Letter from Kyl to Bush.......

[Izzy Vega]

Here is a letter from Kyl to Bush. Whats your thoughts?????

March 15, 2007
President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of the millions of families represented by our organizations, we thank you for signing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 into law. The immediate impact of this legislation on offshore operators was overwhelming: online gambling businesses listed on the London stock exchange lost over $7 billion in market capitalization in one day after the bill was passed by Congress. However, the law delegated critical implementation details to the Executive branch, so we once again respectfully request your continued leadership on this very important issue affecting countless families across the nation.

Any progress made over the last several months may evaporate if immediate action is not taken to ensure strong and effective implementing regulations. The House Financial Services Committee Report explained, “The legislation contemplates a mechanism whereby banks and other financial service providers will be provided with the identity of specific Internet gambling bank accounts to which payments are to be prohibited.” In other words, the Federal government needs to provide banks with lists of unlawful Internet gambling businesses.

As we noted in our letter dated October 30 of last year, the best blocking procedures vary by the type of payment system. For instance, credit cards code their merchant accounts by type of business, so they can block certain codes. Internet gambling businesses may be self-identified to the credit card companies, or identified by customers or law enforcement. Other payment systems such as debits from checking accounts do not code transaction types, so they would rely almost exclusively on a government-provided list of prohibited recipients.

We renew our request that you ensure that law enforcement and regulatory personnel commit the resources needed to identify illegal Internet gambling businesses and give the new law the teeth that Congress intended it to have. This does not require a large commitment: Internet gambling companies are very public about their activities (including their funding mechanisms) because they seek a large customer base. A small commitment of government resources can shut down or interrupt the vast majority of illegal Internet gambling in this nation.

Your continued leadership on this important issue is greatly needed at this time, and time is of the essence. Proposed regulations may be released in the next few weeks, and weak regulations will embolden the Internet gambling industry to come roaring back onto U.S. shores. Only through strong regulations can the intent of the law be enforced. Thank you for your consideration of this issue and your continued defense of the rule of law.

Sincerely,

(Senator John Kyl)

[Lostit]

Its funny how when the legislation was being put forth originally, Kyl (and his cohorts) characterized Internet Gambling companies as "operating in the shadows" and being very risky to deal with (therefore the need to "protect" us), but in this letter he says "Internet gambling companies are very public about their activities.."

This guy continues to show how much of a snake he is by twisting the story based on how it best fits his crusade.

[Skallagrim]

I think you have insulted snakes, Lostit.

What Kyl never got, and hopefully will never get, is the real list. Gaming sites a) have offshore bank accounts that cannot be identified by the US unless the foreign bank and government allow it (or the site voluntarily reveals it), and b) sites can set up an endless set of inmtermediaries that, while complicating things, will still allow us to get money there eventually and require continual monitoring by the DOJ to stay up to date.

The DOJ has probably already realized that to stop the 2 things I have mentioned above will require a HUGE amount of resources, despite what Kyl says.

So will the DOJ expend those resources, or give the "financial insitutions" a stupidly simple list of the bank accounts of the publicly traded sites that already exclude americans (being publicly traded I assume that info is readily available)?

We shall see ....

Skallagrim

[counthomer]

Skall,

I agree that Kyl is showing himself to be a total a** (again), but the biggest mistake we make on these forums is generally underestimating our enemy and what they can achieve.

My read on the timing of this is that Kyl is either pushing for the finishing post, aiming to complete what he started, or he has decided that the time is right to address some of our counter moves. I am not sure which, but the former is bad and the latter is positive.

The second thing I would note is that you are technically right on the account front, but I think you have made the mistake a lot of us do, that is to assume that the specific wording of the regulations will define the boundaries of their effects, and therefore the solution simply involves a response to the specific wording. This I do not believe to be the case. One of the real problems we have is that many banks could choose to follow either the spirit of the laws, or adopt an even more risk averse position to the regs. This will lead to a type of 'self regulation' which is beyond the scope of the written rules.

Why do I think this will happen? Well there are very few banks that have the luxury of zero exposure to non gaming US business. As long as they feel that business is worth more than than the profits they get by servicing a gaming company, then any hint of risk will probably see them exit the market.

Furthermore, even if you have a situation where a gaming company finds a friendly bank, they still have the issue of dealing with the US financial system at some point. As long as there is one US bank or institution in the chain demanding to know whether the funds crossing their path are gaming related, we potentially have a problem. Can this be overcome technically using the methods you describe? Certainly, but (as noted below) it may require an appetite for the fight beyond which exists.

Thirdly, many foreign governments will not want to be the outliers when it comes to being the countries within which gaming operators are circumventing US gaming regulations with the sort of bank account machinations you describe. This in essence narrows down the list of possible jurisdictions for offshore gaming accounts, which in turn makes it much easier for monitoring and enforcement. The more the US authorities can push the gaming operators into a small number of locations, the more leverage they can bring to bear on the situation.

Finally we have the big unknown, which is hardly ever mentioned but I know to be a huge factor. The owners themselves. The general opinion on the boards is that there is an unlimited willingness to service the US market, the logic being that the potential profits are too great to be passed up. This is somewhat true, but not generally true. The owners of the big poker companies are exceptionally wealthy, and I think a bad result on the impact (not just wording) of the regs will have many deciding that they have put up a good fight, but it is time to move on. If the companies lose 3/4+ of their deposit options in a short space of time, many will look at the time and effort to implement new solutions and the opportunities elsewhere in the world and say 'enough is enough'. Does this mean they will all go? Definitely not. The logic is still true - where a market exists it will be serviced, but the problem is that the exit of the big companies will cause a cascade of issues, with small sites unable to handle the traffic and payment options. New sites will appear, solutions will appear, but the poker world will be a very different place.

Please don't read this as a gaboonviper doomsday post. I'm actually a big optimist - I think the moves on the legislation front will pay dividends by the end of the decade, and I know that some of the companies are developing novel solutions which will be the saviour in the short run.

However, we should not underestimate our foe, nor look at the issue from linear perspectives. There are huge range of factors that will determine what will happen, both legal, technical, professional and psychological.

[DING-DONG YO]

First Kyl pulls the [censored] with UIGEA, then he is instrumental in this immigrant amnesty garbage. How the hell does this guy get away with this crap? What a sleazebag.

[TheEngineer]

May 18, 2007

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask for your leadership in ensuring that the Executive branch departments responsible for drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 use due care, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow. Also, the Poker Players Alliance was formed to advocate for the right to play poker online. The PPA, chaired by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, now has 500,000 members!

However, the UIGEA is law, and the Executive branch is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – ensure that the regulations address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in Attorney General Gonzales’ last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked him for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your departments as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as the UIGEA regulations are drafted. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[counthomer]

TheEngineer,

I sent your last letter (of this ilk) to the DoJ. I will also send this one as well. Props for your continued efforts on all fronts.

This one I do with a smile, as while I don't think it will have much effect, it reminds me of Granpa Simpson.. "Dear Mr President, there are too many states. Please remove two of them.." :-)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer,

I sent your last letter (of this ilk) to the DoJ. I will also send this one as well. Props for your continued efforts on all fronts.

This one I do with a smile, as while I don't think it will have much effect, it reminds me of Granpa Simpson.. "Dear Mr President, there are too many states. Please remove two of them.." :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

I think we should all write wherever we can. I think there is a tendency to not write to those who won't support us (and I'm guilty of that as well). The problem there is that our opponents don't hear much from us, so they assume everyone in the whole country, except for a few degenerates, is opposed to Internet gambling (i.e., the "millions of families"...on that topic, who the [censored] are these "millions" who are sitting around concerned that SOMEONE ELSE MAY BE GAMBLING INSIDE THEIR OWN [censored] HOME?!?!...Geesh).

Everyone: Rant over. Let's write wherever we can to whomever we can. I don't like to give free cards to anyone against us....they should know there's some price to be paid, regardless of how small. Beats giving infinite odds. Thanks everyone.