Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a little gun shy about posting any strategy in an open forum. Not to keep anyone from the forum from fully participating but to keep from showing our hole cards.......

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

We want to be careful when necessary but, in this case, the comments are all public record. Our opponents will be able to simply read what we wrote there (and vice versa). Besides, our only hole cards are our ability to get all poker players posting comments...no real secrets, I don't think. Besides, if you think of a great idea and don't tell anyone, what can we do with the idea?

[MiltonFriedman]

So much for waiting until the Regs come out BEFORE posting what our comments might want to say.

[MiltonFriedman]

"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
So much for waiting until the Regs come out BEFORE posting what our comments might want to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah, it's your own fault. You provoked it, even while advising against it. Let that teach you a lesson.

[MiltonFriedman]

I did not say I was surprised.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like my WTO defense, huh. Milton, there is case law, In Re Mastercard, already holding that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. Also, notice how the courts are treating the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the DOJ gone after Epassporte or any other entity serving or operating in the online poker industry. The DOJ knows how quickly they would lose that battle and it doesn't want to fight it. My ink drying is figurative. I know that the litigation process would take weeks, maybe months, but federal ink is slow drying. Doesn't matter though; the regs will never be that specific.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a little gun shy about posting any strategy in an open forum. Not to keep anyone from the forum from fully participating but to keep from showing our hole cards.......

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

We want to be careful when necessary but, in this case, the comments are all public record. Our opponents will be able to simply read what we wrote there (and vice versa). Besides, our only hole cards are our ability to get all poker players posting comments...no real secrets, I don't think. Besides, if you think of a great idea and don't tell anyone, what can <u>we</u> do with the idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the royal we , as a nominated PPA board member, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?


There are going to be quite a number of ways to attack the proposed regulations. Some of them for stretigic reasons we might actually want to loose. Some language we might want to back the Gov't into a corner, some we might like vague. Some positions we want to creat a "public" record for a future court action, others might be so glorious we will want to slow play the hell out of them.

So who are you refering to, with your "we"?


D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like my WTO defense, huh. Milton, there is case law, In Re Mastercard, already holding that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. Also, notice how the courts are treating the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the DOJ gone after Epassporte or any other entity serving or operating in the online poker industry. The DOJ knows how quickly they would lose that battle and it doesn't want to fight it. My ink drying is figurative. I know that the litigation process would take weeks, maybe months, but federal ink is slow drying. Doesn't matter though; the regs will never be that specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would arrest the epass management if they knew who it was and they were in US jurisdiction.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry."

Jesus, JP .... what the hell are you talking about ? That statement is ridiculous on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like my WTO defense, huh. Milton, there is case law, In Re Mastercard, already holding that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. Also, notice how the courts are treating the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the DOJ gone after Epassporte or any other entity serving or operating in the online poker industry. The DOJ knows how quickly they would lose that battle and it doesn't want to fight it. My ink drying is figurative. I know that the litigation process would take weeks, maybe months, but federal ink is slow drying. Doesn't matter though; the regs will never be that specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would arrest the epass management if they knew who it was and they were in US jurisdiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull.

e-pisspoorservice's customer call center is in FLA!!!!


D$D

[JPFisher55]

Hey D$D, my last two withdrawals to my bank account from Epassporte have taken only 2 days. Their service is improving. They used to take 7 business days. I have no idea why the change.
You are right. Epassporte has assets in the US. I have read that they serve the porn industry but have no personal knowledge.