London Times follow up: more info [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Uglyowl

01-21-2007, 07:30 PM

Outcry as U.S. targets city firms over online gambling (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2559839,00.html)

"Senior bankers and leading politicians have attacked demands from the American Department of Justice for British bankers to hand over details of their dealings with online gambling companies outlawed in the US. After calls on the British Government to spell out the limits of the US authorities’ reach, the Treasury said last night that it was monitoring the situation."

"Subpoenas have been issued by the Southern District Court of New York to at least 16 banks,"

"Alan Duncan, Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, said: “There is growing suspicion that the US Department of Justice is using its muscle in a highly unpleasant manner, and is targeting financial institutions beyond their own shores in a way that cannot be justified. I hope the Department will stop and review its approach so that its behaviour doesn’t sour relations between us.”"

http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/photo_gallery/concord/images/redcoats7151.jpg Don't let George Bush stomp on you like he has been doing the rest of the American citizens. "ashamed I voted twice for him"

Sniper

01-21-2007, 07:35 PM

Can't we keep all updates on this in one thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8844596)

1p0kerboy

01-21-2007, 07:38 PM

Good to see this reaction so far.

4thstreetpete

01-21-2007, 08:24 PM

I always thought the US was issuing subpoenas to american institutions. How exactly are they going to muscle foreign banks to comply? This is outrageous. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

chicagoY

01-21-2007, 08:26 PM

Go Cornwallis!

1p0kerboy

01-21-2007, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly are they going to muscle foreign banks to comply? This is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just threaten them with a nuke. USA rules the world.

Sniper

01-21-2007, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the US was issuing subpoenas to american institutions. How exactly are they going to muscle foreign banks to comply? This is outrageous. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The foreign banks have a presence in the US /images/graemlins/wink.gif

YoureToast

01-21-2007, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can't we keep all updates on this in one thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8844596)

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw Sniper, I don't think this is a good idea IMHO. For things like this, it would be impossible to know whether there is, in fact, an update without opening the thread.

1p0kerboy

01-21-2007, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw Sniper, I don't think this is a good idea IMHO. For things like this, it would be impossible to know whether there is, in fact, an update without opening the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto.

Richas

01-21-2007, 09:47 PM

More City of London lobbying spilling into the press. There are a lot of influntial people in the UK very annoyed about this.

Now I know the UK likes to think they have more influence than they do with the US gov but let this simmer for a year or two and the UK/EU will bite back.

byronkincaid

01-21-2007, 09:50 PM

It's not the London Times it's just The Times btw

betgo

01-21-2007, 09:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the London Times it's just The Times btw

[/ QUOTE ]
Real British to insist on the proper term. Problem is for people in the US if you just said "Times", they would think New York Times. I think there are some other newspapers called the "Times" in the world, so the protocol of refering to it as "The Times" may only work in the UK.

whangarei

01-21-2007, 10:13 PM

Good news. Some pushback is the only thing that'll slow these mother [censored] down.

PocketAces

01-21-2007, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good news. Some pushback is the only thing that'll slow these mother [censored] down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I'm a corporate attorney and would advise you, and anyone else in the poker industry, not to ever, EVER, EVER underestimate the power, arrogance and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice. If they have the online gaming industry in its crosshairs, as appears to be the case, those in the industry are going to have a very rough go of it.

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

1p0kerboy

01-21-2007, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I'm a corporate attorney and would advise you, and anyone else in the poker industry, not to ever, EVER, EVER underestimate the power, arrogance and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice. If they have the online gaming industry in its crosshairs, as appears to be the case, those in the industry are going to have a very rough go of it.

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very reassuring.

Rigel

01-21-2007, 11:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal. In fact, the only federal district court decision to consider the issue says poker isn't even covered by the 1961 wire act.

I've got about $1500 in the poker sites and I'm not worried at all. Worst case scenario, there might be temporary delays in cashing out. The new law doesn't stop money from coming back to the US, and the feds certainly have no incentive to prevent hundreds of millions in US wealth from coming back into the country.

The tricky question is how hard it will be to DEPOSIT money, because that is what the new law makes difficult. But if we can't deposit, we can't deposit- it's nothing to be scared of. And I'm confident some deposit methods will remain- how are they going to stop you from Fed Exing a money order you got at the local convenience store? They aren't. It wouldn't be convenient compared to Neteller but if that's what I have to do to give the middle finger to Bush and Congress and keep playing, I will do it.

JPFisher55

01-22-2007, 12:00 AM

See this article for explanation of case law on 1961 Wire Act.
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13599

PocketAces

01-22-2007, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that nothing in the new law makes *playing* illegal. I shouldn't have referred to players in that quote--only U.S. operators of such sites. In my haste to type a response, I didn't make that clear. What I meant to refer to were professional players like Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu who appear to own (directly or indirectly) such sites, though there is some question about that. I'm not privy to how the ownership of Full Tilt, Doyle's Room and Full Contact are organized; supposedly Lederer owns the company that developed the software for Full Tilt, but I don't know.

In any event, if those well-known players are receiving part of the profits generated by those sites, which are still catering to U.S. players, I think they are in legal jeopardy. And as I said, I think it's very unwise to mess with the U.S. Justice Dept. and its seemingly bottomless well of attorneys and resources to draw upon in comparison to most individuals.

JPFisher55

01-22-2007, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that nothing in the new law makes *playing* illegal. I shouldn't have referred to players in that quote--only U.S. operators of such sites. In my haste to type a response, I didn't make that clear. What I meant to refer to were professional players like Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu who appear to own (directly or indirectly) such sites, though there is some question about that. I'm not privy to how the ownership of Full Tilt, Doyle's Room and Full Contact are organized; supposedly Lederer owns the company that developed the software for Full Tilt, but I don't know.

In any event, if those well-known players are receiving part of the profits generated by those sites, which are still catering to U.S. players, I think they are in legal jeopardy. And as I said, I think it's very unwise to mess with the U.S. Justice Dept. and its seemingly bottomless well of attorneys and resources to draw upon in comparison to most individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the federal case law, a lot of precedent exists that the Wire Act only applies to bets on sporting contests; not poker. I hope the DOJ does prosecute someone in the online poker industry so their intimidation falls apart when they quickly lose. But they have only prosecuted only parties in the online sports betting industry. However, their recent subpoenas may test the bounds of the Wire Act and money laudering under it.

PocketAces

01-22-2007, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If you read the federal case law, a lot of precedent exists that the Wire Act only applies to bets on sporting contests; not poker. I hope the DOJ does prosecute someone in the online poker industry so their intimidation falls apart when they quickly lose. But they have only prosecuted only parties in the online sports betting industry. However, their recent subpoenas may test the bounds of the Wire Act and money laudering under it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, I don't think the DOJ will "quickly lose" if they prosecute people in the online poker industry. The UIGA applies to poker, not just sports betting.

Uglyowl

01-22-2007, 12:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you read the federal case law, a lot of precedent exists that the Wire Act only applies to bets on sporting contests; not poker. I hope the DOJ does prosecute someone in the online poker industry so their intimidation falls apart when they quickly lose. But they have only prosecuted only parties in the online sports betting industry. However, their recent subpoenas may test the bounds of the Wire Act and money laudering under it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, I don't think the DOJ will "quickly lose" if they prosecute people in the online poker industry. The UIGA applies to poker, not just sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA applies to what was illegal before. What law outlaws poker? If it exists so be it. I don't think it has been proven it does exist yet.

JPFisher55

01-22-2007, 12:53 AM

The UIGEA does not apply to online poker. It did not expand the scope of the Wire Act or any other law. I recommend that you read the articles by Mrs. Shulman at Cardplayer.com.

Xianson

01-22-2007, 12:54 AM

And here I was getting ready open a pre-paid debit card in the god ole UK so I wouldnt have to put up with this bullcrap. Hey wait I got a great Idea, Ill open a pre-paid Mastercard in Iran....... they would NEVER worry about the US Govt anywayright? And soon they will have nukes too!
Wait a sec, I got it now North Korea right? lol or actually Id use Canada but thier the next ones the US will screw with and this is totally outrageous...you now what this is like? This is like saying "Lemme go on vacation to Brazil" and then the Govt telling Brazil they want the tax money for what I spent when I was down there! Its just NUTZ!!! Hmmmn..... Maybe Israel? ...... I wana country that completely wont give a darn about the us.......what country is it that doesnt have extradition to the US?? I forget now but it may be Italy or Brazil or.........Oh wow France.....there big enough and they HATE US......Ok, but nowI wonder if Im allowed as a US citizen to open an account for a pr-paid in France? I guess so right? BUT what about me putting down my real address when I need the check to get sent to the US? Or do U think we can re-laod the card from the poker site? Good idea's tjo yes??.....No?? Im open 4 opinions Gents!!

thetruest

01-22-2007, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if I were a U.S. player or operator of such a site, even if based overseas, I would VERY SERIOUSLY reconsider continuing in such a capacity, unless the prospect of being ruined financially and spending years in prison meant nothing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm an attorney too and the new law does nothing to make poker PLAYING illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that nothing in the new law makes *playing* illegal. I shouldn't have referred to players in that quote--only U.S. operators of such sites. In my haste to type a response, I didn't make that clear. What I meant to refer to were professional players like Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu who appear to own (directly or indirectly) such sites, though there is some question about that. I'm not privy to how the ownership of Full Tilt, Doyle's Room and Full Contact are organized; supposedly Lederer owns the company that developed the software for Full Tilt, but I don't know.

In any event, if those well-known players are receiving part of the profits generated by those sites, which are still catering to U.S. players, I think they are in legal jeopardy. And as I said, I think it's very unwise to mess with the U.S. Justice Dept. and its seemingly bottomless well of attorneys and resources to draw upon in comparison to most individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

Sniper

01-22-2007, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Doyle has a bigger following than let's say... Martha Stewart?

thetruest

01-22-2007, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Doyle has a bigger following than let's say... Martha Stewart?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does that have to do with anything?

curious123

01-22-2007, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I recommend that you read the articles by Mrs. Shulman at Cardplayer.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me if this is well-known, but what exactly are this lady's credentials?

Jack Bando

01-22-2007, 01:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Doyle has a bigger following than let's say... Martha Stewart?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does that have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Martha went to jail and there was no giant stink against the Gov is what I guess he's saying. Although she was arrested for insider trading, and Doyle "is" arrested for playing poker.

TheRock69

01-22-2007, 01:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Doyle has a bigger following than let's say... Martha Stewart?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does that have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, they arrest Doyle Brunson no one will care! I mean you see actors and athletes get arrested all the time no on cares it just creates news.

6-Max Donk

01-22-2007, 01:56 AM

While I agree nobody will really care or put up any kind of "stink" about it, I hope people may see how he gets prosacuded for retarded reasons and hopefully some poker players will bring this to attention to the US citizens and they will do something. Of course they won't though, Americans are lazy. Who needs freedom anyways?

thetruest

01-22-2007, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Doyle has a bigger following than let's say... Martha Stewart?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does that have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, they arrest Doyle Brunson no one will care! I mean you see actors and athletes get arrested all the time no on cares it just creates news.

[/ QUOTE ]

the people who care about Doyle care alot more about him than the people who care about Martha [censored] Stewart. Do you people not go outside and/or communicate with other human beings who enjoy poker somehow?

Lets take an example who is actually guilty of corporate crime, and is more or less a vapid celebrity otherwise, and compare her to someone who actually hasn't done anything wrong and who commands ALOT of respect, especially among casual players and everyday folk. Great idea. Doyle is consistently referred to as the best poker player of all time in the mainstream, martha is the best ??? of all time? Every cardroom in America will be making a big deal out of Doyle being arrested because Bush doesn't want people playing $5 sit and gos, etc.

The feds will never go after these people anyway, and most people on these forums already know that, and it is because of this very reason. Why I'm needed to explain all of this to the previous few posters is beyond me.

curious123

01-22-2007, 02:08 AM

I think a better example would be like Willie Nelson and reefer- he just gets a slap on the wrist cuz he's an old & iconic, but you don't see pot getting legalized because of it.

ekdikeo

01-22-2007, 02:14 AM

I think if people -knew- something, they might care.

I regularly have to explain to people who don't play poker online why it is that many sites stopped taking US players.

thetruest

01-22-2007, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a better example would be like Willie Nelson and reefer- he just gets a slap on the wrist cuz he's an old & iconic, but you don't see pot getting legalized because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean that poker will be legalized online, but it will begin to rally more people behind that idea to push further for that goal.

Sniper

01-22-2007, 02:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a better example would be like Willie Nelson and reefer- he just gets a slap on the wrist cuz he's an old & iconic, but you don't see pot getting legalized because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean that poker will be legalized online, but it will begin to rally more people behind that idea to push further for that goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you been paying attention... Gambling is EVIL /images/graemlins/wink.gif

thetruest

01-22-2007, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a better example would be like Willie Nelson and reefer- he just gets a slap on the wrist cuz he's an old & iconic, but you don't see pot getting legalized because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean that poker will be legalized online, but it will begin to rally more people behind that idea to push further for that goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you been paying attention... Gambling is EVIL /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, it's an issue of absolute national security.

When I think of Doyle or anyone else like him getting arrested, I think of the recent Michael Jackson case or terri schaivo. It would just be too ridiculous, too outrageous, and too much of a circus to NOT get media attention. And in this case, most of that attention would be negative. Basically, i think the general consensus would be "huh? Why?". Cardrooms all over the country would be broadcasting his case as it unfolds, and it would be filled with people backing him. I couldn't imagine ANYONE being against him, other than the small minority of (again, more outrageousness) lunatic christians who think gambling is EVIL. Much like these were the proponents of what made the terri schaivo fiasco so ridiculous, they would again look completely out of hand here, and an overwhelming majority would be favoring the other way. This would be a big blow to the whole anti-gambling movement in general, and basically what would make the whole issue of wasting these many resources in security and law enforcement on digitized cards as somethng that shouldn't be America's priority, especially right now.

PartyGirlUK

01-22-2007, 04:18 AM

FFS ITS NOT CALLED THE LONDON TIMES, JUST COS U GUYS USE CITY NAMES IN YOUR NEWSPAPERS, DONT GO ADDING RANDOM ONES TO OURS.

john kane

01-22-2007, 07:04 AM

someone kill me for buying gaming shares a couple of weeks ago. for a 1-2nl grinder, losing a little over $2K mf sucks.

genesisgkh1

01-22-2007, 07:26 AM

The issue here is larger than online poker. Seems the US will not be happy until EVERY country in the world despises us. Invade countries, start wars, spread our way of life, whether you like it or not. The only friend we had was Britain. Well let's just ignore international law and the WTO and go piss them of too. 5 years ago after 9/11, the world cried for and with us. I wonder how many would do that today.

4thstreetpete

01-22-2007, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the US was issuing subpoenas to american institutions. How exactly are they going to muscle foreign banks to comply? This is outrageous. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The foreign banks have a presence in the US /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

(In a Homer Simpson voice) Doh!

disjunction

01-22-2007, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FFS ITS NOT CALLED THE LONDON TIMES, JUST COS U GUYS USE CITY NAMES IN YOUR NEWSPAPERS, DONT GO ADDING RANDOM ONES TO OURS.

[/ QUOTE ]

ONE CITY CAN NOT NOMINATE ITSELF TO PUBLISH "THE TIMES" AND HAVE EVERYONE ELSE KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. THERE IS A WHOLE WORLD OUTSIDE OF YOUR COUNTRY YOU KNOW. FINE, WE WILL CALL IT "'THE TIMES' OF LONDON" AND YOU GUYS CAN FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

keebler61

01-22-2007, 10:29 PM

Sniper

01-22-2007, 10:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. I REALLY hope they mess with anyone of them, especially Doyle. The US will get it's ass kicked since most of these people have become big icons in americana. It's not like these people can't come up with attorneys themselves. Think of how many poker players, fishes, donks, gamblers, idiots will get behind Doyle when tv shows the poor old man in his cowboy hat being dragged around in cuffs for nothing. God PLEASE let these [censored] idiots be stupid enough to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think Doyle has a bigger following than let's say... Martha Stewart?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's different. Martha Stewart didn't get sent to jail for doing her TV show. She was arrested for insider trading, something her fans mostly don't participate in. If Doyle were to be arrested for poker related activities, it would be a direct attack on his livelyhood and our hobby/whateverpokeristoyou.

[/ QUOTE ]

She certainly had significant fan support...

The point of my comment, was essentially to say... what do you think fan support is going to accomplish?

Any media coverage would focus on the "evil" aspects, don't you think?

The Don

01-22-2007, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
someone kill me for buying gaming shares a couple of weeks ago. for a 1-2nl grinder, losing a little over $2K mf sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may have been the worst long term investment strategy I've ever seen.

chezlaw

01-23-2007, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FFS ITS NOT CALLED THE LONDON TIMES, JUST COS U GUYS USE CITY NAMES IN YOUR NEWSPAPERS, DONT GO ADDING RANDOM ONES TO OURS.

[/ QUOTE ]

ONE CITY CAN NOT NOMINATE ITSELF TO PUBLISH "THE TIMES" AND HAVE EVERYONE ELSE KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. THERE IS A WHOLE WORLD OUTSIDE OF YOUR COUNTRY YOU KNOW. FINE, WE WILL CALL IT "'THE TIMES' OF LONDON" AND YOU GUYS CAN FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quite right. USAians are being perfectly reasonable in wanting to call it the London Times.

chez

flight2q

01-23-2007, 05:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point of my comment, was essentially to say... what do you think fan support is going to accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think arresting Doyle for playing online poker wouldn't raise a stink? Fantasy sports got an exemption, but what if it didn't. What do you think would happen if the DOJ arrested Terry Bradshaw for playing fantasy football?

Sciolist

01-23-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FFS ITS NOT CALLED THE LONDON TIMES, JUST COS U GUYS USE CITY NAMES IN YOUR NEWSPAPERS, DONT GO ADDING RANDOM ONES TO OURS.

[/ QUOTE ]

ONE CITY CAN NOT NOMINATE ITSELF TO PUBLISH "THE TIMES" AND HAVE EVERYONE ELSE KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. THERE IS A WHOLE WORLD OUTSIDE OF YOUR COUNTRY YOU KNOW. FINE, WE WILL CALL IT "'THE TIMES' OF LONDON" AND YOU GUYS CAN FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you can! If you are first, you get to be the one who names it first. I have absolutely no idea if the Times WAS first, but still :]

betgo

01-23-2007, 07:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FFS ITS NOT CALLED THE LONDON TIMES, JUST COS U GUYS USE CITY NAMES IN YOUR NEWSPAPERS, DONT GO ADDING RANDOM ONES TO OURS.

[/ QUOTE ]

ONE CITY CAN NOT NOMINATE ITSELF TO PUBLISH "THE TIMES" AND HAVE EVERYONE ELSE KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. THERE IS A WHOLE WORLD OUTSIDE OF YOUR COUNTRY YOU KNOW. FINE, WE WILL CALL IT "'THE TIMES' OF LONDON" AND YOU GUYS CAN FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you can! If you are first, you get to be the one who names it first. I have absolutely no idea if the Times WAS first, but still :]

[/ QUOTE ]
The Times of London is of course older than the New York Times. However, due to the Treaty of Paris of 1783, citizens of the USA are not required to follow British naming conventions.

StellarWind

01-23-2007, 08:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA does not apply to online poker. It did not expand the scope of the Wire Act or any other law. I recommend that you read the articles by Mrs. Shulman at Cardplayer.com.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that playing online poker is not a criminal offense in Washington state? Because unless you want to make that claim, every online poker site that still accepts deposits from Washington residents is violating the UIGEA.

Louisiana is another big problem and there are several others where the law is unclear.

One state is all the DOJ needs to use the UIGEA to attack a pure poker site like PokerStars or Full Tilt. No one cares what the Wire Act or the other fortynine states plus territories have to say about poker.

betgo

01-23-2007, 08:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA does not apply to online poker. It did not expand the scope of the Wire Act or any other law. I recommend that you read the articles by Mrs. Shulman at Cardplayer.com.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that playing online poker is not a criminal offense in Washington state? Because unless you want to make that claim, every online poker site that still accepts deposits from Washington residents is violating the UIGEA.

Louisiana is another big problem and there are several others where the law is unclear.

One state is all the DOJ needs to use the UIGEA to attack a pure poker site like PokerStars or Full Tilt. No one cares what the Wire Act or the other fortynine states plus territories have to say about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
The DOJ can only prosecute based on federal law. The state Attorney General would have to initiate prosecution based on state law.