Few seem to have noticed how the new law "fixes" the Wire Act - Page 6

Copernicus · #51 10-05-2006, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get your drift, Phil. You "think operating the software that allows for betting comes right under this definition" of control. Pretty fatalist of you. Ever hear of free will ?

Does Mason "control" what you write in your posts because he offers the access to this forum ? Don't you control what words you spew forth ?

Maybe it is Microsoft which you think "controls" what you write because you are using a Windows operating system ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I said far more than that. Thanks for quoting my position accurately and honestly.

So, by your own reasoning, sports books or online casino could claim exemption under "interactive computer services" and then claim they have no control over their punter's betting and wagering (because of free will, and all that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). Perhaps you've found a loophole?

I'm writing a response to the rest of your (less ridiculous) points now.

[/ QUOTE ]

either you are incredibly dense or just arguing for arguments sake. In sports betting the site assumes the risk of the wager..they can take it or not. While they may try and balance the action to minimize the risk, there is no guarantee they can do so or may even decide the public is so wrong to fade the action themselves...it is not a parimutual system where they just take their vig. They exercise total control over every bet. Further, they set the terms of the wager...the point spread or the odds, and exercise control in that manner.

In poker there is no control of the wagers themselves, only the charge for the services.

There is also the following language in the bill:

"No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as...extending...any Federal...law". It is absolutely clear that if the Wire Act did not apply to poker before, it doesnt now.

hope your dog is ok.

kleath · #52 10-05-2006, 05:03 PM

To Phil153: This act is not directly related to the wire act, anyone who says it is is either incompetent or a liar, take your pick.

StellarWind · #53 10-05-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In brief, the legislators disagreed on this point. Some legislators argued emphatically that internet gambling was already illegal under the Wire Act and other state and federal laws, and that this new law was needed merely to enforce those existing prohibitions. This group of legislators did not think that the statute amounted to any change at all in the Wire Act.

[/ QUOTE ]
To the extent that legislative history matters, a record showing disagreement on the meaning of a criminal statute can only help the defendents. Doubts about what constitutes a crime usually go in favor of a narrower interpretation.

Self Made · #54 10-05-2006, 05:18 PM

Simple question here that I haven't seen addressed yet:

Can the federal government enforce state laws? Can they apply the laws of one state to everyone? Is that among the powers given to the federal government in the constitution? If not, can they get away with prosecuting on such a basis anyway?

I have no doubt that online poker is illegal in at least one state. I do doubt that the feds can enforce a state's law... especially enforce one state's law on everyone in the US. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. It's the issue that I've been wondering about though, so I hope someone can address it.

StellarWind · #55 10-05-2006, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To Phil153: This act is not directly related to the wire act, anyone who says it is is either incompetent or a liar, take your pick.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could we all stop doing this and just discuss the topic?

Everyone is in a lot of pain right now, but our fellow 2+2'ers are not the enemy. Let's not take out our frustrations on each other.

Phil153 · #56 10-05-2006, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To Phil153: This act is not directly related to the wire act, anyone who says it is is either incompetent or a liar, take your pick.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. Learn to read.

Dornkirk · #57 10-05-2006, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Simple question here that I haven't seen addressed yet:

Can the federal government enforce state laws? Can they apply the laws of one state to everyone? Is that among the powers given to the federal government in the constitution? If not, can they get away with prosecuting on such a basis anyway?

I have no doubt that online poker is illegal in at least one state. I do doubt that the feds can enforce a state's law... especially enforce one state's law on everyone in the US. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. It's the issue that I've been wondering about though, so I hope someone can address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious about this as well. Also, if a state law has never been tested, would the federal government then have the power to interpret the state law themselves?

Wynton · #58 10-05-2006, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Simple question here that I haven't seen addressed yet:

Can the federal government enforce state laws? Can they apply the laws of one state to everyone? Is that among the powers given to the federal government in the constitution? If not, can they get away with prosecuting on such a basis anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no and no. There is no general constitutional power for the federal government to enforce state laws or prosecute state crimes. For the feds to be involved, there must be a federal statute which has its source in the federal constitution.

I want to clarify something that I think people may be confused about (but not sure if I should start a different thread).

I do not believe that this statute presumes that the states have already outlawed internet gambling in particular. Rather, I believe that this statute presumes that most of the statutes have prohibited gambling businesses generally (without distinguishing internet from brick and mortar). And the purpose of the statute is to see that these GENERAL prohibitions are not effectively undermined by permitting internet gambling to occur.

I can elaborate about this here, but maybe I should start a new thread.

Phil153 · #59 10-05-2006, 05:34 PM

Copernicus,

You missed the point entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
In poker there is no control of the wagers themselves, only the charge for the services.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is false. Poker providers set game limits, enforce those limits via software, control the flow of money into and out of accounts, and otherwise exercise various levels of controls over the betting and wagering. I don't think any court will agree to your usage of "control", especially given the clear intent of this bill (as discussed in other threads0.

BTW, my analogy to sportsbetting is simply to point out the absurdity of his "free will" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
There is also the following language in the bill:
"No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as...extending...any Federal...law". It is absolutely clear that if the Wire Act did not apply to poker before, it doesnt now.

[/ QUOTE ]
No kidding. Try reading the thread.

StellarWind · #60 10-05-2006, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can the federal government enforce state laws? Can they apply the laws of one state to everyone? Is that among the powers given to the federal government in the constitution? If not, can they get away with prosecuting on such a basis anyway?

I have no doubt that online poker is illegal in at least one state. I do doubt that the feds can enforce a state's law... especially enforce one state's law on everyone in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]
They can't do some of these things but they aren't trying to.

The new federal crime is (loosely stated) accepting monetary deposits for the purpose of illegal online gambling. What is illegal online gambling? It's (again loosely speaking) online gambling that violates any state or federal law.

So if "East Virginia" has some disused law on its books that makes online gambling a minor offense, the Feds can send some agent to East Virgina, make a deposit at the target site, place an "illegal" (state law) wager, and then prosecute the site under Federal law for accepting the deposit. The state law remains unenforced.