Frank to introduce bill.....

[Jeffiner99]

James H. Freis, Jr.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
James H. Freis, Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's that?

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
James H. Freis, Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's that?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to know. He will be the person controlling online poker. For now. Apparently the position has a lot of turnover.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
James H. Freis, Jr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's that?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to know. He will be the person controlling online poker. For now. Apparently the position has a lot of turnover.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah. This is my least favorite part of the bill, and I've said that before. I think Frank just wanted to keep it from the DOJ or any other such department. His bio is at www.fincen.gov/aboutus/bio_director.pdf.

[Skallagrim]

Just so others don't get spooked, trust me on this Engineer, the Wire Act, whatever else it applies to, applies only to the businesses, really only the bookie. The Courts have been pretty clear on this.

However, the desire of our opponents, especially the "moral majority" types, to criminalize actual play explicitly has been publicly stated many times.

Engineeer is right that this is what we are up against, but they haven't fully succeeded yet primarily because the thought of locking up huge numbers of otherwise law abiding citizens for playing poker is troublesome to a good number of people (Thank F___ing God) if only because of the expense.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just so others don't get spooked, trust me on this Engineer, the Wire Act, whatever else it applies to, applies only to the businesses, really only the bookie. The Courts have been pretty clear on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Thanks. Glad the status quo is okay for players under this act.

[ QUOTE ]
However, the desire of our opponents, especially the "moral majority" types, to criminalize actual play explicitly has been publicly stated many times.

Engineeer is right that this is what we are up against, but they haven't fully succeeded yet primarily because the thought of locking up huge numbers of otherwise law abiding citizens for playing poker is troublesome to a good number of people (Thank F___ing God) if only because of the expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the real concern. Anyone who questioned the resolve of the U.S. government has only to look at recent actions, like UIGEA, the withdrawal from the gaming sector of the GATS agreement, and the recent DOJ actions. Or, just listen to the overheated Kyl and Goodlatte rhetoric.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The discussion is about your legal rights. You may have a moral right to do as you choose, but the state gives you your legal gambling rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat, the government doesn't GIVE me rights. These rights are already ours....we have merely delegated them to the government.

[/ QUOTE ]


An attorney, I. Nelson Rose, says "the control of gambling has always been a matter left up to the states under their police powers." That means they have the right to control gambling. Their laws dictate gambling rights. You and businesses have the right to ignore them and claim your freedom. They then have the right to further use their police power to stop people from ignoring the law. You and the businesses have a right to due process, etc. Everybody has rights. How this all came about is another day's discussion.

It's a little late to say states shouldn't have or use their rights to control gambling. But is there a lesson there that reflects on the agenda to give another layer of gambling control rights and it's excess baggage to the Feds?

[Skallagrim]

But permafrost, if the gambling is going to happen across state lines, the Feds have to be involved, one way or another.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That being said, I agree that gambling juristictionally belongs with the states (the DOJ doesn't, by the way...they believe the Wire Act covers intrastate gambling as well).

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ does not believe any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you just here as a naysayer? Seriously, you think IGREA is a terrible bill that will screw us royally via a double-cross, yet you believe the DOJ, Goodlatte, and Kyl are on our side? WTF? I used to respect your contrarian opinion, but now I'm not so sure. I really don't get it. How many site operators does the DOJ have to arrest? How many threatening speeches to Goodlatte and Kyl have to give?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow how my correcting your misinformation means that I think DOJ, etc. are on our side. Did I say Barney's boondoggle is a doublecross? No, it is upfront in it's attempt to control your gambling.

And I am not into needing your respect. Read and be enlightened, or not.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
But permafrost, if the gambling is going to happen across state lines, the Feds have to be involved, one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct. One way. Or another.