U.S. Legalisation - movement at last

[greek39]

Anybody know what happend, or can you post a link? Thanks.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve on Friday delayed the implementation date for a new Internet gambling payment ban for six months, a move that gives lawmakers time to overturn it or end confusion over illegal practices.
source:http://www.reuters.com/article/inter...5AQ4HG20091127
source: http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring120309.wvx

The FBI's unrelenting pursuit of continuing its' crusade against online gambling.

Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Internet-based poker games can be subject to manipulation, a top Federal Bureau of Investigation official said.

“There are several ways to cheat at online poker, none of which are legal,” Shawn Henry, assistant director for the FBI’s cyber division, wrote in a letter to Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama.

source:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aFamTQRkQlzo

Makes me wonder if the FBI is under anyone's control lol. Read carefully the FBI contradicts themselves. According to them online poker is illegal as is cheating the game. But how can one illegally cheat the game if its already illegal to begin with.

I don't know just find it amusing lol.



greek39

[4 of a kind]

http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring120309.wvx


Just saw this same address above.

[Mousey]

Bachus is babbling now... worried about "our young people" ... *sigh*

Would someone please gag and hogtie this moron? and NO I didn't vote for him....

[jetset]

The FBI's unrelenting pursuit of continuing its' crusade against online gambling.



Makes me wonder if the FBI is under anyone's control lol. Read carefully the FBI contradicts themselves. According to them online poker is illegal as is cheating the game. But how can one illegally cheat the game if its already illegal to begin with.

I don't know just find it amusing lol.



greek39

The PPA were quick off the mark in refuting that one!

A couple years back it was money-laundering that the FBI chose to chastise online gambling, despite some well documented studies that there had been no such thing, and that in fact online presented better financial tracking mechanisms.

This was referred to again in the present hearings when Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the current ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security spoke up, asserting publicly that he is not aware of any money laundering or terrorism financing through Internet gaming. He pointed out that if financial crimes were a legitimate concern, then regulation and oversight as proposed in H.R. 2267 is the best way to mitigate that risk.

Then there's the repeated Bachus accusations that online gambling is more addictive than land gambling, something with he knows very well is BS following extensive studies from various respected outfits, not least of which is the Harvard study.

It seems these guys are so desperate that they are happy to perpetuate untruths that they know are exactly that, which doesn't say a lot for their much boasted religious morality.

I had to grin at Bachus accusing Frank over the 3 year delay in getting the UIGEA into force - blithely ignoring the fact that the Treausry and Justice bureaucrats under the Republican Bush Administration screwed around trying to draft same for over two years!

Then there was Robert Martin, tribal chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in California who claimed that legalising online gambling would be prejudicial to tribal gambling interests.

His objection was challenged by Congressman Frank, who noted that the Morongo had recently tried to engineer online poker legalisation state laws that would give them a degree of exclusivity.

"They are not against Internet poker in general and in fact are trying to get involved in the industry by passing legislation in California," Congressman Frank observed. "You want to be able to do it and have no one else do it, is that the issue?"

Martin did not respond to the challenge.

Samuel A. Vallandingham, chief financial officer and vice president of The First State Bank speaking on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America said the UIGEA makes impossible demands on community banking in the US. He testified that the attempt to block payment transactions by online casino operators is a burden the financial industry cannot handle.

"The added burden of monitoring all payment transactions for the taint of unlawful Internet gambling would drain finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations, the plethora of new regulations emerging from the financial crisis and the daily operation of community banks to meet the financial needs of their customers," he opined.

He also drew attention to the imprecise definition of illegal online gambling provided in the UIGEA, commenting that because no overriding law exists, banks would have the problematic task of determining each customer's legality with regard to hundreds of state, federal, and local laws.

"ICBA strongly endorses H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act which establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework for licensing Internet gambling operators," concluded the banking representative, throwing the bankers' support squarely behind Barney Frank's bill.

[greek39]

Awesome post Jetset you nailed it my feelings exactly!

Thanks

greek39

[Mousey]

I'm at work and am missing parts of this... will probably have to leave before it's over .... someone (JetSet LOL) please post an update when possible.

Thank you!

[greek39]

Amazing debate more in our favor IMO!

Bachus is way off base.

greek39

[Simmo!]

Amazing debate more in our favor IMO!

I meant to tune in but was out...I read that the main line of attack from opposition was over the possibilities of identity theft! If that's truly the main argument against, I'd say things are looking up! The same article suggested that the debate didn't really achieve anything other than re-introducing the topic into the arena, but having not listened I'm not sure how accurate that report is.

[greek39]

Simmo!,

I was viewing this in mp format

http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring120309.wvx

Best debate I heard in years, inching closer to regulation. Roughly hour and half long grab a coffee, beer or whatever.

greek39

[lots0]

I watched it... twice.

I was truly amazed how logical and realistic the legalization and regulation side of the debate was.

Some good points from my perspective:

1. Rep. Peter King (a Republican), who is the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Has said that in several years he has seen no evidence of a connection between Terrorism and Online Gambling and that he supports Rep. Frank's two bills... (this is huge politically as King has dissed Bacus, one of his party leaders and sided with Frank, one of the Liberals most disliked by the conservative leadership.)

2. The opposition has not been able to provide evidence that online gaming has increased the rate or percentage of gambling addicts. The evidence and studies presented all show that gambling addiction levels have stayed about the same (as a % of population) for a very long time.