UIGEA Weekly action Item idea [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

DeadMoneyDad

10-04-2007, 07:41 PM

Today I had a wild hair idea that I tested out.

I withdrew $400.00 from the ATM at the bank.

I walked inside and asked to see the branch manager, who knows me well. She wasn't there.

I asked the acting BM if I could deposit these poker winnings to my account. She of course said sure and started filling out a deposit slip.

I said "Hold on a minute, can you check my accout balance?"

She of course said, " Of course Mr. D$D"

I asked, "If I wanted to withdraw the balance in cash, if you had it, to go play poker would you give it to me?"

She paused a little supisiously but said, "well of course you can do what ever you want with your money."

So I asked, "then why do you block my debit card when I want to do the same thing without comming into the bank?!?"

I suggested that I wanted a refund of the $20.00 in fees that I had paid when I made a deposit to FT since they forced me to use a third party midlle man who charges %5 for the service.

I did add that if the bank went along with the reg that I would keep track of the extra fees I was charged and would be looking for a refund.

I did this at three banks in the local area.

I suggest some of you do the same, it might be easier than buying a bank."

D$D<--just a post whore.........

poorolrich

10-04-2007, 08:55 PM

Get a life!!!!!

jafeather

10-04-2007, 09:10 PM

I'll give you my honest opinion on this before you get flamed to death.

A) We're having enough trouble getting people to support our cause by e-mailing their reps, snail-mailing their reps and calling their reps...all things they can do from the comfort of their home. You are asking people to get up and physically go somewhere...a bank no less, which they (in today's technological society) may have no reason to ever go to for anything.

B) While this would be mildly annoying to the individual managers you did this to, that would be it. Sure, they would tell their superiors, who in turn would tell the managers to deal with it. Only if you could get a TON of people to do this would it pass the mark of mildly annoying.

C) IF you could get past the points in B, then your next step would be getting people to hassle their bank for a refund. They would just get the form-letter "No refund blahblahblah UIGEA blahblahblah legal operation blahblahblah " The only way you could get a different response is if you got a TON of people to ask their bank for refunds...and then you'd just get a different form letter...probably suggesting you contact your representatives....which you probably should've done instead of all this and no one is doing a whole lot of anyway.

MiltonFriedman

10-04-2007, 09:38 PM

I'll give you my honest opinion on this. ....you are lying through your teeth about what you claim to have done. It's not that I do not think you are capable of concocting such stupid scenarios, its just that I think you prefer to stay home and lie about having acted them out.

You really are making an ass of yourself. To mimic the labelled threads by the Engineer, which offer constructive action items, is simply being disruptive of honest efforts to discuss Poker Legislation.

Coy_Roy

10-04-2007, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You really are making an ass of yourself. To mimic the labelled threads by the Engineer, which offer constructive action items, is simply being disruptive of honest efforts to discuss Poker Legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are my thoughts exactly.

strategery

10-04-2007, 10:29 PM

I'm just a lurker, but I agree with the sentiments people are expressing about this clown.

Uglyowl

10-04-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just a lurker, but I agree with the sentiments people are expressing about this clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think D$D is a clown, far from it in fact, but the OP was useless if he went through that much trouble. It is not what I would expect from him.

DeadMoneyDad

10-04-2007, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you my honest opinion on this. ....you are lying through your teeth about what you claim to have done. It's not that I do not think you are capable of concocting such stupid scenarios, its just that I think you prefer to stay home and lie about having acted them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spoke to John after my visits to the banks, he can tell you if he feels I am lying.

I also have the names of the bank managers I soke to today, you want to call them? I'll be happy to give you their names and phone numbers.

I honestly beleive that we as a group can cause the banks to re-consider taking any position on the regs as a grassroots group. We might even get them to tell the FED and the TD to shove the rules back on Congress, it has happend before with an unworkable law.

If we are going to negociate lets ask for the moon as our opening position. Why be reasonable? Congress wasn't.

Middle of the night, POS of at best 1/2 thought out legislation, attached to a must pass spending bill? A plurality of members admit to not reading?

F 'em.

I never said we should not fight the regs by commenting between now and Dec 12th. I'm just suggesting there are many ways to fight this battle.

You don't like my ideas?

Fine I get that.

You don't think they would work?

Fine don't participate.

You have a better one?

Suggest it.

If not?

__________________

If the published numbers about how much is spent on-line are even close then we can make a difference.

Well if we ever stop fighting amongst our selfes.

I've never lied on-line, there is no up side in it.

Your move,

D$D

DeadMoneyDad

10-04-2007, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just a lurker, but I agree with the sentiments people are expressing about this clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think D$D is a clown, far from it in fact, but the OP was useless if he went through that much trouble. It is not what I would expect from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on people catch up.

I don't beleive that if we managed to speak to all 40k bank managers in the US that that alone would do the trick.

I asked the bank managers to get back to me. 2 of the 3 I have long term business relationships. The other was on my way home running erands. The whole process took place while I was dropping off and waiting to pick my daughter up from swim pratice.

I beleive in the old adage that money talks and BS walks. Banks seem to feel this way as well for the most part.

I don't want to talk to the local bank manager or even the district manager. I'm looking to talk to a regional VP or someone from corporate. I think I can make that happen, maybe not.

Todays visit was just a test of a theory of mine that the banks have been ultra-conservative in their apporach as the only real reg to come out of the UIGEA before Monday was a sentencing guideline for conviction of the breaking of the law. 5 years, go look it up.

IMPO making the banks uneasy, might cause them to make the FED uneasy, who with the right push, given the reading between the lines of the proposed rule, just might tell Congress the Act as written is unenforcable.

I made the mistake of thinking this was an open forum to discuss various ideas. Yes my original suggestion to boycott banks and credit cards was at best 1/2 baked. Personally I thought it was at least as effective as watching NASCAR instead of the NFL on Sundays.

The point is we do not have to constrain ourselves to fighting this battle on the Federal Government's ground.

In Poker Terms:

They, the Congress, made a bet that we dumb unorganized self-centered greedy poker players would fold to their bet or at least call and play their game. I say the worst play is calling here, I suggest at least check rasing. We pretty much sat out our first chance to play in this game.

We have the FED and the TD, IMPO in a sandwich move, if can we get the banks to fold. As long as the banks are a player at the table they have a much bigger stack than we do, and because of the no-liability clause in the UIGEA are in effect on a freeroll.

Now you may think I am bluffing or my hand is really weak, but I think between now and December 12th I hold two live cards.

But if I am playing this hand alone I guess I didn't have the chips to bet that I thought I did.

D$D

Uglyowl

10-05-2007, 06:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I walked inside and asked to see the branch manager, who knows me well. She wasn't there.

I asked the acting BM if I could deposit these poker winnings to my account. She of course said sure and started filling out a deposit slip.

[/ QUOTE ]

A branch manager is not going to elevate this issue as quickly as we need them to. As far as the regs go time is short and the solution to please you is so far away.

Maybe if you have a very large balance you may get heard, but otherwise at best it will wait for their monthly meeting, then maybe in a few weeks get passed off to risk management/compliance where best case they may try fitting it in at some point to ask questions of their service provider.

The problem is most financial institutions use a 3rd party service provider for plastic card transaction processing. So even if they wanted to, they couldn't just flip a switch

groo

10-05-2007, 02:05 PM

Milton, I thank you for your efforts in this regard. I respect your opinions and your breakdown of the many legal matters on this issue. Infact, yours are often the only posts I read. On this subject I have to disagree. An attack from many different angles is needed to win most battles, and often time no one knows which angle will be successful or why.

As an example, I recall a case some years ago here in Arizona where a company wanted to build a hazardous waste incinerator and was able to push most of the permits through without alerting the public. When the public became aware, a few people became angry. They held some protests and more people became aware. The final permit hearing was held a week or so later. This hearing was held in room that held about 100 people and it figured to be more than large enough, being that the previous 2-3 hearings had been attended only by industry officials. Over 400 people turned out for this meeting, and most were upset about being denied entry. When the officials running the hearing refused to rescheduele for another time at a venue that would accomadate everyone, the crowd became unruly. Not violent or aggressive in any manner, just unruly. The Sheriffs office responded and arrested 20-25 people for "shouting and pointing fingers", and it came out in their trial "for simply being present." After the police left the hearing went on as schedueled and the final permit was issued.

Then something interesting happened, the grassroot effort that began as a few people protesting at the state capitol and continued to the public hearing, grew to dominate the news. Not because the incinerator was a bad idea, but because of the way the entire process was handle and because people were disgusted with how the police had handled the public hearing. The govenor ended up pulling the plug on the project.

The point of this whole thing is that, again, you never know where these efforts might go, or if they will be successful. In the above incedent these people where trying to stop this project through involvement in the political system and won because other people grew disgusted with gov't reaction and misdealings. The more different types of effort we have the more chance we have for success.

Uglyowl

10-05-2007, 02:51 PM

I agree that banks should be made aware of the findings (I am sure they are being kept up to date by industry organizations now or shortly). Branch managers are the wrong people though (if you want results prior to Dec 12).

I will swing by my compliance officers' (I work at a bank) office to see if I can dig up any industry response yet.

DeadMoneyDad

10-05-2007, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that banks should be made aware of the findings (I am sure they are being kept up to date by industry organizations now or shortly). Branch managers are the wrong people though (if you want results prior to Dec 12).

I will swing by my compliance officers' (I work at a bank) office to see if I can dig up any industry response yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save youself the effort, most of them haven't seen the proposed rule yet, although alerting him/her to the issue isn't a half bad opening.

D$D

Grasshopp3r

10-05-2007, 05:29 PM

Along these same lines, if you are in a state that allows poker in whatever form to be played, should we make a point of depositing and withdrawing money that is clearly for poker for the purpose of establishing standing? Should we make sure to label the transaction as legal gambling or poker intent?

MiltonFriedman

10-06-2007, 09:06 AM

"I never said we should not fight the regs by commenting between now and Dec 12th. "

Of course you did, in your BotCott thread lead paragraph:

"IMPO we shouldn't be lobbing Congress, the FED, or any agency on the proposed regulations."

Are you drawing some distinction now between "lobbying" an Agency and "commenting" on the Proposed Regulations ?

DeadMoneyDad

10-06-2007, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"I never said we should not fight the regs by commenting between now and Dec 12th. "

Of course you did, in your BotCott thread lead paragraph:

"IMPO we shouldn't be lobbing Congress, the FED, or any agency on the proposed regulations."

Are you drawing some distinction now between "lobbying" an Agency and "commenting" on the Proposed Regulations ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am. IMHO the fight should not be on the government playground. To be honest I'd leave the fancy legal arguements to the group of lawyers the PPA and other major poker operators come up with. If in their opinion a massive comment might carry more weight than their single one, then they will let us know.

Personally I think getting out a response now on the proposed rule is foolish for a number of reasons. If for nothing else the last comments are perhaps the best as you get to read all the rest first before creating your response. It is classic proposed rule warfare 101 well perhaps 310.

Ultimately our comments do not carry as much weight as the Agencies are look for a creative solution from the banks and credit cards. Considering how many exemptions I read even with the rule I think we are better off than we were without it. Now a number of previouly blocked methods should work.

What I really mean is collectively we have more leverage with the banks than anyone else as we are direct consumers of the banks. Personally I think if we can find the right bank and hit the right pitch we might get a home run. If we get a banker of any size to agree that any potential class action for recovery of e-pass fees if the rule or law is overturned is worth telling the "agenices" to tell Congress "legalize" poker with the Wexler Bill or rewrite the UIGEA.

Considering that there is also the addition momentumn we might create for quick passage of a poker bill or exemption for skills game exemption, if for no other reason than to get us off their back is worth the effort. Now at least we have some number of bankers suggesting to their congressman/woman hey what's up with this damn poker group?

Can't you keep them from starting some damn class action suit?

If we get the smaller regional bank players involved where there are the numbers and leverage they might convince the majors for us.

I have said from the begining there are no extra points for speed in a proposed reg fight. A good well thought strategy, considering all the angles, that incorporates any good anti-our position with reasonable answers, while building as much support, and creating weakness or doubt in potential positions that even tacit aquisence, if worth the effort. That levarage point IMHO is throught the banks.

Aysemetrical warware.

Just one persons opinion and I am completely open to suggestions,

D$D

MiltonFriedman

10-06-2007, 11:51 PM

" .....I think getting out a response now on the proposed rule is foolish for a number of reasons. If for nothing else the last comments are perhaps the best as you get to read all the rest first before creating your response. It is classic proposed rule warfare 101 well perhaps 310."

Sorry, I must have missed that class.

I would appreciate your insight on how to read the prior comments filed by anyone on the UIGE proposed Regs. Since you are in D.C., and have finishe visiting local banks, can you volunteer to go to the relevant Public disclosure location and read them, so we can best leverage your advice ?

DeadMoneyDad

10-07-2007, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
" .....I think getting out a response now on the proposed rule is foolish for a number of reasons. If for nothing else the last comments are perhaps the best as you get to read all the rest first before creating your response. It is classic proposed rule warfare 101 well perhaps 310."

Sorry, I must have missed that class.

I would appreciate your insight on how to read the prior comments filed by anyone on the UIGE proposed Regs. Since you are in D.C., and have finishe visiting local banks, can you volunteer to go to the relevant Public disclosure location and read them, so we can best leverage your advice ?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not all you seemed to have missed!

Did you even bother to read the proposed rule or just like shooting your mouth off?

Page 3!

• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select
“Department of the Treasury-All” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “Treas-DO-2007-0015” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking.

• Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy
comments at the
Department of the Treasury Library,
Room 1428,
Main Treasury Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling (202) 622-0990.

D$D<--wonders if he's stalking me???

DeadMoneyDad

10-07-2007, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Along these same lines, if you are in a state that allows poker in whatever form to be played, should we make a point of depositing and withdrawing money that is clearly for poker for the purpose of establishing standing? Should we make sure to label the transaction as legal gambling or poker intent?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES!

But you want to add in a layer of complexity to further show the unworkble nature of the law.

We have no legal cash poker rooms in VA, yes there are poker rooms.

So I've asked, if I tell you I am going to AC to play poker will you still give me the money?

They say yes.

What if I slipped up and told you I was going to play in an illegal poker game being held across the street as it is really soft and I don't have the 5 hours to drive to AC?

(Same deal for a deposit of cash winnings.)

Usually a long pause, followed by, "well it is your money, what you choose to do with it is pretty much your business."

Then you hit them with; "then why the hell are you blocking my attempts to deposit to my favorite poker site when I try to do so using this card you gave me?!?"

The usual answer is, "good question....."

The smart a$$ed answer is "because it is the law."

Depending on your mood you can say, "acually your current blocking policy of my debit card would be allowed even by full implementation the proposed reg. if you had bothered to wait for it or to even have taken the time to read it. You pre-mature action has cost me $$ and I'd like it now!"

If they are nice, "well to be honest when this law is proven unworkable and overturned I am telling you now I will be back for a refund of the extra fees I paid because you blocked a legal transaction. You guy's know all about extra fees right?"

Sometimes I'll even pimp the PPA for added effect.

"Oh by the way I belong to a little group of poker buddies, there are about 800,000 of us as of this morning. If I have any trouble with that refund perhaps a class action law suit might do the trick."

D$D<--told you all this was fun

Uglyowl

10-07-2007, 06:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]

That's not all you seemed to have missed!

Did you even bother to read the proposed rule or just like shooting your mouth off?

Page 3!

• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select
“Department of the Treasury-All” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “Treas-DO-2007-0015” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

They skip over Treas-DO-2007-15 at the moment, it is non-existent; I see 2007-14 and 2007-16

DeadMoneyDad

10-07-2007, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's not all you seemed to have missed!

Did you even bother to read the proposed rule or just like shooting your mouth off?

Page 3!

• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select
“Department of the Treasury-All” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “Treas-DO-2007-0015” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

They skip over Treas-DO-2007-15 at the moment, it is non-existent; I see 2007-14 and 2007-16

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was just me....

Also does anyone know if it matters that the proposed rule was in a PR press release and not in the Federal Register?

When I got stuck with the dirty end of the stick they made me publish in the Federal Register.

D$D

Skallagrim

10-07-2007, 03:50 PM

I wanted to add an idea here in terms of dealing with the banks, and may even wish to make it part of a comment to the regs.

Generally speaking as a matter of contract law, it is "unfair" to have a clause in a contract that gives one party the right to ignore the terms of the contract unilaterally for any reason. Example: you pay me $5 for a book. The contract says I am free to give you the book or not at my sole discretion. That is an illegal contract, and you can still get your $5 back if I dont give the book as promised.

The relevance here is that I am sure your contract with your bank and credit card co. does not give the company the right to decline the service you have contracted for (honoring the check or charge) for any reason. I am sure it would say something like, they can decline transactions for specific reasons, including illegality. But if the transaction is not illegal, you should have some remedy at law. The proposed regs seem to take this away: if a bank "feels" the transaction is for illegal online gambling, the regs and the UIGEA seem to imply there is no recourse for us consumers.

The constitution forbids laws that "impair contracts" (with lots of exceptions)....this may lead to another area of challenge. Please tell me what you think.

Skallagrim

JPFisher55

10-07-2007, 03:55 PM

Go for it Skall, good argument.

TheEngineer

10-07-2007, 03:57 PM

DeadMoneyDad

10-07-2007, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to add an idea here in terms of dealing with the banks, and may even wish to make it part of a comment to the regs.

Generally speaking as a matter of contract law, it is "unfair" to have a clause in a contract that gives one party the right to ignore the terms of the contract unilaterally for any reason. Example: you pay me $5 for a book. The contract says I am free to give you the book or not at my sole discretion. That is an illegal contract, and you can still get your $5 back if I dont give the book as promised.

The relevance here is that I am sure your contract with your bank and credit card co. does not give the company the right to decline the service you have contracted for (honoring the check or charge) for any reason. I am sure it would say something like, they can decline transactions for specific reasons, including illegality. But if the transaction is not illegal, you should have some remedy at law. The proposed regs seem to take this away: if a bank "feels" the transaction is for illegal online gambling, the regs and the UIGEA seem to imply there is no recourse for us consumers.

The constitution forbids laws that "impair contracts" (with lots of exceptions)....this may lead to another area of challenge. Please tell me what you think.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion we are in even more trouble than we think. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Upon re-reading the reg I saw a theme I some how missed the first time through. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

The banks can block a transaction under the UIGEA or because of business risk reasons. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

As written we don't have recourse that I see under either premise for "over"blocking. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

We either get our own "horse racing" exemption, wait for a "skills game" bill, or advance constitutional challenges on the jurisdiction nightmare of proving where the illegal gambling actually took place and some version of the imapried contract/no "due process" side. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Yes so it is clear we have to apply presure everywhere we can so that eventaully Congress, the Agencies, and the Banks collectively just want us to go away and let them worry about smurfing, un-restricted gambling, funding terrorism or narco-terrorism, and for the banks making money in peace. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

IMPO we need to advance all of the various areas of leverage as well as brute force frontal attacks, what ever we can collectively manage or drum up support for in the end.

D$D<-- off to watch NASCAR oh that's right BotCott the NFL! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

TheEngineer

10-07-2007, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The banks can block a transaction under the UIGEA or because of business risk reasons.

As written we don't have recourse that I see under either premise for "over"blocking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Penalty-free overblocking is part of the actual UGIEA text.

I added lobbying banks to this week's action thread. Not sure what we can do, but we should try.

JPFisher55

10-07-2007, 05:53 PM

If these are the final regulations, then I predict lots of litigation over this whole mess. But I think that the WTO granting IP sanction to Antiqua will change the whole scenario.

TheEngineer

10-07-2007, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Care to enlighten us as to HOW to access to prior comments filed ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The instructions are on the same PPA page as the instructions for posting comments. Last time I checked, comments were not yet available for viewing.

MiltonFriedman

10-08-2007, 11:26 AM

Thanks.

MiltonFriedman

10-08-2007, 11:29 AM

Thanks, Engineer

MiltonFriedman

10-08-2007, 11:36 AM

Hypothetically, I have a contract with First State Bank (FSB)to send money to PokerSpot. The US then says sending money to Pokerspot is illegal if it is used for illegal Internet gambling. The intervening "illegality" gives FSB a defense in a breach of contract. That the "determination" is left to First State Bank under the UIGEA regs is irrelevant, especially given the statutory free harbor protection of First State Bank for being too restrictive.

In any event, your damages are contractual and would not result in any injunctive relief against enforcement of the Act.

Skallagrim

10-08-2007, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetically, I have a contract with First State Bank (FSB)to send money to PokerSpot. The US then says sending money to Pokerspot is illegal if it is used for illegal Internet gambling. The intervening "illegality" gives FSB a defense in a breach of contract. That the "determination" is left to First State Bank under the UIGEA regs is irrelevant, especially given the statutory free harbor protection of First State Bank for being too restrictive.

In any event, your damages are contractual and would not result in any injunctive relief against enforcement of the Act.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key, Milton, is the complete discretion of the bank to decide what is "illegal." What if the transaction is, IN FACT, not illegal? Under the proposed regs and the UIGEA it seems the customer has no remedy. Thats what bothers me.

A poster a while back brought up the point of selling software to a site and then having his Echeck as payment declined (lets leave for the moment the issue of money coming back, which appears to be included under the regs even though it is not under the UIGEA itself). That guy should have some remedy to insure his obviously legal transaction is honored, otherwise his contract with the bank is worthless.

Or, what if I want to buy a hat from PokerStars. I can prove through documents that I am only buying a hat. The bank still refuses to process the transaction. Again, there should be a remedy to require the bank to honor its contract and process the obviously legal transaction otherwise my contract with the bank is, again, worthless: it can stop anything it wants and I can do nothing about it.

Skallagrim