The war starts?

[fasteddy1970]

"How do they find a judge to sign off." You're joking right? With all of the outrageous sign offs these past years (denying habeas corpus for one thing)do you really think they'll have a problem finding a judge to sign off on this.

[JPFisher55]

Judges don't give requests for subpoenas much scrutiny. That comes when the subpoenad party moves to quash "overturn" the subpoena.

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
(unless there are WMD's there).



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as we have seen, that is not really needed either. All that is really needed for the evasion is fear, and the ability to stretch the truth.

[Stealthy]

The UK is actively embracing the online poker firms at the same time the US is criminalising them. Also British politicians have spoken out against America's gambling stance. I cannot see how the DOJ can end up with anything but egg on their faces in pursuing online gambling beyond their own borders.

[Botchman]

[ QUOTE ]
Bachman: You're already seeing how afraid they all are without so much as a court case. There's no court case against partypoker and NT andch less o yet they ran at the first sign of trouble. What makes you think any of the others will stand and fight when faced with the enormous costs and risks involved in a suit against any government muurs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Partypoker had to pull out because they are a listed company, and the latest DOJ action is against NT, indirectly. A case will eventually go to trial and hopefully thats when online poker sites will previal

[tourney guy]

People make me laugh about this issue.

If a foreign company does business in America, they must abide by American rules of doing business.

Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

If you owned the company as opposed to simply using its site, you would think way, way differently.

Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?????

Be serious for a moment here - the whole idea of this is to have non-licenced internet poker rooms be replaced by USA-owned, licenced poker rooms.

Isn't it obvious???

[Zobags]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the online poker rooms are licensed. And in some states, using your computer to play poker on the internet is perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they already did - see the 5th Cir. ruling in In re Mastercard.

[SlapPappy]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it obvious???


[/ QUOTE ]

Enlighten us? I thought it was a possibility but obvious?

[tourney guy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the online poker rooms are licensed. And in some states, using your computer to play poker on the internet is perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they already did - see the 5th Cir. ruling in In re Mastercard.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a chuckle.

1) The 5th Circuit case was to protect credit card companies from damages when players use them to buy online gambling chips. It is a RICO issue, not a UIGEA issue.

2) Stars, UB, etc, are not licenced in America, America doesn't issue gambling licences, states do. If a site is licenced in the UK, for example, it does not make it ok in America to use those sites, especially since UIGEA was passed.

3) PLaying poker online is totally legal, just gambling online is not!!!!!

By June 1, 2007, all sites will stop taking American deposits.

By June 1, 2010........USA LICENCED GAMING COMPANIES will be running online poker sites.......can you say taxes!

[chicagoY]

What cowards. How about terrorists for a start? Instead it's a bunch of set farmers.