Letter from Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)

Harv72b · #1 10-15-2006, 05:01 PM

Nothing really encouraging or proactive in this letter, but I was hoping that maybe someone could translate or offer their thoughts on a few parts of it. Unfortunately, it's an honest-to-goodness letter, so I have to retype it...I can assure you that any typos or spelling errors are mine.

Roscoe G. Bartlett represents the 6th district of Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives. This was written in response to an email I sent to him protesting the UIGEA and asking for his support in efforts to have online poker exempted from the law (he offered none).

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 4411. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2005, prohibits any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering from knowingly accepting on behalf of another person participating in Internet gambling: (1) credit; (2) electronic fund transfers or funds transmitted through money transmitting businesses; (3) any instrument payable through any financial institution; (4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction involving a financial institution as payer or financial intermediary.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations requiring each designated payment system and all participants in such system to establish policies and procedures to identify and block restricted transactions and to prevent acceptance of products and services of a payment system in connection with such transactions.

It grants federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction to prevent or restrain violations. Specifies requirements regarding relief granted against an interactive computer service. Provides that this Act shall not be construed as authorizing the Attorney General or a state official to institute proceedings to prevent or restrain a violation against a financial transaction provider with respect to that provider's designated payment system [huh?]. It also establishes liability for any financial transaction provider or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service that has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers and that owns or operates an Internet website at which unlawful wagers are offered or may be made.

The bill calls for the United States, in deliberations with foreign governments, to: (1) encourage cooperation in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering or other crimes; (2) advance policies that promote international cooperation in enforcement; and (3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering to study the extent to which Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering purposes.

He then goes on to thank me again for writing & suggest I check his website & subscribe to his email updates, but in no way even comments on the issue of an exemption for online poker.

My hope is that someone who actually understands law might find his interpretation of the bill interesting, and might then explain to me what exactly he said. And whether or not it's an accurate depiction of the intent of the bill. I guess I'll try writing to my Senators next.

ProsperousOne · #2 10-15-2006, 05:26 PM

Translation:

I'm a politician, and therefore by definition, I'm not going to answer your question. I'm either going to state the ovbious, or answer a question you didn't ask. In this case, I did the latter: I answered, "What is this bill?" which you clearly didn't ask.

You'll notice that I didn't even address your issue that you were opposed to the legislation, nor even my views on it.

Please write to me again. I'll be happy to spew about nothing anytime to one of my constituients.

5thStreetHog · #3 10-15-2006, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Translation:

I'm a politician, and therefore by definition, I'm not going to answer your question. I'm either going to state the ovbious, or answer a question you didn't ask. In this case, I did the latter: I answered, "What is this bill?" which you clearly didn't ask.

You'll notice that I didn't even address your issue that you were opposed to the legislation, nor even my views on it.

Please write to me again. I'll be happy to spew about nothing anytime to one of my constituients.

[/ QUOTE ]lol...great analysis [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] sad but true

Harv72b · #4 10-15-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Translation:

I'm a politician, and therefore by definition, I'm not going to answer your question. I'm either going to state the ovbious, or answer a question you didn't ask. In this case, I did the latter: I answered, "What is this bill?" which you clearly didn't ask.

You'll notice that I didn't even address your issue that you were opposed to the legislation, nor even my views on it.

Please write to me again. I'll be happy to spew about nothing anytime to one of my constituients.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about what I got out of it, too. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] One of the Senate seats is up in this election, so maybe I can get a real response out of one or both of the candidates there.

NickStam · #5 10-15-2006, 06:11 PM

I can't believe he wasted his time responding to you, knowing he didn't say anything productive.

blackize · #6 10-15-2006, 06:17 PM

I wrote Michael Steele about his stance on the bill before it passed and on creating a carve out for poker as a game of skill after it passed. I have yet to hear back from him on either count.

Harv72b · #7 10-15-2006, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote Michael Steele about his stance on the bill before it passed and on creating a carve out for poker as a game of skill after it passed. I have yet to hear back from him on either count.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try making a puppy analogy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Eponymous · #8 10-15-2006, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll try making a puppy analogy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. that'll be the only topic to get him to respond to.

Python49 · #9 10-15-2006, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe he wasted his time responding to you, knowing he didn't say anything productive.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dont actually think he wrote that himself do you? He probably had his secretary type that up while he just sits online in his office IM'ing teenagers.

Harv72b · #10 10-15-2006, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You dont actually think he wrote that himself do you? He probably had his secretary type that up while he just sits online in his office IM'ing teenagers.

[/ QUOTE ]

His/her initials are "md". Bartlett did sign it, though, so I guess I feel special or something.