Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations

[MiltonFriedman]

I think a thread should

provide the How To Comment information, then

gather posts of proposed comments.

It merits a relatively clean thread, free of political tirades or argument about politics.

2+2ers can pick and choose among suggested comments, a little variety is very good.

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments. Without SPECIFIC references to a part of the Proposed Regs, comments will be dumped into a general comments section, i.e. a circular file. SPECIFIC comments get better reads and responses.

What I want to stress is that Comments are VERY important in building a record if anyone, like the PPA or iMEGA or PStars, wants to later litigate against ENFORCEMENT of UIGEA or the Regulations.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew. I'm glad you added this part. I had my sarcasm pen out before I read it.

But you are certainly correct that making comments - at the appropriate time - is essential.

[JPFisher55]

Any comments need to force the regs to clearly define what is and what is not "unlawful internet gambling." The regs need to specify what games and types of internet gambling is unlawful and what is not. Then if poker is defined as unlawful, it can be easily challenged. OTOH if poker is defined as lawful, we can celebrate.
Without such clear definitions, we will remain in the present muddled situation.

[TheEngineer]

IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the In Re Mastercard case, a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry. Yeah I would greatly prefer the opposite, but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are so wrong.

Please stop this campaign of yours to have poker proclaimed illegal.

Just stop it, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

We need the fact that poker hasn't been deemed unlawful to be able to have enough standing to challenge the DOJ on the vagueness. If it ever comes to that.

Make poker illegal and you take our only defense away from us, DOJ wins. Case closed.

Please, just stop.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the In Re Mastercard case, a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry. Yeah I would greatly prefer the opposite, but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, a Bush-nominated judge could reverse that ruling. There's no guarantee. If the regs did specifically ban poker, the government would likely claim to have some rationale for that....one they could use to drag the case on for years. Complicating this is the fact that there are no U.S. based sites.

[Skallagrim]

The regulations cant MAKE online poker illegal or legal. It either already is or isnt (actually to be exact, the question really is whether transferring money for the purpose of playing online poker is legal or illegal). The regs could say that they are specifically including poker sites or specifically excluding them, but I doubt that.

I posted the below in another thread, but it is a pretty good summary of what will or will not be answered in the regulations. I suggest we use it as a starting point for analysis when looking at the actual regulations:

Can a bank transfer my money for the purpose of playing online Bridge at a dollar a point?

There is no Federal Law about Bridge. In South Carolina, however, it is against the law to play ANY card game for money. Does this law, which way predates the internet, apply to the internet? Who decides that? And if it does apply, does that mean mean money transfer agents (like banks) must monitor every online transaction to make sure its not a South Carolinian playing online Bridge for money or they otherwise violate the UIGEA? How about the fact that online Bridge sites, are not "in the business of betting and wagering (as casinos and sports books are) but are in the business of providing an environment where others bet and wager, does that make a difference? How about if a Costa Rican company sells you "phone time" but then allows you to use those phone credits to transfer credits to an online Bridge site? Should/Can the bank that issues your credit card stop you from buying those Costa Rican phone credits? And why should South Carolina have the right to require national and international companies to know and enforce its law regarding the internet (if its law applies to the internet) doesn't that violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? Is playing Bridge for money gambling just because SC includes it in their anti-gambling laws? Some Courts have held bridge to be a game of skill. Who decides that, SC or the Feds?

See what I mean? Will the regs answer any of these questions? If they dont, who will?

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments.

[/ QUOTE ]



But you are certainly correct that making comments - at the appropriate time - is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a little gun shy about posting any strategy in an open forum. Not to keep anyone from the forum from fully participating but to keep from showing our hole cards.......


D$D

[Grasshopp3r]

Here are some proposed comments:

1. Will the bank be responsible to file a Suspicious Activity Report if it discovers a UIGEA prohibited transaction? De minimus?
2. How does the UIGEA distinguish the prohibited sites? Will they be named? Will said list be published? Updated?
3. What is the bank supposed to do if it discovers a suspected UIGEA transaction? Sieze the account and interplead to the court?
4. What if a site is legal in its jurisdiction? What if the site is legal in the bank's and the customer's jurisdiction (ie Nevada)?

Remember, the purpose of submitting comments is to illustrate how unworkable and burdensome the UIGEA is for banks. Also, there are serious ramifications for account holders.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a little gun shy about posting any strategy in an open forum. Not to keep anyone from the forum from fully participating but to keep from showing our hole cards.......

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

We want to be careful when necessary but, in this case, the comments are all public record. Our opponents will be able to simply read what we wrote there (and vice versa). Besides, our only hole cards are our ability to get all poker players posting comments...no real secrets, I don't think. Besides, if you think of a great idea and don't tell anyone, what can we do with the idea?

[MiltonFriedman]

So much for waiting until the Regs come out BEFORE posting what our comments might want to say.

[MiltonFriedman]

"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
So much for waiting until the Regs come out BEFORE posting what our comments might want to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah, it's your own fault. You provoked it, even while advising against it. Let that teach you a lesson.

[MiltonFriedman]

I did not say I was surprised.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like my WTO defense, huh. Milton, there is case law, In Re Mastercard, already holding that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. Also, notice how the courts are treating the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the DOJ gone after Epassporte or any other entity serving or operating in the online poker industry. The DOJ knows how quickly they would lose that battle and it doesn't want to fight it. My ink drying is figurative. I know that the litigation process would take weeks, maybe months, but federal ink is slow drying. Doesn't matter though; the regs will never be that specific.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a little gun shy about posting any strategy in an open forum. Not to keep anyone from the forum from fully participating but to keep from showing our hole cards.......

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

We want to be careful when necessary but, in this case, the comments are all public record. Our opponents will be able to simply read what we wrote there (and vice versa). Besides, our only hole cards are our ability to get all poker players posting comments...no real secrets, I don't think. Besides, if you think of a great idea and don't tell anyone, what can <u>we</u> do with the idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the royal we , as a nominated PPA board member, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?


There are going to be quite a number of ways to attack the proposed regulations. Some of them for stretigic reasons we might actually want to loose. Some language we might want to back the Gov't into a corner, some we might like vague. Some positions we want to creat a "public" record for a future court action, others might be so glorious we will want to slow play the hell out of them.

So who are you refering to, with your "we"?


D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like my WTO defense, huh. Milton, there is case law, In Re Mastercard, already holding that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. Also, notice how the courts are treating the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the DOJ gone after Epassporte or any other entity serving or operating in the online poker industry. The DOJ knows how quickly they would lose that battle and it doesn't want to fight it. My ink drying is figurative. I know that the litigation process would take weeks, maybe months, but federal ink is slow drying. Doesn't matter though; the regs will never be that specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would arrest the epass management if they knew who it was and they were in US jurisdiction.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like my WTO defense, huh. Milton, there is case law, In Re Mastercard, already holding that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. Also, notice how the courts are treating the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the DOJ gone after Epassporte or any other entity serving or operating in the online poker industry. The DOJ knows how quickly they would lose that battle and it doesn't want to fight it. My ink drying is figurative. I know that the litigation process would take weeks, maybe months, but federal ink is slow drying. Doesn't matter though; the regs will never be that specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would arrest the epass management if they knew who it was and they were in US jurisdiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull.

e-pisspoorservice's customer call center is in FLA!!!!


D$D

[JPFisher55]

Hey D$D, my last two withdrawals to my bank account from Epassporte have taken only 2 days. Their service is improving. They used to take 7 business days. I have no idea why the change.
You are right. Epassporte has assets in the US. I have read that they serve the porn industry but have no personal knowledge.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this the royal we , as a nominated PPA board member, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?


There are going to be quite a number of ways to attack the proposed regulations. Some of them for stretigic reasons we might actually want to loose. Some language we might want to back the Gov't into a corner, some we might like vague. Some positions we want to creat a "public" record for a future court action, others might be so glorious we will want to slow play the hell out of them.

So who are you refering to, with your "we"?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just talking about us, the 2p2 posters.

I personally don't see much reason to try to hide much. It seems like we individual poker players have a simple, straightforward, brute force, task - just fill the comments board with our opinions. Just my opinion.

[JPFisher55]

I'm ready to fill if and when the regs come out for comment. I still have my doubts that they are really arriving next week or next month.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm ready to fill if and when the regs come out for comment. I still have my doubts that they are really arriving next week or next month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. I hope we'll all write often.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this the royal we , as a nominated PPA board member, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?


There are going to be quite a number of ways to attack the proposed regulations. Some of them for stretigic reasons we might actually want to loose. Some language we might want to back the Gov't into a corner, some we might like vague. Some positions we want to creat a "public" record for a future court action, others might be so glorious we will want to slow play the hell out of them.

So who are you refering to, with your "we"?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just talking about us, the 2p2 posters.

I personally don't see much reason to try to hide much. It seems like we individual poker players have a simple, straightforward, brute force, task - just fill the comments board with our opinions. Just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I like to respond to posts that suggest we spend a lot of time worrying about either empowering the opposition or informing them of our plans, as if this is all some backroom game of maneuvering (all intrigue and smoke-filled rooms).

It seems these (just my personal opinion) are usually self-defeating for us, as we saw last year when UIGEA passed. Too many poker players thought being quiet was the best approach. It turns out that being strongly and proudly on the offense has actually been the best path for us. I hope we'll continue this -- strong advocacy for our rights...full speed ahead!

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this the royal we , as a nominated PPA board member, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?


There are going to be quite a number of ways to attack the proposed regulations. Some of them for stretigic reasons we might actually want to loose. Some language we might want to back the Gov't into a corner, some we might like vague. Some positions we want to creat a "public" record for a future court action, others might be so glorious we will want to slow play the hell out of them.

So who are you refering to, with your "we"?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just talking about us, the 2p2 posters.

I personally don't see much reason to try to hide much. It seems like we individual poker players have a simple, straightforward, brute force, task - just fill the comments board with our opinions. Just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I like to respond to posts that suggest we spend a lot of time worrying about either empowering the opposition or informing them of our plans, as if this is all some backroom game of maneuvering (all intrigue and smoke-filled rooms).

It seems these (just my personal opinion) are usually self-defeating for us, as we saw last year when UIGEA passed. Too many poker players thought being quiet was the best approach. It turns out that being strongly and proudly on the offense has actually been the best path for us. I hope we'll continue this -- strong advocacy for our rights...full speed ahead!

[/ QUOTE ]


I have no idea of what the proposed regs are going to look like and what might be the "perfect" strategy for effectively combating them.

But I have been on both sides of proposed rules fights.

Given that there are quite a number of both straight forward and asymetrical ways to defeat a proposed rule and given some of the talented people on this board, IMPO the less "sunshine" of our more creative ideas the better.

I'm sure we can find a way to alert the nessecary people to some of the better ideas.

Or have I spent too much time inside the beltway or re-reading <u>The Prince </u> ?


D$D

[TheEngineer]

I guess we'll see what's required once we all read the proposed regs.

I personally hope we'll not make it so posters are afraid to post their opinions on the matter. I also hope folks won't be afraid to post their comments out of some unfounded fear of writing the "wrong" thing. That's been a loser for us in the past, and it's contrary to the transparancy we've always had here.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess we'll see what's required once we all read the proposed regs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I suggest you take a moment to reflect on any brilliant suggestions or at least PM all the regulars here before posting.

But then again I'm often wrong or so I've been told during 20+ years of marriage.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I suggest you take a moment to reflect on any brilliant suggestions or at least PM all the regulars here before posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see myself PMing a bunch of folks here for permission to post my opinions. And, I don't want anyone here to feel a need to ask for my permission to post. Again, we'll have to see the regs, but I think you'll find we tend to be open and transparent here. I'm not very interested in secrecy myself, but that's just my opinion.

[JPFisher55]

What do we gain by secrecy? All our legal arguments, if needed after the regs are finalized, are already stated in the iMEGA and Kaplan cases. Are there secret ways to comment on proposed regulation that actually make a difference? For the record, I will be happy to contribute lots of comments. But don't ask me to be optimistic that all our comments will matter.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
What do we gain by secrecy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
All our legal arguments, if needed after the regs are finalized, are already stated in the iMEGA and Kaplan cases. Are there secret ways to comment on proposed regulation that actually make a difference? For the record, I will be happy to contribute lots of comments. But don't ask me to be optimistic that all our comments will matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have to try. I'm glad you'll be there with us. We'll know more once the regs are released for comment.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
What do we gain by secrecy? All our legal arguments, if needed after the regs are finalized, are already stated in the iMEGA and Kaplan cases. Are there secret ways to comment on proposed regulation that actually make a difference? For the record, I will be happy to contribute lots of comments. But don't ask me to be optimistic that all our comments will matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a hypothetical.

Lets say one of the "our" lawyers thinks if we can change a few words through brute force comments that makes the ultimate published rule easily defeatible in a court challenge... We don't want to post that idea in an open forum(the lawyers strategy), the brute force comments we plaster the receiving office with. Considering the review a reg gets in the administration this hypothetical is a little far fetched but not out of the realm of past history.

Some comments are open and public intended to raise the ire of the opposition into doing something stupid or forcing them to take an opposing position with more venom that in the end favors us. You've seen some of the stupid stuff that get printed in the various public exchanges like in the BW forum exchanges. Some of "our" comments were childish. Some of their arguments fall over on their own. Why shout obsenities when a reasoned wisper is more effective?

Some of our opponets positions we want them to win without a fight or second consideration of the ultimate value of their position, as it is advantagious to us, as helping them clairify their position to one of greater strength actually hurts us.

Again this is only a personal suggestion and purely hypothetical until the proposed rules are published.

Sometimes I loose arguments only to be proven right in time, sometimes I over think things, sometimes I am completely wrong........


D$D

[JPFisher55]

D$D, you are assuming that the lawyers on the other side will not recognize the legal significance of our suggested changes in language in our comments. I think that the DOJ of FOF lawyers will recognize the legal significance of any of our comments. I am not so sure about the lawyers in the USTR. Their performance in the WTO-Antiqua case has been lacking to say the least.
Our difficulty is that it will be difficult to coordinate comments without discussing the stratedy behind them. Maybe the regs will be simple enough to accomplish this task. However, I think that the regs will be complex and vague so that we will have to carefully review and discuss them just to figure out what transactions they affect and what standard of knowledge a bank must have to be liable for processing a transaction. If you read my previous post in the other forum on the regs, I think that it may be difficult to determine what type of reg that are proposed 2. or 4.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
As a hypothetical.

Lets say one of the "our" lawyers ........


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

That reminds me of the U.S. Army decision to not use the Browning Automatic Rifle (the BAR, the finest machine gun of the era and still in use during the Vietnam War), during World War I, out of fear that the Germans would get their hands on it. The concern over some probability of Germans successfully copying the technology kept us from using it with 100% certainty. In other words, we may as well have not invented the BAR in the first place, for all the good it did us.

Secrecy for us tends to be the same, IMO. An idea not broadly shared is the same as an idea that never existed. Also, as we're still very much the underdogs, there's little reason to not take the fight to the enemy as ferciously as we can.

I've been harping on this a lot because this goes right to the root of what we do here. Our philosophy has always been one of openness. If we weren't, I'd not write the "Action Plan", as I'd be concerned that our enemies could see our ideas. Of course, if I didn't write the plan (or if I made it so bland that no one was motivated by it), we'd be like our WWI soldiers with those horrible machine guns that barely functioned, rather than BARs. I want us to have BARs. I want us to have all the info, and input, we need to take the fight to our opponents. Again, by "I", I mean my personal opinion.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea of what the proposed regs are going to look like and what might be the "perfect" strategy for effectively combating them.

But I have been on both sides of proposed rules fights.

Given that there are quite a number of both straight forward and asymetrical ways to defeat a proposed rule and given some of the talented people on this board, IMPO the less "sunshine" of our more creative ideas the better.


[/ QUOTE ]



If the regs do have areas ripe for player comment, will those comments get much priority? Since the regulations will be aimed at "designated payment systems"; will comments from them be the highest priority/importance?

If the regs simply list the handful of lawful state IG schemes not to be blocked, is there much for a player to comment on since it's now an 'argue with your state' situation?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea of what the proposed regs are going to look like and what might be the "perfect" strategy for effectively combating them.

But I have been on both sides of proposed rules fights.

Given that there are quite a number of both straight forward and asymetrical ways to defeat a proposed rule and given some of the talented people on this board, IMPO the less "sunshine" of our more creative ideas the better.


[/ QUOTE ]



If the regs do have areas ripe for player comment, will those comments get much priority? Since the regulations will be aimed at "designated payment systems"; will comments from them be the highest priority/importance?

If the regs simply list the handful of lawful state IG schemes not to be blocked, is there much for a player to comment on since it's now an 'argue with your state' situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well after a year of thought I doubt that will really address the regulatary shceme required by the UIGEA law, but you never know. When I was the receiving officer for a proposed rule I had to write a summary of all the comments, tally all the various opinions, keep track for the record all comments, present all of this in meetings, as well as craft some sort of response to every comment.


D$D

[Legislurker]

So spam can actually produce results for this?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So spam can actually produce results for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

We you know you will affect at least one person.

The cumulative results are hard to judge in a vacume. Most people willing to comment on a reg will also call the committe members for that agency as well as their own members and any other members remotely dealing with that Agency. So when we would as appointees have discussions out side the regular staff meetings those comments as expressed through Execuative and Legislative offices carried a different meaning to some of the staff but not all.

So the answer is yes, no and maybe.


D$D&lt;--way too long inside the beltway........

[flight2q]

There have only been some 44 comments posted so far (it looks like they post them in a batch once a week). Early on there were a few heartfelt comments that expressed their dislike of UIGEA. But I believe what we need to have more of is expressing dissatisfaction with the regulations, not attacking the legislation that was already enacted.

Some Greyhound racing organization posted their comments. And now some individual Greyhound operators are posting. The poker players are behind the curve.

The regulations are a serious problem. You can see that the Greyound folks are concerned that the banks will destroy their businesses, even though no one should be thinking that the legislation meant to do that. They are concerned about how overblocking is penalty free while failure to block is risky for the banks.

But the Greyhound folks just want themselves specifically mentioned in the regs. We should be pressing it as having a broad impact and trying to get the overblocking danger entirely removed - plus every other concern we have with the regs.