Regulations are out

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to have a leader in our effort and I propose TE and/or D$D because they seem to understand politics and this process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose TE, no if's, and's or but's.

The Engineer is our leader.

[Grasshopp3r]

I think that the list is necessary and if they don't produce a list, it is simply Senator McCarthy waving a sheaf of papers at a press conference. The list is important to establish standing in future litigation. Failure to provide a list is admission that there are no sites that violate Federal laws, including the sports betting sites.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the list is necessary and if they don't produce a list, it is simply Senator McCarthy waving a sheaf of papers at a press conference. The list is important to establish standing in future litigation. Failure to provide a list is admission that there are no sites that violate Federal laws, including the sports betting sites.

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree. it'd be like fighting a cloud of smoke in the future. damn gov't and elastic clauses.

[omgwtf]

I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement, where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them.

[/ QUOTE ]


I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement , where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

With out "due process of law."

The regulation as proposed says if you do this uniquely governmental activity we will absolve you of any and all responsibility!!!!!



D$D<--Will take a lifetime appointment to the bench [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement, where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of my earlier point, that the banks will be forced to make legal judgments.

Again, I cannot imagine any scenrio which does not result in an actual, specific list being compiled. Whether it is created by the treasury department itself, or maybe a consortium of banks, eventually there will be a specific list.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement, where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of my earlier point, that the banks will be forced to make legal judgments.

Again, I cannot imagine any scenrio which does not result in an actual, specific list being compiled. Whether it is created by the treasury department itself, or maybe a consortium of banks, eventually there will be a specific list.

[/ QUOTE ]


And a good arguement for us under the Paperwork Reduction Act for us. IMPO

I thought I read the rule didn't want the development of a specific list????



D$D

[Jussurreal]

I don't think a list is a good idea. I am a sports man but even for you poker players it is not a good idea. If a list is made they may very well include the poker sites. The regulations as they are written are good now, stirring it up and hoping it comes out a different way is a -EV move. If it aint broke then don't try to fix it.

[JPFisher55]

Ok TE, I'll wait for your comments. I do have a specific comment opposing the creation of any list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses ready to post or submit. Let me know when or if to post it. In the alternative, do we want to propose our own list of lawful Internet gambling businesses i.e. poker sites?