November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Nice letter.

By the way, I hope it was obvious that my original post was addressed to everyone. Too bad this site doesn't have an option to reply to "all" or "everyone". I'd mention it to Mason, but I don't think he's interested in my opinion at the present time. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

Is a nice letter.

That might just be the problem. When you reply to anyone in an open forum you are replying to all.

Either this was an unnessecary jab or you do not understand the medium you are using to communicate.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

That might just be the problem. When you reply to anyone in an open forum you are replying to all.

Either this was an unnessecary jab or you do not understand the medium you are using to communicate.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

I was referring to the field where it says [Re: oldbookguy]:

Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread [Re: oldbookguy]
#12905325 - 11/11/07 11:55 AM

I didn't want OBG to think I was specifically telling him to write to the Judiciary Committee. It would be nice if there were a [Re: all] option.

P.S. All of my jabs are necessary.

[KEW]

OBG,

Nice letter I hope you do not mind I sent a copy to "Dutch" my MD Rep.

[JPFisher55]

I emailed the House Judiciary Committee to urge them to examine the proper way of compliance with the WTO decision and to draft legislation complying with the decision before the entire WTO process and global trading system unravels over this dispute over online gambling. I hope that they listen because the Bush Administration will not listen.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. All of my jabs are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is no they are NOT.

Read Sun Zu.

Your refusal to accept winning in a gracious manner is a major flaw.


D$D

[tangled]

I have been composing a comment in my head to send to the committee, and I remembered a question I had forgotten about.

Concerning the proposed regs: Why have our enemies, FOF, NCLAG, not responded publicly to the proposed regs. It seems they have a great deal more to complain about then we do. Specifically, the lack of a blacklist. Not only is this something they wanted badly, but the reason Treasury gave for not including a blacklist - that the legality of Internet gaming in each state is so ambiguous as to make a blacklist too costly and impractical - puts the lie to our opponents assertions that internet gambling is already illegal in at least 49 of the 50 states (or else why the confusion).

Why aren't they pitching yet another one of their patented fits? Am I missing something? I just went to FOF and NCALG websites and still don't see anything about it.

Sometimes quiet where noise should be means something big and bad. I know I have kids.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't want OBG to think I was specifically telling him to write to the Judiciary Committee. It would be nice if there were a [Re: all] option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck no, my letter was already there before you posted.

I added mine as an example, I suggest, and I also do!

As to copy, copy all you want!

And thanks for the kind comments, it was a quick one, maybe those are best, less thought, more heart.

obg

[flight2q]

Dear House Judiciary Committee Members:

Thank you for scheduling a hearing, November 14, about proposed regulations to direct banks, credit card companies and other payment systems to take certain steps to block payments for unlawful Internet gambling, to implement UIGEA. I wish there were a webcast of this hearing so I could see how my concerns are addressed.

I am particularly concerned with the regulatory burden. The UIGEA does not implement Federal law, but involves interpreting individual state and local laws. The proposed regulations state that it would be too expensive for the U.S. Government to interpret law in each jurisdiction, so recommends placing this expense instead on each and every financial institution. This does not pass the common sense test.

I am concerned that the excessive regulatory burden will also lead to overbroad implementation of UIGEA. Overbroad in terms of lumping jurisdictions together whether they prohibit Internet gaming or not. And overbroad in terms of prohibiting everywhere all types of games that are prohibited anywhere.

I am also concerned about the impact on GATS amid unfavorable WTO rulings.

Thank you for your attention in this.

Regards,
<flight2q>

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


Why aren't they pitching yet another one of their patented fits? Am I missing something? I just went to FOF and NCALG websites and still don't see anything about it.

Sometimes quiet where noise should be means something big and bad. I know I have kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO either they feel as I do that the issue is in the hands of the banks. The Fed Reserve and the Treasury gave the banks many different ways to implement these regulations, from creating a black-list all the way to the use of the OFAC list.

The result is the same since we chose not to try and fight the banks by showing our displeasure in any of a number of different ways. As long as the banks are happy and don't oppose the regs then no one else has to try and pressure the banks to implement them. Why waste the effort in a fight already decided, the KY argument.

As to the quietness issue it could also be as I said the way proposed reg fights are often fought. You wait until the end to see where you want to position yourself for the "re-drafting" if needed. You read all the initial submissions and attempt to defeat any comments that you feel nessecary. Then you lobby the Agencies involved once you have a full picture of the comments and Agency views. If nessecary you go to the Hill and presure the Agencies funding and oversight committees.

Dec 12 was just the first date in this issue. The PPA chose not to put any presure on the banks in any visible way to try and change their initial acceptance of the proposed regualtions. So we write letters and hope to get a fair hearing of the issues based on reason and logic.

Sorry but IMO that just isn't the way this game is played nor won.


D$D

[Hock_]

Here's my letter, cribbed from the letter above:

I am very interested in the hearing Wednesday on Internet Gambling.

I support the efforts of many in Congress to un-do the unworkable, immoral UIGEA passed last fall. I find it offensive that the government would try to regulate voluntary activities Americans take in the privacy of their own homes, in particular an activity engaged in by so many law-abiding citizens, and which presents no real potential of harm to others.

Even aside from the flawed policy underlying the UIGEA, the manner in which the legislation attempts to end some forms of on-line gaming (some types are specifically excluded) is misguided. History is bound to repeat itself, and much like prohibition, the number of Americans who participate in on-line gaming suggests that it is here to stay. Rather than driving the activity "underground", as the poorly drafted and ambiguous UIGEA is bound to do, the only sensible approach is to regulate and tax.

Finally, it is absurd for the federal government even to be entertaining the possibility of sacrificing American jobs via trade sanctions (because of the repeated rulings of the WTO on this specific issue) in an effort to satisfy the misplaced morals of a few.

I hope that the clear error of the last Congress will be reversed before additional harm is done.