PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest a tin foil hat theory that since the US banking system was not getting a big enough piece of the 1/3 of a Trillion dollars gambled on-line, that they whispered into a few ears and we got the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to suggest this? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit of sarcasm. I firmly believe it but the notion as been equated to the level of a "tin foil hat" consparicy.

I suggest that there is plenty of evidence in the proposed rule alone to support the assertion, but I have been challenged that as well as my other "evidence" is some how lacking......


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to suggest this? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


There's no use discouraging him, he wont go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I would have to agree. His tripe has become a detriment to a serious discussion, in my opinion.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I'm curious. Has the PPA considered filing an Action for Declaratory Judgment requesting that online poker be declared not to violate the Wire Act when the regulations are final. I think that such litigation would be premature until that time. Also, the WTO and other court cases may solve the matter. But in the event that the regulations remain the same or get worse for online poker and other events do not resolve the matter, is the PPA prepared to lead or iniate litigation over the legality of online poker under federal law?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I'm curious. Has the PPA considered filing an Action for Declaratory Judgment requesting that online poker be declared not to violate the Wire Act when the regulations are final. I think that such litigation would be premature until that time. Also, the WTO and other court cases may solve the matter. But in the event that the regulations remain the same or get worse for online poker and other events do not resolve the matter, is the PPA prepared to lead or iniate litigation over the legality of online poker under federal law?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sent your post to John Pappas. I'll post the reply.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banks on debit card and check transactions get "paid" they even get paid on e-wallet transactions. As a business they can refuse to do business with any one they choose. There is no right to bank.

So other than on credit cards how are the not getting paid? Even then the amount of transactions vs the few they have to settle on they are making money.

Again and again I have aked for and not recieved a single reason for the basis of the reasoning for this hopeful comment strategy of the PPA's you keep pushing.

Even the constitution lawyer suggested that the Agencies as Executive branch could not do what you want them to do. That action requires Legislative branch action.

I have gone on to further suggest that since the banks are happy as evidenced by the Banking Industry spokeman in the Reuters article, no matter who was behind the UIGEA, that the Agencies chance of writing a definition favorable to poker is pretty slim.

You have run a popularity poll menaingless in an exchange of ideas, attempted to attacked my credibility, criquited my spelling and grammar, and shown no understanding of logic in attempting to respond to my ideas.

I have some experience in D.C. in politics and in regulatory matters, we have even spoken on the phone about my qualifications and John has my refrences. So it is not like I am a completely unknown quantity, as is so often the case on the internet.

All I have asked is some reasonable foundation upon which to judge the possible sucess of the course of action you claim is the best in dealing with this proposed regulation for the ultimate good of poker.

Your repeated methods in my opinion to seemingly avoid the real question does you more harm than good.

Is your best answer to date really "we comment on the propose regulation because we can"?


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banks on debit card and check transactions get "paid" they even get paid on e-wallet transactions. As a business they can refuse to do business with any one they choose. There is no right to bank.

So other than on credit cards how are the not getting paid? Even then the amount of transactions vs the few they have to settle on they are making money.

Again and again I have aked for and not recieved a single reason for the basis of the reasoning for this hopeful comment strategy of the PPA's you keep pushing.

Even the constitution lawyer suggested that the Agencies as Executive branch could not do what you want them to do. That action requires Legislative branch action.

I have gone on to further suggest that since the banks are happy as evidenced by the Banking Industry spokeman in the Reuters article, no matter who was behind the UIGEA, that the Agencies chance of writing a definition favorable to poker is pretty slim.

You have run a popularity poll menaingless in an exchange of ideas, attempted to attacked my credibility, criquited my spelling and grammar, and shown no understanding of logic in attempting to respond to my ideas.

I have some experience in D.C. in politics and in regulatory matters, we have even spoken on the phone about my qualifications and John has my refrences. So it is not like I am a completely unknown quantity, as is so often the case on the internet.

All I have asked is some reasonable foundation upon which to judge the possible sucess of the course of action you claim is the best in dealing with this proposed regulation for the ultimate good of poker.

Your repeated methods in my opinion to seemingly avoid the real question does you more harm than good.

Is your best answer to date really "we comment on the propose regulation because we can"?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I'm done with your posts.

You have John Pappas' email address and phone number. If you have questions about the PPA I suggest you bring your concerns to his attention.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because that's what's best for poker. There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't unlawful. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

An additional benefit to this is that creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

Edited by Berge per TE

[TheEngineer]

So, please post comments to the regs. The bottom line is that we don't have to worry about hurting anything. There are no "wrong" comments so long as they advocate for our right to play poker. Either follow the PPA talking points or post your own, based on your reading of the regs. We need quality, but we also need quantity. Thanks everyone! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you this was all I asked for from the begining.



D$D