Proposed Comments

[DeadMoneyDad]

My proposed comments:


Docket Number Treas-DO-2007-0015

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



Secretary Johnson,

I realize that the Federal Reserve and The Department of the Treasury have been placed in a very bad position by the actions of Congress with the passage of the UIGEA law. This clear from reading between the lines of your comments in the preface of the proposed rule in the comments concerning Docket Number Treas-DO-2007-0015.

As you point out the main issue is one of incomplete law making; “The Act does not spell out which activities are legal and which are illegal, but rather relies on the underlying substantive Federal and State laws.” You further make it clear that you are trying to do the best job you can under the circumstances; “to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions.”

However in my opinion Congress has tasked you with not only an impossible job given the complexity of all the various state laws concerning the legality or illegality of various wagers. While I applaud your goal “to achieve the purposes of the Act as soon as is practical, while also providing designated payment systems and their participants sufficient time to adapt their policies and practices as needed to comply with the regulation.”

However I urge you to abandon this attempt to correct the mistakes of Congress, by trying to craft an unworkable fix with a regulatory scheme so fraught with problems that it will only make matters worse rather than better.

Given that determining the legality or illegality of the source of any funds being transferred is a uniquely governmentally activity that, in my opinion, no matter how well intentioned Legislative or Executive Branches of Government may be in an attempt to “solve a social problem”, that power is solely reserved for the Judicial Branch of our government in our Constitution.

Even if the Justice Department as suggested in the former Attorney General's Testimony of January 12th, 2007 before the Senate Judiciary Committee could as Senator Kyl almost demanded create a perfect list of “offending online gambling sites” its creation let alone practical implementation, if even possible under current law, would be useless.

The mere fact that transaction originated from or was destined to a site where it was possible for a US citizen to potentially violate US or state laws by placing a wager is not proof of any illegality. I could make a deposit from a jurisdiction where if I did indeed gamble the legality might be in question, but I could also deposit and go to a jurisdiction where any such gambling was entirely legal. You point out such jurisdictional concerns in the preface of the rule itself.

Unless the ultimate goal of our government is to have the NSA track and record not only every citizens location when they make a deposit or with draw from a gambling site, but also where they were when the actual “illegal” gambling took place to prove a violation of the UIGEA and set up a special “Gambling Court” to protect the due process rights of US citizens that will arrise from inevitable disputes from both over blocked as well as under blocked potentially illegal gambling deposits to the US banking system, I firmly urge you to suggest to Congress they do their jobs rather than looking to your Agency to fix their problems.

In conclusion I strongly urge you to remove the proposed rule from the docket and join me in sending a letter to Congress to either repeal the UIGEA Law or write legislation that is both Constitutional and practical.

Yours,


D$D<--enjoying this immensely

[TheEngineer]

This is the only one I've submitted:

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

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations - the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses that are inherent to UIGEA itself. The primary risk is that of overblocking transactions to legal businesses.

I live in Kentucky. Internet horse race betting is legal here under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (IHRA). Additionally, Internet poker is not illegal here under any state or federal law (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sport betting). Despite the exclusion of the domestic horse racing industry operating under the auspices of the IHRA from the provisions of the Act, banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all Internet gambling transactions (as was noted in the proposed regulations themselves). I am concerned that these legal businesses will be unfairly affected by these regulations, affecting my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

An additional issue concerning overblocking is the risk of an illegal restraint of trade. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in either new or increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

I urge a revision to the proposed regulations to ensure a proactive bias towards processing of all financial transactions. To accomplish this, I propose revising the regulations to remove from the regulations all penalties for all but willful and egregious noncompliance. Also, I propose that the Monitoring section of the regulations be revised to require banks to process all lawful transactions.

The last thing our country needs is more impediments to lawful financial transactions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer
[address]

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
JP - these are great comments. I think there can be some changes and some improvement (e.g., I think you should explain why a bank should only have to follow the law of the state its in - namely, it would be far too expensive to know the law of every state).

I just have been too busy on my real job to, so far, make the touch-ups I think could help. May take me till the weekend to really get going here, sorry. But while I think i can add some value, I also think everyone else can add some value here too.

JP has given us a great first comment, lets now work to make it even better.

Skallagrim

PS D$D, JP's proposal's are clearly better FOR POKER than the current regulations. They also make it even easier for banks to comply without disrupting the play from MOST states. There is not much we can do in those other few states through the regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall, I'll hold off submitting any comments until you have a time to submit edits. I assumed that a bank would only have to follow the laws of the state in which it resides. Of course, multi-state banks will have to have their branches in each state follow the laws their respective states. My use of the words expressly prohibits is to make interpretation of the various state laws simple for the banks and favorable to us. Maybe this definition and/or examples will help prevent overblocking. I am not sure that explaining that stratedgy in the comment is a good idea.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, I agree with you. However, the "Agencies" cannot just abandon the regulations as hopeless even though the entire UIGEA is hopeless. They do not have the power. That is why we have courts of law.
But they do have the power to adopt regulations that might be better for us online poker players. To be honest, I warned TE that I did not think that all our comments will matter. I think that the regulations are deliberately vague so that the DOJ and Treasury can intimidate the banks like they have online gambling entities. The Agencies want to see "overblocking" by the banks.
The real reason that the Agencies will not create a list of UIG businesses is that any listed business would clearly have standing to sue and one loss by the government might unravel their entire campaign against online gambling.
However, TE stated that we have to try anyway. I agree, so I will give it my best effort. My definition of UIG and/or my examples would benefit online poker players in most states. Also, I think that no so-called black list is, at present, best for our side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've not yet sent in a comment asking for a definition for "unlawful Internet gambling". We may or may not be better off without the term defined. Hopefully we'll have an answer in the near term. There's really no hurry here.

Also, the overblocking issue, combined with the show of strength we've made this year, may buy us new, strong allies. Their comments plus our comments may matter.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I think that our comments will bring us lots of allies. The problem is that the Bush Administration does not listen to anyone but their religious fanatics. But our efforts are worth it for the new allies and for potential future litigation.
So, I'll wait for further directions and changes by you, Skall and the group before submitting any comment.
I really like your overblocking comment. But I suspect that the bureaucrats in the Bush administration are smiling because it confirms that their regulations will have the affect that they desire. They may not like that we realize their plan, but I doubt that they care.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
...
.
I just have been too busy on my real job to, so far, make the touch-ups I think could help. May take me till the weekend to really get going here, sorry....
.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, you need to get your priorities in order!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
...
.
The problem is that the Bush Administration does not listen to anyone but their religious fanatics. ...
.


[/ QUOTE ]

But the hope is that the looming disaster (and it is a disaster when I promise to vote democrat) will sober up the rest of what is left of the GOP and get their minds focused more where it belongs.

Tuff

[Nortonesque]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read all of these comments but IMO, the best way to really take the teeth out of the UIGEA would be to create a private cause of action against the banks for any customer who has a transaction wrongfully declined. If a person had a transaction to a non-illegal gambling company denied, and could prove it, the bank would have to pay him $2500 or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Banks cannot be held liable for incorrectly blocking a transaction according to the UIGEA. However, there would still be some legal costs for the bank, so this strategy might work.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The real reason that the Agencies will not create a list of UIG businesses is that any listed business would clearly have standing to sue and one loss by the government might unravel their entire campaign against online gambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you have stated this at least three times in various threads. Just what "standing" would a foreign entity have to sue the US government without their permission? Before you toss out the WTO please keep in mind that the US governament doesn't really care abiyt them now do they? Inertnational court, nope sorry about that, one more and three strikes means you are out.

Jimbo

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real reason that the Agencies will not create a list of UIG businesses is that any listed business would clearly have standing to sue and one loss by the government might unravel their entire campaign against online gambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you have stated this at least three times in various threads. Just what "standing" would a foreign entity have to sue the US government without their permission? Before you toss out the WTO please keep in mind that the US governament doesn't really care abiyt them now do they? Inertnational court, nope sorry about that, one more and three strikes means you are out.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Ban please an obvious troll.