November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[Berge20]

As many of you know, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Wednesday, November 14th at 10am, entitled "Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers"

House Judiciary Committee Hearing Notice (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396)

Please post material, comments, thoughts, questions, etc here.

Hopefully the hearing will be available via streaming webcast for everyone to watch.

It is my understanding that Rep. Berkley and Goodlatte will testify, effectively one on each side of the issue. Generally they will only give statements and do not get questioned by the committee members. The second pannel will include Annie Duke, among others.

[oldbookguy]

At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday.

We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well.

Contact:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself.

obg

[Berge20]

Additionally, if your Member of Congress serves on the committee, you should give them a call and encourage them to attend.

Democrat
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
(D) Michigan, 14th

Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th

Republican
Hon. Lamar S. Smith
(R) Texas, 21st

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

[TheProdigy]

I hope there is some kind've webcast posted.

I would love to watch this.

Berge(or anyone else) can you share with us the implications that this could have?

[Berge20]

I wouldn't want to overstate the implications of the hearing, but it is a significant step at gaining legislative traction.

This means that the poker community has caused enough of an uproar for these guys to take note and look into it more closely. A hearing is no guarantee for legislative movement, but it can frequently be a precursor for some type of action and/or closer review.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope there is some kind've webcast posted.

I would love to watch this.

Berge(or anyone else) can you share with us the implications that this could have?

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker terms think of it as a series of MTT like FT does for PAD or the WSOP. Round 1 is freeroll entry you "get" to write or call your Comgressperson. Round 2 you may get a piece of legislation circualting. Round 3 if you can make an impact like the fly-in, you get a hearing. And so on.

If you bust out of any round you can either go back to the begining for free or use your points to play in that round again. Use up all of your points and you have no choice.

Each round of this legislative series just like the poker in these events the "buy-in" gets higher and the skill of the players improve.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday.

We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well.

Contact:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, please try to get letters to the committee via the contact link, at http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx. Goodlatte's on that committee, so we can be sure it won't be the cakewalk the last one was. That's okay -- it means we're being taken seriously now.

Please write and post your letter here or on the Action Item thread. It only takes a few minutes. Anyone who doesn't do this (especially you guys who think our #1 problem...surpassing even FoF...is the PPA board makeup) will not be taken seriously here for quite a while. I know I'll disregard such posters.

Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheEngineer]

Additional House Judiciary Committee Contact Info:

2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3951

Let's try to call once before the hearing. Thanks.

[oldbookguy]

Todays was a short, brief note that will be followed up with tomorrow in more detail and with a phone call.

Addressed to Chairman Conyers:

I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling.

I am disappointed it is not being offered via web cast.

Additionally, I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the absurd, unworkable UIGEA passed last fall. It is nutty for our government to even be entertaining thoughts of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few.

More importantly, to the world, we are being seen as no better than China. I watched last week with fascination as Chairman Lantos berated YAHOO! for helping China deny citizens access to information on the Internet, now my OWN country is doing the same, denying American citizens access and freedom to enjoy an open and free Internet.

In closing, Sir, please, fix this.

obg

BTW, Glad you are back in action my friend!



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday.

We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well.

Contact:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, please try to get letters to the committee via the contact link, at http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx. Goodlatte's on that committee, so we can be sure it won't be the cakewalk the last one was. That's okay -- it means we're being taken seriously now.

Please write and post your letter here or on the Action Item thread. It only takes a few minutes. Anyone who doesn't do this (especially you guys who think our #1 problem...surpassing even FoF...is the PPA board makeup) will not be taken seriously here for quite a while. I know I'll disregard such posters.

Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Todays was a short, brief note that will be followed up with tomorrow in more detail and with a phone call.

Addressed to Chairman Conyers:

I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling.

I am disappointed it is not being offered via web cast.

Additionally, I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the absurd, unworkable UIGEA passed last fall. It is nutty for our government to even be entertaining thoughts of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few.

More importantly, to the world, we are being seen as no better than China. I watched last week with fascination as Chairman Lantos berated YAHOO! for helping China deny citizens access to information on the Internet, now my OWN country is doing the same, denying American citizens access and freedom to enjoy an open and free Internet.

In closing, Sir, please, fix this.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice letter.

By the way, I hope it was obvious that my original post was addressed to everyone. Too bad this site doesn't have an option to reply to "all" or "everyone". I'd mention it to Mason, but I don't think he's interested in my opinion at the present time. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, Glad you are back in action my friend!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Nice letter.

By the way, I hope it was obvious that my original post was addressed to everyone. Too bad this site doesn't have an option to reply to "all" or "everyone". I'd mention it to Mason, but I don't think he's interested in my opinion at the present time. /images/graemlins/blush.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

Is a nice letter.

That might just be the problem. When you reply to anyone in an open forum you are replying to all.

Either this was an unnessecary jab or you do not understand the medium you are using to communicate.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

That might just be the problem. When you reply to anyone in an open forum you are replying to all.

Either this was an unnessecary jab or you do not understand the medium you are using to communicate.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

I was referring to the field where it says [Re: oldbookguy]:

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread [Re: oldbookguy]
#12905325 - 11/11/07 11:55 AM

I didn't want OBG to think I was specifically telling him to write to the Judiciary Committee. It would be nice if there were a [Re: all] option.

P.S. All of my jabs are necessary.

[KEW]

OBG,

Nice letter I hope you do not mind I sent a copy to "Dutch" my MD Rep.

[JPFisher55]

I emailed the House Judiciary Committee to urge them to examine the proper way of compliance with the WTO decision and to draft legislation complying with the decision before the entire WTO process and global trading system unravels over this dispute over online gambling. I hope that they listen because the Bush Administration will not listen.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. All of my jabs are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is no they are NOT.

Read Sun Zu.

Your refusal to accept winning in a gracious manner is a major flaw.


D$D

[tangled]

I have been composing a comment in my head to send to the committee, and I remembered a question I had forgotten about.

Concerning the proposed regs: Why have our enemies, FOF, NCLAG, not responded publicly to the proposed regs. It seems they have a great deal more to complain about then we do. Specifically, the lack of a blacklist. Not only is this something they wanted badly, but the reason Treasury gave for not including a blacklist - that the legality of Internet gaming in each state is so ambiguous as to make a blacklist too costly and impractical - puts the lie to our opponents assertions that internet gambling is already illegal in at least 49 of the 50 states (or else why the confusion).

Why aren't they pitching yet another one of their patented fits? Am I missing something? I just went to FOF and NCALG websites and still don't see anything about it.

Sometimes quiet where noise should be means something big and bad. I know I have kids.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't want OBG to think I was specifically telling him to write to the Judiciary Committee. It would be nice if there were a [Re: all] option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck no, my letter was already there before you posted.

I added mine as an example, I suggest, and I also do!

As to copy, copy all you want!

And thanks for the kind comments, it was a quick one, maybe those are best, less thought, more heart.

obg

[flight2q]

Dear House Judiciary Committee Members:

Thank you for scheduling a hearing, November 14, about proposed regulations to direct banks, credit card companies and other payment systems to take certain steps to block payments for unlawful Internet gambling, to implement UIGEA. I wish there were a webcast of this hearing so I could see how my concerns are addressed.

I am particularly concerned with the regulatory burden. The UIGEA does not implement Federal law, but involves interpreting individual state and local laws. The proposed regulations state that it would be too expensive for the U.S. Government to interpret law in each jurisdiction, so recommends placing this expense instead on each and every financial institution. This does not pass the common sense test.

I am concerned that the excessive regulatory burden will also lead to overbroad implementation of UIGEA. Overbroad in terms of lumping jurisdictions together whether they prohibit Internet gaming or not. And overbroad in terms of prohibiting everywhere all types of games that are prohibited anywhere.

I am also concerned about the impact on GATS amid unfavorable WTO rulings.

Thank you for your attention in this.

Regards,
<flight2q>

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


Why aren't they pitching yet another one of their patented fits? Am I missing something? I just went to FOF and NCALG websites and still don't see anything about it.

Sometimes quiet where noise should be means something big and bad. I know I have kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO either they feel as I do that the issue is in the hands of the banks. The Fed Reserve and the Treasury gave the banks many different ways to implement these regulations, from creating a black-list all the way to the use of the OFAC list.

The result is the same since we chose not to try and fight the banks by showing our displeasure in any of a number of different ways. As long as the banks are happy and don't oppose the regs then no one else has to try and pressure the banks to implement them. Why waste the effort in a fight already decided, the KY argument.

As to the quietness issue it could also be as I said the way proposed reg fights are often fought. You wait until the end to see where you want to position yourself for the "re-drafting" if needed. You read all the initial submissions and attempt to defeat any comments that you feel nessecary. Then you lobby the Agencies involved once you have a full picture of the comments and Agency views. If nessecary you go to the Hill and presure the Agencies funding and oversight committees.

Dec 12 was just the first date in this issue. The PPA chose not to put any presure on the banks in any visible way to try and change their initial acceptance of the proposed regualtions. So we write letters and hope to get a fair hearing of the issues based on reason and logic.

Sorry but IMO that just isn't the way this game is played nor won.


D$D

[Hock_]

Here's my letter, cribbed from the letter above:

I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling.

I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the unworkable, immoral UIGEA passed last fall. I find it offensive that the government would try to regulate voluntary activities Americans take in the privacy of their own homes, in particular an activity engaged in by so many law-abiding citizens, and which presents no real potential of harm to others.

Even aside from the flawed policy underlying the UIGEA, the manner in which the legislation attempts to end some forms of on-line gaming (some types are specifically excluded) is misguided. History is bound to repeat itself, and much like prohibition, the number of Americans who participate in on-line gaming suggests that it is here to stay. Rather than driving the activity "underground", as the poorly drafted and ambiguous UIGEA is bound to do, the only sensible approach is to regulate and tax.

Finally, it is absurd for the federal government even to be entertaining the possibility of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions (because of the repeated rulings of the WTO on this specific issue) in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few.

I hope that the clear error of the last Congress will be reversed before additional harm is done.

[Jerry D]

This hearing is not important, because according to Mason Malmuth and the powers that be at 2+2 they need to have a congressional hearing on the PPA. So write to congress and tell them to please cancel this hearing and schedule a hearing on the PPA as soon as possible. Thankyou everyone.

[IndyFish]

Members of the Judiciary Committee,

I am very pleased that you are addressing the issue of Internet Gaming this coming Wednesday.

The UIGEA is a very flawed piece of legislation for several reasons:
It leaves enforcement to the banking system, without even defining "Unlawful Internet Gambling"--thus leaving individual banks to decide what is or is not legal. If the Federal Government is unable to make this distinction, I doubt my local bank will have much success either.
It blatantly ignores a treaty we signed within the WTO, which seems certain to cost us tens of billions of dollars per year, if not hundreds of billions. This, to me, sounds more like something you would expect from China than the US.
It exempts certain forms of gambling--specifically horse races, lotteries, and fantasy sports leagues--while pushing all other forms of gaming underground. This is hypocritical, to say the least. How is one form of gambling more "moral" than another?
Because the UIGEA was passed, the publicly traded companies--licensed and regulated in their own countries--were replaced by private companies with less transparency. History has proven prohibition to be ineffective. A poorer product at a higher cost is sure to result.

There are better ways to handle the current situation. If the Government must get involved in affairs between consenting adults in their own homes, at least have the courtesy to allow the citizens of this Nation to make our own decisions. Regulate, tax, and provide age verification, help to problem gamblers, and whatever other protections you feel are necessary, but please don't protect me from myself.

Sincerely,

*IndyFish*

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want to overstate the implications of the hearing, but it is a significant step at gaining legislative traction.

This means that the poker community has caused enough of an uproar for these guys to take note and look into it more closely. A hearing is no guarantee for legislative movement, but it can frequently be a precursor for some type of action and/or closer review.

[/ QUOTE ]

The name of the hearing sound like a "How we can enforce UIEGA", am I misreading it and it's a "Why should we enforce UIEGA?"

[TheEngineer]

Yesterday's letter:


November 11, 2007

House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing in regards to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to let you know that I, and many like me, believe online poker should be explicitly legalized.

To my disappointment, and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was inadvertently restricted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting (1) , and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), this legislation has nonetheless had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

Additionally, many offshore poker sites continue to legally offer Internet poker within the U.S. In fact, some offshore poker sites that left the U.S. market with the passage of UIGEA (most notably Doyle Brunson’s site, Doyle’s Room) are now returning (2). Unfortunately, U.S.-based sites have been prohibited from opening under pressure from the Justice Department. This has resulted in the exact opposite of the ideal situation, from a U.S. perspective. Rather than U.S.-based sites serving the world (and subject to U.S. laws and regulations), offshore sites serve us. We can do better.

There are two bills currently in the House that correct this situation. HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. And, neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish. These safeguards will work -- the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gaming proved conclusively that Internet poker can be effectively regulated. I am comfortable that your hearing will show the same.

Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to insist on reasonable regulations, and we are losing valuable opportunities for U.S. companies to operate sites. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue. I urge the committee to recommend that the federal government reject prohibition and to embrace freedom and liberty.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

---------------------

1. In re MasterCard Int’l, et al., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, (E.D. La. 2001), upheld on appeal by the Fifth Circuit – 2002 C05 518 (USCA5, 2002)
2. www.doylesroom.com (http://www.doylesroom.com), statement on main page, effective October 19th, 2007

[TheEngineer]

November 12, 2007

House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing in regard to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to request that the committee review the unintended consequences of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). Specifically, I request that the committee review the impact of the failure of UIGEA to define what types of Internet gaming are illegal to banks and to legal online gaming services.

Our nation’s banks have been deputized by the federal government to enforce UIGEA. However, they have not been told what exactly they are to enforce. The draft UIGEA regulations specifically state that the regulation authors do not know what is illegal and what is not. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gaming bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by blocking all Internet gaming transactions. Foreseeing this, the regulation authors actually devised a term for this – “overblocking”. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, despite its specific exclusion from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

I urge the committee to review this situation during the Internet gaming hearing and to carefully consider the need for clarifying legislation. There are two bills currently in the House that correct this situation. HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. And, neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish. I urge the committee to recommend passage of these bills to clarify UIGEA and the Wire Act. Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[JPFisher55]

TE, IMO it's time to stop pushing the IGREA HR2046. Rep. Charles Rangel realizes that it does not comply with the WTO decision. Also, I think that we have a chance, if the WTO grants Antiqua IP sanctions, to get a better bill. We can get a bill that repeals the UIGEA, exempts foreign online gambling providers from all federal and state gambling laws and establishes a system of regulation and taxation for US based online gambling providers. However, we need to push for such legislation instead of the flawed IGREA. A law that permits states and sports leagues to opt out and requires foreign providers to become subject to US jurisdiction and maintain records etc. within 500 miles of US is not much of an improvement over the present situation.
If the WTO fails to grant Antiqua the IP sanction and the iMEGA case fails, then pushing the IGREA may be the best we can get.
However, I think that the PPA's lobbyists ought to get ready to assist either the appropriate committee or Congressman in drafting WTO compliant legislation that accomplishes the above goals or at least the first two.
I have no problem with Rep. Wexler's bill, but it has no chance. Also, I am not sure that it will make it easier to transfer money to online poker sites. I think that most ewallets do not want to adopt Epassporte's solution of requiring their customers to separate their poker balances from other gambling parts of their sites. Thus, I wonder if legal online gambling isn't the best solution for online poker players. Now is the time to go for our best law; not a second best alternative like the IGREA.

[oldbookguy]

JP, I agree with you on this one.

What is needed is legislation that in many ways mirrors the defense case in the BoS case as put forth or a simple court ruling for the defense and congress simply drop the matter and repeal UIGEA while allowing stateside companies to compete.

Ideal, however, I doubt we will get.

obg

[chrisptp]

wrote this letter and posted the item with a link back to this thread on PTP news.

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I write in reference to the hearing scheduled for the HJC later this week: “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers”.

Attempts to prohibit online wagering to date have wasted significant amounts of governmental and commercial resources, put our country at odds with any number of critical trading partners, and unnecessarily expanded the government's reach into the day-to-day lives of American citizens.

No one doubts that, much as it has with live gambling, the USFG will play a significant role in the development of online gaming. I respectfully submit that the committee should consider the negative impact and likely futility of a prohibitive approach when determining what that role should be.

Regards
Chris

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

JP, I agree with you on this one.

What is needed is legislation that in many ways mirrors the defense case in the BoS case as put forth or a simple court ruling for the defense and congress simply drop the matter and repeal UIGEA while allowing stateside companies to compete.

Ideal, however, I doubt we will get.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

We may or may not be able to get it, but we can only find out if we try. Why set our goals for half a loaf? Or some form of a split-pot at best and be happy with a quarter share of the high or low end? When we can and should at least play to win the whole pot?


D$D

[Legislurker]

I think its going to take the actual IP sanctions to get something moving. This session of Congress is about to wrap up. Draft legislation to simply comply with the WTO ruling should be being worked on FOR NEXT YEAR. Not a bill to regulate and tax, but one to back off criminalizing it. I am giving up on having an iMega ruling on the TRO at all before the hearing, I had hoped we would. Congress won't be in session again to work till Jan when the WTO decision is handed down. God knows the the Bushfuck administration won't be working all to implement a ruling.
So if asked what we should be doing we should be telling Congress to leverage the executive to make a deal with Antigua, and be prepared to back it up with legislation to decriminalize offering gaming services from locations where gaming is legal. Force states that offer gaming to not erect monopolies or criminalize players using the Commerce and Supremacy clauses. Antigua has offered that route, ban all gaming in a state and they won't push, and thats beyond where I think the WTO would go if they have to rule. Im not sure what carrots there are to offer up as a bone to the psuedoChristians, except a compulsive player tax, treatment taxes, and age verification. If we can make some Senators see immediacy, they may opt for a common sense compromise where they can get some perceived concessions. Rangel is in the Caribbean now and should be familiar with what it takes to comply with the WTO. Im still not sure anyone beyond 4 or 5 Reps are taking this seriously.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, IMO it's time to stop pushing the IGREA HR2046. Rep. Charles Rangel realizes that it does not comply with the WTO decision. Also, I think that we have a chance, if the WTO grants Antiqua IP sanctions, to get a better bill. We can get a bill that repeals the UIGEA, exempts foreign online gambling providers from all federal and state gambling laws and establishes a system of regulation and taxation for US based online gambling providers. However, we need to push for such legislation instead of the flawed IGREA. A law that permits states and sports leagues to opt out and requires foreign providers to become subject to US jurisdiction and maintain records etc. within 500 miles of US is not much of an improvement over the present situation.
If the WTO fails to grant Antiqua the IP sanction and the iMEGA case fails, then pushing the IGREA may be the best we can get.
However, I think that the PPA's lobbyists ought to get ready to assist either the appropriate committee or Congressman in drafting WTO compliant legislation that accomplishes the above goals or at least the first two.
I have no problem with Rep. Wexler's bill, but it has no chance. Also, I am not sure that it will make it easier to transfer money to online poker sites. I think that most ewallets do not want to adopt Epassporte's solution of requiring their customers to separate their poker balances from other gambling parts of their sites. Thus, I wonder if legal online gambling isn't the best solution for online poker players. Now is the time to go for our best law; not a second best alternative like the IGREA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% that we should push for the best law we can get. I personally tend to show support for IGREA both because we have an existing bill out there and because it seems we should support Frank, an ally of ours (again, just my opinion). As I've mentioned before, IMO if we don't show support for it, it will just look like there's no support for online poker.

That being said, I'd obviously prefer something with a lot less regulation, at least like the Wexler bill. Sumbission to the WTO is the nuts for us, of course, but I think we'll have to show some Congressonal support for to keep the WTO issue active, which is where IGREA keeps coming in.

[TheEngineer]

Version not endorsing IGREA or Wexler's bill:


November 11, 2007

House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing in regards to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to let you know that I, and many like me, believe online poker should be explicitly legalized.

To my disappointment, and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was inadvertently restricted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting (1) , and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), this legislation has nonetheless had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

Additionally, many offshore poker sites continue to legally offer Internet poker within the U.S. In fact, some offshore poker sites that left the U.S. market with the passage of UIGEA (most notably Doyle Brunson’s site, Doyle’s Room) are now returning (2). Unfortunately, U.S.-based sites have been prohibited from opening under pressure from the Justice Department. This has resulted in the exact opposite of the ideal situation, from a U.S. perspective. Rather than U.S.-based sites serving the world (and subject to U.S. laws and regulations), offshore sites serve us. We can do better.

Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to insist on reasonable regulations, and we are losing valuable opportunities for U.S. companies to operate sites. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue. I urge the committee to recommend that the federal government reject prohibition and to embrace freedom and liberty.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



---------------------

1. In re MasterCard Int’l, et al., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, (E.D. La. 2001), upheld on appeal by the Fifth Circuit – 2002 C05 518 (USCA5, 2002)
2. www.doylesroom.com (http://www.doylesroom.com), statement on main page, effective October 19th, 2007

[JPFisher55]

I agree that we need the WTO to grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions. If not granted, then this whole discussion and the whole WTO process is moot, legal term for meaningless.

[TheEngineer]

Casinogamblingweb.com Article (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/internet_gambling_hearing_to_be_held_nov_14_by_hou se_judiciary_committee_47781.html)

Internet Gambling Hearing to be Held Nov 14 by House Judiciary Committee

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, has set a date for a hearing on Internet gambling. The set date will be November 14, at 10 AM in the Rayburn Building in Washington D.C.

The intentions of the Judiciary Hearing are to find out if there can be rules to fairly and effectively mete out laws concerning regulation in order to get rid of the current prohibition.

The hearing is a direct result of efforts of the Poker Players Alliance's (PPA) lobbying 'fly-in' they hosted in D.C. last month.

There is not an official 'Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers' list of those giving testimony, however, it is rumored that Annie Duke, a poker professional, will be there to establish her views on the skill aspect of poker.

Also expected, but not confirmed, to give testimony at the hearing are an expert on WTO obligations, a representative from the Department of Justice, congressmen for and against online gambling, and others.

In related news, Rep. Conyers this week signed on to Rep. R. Wexler's Bill H.R. 2610 (The Skill Games Protection Act) as a co-sponsor. Wexler's bill would make an exception in the UIGEA for skill games such as poker.

Ironically, what makes the UIGEA so hard to enforce in the first place is the fact that there are so many exceptions already in the bill that allow horse race betting online, and fantasy sports gaming.

The banks are mandated to enforce these laws, but the banks say it is near impossible to determine what is illegal and what isn't.

The newly set hearing will look into issues like these.

November 10, 2007
Posted By Bob Hartman
Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com

[Capitola]

Any updated word on whether we'll be able to watch this hearing? I can't seem to get any useful info out of the C-SPAN website.

[oldbookguy]

Nothing is showing as you know.
I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this.

Write:
viewer@c-span.org

My letter:

I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers .

This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement.

Thanks in advance,


obg

[TheEngineer]

done

[Capitola]

My letter (probably too long and not guaranteed to be 100% accurate):

I am writing to you in the hopes that you will decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 (Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers).

This hearing is of great importance, since the resulting legislation may impact the USTR's negotiations over billions of dollars in WTO trade sanctions. As you know, the US is facing up to 100 billion dollars in sanctions as a result of its anti-online gambling position and its resulting withdrawal from GATT commitments.

Since many millions of Americans play poker online, the hearing is important to a large segment of your audience.

Also, poker pro Annie Duke is rumored to be testifying, and she is both well-spoken and easy on the eyes.

Please show the hearing. Many of us would like to watch.

Thanks,

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing is showing as you know.
I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this.

Write:
viewer@c-span.org

My letter:

I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers .

This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement.

Thanks in advance,


obg

[/ QUOTE ]

E-mail sent

[Capitola]

Excerpt from the C-SPAN auto-reply. This may not exactly be news, but I thought it was interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Schedule

C-SPAN is committed to LIVE gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on C-SPAN2 when they are in session. Due to this live coverage, we are only able to schedule events more than a few hours in advance. C-SPAN3 carries live events when the House and Senate are in session and offers additional choices in public affairs television.

Each day we decide in the late afternoon what events we will cover the following day. Until the events are complete, we do not know how long they are and how they will air in our schedule.

Throughout the day, events are posted as we know them, but this is often just shortly before they air.

View our TV schedules online at www.c-span.org (http://www.c-span.org) for up-to-date programming information. In addition, on-air programming updates will appear at the bottom of the screen every 15 minutes.

Subscribe to C-SPAN Alert! You can receive daily programming information via email for C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, C-SPAN3, BookTV, C-SPAN Radio and Washington Journal by signing up for C-SPAN Alert! at www.c-span.org/watch/cspanalert (http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspanalert)


[/ QUOTE ]

[tangled]

Chairman Conyers:

I would first like to thank you for revisiting the issue of online gaming. This is an issue that deserves more attention from Congress.

I am a nurse and I have a family. I like to relax sometimes at home and play low-stakes poker online. I always play responsibly and in moderation. If I had to go to a casino to play, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my chosen past time, as traveling to a casino and the time spent there would take too much time away from my family. Also, the stakes offered at casinos would make playing irresponsible for me. As far as my situation goes, the UIGEA is anti-family legislation.

I resent with spitting indignation the idea of someone coming into my home and trying to tell me what I can and can not do there. The celebratory attitude and smug arrogance of many of the selectively anti-gambling proponents is convulsive.

I know that many allege that allowing online gaming will harm society in some ways. This approach is timeless. Enemies of the notion of personal freedoms for everyone have always argued this. There is not a single freedom that someone can not imagine some harm in some way for society. Our founding fathers proved that government can allow personal freedom and still be effective.

This is not to say that government should not prohibit some behavior from time to time due to the harm that it may cause. But it is to say that the onus is on the prohibitionists to prove that the harm really is significant, unavoidable without the prohibition, and that the harm can not be addressed in other, less restrictive ways.

Proponents of the UIGEA have not even come close to meeting these burdens. In reality, only a small percentage of people use the online gaming product in a destructive way. And those that do, would be better helped by professional treatment and effective self-initiated programs than by unenforceable restrictions. For the vulnerable, online gaming is not going to stop just because a law is passed. Many will find a way to play regardless the law. Indeed the only people who will stop using this product are the ones who use it responsibly. With the control that regulation brings, money can be put aside to truly help the troubled gambler. Also, sophisticated and effective technology exists to prevent children from playing online.

Society can be protected without violating the sanctity of my home.

Further, it has been alleged that terrorists might use online gaming as a method to launder money. I must concede this is a realistic threat, because even though there has not been one proven case of this happening to date, now - now -that this industry has been driven more underground with the passage of the UIGEA, the possibility does exist. One of the best reasons to regulate this industry is so it can be monitored and policed by the good guys, and the terrorists can be forced back into their cold, damp caves.

There is more I could say on this issue, but I think this enough for now.

Thank you again for reading and considering.

[oldbookguy]

Very good and effective letter.

obg

[TheEngineer]

Very nice letter.

[Uglyowl]

Very nice letter Tangled:

I used the framework for mine:

Thank you for taking the time to look at the online gaming issue in more detail and give it the debate that it richly deserves, unlike when the UIGEA was tacked onto an unrelated bill.

I have always enjoyed playing poker and online poker has been my preferences for different reasons at different times in my life:

- In 2004, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and was unable to drive the 100 miles to and my immune system was too weak to visit a casino. Online poker was a great avenue to continue to enjoy the game I love.

- Today I am cancer free, and continue to enjoy this avenue of playing. I work full time and am married with a 3 year old son. My family is the most important thing in my life and there is not a more important responsibility in the world than bringing my son up the right way. After he goes to bed at night, I am able to play a half hour to 45 minutes before going to bed for work the next day. If I was forced to go to a casino, in that same time, I would have only started my car and been on the road for 20-35 miles of a 100 mile trip.

To go further, my wife even plays a couple times per month, usually tournaments where the entry fee is $1. It is very hard to find tournaments under $100 in the casino.

Technology has offered a lot of great things in our country which makes activities cheaper, more convenient, and with more choices. Poker is like any other activity in that there is risk and a very small percentage of people who abuse it. The answer is not driving the game underground and making criminals of the millions who play the game responsibly. These problems and risks need to be addressed and safeguards put in place.

In closing I would like to thank you for taking the time to review this and taking into account the freedoms of Americans.

"Uglyowl's real name"

[Skallagrim]

For the sake of encouraging others, here is my letter:

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing concerning the upcoming hearing on internet gaming and the UIGEA.

First, a little about myself and why I am concerned. I am a 48 year old practicing attorney in NH. All my life I have enjoyed playing games of skill. From chess and checkers, to video and computer games, to highly complex military simulation games, the intellectual challenge presented by such activities has helped me pass many an hour in a manner far better, I believe, than the passive watching of entertainment. With the advent of the internet, I am now able to play skill games against competitors from all over the world, in the comfort of my own home, with my family close by. I do not want to lose that ability, and that is why I am concerned enough to write this.

Please note that I have used the words “skill games” above. I have very little interest in gambling online. Indeed, other than the occasional Las Vegas vacation, I have no interest in gambling at all.

A few years ago I, along with much of the rest of America, rediscovered the classic American skill game of Poker. I was aware that many folks consider poker gambling, but after watching professional players on TV consistently win, and after doing a fair bit of research, it became clear to me that poker was a game of skill, quite so in fact, as the need to employ math and psychological reasoning to a series of changing, random events in order to achieve success at poker makes it a game of fascinating skill.

So I began playing poker online to develop those skills and meet the challenge that is a poker game. First, of course, I researched the legality of playing online poker. I discovered that the Federal Courts seem pretty convinced that online poker does not violate the Federal Wire act (see, e.g., In re MasterCard Int’l, et al., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, (E.D. La. 2001), upheld on appeal by the Fifth Circuit – 2002 C05 518 (USCA5, 2002)) and so the only way online poker could be illegal would be if it violates state law. The law in my state of New Hampshire defines “gambling” as risking anything of value “on a future contingent event not under one’s control or influence....” NH RSA 647:2, II, (d). Some unfamiliar with the game think this applies to poker because a player cannot influence the cards. The problem with that reasoning, though, is that THE CARDS DO NOT ALWAYS OR ALONE DECIDE THE WINNER. In poker, as those familiar know, its not the best hand that wins, its the best hand of those left at the end of the betting, and if only one is left at any time he or she wins regardless of the cards. So while the players may not influence what the next card is, the players certainly and undeniably influence (through betting, raising and folding) who is there at the end to see the cards, and whether the cards are seen at all. Poker is clearly not gambling under New Hampshire law. (See, also: Opinion of the Justices, 73 NH 625 (1906) (distinguishing, under old law, wagering amongst players in a contest, and wagering on the contests of others, finding only the latter to be “gambling”).

Which brings me to the main point: the UIGEA as it is currently being finalized through the regulation process is almost certainly going to have a significant negative effect on my ability to continue to enjoy my legally playing skill games for money on the internet. This is so because the UIGEA regulations as proposed fail to include any specific definition of what is and what is not “unlawful internet gambling.” At the same time the regulations have a specific exemption for financial institutions to prevent them from consequences for blocking legal internet gaming, and specify penalties for allowing unlawful internet gambling. In the regulations themselves, the writers note the extreme difficulty of defining “unlawful internet gambling” due to the open questions regarding state laws and the specific activity they may or may not cover. Obviously, if the regulation writers believe its too difficult to specifically define what is or is not “unlawful internet gambling” how can anyone reasonably expect the financial institutions to do it? In accord, The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has recently issued an opinion indicating that such an endeavor is well nigh impossible for a financial institution.

So what will the financial institutions do if the current law and regulations are not changed? Obviously they have every incentive to block ANY transaction that might even remotely be labeled “unlawful internet gambling” and that will almost certainly include blocking transactions to any of the skill games internet sites I enjoy playing legally on from the state of New Hampshire. I truly doubt any amount of writing, explaining and legal reasoning will convince any financial institution to leave their safe haven and venture into continuing to fund my playing just because I as a New Hampshire lawyer can present them with the argument that my funding of play at Bridge sites, Chess sites, Wargaming sites, and, yes, Poker sites, does not violate any law.

Therefore, Chairman Conyers and members of the committee, I must turn to you for your help if I am going to be able to continue my internet skill gaming. The Honorable Representative Wexler has introduced H.R. 2610, the “Skill Game Protection Act.” I strongly urge the committee to support this legislation so that I, and all others whose spouses enjoy having them home in the evenings as opposed to going to places of gaming, can continue our favorite pastime(s).

I would also note that I am not unmindful that any game, especially one where the potential for profit is significant (like poker, due to its singular popularity) may become a problem for certain individuals. Although in my experience it is clear that people who develop problem gambling (a serious addiction as I well know from my work) rarely find themselves at risk in skill games (they almost always prefer race and/or sports betting and games of pure chance), that does not mean there will not be some problem players out there. But it is also clear to me that the best way to identify and help a problem player is through site regulation, not prohibition. The criminal bookie has no incentive to help the problem gambler; a legal, regulated site has every incentive because preserving that legality is paramount to continuing to exist and profit. The same is true for preventing juveniles from gaming for money.

Please, members of the committee, support the Skill Games Protection Act and include in it the appropriate means to minimize the problems of addiction and underage participation. That would be, in my opinion, the best possible result for everyone concerned.

"Skallagrim"

I also intend to use this basic format to write my comment to the regulations (due by 12/12/07 remember) and to my Representatives in the next few weeks.

[TheEngineer]

Very nice letter as well Owl. I've mentioned it before, but congrats again on beating the cancer.

[TheEngineer]

Awesome letter Skallagrim. Thanks for posting it.

[tangled]

Thanks to all the kind words expressed here and in the pm from Deadmoney. But frankly, Owl, yours is better. I wish every news org. could get a copy of it.

I must admit I don't know that much about the condition you struggled with -I'll have to do a little research- but I wish you great luck and continued courage.

[oldbookguy]

Finest letter I beleve I have read.

obg

[whangarei]

Here is the lineup (http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=882) for the hearing:

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Catherine Hanaway, US Attorney, Missouri
-- she has been an active opponent of ours, prosecuting the BetOnSports case and the Sporting News gambling ads case
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Professor Joseph Weiler, NYU School of Law
-- expert on the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Michael Calopy, Aristotle, Inc.
-- he testified last time on technology to prevent underage IG
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Valery Abend, Treasury Department
-- adviser on IG ( US Treasury - Valerie Abend (http://treas.gov/organization/bios/abend-e.html))
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Annie Duke

[TheEngineer]

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) rated A+
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) rated F-

I guess that's a wash

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Catherine Hanaway, US Attorney, Missouri
-- she has been an active opponent of ours, prosecuting the BetOnSports case and the Sporting News gambling ads case
bad news there: www.casinoportalen.dk/news/externalnews.asp?curpage=86&id=980 (http://www.casinoportalen.dk/news/externalnews.asp?curpage=86&id=980) . She's a real crusader against all Internet gaming.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Professor Joseph Weiler, NYU School of Law
-- expert on the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO
I don't know where Weiler stands on Internet gaming or on the specific free trade issues relative to Internet gaming and the WTO. Just the fact that this is being discussed at all in Congress means it's a positive for us.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Michael Calopy, Aristotle, Inc.
-- he testified last time on technology to prevent underage IG
He was very solid at the June 8 hearing...excellent for us

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Valery Abend, Treasury Department
-- adviser on IG ( US Treasury - Valerie Abend (http://treas.gov/organization/bios/abend-e.html))
As an admimistration official, I believe she's against us. I guess we'll see.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Annie Duke
She's a good speaker, especially for this type of situation.

So, there are two people strongly for us, (Duke and Berkley), one person on our side (Calopy), one person who's testimony will be good for us (Weiler), one person somewhat against us (Abend) and two people strongly against us (Goodlatte and Hanaway). Could be worse.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the lineup (http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=882) for the hearing:

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Catherine Hanaway, US Attorney, Missouri
-- she has been an active opponent of ours, prosecuting the BetOnSports case and the Sporting News gambling ads case
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Professor Joseph Weiler, NYU School of Law
-- expert on the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Michael Calopy, Aristotle, Inc.
-- he testified last time on technology to prevent underage IG
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Valery Abend, Treasury Department
-- adviser on IG ( US Treasury - Valerie Abend (http://treas.gov/organization/bios/abend-e.html))
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Annie Duke

[/ QUOTE ]

This will ne no cake walk like the last hearing.
We need to be writing letters to the committee.

I wrote concerning age verification as follows:

Chairman Conyers and Members Judiciary Committee;

I am very pleased to see that a hearing is being held concerning Internet Gaming.

To begin with, I do hope a change is coming and this hearing will be web cast for myself and all who are interested to watch; much is at stake.

Though I am in no way opposed to Internet Gaming, I would very much like my government to establish a viable and working framework for International commerce to be secure and safe.

I note that Mr. Michael Colopy, Senior Vice President of Communications, Aristotle, Inc. is going to testify concerning the viability of age verification to prevent minors from accessing gaming.

Additionally, I note with interest that such Internet giants as AOL and MSN as affiliates of World Winner and World Winner itself, a Newton, Ma. company has no problem concerning this.

World Winner provides ‘SKILL’ gaming now in the United States to 39 states. As a testament to the reliability of the software used in age verification by this American Gaming Company, they even allow AOL and MSN to market these games via link on the same page as children’s games and have no problems I have read concerning underage gaming.

Sincerely,

XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXX, XX

[JPFisher55]

I don't get the inclusion of Catherine Hanaway. Somehow having a prosecutor in an ongoing case concerning online gambling that might be affected by the WTO decision rubs me the wrong way.
First, the bias is obvious. Also, Skall, could she not prejudice the defendants in the BetOnSports case? I would not have expected any of the participants in that case to be testifying before Congress while the case is still open and active.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the inclusion of Catherine Hanaway. Somehow having a prosecutor in an ongoing case concerning online gambling that might be affected by the WTO decision rubs me the wrong way.
First, the bias is obvious. Also, Skall, could she not prejudice the defendants in the BetOnSports case? I would not have expected any of the participants in that case to be testifying before Congress while the case is still open and active.

[/ QUOTE ]

She used to be the Republican Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives as well. Prior to that, she ran "F" rated U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond's district office in St. Louis in the early 1990s.

[ QUOTE ]
LEGISLATIVE STANDS Hanaway's legislative record reflects her conservative beliefs. She has voted with the anti-abortion camp, earning the endorsement of Missouri Right to Life. In debate, she tried to amend a school safety bill to require a shortened version of the Ten Commandments in every Missouri classroom. She has also opposed collective bargaining for public employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
The Guardian says that Hanaway (42) led George Bush's presidential campaign in Missouri and was rewarded by the White House with the US attorney's job even though she had not practised criminal law for a decade. Her previous role was as the first woman speaker of the Missouri house, where some Democrats described her as "contentious" and "bludgeoning". One electoral opponent dubbed her "the bully of Jefferson City".

[/ QUOTE ]

[Skallagrim]

She's baaaaad. But not particularly smart. That might help if she's asked some hard questions. But she is a crusader, no doubt, and will stand her FOF friendly ground.

As long as she does not mention the BetonSports case's specific facts, the line is not crossed. If she relates specific facts, I would expect Kaplan's lawyers to move for dismissal (which they wont get) and then a change of venue or her recusal from the case (which they might).

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

It's not her obvious bias. Rep. Goodlatte can testify. But Ms. Hanaway represents the federal government in an ongoing criminal case involving online gambling. I guess without a gag order by the court, then she can legally testify. But IMO, she can only hurt the government's case in the BetOnSports case. I guess I am old fashioned and believe that attorneys in ongoing cases should not comment publically on a case in which they are involved or the law surrounding it. I would think that this would be especially true for prosecutors. But what do I know. I am not a litigator and have never been involved in a criminal case in any capacity.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope there is some kind've webcast posted.

I would love to watch this.

Berge(or anyone else) can you share with us the implications that this could have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully this is the webcast link???

http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx

[TheEngineer]

They just added an FoF guy:

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

[TheEngineer]

Witness List

Panel I:

/images/graemlins/spade.gif The Honorable Shelley Berkley
U.S. House of Representatives Nevada, 1st District
/images/graemlins/spade.gif The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
U.S. House of Representatives Virginia 6th District

Panel II:

/images/graemlins/spade.gif The Honorable Catherine Hanaway
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Missouri
U.S. Department of Justice
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Joseph Weiler
New York University
School of Law
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Valerie Abend
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy
U.S. Department of the Treasury
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Annie Duke
Los Angeles, CA
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Michael Colopy
Aristotle

[oldbookguy]

Very good, they have added it!

At least if C-span is covering other things we can watch.

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
She's baaaaad. But not particularly smart.

[/ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't underestimate her one bit. I actually know Catherine quite well and have spent a not insiginificant amount of time with her in previous cycles.

A decent amount of ruthlessness is one of her most admriable qualities.

I wish I could be there just to see the whole thing play out from a personal perspective. This would be the first time I've had to oppose her on a campaign or cause.

Damn it is a small world.


D$D

[Skallagrim]

I dont underestimate her D$D, she will have good prepared remarks and she will stand her ground. My sources tell me, however, that if she can be hit with the unexpected she does not respond well on her feet. This is actually quite typical of a politician and of a prosecutor. I doubt it will manifest itself in the committe hearing, but I can hope.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont underestimate her D$D, she will have good prepared remarks and she will stand her ground. My sources tell me, however, that if she can be hit with the unexpected she does not respond well on her feet. This is actually quite typical of a politician and of a prosecutor. I doubt it will manifest itself in the committe hearing, but I can hope.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I was quite impressed with her political skills but totally unimpressed with her interpersonal and managment skills. She reads situations and other political strategy quite well. I know nothing of her court room skills. Politically she is a smart operator who is fairly well regarded and has decent connections all the way to the White House for what that will be worth in the next year.


D$D

[PPAdc]

I have been in hearing prep most of the day. I think we will have a strong turnout tomorrow of members who will be asking the right questions. No one can perdict how these things go, but I think we should fair very well. Annie is psyched and will do a great job.

I feel like an ass for asking, but I have the DOJ testimony but don't know how to post a pdf (or if you can) on here. Can someone please quickly advise and I can post. Otherwise I will send now to TE and ask if he can.

John A. Pappas
Poker Players Alliance
Exec. Director

[Skallagrim]

"Well I was quite impressed with her political skills but totally unimpressed with her interpersonal and managment skills."

For whatever this point is worth, I think we are in agreement. When she can map out a plan in advance, its pretty good. When faced with having to respond without preparation (whether in front of a jury or in a personel meeting, or dealing with unexpected employee questions) she falters. Responding quickly and effectively to the moment is probably the intellectual skill I admire the most. As a defense lawyer, of course, it is an invaluable part of my job (and usually the only advantage I have in a courtroom). So if I were a committee staffer out to weaken her presentation, I'd provide my congressperson with a question outside the box (something like: "is it in accord with your views to prosecute country clubs which encourage their members to wager on their golf or tennis games?). She would be slowed, if not stopped, by that, because its not part of the pre-thought strategy/message.

Anyway, its an intellectual exercise at best. Not likely to happen.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

Here's her testimony for tomorrow (sorry about the lack of formatting):

Statement of
Catherine L. Hanaway
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Missouri
United State Department of Justice

Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary

November 14, 2007

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Catherine L. Hanaway. I am the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Today I am pleased to offer the views of the Department of Justice on the issue of Internet gambling.

Background

As in the physical world, gambling in the cyber world takes many different forms. In some instances, the operator of the website runs the gambling operation, including processing of payments, and bets and wagers are transmitted via the website. In other instances, payment and collection of monies are conducted in person while the placement of bets occurs using the website. In still other instances, the bettor can establish an account with the gambling business, get information from the website, but place the bets using the telephone. There are even “peer to peer” gambling websites, where the website operator does not set the bets, rather the customers set the bets. Internet gambling includes many different types of gambling. The Department’s view for some time has been that all forms of Internet gambling, including sports wagering, casino games, and card games, are illegal under federal law. While many of the federal statutes do not use the term “Internet gambling,” we believe that their statutory language is sufficient to cover Internet gambling.

As we have noted on several occasions, the Department believes that Internet gambling should remain illegal. Internet gambling poses an unacceptable risk due to the potential for gambling by minors and compulsive gambling. We note that Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, submitted a statement for the record for the April 8, 2007 hearing on Internet gambling held by the House Committee on Financial Services. In this statement for the record, Mr. Whyte stated that “it is likely that individuals with gambling problems will find the internet attractive for pursuing their addiction. Risk factors include underage access, high speed of play, anonymity, social isolation, use of credit/non-cash, 24-hour availability.”

Internet gambling carries a potential for fraud and money laundering and the involvement of organized crime in online gambling. For example, a recent indictment brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York charged members of the Uvari group, which included associates of the Gambino Organized Crime Family, with violations of Sections 1084, 1952, and 1955. Section 1084 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits one engaged in the business of betting or wagering from using a wire communication facility in interstate or foreign commerce to transmit bet or wagers. Section 1955 prohibits five or more persons from conducting, financing, managing, supervising, directing or owning all or part of an illegal gambling business, which operates in violation of state law. Section 1952 prohibits the use of interstate facilities, interstate travel or use of the mails to either distribute proceeds or to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate unlawful activity, including a business enterprise involving gambling in violation of state or federal law. The Uvari Group established wagering accounts for their customers with off-site gambling businesses and the customers placed bets on horse races and other sporting events over the Internet and the telephone. Six defendants, including the lead defendants, Gerald Uvari, Cesare Uvari, and Anthony Uvari, pled guilty to a Section 1955 violation. Two pled guilty to Section 1084 violations. Five defendants pled guilty to conspiracy. The case is still pending against two defendants and the case was dismissed against two defendants.

Current Legal Authority and Enforcement Efforts

Legal Authority

As we have stated on previous occasions, the Department interprets existing federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§1084, 1952, and 1955, as pertaining to and prohibiting Internet gambling. These statutes pertain to more than simply sports wagering. As I previously stated, Sections 1084, 1952, and 1955 are the primary federal gambling statutes that are applicable to Internet gambling. Section 1084, which is also known as the Wire Act, prohibits a business of betting or wagering from using a “wire communication facility” in interstate or foreign commerce for the transmission of bets or wagers. It is the Department’s view, and that of at least one federal court (the E.D.Mo.), that this statute applies to both sporting events and other forms of gambling, and that it also applies to those who send or receive bets in interstate or foreign commerce, even if it is legal to place or receive bets in both the sending jurisdiction and the receiving jurisdiction. Section 1952 requires the use of “facilities in interstate commerce.” Section 1952(b)(I) defines the term "unlawful activity" as including "any business enterprise involving gambling, . . . in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States . . ." Section 1955 is the illegal gambling business statute. Unlike Section 1084, Section 1955 requires that there be a violation of state law. No state’s law permits unregulated gambling, whether on the Internet or otherwise. Further, the scope of the gambling activities covered by Section 1955 is broad. Section 1955 (b)(2) provides that the term "`gambling’ includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein." The state law does not need to be an Internet specific law. Even statutes such as promotion of gambling statutes may be sufficient as the state law violation.

In October 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”) was enacted. This statute was codified at 31 U.S.C. §§5361-5367, and it prohibits the acceptance of the specified forms of payments for unlawful Internet gambling by a business of betting or wagering. It is the view of the Department that Internet gambling

was illegal under existing federal criminal statutes even before the UIGEA. Since the enactment of this statute, several Internet gambling businesses have ceased accepting bets and wagers from individuals in the United States. For example, the Financial Times reported that PartyGaming quit the U.S. market, causing a 68 percent drop in group revenues.

Unlike other statutes, the UIGEA is specific to Internet gambling. The statute defines the terms “unlawful internet gambling” and “bets or wagers.” However, those definitions are only applicable to that statute. Additionally, the UIGEA does not specify what forms of internet gambling are illegal, but instead relies upon existing federal and state statutes for that purpose.

The UIGEA required the Department of the Treasury and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Attorney General, to issue regulations to implement applicable provisions of the UIGEA. These agencies consulted with the Department during the drafting process. The regulations were published for public comment in the Federal Register on October 4, 2007. As stated in the Federal Register notice, “the proposed rule designates certain payment systems that could be used in connection with unlawful Internet gambling transactions restricted by the [UIGEA]. The proposed rule requires participants in designated payment systems to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit transactions in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. . . . Finally, the proposed rule describes the types of policies and procedures that non-exempt participants in each type of designated payment system may adopt in order to comply with the Act and includes non-exclusive examples of policies and procedures which would be deemed to be reasonably designed to prevent or prohibit unlawful Internet gambling transactions restricted by the Act.” The time period for the public to submit comments on the proposed regulations to the Department of the Treasury or to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve ends on December 12, 2007.

Nonetheless, there have been misconceptions that Internet gambling is only now illegal due to the UIGEA. The Department previously supported efforts to amend federal criminal statutes to eliminate any misconceptions concerning their applicability to illegal Internet gambling. We also supported increasing the term of imprisonment for violations of these statutes.

Enforcement Efforts

When the charges against NETeller, an Internet payment company, were announced on January 16, 2007, in the Southern District of New York, FBI Assistant Director Mershon stated that “Internet gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry. A significant portion of that is the illegal handling of Americans’ bets with offshore gaming companies, which amounts to a colossal criminal enterprise masquerading as legitimate business. There is ample indication these defendants knew the American market for their services was illegal. The FBI is adamant about shutting off the flow of illegal cash.” The Department continues to investigate and prosecute Internet gambling. Currently, the FBI has several pending investigations concerning Internet gambling and the FBI has been the lead agency on several other investigations, which have already led to prosecutions. The FBI coordinates and consults with the Department on issues arising in Internet gambling investigations, particularly on international issues.

Most of the prosecutions brought to date have been the result of joint investigations by federal and state law enforcement agencies. For example, the NETeller prosecution in the Southern District of New York was the result of investigative efforts of the FBI with assistance from the United States Customs & Border Protection, the United States Coast Guard, and the Virgin Islands Police. The prosecution of BetonSports, PLC, which owned several Internet sportsbooks and casinos, in the Eastern District of Missouri was the result of a joint investigation by the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation with assistance from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Tampa Police Department, the Jacksonville, Florida Sheriff’s office, NFL Security, and the NCAA Enforcement Office. The prosecution of Gold Medal Sports, an Internet gambling sportsbook in the Western District of Wisconsin in 2001-2002, was the result of an investigation by the IRS, Criminal Investigative Division, the FBI, United States Postal Inspection Service, and the State of Wisconsin’s Department of Justice.

These joint efforts have led to several successful and ongoing prosecutions, the latter of which I cannot comment on beyond the information available in the public record. For example, on July 18, 2007, in the Southern District of New York, the Internet payment company, NETeller, admitted criminal wrongdoing and agreed to forfeit $136,000,000 for its part in a conspiracy to promote Internet gambling businesses and to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. The company also agreed to return $94 million held in the accounts of U.S. customers since January 2007 and will submit to a monitor for a period of 18 months. Two founders of NETeller, Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre, who are Canadian citizens, pled guilty to conspiring to promote illegal Internet gambling businesses. They agreed to forfeit $100 million. In March 2007, three individuals in Maryland were sentenced for running an illegal sports bookmaking operation in Baltimore and Washington, D.C., which used an off-shore wire room in Dominica. These recent successes built upon lessons learned in the U.S. v. Mark Meghrouni, et al. (Paradise Casino) prosecution which convicted two individuals and their corporation in the E.D. of M0 in 2000, resulting in $14+ millions in forfeitures and back taxes, as well as in the U.S. v. Jay Cohen trial in the S.D. of NY in 2000, which produced a conviction and nearly two years imprisonment for a highly-visible proponent of this illegal gambling activity.

Several other cases have been charged and are awaiting trial. In May 2007, seven individuals and four companies were indicted in the District of Utah for operating a business that helped Internet gambling websites disguise credit card charges for gambling as charges for something else, thereby deceiving credit card issuers. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Utah has also filed a civil complaint seeking forfeiture of funds in bank accounts that were used to fund payouts from Internet gambling. In the case of United States v. Arthur Gianelli, et al. in the District of Massachusetts, 13 defendants are charged with RICO violations alleging a pattern of racketeering activity including gambling violations for an illegal sports betting business. This business operated in Massachusetts with assistance from a toll free number and Internet website, both located in Costa Rica. Similarly, in the Eastern District of Missouri, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment on June 28, 2007, in United States v. BetonSports PLC, et al.. BetonSports PLC is a publicly traded company that owns a number of Internet sportsbooks and casinos. In conjunction with the indictment, the United States also filed a civil complaint to obtain a court order requiring BetonSports PLC to stop taking sports bets from the United States and to return money held in wagering accounts. On November 9, 2006, the district court judge signed the order of permanent injunction. On May 24, 2007, the company, BetonSports PLC, pled guilty to the racketeering conspiracy charged in county one of the indictment. The pattern of racketeering to which the company pled guilty included mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and multiple state gambling charges. BetonSports operated out of the Caribbean and Costa Rica and advertised itself as the largest online wagering service in the world. Sentencing is scheduled for June 23, 2008. Lastly, on October 2, 2007, the FBI in Miami-Dade County, Florida, arrested two individuals pursuant to a criminal complaint for a Hobbs Act extortion violation relating to the collection of an internet gambling debt.

In addition to prosecutions, the Department also has reached several settlements concerning Internet gambling. On March 27, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced that it had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the Electronic Clearing House, Inc. (“ECHO”), a Nevada corporation involved in the transfer of money on behalf of various on-line payment services, known as e-wallets. In January 2006, the United States Attorney's Office in St. Louis announced a $7.2 million settlement with the Sporting News to resolve claims that the Sporting News promoted illegal gambling from early 2000 through December 2003 by accepting fees in exchange for advertising illegal gambling.

While the Department has not yet returned indictments alleging violations of the UIGEA, we note that Internet gambling investigations are time and labor intensive cases. The federal indictments that have been returned allege time periods prior to the enactment of the UIGEA. The Department is also handling a challenge to the UIGEA, which was brought by Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, L.L.C. in the District of New Jersey. In this civil suit, the plaintiff alleges that the UIGEA violates the First Amendment because it impermissibly chills expressive association, violates the Tenth Amendment because it gives to the United States powers reserved to the individual states to regulate gambling and financial transfers, and that it violates a World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body ruling. That company is seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of the UIGEA and its forthcoming regulations. We are awaiting the decision of the court. Similarly, the individual defendants in the BetonSports case have raised the WTO issue. The government’s response to the issue has been filed and is publicly available, and we anticipate the Court will find it both accurate and persuasive. Given the ongoing status of that litigation, however, I cannot comment on that issue beyond what has been publicly filed in Court.

Conclusion

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today. We thank you for your support over the years and reaffirm our commitment to work with Congress to address the significant issue of Internet gambling. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[Skallagrim]

Note she nevers mentions poker once - typical of the DOJ. And she completely ignores the In re: Mastercard case. The ethical rules for attorneys, at least in my state, say that it is unethical for a lawyer to not mention to a tribunal case law which is directly contrary to their position. If you read this John, use that fact.

Skallagrim

[PPAdc]

Mastercard re: is on the radar of the members we breifed.

John A. Pappas
PPA, Exec. Dir.

[PPAdc]

But I don't believe she not mentioning it in her testimony is any violation of ethics rules ...

JAP
PPA, Executive Director

[Skallagrim]

It definitely would be in a court of law, unless she could claim (impossible of course) that she didnt know of the case. I honestly dont know if the same rules apply to testimony before congress, but the principle is the same...candor before the tribunal.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Actually, Skall I was going to suggest asking Ms. Hanaway if she has ever heard of the In Re MasterCard case and if so does she feel that the DOJ is bound to honor its precedence. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the E.D. position that the Wire Act covers all online gambling is a recommendation by the federal magistrate to the judge in the BetOnSports case and not a ruling by the district court judge in that case. The motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Kaplan's attorneys requested dismissal of charges of operating an online casino. I do not think that the judge has ruled on any part of that motion. You might want to check this out. I would think that if Ms. Hanaway misrepresents a view of a federal magistrate for a decision or view of the court, it would be interesting to say the least.

[TheEngineer]

Annie Duke's testimony:


Testimony of Annie Duke
on behalf of The Poker Players Alliance

House Committee on the Judiciary

"Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Internet Wagers"

November 14, 2007

Chairman Conyers and members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee. I am doing so as an American citizen who is concerned about personal freedom and personal responsibility. I am also here to express the views of the nearly 800,000 Americans who belong to the Poker Players Alliance.

As a mother of four who supports her family as a professional poker player, I have a personal interest in the outcome of these hearings. I have excelled at my chosen profession, not only supporting my family for 13 years from poker earnings but also becoming the highest female money winner in tournament poker history over those 13 years. Having the right to continue to pursue my profession, wherever I might choose to pursue it, is very important to me from both a financial standpoint but also from the broader perspective of freedom, personal responsibility and civil liberties.

At its most basic level, the issue before this committee is personal freedom -- the right of individual Americans to do what they want in the privacy of their homes without the intrusion of the government. From the writings of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, through their application by Jefferson and Madison, this country was among the first to embrace the idea that there should be distinct limits on the ability of the government to control or direct the private affairs of its citizens. More than any other value, America is supposed to be about freedom. Except where one's actions directly and necessarily harm another person's life, liberty or property, government in America is supposed to leave the citizenry alone. Examples of Congress straying from this principle are legion, but few are as egregious as The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or UIGEA.

To be sure, there are many who believe that gaming is immoral or unproductive. I don't share these beliefs, but I do respect them. What is harder to respect is the idea that just because someone disapproves of a particular activity that they would seek to have the government prevent others from engaging in it.

Of course, opponents of gaming will cite the incidence of compulsive gambling and the possible exposure of minors as reasons to prohibit it. With respect to compulsive gambling, this committee has received expert testimony confirming what most academic studies on compulsive gambling have found: that the incidence of problem gambling in the population of adults who engage in gambling activity is less than 1%. From a similar study in the United Kingdom, we know that the availability of betting over the Internet does not increase it over time. Furthermore, even if one's primary concern were the very small incidence of compulsive gambling, then licensing and regulation offer more effective and less intrusive means to combat it.

Frankly, if the government is going to ban every activity that can lead to harmful compulsion, the government is going to have to ban nearly every activity. Shopping, day trading, sex, chocolate, even drinking water -- these and myriad other activities, most of which are a part of everyday life, have been linked to harmful compulsions. Are we going to move inexorably toward a world where we prohibit online shopping because some people compulsively spend themselves into bankruptcy? Worse, are we going to ask banking institutions to monitor and regulate our citizens' online shopping behavior to determine when a purchase can or cannot be approved? Gambling, like shopping, is the subject of compulsion in a very small percentage of the population - less than one-tenth the number of people who have trouble with alcohol. In terms of the damage to society, problem gambling is orders of magnitude smaller than tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, sugary soft drinks, and a great many other things that the government does not seek to prohibit. And, let us again remember that compulsive gambling occurs in less than 1% of the population, and that the availability of Internet gaming does not increase that percentage.

Of course, prohibitionists point to the possibility of children betting online as the other justification for prohibiting it. In fact, most people who seek to restrict individual freedom invoke protection of children as their motivation. I suspect they find that that argument has more resonance than what is often their real motivation -- to treat adults like children, and manage their choices for them.

The reality is it is very hard for a child to lose money gambling on-line -- one needs to either have a credit card or a checking account to do so -- cash cannot be used. The concern many point to is a child using their parent's credit card to sneak online and gamble. First of all, in that scenario, the parent will nearly always decline the charge -- and successfully. For that reason, internet gaming sites have a large incentive to ensure that their players are who they say they are, and that they are of age, in order to avoid expensive charge-backs. Furthermore, presumably the first time the parent sees an Internet gambling charge on their statements, one would hope that at minimum a very serious chat would ensue with the child. As a mother of four, however, I feel the need to make this point: if a child is stealing a parent's credit card and gambling on-line, that family probably has much more serious issues than Internet gambling. I monitor my children’s online activity, and, frankly, that is my job, not my government's. Of all the things I and other parents worry about happening to our children on line, gambling is pretty far down on the list.

Still, if one's primary concern is preventing minors from betting on-line, as opposed to preventing adults from doing so, then licensing and regulation again provides a more effective and less intrusive solution than prohibition. We will hear other expert testimony demonstrating that there are highly effective identity and majority verification technologies available.

Again, though, I have to express my skepticism that that concerns about children are really what is driving this debate. By that, I mean that I doubt that there is anyone who is opposed to Internet gaming because of children who wouldn't still be opposed to Internet gaming for adults, even if it could be proven to them that children can be protected. However, if there are such people on this Committee, or in Congress, I would urge them to look at the regulatory systems being set up in the U.K. and other European nations, as they are highly effective. To reiterate: if your concern in this matter is about children, there are solutions available. If, instead your interest is in treating adults like children, then there are not.

What is remarkable to me about the UIGEA is that while it allows games of pure luck, like the lottery, it prohibits a game of skill like poker. For nearly 200 years U.S. presidents, generals, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices and average citizens have enjoyed the challenge and the fun that is poker. I have no doubt that tonight, somewhere not too far from the U.S. Capitol, groups of friends and family will open a deck of cards and play some poker. This scenario will be replicated in almost every city across the U.S. That is because poker is an American pastime, it is woven into the very fabric of American history. Poker typifies Americana just like baseball or Jazz and has become a positive ambassador of American culture throughout the world.

Surveys have shown that more than 70 million Americans play poker at least once in a while. And, within the past several years, an estimated 23 million Americans have begun playing with people from all over the world via the Internet. Remarkably, though, some in Congress have insisted that when you put the word "Internet" in front of poker, this American tradition and the people who play it become suspect. I don't believe that the government should be preventing consenting adults from enjoying poker just because it has moved from the kitchen table to the computer table.

Poker is a great egalitarian game. Anyone who is willing to learn, regardless of race, creed, color or gender, can succeed at poker. And playing on the Internet gives millions of Americans the freedom to enjoy the game in the comfort of their homes, when it would be otherwise impossible to get to a casino, or gather others to play in person. As a mother of four young children, I don't have the liberty of being away from home every day or at night when my children return home from school. The ability to play on the Internet allows me more time with my family.

But my situation only represents a small section of the online poker playing community. Each day the Poker Players Alliance receives emails from its members detailing why Internet poker is important to them. Many of these emails detail a person's physical disability and why they are unable to get to a casino, and in some cases suffer from muscular diseases which do not allow them to hold cards or poker chips and the virtual game is the only way for them to play. Other emails describe how they are caring for sick loved ones who are home-bound or bed ridden and the few hours they get to play poker in the comfort of their home is their escape from the monotony of their day. There are countless stories, of every day law-abiding Americans who play Internet poker, and for whom the proposed ban on poker would have tragic unintended consequences.

The vast majority of Internet poker players are doing so for recreation and entertainment. On average, a person spends $10 a week playing online poker. 10 dollars! You can't even get a movie ticket for that price where I live! But with poker not only do you get the satisfaction of engaging in a skillful endeavor, you actually walk away with something more than a ticket stub! You walk away with keener mathematical and negotiation skills.

I don't believe that poker and the people who play it should be lumped into the category of gambling or be called gamblers. For me, and for other professionals, this is a job, and some of us are better than others. Whether a professional is playing with someone for whom poker is an avocation does not change the question of whether the game itself is one of skill. Yes, for the majority of Americans playing poker is hobby. This is how these people choose to spend their hard-earned dollars and they should have the right to choose how to spend their discretionary income, whether it is on poker or anything else.

There is critical distinction between poker and other forms of "gambling" which is the skill level involved to succeed at the game. I cannot stress this point enough: in poker it is better to be skillful than lucky. I ask anyone in this hearing room to name for me the top five professional roulette players in the world or the number one lottery picker in America. It is just not possible (my apologies to one obvious candidate, Congressman Sensenbrenner). We can however have a real discussion about the top five professional poker players, just like we can have a discussion about the top five professional golfers.

Few can debate the skill elements involved to be successful at poker. From mathematics and probability to psychology and money management, numerous authors and academics have drawn analogies between poker and other endeavors that involve strategic thinking. John Von Neumann regarded as the greatest mind of the first part of the 20 century used analysis of the game of poker in his seminal book on game theory, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" as a method of modeling decision-making under incomplete information. When asked why he did not use chess he deferred to the skill elements of poker which encompass all aspects of human intellect, calling chess not a game but merely an exercise in calculation.

Everyone agrees that the betting elements and hand selection involved in poker are skill elements. But I hear people say all the time that poker is only a game of skill for good players and the vast majority of recreational players are playing a game of luck. This is as absurd as asserting that bad golfers are playing a game of luck while only the pro golfers are playing a game of skill. If we all agree that puffing and driving and other elements of golf are skill components then whether someone is a good putter or a bad putter doesn't change whether putting is a skill or not. It is the same in poker. If someone is poor at betting or good at betting has no bearing on whether the betting component of the game itself is a skill component.

Go into any bookstore in America and you will likely find a display table covered in books about how to play poker and poker theory. The fact that one can learn poker and get better over time is clear evidence that skill is a dominant factor in the game.

I will concede that chance does play a role in poker. But it is true that chance plays a role in every human activity. Chance plays a role in getting through a traffic light safely. We know that is true because people who exactly follow the rules of the road get in accidents every day across America because of chance. And yet no one is claiming that driving is a game of chance and not a skill! Poker is a game of skill with an element of chance. But to call poker pure chance is just pure ignorance.

To further explain this point, let me try to illustrate it in two ways. If I could program a robot with the rules of poker, when to decide to check, raise, fold, etc. -- but gave it no "skill" so that it made these decisions randomly, that robot would lose nearly 100% of the hands in which it participated.

For those not content with the example of the robot, let me try another approach. One defining characteristic of games of skill is this: a player or team can intentionally lose. If I suggested that you should play slots, roulette, baccarat, or lottery and seek to lose, you could no more make yourself lose than you could make yourself win, as long as you continued playing. However, at golf, tennis, baseball or other games of skill it is entirely possible to lose on purpose. Losing on purpose is playing in defiance of the concept of skill, and thus proves the existence of the skill element in the game.

Several analogies can be made between playing poker and crafting public policy. But millions of poker-playing Americans were stunned last year when politicians decided that playing Texas Hold 'em over the Internet was so pernicious that the government must deputize financial institutions to prohibit personal financial transactions to certain forms of online gaming.

As we all know, in the closing hours of the last Congress, behind closed doors, Senator Bill Frist managed to slip the UIGEA into the Port Security bill. That law seeks to deputize financial institutions, and have them function as the Internet morality police. Ironically, however, that law did nothing to clarify what actually constitutes an unlawful Internet wager. It exempted certain favored forms of gambling from that bill's enforcement mechanism, but it clarified nothing as legal or illegal.

Instead, Internet gaming is the subject of a hodgepodge of antiquated laws that were intended to govern brick-and-mortar operations. The governing federal statute, The Wire Act of 1961, has been found to only apply to sports betting, beyond that we have a morass of state laws which, for the most part, did not contemplate the Internet. Nevada, North Dakota and Virgin Islands have all taken steps to license non-sports betting, only to be told by the DOJ that even intra-state Internet wagers are illegal.

In the proposed rule issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the regulators come right out and say that they cannot and will not tell the regulated community what constitutes an unlawful Internet wager. Let me emphasize -- the posture of the Federal government is, "We are going to create a new federal crime, but we will not tell you what it is." In the proposed rule, the regulators explain their refusal to resolve this by saying that to do so would require them to examine the laws of the federal government and all 50 states with respect to every gaming modality, and that this would be unduly burdensome. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring the general counsel of every bank in the country to do. The committee has received testimony from the association representing providers of pure skill games, such as chess and Tetris, complaining that unless the UIGEA regulations clarify what they are supposed to cover, they will be unable to hold chess tournaments where people can win money, because, in the absence of clarity, banks will simply block any transaction where people pay a fee to compete and win money.

Poker players believe that the UIGEA regulations should not apply to games where players compete against each other and not against "the house" and where success is predominantly a function of skill. Such games include poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon, among others. However, because neither UIGEA itself nor the regulations seek to address the issue, we cannot make that case.

Instead, PPA supports certain other legislative initiatives which we believe are more rational. We support H.R. 2046, Rep. Frank's bill to license, regulate and tax Internet gambling, but which allows states to opt out of the federal licensing system with respect to any and all forms of gaming. We support H.R. 2610, Rep. Wexler's bill to clarify that poker and other games predominantly determined by skill are outside the ambit of the federal gambling statutes, provided that they incorporate adequate protection against compulsive play, minor play, and money laundering. We also support H.R. 2140, Rep. Berkeley's bill to commission a National Academy of Sciences study on how to deal with Internet gaming, because we believe any rational examination will verify that licensing and regulation makes more sense than prohibition. However, we believe that the experience of the U.K and other countries can provide the same evidence.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with the point I started with: this issue is about personal liberty and personal responsibility -- the freedom to do what you want in the privacy of your own home. I suspect that some on this committee support freedom, except where individuals would use that freedom to make what they believe to be bad choices. "Freedom to make good choices" is an Orwellian term for tyranny-- the governments of China, Cuba and Iran all support the freedom of their citizens to make choices that their governments perceive as good. For those whose religious or moral beliefs hold gaming as abhorrent, I fully support their right to live by those beliefs. I support their right to choose to not gamble. What I do not support, and what this Committee and this Congress should not tolerate, is an effort by those people or anyone else to prevent me and the millions of people like me from playing a game we find stimulating, challenging and entertaining. However you might feel about gambling on the Internet, I would suggest that gambling with freedom is far more risky.

Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I look forward to the testimony of my fellow panelists and the opportunity to engage with you during the question and answer period.

[Skallagrim]

Well, JP, since I cant imagine that she is unaware of the Mastercard case (I'd bet 1000 to 1 its mentioned frequently in the Kaplan pleadings) I would just as soon slam her for presenting misleading testimony. And I would use your point about the magistrate/judge distinction to even slam her more. Dishonest it seems, disingenuous at the least, undeniably an attempt to make their legal position appear stronger than they know it is. But then that is consistent with Bush and all Bush appointees isnt it?

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

Go get 'em Annie!

[Ramon Scott]

All those golfers out there getting high and driving around in carts

[Uglyowl]

Thanks for sharing the testimony, I will not be able to watch so I will be interested to hear others analysis during this:


I am an accountant by profession, so please excuse my laymans thoughts, I would just like to throw my two cents into the discussion:

1. It is interesting that she mentions a crime ring placing bets on horce races. I would like to grill her on that for numerous reasons. First is the carve out in many laws for horse racing and second (and more important) to rile up the huge horse racing industry.

2. Will the Harvard and British study on internet addiction be brought up? (among the other good arguments)

3. We have publically traded companies in the U.S. who are openly funding online poker, including Moneygram (worth $1.3 billion). I don’t know what question I would ask. I may also bring up other “skill game operators”.

[Jay Cohen]

Don't you love how Hanaway brags about locking me up for two years because I was a big mouth?

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Mastercard re: is on the radar of the members we breifed.

John A. Pappas
PPA, Exec. Dir.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There are even “peer to peer” gambling websites, where the website operator does not set the bets, rather the customers set the bets. Internet gambling includes many different types of gambling. The Department’s view for some time has been that all forms of Internet gambling, including sports wagering, casino games, and card games, are illegal under federal law.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is not too late, an important point, highlighted CARD GAMES; if this is true, why then after Paypal was punished are they allowed to continue funding card games via AOL, MSN, YAHOO! and World Winner, ALL American Companies.

Card games include Solitaire, Hearts, Spades and others.

Someone needs to point this out. These card games are marketed as skill, but are in the end, card games.

Old Book Guy

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you love how Hanaway brags about locking me up for two years because I was a big mouth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay: The world was a safer placer for two years, a good use of our tax dollars to house you, feed you, and the man hours to bring you to court and prosecute you. We are flowing in money in this country with not many other problems so why not.

What happened to you is B.S.

By the way, it looks like Annie has a good speech lineup.

OBG= Great point about solataire, hearts, etc. These guys aren't hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. They are real easy to find.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
OBG= Great point about solataire, hearts, etc. These guys aren't hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. They are real easy to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Bill Gates should be pretty easy to find, then again, he could hide in the mountains of Washington State.......

obg

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you love how Hanaway brags about locking me up for two years because I was a big mouth?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the story behind this?

[TheEngineer]

Looks like it's started. Could the picture quality be any worse? At least the sound is good.

[Berge20]

Not really

[dlk9s]

I'm tilting already.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you love how Hanaway brags about locking me up for two years because I was a big mouth?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the story behind this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Free Jay Cohen (now Vindicate Jay Cohen) (http://www.freejaycohen.com/)

[dlk9s]

Is there a way to save the video stream so I can watch later? I assume the video will be online at some point in the future, but I'd like to be able to watch before it is put online (assuming it won't happen immediately). As soon as my baby wakes up from her nap, I doubt I'll be able to keep watching.

I suppose I could pause the video. That might work.

[oldbookguy]

I am having trouble getting to play, I am using Real Player, what are you using, I see / hear nothing, only connecting....

obg

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

I am having trouble getting to play, I am using Real Player, what are you using, I see / hear nothing, only connecting....

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using Real Player, no problems (except that the video quality stinks).

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am having trouble getting to play, I am using Real Player, what are you using, I see / hear nothing, only connecting....

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using Real Player, no problems (except that the video quality stinks).

[/ QUOTE ]

same here

BTW -- F Lamar Smith

[dlk9s]

Shelley Berkley is so awesome that I think I could convince my wife that a divorce would be a good idea so I could marry the esteemed Congresswoman.

[dlk9s]

Mr. Goodlatte, financial ruin, etc., ARE uncommon amongst internet gamblers. Citing two examples does not make it common.

[TheEngineer]

Cool that Valerie Abend simply discussed the facts without appearing to take a side.

[YoureToast]

Weiler DOES have a view on internet gambling, despite his proclamations otherwise. He clearly plays online poker -- I have no doubt about it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[4_2_it]

Can you guys keep posting highlights (and lowlights) for those of us at work and unable to watch?

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
Weiler DOES have a view on internet gambling, despite his proclamations otherwise. He clearly plays online poker -- I have no doubt about it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Love this guy and his example..Spit in the face of the DOJ..

[TheEngineer]

Joseph Weiler did a great job on the WTO.

[Kevmath]

Is Duke on a time limit? She's making Vanessa Rousso's speaking seem slow.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Duke on a time limit? She's making Vanessa Rousso's speaking seem slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they're all on a time limit.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is Duke on a time limit? She's making Vanessa Rousso's speaking seem slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they're all on a time limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Conyers doesn't speak fast for anyone. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kevmath]

I'm sure there's a time limit, but Annie was more rushed than any of the other speakers on the panel.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there's a time limit, but Annie was more rushed than any of the other speakers on the panel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad Tom McClusky ran out of time.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there's a time limit, but Annie was more rushed than any of the other speakers on the panel.

[/ QUOTE ]

She seemed very nervous..

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there's a time limit, but Annie was more rushed than any of the other speakers on the panel.

[/ QUOTE ]

She seemed very nervous..

[/ QUOTE ]
Like she was about to say yes when no one asks?
Seriously, Annie almost always seems a bit frenetic.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you guys keep posting highlights (and lowlights) for those of us at work and unable to watch?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm slightly behind because I had to pause the video, but here is a summary of the opening statements:

Proponents - logical arguments

Opponents - gambling has caused the downfall of many civilizations, Christians hate it, and since there are no regulations on the internet, gambling shouldn't be regulated.

[Moemar]

I am cruising Cspan and Cspan-2? Is there any coverage of this?

[Kevmath]

Hearing link (real audio) (rtsp://realvideo.house.state.tx.us:554/broadcast/10.20.9.94/encoder/committee/cmte40.rm)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am cruising Cspan and Cspan-2? Is there any coverage of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, no. Just online.

[flight2q]

The DOJ aszwipe has tried to divert the discussion to sexual predators online, and the Calopy guy has fallen for it. Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[TheEngineer]

Annie Duke's Q&A is better than her testimony.

[Moemar]

ok, TY guys, i am trying to listen online! Think positive thoughts

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

She wisely moved off it, at least.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

She wisely moved off it, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

She was much better in the Q&A..Loved the re-directs to the DOJ only wished they would've/could've pressed her more specically on the Wire Act..

[Dak9885]

Just tuned in. Is it over or are they resuming?

[Kevmath]

They're in recess because of votes they need to do.

[KEW]

Very basic question...What are they voting on????

And where did Rep Berkley go???? She was great but must've left after her testimony..Would've loved to hear her reply to the DOJ and the FoF guy...

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

She wisely moved off it, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

She was much better in the Q&A..Loved the re-directs to the DOJ only wished they would've/could've pressed her more specically on the Wire Act..

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Conyers indicated that he will do just that after the recess. I look forward to hearing more about the horse racing exemption/non-exemption (i.e., we, the DOJ, say we think it's illegal, but we've done nothing about for 30 years).

[Orlando Salazar]

Can we sneak pokers UIGEA exemptino into a version of the war funding bill that won't get vetoed.

[Moemar]

I have to leave, can someone post a link to the audio after it finishes, please!

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

She wisely moved off it, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

She was much better in the Q&A..Loved the re-directs to the DOJ only wished they would've/could've pressed her more specically on the Wire Act..

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Conyers indicated that he will do just that after the recess. I look forward to hearing more about the horse racing exemption/non-exemption (i.e., we, the DOJ, say we think it's illegal, but we've done nothing about for 30 years).

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we get Skall down there in time??? Would love to see him Q&A the DOJ lady...

[PPABryan]

I am sitting here at break of hearing, had to get here 2 hrs early to get good seat. Gallery is full. Think Annie was solid and that conyers will give her some good questions...Q&A should be solid for us. Thought it was very interesting when Lamar Smith, ranking R cmmtee member interupted annie to say ' I'm not questioning your skill at all.' when he was cutting he off on that james bond Q about inside str8 flush odds....


Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke's Q&A is better than her testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. She sounds much more confident when she's not reading scripts.

[oldbookguy]

PPABryan, possible to get a question posed; what about AOL, MSN et al offering card games for wagering, non poker, why no prosecutions?

obg

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
he was cutting he off on that james bond Q bout inside str8 flush odds....


Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need a movie for an example. See this hand. Durrrr and Son-In-Law played it with skill.
http://www.highstakesdb.com/forum/Topic37164-16-1.aspx

[oldbookguy]

To see the referenced games go to:

http://zone.msn.com/en/root/default.htm

click cash games.

Also, YAHOO!

http://games.yahoo.com/skill-games

We need someone to actually challenge, more than horse racing, the wagering stance, in cards.

obg

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he was cutting he off on that james bond Q bout inside str8 flush odds....


Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need a movie for an example. See this hand. Durrrr and Son-In-Law played it with skill.
http://www.highstakesdb.com/forum/Topic37164-16-1.aspx

[/ QUOTE ]

its hands like this that ruin civilizations.

[Berge20]

What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[TheEngineer]

Looks like they're starting back up.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
To see the referenced games go to:

http://zone.msn.com/en/root/default.htm

click cash games.

Also, YAHOO!

http://games.yahoo.com/skill-games

We need someone to actually challenge, more than horse racing, the wagering stance, in cards.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think this is the time for this skill site arguement...They are doing very well on attacking the Wire Act and the WTO implications...Focusing on these two will have the greatest impact...I do not know the legal process but if I was the Bush Admin or the head of the DOJ I would get that Lady out of there.."Our" side to me is very close to backing her into a corner that she will not be able to get out of..

[Dak9885]

This guy is sick good. Didn't catch his name?

[TheEngineer]

Go Wexler!

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
Go Wexler!

[/ QUOTE ]

He's the man...Here we go..

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Go Wexler!

[/ QUOTE ]

He's good.

[TheEngineer]

Nice of Catherine Hanaway to finally admit that poker sites haven't been used to launder money via chip dumping.

[1p0kerboy]

Hey, Annie Duke is doing a very good job IMO.

[TheEngineer]

I hate Goodlatte.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dak9885]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[meleader2]

i heard he plays UB's 50nl 6max tables.

[Uglyowl]

Alcohol should be outlawed because a 30 year old can buy beer and give it to a 16 year old and I, Bob Goodlatte, would never know. There doesn't exist a BPS (Beer Positioning System) does there?

Edit: I think Goodlatte thinks he is Bill O'Reilly "LET ME FINISH"

[iponnet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

watching these old farts make decisions based on ablsolutely outdated ideas and principals makes me wish there was an age limit to run for congress...

[Dak9885]

Omg this guy is putting me on life tilt.

[Capitola]

Nice to have someone on the other side admit that gambling online is not illegal (i.e. the FBI website is BS). Was that the US attorney stating that? Nice little point for our side imo.

[Uglyowl]

Bob Goodlatte is a filthy liar!

Haha.. Wieler called him out about the WTO.

[Uglyowl]

Goodlatte: "What if it wasn't gambling we accidently allowed, but Cocaine, or Rocket Grenades from Columbia: How would you feel then"

[zimmer879]

Wow. Go Weiler!

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob Goodlatte is a filthy liar!

Haha.. Wieler called him out about the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Wieler new to our fight? Hes a great advocate -- mostly because he is far more knowledgeable about the WTO than anyone else.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob Goodlatte is a filthy liar!

Haha.. Wieler called him out about the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice!

[1p0kerboy]

Are they done for the day or will they be back?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bob Goodlatte is a filthy liar!

Haha.. Wieler called him out about the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice!

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta go back to work, but Goodlate made it sound like the WTO agreements were written in the stone ages (when internet gambling was not even fathomable) and it was pointed out that the agreement was only from 1995.

Keep me (and the rest of the working stiffs with no access)updated please.

[TheEngineer]

The first part went okay. The second part went better. Hopefully we'll deliver the knockout punch in the final part.

[KEW]

I hate time limits!!!!!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Are they done for the day or will they be back?

[/ QUOTE ]

They'll be back. Glad I'm working from home today.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice of Catherine Hanaway to finally admit that poker sites haven't been used to launder money via chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you're joking. But I have to consider that maybe she did and I missed it. The feed keeps crapping out on me and I have to relaunch it.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is sounding very angry..That holds well for us..IMO his agruement about the WTO made him look like a moron..He wants to cry and take his ball home..

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice of Catherine Hanaway to finally admit that poker sites haven't been used to launder money via chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you're joking. But I have to consider that maybe she did and I missed it. The feed keeps crapping out on me and I have to relaunch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No...she really said it.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice of Catherine Hanaway to finally admit that poker sites haven't been used to launder money via chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you're joking. But I have to consider that maybe she did and I missed it. The feed keeps crapping out on me and I have to relaunch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

She 100% admitted that there has been no money laundering other then the "illegal gambling" money...

[PPABryan]

I think Bobby Scott was excellent and knowledgable and is following up very well on what he spoke to us about at the fly-in....more Q&A to follow and it should be worth hearing to say the least, too bad the vote was now it was really heating up


Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[tangled]

Hannaway’s testimony and her description of the DOJ’s position that all placing of bets online is illegal, provides a big opportunity for us I think. Because of this position it might be possible to make the horse racing industry and major sports feel criminally vulnerable and thereby turn their powerful lobbies to help legalize online gaming. To do this, pressure has to be put on the DOJ to make some kind of arrest towards these groups.

Also, does this situation provide an equal protection issue? I know prosecutors have a great deal of discretion, but this situation is so over the top that it smacks of something more than discretion used with good faith.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte: "What if it wasn't gambling we accidently allowed, but Cocaine, or Rocket Grenades from Columbia: How would you feel then"

[/ QUOTE ]

Weiler has been chewing them up. But from what I heard he neglected to mention here that cocaine is different because we don't have USA companies legally providing cocaine in USA (AFAIK). Great work making it clear what he was commenting on (why moral argument didn't pass muster with WTO) and getting his point across.

and LOL - Beer Positioning System FTW.
These Luddites really don't understand technology - that's why they keep claiming money laundering is a bigger risk online than at B&M.

[Orlando Salazar]

Uhh yeah, I could easily go to vegas and trade some guy cash for his chips then cashout at the cage AND pay my taxes.

[flight2q]

Bleh. Who was it that pointed his question at the FoF creep, asking whether regulated online gambling increased addiction? And of course, FoF says it does - the Brits proved it! No one seemed to respond to that.

[CompatiblePoker]

Yeah, we're getting some good responses from Hannaway. She doesn't seem to comfortable answering the questions. Money laundering...not illegal to gamble...she was hating it.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Bleh. Who was it that pointed his question at the FoF creep, asking whether regulated online gambling increased addiction? And of course, FoF says it does - the Brits proved it! No one seemed to respond to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was suprised no one responded to that as well. Instead he said it increased gambling addiction at the same rate online gambling was growing...or something of that sort. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice of Catherine Hanaway to finally admit that poker sites haven't been used to launder money via chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some quick notes from a bad copy of the audio only.

Shelly and Annie were fantastic! Personally, I loved the zero down sub-prime mortgage issue in terms of actual damage. Annie's ability to concretly argue almost any portion of "our case" and defeat all opponets by exploiting their weaknesses is a true testement to the wisdom of those leading the PPA today!

Tom McClusky, pointed out that the ABA wanted the UIGEA. IMO other than the FoF moral objection types the ABA is our worst enemy. We can defeat the moral objections in a number of ways through sheer political force if necessary.

Not addressing the ABA is a large weakness in our over all strategy, IMO. I still say we should organize an effort to attempt to melt a few servers or at least clog up a few databases with a record of blocked transactions from US on-line poker players.

Good job John with the PPA logo behind a couple of people testifying, from a few video segments I saw, I hope that makes a newspaper.

The social ills and moral argument fail from logic and consequences alone. The prohibition model is a band-aid in that “compulsive and problem” gamblers or those psychologically susceptible to such issues will find an outlet regardless of the activity used to destroy them or harm others.

Sensible regulation is the only model that provides a new revenue stream that realistically will address the problem from the treatment side helping all addictions not just gambling. As shown those likely to be come addicted will find some outlet with or without the internet or gambling.

Rep Wexler helped point out the hypocrisies in various arguments but sometimes his passion is too much for some to take, personally I love the guy on this issue.

Catherine Hanaway, in her Q&A in response helped our cause by inadvertently, more than once, pointing out moving the jurisdiction to the US on these issues would actually strengthen the governments ability to stop most all of the ills like criminal ownership, money laundering, fraud, and almost all other problems actually made worse by Congresses actions to date.

Bobby Scott’s points directly on pointed; the location and commingling of funds problems faced by the proposed regulations. Michael Calopy was very strong and needed more time! This could and should along with other issues help outline our comments on the proposed regulation.

Goodlatte and others pointed out this will ultimately become a State-by-State issue, with the PPA needing to better foster the strength of the State organizations. He also pointed out the possibility of dumping the Horse Racing issue or paying off as Rose suggested.

Joseph Weiler continues to forcefully pointed out that this issue will not go away, the weakness of withdrawing, ignoring the damage to the progress of the US’s overall efforts on trade commitments from the Uruguay Round, and the long-term damage of the Executive Branch’s actions to date.



D$D

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bleh. Who was it that pointed his question at the FoF creep, asking whether regulated online gambling increased addiction? And of course, FoF says it does - the Brits proved it! No one seemed to respond to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was suprised no one responded to that as well. Instead he said it increased gambling addiction at the same rate online gambling was growing...or something of that sort. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Annie did in her earlier testimony and the FoF guy was only contradicring her..She did mention the UK study that was just completed..

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte: "What if it wasn't gambling we accidently allowed, but Cocaine, or Rocket Grenades from Columbia: How would you feel then"

[/ QUOTE ]

Weiler has been chewing them up. But from what I heard he neglected to mention here that cocaine is different because we don't have USA companies legally providing cocaine in USA (AFAIK). Great work making it clear what he was commenting on (why moral argument didn't pass muster with WTO) and getting his point across.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the second part of his answer, when he discussed the horse racing industry in the U.S.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The first part went okay. The second part went better. Hopefully we'll deliver the knockout punch in the final part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some quick notes from a bad copy of the audio only.

Shelly and Annie were fantastic! Annie’s ability to not only put a great face, lend a personal subjective example, and forcefully advance our cause; but to defeat almost all opponents’ arguments in exploiting there weakness, is a true testament to the thoughtful leadership of the PPA. She turned Chairman’s comment to Shelly and the unsaid position that “our” examples are unique, while attempting to disguising the subjective value of their own examples.

Personally, I loved the zero down sub-prime mortgage issue in terms of actual damage. Tom McClusky, pointed out that the ABA wanted the UIGEA. IMO other than the FoF moral objection types the ABA is our worst enemy. We can defeat the moral objections in a number of ways through sheer political force if necessary. Not addressing the ABA is a large weakness in our over all strategy, IMO. I still say we should organize an effort to attempt to melt a few servers or at least clog up a few databases with a record of blocked transactions from US on-line poker players.

Good job John with the PPA logo behind a couple of people testifying, from a few video segments I saw, I hope that makes a newspaper.

The social ills and moral argument fail from logic and consequences alone. The prohibition model is a band-aid in that “compulsive and problem” gamblers or those psychologically susceptible to such issues will find an outlet regardless of the activity used to destroy them or harm others. Sensible regulation is the only model that provides a new revenue stream that realistically will address the problem from the treatment side helping all addictions not just gambling. As shown those likely to be come addicted will find some outlet with or without the internet or gambling.

Rep Wexler helped point out the hypocrisies in various arguments but sometimes his passion is too much for some to take, personally I love the guy on this issue.

Catherine Hanaway, in her Q&A in response helped our cause by inadvertently, more than once, pointing out moving the jurisdiction to the US on these issues would actually strengthen the governments ability to stop most all of the ills like criminal ownership, money laundering, fraud, and almost all other problems actually made worse by Congresses actions to date.

Bobby Scott’s points directly on pointed out; the location and commingling of funds problems faced by the proposed regulations. Michael Calopy was very strong and needed more time!

Goodlatte and others pointed out this will ultimately become a State-by-State issue, with the PPA needing to better foster the strength of the State organizations. He also pointed out the possibility of dumping the Horse Racing issue or paying off as Rose suggested.

Joseph Weiler continues to forcefully pointed out that this issue will not go away, the weakness of withdrawing, ignoring the damage to the progress of the US’s overall efforts on trade commitments from the Uruguay Round, and the long-term damage of the Executive Branch’s actions to date.


D$D

[ahmngrn30]

wow, I cringed when I heard Duke would be on, but she's dominating.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, I cringed when I heard Duke would be on, but she's dominating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately. Loved the bash on Goodlatte about morality. Not imoral to gamble in 48 states but it's immoral to gamble online? Go Annie.

[Richas]

Is there any fun you are for? LOL

[PPABryan]

holy [censored] mcclusky just got served


bryan spadaro
ppa

[zimmer879]

"Is there any fun that you're for?"

Lololol

[TheEngineer]

Is there any fun you're for? /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any fun you are for? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahah, he responds, Im here, thats fun....a Congressional hearing.

[Kevmath]

This guy from Tennessee is on fire.

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any fun you're for? /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That was awesome

[TheEngineer]

What's this congressman's name?

[kaiser773]

cohen (tennessee)

[ezmogee]

who is this guyt??? hes incredible

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
cohen (tennessee)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. He's a big supporter of ours (cosponsoring all three bills).

[Kevmath]

Steve Cohen, TN - 9th district

[Uglyowl]

I did laugh when Goodlatte did his "withdrawal" demostration by extending his arms and tucking a non-existent object into his stomach. What a dork.

[1p0kerboy]

Wow he rocked.

[zimmer879]

Is Frank's bill compliant with the WTO or not? If it wasn't it would seem that Goodlatte would have brought that up.

[iponnet]

I dont know if this is possible but duke just ripped latte a new one

[tangled]

Oops Duke is wrong about the states and the WTO.If any states opt out or any sports league opts out, we will still be outside the WTO decision.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops Duke is wrong about the states and the WTO.If any states opt out or any sports league opts out, we will still be outside the WTO decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. She should be arguing that no state or federal government should restrict the individual freedom to gamble online in their own home. However, we may be better off hiding the truth about the IGREA until the WTO grants IP sanctions to Antiqua.

[flight2q]

I want to have Steve Cohen's love child.

And.. lol at FoF freak, who at first doesn't recognize the word "fun".

[ahmngrn30]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to have Steve Cohen's love child.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any studies to back up that statement?

[zimmer879]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oops Duke is wrong about the states and the WTO.If any states opt out or any sports league opts out, we will still be outside the WTO decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. She should be arguing that no state or federal government should restrict the individual freedom to gamble online in their own home. However, we may be better off hiding the truth about the IGREA until the WTO grants IP sanctions to Antiqua.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weiler posed a hypothetical to Goodlatte along the lines of, "If the technolgy existed to allow remote gaming to only the states in which it was legal, what would be the DOJ's position?" I don't want to put words in his mouth, but doesn't this seem to imply that there might be some workaround room for states rights in regards to the WTO?

[JPFisher55]

I really like the Professor's comment that ignoring the WTO has costs much higher than any perceived benefit, including the states' rights issue. He was right that the US should obey the WTO decision until the US legally withdraws from its remote gambling commitments. Problem is that our foes know that Congress will never grant the $100+ billion in trade concessions to the rest of the world to legally withdraw these commitments. They know that the negatively affected industries will use their political clout to avoid having to pay the price to lawfully ban online gambling under WTO.
Ms. Duke should have pointed out that if a state permits some form of gambling, then it should permit them all and if a state does not want gambling, then it should prohibit them all. Jay has sometimes indicated that Antiqua might accept that option. Of course, our foes know that politics will prevent most states from prohibiting all types of gambling. Almost all the states receive significant revenues from lotteries and/or casino gambling.
Overall it seems that all our advocates, especially Ms. Duke, did an excellent job on the merits of legalizing online gambling.

[tangled]

I noticed that too. Don't know.????

[Capitola]

Anyone know when and where an archived version or transcript will be available? I missed a lot of it.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oops Duke is wrong about the states and the WTO.If any states opt out or any sports league opts out, we will still be outside the WTO decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. She should be arguing that no state or federal government should restrict the individual freedom to gamble online in their own home. However, we may be better off hiding the truth about the IGREA until the WTO grants IP sanctions to Antiqua.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weiler posed a hypothetical to Goodlatte along the lines of, "If the technolgy existed to allow remote gaming to only the states in which it was legal, what would be the DOJ's position?" I don't want to put words in his mouth, but doesn't this seem to imply that there might be some workaround room for states rights in regards to the WTO?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this would've been a good time to introduce the "Commerce" clause and make a statement that by the very nature of the internet the States do not have that right to regulate Internet Gaming...

[DeadMoneyDad]

Anyone else get their real player stream dumped?


D$D (posted for)

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know when and where an archived version or transcript will be available? I missed a lot of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it takes a couple months before they release the transcripts to the public.

[TheEngineer]

Goodlatte sure did look flustered at the end, especially he wanted to debate Annie Duke on states' rights (and lost). What a tool.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte sure did look flustered at the end, especially he wanted to debate Annie Duke on states' rights (and lost). What a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the hearing still on-going?

Still unable to establish a connection.


D$D (posted for)

[Kevmath]

Hearing ending shortly after 2pm.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Hearing ending shortly after 2pm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you!

[Skallagrim]

Had to miss the last hour, but it seems like it went well.

I appreciate all the comments here, otherwise how would I have known about "is there any fun you are for?"

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

I managed to record pats only, will try and up load them some place with a link, not sure how to load video.

obg

[DerekJCEX]

wow it sounds like we did an awesome job! i really hope this gets online somewhere so i can see it.

[JPFisher55]

I think that we ought to equate all forms of gambling. The skill argument to elevate poker above gambling is a very good legal argument. However, for political purposes we ought to argue that casino gambling=horse racing=lottery=fantasy sports=all online gambling. Thus, we can argue that a state has two logical options. Permit all gambling or ban all gambling. When our foes argue that Internet gambling is worse than casino gambling, we can cite studies and technology to argue that Internet gambling is no more addictive or more susceptible to underage gambling than casino gambling. I can testify that I first played $2 blackjack at the MGM casino in Las Vegas at the age of 19. We can argue that this option, ban all or none, complies with the WTO decision. I know that this might not be true, but it is much more likely to comply than the IGREA, which only regulates some forms of Internet gambling. In addition, this argument points out the hypocrisy in the foes of online gambling and exposes their true goal to eliminate all gambling. Plus, how many states will want to give up their lottery. If forced to choose, I bet almost all the states will choose to permit all gambling rather than ban all gambling.

[JackInDaCrak]

[ QUOTE ]
wow it sounds like we did an awesome job! i really hope this gets online somewhere so i can see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to nitpick, but it sounds to me like the PPA and Annie Duke did an awesome job of representing poker players, not "we."

I think many posters on this board underestimate the influence they may bring by getting involved.

[PPABryan]

We have 9 audio clips from the hearing up on the PPA website right now.

PPA Audio Clips (https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=378)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

edit: listening to Cohen Part 1 right now. Might have to replay that every morning after I listen to Eye of the Tiger. "Is there any fun that your for?"......(dumb stare) McClusky: "Any What?"

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow it sounds like we did an awesome job! i really hope this gets online somewhere so i can see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to nitpick, but it sounds to me like the PPA and Annie Duke did an awesome job of representing poker players, not "we."

I think many posters on this board underestimate the influence they may bring by getting involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone is excited about their sports team and proclaim "We won"; you are the smart ass who asks "what position do play?".

I think most use "we" in the side we are rooting for and having a vested interest in winning.

Also on a stricly literal level, my credit card bill says "we" maybe ok here.

[oldbookguy]

I have added 4 videos from a few minutes to 30 long in order of the hearing, sorry, I missed the rest, kept dropping connection.

Each is longer than the previous.

I will add detail as to clip contents later.

www.wvgeneralstore.com/gaming (http://www.wvgeneralstore.com/gaming)

obg

[Berge20]

I'm guessing the committee will ultimately host it (probably in the next 24-28 hours) on their website if it's not up sooner.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.I think that we ought to equate all forms of gambling.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think WE ought to do anything of the sort.

"Poker is a game of skill" is one of our better arguments we have for getting legalized POKER .

Tuff

PS: Annie Duke talked really fast in our meeting with Represntative Berman also. She can definitely cover a lot of ground in a very short time. I do agree that it makes her sound a bit nervous.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow it sounds like we did an awesome job! i really hope this gets online somewhere so i can see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to nitpick, but it sounds to me like the PPA and Annie Duke did an awesome job of representing poker players, not "we."

I think many posters on this board underestimate the influence they may bring by getting involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that who "we" are?

[Uglyowl]

JackInDaCrak, your wording is confusing me. Can you restate what you are trying to get at? I have read it two different ways now.

[JPFisher55]

Tuff, IMO the poker is a game of skill is a very good legal argument that it and online poker are legal in most states. However, I don't think that Congress cares about the skill aspect. I think that Congress might care a little about the individual freedom argument. But the biggest concern is the WTO situation and the WTO equates all forms of gambling.
From what I heard Prof. Weiler was brillant.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff, IMO the poker is a game of skill is a very good legal argument that it and online poker are legal in most states. However, I don't think that Congress cares about the skill aspect. I think that Congress might care a little about the individual freedom argument. But the biggest concern is the WTO situation and the WTO equates all forms of gambling.
From what I heard Prof. Weiler was brillant.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree JP that the threat of those WTO sanctions is going to have a larger impact on Congress, I disagree that the skill argument does not help us there.

I also think very, very few in Congress give a damn about our "freedoms." As you well know they spend most of their day thinking about which freedoms we should have to give up, or be taxed on greater if we exercise them.

The skill argument is helpful in thwarting the "gambling is evil" folks, and the "gambling is dangerous" folks. Thus its much easier for a congressman from a conservative district to support skill games as opposed to gambling.

And the skill argument can be useful at the WTO too: we could ban all gambling and then permit only wagering on games of skill, and foreign companies are free to offer those same games of skill in the US, on the same terms as US companies.

Its far from the only argument, it may not be the single most effective argument, but it is an import argument in our arsenal, IMHO, both in the courts and politically.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we ought to equate all forms of gambling. The skill argument to elevate poker above gambling is a very good legal argument. However, for political purposes we ought to argue that casino gambling=horse racing=lottery=fantasy sports=all online gambling. Thus, we can argue that a state has two logical options. Permit all gambling or ban all gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In certain States, we may have to take that position because of existing State laws.

On the Federal level, I do see the argument, but under the existing Administration, IMO, it is a waste of time.

Short term politically we are the only non-exempt form of gaming currently organized enough to affect change pre-mid ’09, and even that IMO is a long shot. The WTO action has backed the Administration as evidenced by Catherine’s suggestion, echoed by the FoF (fool who sees Congressional hearings as a main his source of pleasure), that a total ban is better justified than any addition to the “hodgepodge” of gaming laws in this country.

No bill before Congress addresses both the State’s rights and removes all WTO issues. Short of the US paying to keep a protection for trade barriers under some need to protect an industry claim for remote Horseracing, banning remote Horseracing is indeed the cheapest and easiest of the tasks facing Congress.

That is unless the problems are so huge and withdrawing from the Uruguay Round commitments to quick and binding arbitration if the remote gaming issue “wasn’t really agreed to under GATT agreement” continues to fail, is only a bluff, then expecting quick action or deciding to side with unrestricted remote gaming is a mistake IMO.

Therefore, I agree with your suggestion that taking sides with unrestricted remote gaming seems expedient, I feel it brings us many more problems than it ultimately solves. As it is, the larger gaming industry is not convinced of the profit in remote gaming, as remote gaming produces no ancillary jobs or profit. The constitutional problems regarding States rights will not satisfy Utah or any other State or State Attorney Generals’ desires desire to keep gaming expansion control at the State level. Thus, even a WTO compliant bill adds to our existing problems, and puts us politically in a dilemma concerning individual State actions currently and in the future.

Therefore, I am uncomfortable ceding to Catherine’s and the DOJ position that the Wire Act is controlling on the issue of on-line poker or attempting to use this alliance to further force the issue with this apporach.




[ QUOTE ]
When our foes argue that Internet gambling is worse than casino gambling, we can cite studies and technology to argue that Internet gambling is no more addictive or more susceptible to underage gambling than casino gambling. I can testify that I first played $2 blackjack at the MGM casino in Las Vegas at the age of 19.

[/ QUOTE ]

Purely devils advocate; that actually re-enforces the opposition’s main premise. The B&M’s either did or did not follow the law depending on where you played and the year, and thus your pre-disposition to gambling has thus found the easiest outlet to currently participate in gaming. You re-enforce the “crack” argument not help defeat it.


[ QUOTE ]
We can argue that this option, ban all or none, complies with the WTO decision. I know that this might not be true, but it is much more likely to comply than the IGREA, which only regulates some forms of Internet gambling. In addition, this argument points out the hypocrisy in the foes of online gambling and exposes their true goal to eliminate all gambling. Plus, how many states will want to give up their lottery. If forced to choose, I bet almost all the states will choose to permit all gambling rather than ban all gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

As evidenced by the FoF and government positions today, they have no problem with the ban all position. The FoF types actually invite it. The governmental duty to eliminate or at least combat money laundering, criminal ownership, fraud, under aged participation, and even addressing problem gambling are all better addressed as shown by Catherine’s testimony today that regulation actually goes much further than addressing all of these issues and is more effective than prohibition.


D$D (himself)

[thac]

Sorry I'm a bit ignorant, but what can we expect to come of this.. as in, what's the next step if this is successful? The House has a vote on the bill?

[PPABryan]

Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[Skallagrim]

Hopefully, thac, this is the first in a long series of steps to get the Wexler "Skill Games Protection Act" favorably referred by the committee to the House floor and there passed.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for all today. I would count today as perhaps the single best moment in PPA history and another great leap built on all the hard work done from John's appointment throught the fly-in. We would have not gotten the hearing today if it were not for the sucess of the fly-in!


D$D

[Capitola]

Thanks to the PPA for all your work. You'll have a new paying member shortly.

[Johnny McEldoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to the PPA for all your work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that. Great job!!

[Fedorfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to the PPA for all your work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'll be sending in another donation shortly.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome jobs. Our opponents weren't messing around and we still took them.

[Uglyowl]

Goodlatte is an ignorant [censored] At 3:47:00 he states that minors should be able to play fantasy sports. Does he not realize that some are for thousands of dollars?

[Moemar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to the PPA for all your work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that. Great job!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Same sentiment. The work is appreciated

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte is an ignorant [censored] At 3:47:00 he states that minors should be able to play fantasy sports. Does he not realize that some are for thousands of dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

IRC doesn't he also say that fantasy is not gambling...I'd bet he does even know what a fantasy league is...

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte is an ignorant [censored] At 3:47:00 he states that minors should be able to play fantasy sports. Does he not realize that some are for thousands of dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

IRC doesn't he also say that fantasy is not gambling...I'd bet he does even know what a fantasy league is...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Mr. Goodlatte is just playing ignorant and knows exactly what he is doing.

I can see a conversation like the following:

Questioner: "Mr. Goodlatte, do you feel it is legal to bet $20 that Tom Brady will throw for more passing yards than Peyton Manning this weekend"

Goodlatte: "Well of course not, that's sports gambling, which is clearly illegal"

Questioner: "Do you realize that fantasy sports charge an entry fee (or wager) which the stats of professional athletes determine if you win or lose money sometimes in the thousands of dollars?"

Goodlatte: "humanahumanahumana" "But what if cocaine, guns, family, states rights states rights states rights"

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep getting a DNS error. Any advice?

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that most have had a chance to watch the hearing, anything in this area you suggest.

Not a guarantee it could happen, but worth considering.

[PPABryan]

Here is Annie Duke's Transcript from the Chat she just did with the Washington Post, it on the Post's Website now.

Annie Duke's chat transcript from Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/13/DI2007111301841.html)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Player Alliance

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is Annie Duke's Transcript from the Chat she just did with the Washington Post, it on the Post's Website now.

Annie Duke's chat transcript from Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/13/DI2007111301841.html)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Player Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that was enough for me to renew my Post subscription. Well done Annie!
TY WP!


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that most have had a chance to watch the hearing, anything in this area you suggest.

Not a guarantee it could happen, but worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]


Berge,

To clarify, if a member, presumably one who wasn't on the panel, submits such questions, are they typically answered by the panel/staff, or rather are such questions akin to comments entered into the record?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that most have had a chance to watch the hearing, anything in this area you suggest.

Not a guarantee it could happen, but worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]


Berge,

To clarify, if a member, presumably one who wasn't on the panel, submits such questions, are they typically answered by the panel/staff, or rather are such questions akin to comments entered into the record?

[/ QUOTE ]

This to a large degree, and forgive me for answering, the chairman and the pannel participants who usually agree to such things before testifying.

Given that this is only a very good first step in the process and not akin to the time pressures of a confirmation hearing I would imagine that there will be plenty of opportunities to press great questions and or tacits.

When the hearings become more action forused, for example for one considering the committee passage or up comming vote on a specific piece of legislation then we will have to be much more proactive in making sure certain questions are asked to the right pannelests.


Just an opinion,


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

DMD,

You know your "answer" really wasn't one and is so incoherent it makes me wonder if you're on something when you post. My question was a procedural one and not one of tactics. Besides grammar, I suggest you work on reading comprehension, or at least have the courtesy to respond to what someone else said, rather than only using that to go off on a tangent.

[TheEngineer]

Full "fun" exchange:

Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background]
Tom McClusky (FRC): Any what?
Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun.
Tom McClusky: Umm…well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun.
Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings?
Tom McClusky: [no response…laughter in background]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good.

[TheEngineer]

One takeaway is that we need to make a lot of UIGEA comments.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
One takeaway is that we need to make a lot of UIGEA comments.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

It would seem to me that a more effective tactic than individuals such as ourselves making more comments, would be for us to have a mini-email campaign to try to get businesses to make such comments, which I would think would be taken more seriously. Indeed if we could just prod some trade groups to make more of an effort with their own email campaign to their membership, then that would really leverage our own small input.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that most have had a chance to watch the hearing, anything in this area you suggest.

Not a guarantee it could happen, but worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]


Berge,

To clarify, if a member, presumably one who wasn't on the panel, submits such questions, are they typically answered by the panel/staff, or rather are such questions akin to comments entered into the record?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd need to be a member on the Judiciary Committee. So Rep. Frank couldn't do it (barring some UC agreement at the start of the hearing)

It's not uncommon, because some members of committess would like to be at a certain hearing and cannot due to scheduling conflicts or they did attend and had to leave before it was their turn to answer questions.

They then submit questions in writing to the panelists for responses on the record.

The Committee often does this as well, if time is limited for some reason or they had more questions than could be asked.

Will give more thoughts in a bit. Eleventy tabling right now. D$D may have a valid point on the necessity or helpfulness of this.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is Annie Duke's Transcript from the Chat she just did with the Washington Post, it on the Post's Website now.

Annie Duke's chat transcript from Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/13/DI2007111301841.html)

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Player Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the linky. This question was awesome /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"I feel like my opponents can read me like a book. For example, the other day I was playing a tourney and got dealt pocket rockets -- I immediately started laughing uncontrollably and everyone folded. What can I do?"

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not uncommon, because some members of committess would like to be at a certain hearing and cannot due to scheduling conflicts or they did attend and had to leave before it was their turn to answer questions.

They then submit questions in writing to the panelists for responses on the record.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks but I'm still not clear on something. Are you saying that basically after the hearings are over, such questions will be submitted to the panelists, and then the answers to same will just be submitted as part of the written record, and this is basically a post hearing thing?

[Berge20]

It can happen sometimes, yes.

Also, sometimes a witness might not know the exact answer to a very detailed question (generally budget related) and will return answers in writing.

[oldbookguy]

Berg, you suggested we being drafting a list of questions, my initial ones as follow:

Draft 1
Thoughts – Notes – Questions

USDOJ states in Master Card case the Government was not a party to the case and believes case ruling not valid, ALL Internet gambling illegal.

So.....

1. Why NO prosecution of Master Card when they admitted in open court to funding Internet Gambling?
2. Paypal left the ‘gambling’ market as stated around 2001-2002. Paypal continues to fund Internet wagering to ‘skill’ gaming sites. Why is this allowed if ALL Internet gaming is illegal?
3. MSN, YAHOO! and AOL promote and benefit from Internet wagering (see games sections on welcome page, click cash / skill competitions). Why no prosecution? Is it that Bill Gates cannot be located?
4. States engage in interstate Internet wagering, pooling lottery proceeds in multi-state games. Why no prosecutions?
5. Fantasy sports is wagering, costing from free to several hundreds of dollars to play. Why no prosecution?

Well, that is a start, I have several pages to sort.

obg

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
Berg, you suggested we being drafting a list of questions, my initial ones as follow:

Draft 1
Thoughts – Notes – Questions

USDOJ states in Master Card case the Government was not a party to the case and believes case ruling not valid, ALL Internet gambling illegal.

So.....

1. Why NO prosecution of Master Card when they admitted in open court to funding Internet Gambling?
2. Paypal left the ‘gambling’ market as stated around 2001-2002. Paypal continues to fund Internet wagering to ‘skill’ gaming sites. Why is this allowed if ALL Internet gaming is illegal?
3. MSN, YAHOO! and AOL promote and benefit from Internet wagering (see games sections on welcome page, click cash / skill competitions). Why no prosecution? Is it that Bill Gates cannot be located?
4. States engage in interstate Internet wagering, pooling lottery proceeds in multi-state games. Why no prosecutions?
5. Fantasy sports is wagering, costing from free to several hundreds of dollars to play. Why no prosecution?

Well, that is a start, I have several pages to sort.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

obg,

I think pointing out the hypocracy of our opponents' position is useful, but the only thing I started wondering about while listening to the hearing is that the focus seems to have turned from one of promoting freedom, regulation and taxes to one of letting our opponents know how much more room they have to attack other seemingly permitted activities (ie horses/fantasy/skill games). In a way, while I agree the approach is useful in debate setting, can this be pushed too far?

Just a thought

[oldbookguy]

do you really think the DoJ would arrest Bill Gates, State Lottery directors, the CEO of AOL / Yahoo!?

No, I do not. All we want is to be treated the same with the same rules.

obg

[Uglyowl]

Hi guys,

Great discussion. Today there was a great article in Bloomberg that discussed the steep "marching orders" for Democrats to help in the 2008 elections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a2ft9J5h14hE

Some of these #'s are huge. If you liked what you heard at today's hearing (Wexler, Frank, the gentlemen from TN (I gotta get his name burned in my brain), Berkely, etc) please send a small thank you contribution and why you are doing it. I think it would go along way.

I.e. I read a recent article about the importance of the upcoming elections and the responsibility bestowed on each of you and I would like to help you as a result of fighting for our freedom.. poker, blah blah blah.

[Uglyowl]

At 52:19 of the video the gentlemen from Focus on the Family stated the Fraternal Order of Police supported the UIGEA. I discussed this with the FOP and they had some concerns years and years ago (when they feared criminals were involved in offering this), but no longer has a problem today as online gambling has went from the wild wild west to a more corporate setting and the skill game explosion.

They told me it hasn't been an issue with them for a very long time and the guy I talk with played Pokerstars himself on occasion; let me see if I can have them issue an current opinion as church groups are throwing their name around.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Annie Duke talked really fast in our meeting with Represntative Berman also. She can definitely cover a lot of ground in a very short time. I do agree that it makes her sound a bit nervous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think her talking fast makes her look any more nervous/guarded than the others giving testimony - except Weiler, that guy is a rock. Talking fast sometimes maybe makes it hard to make out what words she is using, unless you know what to expect her to say.

Good reparte with Goodlatte. Great job by Annie. And with no tilt; I know I would have thrown in a few f-bombs. She got Goodlatte to admit that he thinks it's a good idea for children to wager on fantasy sports. I'd wonder what FoF thinks of that, except FoF doesn't really care, they just go with whoever they think can advance their agenda.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not uncommon, because some members of committess would like to be at a certain hearing and cannot due to scheduling conflicts or they did attend and had to leave before it was their turn to answer questions.

They then submit questions in writing to the panelists for responses on the record.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks but I'm still not clear on something. Are you saying that basically after the hearings are over, such questions will be submitted to the panelists, and then the answers to same will just be submitted as part of the written record, and this is basically a post hearing thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

But it depends.

It depends on the rules agreed to by the chairman and the pannelists.

This being a more open hearing than say a Senate Confirmation Hearing I do not know the true value of an ongoing continuation of this pannel.

If this hearing was one in which a specific piece of legislation was under consideration, with future hearings scheduled, or some sort of impending vote, I would feel differently.

As it is they couldn't even all agree if even a "study bill" was nessecary.

I have yet not taken the time to review all of the testimony, having had to travel to St. Louis and back today for a family fruneral, but having heard more than 2/3rd's, I am fairly confident but not positive in my answer.


Better?


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
One takeaway is that we need to make a lot of UIGEA comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has any consideration been given to breaking down the proposed regualtion to individual answers to each time the Agencies "specifically request comment on.."; so that each individual point is addressed?

I whole heartedly agree on the value of even the most overall comments, but it seems to me these regualtion battles and my sense of the Agencies strategy seems to be to blockade as many "choke points" as possible. As it is, most of the banking industry is already "fully" implementing as much of the spirit of the UIGEA as they could get away with even before passage.

I saw nothing today to give me even a gilimer of hope that the banks will object to almost any cover to enforce Catherine and the Fear of Fun's guy's wildest dreams; a total ban incuding furter prosecution of advertisers, going after poker websites, blocking affiliate payments, blocking rakeback payments, even banning or mass burning of any 2+2 publication that mentions how to play on-line. After all in their eyes it is all fruit of the same forbiden tree.

Forget the over the top crap lets talk strategy and have some fun teaching Tom McClusky the real fun of political fights.



D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi guys,

Great discussion. Today there was a great article in Bloomberg that discussed the steep "marching orders" for Democrats to help in the 2008 elections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a2ft9J5h14hE

Some of these #'s are huge. ... please send a small thank you contribution and why you are doing it. I think it would go along way.

[/ QUOTE ]


PPABryan,

How is that PPA PAC research going?

Seems everyone will be wanting more $$ than ever. We're a special interest and the best way for our $$'s to get noticed collectively is to have them go strategically to the people who know who and why they are comming in from in the most effecent manner possible.

If there is a better reason to get a PPA PAC going I don't know of it.


D$D