How to check-mate the DoJ in one move

[CTKid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But funding one is, which is what you would be doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true.

The UIGA only covers illegal gambling. Online poker is not illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who believe this are morans...seriously

[/ QUOTE ]

Have I been misinformed? Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

The new law passes violations of state gambling laws to federal jurisdiction, but does not otherwise change the laws regarding online poker. But if you live in a state that has an explicit ban on PLAYING online poker (WAS for one, not sure of others), you can now be prosecuted by the feds.

at least that's what I have read.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
And a London court

[/ QUOTE ]

This means nothing here.

As far as I know, Party hasn't been persecuted yet. Although several of their skins had sportsbooks as well.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And a London court

[/ QUOTE ]

This means nothing here.

As far as I know, Party hasn't been persecuted yet. Although several of their skins had sportsbooks as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they've been plenty persecuted.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But funding one is, which is what you would be doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true.

The UIGA only covers illegal gambling. Online poker is not illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who believe this are morans...seriously

[/ QUOTE ]

Have I been misinformed? Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Read the text of the Act, they prohibit helping Americans place bets or wagers on-line, when you play poker you are doing this. I could go into more detail, but I don't feel like it right now. Rest assured, however, the people claiming poker is not affected by this act are wrong, or have their own agendas.

It's amazing that so many of you choose to stick your heads in the sand. You people are intelligent, try thinking for yourself. Grab a dictionary, read the statute. The meaning of the words used in the statute are the same as those you will find in your dictionary, except where the statute defines them itself.

For example...

[ QUOTE ]
pok·er

Any of various card games played by two or more players who <u>bet</u> on the value of their hands.

The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
© 1996-2007 yourDictionary.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved


[/ QUOTE ]

The bolding is mine...btw

[ekdikeo]

I think that it's pretty safe to say, if it's against the law to win money playing cards, where you are, then it's against the law to win money playing cards even if you are playing them online.

This is the case in most states.

It needs to change.

Gambling has, in the past, always been determined by STATE laws, because it was something that only took place in one state at a time. (unless someone built a casino with a table splitting a state line, which I doubt)

So, I think, it needs to be tackled on a state basis.

[NoMoreLurking]

And what exactly is the definition of "morans" in that The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition?

Is it something like "someone who tells people they should learn to use a dictionary"?

[terrellk11]

[ QUOTE ]
The DoJ has not targeted anything non-sports betting related. I think there is a reason for that.

I think we want this case in court. I think we would will and online poker would grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason is that they are setting precedent before expanding into other areas. Federal agencies such as the SEC and the DoJ start by targeting an area where they are all but 100% convinced they can get a ruling in their favor (in this case, they are using Sports Betting as their "sure thing"). From there, they use the force of that precedent to threaten/intimidate/coerce their way into expanding it to cover other areas that they are not so sure of. Many of the "expansion" areas will end up covered by consent decrees and cease-and-desist settlements as the parties targeted are generally afraid to fight back after seeing the first round loss. While those consent decrees and settlements have no actual precedential value (ie - courts not bound by them), the agencies wield them like a club to intimidate others into further settlements until they get what they want or, like a bully, until someone stands up and fights back.

Unless you've dealt with one of these agencies, you simply can't understand the mentality that drives their actions. It's very easy to pursue a frivolous and expensive investigation when there is little to no accountability and you have an essentially limitless budget. Given this mentality, they keep going until either the agency's upper crust gets embarrassed and calls it off (even that doesn't always work) or until a court tells them to blow it out their ass. However, most people simply can't afford the cost of that battle. The agency has limitless funds, but most defendents don't.

[curious123]

Excerpted from Chuck Humphrey's analysis of the UIGEA...

[ QUOTE ]
Some commentators have argued that the operation of online poker Websites should be excluded from the reach of the new law because poker, being a skillful game, is not a game of chance. Under current state law that argument does not hold water. Most U.S. jurisdictions apply the Dominant Factor test to determine if a contest is a game of skill or a game of chance. That test looks to which elements predominate (51%) in determining outcome of the game. If the elements of chance predominate, then it is a game of chance, notwithstanding that skill elements are important, but not predominant. Furthermore, the outcome is to be determined by the considering the nature of the game and the abilities of the average player coming to the game. See: Is Poker a Game of Skill? Online poker operators should consider mathematical analysis of their vast data bases of poker results to support attempts to overturn the case law that views the "luck of the draw" aspect of poker as resulting in its being a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The new law...only applies to online gambling operators who violate other existing state or federal anti-gambling laws. Some commentators on this aspect of the Act conclude that since there are only a handful of states that expressly ban Internet gambling, this law has not accomplished very much.

The better view is that all of the online gambling sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms violate existing anti-gambling laws of every one of the fifty states. This is because:
[*]The gambling is legally deemed to take place simultaneously at both ends of the Internet connection. [*]Under applicable state laws these interactive online gambling Websites are deemed to be doing business in the states in which the players are located when they make a bet.[*]The general anti-gambling laws of every state criminalize the operation of unlicensed gambling like the sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms that are covered by the new law.

Thus, this professional form of unlicensed gambling appears to be illegal whether or not the state has adopted a specific Internet anti-gambling law.

[/ QUOTE ]

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you start drinking heavily after you read the FTP happy email thread or something?





[/ QUOTE ]

No. He is having flashbacks to the time that my straight flush beat his quad nines....can you blame him for being delusional after that?

Sorry 1pokerboy...couldn't resist. Remember me?

[augie_]

quit trying to solve this problem and just sit around and wait for the government to tell u what to do