Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

I think a thread should

provide the How To Comment information, then

gather posts of proposed comments.

It merits a relatively clean thread, free of political tirades or argument about politics.

2+2ers can pick and choose among suggested comments, a little variety is very good.

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments. Without SPECIFIC references to a part of the Proposed Regs, comments will be dumped into a general comments section, i.e. a circular file. SPECIFIC comments get better reads and responses.

What I want to stress is that Comments are VERY important in building a record if anyone, like the PPA or iMEGA or PStars, wants to later litigate against ENFORCEMENT of UIGEA or the Regulations.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

[ QUOTE ]

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew. I'm glad you added this part. I had my sarcasm pen out before I read it.

But you are certainly correct that making comments - at the appropriate time - is essential.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

Any comments need to force the regs to clearly define what is and what is not "unlawful internet gambling." The regs need to specify what games and types of internet gambling is unlawful and what is not. Then if poker is defined as unlawful, it can be easily challenged. OTOH if poker is defined as lawful, we can celebrate.
Without such clear definitions, we will remain in the present muddled situation.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the In Re Mastercard case, a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry. Yeah I would greatly prefer the opposite, but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

[ QUOTE ]
but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are so wrong.

Please stop this campaign of yours to have poker proclaimed illegal.

Just stop it, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

We need the fact that poker hasn't been deemed unlawful to be able to have enough standing to challenge the DOJ on the vagueness. If it ever comes to that.

Make poker illegal and you take our only defense away from us, DOJ wins. Case closed.

Please, just stop.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the In Re Mastercard case, a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry. Yeah I would greatly prefer the opposite, but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, a Bush-nominated judge could reverse that ruling. There's no guarantee. If the regs did specifically ban poker, the government would likely claim to have some rationale for that....one they could use to drag the case on for years. Complicating this is the fact that there are no U.S. based sites.

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

The regulations cant MAKE online poker illegal or legal. It either already is or isnt (actually to be exact, the question really is whether transferring money for the purpose of playing online poker is legal or illegal). The regs could say that they are specifically including poker sites or specifically excluding them, but I doubt that.

I posted the below in another thread, but it is a pretty good summary of what will or will not be answered in the regulations. I suggest we use it as a starting point for analysis when looking at the actual regulations:

Can a bank transfer my money for the purpose of playing online Bridge at a dollar a point?

There is no Federal Law about Bridge. In South Carolina, however, it is against the law to play ANY card game for money. Does this law, which way predates the internet, apply to the internet? Who decides that? And if it does apply, does that mean mean money transfer agents (like banks) must monitor every online transaction to make sure its not a South Carolinian playing online Bridge for money or they otherwise violate the UIGEA? How about the fact that online Bridge sites, are not "in the business of betting and wagering (as casinos and sports books are) but are in the business of providing an environment where others bet and wager, does that make a difference? How about if a Costa Rican company sells you "phone time" but then allows you to use those phone credits to transfer credits to an online Bridge site? Should/Can the bank that issues your credit card stop you from buying those Costa Rican phone credits? And why should South Carolina have the right to require national and international companies to know and enforce its law regarding the internet (if its law applies to the internet) doesn't that violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? Is playing Bridge for money gambling just because SC includes it in their anti-gambling laws? Some Courts have held bridge to be a game of skill. Who decides that, SC or the Feds?

See what I mean? Will the regs answer any of these questions? If they dont, who will?

Skallagrim

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments.

[/ QUOTE ]



But you are certainly correct that making comments - at the appropriate time - is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a little gun shy about posting any strategy in an open forum. Not to keep anyone from the forum from fully participating but to keep from showing our hole cards.......


D$D

Re: Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations
 

Here are some proposed comments:

1. Will the bank be responsible to file a Suspicious Activity Report if it discovers a UIGEA prohibited transaction? De minimus?
2. How does the UIGEA distinguish the prohibited sites? Will they be named? Will said list be published? Updated?
3. What is the bank supposed to do if it discovers a suspected UIGEA transaction? Sieze the account and interplead to the court?
4. What if a site is legal in its jurisdiction? What if the site is legal in the bank's and the customer's jurisdiction (ie Nevada)?

Remember, the purpose of submitting comments is to illustrate how unworkable and burdensome the UIGEA is for banks. Also, there are serious ramifications for account holders.