Writing Article

[StuDowJones]

I am a reporter from Dow Jones Newswires. I am writing an article examining the fallout from the recent U.S. anti-Internet gambling legislation. I am interested in hearing from a U.S. resident who switched services from an operator that stopped serving the U.S. market to one that has maintained service. I would want to quote that person by name in my story so please don't respond if you are unwilling to meet that condition.

I am also interested in learning more about how funds are shifted to and from an eWallet service provider, and the level of involvement of banks and/or credit card companies. My interest in this area is to try and understand how easy/difficult it will be for banks and credit card companies to identify and block transactions restricted under the new law.

To contact me please email stuart.weinberg@dowjones.com.

[BluffTHIS!]

Note to everyone: think carefully before choosing to respond to this guy whether having this publicized widely is in our interests or not. My suspicion is that it's not.

[StuDowJones]

With all due respect BluffTHIS, I think this topic has already received massive publicity. I am merely trying to humanize and bring voice to a trend that poker-monitoring sites suggest is well under way.

[BluffTHIS!]

Stu,

Any sites or money transfer systems that remain in the US market are already "flaunting it". Flaunting it even more in the mainstream press is only waving a red cape before a bull. We have to be extremely sure we can't get gored to do that. As it is we have already been seriously injured.

However, there is a flip side to this. And that is that later, as in *after* the Fed has written its regulations and those same sites and businesses still find a way to remain in business and make it easy for casual players to play, then flaunting it might actually have the effect of showing that prohibition doesn't work and that online poker might as well be taxed and regulated. But right now with everything in a state of flux and poker sites and related businesses, mainly publicly traded ones, taking not just the safe, but super-safe path, we can't afford to scare the remaining businesses into hyper-compliance more than they already are inclined to do.

[StuDowJones]

Thanks for the response and explanation BluffTHIS. Perhaps I should amend my original post. My main interest is in talking with someone who switched operators (i.e. from one that halted U.S. service to one that is maintainin it.) The goal here is to put a face on a trend that is clearly at work since the UIGEA was signed into law.

Anyone who responds is not obligated to discuss payment processing.

[addictontilt]

Have to admit, no offense to you Stu - but I agree with Bluff - tread cautiously if you speak to this guy, if you name is published in a paper, you could be targeted and be held up as a poster boy, been there, done that, have the tshirt and scars to prove it. My experience was at a local level with an aggressive DA - this is a NATIONAL agend being pushed.

[StuDowJones]

I see and respect your concerns. I was under the understanding that the new law doesn't criminalize online gambling, and that targeting individuals for doing so is extremely unlikely - not to mention politically unwise. I am reluctant to publish an article using a pseudonym as it dilutes the impact in my view.

[BluffTHIS!]

Stu,

Your understanding of the law is correct, i.e. that a player isn't targeted, although he might be a target of a state law which is a consideration. However our main concern is not contributing to either more zealous enforcement by the government, or to hyper-zealous compliance by the poker sites and money transfer businesses.

[StuDowJones]

Understand. Can't speak to state laws but don't think being quoted by me is going to make the government any more zealous than it already is or the operators any less motivated to keep their businesses open in the U.S. In any event, if someone has a change of heart, please contact me at stuart.weinberg@dowjones.com

[addictontilt]

While the law in discussion does nothing to individually target gamblers, there is possibility of a local DA or even state level, using asset forfeiture laws to seize assets (they can and do this now), make no mistake - there is attention at the national, state, and local level on this. There will be people making a name for themselves on this - Frist. Again - no offense to you Stuart, but people need to realize what may be at stake, just for talking to you, and their name being published. Read up on what happened to Richard Lee in texas, his property is in the hands of the police including his money, its up to him and his lawyers to prove the police were wrong in seizing it. Meanwhile-they still have everything.

[faustusmedea]

This thread is a microcosm of the new landscape. I sat for an article in the Colorado newspaper before the bill and reluctantly gave my name/etc. Now, we are on shaky ground and are unsure how to proceed, yet its clear a lot of players and sites plan to proceed.

I had actually planned on building a site/movement to work on getting John Kyl voted out, but in speaking with my accountant and attorney, I decided against it because of possible backlash. The problem as I see it is players are not going to want to bear the brunt of trying to change the law (because getting arrested/forfeiting assets/etc is involved), but I also don't see the sites spending a lot of dough to change the landscape (Calvin Ayres said in a recent article he didn't feel it was his responsibility to affect US law so he didn't plan to spend money on it)

Its prohibition folks and its gonna get worse before it gets better. No matter what, some oxes are going to get gored before its over.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
Again - no offense to you Stuart, but people need to realize what may be at stake, just for talking to you, and their name being published. Read up on what happened to Richard Lee in texas, his property is in the hands of the police including his money, its up to him and his lawyers to prove the police were wrong in seizing it. Meanwhile-they still have everything.

[/ QUOTE ]
They weren't wrong in seizing it. This is inane. If the guy was operating an illegal bookmaking deal, then he's breaking the law. Talking to Stuart about how you get money on to your Full Tilt account WILL NOT make you susceptible to any unlawful seizure of assets.

[addictontilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again - no offense to you Stuart, but people need to realize what may be at stake, just for talking to you, and their name being published. Read up on what happened to Richard Lee in texas, his property is in the hands of the police including his money, its up to him and his lawyers to prove the police were wrong in seizing it. Meanwhile-they still have everything.

[/ QUOTE ]
They weren't wrong in seizing it. This is inane. If the guy was operating an illegal bookmaking deal, then he's breaking the law. Talking to Stuart about how you get money on to your Full Tilt account WILL NOT make you susceptible to any unlawful seizure of assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it proven that he was running a bookmaking opp? Has he been convicted? NO...meanwhile everything he has is in a police warehouse, look into it.

[otnemem]

You're very naive if you think they just arrested him for no reason. He never spoke out about anything. So what are you talking about? Why do you think the authorities targeted him?

[addictontilt]

has he been arrested? Last article I read says he hasn't, be careful calling me naive, kettle

[otnemem]

You're not understanding my point - arrested or under investigation - what does it have to do with talking to a media outlet? IIRC, you, in so many words, said "be careful what you say to the media - look what happened to Richard Lee." When, in fact, the two couldn't have less to do with each other.

[addictontilt]

Makes sense ot - here is my point, talking to the media may increase public attention on the individual that speaks to the media, with increased attention may spark possible consequences. This is all speculation on my part, but you will not find my name in the media. IMO it depends on what happens in november, if the pendulum moves right (I doubt this) then someone at the local and/or state level may be looking to make a statement, who better to go after than the most evil among us the online gamblers? It has happened before, and will continue to do so. The asset forfiture laws are bogus, and allow seizure of assets before any conviction in a court of law. They were originally intended for drug seizures, however local police departments fatten their coffers now by seizing property and bank accounts. Don't believe me? Search google on asset forfeiture, and read. how many people were convicted before they lost everything, it happens more than you know. Once the property is seized the burden of proof is not on the state or municipality, it is on the person that the assets were seized from.

[otnemem]

If poker isn't illegal in your jurisdiction, what will they seize your assets for? Please explain to me where this paranoia is born. In my opinion, you're beyond delusional.