Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

The game takes place on the server, not on the client. The servers are located in a location where gambling is legal. The government has no more right to tell me I can't log on to my compuetr and play poker on the Isle of Man than it has the right to tell me I can't get on an airplane to play poker in Las Vegas. (obviously, the preceding is opinion)

Again, I live in RI and there is no law on my state's books that says I can't gamble online.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

The game takes place on the server, not on the client. The servers are located in a location where gambling is legal. The government has no more right to tell me I can't log on to my compuetr and play poker on the Isle of Man than it has the right to tell me I can't get on an airplane to play poker in Las Vegas. (obviously, the preceding is opinion)

Again, I live in RI and there is no law on my state's books that says I can't gamble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government is telling you that the "Isle of Man" gambling business has entered R.I. Your state law does not authorize that (thereby triggering UIGEA). The law may or may not speak to the different concept of you gambling online.

You need a law authorizing online poker business, sorry.

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate to say it, but I agree with them. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has precisely zero right to become involved in making gambling law. That is reserved to the States.

Better to get the Feds out of it completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh.....Commerce clause? Internet betting would be placed across state lines, unless the state government want to keep it in state. FT and Pokerstars serves all states. It is federal commerce, and the Federal government has the right to regulate it. That is why I don't totally understand the state section of the Frank bill. Maybe it is only there to get the thing passed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You need a law authorizing online poker business, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite actual laws, please?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

The game takes place on the server, not on the client. The servers are located in a location where gambling is legal. The government has no more right to tell me I can't log on to my compuetr and play poker on the Isle of Man than it has the right to tell me I can't get on an airplane to play poker in Las Vegas. (obviously, the preceding is opinion)

Again, I live in RI and there is no law on my state's books that says I can't gamble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government is telling you that the "Isle of Man" gambling business has entered R.I. Your state law does not authorize that (thereby triggering UIGEA). The law may or may not speak to the different concept of you gambling online.

You need a law authorizing online poker business, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depositing or withdrawing to or from a poker site is not illegal in any way in any state or jurisdiction. You can deposit to a gambling site to take advantage of a free T-shirt offer and never actually gamble(or whatever).

The actual placing of a wager may or may not be depending on the jurisdiciton you are in when the wagering happens.

I could from the state of WA where on-line gambling is illegal deposit to FT, drive to Canada and play on-line where I have broken no US laws and either from Canada or back on WA try to deposit my winnings and the bank might under the proposed rule block the transaction.

Well unless the bank is going to work with the NSA to track my every movement to make sure I was actually in a jurisdiciton where it was illegal to wager all or part of the withdraw to even have a chance of hoping to win a law suit for blocking my transaction (well unless the regulation and UIGEA non-due process law is allowed to stand)



D$D

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I could from the state of WA where on-line gambling is illegal deposit to FT, drive to Canada and play on-line where I have broken no US laws and either from Canada or back on WA try to deposit my winnings and the bank might under the proposed rule block the transaction.


[/ QUOTE ]

If it weren't for the Patriot Act I would say you were correct.

Jimbo

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


If it weren't for the Patriot Act I would say you were correct.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not being rude.

Is this an opinion or a statue you can send me a link to?


D$D

[Jimbo]

Both I suppose, after all the Partiot Act grants a great deal oflatitude when it involves money being moved into and out of the US.

Linky

All USA Patriot Act Guidelines Statutes and Regulations

Jimbo

[JPFisher55]

Hey Jimbo, do you know how to cite a statute or regulation? You have to cite the particular section of a statute or a specific regulation to support your legal opinion. Not a link to the entire act and its regulations. BTW the Patriot Act has done very poorly in federal courts.

D$D, I doubt that banks will block any deposits by non-commercial customers. The proposed regulations talk about banks knowing their commercial customers so that they might block their deposits if it is funds obtained by violation of the UIGEA. How this will work is beyond me since no US bank actually has an internet gambling business as a customer unless it is for horse racing, state lottery or some other exempted internet gambling in the UIGEA.

[Coy_Roy]

Nothing better than watching two braniacs fight. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]