UIGEA Weekly action Item idea

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was just me....

Also does anyone know if it matters that the proposed rule was in a PR press release and not in the Federal Register?

When I got stuck with the dirty end of the stick they made me publish in the Federal Register.


D$D

[Skallagrim]

I wanted to add an idea here in terms of dealing with the banks, and may even wish to make it part of a comment to the regs.

Generally speaking as a matter of contract law, it is "unfair" to have a clause in a contract that gives one party the right to ignore the terms of the contract unilaterally for any reason. Example: you pay me $5 for a book. The contract says I am free to give you the book or not at my sole discretion. That is an illegal contract, and you can still get your $5 back if I dont give the book as promised.

The relevance here is that I am sure your contract with your bank and credit card co. does not give the company the right to decline the service you have contracted for (honoring the check or charge) for any reason. I am sure it would say something like, they can decline transactions for specific reasons, including illegality. But if the transaction is not illegal, you should have some remedy at law. The proposed regs seem to take this away: if a bank "feels" the transaction is for illegal online gambling, the regs and the UIGEA seem to imply there is no recourse for us consumers.

The constitution forbids laws that "impair contracts" (with lots of exceptions)....this may lead to another area of challenge. Please tell me what you think.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Go for it Skall, good argument.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to add an idea here in terms of dealing with the banks, and may even wish to make it part of a comment to the regs.

Generally speaking as a matter of contract law, it is "unfair" to have a clause in a contract that gives one party the right to ignore the terms of the contract unilaterally for any reason. Example: you pay me $5 for a book. The contract says I am free to give you the book or not at my sole discretion. That is an illegal contract, and you can still get your $5 back if I dont give the book as promised.

The relevance here is that I am sure your contract with your bank and credit card co. does not give the company the right to decline the service you have contracted for (honoring the check or charge) for any reason. I am sure it would say something like, they can decline transactions for specific reasons, including illegality. But if the transaction is not illegal, you should have some remedy at law. The proposed regs seem to take this away: if a bank "feels" the transaction is for illegal online gambling, the regs and the UIGEA seem to imply there is no recourse for us consumers.

The constitution forbids laws that "impair contracts" (with lots of exceptions)....this may lead to another area of challenge. Please tell me what you think.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, definitely go for it.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to add an idea here in terms of dealing with the banks, and may even wish to make it part of a comment to the regs.

Generally speaking as a matter of contract law, it is "unfair" to have a clause in a contract that gives one party the right to ignore the terms of the contract unilaterally for any reason. Example: you pay me $5 for a book. The contract says I am free to give you the book or not at my sole discretion. That is an illegal contract, and you can still get your $5 back if I dont give the book as promised.

The relevance here is that I am sure your contract with your bank and credit card co. does not give the company the right to decline the service you have contracted for (honoring the check or charge) for any reason. I am sure it would say something like, they can decline transactions for specific reasons, including illegality. But if the transaction is not illegal, you should have some remedy at law. The proposed regs seem to take this away: if a bank "feels" the transaction is for illegal online gambling, the regs and the UIGEA seem to imply there is no recourse for us consumers.

The constitution forbids laws that "impair contracts" (with lots of exceptions)....this may lead to another area of challenge. Please tell me what you think.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion we are in even more trouble than we think. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Upon re-reading the reg I saw a theme I some how missed the first time through. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

The banks can block a transaction under the UIGEA or because of business risk reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

As written we don't have recourse that I see under either premise for "over"blocking. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

We either get our own "horse racing" exemption, wait for a "skills game" bill, or advance constitutional challenges on the jurisdiction nightmare of proving where the illegal gambling actually took place and some version of the imapried contract/no "due process" side. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Yes so it is clear we have to apply presure everywhere we can so that eventaully Congress, the Agencies, and the Banks collectively just want us to go away and let them worry about smurfing, un-restricted gambling, funding terrorism or narco-terrorism, and for the banks making money in peace. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

IMPO we need to advance all of the various areas of leverage as well as brute force frontal attacks, what ever we can collectively manage or drum up support for in the end.


D$D<-- off to watch NASCAR oh that's right BotCott the NFL! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The banks can block a transaction under the UIGEA or because of business risk reasons.

As written we don't have recourse that I see under either premise for "over"blocking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Penalty-free overblocking is part of the actual UGIEA text.

I added lobbying banks to this week's action thread. Not sure what we can do, but we should try.

[JPFisher55]

If these are the final regulations, then I predict lots of litigation over this whole mess. But I think that the WTO granting IP sanction to Antiqua will change the whole scenario.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to enlighten us as to HOW to access to prior comments filed ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The instructions are on the same PPA page as the instructions for posting comments. Last time I checked, comments were not yet available for viewing.

[MiltonFriedman]

Thanks.

[MiltonFriedman]

Thanks, Engineer