[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you Engineer. But I think that we have to examine the logical alternative regs and decide which is best and which is worst for online poker. Remember that a court challenge to the DOJ's contention that Internet poker violates the Wire Act cannot occur unless the DOJ threatens or prosecutes some entity in the online poker industry; or unless some reg under the UIGEA specifically defines internet poker to be unlawfull internet gambling.

However, I think that we need to examine 4 possible regs in order of favorability to online poker.

1. Online poker is defined not to be unlawful internet gambling. Great but not likely.

2. A bank can process any ACH or other transaction unless it has actual knowledge that such transaction is related to any unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very good for online poker because status quo is maintained and Epassporte and other future competitors can operate. This reg would make prosecution of any bank very difficult because no bank has actual knowledge about any ACH or most transactions. But unlikely reg.

3. Online internet poker is defined to be unlawful internet gambling. Bad for online poker but easily challenged in court.

4. A bank cannot process any ACH or other transaction that involves or is related to unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very bad for online poker. Banks might stop processing ACH's from Epassporte, any foreign ewallet, even suspicious checks because it could be liable for violating such reg even if it does not know is a ACH or other transaction involves internet gambling. This is the worst reg for online poker and would be more difficult to challenge and take much longer than 3. And I fear that it is the most likely reg to be issued.

So my question is how can we get the best reg for online poker? And my opinion is that 3. is better than 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think (and this is just speculation) #2 and #4 are equally likely, and #1 and #3 are equally unlikely (very unlikely). I think #4 is bad, but #3 is FAR worse. I join Coy Roy and others in asking that no one here push for a ban in hopes of getting a quick court judgement.