|
|
#21
07-31-2007, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
I think one of the problems is that the local banks in Antigua will shut down all "Gaming" companies bank accounts. I think I read this somewhere else before. It sounds like the problem is not related to players using the banking system but rather the gaming operators having problems.
|
|
#22
07-31-2007, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
[ QUOTE ]
Our next big day really is sept 4th??? http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Thanks. [/ QUOTE ] The article is fairly weak and meandering, so it would be helpful if you told people what you want explained.
|
|
#23
07-31-2007, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
[ QUOTE ]
Our next big day really is sept 4th??? http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-073107.html Mr. Engineer and other explain more about this please. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Thanks. [/ QUOTE ] The September 4th date is basically meaningless. As of right now, iMEGA has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, asking the court to bar the Feds from enforcing the UIGEA on the grounds of unconstitutionality. The government has not filed a response as yet. The court has set a "hearing date" of September 4th, but that doesn't mean there will be an actual hearing on that date. The docket entry says: [ QUOTE ] Motion Hearing set for 9/4/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 5W before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) [/ QUOTE ] In other words, as things currently stand, there's not going to be any sort of hearing and the court will decide whether to issue an injunction based upon the papers submitted by the parties. All we know is that the court will issue a written ruling sometime AFTER September 4th. All of these dates and procedures are subject to change, for what it's worth.
|
|
#24
07-31-2007, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
the article is awfully depressing although i can't figure what the heck they are trying to say. i wonder who are the "firmly committed operators" who are admitting they are going to have to "pack it in"
|
|
#25
07-31-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
[ QUOTE ]
the article is awfully depressing although i can't figure what the heck they are trying to say. i wonder who are the "firmly committed operators" who are admitting they are going to have to "pack it in" [/ QUOTE ] Yep, another Christopher Costigan Pulitzer entry for sure. I am assumiing the "firmly committed operators" is/are not the poker sites because of this line: [ QUOTE ] "The big online poker players need to get on board here," said one operator. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#26
07-31-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
I thought that the article was a push for money by iMEGA.
|
|
#27
07-31-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
Note the statement about Imega invoking the WTO in court, then totally dismissing its affect elsewhere. This is the worst article since the horrible title about the Treasury poised to regulate online gaming.
|
|
#28
07-31-2007, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
Anyone know why iMEGA named the FTC as a defendant but not the Treasury Dept.? They also mentioned the FTC is involved with prescribing the regs and I don't find that anywhere.
|
|
#29
07-31-2007, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
On a side note, does anyone know if remote gaming is covered at all in Basel 2, or if its strictly about capital reserves?
Thats been a big banking news story recently, the US actually honouring international treaties and if something is in there that may help us or iMega in court.
|
|
#30
07-31-2007, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gamblin 911 article.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know why iMEGA named the FTC as a defendant but not the Treasury Dept.? They also mentioned the FTC is involved with prescribing the regs and I don't find that anywhere. [/ QUOTE ] That's a good question. The named defendants in the lawsuit are the Attorney General of the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board. My quick sense from skimming the complaint is that the members of iMEGA, because they are not banks or similar entities, are regulated not by the Treasury Department but by the FTC. Therefore, it's the FTC they're concerned about cracking down on them.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
