Proposed Comments to submit concerning UIGEA Regulations

[MiltonFriedman]

I think a thread should

provide the How To Comment information, then

gather posts of proposed comments.

It merits a relatively clean thread, free of political tirades or argument about politics.

2+2ers can pick and choose among suggested comments, a little variety is very good.

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments. Without SPECIFIC references to a part of the Proposed Regs, comments will be dumped into a general comments section, i.e. a circular file. SPECIFIC comments get better reads and responses.

What I want to stress is that Comments are VERY important in building a record if anyone, like the PPA or iMEGA or PStars, wants to later litigate against ENFORCEMENT of UIGEA or the Regulations.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

(As a practical matter, we need to wait for the Regs to come out BEFORE posting suggested comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew. I'm glad you added this part. I had my sarcasm pen out before I read it.

But you are certainly correct that making comments - at the appropriate time - is essential.

[JPFisher55]

Any comments need to force the regs to clearly define what is and what is not "unlawful internet gambling." The regs need to specify what games and types of internet gambling is unlawful and what is not. Then if poker is defined as unlawful, it can be easily challenged. OTOH if poker is defined as lawful, we can celebrate.
Without such clear definitions, we will remain in the present muddled situation.

[TheEngineer]

IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the In Re Mastercard case, a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry. Yeah I would greatly prefer the opposite, but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are so wrong.

Please stop this campaign of yours to have poker proclaimed illegal.

Just stop it, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

We need the fact that poker hasn't been deemed unlawful to be able to have enough standing to challenge the DOJ on the vagueness. If it ever comes to that.

Make poker illegal and you take our only defense away from us, DOJ wins. Case closed.

Please, just stop.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, a declaration that poker is unlawful would be a terrible outcome for us. OTOH, we all agree that poker defined as lawful would be great. Therefore, hopefully our comments will focus on why poker should be specifically excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the In Re Mastercard case, a reg stating that online poker is unlawful internet gambling would likely be injoined before its ink is dry. Yeah I would greatly prefer the opposite, but such a reg would be better than vague regs which the DOJ can use to continue its campaign of intimidation without prosecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, a Bush-nominated judge could reverse that ruling. There's no guarantee. If the regs did specifically ban poker, the government would likely claim to have some rationale for that....one they could use to drag the case on for years. Complicating this is the fact that there are no U.S. based sites.

[Grasshopp3r]

Here are some proposed comments:

1. Will the bank be responsible to file a Suspicious Activity Report if it discovers a UIGEA prohibited transaction? De minimus?
2. How does the UIGEA distinguish the prohibited sites? Will they be named? Will said list be published? Updated?
3. What is the bank supposed to do if it discovers a suspected UIGEA transaction? Sieze the account and interplead to the court?
4. What if a site is legal in its jurisdiction? What if the site is legal in the bank's and the customer's jurisdiction (ie Nevada)?

Remember, the purpose of submitting comments is to illustrate how unworkable and burdensome the UIGEA is for banks. Also, there are serious ramifications for account holders.

[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.

[MiltonFriedman]

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