November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[Berge20]

It can happen sometimes, yes.

Also, sometimes a witness might not know the exact answer to a very detailed question (generally budget related) and will return answers in writing.

[oldbookguy]

Berg, you suggested we being drafting a list of questions, my initial ones as follow:

Draft 1
Thoughts – Notes – Questions

USDOJ states in Master Card case the Government was not a party to the case and believes case ruling not valid, ALL Internet gambling illegal.

So.....

1. Why NO prosecution of Master Card when they admitted in open court to funding Internet Gambling?
2. Paypal left the ‘gambling’ market as stated around 2001-2002. Paypal continues to fund Internet wagering to ‘skill’ gaming sites. Why is this allowed if ALL Internet gaming is illegal?
3. MSN, YAHOO! and AOL promote and benefit from Internet wagering (see games sections on welcome page, click cash / skill competitions). Why no prosecution? Is it that Bill Gates cannot be located?
4. States engage in interstate Internet wagering, pooling lottery proceeds in multi-state games. Why no prosecutions?
5. Fantasy sports is wagering, costing from free to several hundreds of dollars to play. Why no prosecution?

Well, that is a start, I have several pages to sort.

obg

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
Berg, you suggested we being drafting a list of questions, my initial ones as follow:

Draft 1
Thoughts – Notes – Questions

USDOJ states in Master Card case the Government was not a party to the case and believes case ruling not valid, ALL Internet gambling illegal.

So.....

1. Why NO prosecution of Master Card when they admitted in open court to funding Internet Gambling?
2. Paypal left the ‘gambling’ market as stated around 2001-2002. Paypal continues to fund Internet wagering to ‘skill’ gaming sites. Why is this allowed if ALL Internet gaming is illegal?
3. MSN, YAHOO! and AOL promote and benefit from Internet wagering (see games sections on welcome page, click cash / skill competitions). Why no prosecution? Is it that Bill Gates cannot be located?
4. States engage in interstate Internet wagering, pooling lottery proceeds in multi-state games. Why no prosecutions?
5. Fantasy sports is wagering, costing from free to several hundreds of dollars to play. Why no prosecution?

Well, that is a start, I have several pages to sort.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

obg,

I think pointing out the hypocracy of our opponents' position is useful, but the only thing I started wondering about while listening to the hearing is that the focus seems to have turned from one of promoting freedom, regulation and taxes to one of letting our opponents know how much more room they have to attack other seemingly permitted activities (ie horses/fantasy/skill games). In a way, while I agree the approach is useful in debate setting, can this be pushed too far?

Just a thought

[oldbookguy]

do you really think the DoJ would arrest Bill Gates, State Lottery directors, the CEO of AOL / Yahoo!?

No, I do not. All we want is to be treated the same with the same rules.

obg

[Uglyowl]

Hi guys,

Great discussion. Today there was a great article in Bloomberg that discussed the steep "marching orders" for Democrats to help in the 2008 elections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a2ft9J5h14hE

Some of these #'s are huge. If you liked what you heard at today's hearing (Wexler, Frank, the gentlemen from TN (I gotta get his name burned in my brain), Berkely, etc) please send a small thank you contribution and why you are doing it. I think it would go along way.

I.e. I read a recent article about the importance of the upcoming elections and the responsibility bestowed on each of you and I would like to help you as a result of fighting for our freedom.. poker, blah blah blah.

[Uglyowl]

At 52:19 of the video the gentlemen from Focus on the Family stated the Fraternal Order of Police supported the UIGEA. I discussed this with the FOP and they had some concerns years and years ago (when they feared criminals were involved in offering this), but no longer has a problem today as online gambling has went from the wild wild west to a more corporate setting and the skill game explosion.

They told me it hasn't been an issue with them for a very long time and the guy I talk with played Pokerstars himself on occasion; let me see if I can have them issue an current opinion as church groups are throwing their name around.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Annie Duke talked really fast in our meeting with Represntative Berman also. She can definitely cover a lot of ground in a very short time. I do agree that it makes her sound a bit nervous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think her talking fast makes her look any more nervous/guarded than the others giving testimony - except Weiler, that guy is a rock. Talking fast sometimes maybe makes it hard to make out what words she is using, unless you know what to expect her to say.

Good reparte with Goodlatte. Great job by Annie. And with no tilt; I know I would have thrown in a few f-bombs. She got Goodlatte to admit that he thinks it's a good idea for children to wager on fantasy sports. I'd wonder what FoF thinks of that, except FoF doesn't really care, they just go with whoever they think can advance their agenda.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not uncommon, because some members of committess would like to be at a certain hearing and cannot due to scheduling conflicts or they did attend and had to leave before it was their turn to answer questions.

They then submit questions in writing to the panelists for responses on the record.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks but I'm still not clear on something. Are you saying that basically after the hearings are over, such questions will be submitted to the panelists, and then the answers to same will just be submitted as part of the written record, and this is basically a post hearing thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

But it depends.

It depends on the rules agreed to by the chairman and the pannelists.

This being a more open hearing than say a Senate Confirmation Hearing I do not know the true value of an ongoing continuation of this pannel.

If this hearing was one in which a specific piece of legislation was under consideration, with future hearings scheduled, or some sort of impending vote, I would feel differently.

As it is they couldn't even all agree if even a "study bill" was nessecary.

I have yet not taken the time to review all of the testimony, having had to travel to St. Louis and back today for a family fruneral, but having heard more than 2/3rd's, I am fairly confident but not positive in my answer.


Better?


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
One takeaway is that we need to make a lot of UIGEA comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has any consideration been given to breaking down the proposed regualtion to individual answers to each time the Agencies "specifically request comment on.."; so that each individual point is addressed?

I whole heartedly agree on the value of even the most overall comments, but it seems to me these regualtion battles and my sense of the Agencies strategy seems to be to blockade as many "choke points" as possible. As it is, most of the banking industry is already "fully" implementing as much of the spirit of the UIGEA as they could get away with even before passage.

I saw nothing today to give me even a gilimer of hope that the banks will object to almost any cover to enforce Catherine and the Fear of Fun's guy's wildest dreams; a total ban incuding furter prosecution of advertisers, going after poker websites, blocking affiliate payments, blocking rakeback payments, even banning or mass burning of any 2+2 publication that mentions how to play on-line. After all in their eyes it is all fruit of the same forbiden tree.

Forget the over the top crap lets talk strategy and have some fun teaching Tom McClusky the real fun of political fights.



D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi guys,

Great discussion. Today there was a great article in Bloomberg that discussed the steep "marching orders" for Democrats to help in the 2008 elections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a2ft9J5h14hE

Some of these #'s are huge. ... please send a small thank you contribution and why you are doing it. I think it would go along way.

[/ QUOTE ]


PPABryan,

How is that PPA PAC research going?

Seems everyone will be wanting more $$ than ever. We're a special interest and the best way for our $$'s to get noticed collectively is to have them go strategically to the people who know who and why they are comming in from in the most effecent manner possible.

If there is a better reason to get a PPA PAC going I don't know of it.


D$D