UIGEA Weekly action Item idea

[groo]

Milton, I thank you for your efforts in this regard. I respect your opinions and your breakdown of the many legal matters on this issue. Infact, yours are often the only posts I read. On this subject I have to disagree. An attack from many different angles is needed to win most battles, and often time no one knows which angle will be successful or why.

As an example, I recall a case some years ago here in Arizona where a company wanted to build a hazardous waste incinerator and was able to push most of the permits through without alerting the public. When the public became aware, a few people became angry. They held some protests and more people became aware. The final permit hearing was held a week or so later. This hearing was held in room that held about 100 people and it figured to be more than large enough, being that the previous 2-3 hearings had been attended only by industry officials. Over 400 people turned out for this meeting, and most were upset about being denied entry. When the officials running the hearing refused to rescheduele for another time at a venue that would accomadate everyone, the crowd became unruly. Not violent or aggressive in any manner, just unruly. The Sheriffs office responded and arrested 20-25 people for "shouting and pointing fingers", and it came out in their trial "for simply being present." After the police left the hearing went on as schedueled and the final permit was issued.

Then something interesting happened, the grassroot effort that began as a few people protesting at the state capitol and continued to the public hearing, grew to dominate the news. Not because the incinerator was a bad idea, but because of the way the entire process was handle and because people were disgusted with how the police had handled the public hearing. The govenor ended up pulling the plug on the project.

The point of this whole thing is that, again, you never know where these efforts might go, or if they will be successful. In the above incedent these people where trying to stop this project through involvement in the political system and won because other people grew disgusted with gov't reaction and misdealings. The more different types of effort we have the more chance we have for success.

[Uglyowl]

I agree that banks should be made aware of the findings (I am sure they are being kept up to date by industry organizations now or shortly). Branch managers are the wrong people though (if you want results prior to Dec 12).

I will swing by my compliance officers' (I work at a bank) office to see if I can dig up any industry response yet.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that banks should be made aware of the findings (I am sure they are being kept up to date by industry organizations now or shortly). Branch managers are the wrong people though (if you want results prior to Dec 12).

I will swing by my compliance officers' (I work at a bank) office to see if I can dig up any industry response yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save youself the effort, most of them haven't seen the proposed rule yet, although alerting him/her to the issue isn't a half bad opening.


D$D

[Grasshopp3r]

Along these same lines, if you are in a state that allows poker in whatever form to be played, should we make a point of depositing and withdrawing money that is clearly for poker for the purpose of establishing standing? Should we make sure to label the transaction as legal gambling or poker intent?

[MiltonFriedman]

"I never said we should not fight the regs by commenting between now and Dec 12th. "

Of course you did, in your BotCott thread lead paragraph:

"IMPO we shouldn't be lobbing Congress, the FED, or any agency on the proposed regulations."

Are you drawing some distinction now between "lobbying" an Agency and "commenting" on the Proposed Regulations ?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"I never said we should not fight the regs by commenting between now and Dec 12th. "

Of course you did, in your BotCott thread lead paragraph:

"IMPO we shouldn't be lobbing Congress, the FED, or any agency on the proposed regulations."

Are you drawing some distinction now between "lobbying" an Agency and "commenting" on the Proposed Regulations ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am. IMHO the fight should not be on the government playground. To be honest I'd leave the fancy legal arguements to the group of lawyers the PPA and other major poker operators come up with. If in their opinion a massive comment might carry more weight than their single one, then they will let us know.

Personally I think getting out a response now on the proposed rule is foolish for a number of reasons. If for nothing else the last comments are perhaps the best as you get to read all the rest first before creating your response. It is classic proposed rule warfare 101 well perhaps 310.

Ultimately our comments do not carry as much weight as the Agencies are look for a creative solution from the banks and credit cards. Considering how many exemptions I read even with the rule I think we are better off than we were without it. Now a number of previouly blocked methods should work.

What I really mean is collectively we have more leverage with the banks than anyone else as we are direct consumers of the banks. Personally I think if we can find the right bank and hit the right pitch we might get a home run. If we get a banker of any size to agree that any potential class action for recovery of e-pass fees if the rule or law is overturned is worth telling the "agenices" to tell Congress "legalize" poker with the Wexler Bill or rewrite the UIGEA.

Considering that there is also the addition momentumn we might create for quick passage of a poker bill or exemption for skills game exemption, if for no other reason than to get us off their back is worth the effort. Now at least we have some number of bankers suggesting to their congressman/woman hey what's up with this damn poker group?

Can't you keep them from starting some damn class action suit?

If we get the smaller regional bank players involved where there are the numbers and leverage they might convince the majors for us.

I have said from the begining there are no extra points for speed in a proposed reg fight. A good well thought strategy, considering all the angles, that incorporates any good anti-our position with reasonable answers, while building as much support, and creating weakness or doubt in potential positions that even tacit aquisence, if worth the effort. That levarage point IMHO is throught the banks.

Aysemetrical warware.

Just one persons opinion and I am completely open to suggestions,


D$D

[MiltonFriedman]

" .....I think getting out a response now on the proposed rule is foolish for a number of reasons. If for nothing else the last comments are perhaps the best as you get to read all the rest first before creating your response. It is classic proposed rule warfare 101 well perhaps 310."

Sorry, I must have missed that class.

I would appreciate your insight on how to read the prior comments filed by anyone on the UIGE proposed Regs. Since you are in D.C., and have finishe visiting local banks, can you volunteer to go to the relevant Public disclosure location and read them, so we can best leverage your advice ?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
" .....I think getting out a response now on the proposed rule is foolish for a number of reasons. If for nothing else the last comments are perhaps the best as you get to read all the rest first before creating your response. It is classic proposed rule warfare 101 well perhaps 310."

Sorry, I must have missed that class.

I would appreciate your insight on how to read the prior comments filed by anyone on the UIGE proposed Regs. Since you are in D.C., and have finishe visiting local banks, can you volunteer to go to the relevant Public disclosure location and read them, so we can best leverage your advice ?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not all you seemed to have missed!

Did you even bother to read the proposed rule or just like shooting your mouth off?

Page 3!

• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select
“Department of the Treasury-All” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “Treas-DO-2007-0015” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking.

• Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy
comments at the
Department of the Treasury Library,
Room 1428,
Main Treasury Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling (202) 622-0990.

D$D<--wonders if he's stalking me???

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Along these same lines, if you are in a state that allows poker in whatever form to be played, should we make a point of depositing and withdrawing money that is clearly for poker for the purpose of establishing standing? Should we make sure to label the transaction as legal gambling or poker intent?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES!

But you want to add in a layer of complexity to further show the unworkble nature of the law.

We have no legal cash poker rooms in VA, yes there are poker rooms.

So I've asked, if I tell you I am going to AC to play poker will you still give me the money?

They say yes.

What if I slipped up and told you I was going to play in an illegal poker game being held across the street as it is really soft and I don't have the 5 hours to drive to AC?

(Same deal for a deposit of cash winnings.)

Usually a long pause, followed by, "well it is your money, what you choose to do with it is pretty much your business."

Then you hit them with; "then why the hell are you blocking my attempts to deposit to my favorite poker site when I try to do so using this card you gave me?!?"

The usual answer is, "good question....."

The smart a$$ed answer is "because it is the law."

Depending on your mood you can say, "acually your current blocking policy of my debit card would be allowed even by full implementation the proposed reg. if you had bothered to wait for it or to even have taken the time to read it. You pre-mature action has cost me $$ and I'd like it now!"

If they are nice, "well to be honest when this law is proven unworkable and overturned I am telling you now I will be back for a refund of the extra fees I paid because you blocked a legal transaction. You guy's know all about extra fees right?"

Sometimes I'll even pimp the PPA for added effect.

"Oh by the way I belong to a little group of poker buddies, there are about 800,000 of us as of this morning. If I have any trouble with that refund perhaps a class action law suit might do the trick."


D$D<--told you all this was fun

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]

That's not all you seemed to have missed!

Did you even bother to read the proposed rule or just like shooting your mouth off?

Page 3!

• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select
“Department of the Treasury-All” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the “Docket ID” column, select “Treas-DO-2007-0015” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking.


[/ QUOTE ]

They skip over Treas-DO-2007-15 at the moment, it is non-existent; I see 2007-14 and 2007-16