More prosection of e-wallets?

[JPFisher55]

Actually, I play at Vegas Poker 247. When it started Blackjack for money, it separated it into a separate account from your poker account. You can use Epassporte to fund your poker account, but not your blackjack account. I think that Epassporte demands this procedure for every poker site that they service that has blackjack.
Also, Epassporte does not service poker sites with sports betting or casino.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
If the DOJ indicts Epassporte and loses, then online poker would gain the exemption that we seek by legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The inference that "a lost case = poker exemption" is not necessarily true. Congress can close any loophole(s) a lost case may reveal, and can do so quickly if it chooses.

As it stands today, I don't think the DOJ is sersiously interested in prosecuting any online gaming cases. The DOJ has three real weapons in its arsenal: arrests, fines and imprisonment. They can do the first two -- arrest and fine -- and achieve 50%+ of the impact, whenever they feel like it, without having to do 90%+ of the actual hardwork (prosecuting AND winning a case).

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I play at Vegas Poker 247. When it started Blackjack for money, it separated it into a separate account from your poker account. You can use Epassporte to fund your poker account, but not your blackjack account. I think that Epassporte demands this procedure for every poker site that they service that has blackjack.
Also, Epassporte does not service poker sites with sports betting or casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

ePass services Ultimate Bet, which does have blackjack, a casino game, that is not played on a separate account from poker.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the DOJ indicts Epassporte and loses, then online poker would gain the exemption that we seek by legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The inference that "a lost case = poker exemption" is not necessarily true. Congress can close any loophole(s) a lost case may reveal, and can do so quickly if it chooses.

As it stands today, I don't think the DOJ is sersiously interested in prosecuting any online gaming cases. The DOJ has three real weapons in its arsenal: arrests, fines and imprisonment. They can do the first two -- arrest and fine -- and achieve 50%+ of the impact, whenever they feel like it, without having to do 90%+ of the actual hardwork (prosecuting AND winning a case).

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the DOJ's most deadly weapon... the "threat" of arrest, fine, or imprisonment...

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
ePass services Ultimate Bet, which does have blackjack, a casino game, that is not played on a separate account from poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you but perhaps it doesn't matter very much.

Legally speaking casino games such as blackjack and raked poker games seem to be virtually the same thing. Sports betting is a different thing because only sports betting is covered by the Wire Act.

Does anyone know of a sports betting site that uses ePassporte?

[JPFisher55]

According to compatiblepoker.com, Epassporte only allows US citizens to deposit into poker only sites.

[Skallagrim]

Sorry StellarWind, gotta respnd to this statement: "Legally speaking casino games such as blackjack and raked poker games seem to be virtually the same thing."

This is NOT CORRECT, at least not yet. There is no question casino games like blackjack are "gambling" under the law of every state. There is, at the very least, substantial question about Poker because it has been classified in 2 states as a game of skill. Also, a blackjack game against the house clearly puts the house in the "business of betting and wagering" whereas the "house" in poker does absolutely no betting or wagering.

There are some other distinctions...but they have been discussed before, the 2 above are the biggest.

It seems to me epassporte has deliberately set themselves up to be the most difficult e-wallet for the DOJ to screw with, and if that screwing does take place, I suspect epassporte will defend rather than capitulate. And if they win in Court, IT IS LEGAL POKER MY FRIENDS!

Yes, the Congress could then try to change the laws...lets see, it only took them 10 years to pass the UIGEA, and even then they had to use a trick. I aint that worried about that.

Skallagirm

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I doubt that ... Romney would continue this campaign against online gaming or so blatanly disregard the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are completely wrong.

[yahboohoo]

Here is an excerpt from one of the top results when searching Google for "poker" "game of skill" "state of California":

"There is an abiding misconception in the gambling community about the legal history of games like poker in the State of California. It is improperly assumed that poker is permitted because it is a game of skill, as opposed to a game of chance. Misstatements abound that California courts have so held." — from "California: Lotteries vs. Gambling," www.gambling-law-us.com

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an excerpt from one of the top results when searching Google for "poker" "game of skill" "state of California":

"There is an abiding misconception in the gambling community about the legal history of games like poker in the State of California. It is improperly assumed that poker is permitted because it is a game of skill, as opposed to a game of chance. Misstatements abound that California courts have so held." — from "California: Lotteries vs. Gambling," www.gambling-law-us.com

[/ QUOTE ]

A lottery in California is anything that involves "mainly chance" to determine the outcome. Same in Missouri. Lotteries are UNCONSITUTIONAL in both states. Both state Courts have ruled poker is not a lottery. Hence poker isnt mainly chance.

I could write a detailed rebuttal of the Chuck Humphrey article you site (or look up links to where I have done it before), but last time I checked Chuck Humphrey wasnt God and could be wrong.

Finally, if you read his whole article it is clear he does not understand poker that well (he does not claim to be a poker expert), admits that he could be wrong about poker actually being a game of skill, and acknowledges a California case finding rubber-style bridge (not duplicate) to be a game of skill where the reasoning behind the decision is 100% applicable to poker.

Besides, the point for this thread is that the "poker:skill or chance" argument is a viable argument and that does weigh in on DOJ tactical considerations.

Skallagrim