Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Legislation
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-11-2007, 05:52 PM
permafrost permafrost is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 618
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire

[ QUOTE ]
Please post if anyone knows where I can read the complaint,

[/ QUOTE ] complaint
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2007, 06:22 PM
elevationzero elevationzero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

Here's a comment, there is no such thing as NJ Federal procedures. You have state procedures and you have federal procedures. There is nothing that any New Jersey State Court is going to do about federal regulations.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2007, 06:34 PM
elevationzero elevationzero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

Regulations don't get passed. The law was already passed and the regulations are simply the governing agency's means of implementing the law.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-11-2007, 06:53 PM
CompatiblePoker CompatiblePoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 148
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

[ QUOTE ]

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me.

The reg's, once posted, will have a 60 day comment period before they actually go into effect.

So, if the reg's are published, say tomorrow, it will be 60 more days till they go into effect, or more if comments cause changes to them.

This will take them, at a minimum, past the Sept. 04 hearing date?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I was curious about this too and contacted the Treasury Department yesterday and ended up getting directed down to an attorney at the IRS. He told me that yes, this is what happens but the allotted comment period 30,60,90, 120 or whatever days isn't stated until the regulations are published.

He left a voice mail and seemed pretty certain this was the case. Where did you hear it was 60 days? I could call him back tomorrow to see if he could verify.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-11-2007, 07:23 PM
MiltonFriedman MiltonFriedman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Waaay down below
Posts: 1,627
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

Comment noted.

There is a US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It certainly has local rules and procedures. The suit was filed in the US District Court there. I think it would be covered by both the FedR.Civ.Pro and the local (New Jersey) US District Court rules.

(But of course, since you read the underlying brief document you already knew the matter was pending in Federal court, not State court.)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-11-2007, 07:27 PM
MiltonFriedman MiltonFriedman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Waaay down below
Posts: 1,627
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire

"The US District Courts all have the same procedural law. "

Yes, they all follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but each District Court also has local procedural rules. These local rules can affect the timing and availability of relief, which is why I was asking about New Jersey, specifically.

Thanks for the write-up about TROs v. Preliminary Injunction, your interest is most welcome.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-11-2007, 07:34 PM
oldbookguy oldbookguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wvgeneralstore.com
Posts: 820
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

Looking at other like financials (www.regulations.gov), they looked all to be 60, though there is the 30 - 120 days.

obg
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-11-2007, 07:35 PM
MiltonFriedman MiltonFriedman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Waaay down below
Posts: 1,627
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

Well, they can clarify only what the Banks have to watch for, but could indicate, perhaps, the scope of the legislation ... i.e is poker exempted by some discussion or definition of skill games ?

If you think I have been critical of the PPA for ignoring the regulatory process, the above is why, in a nutshell.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-11-2007, 07:38 PM
MiltonFriedman MiltonFriedman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Waaay down below
Posts: 1,627
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

Thanks for the nitful insight. The question was a very good substantive one, deserving of a better response.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-11-2007, 07:50 PM
oldbookguy oldbookguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wvgeneralstore.com
Posts: 820
Default Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, they can clarify only what the Banks have to watch for, but could indicate, perhaps, the scope of the legislation ... i.e is poker exempted by some discussion or definition of skill games ?

If you think I have been critical of the PPA for ignoring the regulatory process, the above is why, in a nutshell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you the PPA is lobbying the reg's and the PPA is (now) aware of the 'skill' games.
They were surprised a month ago to learn about 'skill' games as they had never heard of them........

As to the reg's, the following is part of their problem:

Exerted from a report to congress - "The act generally
defines “unlawful Internet gambling” as
transmitting a bet by any means that
involves the use, at least in part, of the
Internet and where such bet or wager is
unlawful under any applicable federal or
state law in the state or tribal lands in
which the bet or wager is initiated, received,
or otherwise made.(page 147)"


Since only 7 states have specific laws and 4 ambigious ones addressing Internet Wagering, there is a problem here.

I think the reg's will be generic since the UIGEA is in the face of things, generic, I.E. it does not specifically define illegal as well, nor does it distinguish between 'skill' and non-skill, neither will the reg's.

The report:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...06/pdf/fro.pdf

obg
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.