Internet Gambling in Congress again...
 

This Frist guy is REALLY starting to piss me off with all this shady shit. I seriously can't even believe this crap is tolerated.

From the PPA:

-----
The U.S. Congress is Trying to Ban Online Poker TODAY!!!
THIS IS NOT A TEST -- Call Your Senator Now


U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is attaching the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act to a bill that is expected to be approved by the Congress
early this evening. PLEASE call your Senators today and tell them that
they should oppose the Internet gambling bill being part of Port Security
legislation.

If the Port Security bill passes, with the Internet gambling language
included, your ability to enjoy poker online will be at serious risk.

Each member of the Poker Players Alliance has two Senators which are
listed below. They need to hear from you RIGHT NOW! Let them know
that you care about your rights to play poker.

Please Call!!! Tell your Senators to oppose attaching Internet gambling to
Port Security!

First Name
Last Name
State
Phone Number

Ted
Stevens
AK
(202) 224-3004

Lisa
Murkowski
AK
(202) 224-6665

Richard
Shelby
AL
(202) 224-5744

Jeff
Sessions
AL
(202) 224-4124

Mark
Pryor
AR
(202) 224-2353

Blanche
Lincoln
AR
(202) 224-4843

John
McCain
AZ
(202) 224-2235

Jon
Kyl
AZ
(202) 224-4521

Barbara
Boxer
CA
(202) 224-3553

Dianne
Feinstein
CA
(202) 224-3841

Wayne
Allard
CO
(202) 224-5941

Ken
Salazar
CO
(202) 224-5852

Joseph
Lieberman
CT
(202) 224-4041

Christopher
Dodd
CT
(202) 224-2823

Joseph
Biden
DE
(202) 224-5042

Thomas
Carper
DE
(202) 224-2441

Mel
Martinez
FL
(202)224-3041

Bill
Nelson
FL
(202) 224-5274

Johnny
Isakson
GA
(202) 224-3643

Saxby
Chambliss
GA
(202) 224-3521

Daniel
Akaka
HI
(202) 224-6361

Daniel
Inouye
HI
(202) 224-3934

Tom
Harkin
IA
(202) 224-3254

Charles
Grassley
IA
(202) 224-3744

Michael
Crapo
ID
(202) 224-6142

Larry
Craig
ID
(202) 224-2752

Barack
Obama
IL
(202) 224-2854

Richard
Durbin
IL
(202) 224-2152

Richard
Lugar
IN
(202) 224-4814

Evan
Bayh
IN
(202) 224-5623

Pat
Roberts
KS
(202) 224-4774

Sam
Brownback
KS
(202) 224-6521

Mitch
McConnell
KY
(202) 224-2541

Jim
Bunning
KY
(202) 224-4343

David
Vitter
LA
(202) 224-4623

Mary
Landrieu
LA
(202) 224-5824

Edward
Kennedy
MA
(202) 224-4543

John
Kerry
MA
(202) 224-2742

Barbara
Mikulski
MD
(202) 224-4654

Paul
Sarbanes
MD
(202) 224-4524

Olympia
Snowe
ME
(202) 224-5344

Susan
Collins
ME
(202) 224-2523

Carl
Levin
MI
(202) 224-6221

Debbie
Stabenow
MI
(202) 224-4822

Norm
Coleman
MN
(202) 224-5641

Mark
Dayton
MN
(202) 224-3244

Christopher
Bond
MO
(202) 224-5721

James
Talent
MO
(202) 224-6154

Thad
Cochran
MS
(202) 224-5054

Trent
Lott
MS
(202) 224-6253

Conrad
Burns
MT
(202) 224-2644

Max
Baucus
MT
(202) 224-2651

Richard
Burr
NC
(202) 224-3154

Elizabeth
Dole
NC
(202) 224-6342

Kent
Conrad
ND
(202) 224-2043

Byron
Dorgan
ND
(202) 224-2551

Chuck
Hagel
NE
(202) 224-4224

Ben
Nelson
NE
(202) 224-6551

John
Sununu
NH
(202) 224-2841

Judd
Gregg
NH
(202) 224-3324

Robert
Menendez
NJ
(202) 224-4744

Frank
Lautenberg
NJ
(202) 224-3224

Jeff
Bingaman
NM
(202) 224-5521

Pete
Domenici
NM
(202) 224-6621

John
Ensign
NV
(202) 224-6244

Harry
Reid
NV
(202) 224-3542

Charles
Schumer
NY
(202) 224-6542

Hillary
Clinton
NY
(202) 224-4451

George
Voinovich
OH
(202) 224-3353

Mike
DeWine
OH
(202) 224-2315

James
Inhofe
OK
(202) 224-4721

Tom
Coburn
OK
(202) 224-5754

Gordon
Smith
OR
(202) 224-3753

Ron
Wyden
OR
(202) 224-5244

Arlen
Specter
PA
(202) 224-4254

Rick
Santorum
PA
(202) 224-6324

Lincoln
Chafee
RI
(202) 224-2921

Jack
Reed
RI
(202) 224-4642

Jim
DeMint
SC
(202) 224-6121

Lindsey
Graham
SC
(202) 224-5972

Tim
Johnson
SD
(202) 224-5842

John
Thune
SD
(202) 224-2321

Bill
Frist
TN
(202) 224-3344

Lamar
Alexander
TN
(202) 224-4944

Kay
Hutchison
TX
(202) 224-5922

John
Cornyn
TX
(202) 224-2934

Robert
Bennett
UT
(202) 224-5444

Orrin
Hatch
UT
(202) 224-5251

George
Allen
VA
(202) 224-4024

John
Warner
VA
(202) 224-2023

James
Jeffords
VT
(202) 224-5141

Patrick
Leahy
VT
(202) 224-4242

Maria
Cantwell
WA
(202) 224-3441

Patty
Murray
WA
(202) 224-2621

Russell
Feingold
WI
(202) 224-5323

Herb
Kohl
WI
(202) 224-5653

Robert
Byrd
WV
(202) 224-3954

John
Rockefeller
WV
(202) 224-6472

Michael
Enzi
WY
(202) 224-3424

Craig
Thomas
WY
(202) 224-6441

Not anymore.

done:thumbsup: this frist is a bastard He cant find something better to do.?

Excellent chance we are fucked this time around.

Heres the bill, the online gambling starts on page 213.
Up to 5 years in jail for so much as cashing out. :(
This could be very very bad.
Edit: This is being discussed on C-SPAN 2 right now

This fucking sucks. FUCK

This was actually said today by one of these retarded fuckers:

"Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gambling. You just click the mouse and you lose the house."

If it passes, which it's most likely going to, it goes to GW's desk. So when is the earliest this could actually be passed as law? How much time do we have? Who's withdrawing everything?

OK, I've read the relevant section of the proposed statute and I'm not that worried because of the following: (a) the only person(s) or entities that can be charged under this law are persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering..." and (b) most "persons" engaged in the business of betting or wagering are not based in the United States. So, since the United States cannot enforce its laws against persons or entities not domiciled in the U.S., they can't shut down poker sites not based in the U.S. This law does not allow the government to prosecute individual internet poker players in the U.S. because an individual player could not be construed to mean a person "engaged in the business of betting or wagering." The only problem I can imagine is if the poker sites overreact to this and start banning U.S. players... however, if I'm their lawyer I tell them don't ban U.S. players and don't worry about this unless you plan on setting up or physically doing business in the U.S.

This is an attempt to "go after" the internet gambling sites and not individual "end users" like us players.

Can you say...paper tiger?

I knew you could.

From everything I've read in the legislation forum at 2+2, the problem we're going to be facing is that they're going to shut down the companies that facilitate our deposits and MORE IMPORTANTLY our fucking withdrawals!

So, yeah, you can keep playing but good luck collecting any wins. It'll be just like play money! Sweet! These bible beating, one foot in the grave republicans worried about my fucking family values are seriously making me want to go outside, kill my dog, smear his blood all over my naked body and worship fucking satan.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7482897&page=0&vc=1#Post 7
 

From 2+2, legislation forum, by poster "Hock."

Here are the highlights as I see them. [Disclaimer: Although I was a lawyer at a top DC firm for 10 years, and worked on cases involving statutory interpretation all the way up the the US Supreme Court, I am -- at least was until 15 minutes ago, haha -- not a lawyer, I am (was) a professional poker player. Plus I've only had this text in front of me for like 30 minutes. This is therefore not intended to serve as legal advice.]

1. The Act, S.5363, prohibits anyone "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" from knowingly "accept"ing VIRTUALLY ANY type of credit, electornic funds transfer, check, or other "financial transaction" associated with "unlawful Internet Gambling."

2. "Interactive Computer Services" (s. 5365(c)): Only resposnible for disabling access to a site after notice from authorities specifying exactly what needs to be shut down, including the specific "hypertext link".

3. PENALTIES:
(A) CIVIL: On top of any state remedies, federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin any violating transactions and to prevent future violations.

(B) CRIMINAL: Fines Under Title 18 (I don't know what that says) AND/OR up to 5 years in prison.

4. "Circumvention" (S. 5367): ISPs and financial institutions can't knowingly allow transactions/activity that violate the Act IF they "control" the bets or wagers.

ANALYSIS

First, it sure seems broad with respect to the types of financial transactions covered. Not good. Much depends on exacatly what the Fed's regs say, but it has broad authority if it wants to use it.

Second, the ISP-blocking piece seems relatively tame, applying only under specific circumstances, only on the instigation of federal authorities (no self-monitoring/enforcement requirement), and only to hyperlinks specifically identified by authorities (how'd ya like to have the job of constantly finding those links and telling ISPs to shut them down?). I'd be surprised if this ended up being a real problem, but admit I know virtually nothing about the technology involved in monitoring/disabling access to a site.

Finally, what I find particularly interesting/troubling is that the Act at least arguably applies to at least professional poker players, because it applies to the "accept"ance of any of the covered financial transactions by any "person engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (as long as the bet/wager is illegal under federal/state law; query whether playing poker as we do is in fact illegal under federal/state law). "Engaged in the business of betting or wagering" is not limited to the sites, at least not in this legislation (it may have been in case law somewhere, but I doubt it). Which in turn means that simply by "ACCEPTING" a cash-out using virtually any method currently available, at least "pro" players (i.e., those "in the business of betting or wagering") could be violating a statute that carries with it substantial civil penalties and up to a 5 year jail term. All of that said, similar language was included in other proposed bills and no-one seemed to think it applied to the players, so maybe they know something about this point that I don't. Please tell me they know something I don't.

This makes me...
 

:( (also from 2+2 legislation forum)

Friday evening update:

Forgive me if this post lacks energy.

This evening, the efforts by Senate Majority Leader Frist and others who seek the restriction on Internet gambling in the United States have been successful.

Internet gambling language was included in the Conference Report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This legislation's main focus is on port security.

Both chambers are poised to clear the port legislation overwhelmingly, effectively meaning the Internet gambling legislation will be sent to the President for signature. He will sign this bill.

They could only do that if the company was based in the United States... as an example, Neteller is not based in the U.S., they're based in the Isle of Man, good luck to the U.S. government shutting them down.

Honestly, the only persons that should be worried are those who think they are "engaged in the business of betting or wagering." I'm not engaged in that business, I play poker as a hobby, I hardly think that could be construed as meaning I'm "in the business." Now, professional poker players might be in a different boat. However, they have an out as well since it's tied to having to be related to an illegal state/federal activitiy... so if you live in Las Vegas, or Atlantic City or L.A. or any other place where playing poker is clearly legal, you're probably safe.

I really don't think this is that big of a deal. But, what do I know, I'm just a part-time law school professor.

I pray to Satan and all that is evil that you are right Dr. Republico. Some are hinting that Poker site ---> Neteller cannot be stopped but Neteller -------> US Bank account can be.

It's a lot of speculation and I'm reading myself in circles right now. Whatever the case is, it's going to hurt online poker at best, and destroy it at worst.

That's gayer than me.

Isn't it already "illegal" in Nevada???? Fuck, I don't know shit. I've typed "fuck" a lot in the last hour.

From the Statue:

"The term 'business of betting or wagering' does not include the activities of a financial transation provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service."

Sounds to me like they couldn't go after Neteller under this statute if Neteller were based on Capitol Hill itself. Since Neteller, by the definition in the statute, is not engaged in the business of betting or wagering, then a transaction from Neteller to a U.S. bank would not be covered by this statute.

See but Netteller is used for more then just transfers to poker.
It is a bank pure and simple.
Not under US control or restrictions.

And that right there is where he lost me. 30 minutes? Nobody can possibly read through a piece of US legislation and fully interpret it in 30 minutes!

:D

More seriously, legal precedent in the past has applied the term 'business of wagering etc' to businesses, NOT individuals who merely happen to place bets. Though that certainly can change.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
if this really just happened ill probably cry for like 27 straight days.
US gov. is so fucking messed up if they just send this through. how can they not regulate this?
b4 i i know it ill be working a job making like 1/30th of what i can make/yr. from poker. So fucking sick. I never thoughtthis wouldhappen. cant beleive it might
disclaimer->i might be kinda drunk but i speak the truth!!!!!!

Here is a plug for all the Canads:
We should all move to Canada !!

But Bodog....

Please excuse me while I cry in a corner.

fucking pork barrelling bullshit

Don't worry man, Bodog has said that they anticipate allowing Canadian accounts in the new year. S'all good!

Once you sober-up, read my posts JD.

Visa and Mastercard, money order suppliers, wire transfers aren't in the "Business of betting or wagering" either, but it will sure as shit knock them out of the picture.

I still can't believe this type of bullshit happens. What does Internet gambling have to do with a Port Authority bill???

Fucking shady motherfuckers.

The vast majority of US credit cards already self-regulate and deny charges to internet gambling sites.

LOL. Sorry, don't mean to be jaded here, but you're just noticing this now because it may impact you. The fact is, this is standard procedure in Congress, has been since probably before my grandparents were born. If you can't get a bill to pass on its own, you hide it in a bigger, unrelated bill hoping it avoids detection.

Mostly, its little pork mprojects that continually add marginally to your taxes, but it hurts you none the less.

I'll make a libertarian out of you yet.:D :cool:

I reregistered as an "Independent" the day after Clinton was impeached. When I saw the results of that vote, which were pretty much every single Democrat (save maybe 5) saying he didn't do anything wrong and every single republican (again, minus 5 or so) saying he was Satan himself, it just sickened me. If only people could think for themselves and not just vote along party lines... It's disgusting.

And yes, I know this has happened for years and years, but the fact that everyone knew this douchebag was trying to pull this crap and then they allowed him to do it anyway just sickens me. Nice system we have here, really.

Any chance Bush will line item veto ?
Probably not, but I don't know where he stands on the "issue"
BTW I am also an Independant, nothing in the Constitution sets up political parties (we can start a fun political thread on that one, lol)

This morning, according to Reuters as 12:54 am
 

Looks like it passed and is headed to G.W.'s desk:

[/u]

Maybe he'll wait til spring to sign, but I doubt it since he's been getting such poor grades on homeland security- he'll want to get this port authority portion into action- impress the voters before November.

He can still line-item veto can't he? Is this wishfull thinking? Any chance Barb has an account at Party....?

Umm, how? Plus, like Kurn said, most of those methods have long since been out of the picture.

Im gonna kill myself. Peace out.

Not good at all. So how long till we should get money off of netteller or other funding sites?

edit: just read rd's post. If they can't touch firepay or netteller then what does this bill really accomplish?

What bills like this always accomplish. That is, they make the people who can't be bothered to read beyond the newspaper blurbs think Your Government(tm) cares about Issue X.

Not only that, but I can't tell you how many of my non-poker friends have heard enough about this to say, "So, I hear online poker is illegal now."

There is so much more to it than that, that I don't even know where to start trying to explain things to them.

And I know Kurn will insist the sky isn't falling - and to the point of getting all your money offline, etc, it certainly is not - but this was a pretty big blow to online poker.

If you're not a member yet, join now:


It costs like 20 bucks, and you even get a cool tshirt.

No joke, but if this happens (see quote below), I seriously may think about moving out of the country. Damn Canada being so cold! Guess I'm gonna have to find an island somewhere. Hmmmm... I've heard good things about Costa Rica, Panama, etc.

Then again, he can't be worse than Dubya, can he?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA...wait...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA!

Isn't that what people said about the first George Bush????

Oh I agree, it certainly is a blow to online poker. And that's part of the point really, why go to all the trouble and expense of actual criminalization when you can reduce the 'problem' just by saying 'Boo'?

Corrected

Good article. The DOJ will get strained with the litigation, not to mention that the WTO will call the US on the carpet for something it's already said is a violation of the treaty.


And I know Kurn will insist the sky isn't falling

Not falling. Darker than yesterday, sure, but the war isn't over by a long shot.

Uh, I think he has to sign it before the next Congress convenes or its dead.

Maybe he'll forget.