[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow. (In place of a list)

This helps our cause, without hurting it through the use of a list.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I like the way you think.....

The problem is the law at least as I read it and the regs say that if a bank messes up and blocks a legal transaction there is no recourse.

Given that bankers are NOT the worlds riskiest gamblers unless their is a price to pay for them throwing a wet blanket over anything associated with gambling and saying "so what!" is the problem I have with this law and proposed rule.

There is no hook to make them pay for doing the gov't bidding.

THAT is why they don't have a problem with the reg!


IMPO as always,


D$D