Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heck, I doubt they even know gambling, skill or chance, taking place in Mass. right now, legally.

[/ QUOTE ]
They may not know it's taking place via World Games OBG but MA law can be confusing. For many. many years it has been possible to pull a license that permits gambling for charitable events. Heck, if you want to have raffles at a church bake sale you need to pull a permit. My honest opinion is that in MA it has always been about the money. If you can show the state how it will benefit from permitting on-line poker the state will back off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point, this is a feel good piece of legislation and they are clueless as to the effects it will have.

obg

[SamJake]

Another Online Article

[TheEngineer]

http://casinocitytimes.com/news/arti...ntentID=169904


Frank calls out governor for his 'contradictory' Massachusetts casino bill
21 November 2007

By Gary Trask


It's buried in the final pages of a lengthy document and totals just four paragraphs, but the section of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's casino bill that calls for a ban on any form of wagering over the Internet has predictably drawn the ire of online gambling proponents.

"It's inconsistent and contradictory," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told Casino City earlier this week. "I'm surprised the governor would do this. I think it's a great mistake."

What Frank is referring to is the item found on page 28 of the 33-page bill designed to pave the way for the construction of three brick and mortar casinos in the Bay State.

The bill also proposes to stop online gambling and aims to punish any person who "knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device…or knowingly installs or maintains said device or equipment for the transmission or receipt of wagering information," with "imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not more than $25,000, or both."

Frank, an unabashed online gambling supporter who introduced his own bill in April that would repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and regulate online wagering Web sites, questioned the tactic of Gov. Patrick, whose office did not return repeated phone calls from Casino City regarding this story.

"I don't understand how you can be for casinos but against letting people do the same thing in the privacy of their own homes," he said. "I think they may have thought that this would somehow minimize some of the opposition they are getting from people who think we should ban all forms of gambling, but I think they misjudged it. I don't think it makes any of the gambling opponents any less opposed to casinos."

Ed Leyden, President of the Internet Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA), echoed Frank's statements, saying the proposed law would "be another unconstitutional infringement of Americans' digital civil rights."

iMEGA is involved with a lawsuit in U.S. Circuit Court in New Jersey seeking to obtain a temporary restraining order to stop the Department of Justice from implementing regulations to enforce the UIGEA.

"As this case makes its way through the legal system, we believe that it would be best for the Massachusetts legislature to forestall action on this provision and, if, as we expect, a preliminary injunction is issued [the case], legislators should remove this provision from the legislation," Leyden said.

The issue of online gambling continues to be hot-button topic. Last week, a hearing on online gaming was held in Washington D.C. where John Conyers, the Democratic head of the House Judiciary Committee, voiced frustration about what he said are disparities in the enforcement of U.S. Internet gambling laws. Frank said these types of hearings and discussions are crucial to getting the word out about the UIGEA and its inconsistencies.

"We've made progress over the last few months, but not as much as I would like," Frank said. "We're not quite there yet in Washington D.C., but we're getting there. I would think that sometime next year we may have enough of a case to move on something, but that all depends on the citizens calling their congressmen and explaining their opposition (to the UIGEA). Without that, we don't have anything."

[Uglyowl]

Fantastic that this absurd law is still getting press:

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/...ion/299688.txt

[Dmunnee]

following up with getting a letter in front of state senators, my connection to the state senate just mailed the following statement to the state senators in the entire fifth congressional district that includes 29 towns in eastern/central MA.

"To Whom It May Concern;

I am a Massachusetts resident and taxpayer, an avid poker player, and a supporter of online poker.

I recently learned that Governor Patrick proposed Casino Gambling Legislation: House 4307, and that within the context of this bill he proposes criminalizing all forms of Internet gaming including poker; (See: Section 15(h)(2)(i)). As a hard working, law abiding citizen residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I take exception to this bizarre section of the bill. This approval of how one can and cannot play poker smacks of protectionism for casino developers. Worse, it does so by turning ordinary Massachusetts citizens into criminals. This section of the bill is an outrage and must be purged.

With one of the largest segments of poker players in America per capita, Massachusetts will see many of the people who voted Governor Patrick into office sent to prison for partaking in their chosen form of entertainment. Why is a Governor who claims to support the “common people” so eager to make criminals out of these common people? Casino developers need no governmental protection in order to make money hand over fist, but ordinary residents of Massachusetts do need the government to step in and stop special interests from squeezing every last dollar they can from our emaciated freedoms.

Even if passed, what will this inherent contradiction do to the credibility of Massachusetts Jurisprudence? Rather than an example of good policy, it will be a law to be pointed out and laughed at on the Internet. It will be a loss of rights for we who would like to play poker online, and a loss of credibility for the Massachusetts State Legislature.

Can our government, even on the state level, afford that loss of credibility? Prohibition does not prevent people from engaging in a prohibited activity, it only makes them hide that activity more efficiently, most especially on their tax returns. Criminalize online poker, and you force people to either admit to being criminals or to hide that income. If the law is fair rather then written only to benefit a select few owners of casinos, people become far more likely to pay their fair share.

A reasonable alternative to this section of the bill is to regulate and tax online poker. Massachusetts has a proud history of innovative and standard-setting regulations. Why not become the first state in the Union to capitalize on Internet poker rather than to ban it?

Help us talk to our Governor. We will be proud to support him in the next election, but only if he governs fairly, and with his constituents foremost in mind. For that to happen, there absolutely must be a rewriting of Section 15(h)(2)(i) of House 4307. I’m sure you will find this a much more suitable alternative than imprisoning the very people who voted you into office."

I got a rough draft from Randy and had my brother edit it for content/flow etc. This is the final copy sent out. I think our message is about to get much more widespread across the senate.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost, WHY do ask andf have answered the same question, over and over and over and over.......

Ma. law does NOT prohibit games of skill (even wagering and the house getting a fee), E.G., World Winner, a skill games company is located in Ma., that should be enough to answer that question.

The argument is poker falls under that same category, skill games, unlike craps, roulette, slots, ect. An AG opinion is that, an opinion, not a court of law ruling by a judge.

Stop eating ice cream and let the frost thaw!

obg - NOT representing the PPA, my Opin only


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greetings Again From MA PPA Rep!

Our primary focus and/or ultimate goals here are this:

c)To ultimately have the section of the bill that seeksto ban and criminalize online gaming (poker inclusive) stricken from the bill.



All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Representative

[/ QUOTE ]

You imply that Massachusetts online gaming is currently legal, apparently with PPA blessing. Would you be kind enough to explain that stance and how it came about? It is contrary to a more logical and accepted reality. I ask because it is only a matter of time until a smart foe sees the contradictions in this position. It would be nice to have your rebuttal thought out or the stance changed prior to that.

In explaining, some answers to the following questions would help. Thanks in advance for your reply to a long time PPA member, no rush.
1. The current MA law talks about fines and prison for persons betting on the results of a game. And the MA Attorney General opined that poker tournaments are illegal for players and suppliers, other than charities. A Harvard law professor has echoed the AG’s “restrictions”. Why is PPA implying an internet poker business and its players, conducting business and serving players in MA, is somehow not subject to MA law? PokerStars may be a good example.

2. If a PokerStars type casino is not subject to current MA law and regulation, why is this new bill needed to license and regulate proposed B&M casinos? And could PokerStars show up and build a B&M there without regulation?

3. If a PokerStars type casino is indeed subject to current MA (or other state’s) law and regulations, is PPA interested in fighting the current laws that criminalize unlicensed casino poker and often players, along with fighting proposed restrictions?

4. If online racing bets are regulated in MA, why are PokerStars type casinos okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I’m still waiting for Randy’s reply and may add a few questions; however many thanks for your response. Let me try to first clear up your confusion about my posts in this thread.

I have two separate stances; one is on MA skill games. If they are currently legal, the bill creating a Gaming Control Authority won’t have any effect on those games. The bill's new wager definition for Gaming Control doesn’t include normally defined skill games.

The rest of my post is on another stance. It is about MA law of gaming/poker; it is illegal for the site and player NOW. This is based on facts, commonsense, law and because MA says so. PPA implied it is now legal and haven’t said why.

I asked some questions that you quoted above. You answer that the AG is wrong and say the argument is that poker is skill. So, to see if this is indeed the official PPA line, let me add some questions/thoughts for Randy, if you don't mind:

5. Is it the PPA stance that the AG is confused and poker is a legal skill game in MA? If no, what does exclude/exempt it from MA anti-gambling law, if anything? If yes, explain why WorldWinner does not have poker as part of their internet skill game offerings.

Until you show reasons for current legality, I think it wise to believe what MA tells me about MA law, rather than what PPA wishes were true. A lot of gambling companies think it wise also, obviously, or they would open shop. TIA and take your time to get it right.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I’m still waiting for Randy’s reply and may add a few questions; however many thanks for your response. Let me try to first clear up your confusion about my posts in this thread.

I have two separate stances; one is on MA skill games. If they are currently legal, the bill creating a Gaming Control Authority won’t have any effect on those games. The bill's new wager definition for Gaming Control doesn’t include normally defined skill games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the current bill does NOT specify chance as an element, it states ALL Internet gambling, and YES, skill gaming is gambling, just defined as skill is a greater than 50% factor in determing the out come. Therefore, skill is outlawed as well.


[ QUOTE ]
The rest of my post is on another stance. It is about MA law of gaming/poker; it is illegal for the site and player NOW. This is based on facts, commonsense, law and because MA says so. PPA implied it is now legal and haven’t said why.

I asked some questions that you quoted above. You answer that the AG is wrong and say the argument is that poker is skill. So, to see if this is indeed the official PPA line, let me add some questions/thoughts for Randy, if you don't mind:

5. Is it the PPA stance that the AG is confused and poker is a legal skill game in MA? If no, what does exclude/exempt it from MA anti-gambling law, if anything? If yes, explain why WorldWinner does not have poker as part of their internet skill game offerings.

Until you show reasons for current legality, I think it wise to believe what MA tells me about MA law, rather than what PPA wishes were true. A lot of gambling companies think it wise also, obviously, or they would open shop. TIA and take your time to get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]


As to this, e-mail the PPA, and while you are at it, you might try Prima Poker and Micro Gaming, they feel the allowing of Skill gaming in Mass. also includes poker, a skill game.

As to why World Winner does not offer poker, ask them, but, I would hazzard a guess they feel poker is a game of chance, not skill. Personally, I disagree with them, but, I do not have anything to do with what games they offer.

I will say, in MY opinion, the card games offered by World Winner, no matter how presented or played, are more chance than poker. Therefore, I believe poker is, at a minimum, on par skill wise as the current card games and so do many others.

obg

[Dmunnee]

[ QUOTE ]

The rest of my post is on another stance. It is about MA law of gaming/poker; it is illegal for the site and player NOW. This is based on facts, commonsense, law and because MA says so.

Until you show reasons for current legality, I think it wise to believe what MA tells me about MA law, rather than what PPA wishes were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) what law specifically says it is illegal to play internet poker?

2) so because I can't show that it is legal to play internet poker but you can't prove it is illegal than you are right? I thought the supreme court ruling on the wire act regarding internet poker was pretty clear about not including it. This is based on facts, common sense, law and because I say so.

[oldbookguy]

[qoute]I thought the supreme court ruling on the wire act regarding internet poker was pretty clear about not including it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it was the 5th circuit of appeals in Master Card case, a civil suit, not the Supreme Court.
That case did not mention poker at all, it centered on games that INCLUDE poker, to the exclusion of sports betting, casino games of which poker is one.

http://pub.bna.com/eclr/1321a.htm

http://www.gamingpublic.com/documents/wireact.html

obg


obg

[Dmunnee]

[ QUOTE ]
[qoute]I thought the supreme court ruling on the wire act regarding internet poker was pretty clear about not including it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it was the 5th circuit of appeals in Master Card case, a civil suit, not the Supreme Court.
That case did not mention poker at all, it centered on games that INCLUDE poker, to the exclusion of sports betting, casino games of which poker is one.

http://pub.bna.com/eclr/1321a.htm

http://www.gamingpublic.com/documents/wireact.html

obg


obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've assumed it was supreme court but was wrong. So what Randy has been saying is all wrong?