November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One takeaway is that we need to make a lot of UIGEA comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has any consideration been given to breaking down the proposed regualtion to individual answers to each time the Agencies "specifically request comment on.."; so that each individual point is addressed?

I whole heartedly agree on the value of even the most overall comments, but it seems to me these regualtion battles and my sense of the Agencies strategy seems to be to blockade as many "choke points" as possible. As it is, most of the banking industry is already "fully" implementing as much of the spirit of the UIGEA as they could get away with even before passage.

I saw nothing today to give me even a gilimer of hope that the banks will object to almost any cover to enforce Catherine and the Fear of Fun's guy's wildest dreams; a total ban incuding furter prosecution of advertisers, going after poker websites, blocking affiliate payments, blocking rakeback payments, even banning or mass burning of any 2+2 publication that mentions how to play on-line. After all in their eyes it is all fruit of the same forbiden tree.

Forget the over the top crap lets talk strategy and have some fun teaching Tom McClusky the real fun of political fights.



D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA put out five talking points. So, we can each write five letters plus ones on our personal opinions. Or, we can write one letter with all five points. Or, we can take points from this forum. It seems there are plenty of sources for input for reg comments.

Beyond that, if someone were to break down the regs as you suggested, I imagine that would get traction here and elsewhere.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know:
a) Can this be saved to my hard drive? I'm not seeing a way.
b) Will it be archived on the site for a long time?

Thanks.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
Joseph Weiler did a great job on the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm most of the way through the video now - Weiler completely owned. If I have to make one argument to an opponent or average ignorant joe, I show them his testimony.

[JPFisher55]

It was a very good hearing for us. Ms. Duke was excellent and so was Prof. Weiler.
I was very dismayed by Ms. Hanaway's testimony. She stated that the DOJ has prosecuted some cases involving online horse racing. She gave the BetOnSports case as an example. I have read the original complaint and petition in that case. It alleges operating an online casino in addition to online sports betting, but does not allege horse racing. I do not remember even a reference to the Interstate Horseracing Act. I have read the Defendants' motion to dismiss the petition. It does not mention horseracing or the Interstate Horseracing Act. In addition, Ms. Hanaway stated that the Eastern District has a view that the Wire Act applies to all online gambling. However, she admitted that the court has not ruled on the Defendants' motion to dismiss which includes a motion to dismiss the allegation of operating an online casino because, under the In Re Mastercard case, the Wire Act does not cover online casinos. I do not remember where, but I read an article about the federal magistrate in this case recommending to the court that it ignore In Re Mastercard because it is wrong. But this is not a ruling of the court. I feel that Ms. Hanaway deliberately misrepresented the known law on online gambling. She gave the impression that the Travel Act and the Interstate Gambling Act make all online gambling an illegal enterprise. However, both statutes require that one engage in illegal gambling under some other federal or state statute to violate either of them. Ms. Hanaway did not mention the In Re Mastercard case until Ms. Duke reminded her about it. Ms. Hanaway then stated that it did not count because the DOJ was not a party to the case. IMO if Ms. Hanaway had made these statements in a court of law, the court may have felt mislead and might have been perturbed. I expected more candor from a public servant even though the committee hearing is not a court of law.
Fortunately, she probably hurt the FOF cause much more than she helped.

[PPAdc]

The PPA would welcome 2+2s thoughts on follow-up questions to specific panelist. These questions can be submitted by members of the Committtee and we already have some tee'd up who are willing to do so. One area we did not drill down deep enuff on in the hearing was the proposed regulations. Specifically, I would have liked a line of questions that forced the Treasury witness to respond to why they do not define "unlawful internet gambling" in the proposed regulations and why they felt that U.S. financial institutions (ie private industry) was in a better position to do so.

Further, I would like to see DoJ/Treasury follow Rep. Goodlatte's logic on states rights. It would seem to me that a federal bill and corresponding regulations (the UIGEA) which seeks to block "unlawful internet gambling" transaction unilaterally without consideration to whether a state has said an acitivty is unlawful does not protect states rights, but rather unsurps them.

Please know that we have a top notch crew in Washington working on your behalf. This hearing will not be the last movement on this issue before Congress leaves for the year.

Seperately, Annie and I met with a member of Congress after the hearing (he was not a member of the Committee) but important nontheless. He told us that after Iraq and Immigration, Internet poker was the issue his office had recieved the most mail/email/calls about. He will also be signing on as a cosponsor to Wexler/Frank/Berkeley this week. I only share this cause I believe it demostrates the power of individual contact with members of Congress. Let work together to build more sucess!

John A. Pappas
PPA, Executive Director

[Lucky]

in his closing remarks, Goodlatte mentions some nations have settled (though the EU and Antigua have not); who are the nations which have settled with the U.S.?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Seperately, Annie and I met with a member of Congress after the hearing (he was not a member of the Committee) but important nontheless. He told us that after Iraq and Immigration, Internet poker was the issue his office had recieved the most mail/email/calls about. He will also be signing on as a cosponsor to Wexler/Frank/Berkeley this week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sharing. That is great news and surprising (in a good way) that our issue was #3 on the "most volume list". Glad we are squarely on the radar.

John, the early returns for the new PPA management teams are very good, keep it up.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that most have had a chance to watch the hearing, anything in this area you suggest.

Not a guarantee it could happen, but worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we to assume that a poker-only internet site would enjoy freedom from prosecution from the DOJ - if they set up business, here, on US soil?

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seperately, Annie and I met with a member of Congress after the hearing (he was not a member of the Committee) but important nontheless. He told us that after Iraq and Immigration, Internet poker was the issue his office had recieved the most mail/email/calls about. He will also be signing on as a cosponsor to Wexler/Frank/Berkeley this week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sharing. That is great news and surprising (in a good way) that our issue was #3 on the "most volume list". Glad we are squarely on the radar.

John, the early returns for the new PPA management teams are very good, keep it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too applaud all the efforts made by the PPA. Lets keep the momentum.

[Orlando Salazar]

Shouldn't the primary goal be getting poker exempt from UIGEA, with other 'tax & regulate bills' as ancilliary. Im not sure how this has to be played, but poker exemption is my primary concern.