UIGEA new positive bill just passed

[Mousey]

From I. Nelson Rose:

The New Internet Gaming Regulations: Nothing Changes

© Copyright 2008, Professor I Nelson Rose, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.


It took 66 pages of fine print. But in the end the federal regulators charged with making regulations to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”) simply gave up. They were supposed to make rules forcing financial institutions to identify and block money transfers for unlawful Internet gambling ...

[lots0]

WOW!!!
I am F*&&ing Flabbergasted...

I FRICKIN LOVE this part....

Anyone who uses paper checks, wire transfers, foreign bank credit cards, or overseas payment processors to load, reload or cash out can continue to do so.

Source: http://www.compatiblepoker.com/final-uigea.cms.htm
I. Nelson Rose is an acknowledged expert in online gaming laws.

I think I'm gonna party!

[lots0]

and then there is this...

What's really interesting.
The most interesting part of the new rule, for me, is that unlicensed Internet gaming operators can set up business relations with U.S. financial institutions, if the operators “provide a reasoned legal opinion that it does not engage in restricted transactions.” That means if I, as a licensed attorney and an expert on gaming law, give a legal opinion that a gambling operator is not violating federal or state laws, that should be good enough.

source:http://www.compatiblepoker.com/final-uigea.cms.htm
Again, I. Nelson Rose is an acknowledged expert in US online gaming law.

LMAO... Going to get totally f... up right now, in the middle of the day...
Xmas came early this year...


Added....
Before I get totally screwed up... here is a link to the actual set of rules if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...ng11.12.08.pdf

[catrina m]

If its up to my bank to enforce it, its buisness as usual. They approve my debit card transactions and charge anywhere from .50 to $1 as an international service fee. The govt. wants them to stop getting this fee?

yeah right! Banks love fee's that aren't contested.

They also get $15 for a wire transfer.

Our govt' is a group of braindead, greedy, power hungry idiots.

[littlebit]

Cable news channels are also mentioning this article and applauding the official end of internet gambling for casinos. Somewhere the true story has to be out there you would think.

New Rules For Banks Target Online Gambling

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 13, 2008; Page A05

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank yesterday issued new regulations spelling out how banks and other financial institutions must comply with a 2006 law that bans many forms of Internet gambling.

The regulations were released just a few days after critics of the law questioned the involvement of a former National Football League lobbyist in the White House's final review of the new rules.

Running 120 pages, the regulations detail how banks must identify and block illegal Internet gambling transactions beginning in January.

Companies involved in processing online payments have complained that the task will be difficult and costly.

Some Democratic lawmakers had proposed to regulate and tax Internet gambling instead, an approach opposed by the Bush administration and many congressional Republicans.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined yesterday to explain why ethics officers had approved the participation of William Wichterman, a former lobbyist for the NFL, in the White House's final review of the regulations. Wichterman now works in the White House Office of Public Liaison.

Internet gambling officials and Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.) had called Wichterman's involvement a conflict of interest, noting that the NFL had paid Wichterman and other lawyers millions of dollars in lobbying fees, in part to press for implementation of the gambling law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111202668.html

[jetset]

iMEGA FILES LATEST RESPONSE (Update)

Representative body says new UIGEA regulations strengthen its case

The legal team at the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) has filed their response brief with the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, the latest step in their challenge to the constitutionality of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). Their suit - iMEGA v. Keisler, et al - targets the US Department of Justice (DoJ), the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission, and seeks to have the law overturned on constitutional grounds by the appeals court.

The filing comes one day after the US Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System published the final regulations for UIGEA, requiring all US banks, credit card companies and electronic payment processors to refuse all "unlawful Internet gambling" transactions.

"After reviewing the final regulations, we're extremely confident the court will look at this law and agree that UIGEA should be 'void for vagueness," said Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA. "Regulators and Congress have refused to even define what 'unlawful internet gambling' is, and if you cannot even answer that basic question, how exactly are banks supposed to do it?"

The reply brief in in answer to an earlier brief submitted by the government, challenging the basis for iMEGA's suit. iMEGA's legal team answered the government's arguments point-by-point:

1. DoJ's claim that a "void for vagueness" argument against UIGEA was not raised by iMEGA at the trial court level is groundless, as it was addressed and preserved by the trial court and in Judge Mary J. Cooper's decision.

2. DoJ's claim that iMEGA lacks standing to raise privacy claims of individual Internet gamblers fails to recognize that iMEGA members may be prosecuted under UIGEA for permitting individuals to gamble on their Web sites

3. DoJ failed to refute the fact that UIGEA has no uniformity regarding "illegal gambling" in the states, and is therefore "void for vagueness"

4. DoJ are wrong when they deny gambling online in one's home - which is not a criminal activity - lacks constitutional privacy protection, even when such conduct is indeed private, consensual and legal under UIGEA.

The next step in this challenge will be for a three-judge panel to be selected by the court to review the briefs, and decide at what time the court would entertain oral arguments from both sides.

"For our part, we cannot wait for the opportunity to go before the 3rd Circuit," Brennan said. "We have a powerful argument that the government will find very hard to dispute. The sooner we can move this fatally flawed law off the books, the sooner we can turn our attention to working on technology solutions that will provide for a regulated online gaming industry in the US, while addressing the concerns for responsible gaming that critics have voiced."

[Snake Eyes]

Arch-online gambling opponent and Alabama Republican Representative Spencer Bachus welcomed the publication of the new regulations in a statement in which he said: "No longer will the offshore gambling interests benefit from anyone turning any computer into a casino that is available every minute of the day."

Ah, I'm so pleased to hear from this lunatic again...

[maxd]

Heard last night on MSNBC that the Bushies screwed up with their "midnight drop" deadline, something about it actually being quite easy for the incoming administration to overturn stuff that was rammed through at the last minute _if_ they have a majority in congress. Turns out the out-going guys need to table stuff months in advance or else it is subject to congressional review.

Not sure how this affects the UIGEA stuff but it might turn out to be a good thing.

[jetset]

It's a great story, but I haven't been able to unearth anything on it so far, Max - if you come across something further please post it.

[lots0]

Heard the same thing as Max.

Because of all the "Midnight Drops" (last minute Rules, intended to tie the hands of incoming president) by Bush and cronies the Democrats are planning on undoing all of them and the Democrats have found a law that lets them do this...

There is a building anger at the hundreds of these regulations that bush is pushing in his lame duck term, especially sense Bush specifically promised not to put new rules into effect after November 1.
Gee Bush lied again... who would have guessed...