|
November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
As many of you know, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Wednesday, November 14th at 10am, entitled "Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers"
House Judiciary Committee Hearing Notice Please post material, comments, thoughts, questions, etc here. Hopefully the hearing will be available via streaming webcast for everyone to watch. It is my understanding that Rep. Berkley and Goodlatte will testify, effectively one on each side of the issue. Generally they will only give statements and do not get questioned by the committee members. The second pannel will include Annie Duke, among others. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday. We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well. Contact: http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself. obg |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Additionally, if your Member of Congress serves on the committee, you should give them a call and encourage them to attend.
Democrat Hon. John Conyers, Jr. (D) Michigan, 14th Hon. Berman (D) California, 28th Hon. Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th Hon. Nadler (D) New York, 8th Hon. Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd Hon. Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th Hon. Lofgren (D) California, 16th Hon. Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th Hon. Waters (D) California, 35th Hon. Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th Hon. Wexler (D) Florida, 19th Hon. Sánchez (D) California, 39th Hon. Cohen (D) Tennessee, 9th Hon. Johnson (D) Georgia, 4th Hon. Sutton (D) Ohio, 13th Hon. Gutierrez (D) Illinois, 4th Hon. Sherman (D) California, 27 Hon. Baldwin (D) Wisconsin, 2nd Hon. Weiner (D) New York, 9th Hon. Schiff (D) California, 29th Hon. Davis (D) Alabama , 7th Hon. Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th Hon. Ellison (D) Minnesota, 5th Republican Hon. Lamar S. Smith (R) Texas, 21st Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th Hon. Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th Hon. Gallegly (R) California, 24th Hon. Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th Hon. Chabot (R) Ohio, 1st Hon. Lungren (R) California, 3rd Hon. Cannon (R) Utah, 3rd Hon. Keller (R) Florida, 8th Hon. Issa (R) California, 49th Hon. Pence (R) Indiana, 6th Hon. Forbes (R) Virginia, 4th Hon. King (R) Iowa, 5th Hon. Feeney (R) Florida, 24th Hon. Franks (R) Arizona, 2nd Hon. Gohmert (R) Texas, 1st Hon. Jordan (R) Ohio, 4th |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
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? |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I wouldn't want to overstate the implications of the hearing, but it is a significant step at gaining legislative traction.
This means that the poker community has caused enough of an uproar for these guys to take note and look into it more closely. A hearing is no guarantee for legislative movement, but it can frequently be a precursor for some type of action and/or closer review. |
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 ] In poker terms think of it as a series of MTT like FT does for PAD or the WSOP. Round 1 is freeroll entry you "get" to write or call your Comgressperson. Round 2 you may get a piece of legislation circualting. Round 3 if you can make an impact like the fly-in, you get a hearing. And so on. If you bust out of any round you can either go back to the begining for free or use your points to play in that round again. Use up all of your points and you have no choice. Each round of this legislative series just like the poker in these events the "buy-in" gets higher and the skill of the players improve. D$D |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday. We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well. Contact: http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself. obg [/ QUOTE ] Also, please try to get letters to the committee via the contact link, at http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx. Goodlatte's on that committee, so we can be sure it won't be the cakewalk the last one was. That's okay -- it means we're being taken seriously now. Please write and post your letter here or on the Action Item thread. It only takes a few minutes. Anyone who doesn't do this (especially you guys who think our #1 problem...surpassing even FoF...is the PPA board makeup) will not be taken seriously here for quite a while. I know I'll disregard such posters. Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Additional House Judiciary Committee Contact Info:
2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-3951 Let's try to call once before the hearing. Thanks. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Todays was a short, brief note that will be followed up with tomorrow in more detail and with a phone call.
Addressed to Chairman Conyers: I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling. I am disappointed it is not being offered via web cast. Additionally, I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the absurd, unworkable UIGEA passed last fall. It is nutty for our government to even be entertaining thoughts of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few. More importantly, to the world, we are being seen as no better than China. I watched last week with fascination as Chairman Lantos berated YAHOO! for helping China deny citizens access to information on the Internet, now my OWN country is doing the same, denying American citizens access and freedom to enjoy an open and free Internet. In closing, Sir, please, fix this. obg BTW, Glad you are back in action my friend! [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday. We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well. Contact: http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself. obg [/ QUOTE ] Also, please try to get letters to the committee via the contact link, at http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx. Goodlatte's on that committee, so we can be sure it won't be the cakewalk the last one was. That's okay -- it means we're being taken seriously now. Please write and post your letter here or on the Action Item thread. It only takes a few minutes. Anyone who doesn't do this (especially you guys who think our #1 problem...surpassing even FoF...is the PPA board makeup) will not be taken seriously here for quite a while. I know I'll disregard such posters. Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Todays was a short, brief note that will be followed up with tomorrow in more detail and with a phone call. Addressed to Chairman Conyers: I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling. I am disappointed it is not being offered via web cast. Additionally, I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the absurd, unworkable UIGEA passed last fall. It is nutty for our government to even be entertaining thoughts of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few. More importantly, to the world, we are being seen as no better than China. I watched last week with fascination as Chairman Lantos berated YAHOO! for helping China deny citizens access to information on the Internet, now my OWN country is doing the same, denying American citizens access and freedom to enjoy an open and free Internet. In closing, Sir, please, fix this. obg [/ QUOTE ] Nice letter. By the way, I hope it was obvious that my original post was addressed to everyone. Too bad this site doesn't have an option to reply to "all" or "everyone". I'd mention it to Mason, but I don't think he's interested in my opinion at the present time. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] BTW, Glad you are back in action my friend! [/ QUOTE ] Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Nice letter. By the way, I hope it was obvious that my original post was addressed to everyone. Too bad this site doesn't have an option to reply to "all" or "everyone". I'd mention it to Mason, but I don't think he's interested in my opinion at the present time. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Is a nice letter. That might just be the problem. When you reply to anyone in an open forum you are replying to all. Either this was an unnessecary jab or you do not understand the medium you are using to communicate. D$D |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
That might just be the problem. When you reply to anyone in an open forum you are replying to all. Either this was an unnessecary jab or you do not understand the medium you are using to communicate. D$D [/ QUOTE ] LOL. I was referring to the field where it says [Re: oldbookguy]: Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread [Re: oldbookguy] #12905325 - 11/11/07 11:55 AM I didn't want OBG to think I was specifically telling him to write to the Judiciary Committee. It would be nice if there were a [Re: all] option. P.S. All of my jabs are necessary. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
OBG,
Nice letter I hope you do not mind I sent a copy to "Dutch" my MD Rep. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I emailed the House Judiciary Committee to urge them to examine the proper way of compliance with the WTO decision and to draft legislation complying with the decision before the entire WTO process and global trading system unravels over this dispute over online gambling. I hope that they listen because the Bush Administration will not listen.
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. All of my jabs are necessary. [/ QUOTE ] The point is no they are NOT. Read Sun Zu. Your refusal to accept winning in a gracious manner is a major flaw. D$D |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I have been composing a comment in my head to send to the committee, and I remembered a question I had forgotten about.
Concerning the proposed regs: Why have our enemies, FOF, NCLAG, not responded publicly to the proposed regs. It seems they have a great deal more to complain about then we do. Specifically, the lack of a blacklist. Not only is this something they wanted badly, but the reason Treasury gave for not including a blacklist - that the legality of Internet gaming in each state is so ambiguous as to make a blacklist too costly and impractical - puts the lie to our opponents assertions that internet gambling is already illegal in at least 49 of the 50 states (or else why the confusion). Why aren't they pitching yet another one of their patented fits? Am I missing something? I just went to FOF and NCALG websites and still don't see anything about it. Sometimes quiet where noise should be means something big and bad. I know I have kids. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't want OBG to think I was specifically telling him to write to the Judiciary Committee. It would be nice if there were a [Re: all] option. [/ QUOTE ] Heck no, my letter was already there before you posted. I added mine as an example, I suggest, and I also do! As to copy, copy all you want! And thanks for the kind comments, it was a quick one, maybe those are best, less thought, more heart. obg |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Dear House Judiciary Committee Members:
Thank you for scheduling a hearing, November 14, about proposed regulations to direct banks, credit card companies and other payment systems to take certain steps to block payments for unlawful Internet gambling, to implement UIGEA. I wish there were a webcast of this hearing so I could see how my concerns are addressed. I am particularly concerned with the regulatory burden. The UIGEA does not implement Federal law, but involves interpreting individual state and local laws. The proposed regulations state that it would be too expensive for the U.S. Government to interpret law in each jurisdiction, so recommends placing this expense instead on each and every financial institution. This does not pass the common sense test. I am concerned that the excessive regulatory burden will also lead to overbroad implementation of UIGEA. Overbroad in terms of lumping jurisdictions together whether they prohibit Internet gaming or not. And overbroad in terms of prohibiting everywhere all types of games that are prohibited anywhere. I am also concerned about the impact on GATS amid unfavorable WTO rulings. Thank you for your attention in this. Regards, <flight2q> |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't they pitching yet another one of their patented fits? Am I missing something? I just went to FOF and NCALG websites and still don't see anything about it. Sometimes quiet where noise should be means something big and bad. I know I have kids. [/ QUOTE ] IMO either they feel as I do that the issue is in the hands of the banks. The Fed Reserve and the Treasury gave the banks many different ways to implement these regulations, from creating a black-list all the way to the use of the OFAC list. The result is the same since we chose not to try and fight the banks by showing our displeasure in any of a number of different ways. As long as the banks are happy and don't oppose the regs then no one else has to try and pressure the banks to implement them. Why waste the effort in a fight already decided, the KY argument. As to the quietness issue it could also be as I said the way proposed reg fights are often fought. You wait until the end to see where you want to position yourself for the "re-drafting" if needed. You read all the initial submissions and attempt to defeat any comments that you feel nessecary. Then you lobby the Agencies involved once you have a full picture of the comments and Agency views. If nessecary you go to the Hill and presure the Agencies funding and oversight committees. Dec 12 was just the first date in this issue. The PPA chose not to put any presure on the banks in any visible way to try and change their initial acceptance of the proposed regualtions. So we write letters and hope to get a fair hearing of the issues based on reason and logic. Sorry but IMO that just isn't the way this game is played nor won. D$D |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Here's my letter, cribbed from the letter above:
I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling. I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the unworkable, immoral UIGEA passed last fall. I find it offensive that the government would try to regulate voluntary activities Americans take in the privacy of their own homes, in particular an activity engaged in by so many law-abiding citizens, and which presents no real potential of harm to others. Even aside from the flawed policy underlying the UIGEA, the manner in which the legislation attempts to end some forms of on-line gaming (some types are specifically excluded) is misguided. History is bound to repeat itself, and much like prohibition, the number of Americans who participate in on-line gaming suggests that it is here to stay. Rather than driving the activity "underground", as the poorly drafted and ambiguous UIGEA is bound to do, the only sensible approach is to regulate and tax. Finally, it is absurd for the federal government even to be entertaining the possibility of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions (because of the repeated rulings of the WTO on this specific issue) in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few. I hope that the clear error of the last Congress will be reversed before additional harm is done. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
This hearing is not important, because according to Mason Malmuth and the powers that be at 2+2 they need to have a congressional hearing on the PPA. So write to congress and tell them to please cancel this hearing and schedule a hearing on the PPA as soon as possible. Thankyou everyone.
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Members of the Judiciary Committee,
I am very pleased that you are addressing the issue of Internet Gaming this coming Wednesday. The UIGEA is a very flawed piece of legislation for several reasons: It leaves enforcement to the banking system, without even defining "Unlawful Internet Gambling"--thus leaving individual banks to decide what is or is not legal. If the Federal Government is unable to make this distinction, I doubt my local bank will have much success either. It blatantly ignores a treaty we signed within the WTO, which seems certain to cost us tens of billions of dollars per year, if not hundreds of billions. This, to me, sounds more like something you would expect from China than the US. It exempts certain forms of gambling--specifically horse races, lotteries, and fantasy sports leagues--while pushing all other forms of gaming underground. This is hypocritical, to say the least. How is one form of gambling more "moral" than another? Because the UIGEA was passed, the publicly traded companies--licensed and regulated in their own countries--were replaced by private companies with less transparency. History has proven prohibition to be ineffective. A poorer product at a higher cost is sure to result. There are better ways to handle the current situation. If the Government must get involved in affairs between consenting adults in their own homes, at least have the courtesy to allow the citizens of this Nation to make our own decisions. Regulate, tax, and provide age verification, help to problem gamblers, and whatever other protections you feel are necessary, but please don't protect me from myself. Sincerely, *IndyFish* |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want to overstate the implications of the hearing, but it is a significant step at gaining legislative traction. This means that the poker community has caused enough of an uproar for these guys to take note and look into it more closely. A hearing is no guarantee for legislative movement, but it can frequently be a precursor for some type of action and/or closer review. [/ QUOTE ] The name of the hearing sound like a "How we can enforce UIEGA", am I misreading it and it's a "Why should we enforce UIEGA?" |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Yesterday's letter:
November 11, 2007 House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee: I am writing in regards to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to let you know that I, and many like me, believe online poker should be explicitly legalized. To my disappointment, and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was inadvertently restricted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting (1) , and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), this legislation has nonetheless had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. Additionally, many offshore poker sites continue to legally offer Internet poker within the U.S. In fact, some offshore poker sites that left the U.S. market with the passage of UIGEA (most notably Doyle Brunson’s site, Doyle’s Room) are now returning (2). Unfortunately, U.S.-based sites have been prohibited from opening under pressure from the Justice Department. This has resulted in the exact opposite of the ideal situation, from a U.S. perspective. Rather than U.S.-based sites serving the world (and subject to U.S. laws and regulations), offshore sites serve us. We can do better. There are two bills currently in the House that correct this situation. HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. And, neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish. These safeguards will work -- the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gaming proved conclusively that Internet poker can be effectively regulated. I am comfortable that your hearing will show the same. Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to insist on reasonable regulations, and we are losing valuable opportunities for U.S. companies to operate sites. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue. I urge the committee to recommend that the federal government reject prohibition and to embrace freedom and liberty. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TheEngineer --------------------- 1. 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) 2. www.doylesroom.com, statement on main page, effective October 19th, 2007 |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
November 12, 2007
House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee: I am writing in regard to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to request that the committee review the unintended consequences of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). Specifically, I request that the committee review the impact of the failure of UIGEA to define what types of Internet gaming are illegal to banks and to legal online gaming services. Our nation’s banks have been deputized by the federal government to enforce UIGEA. However, they have not been told what exactly they are to enforce. The draft UIGEA regulations specifically state that the regulation authors do not know what is illegal and what is not. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gaming bans. Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by blocking all Internet gaming transactions. Foreseeing this, the regulation authors actually devised a term for this – “overblocking”. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, despite its specific exclusion from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations. I urge the committee to review this situation during the Internet gaming hearing and to carefully consider the need for clarifying legislation. There are two bills currently in the House that correct this situation. HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. And, neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish. I urge the committee to recommend passage of these bills to clarify UIGEA and the Wire Act. Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TheEngineer |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
TE, IMO it's time to stop pushing the IGREA HR2046. Rep. Charles Rangel realizes that it does not comply with the WTO decision. Also, I think that we have a chance, if the WTO grants Antiqua IP sanctions, to get a better bill. We can get a bill that repeals the UIGEA, exempts foreign online gambling providers from all federal and state gambling laws and establishes a system of regulation and taxation for US based online gambling providers. However, we need to push for such legislation instead of the flawed IGREA. A law that permits states and sports leagues to opt out and requires foreign providers to become subject to US jurisdiction and maintain records etc. within 500 miles of US is not much of an improvement over the present situation.
If the WTO fails to grant Antiqua the IP sanction and the iMEGA case fails, then pushing the IGREA may be the best we can get. However, I think that the PPA's lobbyists ought to get ready to assist either the appropriate committee or Congressman in drafting WTO compliant legislation that accomplishes the above goals or at least the first two. I have no problem with Rep. Wexler's bill, but it has no chance. Also, I am not sure that it will make it easier to transfer money to online poker sites. I think that most ewallets do not want to adopt Epassporte's solution of requiring their customers to separate their poker balances from other gambling parts of their sites. Thus, I wonder if legal online gambling isn't the best solution for online poker players. Now is the time to go for our best law; not a second best alternative like the IGREA. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
JP, I agree with you on this one. What is needed is legislation that in many ways mirrors the defense case in the BoS case as put forth or a simple court ruling for the defense and congress simply drop the matter and repeal UIGEA while allowing stateside companies to compete. Ideal, however, I doubt we will get. obg |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
wrote this letter and posted the item with a link back to this thread on PTP news.
Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee: I write in reference to the hearing scheduled for the HJC later this week: “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers”. Attempts to prohibit online wagering to date have wasted significant amounts of governmental and commercial resources, put our country at odds with any number of critical trading partners, and unnecessarily expanded the government's reach into the day-to-day lives of American citizens. No one doubts that, much as it has with live gambling, the USFG will play a significant role in the development of online gaming. I respectfully submit that the committee should consider the negative impact and likely futility of a prohibitive approach when determining what that role should be. Regards Chris |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
JP, I agree with you on this one. What is needed is legislation that in many ways mirrors the defense case in the BoS case as put forth or a simple court ruling for the defense and congress simply drop the matter and repeal UIGEA while allowing stateside companies to compete. Ideal, however, I doubt we will get. obg [/ QUOTE ] We may or may not be able to get it, but we can only find out if we try. Why set our goals for half a loaf? Or some form of a split-pot at best and be happy with a quarter share of the high or low end? When we can and should at least play to win the whole pot? D$D |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I think its going to take the actual IP sanctions to get something moving. This session of Congress is about to wrap up. Draft legislation to simply comply with the WTO ruling should be being worked on FOR NEXT YEAR. Not a bill to regulate and tax, but one to back off criminalizing it. I am giving up on having an iMega ruling on the TRO at all before the hearing, I had hoped we would. Congress won't be in session again to work till Jan when the WTO decision is handed down. God knows the the Bushfuck administration won't be working all to implement a ruling.
So if asked what we should be doing we should be telling Congress to leverage the executive to make a deal with Antigua, and be prepared to back it up with legislation to decriminalize offering gaming services from locations where gaming is legal. Force states that offer gaming to not erect monopolies or criminalize players using the Commerce and Supremacy clauses. Antigua has offered that route, ban all gaming in a state and they won't push, and thats beyond where I think the WTO would go if they have to rule. Im not sure what carrots there are to offer up as a bone to the psuedoChristians, except a compulsive player tax, treatment taxes, and age verification. If we can make some Senators see immediacy, they may opt for a common sense compromise where they can get some perceived concessions. Rangel is in the Caribbean now and should be familiar with what it takes to comply with the WTO. Im still not sure anyone beyond 4 or 5 Reps are taking this seriously. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
TE, IMO it's time to stop pushing the IGREA HR2046. Rep. Charles Rangel realizes that it does not comply with the WTO decision. Also, I think that we have a chance, if the WTO grants Antiqua IP sanctions, to get a better bill. We can get a bill that repeals the UIGEA, exempts foreign online gambling providers from all federal and state gambling laws and establishes a system of regulation and taxation for US based online gambling providers. However, we need to push for such legislation instead of the flawed IGREA. A law that permits states and sports leagues to opt out and requires foreign providers to become subject to US jurisdiction and maintain records etc. within 500 miles of US is not much of an improvement over the present situation. If the WTO fails to grant Antiqua the IP sanction and the iMEGA case fails, then pushing the IGREA may be the best we can get. However, I think that the PPA's lobbyists ought to get ready to assist either the appropriate committee or Congressman in drafting WTO compliant legislation that accomplishes the above goals or at least the first two. I have no problem with Rep. Wexler's bill, but it has no chance. Also, I am not sure that it will make it easier to transfer money to online poker sites. I think that most ewallets do not want to adopt Epassporte's solution of requiring their customers to separate their poker balances from other gambling parts of their sites. Thus, I wonder if legal online gambling isn't the best solution for online poker players. Now is the time to go for our best law; not a second best alternative like the IGREA. [/ QUOTE ] I agree 100% that we should push for the best law we can get. I personally tend to show support for IGREA both because we have an existing bill out there and because it seems we should support Frank, an ally of ours (again, just my opinion). As I've mentioned before, IMO if we don't show support for it, it will just look like there's no support for online poker. That being said, I'd obviously prefer something with a lot less regulation, at least like the Wexler bill. Sumbission to the WTO is the nuts for us, of course, but I think we'll have to show some Congressonal support for to keep the WTO issue active, which is where IGREA keeps coming in. |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Version not endorsing IGREA or Wexler's bill:
November 11, 2007 House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee: I am writing in regards to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to let you know that I, and many like me, believe online poker should be explicitly legalized. To my disappointment, and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was inadvertently restricted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting (1) , and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), this legislation has nonetheless had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. Additionally, many offshore poker sites continue to legally offer Internet poker within the U.S. In fact, some offshore poker sites that left the U.S. market with the passage of UIGEA (most notably Doyle Brunson’s site, Doyle’s Room) are now returning (2). Unfortunately, U.S.-based sites have been prohibited from opening under pressure from the Justice Department. This has resulted in the exact opposite of the ideal situation, from a U.S. perspective. Rather than U.S.-based sites serving the world (and subject to U.S. laws and regulations), offshore sites serve us. We can do better. Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to insist on reasonable regulations, and we are losing valuable opportunities for U.S. companies to operate sites. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue. I urge the committee to recommend that the federal government reject prohibition and to embrace freedom and liberty. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, --------------------- 1. 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) 2. www.doylesroom.com, statement on main page, effective October 19th, 2007 |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I agree that we need the WTO to grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions. If not granted, then this whole discussion and the whole WTO process is moot, legal term for meaningless.
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Casinogamblingweb.com Article
Internet Gambling Hearing to be Held Nov 14 by House Judiciary Committee Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, has set a date for a hearing on Internet gambling. The set date will be November 14, at 10 AM in the Rayburn Building in Washington D.C. The intentions of the Judiciary Hearing are to find out if there can be rules to fairly and effectively mete out laws concerning regulation in order to get rid of the current prohibition. The hearing is a direct result of efforts of the Poker Players Alliance's (PPA) lobbying 'fly-in' they hosted in D.C. last month. There is not an official 'Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers' list of those giving testimony, however, it is rumored that Annie Duke, a poker professional, will be there to establish her views on the skill aspect of poker. Also expected, but not confirmed, to give testimony at the hearing are an expert on WTO obligations, a representative from the Department of Justice, congressmen for and against online gambling, and others. In related news, Rep. Conyers this week signed on to Rep. R. Wexler's Bill H.R. 2610 (The Skill Games Protection Act) as a co-sponsor. Wexler's bill would make an exception in the UIGEA for skill games such as poker. Ironically, what makes the UIGEA so hard to enforce in the first place is the fact that there are so many exceptions already in the bill that allow horse race betting online, and fantasy sports gaming. The banks are mandated to enforce these laws, but the banks say it is near impossible to determine what is illegal and what isn't. The newly set hearing will look into issues like these. November 10, 2007 Posted By Bob Hartman Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Any updated word on whether we'll be able to watch this hearing? I can't seem to get any useful info out of the C-SPAN website.
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Nothing is showing as you know. I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this. Write: viewer@c-span.org My letter: I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers . This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement. Thanks in advance, obg |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
done
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
My letter (probably too long and not guaranteed to be 100% accurate):
I am writing to you in the hopes that you will decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 (Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers). This hearing is of great importance, since the resulting legislation may impact the USTR's negotiations over billions of dollars in WTO trade sanctions. As you know, the US is facing up to 100 billion dollars in sanctions as a result of its anti-online gambling position and its resulting withdrawal from GATT commitments. Since many millions of Americans play poker online, the hearing is important to a large segment of your audience. Also, poker pro Annie Duke is rumored to be testifying, and she is both well-spoken and easy on the eyes. Please show the hearing. Many of us would like to watch. Thanks, |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is showing as you know. I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this. Write: viewer@c-span.org My letter: I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers . This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement. Thanks in advance, obg [/ QUOTE ] E-mail sent |
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Excerpt from the C-SPAN auto-reply. This may not exactly be news, but I thought it was interesting.
[ QUOTE ] Schedule C-SPAN is committed to LIVE gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on C-SPAN2 when they are in session. Due to this live coverage, we are only able to schedule events more than a few hours in advance. C-SPAN3 carries live events when the House and Senate are in session and offers additional choices in public affairs television. Each day we decide in the late afternoon what events we will cover the following day. Until the events are complete, we do not know how long they are and how they will air in our schedule. Throughout the day, events are posted as we know them, but this is often just shortly before they air. View our TV schedules online at www.c-span.org for up-to-date programming information. In addition, on-air programming updates will appear at the bottom of the screen every 15 minutes. Subscribe to C-SPAN Alert! You can receive daily programming information via email for C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, C-SPAN3, BookTV, C-SPAN Radio and Washington Journal by signing up for C-SPAN Alert! at www.c-span.org/watch/cspanalert [/ QUOTE ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.