Okay, Phil, why do YOU think this Act criminalized poker, I sure don\'t
"Including flat out lying about the nature of this law. If he hadn't been dishonest about it in here and other threads, I'd have no problem with the guy. I just don't think he's someone you can trust."
Phil, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. We have never met, to my knowledge.
Our business company has been operating in online poker for 5+ years. We neither make bets nor wagers and have no stake in the outcome of games or tournaments. (Why you cannot understand the business model is beyond me.)
We always have been independently owned and operated, and are licensed in Antigua and then Kahnawake.
My professional credentials for legal analysis may be better than yours, but who knows ? The point is the validity of the analysis, not who makes it. Professor Rose seems to feel that there is real validity to my argument that poker sites are not covered by the recent Act, AND noted the argument in an LA Times article on the 3d. (I'm sorry, he must be "flat out lying" too.)
In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)
Okay, you've got a bug up somewhere about our site and about my posting here. I get that, but where do you get off attacking my integrity ? Grow up. You want to disagree with me or say my argument is "nonsense", fine.
Like everyone else, except the publicly-held sites that jumped to pull the plug on US players, we are interested in seeing what the financial services do about the deposits issues raised by the Act's spectre.
For our part, the Act clearly did nothing to criminalize operating a poker site. What support do you have for thinking "poker" is "illegal under this Act ?" Nevermind, the question was rhetorical.
|