Regulations are out

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

one time! I need a big loan from the donk zone

Question:

I am scanning the document and noticed this:

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2007.

Does the document mention how long the comment review/reg modification period will be?

[/ QUOTE ]

90 days unless a good case is made for more time or a good case is made for less.

It isn't offical as far as I know until it is published in the Federal Register.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
These regs are interesting. As we figured, the Treasury Dept. doesn't really know what's legal and what isn't.

I'm working up a comment now. Let's all write now, to get the first comments in. The web site isn't up yet, but we can email our comments now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed TE, the following is from the regs and I suggest we work from this angle:

[ QUOTE ]
The costs of implementing a list by the US government to deem certain transactions as unlawful Internet gambling transactions for the banks to use as a guideline were deemed by the Treasury to be 'significant'.

"This is because establishing a list would require considerable fact-finding and legal analysis once the U.S. Government identifies a gambling website. The Government must engage in an extensive legal analysis to determine whether the gambling website is used, at least in part, to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit unlawful bets or wagers. This legal analysis would entail interpreting the various Federal and State gambling laws, which could be complicated by the fact that the legality of a particular Internet gambling transaction might change depending on the location of the gambler at the time the transaction was initiated and the location where the bet or wager was received," the regs state.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF it is TOO expensive and time consuming for the Federal Government to actually determine what is / is not illegal, then how are banks, ACH and others to with far less resources and time to determine this?

Is the Federal Government relegating to individuals the right to interpret and make law?

Next area - I will have to find it, but somewhere it mentions the judicial as the final determiner as to what is / is not legal / illegal.
We need to drat a second comment letter based on the M/C case and Chuck Humphries Fantasy Case where 'Contests' were ruled to not be gambling, I.E. Poker Tournaments fit this description.

We need to try and MAKE the regs writers determine / create a list at least of LEGAL Internet Wagering, State by State, I.E. contests and Skill Gaming and WHAT games are included here.

obg

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
25 hours compliance time - BS!

[/ QUOTE ]

CGW wrote an article and said the Treasury estimates that it would take 368,254 hours of work to implement these regulations.

Full Article

[/ QUOTE ]And who is going to pay for 42 man-years of work?

[oldbookguy]

Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551


I find these proposed regulations for implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, 2006 (UIGEA) incredulous at best.

In the UIGEA Regulations Proposal, you state and I quote:

“The costs of implementing a list by the US government to deem certain transactions as unlawful Internet gambling transactions for the banks to use as a guideline were deemed by the Treasury to be 'significant'.

"This is because establishing a list would require considerable fact-finding and legal analysis once the U.S. Government identifies a gambling website. The Government must engage in an extensive legal analysis to determine whether the gambling website is used, at least in part, to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit unlawful bets or wagers. This legal analysis would entail interpreting the various Federal and State gambling laws, which could be complicated by the fact that the legality of a particular Internet gambling transaction might change depending on the location of the gambler at the time the transaction was initiated and the location where the bet or wager was received," the regs state.”

So, if establishing a list is too considerable of a job for the unlimited resources of the Federal Government, how in the world do you expect a Bank, ACH or Other Money Business to do this? How are THEY supposed to determine legal from Illegal if NO ONE at a minimum states what is / is not legal?

Are you now relegating to Banks, ACH or Other Money Businesses the ability to set policy and make a finding as to what is legal from illegal?

Please, tell me my government can do better than this.

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to try and MAKE the regs writers determine / create a list at least of LEGAL Internet Wagering, State by State, I.E. contests and Skill Gaming and WHAT games are included here.

obg



[/ QUOTE ]

We have dodged a real bullet by there being no list planned for the proposed rule. I would like to hear more reasons for why we should now push for ANY list.

[HelloandGoodby90]

I DON'T want the government making a list of what states are legal, what games are illegal, etc. Let the regs stay vague, so the banks keep their enforcement of them vague, and they do not get enforced.

Please, don't push for a list, obg. IMO, that would be the worst move ever.

Read earlier, when the banks mentioned that they are satisfied, in the reuters arcticle. Why? Because there is not much to enforce. We have dodged a bullet with these regs, by not getting very specific regs, that would be both hard for the banks to enforce, and more effective. The regs we have now, probably will not be enforced. There is no reason to ask for more specific regs.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]

I am no guru either, however, I do know that the 5th circuit Federal Court ruled the Wire Act does not include ANYTHING except sports betting.

I am guessing that perhaps the sites with the 11 state ban may have gotten it right since those states prohibt either all wagering or the Internet specifically.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the 5th Circuit Court only upheld a ruling by a lower court. The main civil suit unwisely attempted to sue under RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Mention of the Wire Act in the original decision was cursory and not determinate or integral to the initial decision, although mention of it was made and infererred that the Wire Act did not apply as a portion of the RICO tort claim.

Jimbo

[oldbookguy]

Actually there never will be a list, it is to show the absurdity of the entire regs.

If the government cannot determine legal from illegal, how on earth are banks and ach's going too?

obg

[HelloandGoodby90]

Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow, by the mere fact they are impossible to follow. (Instead of asking for a list, because that would be more specific regs.)

This helps our cause, without hurting it by trying to make more regulations.

The banks are going to push for the minimum amount of work on their part, through less regs, and less specifity. We should be doing this to, because the banks are less likely to enforce what they don't have to enforce, as that would be less productive (Although some still might and do right now).

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow. (In place of a list)

This helps our cause, without hurting it through the use of a list.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I like the way you think.....

The problem is the law at least as I read it and the regs say that if a bank messes up and blocks a legal transaction there is no recourse.

Given that bankers are NOT the worlds riskiest gamblers unless their is a price to pay for them throwing a wet blanket over anything associated with gambling and saying "so what!" is the problem I have with this law and proposed rule.

There is no hook to make them pay for doing the gov't bidding.

THAT is why they don't have a problem with the reg!


IMPO as always,


D$D