Gamblin 911 article.

[Tofu_boy]

Our next big day really is sept 4th???
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html
Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
Our next big day really is sept 4th???
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html
Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

the part about not giving cashouts makes no sense to me. the UIGEA doesn't say checks won't be accepted from poker sites, u just can't deposit onto poker sites.

[Beastmaster]

can someone post some of the key points, i don't have access at work

[jonyy6788]

basically this article was a doomsday post. Never ever had I seen this tone from Gambling911.com b4


they say if iMEGA doesn't win their lawsuit that says UIEGA is illegal/unconstitutional, then we're screwed

[schwza]

this is kind of ominous.

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua's Gaming Director, Ron Maginley noted that the online gambling jurisdiction of the Isle of Man recently gave notice to gaming companies that it intends to close all gaming-related accounts.

“Already, some companies here have been given notice," Maginley said. "Under the law here, gaming companies are required to put ‘gaming’ in their names and in relation to getting accounts, certainly the local banks here are showing reluctance to offer new accounts, even to companies registered here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TreyWilly]

My favorite part of this drivel:

Sources close to Gambling911.com have revealed that the banks are quietly supportive of iMEGA though not financially.

So, what are they doing, sending foam fingers and pom pons to their congressmen?

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
can someone post some of the key points, i don't have access at work

[/ QUOTE ]

Online Gambling: It's All Over Without iMEGA
For the lucrative online gambling industry, firmly committed operators are now admitting to Gambling911.com: "If iMega doesn't come through, we might as well just pack it in".

iMEGA is the trade organization that is currently challenging a controversial online gambling ban. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act - passed in October - requires banking institutions to monitor and prevent transactions for the purpose of online gambling activity in the United States.

While there is currently a move by several politicians to have the law repealed, that process could take months, assuming it happens at all. The UIGEA ordered banks to have in place an "across the board policy" demonstrating how such transactions would be monitored. The early July deadline has come and gone with little evidence of a policy change, though the banks insisted they needed more than the 270 days allotted to them.

iMEGA's goal is to get the court to declare the UIGEA unconstitutional and unenforceable. The group says the act violates the First Amendment’s rights to freedom of speech and commercial association as well as the Tenth Amendment’s protections of states’ rights to regulate online gambling.

“We think the law infringes on the First Amendment and Tenth Amendment rights of our members,” Edward Leyden, iMEGA’s president, told Red Herring last month. “And we also believe the government has exceeded its authority in its WTO dispute with Antigua and that too has harmed our clients.”

A Federal Judge in the state of New Jersey has assigned a hearing date of September 4 for its lawsuit.

"iMEGA is our (the online gambling industry) only hope right now and I get the sense that people don't really understand the urgency here," one operator, asking for anonymity, told Gambling911.com Tuesday morning. "We need this thing to work. Once the banks get involved it's all over."

Right now, while many of the top tier payment processors have stopped doing business with US-facing online gambling companies, the banking industry itself had not been required to abide by any ruling until after July 1. Sources close to Gambling911.com have revealed that the banks are quietly supportive of iMEGA though not financially. The organization is now aggressively seeking donations in order to pay for court fees. A few of the online gambling establishments have helped out but not all.

"The big online poker players need to get on board here," said one operator. "We realize that Alfonse D'Amato and the Poker Players Alliance are doing a commendable job but their efforts won't stop the banks in the short term and it is questionable whether they will be able to do so in the long term either."

The consequences of iMEGA losing in its effort? The big name online poker sites still catering to US players will be forced to shut down, at least to the US market. Poker Stars, Full Tilt Poker will not be able to take money in nor will they be able to make payouts.

The writing may already be on the wall.

Antigua's Gaming Director, Ron Maginley noted that the online gambling jurisdiction of the Isle of Man recently gave notice to gaming companies that it intends to close all gaming-related accounts.

“Already, some companies here have been given notice," Maginley said. "Under the law here, gaming companies are required to put ‘gaming’ in their names and in relation to getting accounts, certainly the local banks here are showing reluctance to offer new accounts, even to companies registered here.

Calvin Ayre, CEO of Bodog.com, confessed to Gambling911.com that this will be the first football season his company will not be actively marketing. While Bodog has no intention at this time of leaving the US market, his company is going to be focusing more heavily on Europe and even Asia over the coming months.

"Things have gotten really difficult in the US," Ayre said.


----

Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com

Originally published July 31, 2007 9:50 am ET

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our next big day really is sept 4th???
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html
Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

the part about not giving cashouts makes no sense to me. the UIGEA doesn't say checks won't be accepted from poker sites, u just can't deposit onto poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the worst case we can't receive check from pokersite can we still get Money Order from them or travel check maybe???

[joeker]

Gambling911 is a rag, 70% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper high school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
this is kind of ominous.

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua's Gaming Director, Ron Maginley noted that the online gambling jurisdiction of the Isle of Man recently gave notice to gaming companies that it intends to close all gaming-related accounts.

“Already, some companies here have been given notice," Maginley said. "Under the law here, gaming companies are required to put ‘gaming’ in their names and in relation to getting accounts, certainly the local banks here are showing reluctance to offer new accounts, even to companies registered here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This part of the article is, to put it in one word, obtuse.

The person quoted is from Antigua. He refers to the jurisdiction of The Isle of Man (U.K.). In the second paragraph, where does *here* refer to?

I believe Antigua is part of the British Commonwealth, but not under direct rule of the U.K.

Thus, is the person quoted simply saying that Banks on the Isle of Man would shut down Antiguan gaming-related accounts?

The whole article is confusing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling911 is a rag, 70% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper high school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Remember, the UIGEA only restricts the ability of US banks to send funds *to* online gaming sites.

[erac22]

The Calvin Ayre quote is old news. They pulled US ads to focus on the asian markets months ago, and Bodog still maintains they have no inclination of leaving the US market. Personally I like the move as asians (or at least the ones I've played with in AC) are total donks.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling911 is a rag, 70% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper high school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Remember, the UIGEA only restricts the ability of US banks to send funds *to* online gaming sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

while this is true, and i'm only playing devil's advocate here, but the banks can still block checks coming from poker sites.

while it doesn't make much sense nor is it very likely they would do that without being told to, HSBC bank has told it's customers that "playing poker online is illegal"

[erac22]

Lol, it's funny HSBC would tell its customers something that is completely untrue. Looks like yet another bank that won't be getting my business.

[oldbookguy]

There is something funny going on with this article perhaps.

although I see no time stamp on the story as to when published looking at the AIM market and between 10-11 this morning gaming stocks took a short big dive before quickly rebounding within a few minutes. Though Party Gaming was up / down alot during this time period, this one and the other I looked at both took big dives very close in time.

Someone wanting to buy in cheap by causing a short scare to traders, driving price down?

Ah, I love conspiracies.....

obg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

but the banks can still block checks coming from poker sites.

But the checks don't come from the sites, the ones I've gotten come from a payment processor, like "Chex, Inc."

Besides, ePassporte is still a viable option, and since they do no allow transfers to Sports Books, their execs are under no threat similar to NETeller.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
but the banks can still block checks coming from poker sites.

But the checks don't come from the sites, the ones I've gotten come from a payment processor, like "Chex, Inc."

Besides, ePassporte is still a viable option, and since they do no allow transfers to Sports Books, their execs are under no threat similar to NETeller.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand. i just didn't want to say 3rd party check processing sites or 3rd party payment providers, but i guess i just now did, and we both wasted 2 posts. sorry. but i'm sure you understand what i mean.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the banks can still block checks coming from poker sites.

But the checks don't come from the sites, the ones I've gotten come from a payment processor, like "Chex, Inc."

Besides, ePassporte is still a viable option, and since they do no allow transfers to Sports Books, their execs are under no threat similar to NETeller.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand. i just didn't want to say 3rd party check processing sites or 3rd party payment providers, but i guess i just now did, and we both wasted 2 posts. sorry. but i'm sure you understand what i mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

We haven't wasted anything. Why would banks, who already feel put upon by the impending regulations, go beyond what those regulations say they must do? It makes no sense.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the banks can still block checks coming from poker sites.

But the checks don't come from the sites, the ones I've gotten come from a payment processor, like "Chex, Inc."

Besides, ePassporte is still a viable option, and since they do no allow transfers to Sports Books, their execs are under no threat similar to NETeller.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand. i just didn't want to say 3rd party check processing sites or 3rd party payment providers, but i guess i just now did, and we both wasted 2 posts. sorry. but i'm sure you understand what i mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

We haven't wasted anything. Why would banks, who already feel put upon by the impending regulations, go beyond what those regulations say they must do? It makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]


We'll see.

[EdCota]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling911 is a rag, 85% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper grade school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]


FYP

[TheRanch]

I think one of the problems is that the local banks in Antigua will shut down all "Gaming" companies bank accounts. I think I read this somewhere else before. It sounds like the problem is not related to players using the banking system but rather the gaming operators having problems.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Our next big day really is sept 4th???
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html
Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is fairly weak and meandering, so it would be helpful if you told people what you want explained.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Our next big day really is sept 4th???
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html
Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The September 4th date is basically meaningless.

As of right now, iMEGA has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, asking the court to bar the Feds from enforcing the UIGEA on the grounds of unconstitutionality. The government has not filed a response as yet.

The court has set a "hearing date" of September 4th, but that doesn't mean there will be an actual hearing on that date. The docket entry says:

[ QUOTE ]
Motion Hearing set for 9/4/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 5W before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.)

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, as things currently stand, there's not going to be any sort of hearing and the court will decide whether to issue an injunction based upon the papers submitted by the parties. All we know is that the court will issue a written ruling sometime AFTER September 4th.

All of these dates and procedures are subject to change, for what it's worth.

[Johnny McEldoo]

the article is awfully depressing although i can't figure what the heck they are trying to say. i wonder who are the "firmly committed operators" who are admitting they are going to have to "pack it in"

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
the article is awfully depressing although i can't figure what the heck they are trying to say. i wonder who are the "firmly committed operators" who are admitting they are going to have to "pack it in"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, another Christopher Costigan Pulitzer entry for sure. I am assumiing the "firmly committed operators" is/are not the poker sites because of this line:

[ QUOTE ]
"The big online poker players need to get on board here," said one operator.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

I thought that the article was a push for money by iMEGA.

[Legislurker]

Note the statement about Imega invoking the WTO in court, then totally dismissing its affect elsewhere. This is the worst article since the horrible title about the Treasury poised to regulate online gaming.

[permafrost]

Anyone know why iMEGA named the FTC as a defendant but not the Treasury Dept.? They also mentioned the FTC is involved with prescribing the regs and I don't find that anywhere.

[Legislurker]

On a side note, does anyone know if remote gaming is covered at all in Basel 2, or if its strictly about capital reserves?
Thats been a big banking news story recently, the US actually honouring international treaties and if something is in there that may help us or iMega in court.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know why iMEGA named the FTC as a defendant but not the Treasury Dept.? They also mentioned the FTC is involved with prescribing the regs and I don't find that anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good question. The named defendants in the lawsuit are the Attorney General of the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.

My quick sense from skimming the complaint is that the members of iMEGA, because they are not banks or similar entities, are regulated not by the Treasury Department but by the FTC. Therefore, it's the FTC they're concerned about cracking down on them.

[BiggieFats]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling911 is a rag, 70% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper high school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember when they said the Pokerstars was DEFINITELY going to leave the US as soon as UIGEA was signed.

[JPFisher55]

Banks are regulated by the Federal Reserve System if they are national banks. The FRS regulates or attempts to regulate interest rates by changing the interest rate that banks charge each other or borrow from the FRS system.
The Treasury Department does not regulate the banking system. It regulates the spending of the government, printing money and collecting taxes.

[WichitaDM]

As an online poker pro this is really starting to scare me....

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know why iMEGA named the FTC as a defendant but not the Treasury Dept.? They also mentioned the FTC is involved with prescribing the regs and I don't find that anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good question. The named defendants in the lawsuit are the Attorney General of the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.

My quick sense from skimming the complaint is that the members of iMEGA, because they are not banks or similar entities, are regulated not by the Treasury Department but by the FTC. Therefore, it's the FTC they're concerned about cracking down on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, you could be correct that some members are money transmitters; but are any of them US and regulated by FTC?

I still don't understand them trying to restrain prescribing the regs and leaving Treasury out of that restraint.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling911 is a rag, 85% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper grade school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand them trying to restrain prescribing the regs and leaving Treasury out of that restraint.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kind of an academic point. If the court rules that the statute is unconstitutional, the whole federal government is going to be restrained from enforcing it.

[Halstad]

Nobody since UIGEA has passed has known what effects the regs will have once they are in place or how effective they will be. How does iMEGA all of a sudden "know" once the regs are in place we're screwed?

Is there any reason to believe after reading the article regs are close to coming into effect? Serious question.

I see there is a new column on 911 (http://www.gambling911.com/iMEGA-Internet-Gambling-090107.html)

"Joe Brennan Jr., founder of iMEGA.org, expressed a slight optimism that September 4 will result in a temporary restraining order related to the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act policy provisions."

[Lucky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the article is awfully depressing although i can't figure what the heck they are trying to say. i wonder who are the "firmly committed operators" who are admitting they are going to have to "pack it in"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, another Christopher Costigan Pulitzer entry for sure. I am assumiing the "firmly committed operators" is/are not the poker sites because of this line:

[ QUOTE ]
"The big online poker players need to get on board here," said one operator.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The articles are worrisome, but the quote above makes me think possibly this is the sportsbetting side using scare tactics to get the poker side firmly on board with iMega rather than looking to Frank and Wexler Legislation. They realize poker at least can make a better case (witness epass only hanlding poker), has skill act, more popularity, acceptance, etc. So maybe its wishful thinking, but I'm hoping poker is in a better spot than the article lets on.

[Legislurker]

I think poker has more acceptability and less enemies than sportsbetting. But, as a package, we shouldnt jettison the books. They brought the WTO suit, not poker. And, the books have a helluva bigger handle than we do. If it came down to pure revenue to the government, sports betting would dwarf us. And, if it comes to compromise, having the option of taking sports betting off the table is nice to have in the back pocket.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling911 is a rag, 70% of the stuff they print is crap, it's like a bunch hyper high school boys running a virtual newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember when they said the Pokerstars was DEFINITELY going to leave the US as soon as UIGEA was signed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I remember when they ran an article about Doyle being arrested, only to retract it later in the day.
The thing is trash.

[tangled]

A new story about the story: http://www.gambling911.com/iMEGA-Internet-Gambling-090107.html

" Brennan considered an article that appeared on the Gambling911.com website Tuesday as "dead on". Many in the online gambling community expressed concern over some details. The piece highlighted the need for operators and gamblers alike to support iMEGA's efforts more strongly.

"I do hope that it (that article) does wake up the more cynical and/or ambivalent parties in the industry to get behind this effort," Brennan commented Tuesday evening. "Right now, we're holding things together financially, but only just. We're hoping a positive result in September (a TRO, etc.) will encourage more parties to jump on the bandwagon." "

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
A new story about the story: http://www.gambling911.com/iMEGA-Internet-Gambling-090107.html

" Brennan considered an article that appeared on the Gambling911.com website Tuesday as "dead on". Many in the online gambling community expressed concern over some details. The piece highlighted the need for operators and gamblers alike to support iMEGA's efforts more strongly.

"I do hope that it (that article) does wake up the more cynical and/or ambivalent parties in the industry to get behind this effort," Brennan commented Tuesday evening. "Right now, we're holding things together financially, but only just. We're hoping a positive result in September (a TRO, etc.) will encourage more parties to jump on the bandwagon." "

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because they don't seem to have even made a motion for a TRO in the court case. I speculate that with the regs not out yet, they can't really argue there's an emergency which would justify a TRO.

However, if the court does enter a preliminary injunction against the UIGEA in September, or whenever the decision gets issued, that would mean the statute couldn't be enforced for the duration of the court case. I don't know how to handicap those odds, but I'm not even sure how much it would help us since I doubt the banks and such would consider reentering the market until the constitutionality of the statute is firmly established one way or the other. A victory on the preliminary injunction motion would probably be more of a positive omen than anything.

[SHRINK]

Guys,

Chris used to work for me and he does likes attention and sensationalism when he writes. I had thought his articles were becoming more accurate but apparently, they aren't. There are many statements Chris made that aren't accurate, including who he claims is the current gaming director of Antigua, Ron Maginley, when in fact he was the FORMER one...

He hasn't been in power since 2004!!!

Also, lately, Chris has been in the "opposition" camp, taking cheap shots at the Antiguan government whenever he can.

I wish I knew the motives behind his fabrications but I don't....

[KotOD]

This is nothing more than a scare tactic to get funds for IMega. It's transparent, irresponsible and the writer and the site should be called on the carpet for it.