Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[sobefuddled]

I think it's safe to say he has received the memo by now. While it's important to keep up the pressure at the top level it is critical to get the ground level support rolling. Neither my rep nor my senator has responded to my e-mail so now I need to schedule appointments with them. I also think each of us needs to contact a few friends in our own neighborhoods in order to increase visibility and support. It is very important that we don't get sidetracked into the whole anti-casino and anti-gambling argument. Just remain consistently opposed to the on-line gaming section of the bill. If we maintain a singleness of purpose right now we should do OK. We should also focus our attention on those who currently support the casino bill because they are the ones who may unintentionally be our undoing. FWIW those who oppose gambling on moral or social grounds will want to kill the entire bill anyway so it's a bit futile to waste our energy on them.
Alice

[downrange]

the boston globe article is really getting spread around:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/13/1455207

[MassPoker]

I think we are all amazed at how the news of this is getting spread around. On a personal note, I'd personally like to thank everyone for their support (calls and letter writing) on this issue. Great to see us all band together on an issue we feel so passionate about!

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Greetings Again From MA PPA Rep!

Our primary focus and/or ultimate goals here are this:

c)To ultimately have the section of the bill that seeksto ban and criminalize online gaming (poker inclusive) stricken from the bill.



All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Representative

[/ QUOTE ]

You imply that Massachusetts online gaming is currently legal, apparently with PPA blessing. Would you be kind enough to explain that stance and how it came about? It is contrary to a more logical and accepted reality. I ask because it is only a matter of time until a smart foe sees the contradictions in this position. It would be nice to have your rebuttal thought out or the stance changed prior to that.

In explaining, some answers to the following questions would help. Thanks in advance for your reply to a long time PPA member, no rush.
1. The current MA law talks about fines and prison for persons betting on the results of a game. And the MA Attorney General opined that poker tournaments are illegal for players and suppliers, other than charities. A Harvard law professor has echoed the AG’s “restrictions”. Why is PPA implying an internet poker business and its players, conducting business and serving players in MA, is somehow not subject to MA law? PokerStars may be a good example.

2. If a PokerStars type casino is not subject to current MA law and regulation, why is this new bill needed to license and regulate proposed B&M casinos? And could PokerStars show up and build a B&M there without regulation?

3. If a PokerStars type casino is indeed subject to current MA (or other state’s) law and regulations, is PPA interested in fighting the current laws that criminalize unlicensed casino poker and often players, along with fighting proposed restrictions?

4. If online racing bets are regulated in MA, why are PokerStars type casinos okay?

[oldbookguy]

Permafrost, WHY do ask andf have answered the same question, over and over and over and over.......

Ma. law does NOT prohibit games of skill (even wagering and the house getting a fee), E.G., World Winner, a skill games company is located in Ma., that should be enough to answer that question.

The argument is poker falls under that same category, skill games, unlike craps, roulette, slots, ect. An AG opinion is that, an opinion, not a court of law ruling by a judge.

Stop eating ice cream and let the frost thaw!

obg - NOT representing the PPA, my Opin only


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greetings Again From MA PPA Rep!

Our primary focus and/or ultimate goals here are this:

c)To ultimately have the section of the bill that seeksto ban and criminalize online gaming (poker inclusive) stricken from the bill.



All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Representative

[/ QUOTE ]

You imply that Massachusetts online gaming is currently legal, apparently with PPA blessing. Would you be kind enough to explain that stance and how it came about? It is contrary to a more logical and accepted reality. I ask because it is only a matter of time until a smart foe sees the contradictions in this position. It would be nice to have your rebuttal thought out or the stance changed prior to that.

In explaining, some answers to the following questions would help. Thanks in advance for your reply to a long time PPA member, no rush.
1. The current MA law talks about fines and prison for persons betting on the results of a game. And the MA Attorney General opined that poker tournaments are illegal for players and suppliers, other than charities. A Harvard law professor has echoed the AG’s “restrictions”. Why is PPA implying an internet poker business and its players, conducting business and serving players in MA, is somehow not subject to MA law? PokerStars may be a good example.

2. If a PokerStars type casino is not subject to current MA law and regulation, why is this new bill needed to license and regulate proposed B&M casinos? And could PokerStars show up and build a B&M there without regulation?

3. If a PokerStars type casino is indeed subject to current MA (or other state’s) law and regulations, is PPA interested in fighting the current laws that criminalize unlicensed casino poker and often players, along with fighting proposed restrictions?

4. If online racing bets are regulated in MA, why are PokerStars type casinos okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Skallagrim]

permafrost, since you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge my prior responses on these issues, I am going to ignore your specific questions.

I am going to point out, for the benefit of the other readers and posters, that there exists conflicting case law in MA lower courts on whether video poker violates MA gambling law. VIDEO POKER! Real poker involves much more skill than video poker. Since the SJC in MA has never spoken on the issue, the actual final ruling is still debatable. But for perma to suggest it is not debatable is just plain wrong. For the 30th or so time.

Skallagrim

[OB-Wan222]

Guys, you don't have to argue in the dark. Here is the website I use to find out the laws in various states. I admit I tried to read the MA regs but they were written in such legal-ese that it quickly gave me a headache.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State...Massachusetts/

Now you can argue about the laws with some indication of what they actually say.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, you don't have to argue in the dark. Here is the website I use to find out the laws in various states. I admit I tried to read the MA regs but they were written in such legal-ese that it quickly gave me a headache.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State...Massachusetts/

Now you can argue about the laws with some indication of what they actually say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. We are familiar with that site. It will take more than that to settle this one. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Uglyowl]

I am very happy this morning, my state representative took the time to specifically respond to my concerns (and better yet he agreed with us). It gets tiring getting a history lesson of laws and bills we are well versed in, I am proud to have a State Representative who will take a stand. Mr. Rice will always have my vote (and my wife's after I fill her in).


Dear Joseph,

Thanks for sharing with me your concerns regarding the criminalization of online gaming. I do not support any provision in this legislation or any other bill that provides for such a penalty. When the bill is heard before the Joint Committee on Economic Development & Emerging Technologies, of which I am a member, I will speak against this provision and urge my colleagues on the Committee to delete this provision from the final legislation.

Please feel free to communicate to me any other concerns on this bill or others of interest.

Sincerely,



Bob Rice

State Representative Robert L. Rice, Jr.
2nd Worcester District
State House, Room 33
Boston, MA 02133-1054
Tel. 617-722-2060 (Boston)
Fax 617-722-2849 (Boston)
Rep.RobertRice@hou.state.ma.us

[MassPoker]

Greetings,

It has come to my attention from several people who have called the Governor's office that a particular female intern is telling the callers that "online poker is already illegal." This IS NOT TRUE and is a vain attempt by the Governor's PR and legal staffer's at trying to take the pressure off of them. This intern is using the United States Justice Departments official position that online poker is illegal under the Wire Act of 1961.

This decision has been clearly decided by a Supreme Court and upheld by an Appellate Court:

With respect to online poker, this question has already been heard and decided. “In Re Mastercard International” presided over by the Honorable District Court Justice, Judge Stanwood R. Duvall, Jr. in 2001. Judge Duvall was posed with the question as to whether or not the Wire Act of 1961 applied to online gambling. Judge Duvall ruled that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on sports betting. Judge Duvall further held that online poker was not within the reach of the Wire Act’s prohibition. Moreover, the District Court of Appeals upheld Judge Duvall’s ruling and agreed that online poker was not within the scope or prohibition of the Wire Act of 1961.

If this intern continues to use this inapplicable law as her "out" from engaging in meaningful debate over the real issue here in Massachusetts, then I ask that you ask her full name and email it to me ASAP at: ma@pokerplayersalliance.org. I will take care of it from there. Thank you.

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep