Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Very good and effective letter.

obg

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Very nice letter.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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"

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Awesome letter Skallagrim. Thanks for posting it.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Finest letter I beleve I have read.

obg

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Here is the lineup for the hearing:

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

I guess that's a wash

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 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 . She's a real crusader against all Internet gaming.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 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.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 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

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Valery Abend, Treasury Department
-- adviser on IG ( US Treasury - Valerie Abend)
As an admimistration official, I believe she's against us. I guess we'll see.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the lineup for the hearing:

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

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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 ]

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

They just added an FoF guy:

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Witness List

Panel I:

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

Panel II:

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Very good, they have added it!

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

obg

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

"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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

John A. Pappas
PPA, Exec. Dir.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

JAP
PPA, Executive Director

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

Go get 'em Annie!

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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”.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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.

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
 

[ 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