PPA Washington Fly-In October 22nd thru 24th

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Republican Members

Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL
Rep. Richard H. Baker, LA
Rep. Deborah Pryce, OH
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE
Rep. Peter King, NY
Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK
Rep. Ron Paul, TX
Rep. Paul E. Gillmor, OH
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, OH
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL
Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC
Rep. Judy Biggert, IL
Rep. Christopher Shays, CT
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Rep. Tom Feeney, FL
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX
Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, FL
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA
Rep. Stevan Pearce, NM
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX
Rep. Tom Price, GA
Rep. Geoff Davis, KY
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
Rep. John Campbell, CA
Rep. Adam Putnam, FL
Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN
Rep. Peter J. Roskam, IL
Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, MI

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a reminder that Rep. Gilmor recently passed away in an accidental fall. While I'm sure the office of the district is still staffed until another person is elected, it may be more appropriate to not send people to that particular office.

[JPFisher55]

I think that the odds of legislation that will really improve our situation are very low. I do not support the IGREA. And it is not WTO compliant. WTO sanctions may cause Congress to exempt online gambling from the Wire Act, which I believe is the only legislation that Antiqua and the WTO would accept as complying with the WTO decision; or making all, horse racing, lottery, fantasy league, remote gaming illegal. Maybe a state could opt out if it outlawed all gambling. Yet, I do not think that we will see such legislation soon no matter what the situation.
IMO, for online poker players, litigation offers the best dramatic improvement to the present situation in the near future i.e. 12 months or less. The iMEGA case has procedural flaws so I think that the Kaplan case is a better opportunity for online poker players. These cases offer some hope.
But a direct indictment against some entity in the industry would be even more likely to lead to legal, unregulated online poker. So would an UIGEA regulation affecting online poker that someone could challenge in court. However, I do not think that these direct attacks on online poker will occur.
I am not critizing the efforts of all persons on the political/legislation front, but even they realize that without some pressure from the WTO situation such efforts will take years. And they may not much improve the present situation. But they might prevent that situation from becoming worse.
IMO the potential benefits of an indictment of a PPA member or director under the Wire Act or UIGEA which is directly related to the online poker industry outweighs its political cost.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the potential benefits of an indictment of a PPA member or director under the Wire Act or UIGEA which is directly related to the online poker industry outweighs its political cost.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. So then why don't Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson, owners of large affiliate farms and members of the PPA board, just send letters to the DoJ detailing how they make money off of players playing on offshore sites post-IUGEA, along with a final paragraph that says, "Kiss my ass and prosecute me if you dare!". If they really have the interests of the PPA above their own financial interests, shouldn't they be willing to do this and take the initiative? Perhaps some 2p2'ers here who go to the meeting in DC could ask them this.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO the potential benefits of an indictment of a PPA member or director under the Wire Act or UIGEA which is directly related to the online poker industry outweighs its political cost.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. So then why don't Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson, owners of large affiliate farms and members of the PPA board, just send letters to the DoJ detailing how they make money off of players playing on offshore sites post-IUGEA, along with a final paragraph that says, "Kiss my ass and prosecute me if you dare!". If they really have the interests of the PPA above their own financial interests, shouldn't they be willing to do this and take the initiative? Perhaps some 2p2'ers here who go to the meeting in DC could ask them this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I am pretty sure that the DOJ has threatened Cardplayer with prosecution over their .com gambling site ads. I, also, have read that Cardplayer has responded by daring the DOJ to proceed. I think that Cardplayer even filed an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the DOJ because of these threats of prosecution. But I believe that Cardplayer had to dismiss the case when the DOJ stated that Cardplayer was not the subject of an investigation or immediate prosecution.
So in short, they have dared the DOJ to prosecute and the DOJ chickened out. Heck, the DOJ must know about Epassporte. Why hasn't the DOJ indicted it and its owners. Maybe because Epassporte only serves online poker sites and its customers and not online sports betting or casino sites; or even sites with both poker and one of the other two gambling venues.
I don't blame the PPA for the actions, or lack thereof, of the DOJ.

[BluffTHIS!]

JPF,

Then why don't those two just use that for a great membership and donation recruitment drive? They could write such a letter and post it on the PPA site. Call it the "I Dare You To Prosecute Me" campaign. Sounds a like a great opportunity to clarify the status of poker.*


*Note: Although the TP CEO, who takes the same interpretation of the IUGEA as Mrs. Shulman does in her CP articles, has posted here that the larger sites should in fact seek declaratory judgements, I believe that this could backfire. It seems better to me that they take that interpretation, but don't risk having it ruled against in court. And the main beneficiary of such a tactic would be party poker, who wins both ways, either by getting a ruling that allows them to return to the US market, or by screwing their competitors still in that market.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone,

I'm no Doyle Brunson, but I manage to eke out a living. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

All kidding aside, I am a representative of the real poker players on the PPA board. And, I have to be honest. So far, like most groups like this, John Pappas has been empowered to make the decisions. I've not seen anything to indicate that, since he took over, things we want to occur are being stifled by the board.

You all know I have no conflicts of interest here. My only interest is in getting online poker for all of us. PPA appears to be changing to do this. They've not completed the transformation, but this trip is clearly a step in the right direction, as is their move to D.C. and the promotion of Pappas. John Pappas is working tirelessly for us, and I don't say that lightly.

Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice. This is very simple...as long as I'm on the board, PPA will address the needs of the American poker-playing community, as I'll have no reason to be on the board if they do not. I have every confidence that they will, based on what I've seen over the next month.

Besides, it's not like there are twenty other organizations fighting for us. Seems we can work with PPA to help them to become the organization we want (and I've put my money where my mouth is on that count), or we can start a new organization (and I've seen no action there). But, we do need to fight our opponents. I hope you'll all come to D.C. It will be sweet meeting up with these politicians who think we're all degenerates. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

While we all welcome your addition to the board, the MSPaint pic I posted in the other thread is on point. You will be a lone voice at a table full of affiliate farm and site reps. And one furthermore that doesn't risk the interests of the affiliate farms/CP mag ever being outvoted, since they added a friendly shill to the board in advance of your joining. The issue here is that real average joe poker players, whose interests the PPA *supposedly* serves, should have more such members as yourself who constitute a much greater part, and indeed even a majority of that board.

The bottom line and real issue is that the interests of affiliate farms dominate the PPA board and are determined to keep it that way.

[Jerry D]

I don't understand all the hatred toward affiliates. You all LOVE THEM when you get your rakeback checks every month. Very hypocritical.

[BluffTHIS!]

The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

While we all welcome your addition to the board, the MSPaint pic I posted in the other thread is on point. You will be a lone voice at a table full of affiliate farm and site reps. And one furthermore that doesn't risk the interests of the affiliate farms/CP mag ever being outvoted, since they added a friendly shill to the board in advance of your joining. The issue here is that real average joe poker players, whose interests the PPA *supposedly* serves, should have more such members as yourself who constitute a much greater part, and indeed even a majority of that board.

The bottom line and real issue is that the interests of affiliate farms dominate the PPA board and are determined to keep it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point. I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice. This is very simple...as long as I'm on the board, PPA will address the needs of the American poker-playing community, as I'll have no reason to be on the board if they do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying I'll leave the board if I feel PPA isn't serving the poker community. I'm not saying I'll huff and quit the first time I get outvoted, but I am saying they have to address the needs of the poker community for me to serve.

That shouldn't be a surprise...why else would I be there? My only goal is to advance online poker in America.

Anyway, these guys have come a long way in the past couple of months, and we have a big fight next year. I hope we'll all fight for our rights through Nov. 2008 and beyond.