THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD - Page 3

Lawman007 · #21 10-01-2006, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lawman - I have searched for your posts and can find nothing of value whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that you didn't even know the name of the man who did all this, that is hardly surprising.

erastank · #22 10-01-2006, 11:01 PM

Hi breaktwister. Don't listen to lawman he is a US Govt shill trying to incite fear and panic in the online poker community.

From reading the bill I don't understand how neteller would not be covered, but I hope your right.

JPFisher55 · #23 10-01-2006, 11:02 PM

Breaktwister, I practice law in St. Louis, MO, but not in litigation or the areas of law affected by this law. US credit cards do not accept transactions with gambling websites because of the Federal Consumer Fair Credit Act. This law allows consumers to challenge charges on credit cards when they feel that the merchant cheated them. The credit card companies got so many requests to investigate charges related to Internet gambling sites that they voluntarily stopped accepting transactions with any company related to the business including Neteller.
However, I completely agree with your post and have written some posts on this forum attempting to explain this view.

breaktwister · #24 10-01-2006, 11:04 PM

I got his name wrong knobend - one letter out - big deal.

Just [censored] off, because you are annoying everybody. What kind of lawman are you that can't give a simple argument on a forum?

LOL - you're just an idiot.

Lawman007 · #25 10-01-2006, 11:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
knobend

[/ QUOTE ]

Knobend?!!!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Now you've gone too far, Rumpole! If we ever meet up, I'm going to knock that powdered wig right off your head.

schroedy · #26 10-01-2006, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I got his name wrong knobend - one letter out - big deal.

Just [censored] off, because you are annoying everybody. What kind of lawman are you that can't give a simple argument on a forum?

LOL - you're just an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The unfortunate thing about Lawman007 is that 2+2 does not have an "ignore" feature. You have to implement it manually.

DO NOT RESPOND TO HIM AND HE WILL GO SOME PLACE ELSE FOR THE ATTENTION THAT HE CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT.

Simple.

Berge20 · #27 10-01-2006, 11:12 PM

The premise of your argument relies entirely on the determination that internet gambling is not legal.

I am not convinced that issue has been effectively decided by the courts one way or the other. The Department of Justice believes it is illegal, while certain lower court rulings come down on the other side.

Lost_My_Stink · #28 10-01-2006, 11:13 PM

Breaktwister:

Thank you for this interesting post. I hope that the negative responses will not prevent you from offering your opinions in the future.

A suggestion: it might be advisable to write a headline that is not so inflamatory and absolute. You opened yourself up to attacks from the reactionaries of this forum (who probably didn't read your whole post).

Like yourself, I challenge Lawman and company to provide a thoughtful, analytical argument for their positions. It's a shame they don't understand that personal attacks and rank speculation have no business in this forum as they are unhelpful and defeatist.

I will say, while I defend the right for Lawman and CO. to say whatever they want regardless of how stupid or childish it might be, I hope they learn to argue their points without being abusive. It's a lot easier to attack a person than to attack their arguments.

breaktwister · #29 10-01-2006, 11:15 PM

Thanks JP - I did not know about that Federal Consumer Credit Act. I also didnt know that US based banks/cc companies were refusing to lodge into Neteller. Surely, the Consumer Credit Act would not apply if the funds were moved from cc to Neteller first?

The logic being that once Neteller has the deposit its as good as a cash transaction and no recourse could be sought against the cc company for anything which happens after this "cash advance"?

JPFisher55 · #30 10-01-2006, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The premise of your argument relies entirely on the determination that internet gambling is not legal.

I am not convinced that issue has been effectively decided by the courts one way or the other. The Department of Justice believes it is illegal, while certain lower court rulings come down on the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge, his argument is that whatever US law is one this issue, it cannot be directly enforced against a foreign company unless they have assets in US. Of course, any employee or associate can be subject to US law if in the US.
So, any employee or associate (maybe including professional endorsing website) might have a problem.