Update from PPA

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you Michael I think it was very big of you to come back to this forum.

I am pretty sure that you have read all the threads with PPA in the title but if not I think the one about why the PPA is not being accountable is worth reading. I remain convinced that the PPA needs an active membership base with local events and local grassroots activists to influence public opinion. The state directors are a good start but go local!

[/ QUOTE ]

Concur. Every regional or "circuit" event should have a booth. The mere presence would be great for morale and membership.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. I seriously question whether the lobbying approach as the one most likely to be effective. My opinion, FWIW, is that a court challenge on some basis other than the lame "game of skill" position is much more likely to have a positive effect this century. Money spent on filings rather than talk would at least have a clear objective and be likely to get a lot of national publicity - which I don't see outside of insular venues like this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement. Grounds for challenge include poker not covered by Wire Act and Wire Act and other related statutes not enforceable because they conflict with WTO decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a lawyer, and I agree too. I'd even be willing to put my [time] where my mouth is. I'll file or defend as necessary to help our cause.

But it isn't going to happen any time soon. We need to remember that US Attorneys (prosecutors) have been very careful on whom they go after -- sports books and accused money launderers are the first targets. They won't directly attack poker until they notch a few wins. They are fighting the battles they know that they can win first. We are a low priority. They think of us as little more than cannon fodder in the war against organized crime (whatever that means).

II is only until they play the game on our turf -- where we can actually defend poker -- that we can win. I doubt if that will ever happen.

Is there really a way for the little guy to attack right now?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the DOJ will not prosecute any case that is solely confined to online poker because they would have a weak case and a loss would cripple their so-called war on online gaming.
I cannot think of any controversy or issue that a poker pro or other party can use to bring an action for declaratory judgment against DOJ to establish the legality of online poker. However, if the DOJ does not prosecute a case against a solely online poker site, affiliate or ewallet only serving online poker, then eventually the industry will realize that offshore online poker sites do not violate federal law. The more cases against online sports betting without any against online poker the quicker this will happen.

[wade]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect Michael to spend his time, personally, responding to everyone here. But I think it is reasonable to set up some arrangement where one or more volunteers associated with the PPA act as an intermediary of sorts, and reply to the most basic questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed there's a few online poker players here. It's hard to imagine a worse polutaltion to brush off questions from, but I suppose patience is a vitrue (of which I need more, granted).

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I think this is an appropriate spot for me to comment. I agree with many of the points that BluffTHIS makes, as do many of our other posters. But it's also important that Michael Bolcerek has come on here to state that progress is being made in those areas where we have concerns. And once this is done to our satisfation, we'll let everyone know.

Also, once this is done, I believe that the PPA will then have the opportunity to address these other issues which BluffThis mentions in his post. However, legal counsels on all sides are now invloved, and sometimes the progress that attorneys make is not as fast as we would like. But I do believe that things are now moving in the right direction, and I do hope that satisfactory resolution will be achieved.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shrugs]

[ QUOTE ]
michael,

who are those indian dudes calling us saying they are the PPA? Can u teach them english before they call? Its very ineffective.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good post. I got this call today also. Guy from India says something like "Hello, I'm from the Poker Players Alliance, can we count on you to continue supporting poker in America by donating $1,000." I'm like wtf? Some guy from India wants me to donate $1,000 for poker in America? This needs to stop.

I realized that I haven't renewed my membership for this year and will go to the site and give the $20 or whatever to do that. I'm willing to give more if I see progress and never get a call again from someone in India representing the PPA.

[Self Made]

I'm with Milton and others: I don't think online poker needs more regulation, but less. It's a solely liberal (in the modern sense) perspective that the solution for everything is government. As Ronald Reagan said, "government isn't the solution, it's the problem."