a joke.

This gets at what I might have done differently if I were the DOJ. Yes, the result of the government's actions so far is that (1) some Americans were driven out of online poker, but (2) the ones that remain are being pushed even further into the financial shadows where bad things could happen.

I think that's a quite legitimate critique of the DOJ's strategy. Note, however, that you have to understand where they are coming from (that they really are concerned about Americans moving their money offshore) to get to this place (they have chosen a strategy that may be counterproductive to their goal).

Again, though, the only route out of this is a poker bill.

A+

Note as well that the fact that Stars and Tilt were run well (and I too agree they were) doesn't mean you don't need regulation.

Oliver Wendall Holmes said that you need law because there are some bad men out there. Of the big three poker room operators, one of them was really bad. The other two weren't, but the US government had little power over them if they had been or if they had gone bad.

Oh, stop it Mpeth. I have been very clear all along why I think online poker is unregulated. As I said, I come from the world of horse racing, and "regulation" refers to a bunch of things (like subpoena power over the records, cooperation with tax authorities, suspensions of licensees, ensuring reciprocity of regulation in foreign countries) that every Horse Racing Board or Commission in America does. The Isle of Man does not do these things.

You are singing the praises of a corporate tax haven as if it is the same thing as the United States of America. It isn't.

EDIT: And by the way. The reason Stars' funds were available was Stars was a good company. There is a counterfactual here-- if Stars had failed to segregate player banked funds, would the Isle of Man have punished it? And how?

Because for all your ranting about American regulation, there are literally HUNDREDS of reported cases of regulators in all sorts of business fields sanctioning and suspending licenses of businesses who were required to segregate funds and did not do so.

Did the Isle of Man do jack about the Chinese botters? Was anyone at Pokerstars punished? Were the names of the users requested and charges brought? That's what REAL regulators do, Mpeth.

You speak in generalities-- "everything fails in America". Not at all. We have great regulations. Nothing's perfect, but take a look at our gambling games. They are the cleanest in the world.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/Internationa...ts/default.htm

Thanks for agreeing with my prayer that Nevada and or NJ are tasked with implementing a US regulatory scheme.

I wasn't speaking in generalities; I provided specific examples of how the US government tends to create more problems than it solves when it regulates something, and I gave concrete examples.

There was a time when I would have admired your flag waving, but, eventually, evidence overwhelmed patriotism.

Mpethy +++

Take a look at how wall street is regulated. Then somebody explain to me how supporting government regulation has anything to do with patriotism.

Gambling games? Last I checked I had to drive to something called a river boat to "gamble."

All this regulation stuff, gosh. One smart poker player would likely do a better job "regulating" this beast than groups, panels and commissions filled with elected and appointed officials. If it's not an idiot put into a position he shouldn't be, it's a smart person with a different agenda than the people they are serving.

But I guess that's why we have a lobby, to hopefully influence in a way that diminishes the default incompetence.

One interview I saw really tilted me, it was the owner of one of the Vegas casinos talking about US regulation, and the interview went like this (paraphrased)

Reporter: "So the question now is, do you have the people who will fight for you? Do you have the pieces in place to get this done?"
Vegas Guy: "Sure, Harry Reid and Barney Frank have been working hard"

As if it were simply accepted that this guy could get what he wants by simply bribing the right people. Which is true enough, but it's just disgusting.

You are completely wrong regarding this.

I initiated two deposits on Stars approximately 5-6 days prior to Black Friday. These deposits cleared with Stars on 19-20 Apr, i.e. I could transfer the funds to another player assuming that option was still available to U.S. players. The funds associated with my deposit were being handled by the payment processers during the seizure on Black Friday and should have been seized by your logic. The funds were not seized, which raises a whole different set of questions. Last week I requested return of the funds from Stars and received payment yesterday.

If you would like, I can post screen shots to document all of this.

Once again, you act like a figure of authority yet actually know very little about which you pontificate. I feel bad for anyone that has been a client of your legal services or poker coaching.

Yes, because if you initiated a deposit through PokerStars and the money was seized by the DOJ, it is impossible that PokerStars took money out of their own pocket and put that in your account. We have absolutely no precedent for this happening

BTW, what is your current site and screen name fine sir?

If you think Stars paid me out of their own pocket, I would suggest easing up on the bear-hug you have on their nuts.

Both Stars and Full Tilt have repaid players out of their own pocket in at least one previous seizure case.

I'm too lazy to dig up the link for you, but search this forum and you will find the old thread on it.

Or you can just keep being wrong every time you post.

The DOJ has seized 3rd-party processors serving FT & PS on multiple occasions over the years. The players have never not gotten paid.

Mpeth is right. After some previous payment processor seizures, Stars and Tilt did not get the money back from the government. They went out of pocket and paid their players back.

Mpeth, this is nothing but right wing ignorance.

Without the FDA, we would have had thalidomide babies. Without the financial regulations we have (whatever their failings), Bernie Madoff and Michael Millken never go to jail. Other countries have far more mine disasters than we do. Our food supply is one of the safest in the world, with no Mad Cow Disease. Our consumer protection regulations allow regulatory actions and lawsuits that help stop fraud. The EEOC has significantly reduced workplace discrimination. And thanks to OSHA, workplaces are safer than they are in many countries.

This "the government never works" attitude is a flat lie told by conservatives who are in the pocket of rich polluters and corporate profiteers. Yes, sometimes we don't get the right regulations in place. But that's not because regulation is bad-- it's because regulators sometimes get captured, usually by libertarian-types who claim that regulation never works.

We have great regulations and great regulators here. And US players need that protection to keep gaming honest.

Some serious flag-waving and fallacious reasoning going on here. Honestly, if you are trying to talk about honest regulation, don't bring up the FDA. Our regulatory bodies are filthy corrupt and sitting in corporate pockets, and it takes very little research to realize this.

I think we are getting sidetracked in a relatively unimportant point: how honest, in their hearts, the DOJ folks who bring this suit against iPoker are.

(1) you aren't going to win many converts because the issue is not provable/disprovable (2) it doesn't really matter.

We can agree on what is a viable legal and grassroots strategy without agreeing on what someone else's motivation is.

It doesn't really matter whether Preet Bharara has no morals or is extremely honest (and deluded). Our strategy will be the same. So lets drop the question of whether Preet deserves to be force fed **** sandwiches or not and focus on something important.