THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

I'm a lawyer in the UK and find this situation completely laughable. It seems to me that there is no need for panic as the US law as it is written does not seem to be capable to achieving its goal (to ban internet gambling). Lets look at it in more detail:

Frisk himself said
<font color="green">
"The bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws".
<font color="black">
Ok - lets examine this statement and the law in USA. Frisk is refering to the Wire Act 1961 when he says "internet gambling is illegal". However, The Wire Act DOES NOT MAKE INTERNET GAMBLING ILLEGAL. The Wire Act refers to penalties unpon betting <u>businesses</u> that operate within the USA.
<font color="blue">
EXTRACT FROM WIRE ACT
"Whoever being <u>engaged in the business</u> of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"

<font color="black">
So the Wire Act makes it illegal to run an Internet betting operation in the USA but it DOES NOT PROHIBIT any free citizen from making bets or gaming on the internet with foreign based betting companies.

Now onto the new regulations which, as Frisk declares himself, are designed to regulate financial institutions by getting them to block gaming tranactions. First of all this method is fundamentally flawed AS IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO US BASED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time or space here to go into every flaw with the regulations but there are a number which in my view a good lawyer should be able to completely rubbish.

<u>FLAWS</u>
For example, the definition of a <font color="blue"> "restricted tranaction" </font> refers to a tranaction which <font color="blue"> "the recipient is prohibited from accepting". </font>
Now, following common sense logic, if the receipiant of a transction is not based in the USA, how can the USA prohibit that party from accepting any tranactions?

IT CANNOT.

It therefore follows that the definition of a "restricted transaction" cannot be applied where the receipiant of a transaction is based outside the USA.

Therefore, if your USA based bank or credit card company refuses to make a foreign transction due to this new legislation then they are in breach of contract as this terrible piece of law (both in objective and drafting) clearly does not prohibit any such thing.

The new law refers to <font color="blue"> "unlawful internet gambling" </font> which it defines as <font color="blue"> "any bet which involves the use of the internet and which is unlawful by any applicable Federal or State law". </font>

WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

This new law does not even define what "unlawful internet gambling" is! It simply refers to whatever existing law exists (if any) that purportedly already makes internet betting illegal. As above - the Wire Act does not apply to citizens not acting in the course of a business.

I could go on but in short I will say

1) The new legislation creates no "new law" to prohibit US citizens who wish to gamble on the internet.

2) The wording and definitions - particularly in the important areas of what exactly consitues "unlawful internet gambling" and in the definition of a "restricted tranaction" are not clear or succinct enough to be legally sound.

3) The law cannot apply to foreign based operations either of a financial nature eg Neteller or gaming nature.

4) The law specifically does not prohibit any money tranaction to a company like Neteller.

5) The law cannot stop US citizens making financial deposits to a non-US based institution. Any attempts to do so would be blocked by the World Trade Organisation.

Quite why some non-US based companies are afraid of accepting business from US citizens is baffling. Have these big businesses not got any good lawyers?????

I am left with one main unanswered question; if anyone knows of any State or Federal law which prohibits using the internet to place a wager please advise me so I can look into the matter further. In the absence of such existing State or Federal law then there is actually no such thing as "unlawful Internet gambling".

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
Frisk himself said

[/ QUOTE ]

His name is Frist, and you don't know what you're talking about.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frisk himself said

[/ QUOTE ]

His name is Frist, and YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY WONT WORK...PERIOD

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
well we can agree on this

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Good luck convincing Neteller and all of the online sites.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

OK lawman - you claim that I dont know what Im talking about? Why do you disagree? I have read the legislation and it is woeful - it simply doesnt do what it is purported to do.

What an ignoramous you are with a comment like "you dont know what your talking about" but you can provide no evidence or even an argument to back yourself up.

What exactly do you disagree with and why?

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Unfortunately bush appointed the Supreme Court who won't shoot down anything he passes...bye bye overturning this bill.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

why the hell are people flaming this guy for his post?

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

because every single post by lawman has just been a flame stating his grand knowledge of law as he is the lawman (similar but not quite as good as the more famous, Walker Texas Ranger)

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

because even in this trying time they are being callous wiseasses and trying to prove they are smarter and more knowledgable than everybody else.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Hey lawman - Im not British you fucing moron. And you could have directed me to your posts in the first place rather than just being the idiot that you are.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

I am about read to start taking bets that lawman is not a lawyer and is &lt;22 yrs old.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you fucing moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out a "k", idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a joke right? right????

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am about read to start taking bets that lawman is not a lawyer and is &lt;22 yrs old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take +2 on how many years he did in law school before he got kicked for incompetence and a bad attitude.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Lawman - I have searched for your posts and can find nothing of value whatsoever. Please feel free to copy and paste here if you have already covered some arguments as to why I apparantly "dont know what Im talking about".

If you dont - then just [censored] off from these forums.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lawman - I have searched for your posts and can find nothing of value whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that you didn't even know the name of the man who did all this, that is hardly surprising.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Hi breaktwister. Don't listen to lawman he is a US Govt shill trying to incite fear and panic in the online poker community.

From reading the bill I don't understand how neteller would not be covered, but I hope your right.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Breaktwister, I practice law in St. Louis, MO, but not in litigation or the areas of law affected by this law. US credit cards do not accept transactions with gambling websites because of the Federal Consumer Fair Credit Act. This law allows consumers to challenge charges on credit cards when they feel that the merchant cheated them. The credit card companies got so many requests to investigate charges related to Internet gambling sites that they voluntarily stopped accepting transactions with any company related to the business including Neteller.
However, I completely agree with your post and have written some posts on this forum attempting to explain this view.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

I got his name wrong knobend - one letter out - big deal.

Just [censored] off, because you are annoying everybody. What kind of lawman are you that can't give a simple argument on a forum?

LOL - you're just an idiot.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
knobend

[/ QUOTE ]

Knobend?!!!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Now you've gone too far, Rumpole! If we ever meet up, I'm going to knock that powdered wig right off your head.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
I got his name wrong knobend - one letter out - big deal.

Just [censored] off, because you are annoying everybody. What kind of lawman are you that can't give a simple argument on a forum?

LOL - you're just an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The unfortunate thing about Lawman007 is that 2+2 does not have an "ignore" feature. You have to implement it manually.

DO NOT RESPOND TO HIM AND HE WILL GO SOME PLACE ELSE FOR THE ATTENTION THAT HE CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT.

Simple.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

The premise of your argument relies entirely on the determination that internet gambling is not legal.

I am not convinced that issue has been effectively decided by the courts one way or the other. The Department of Justice believes it is illegal, while certain lower court rulings come down on the other side.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Breaktwister:

Thank you for this interesting post. I hope that the negative responses will not prevent you from offering your opinions in the future.

A suggestion: it might be advisable to write a headline that is not so inflamatory and absolute. You opened yourself up to attacks from the reactionaries of this forum (who probably didn't read your whole post).

Like yourself, I challenge Lawman and company to provide a thoughtful, analytical argument for their positions. It's a shame they don't understand that personal attacks and rank speculation have no business in this forum as they are unhelpful and defeatist.

I will say, while I defend the right for Lawman and CO. to say whatever they want regardless of how stupid or childish it might be, I hope they learn to argue their points without being abusive. It's a lot easier to attack a person than to attack their arguments.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Thanks JP - I did not know about that Federal Consumer Credit Act. I also didnt know that US based banks/cc companies were refusing to lodge into Neteller. Surely, the Consumer Credit Act would not apply if the funds were moved from cc to Neteller first?

The logic being that once Neteller has the deposit its as good as a cash transaction and no recourse could be sought against the cc company for anything which happens after this "cash advance"?

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
The premise of your argument relies entirely on the determination that internet gambling is not legal.

I am not convinced that issue has been effectively decided by the courts one way or the other. The Department of Justice believes it is illegal, while certain lower court rulings come down on the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge, his argument is that whatever US law is one this issue, it cannot be directly enforced against a foreign company unless they have assets in US. Of course, any employee or associate can be subject to US law if in the US.
So, any employee or associate (maybe including professional endorsing website) might have a problem.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Flame me but I agree with the OP's analysis except I think Neteller could very well go down. I read the law the same way as the OP.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]

I am left with one main unanswered question; if anyone knows of any State or Federal law which prohibits using the internet to place a wager please advise me so I can look into the matter further. In the absence of such existing State or Federal law then there is actually no such thing as "unlawful Internet gambling".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oregon Statute

See 167.117, it defines "unlawful" as anything not specifically authorized by law. Internet gambling is not specifically authorized and therefore unlawful. Then 167.122 says if you participate in unlawful gambling as a player you commit the act of unlawful gambling in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor.

Seems basic however I would like to hear how you think that Oregon's laws or other State's laws don't apply.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important subject and it is getting to the point where Lawman is becoming a huge distraction and could cause newcomers with some expertise to stay away.

This attack deserves a suspension or outright ban.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

Berge - it was one of the reasons why I wanted to make the post - to ask if anyone knows of the specific US legislation that prohibits US citizens from placing bets/playing poker using the internet?

This new legislation certainly doesnt prohibit it as I have argued. It refers to some "unlawful internet gambling" which it then kindly doesnt define other than refer to "any existing Federal and State law"

What exactly are these Federal or State laws (if any) that purport to make internet gambling illegal? If there are not any in existance then the maker of this bill (Frist) has produced a null law - completely ineffectual.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there are not any in existance then the maker of this bill (Frist) has produced a null law - completely ineffectual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! You really are a genius. The entire United States Congress and all of it's staff members just didn't know what the hell they were doing, and it took some yahoo from across the pond to figure it out. Quick, call a press conference!

You really need to notify the folks at Pacific Poker ASAP before they shut down most of their business for nothing.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

wow - permafrost - I am amazed!!!!!!!!

Your state prohibts anything as "unlawful" unless a law specifically authorizes it?

I cant believe that! Totally opposite to UK law where any act is deemed to be lawful unless specifically prohibited by law.

Let me have a quick look at your link and Ill post back.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

I also read the "Restricted Transactions" definition differently than you do.

My take is that it covers financial transactions initiated by US financial institutions that have an end at sites accepting illegal internet gambling.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

The Federal Consumer Fair (forgot the word fair) Credit Act applies to all consumer users of credit cards, but not debit cards. I once used it to challenge a motel that overbilled me and got the overcharge reversed. I have sister whose husband lost some money at an Internet Gambling Site (casino I think) and got the charges to his credit card reversed. Once a consumer complains by a form, the credit card company must investigate. Remember a cash transfer to Neteller by credit card is the same as a charge for groceries. So many complaints leading to investigations came from the Internet Gambling Industry that US credit cards companies just stopped accepting transactions with any company related to the industry.
Fortunately, EFT's are not covered by this law.

Re: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important subject and it is getting to the point where Lawman is becoming a huge distraction and could cause newcomers with some expertise to stay away.

This attack deserves a suspension or outright ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your idea has been thought of