Bodog Conference Cancelled

[dominique]

Linus, Spearmaster is exactly right. He is stating bare facts.

 

[tennis_balls]

Why would a government drive decent places out of business and create a criminal element to prey on it's citizens?

there are a lot of reasons to put the heat on this industry.

while i oppose this bill, i'm definately not satisfied with the current state of "self regulation". when you have a huge site like English Harbour make a monumental "mistake" and just brush it off as a minor glitch, this says to me that a "criminal element" already exists in this area.

it is a joke to see Bill Frist leading the charge here. Frist has a record of financial transactions that would make Jack Abramoff blush.

 

[cipher]

Spear, the Wire Act is not the only law in the US.

In fact, the MO indictment alleges violations of at least seven different Federal criminal laws - not just the Wire Act.

And that's just Federal law - in the US, gambling is primarily regulated at the state level. And no state allows unlicensed commercial gambling within its borders - whether facilitated by the internet, or otherwise.

Focusing exclusively on the Wire Act simply clouds the issue.

Online gambling is illegal in the US, because no internet site has a license from any US state. Until that changes, internet gambling is, has been, and will be illegal in the US.

Hi Linus:

You might want to tell The Honorable Judge Sanwood Duvall at the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals in Louisiana that Internet Gambling, (not Sports wagering) is illegal. As the Juge has ruled that Internet Gambling is not illegal nor does it fall within the guidelines of the 1961 Wire Act. Moreover, Judge Duvalls opinion has been upheld now on two separate and distinct appeals.

Have a good one.

 

[spearmaster]

Linus -

Your assertion is incorrect and illogical. An activity is not illegal just because it is not specifically declared legal.

Rather than arguing with me from a very weak platform, I suggest you go back and look at the BoS indictment again. BoS owns casinos as well - yet there is not a SINGLE instance where a casino wager is being challenged - most probably because they know they cannot get a conviction on that account.

Judges and lawyers have already been over this issue - and there is already past precedent established. You are the only one, besides some ill-informed reporters, who claim that online gambling is illegal.

 

[Linus]

One of the best articles on the subject can be found here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"Jeffrey R. Rodefer is an Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General for the Nevada Attorney Generals Office, Gaming Division. He represents the Nevada Gaming Commission and the Nevada Gaming Control Board."

His agency was directed by the legislature of the State of Nevada, to look into the possibility of licensing internet gambling.

Gambling has historically been a creature of state regulation governed by the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.6 Generally, [g]ambling is illegal unless regulated by an individual state,7 such as Nevada.

To date, Nevada has not licensed any internet gambling site, although the possibility is there that they could.


Another good site is:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Chuck Humphrey is also a licensed attorney in the US, admitted to practice law in Colorado, Michigan and Texas.

An online gambling portal operator, CasinoCity.com... sued the Department of Justice in August, 2004.

The complaint sought a judicial determination confirming Casino Citys constitutional [sic] rights [sic] to engage in lawful commercial free speech... The plaintiffs contention was that the advertisements it runs are protected by the First Amendment right to free speech...

On February 15, 2005, the suit was dismissed with prejudice.

The court said:

The Central Hudson test, when applied to the facts of the case clearly shows that plaintiff has failed to establish a First Amendment right. It is well-established [sic.] that the First Amendment does not protect the right to advertise illegal activity.

[T]he speech in which plaintiff wishes to engage is misleading because it falsely portrays the image that Internet gambling is legal.

Because plaintiffs speech concerns misleading information and illegal activities, it does not fall within speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

By targeting and punishing advertisers who utilize this type of information, the government reaches its goal of deterring this illegal activity. Thus, the Court finds that the Central Hudson test has been satisfied. Therefore, the Court finds that, even if the plaintiff has standing to bring this action, the plaintiff has no claim for a First Amendment violation.

Mr. Humphrey writes: "The ruling gives no comfort to Casino City; it fires a silver bullet into the heart of the modern-day Draculas who continue to present the intellectual scam that offshore online gambling websites are legally OK. Simply put, the acceptance of sports, casino and poker bets by online websites violates numerous federal laws and the anti-gambling statutes of all 50 states."

 

[spearmaster]

Generally, “[g]ambling is illegal unless regulated by an individual state,”7 such as Nevada.

This is not a fact, this is an opinion. There is no reference to relevant Federal law, nor even any State laws.

This is tantamount to saying that everything which is not covered by law is thus illegal. It is no better than the DoJ's "opinion" that online gambling is illegal.

The Casino City test is a case asserting the right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment - it is NOT a case which attempts to determine the legality or illegality of online gambling and cannot in any case be used as "past precedent" in a case directly related to online gambling.

Again, what you have presented is an opinion of the judge, rather than a ruling - under no circumstances has the judge RULED that online gambling is illegal. Were he to have actually considered the issue of the legality of online gambling, he could have come to any of a number of conclusions but he would have had a hard time proving anything other than the fact that the Wire Act bans sports wagering by wire communication.

The two cases you have presented are opinions. Judges have already ruled on the application of the Wire Act to non-sports betting activities and determined that said activities are NOT covered by the Wire Act.

As there is no other Federal law which governs anything related to the placing of a wager of any sort, it must be held that online gambling is NOT illegal according to Federal law. Individual states may or may not have laws which relate to online gambling (or all forms of gambling) - the mere fact that some states have declared internet gambling illegal supports the position that, without such a law, internet gambling would NOT be illegal.

The law is there to determine what is ILLEGAL. Law does not cover the LEGALITY of any situation - that is, if I pick my nose, and the law does not directly cover this activity, or any other form of this activity (using a Q-tip instead of my finger, for example), it cannot be considered illegal.

 

[cipher]

Mr. Humphrey writes: "The ruling gives no comfort to Casino City; it fires a silver bullet into the heart of the modern-day Draculas who continue to present the intellectual scam that offshore online gambling websites are legally OK. Simply put, the acceptance of sports, casino and poker bets by online websites violates numerous federal laws and the anti-gambling statutes of all 50 states."

I think Mr. Humphrey might want to find away in which to get appointed as a Judge then, because until he becomes a Judge and sits on a case his opinion is nothing short of meaningless.

Have a good one.

 

[Linus]

This is not a fact, this is an opinion. There is no reference to relevant Federal law, nor even any State laws.

This is tantamount to saying that everything which is not covered by law is thus illegal. It is no better than the DoJ's "opinion" that online gambling is illegal.

Whether something's illegal may be a matter of opinion, but some people's opinions count more than others - for example, those of judges and prosecutors.

The Casino City test is a case asserting the right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment - it is NOT a case which attempts to determine the legality or illegality of online gambling and cannot in any case be used as "past precedent" in a case directly related to online gambling.

Again, what you have presented is an opinion of the judge, rather than a ruling - under no circumstances has the judge RULED that online gambling is illegal. Were he to have actually considered the issue of the legality of online gambling, he could have come to any of a number of conclusions but he would have had a hard time proving anything other than the fact that the Wire Act bans sports wagering by wire communication.

I agree the Wire Act is limited to sports betting - although it's worth noting the Justice Dept. does not agree.

It's misleading, though, to treat the Wire Act as if it were the only Federal law that deals with gambling.

The two cases you have presented are opinions. Judges have already ruled on the application of the Wire Act to non-sports betting activities and determined that said activities are NOT covered by the Wire Act.

As there is no other Federal law which governs anything related to the placing of a wager of any sort, it must be held that online gambling is NOT illegal according to Federal law.

There are half a dozen or more different Federal laws that govern wagering.

The MO indictment, for example, alleges violations of at least 7 different Federal laws.

Individual states may or may not have laws which relate to online gambling (or all forms of gambling) - the mere fact that some states have declared internet gambling illegal supports the position that, without such a law, internet gambling would NOT be illegal.

All states have laws that govern commercial gambling. In no state is it legal, unless state-sanctioned (state lotteries), or state-licensed (casinos).

The law is there to determine what is ILLEGAL. Law does not cover the LEGALITY of any situation - that is, if I pick my nose, and the law does not directly cover this activity, or any other form of this activity (using a Q-tip instead of my finger, for example), it cannot be considered illegal.

In the US, you have to be licensed to carry on certain trades or businesses. That applies to, for example, being a lawyer (you have to have a license to practice law), and to commercial gambling.

 

[bossplayer]

In the US, you have to be licensed to carry on certain trades or businesses. That applies to, for example, being a lawyer (you have to have a license to practice law), and to commercial gambling.

I believe these are very important words you used here, as the business end, is NOT in the US

 

[GrandMaster]

If I have a friend in the Stateline Casino in West Wendover, Nevada, and I am standing across the street in Wendover, Utah, and I am shouting instructions to him how to bet, am I gambling in Utah or Nevada?

If I am in Costa Rica and offer legal advice to US residents, do I have to be licensed in the US? Do my clients commit a crime by taking legal advice from me?

 

[spearmaster]

Whether something's illegal may be a matter of opinion, but some people's opinions count more than others - for example, those of judges and prosecutors.

If a judge renders an opinion but not a ruling, and another judge makes a ruling based on his opinion, whose opinion should I believe?

There's no point in going around in circles. A Federal judge has ALREADY ruled that online casino gambling does NOT fall within the confines of the Wire Act.

There are half a dozen or more different Federal laws that govern wagering.

The MO indictment, for example, alleges violations of at least 7 different Federal laws.

Please state the laws which are related to wagering. RICO is certainly NOT one of them. Tax evasion is also not related to wagering. Wagering taxes imply that wagering is LEGAL - if illegal, how the hell can they tax it?

Let's not try to skirt the obvious - the only law which governs the legality of wagering in any shape or form is the Wire Act.

All states have laws that govern commercial gambling. In no state is it legal, unless state-sanctioned (state lotteries), or state-licensed (casinos).

Did you actually research this?

Did it occur to you that in some states, what is not considered gambling may be considered gambling in another? For example, in California stud poker is prohibited - but draw poker is not. Some states define lotteries as gambling, others do not. Some states even considered video poker terminals as games of skill (and thus not gambling) if I am not mistaken. Some states allow poker in private places (ie. the home) but NOT in public places.

I think that your claim above is a bit premature, or maybe just a bit too general.

In the US, you have to be licensed to carry on certain trades or businesses. That applies to, for example, being a lawyer (you have to have a license to practice law), and to commercial gambling.

The businesses are located outside the US. The fact that one can make a phone call or connect to an overseas website is completely irrelevant to a business license in the US.

For example, you can legally buy pot in the Netherlands - by phone call, or by visiting a website. You have not broken the law in either country.

You WILL break the laws of the US, however, if you import the pot. But the law does NOT govern the purchase of the pot in a foreign country from a foreign-based business.

Simple as that. BetOnSports is legally licensed as a bookmaker under the laws of the United Kingdom. It does not require a license in the US in order to operate its business. However, if it accepts sports wagers from Americans, it can then be considered in breach of US law because wagers on sporting events are explicitly prohibited by the Wire Act. This does NOT apply to casino gambling according to a Federal judge.

Another case in point - lotteries may not be sold interstate - that is to say, you cannot buy a lottery ticket issued by the state next door from your home state unless your home state also participates in this lottery. Yet you can look in any Time or Newsweek and find ads for lotteries in Spain, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Germany etc. You may do this by sending in the order form in the magazine, or you can call in a purchase by phone. Is this not illegal?

I repeat again: The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling. The Supreme Court has not officially ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling.

 

[GrandMaster]

Please state the laws which are related to wagering. RICO is certainly NOT one of them. Tax evasion is also not related to wagering. Wagering taxes imply that wagering is LEGAL - if illegal, how the hell can they tax it?

You have to pay income tax even on income from illegal sources. Some states, I believe Arizona is one of them, have a tax on marijuana.

 

[cipher]

You have to pay income tax even on income from illegal sources. Some states, I believe Arizona is one of them, have a tax on marijuana.

Any taxes that would be assessed here in the U. S . incident to marijauna would only be within those states that have approved Medical Marijuana legisalation. Arizona and Oregon I believe are two states that have inacted such laws.

Have a good one.

 

[dominique]

You have to pay taxes on income you received as citizen or resident in the united states, on all income, legal or illegal. Unless you already paid them in another country, and here it gets murky.

It doesn't matter however if you received the money legally or illegally. The taxman wants you, and you better well pay him and dot your Is and cross your ts.

Apparently BOS owes some taxes from way back.

However, this does not normally lead to arrest of a company's employees because their boss owes back taxes. Nuts.

 

[Linus]

If I have a friend in the Stateline Casino in West Wendover, Nevada, and I am standing across the street in Wendover, Utah, and I am shouting instructions to him how to bet, am I gambling in Utah or Nevada?

I don't know, because you could at least argue your friend was the one who was doing the gambling. But if you leave him out of it, the answer is, a person in Utah cannot gamble legally at a casino in Nevada, whether by phone, internet, or by shouting. He must leave Utah, and go to Nevada, in order to do it.

If, on the other hand, Stateline could offer games legally to people in Utah, don't you think they would?

If I am in Costa Rica and offer legal advice to US residents, do I have to be licensed in the US? Do my clients commit a crime by taking legal advice from me?

Well, your clients surely don't commit any crime by taking your advice, since it's the advice-giving that's prohibited, not the taking of it.

As for the Costa Rican... I know you need a license from a state, in order to practice there. For example, if you move from one state to another, you have to get re-licensed. More than that is beyond my ken. As a practical matter, as long as he stayed in Costa Rica, I'm sure he'd be fine.

 

[lottethedog]

according to the daily telegraph in the Uk, Carruthers didnt ask for bail (therefore he couldnt be turned down for it), as by moving to the next place they will take him too he will have a better chance of securing bail

must be a nightmare for him!

LTD

 

[dominique]

Yes, his lawyers believe him to have a much better chance of just walking away in another venue.

He just decided to go where things are more favorable for the hearing.

 

[Linus]

If a judge renders an opinion but not a ruling, and another judge makes a ruling based on his opinion, whose opinion should I believe?

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "opinion" and "ruling." To my knowledge, the "opinion," the "ruling," and the "decision" of the court are all interchangeable.

There's no point in going around in circles. A Federal judge has ALREADY ruled that online casino gambling does NOT fall within the confines of the Wire Act.

Please state the laws which are related to wagering. RICO is certainly NOT one of them.

The Carruthers indictment alleges violations of -

The Wire Wager Act
Mail Fraud
Wire Fraud
Interstate travel in aid of Racketeering
Operation of an Illegal Gambling Business
Interstate transportation of Gambling Paraphermalia
Money Laundering.

It also alleges violations of multiple state laws in MO, FL, NY, NJ, WA, and IL.

Tax evasion is also not related to wagering. Wagering taxes imply that wagering is LEGAL - if illegal, how the hell can they tax it?

In the US, you're supposed to pay taxes on illegal earnings, as well as legal ones.

Let's not try to skirt the obvious - the only law which governs the legality of wagering in any shape or form is the Wire Act.



Did you actually research this?

Did it occur to you that in some states, what is not considered gambling may be considered gambling in another? For example, in California stud poker is prohibited - but draw poker is not. Some states define lotteries as gambling, others do not. Some states even considered video poker terminals as games of skill (and thus not gambling) if I am not mistaken. Some states allow poker in private places (ie. the home) but NOT in public places.

State law varies widely. Many states, including mine, permit social gambling - games where no one has an advantage, except by luck or skill (ie -there's no house rake, or house advantage.) Many states have state-run lotteries, but that's just because they decided to have state lotteries - not because lotteries aren't a form of gambling. Other states allow some games, but not others. Some permit charitable bingo games at churches and the like. No state allows private, for-profit, commercial gambling without a license, however. If you know of one, please tell me which one it is.

I think that your claim above is a bit premature, or maybe just a bit too general.



The businesses are located outside the US. The fact that one can make a phone call or connect to an overseas website is completely irrelevant to a business license in the US.

To (legally) operate a gambling business in the US, you have to comply with US law. Keeping yourself and your assets offshore may well protect you as a practical matter, but it doesn't protect you legally.

Having a license to sell pot in Amsterdam, for example, doesn't give you the right to sell pot in the US.

For example, you can legally buy pot in the Netherlands - by phone call, or by visiting a website. You have not broken the law in either country.

You WILL break the laws of the US, however, if you import the pot. But the law does NOT govern the purchase of the pot in a foreign country from a foreign-based business.

I'm not sure I understand your example. But sending a controlled substance into the US is illegal, just as receiving it is. And the US has a long history of arresting people who do it, even foreign nationals, even if they are doing it from foreign countries.

If anyone is sending pot to Americans from Amsterdam (or wherever), he ought to keep a low profile, because he's asking for trouble.

Simple as that. BetOnSports is legally licensed as a bookmaker under the laws of the United Kingdom. It does not require a license in the US in order to operate its business.

It needs to comply with US law in order to (legally) conduct business in the US. Unfortunately, US law requires a gambling business to obtain a license from each state in which it hopes to conduct business.

My own opinion is that that's an entirely backward and inefficient state of affairs. It would make infinitely more sense, for the US to regulate and license internet gambling at a national level, rather than at the state level. But for historical and constitutional reasons, that is the law in the US, and it's liable to remain the law for the foreseeable future.

On the bright side, if it weren't for the split between federal and state authority in gambling matters, it would have been more difficult for the offshore sites to have penetrated the US market in the first place.

Also, the fact that the states have always traditionally (and in my view, constitutionally) had the right to decide which games to allow within their borders means that there will always be the possibility that internet gambling will become legal in some state, at some point in the future - regardless of what happens in Washington.

However, if it accepts sports wagers from Americans, it can then be considered in breach of US law because wagers on sporting events are explicitly prohibited by the Wire Act. This does NOT apply to casino gambling according to a Federal judge.

Another case in point - lotteries may not be sold interstate - that is to say, you cannot buy a lottery ticket issued by the state next door from your home state unless your home state also participates in this lottery. Yet you can look in any Time or Newsweek and find ads for lotteries in Spain, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Germany etc. You may do this by sending in the order form in the magazine, or you can call in a purchase by phone. Is this not illegal?

I repeat again: The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling. The Supreme Court has not officially ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to onlin[e gambling.

 

[Linus]

Just to be clear about something - I don't mean to say or imply that placing a bet on the internet violates any Federal law. Every Federal law on the subject, to my knowledge, targets gambling organizations or businesses - not individual gamblers.

Gambling on the internet (as opposed to running a gambling business) may violate state laws. For example, in my state, it's a Class C misdemeanor - the same level of misdemeanor as a traffic ticket. To my knowledge, no one's ever been charged for it.

If you're an affiliate in the US, you ought to consider talking to an attorney - one who is specifically knowledgeable about gambling law. Promoting illegal gambling is often a bigger deal than simply being an illegal gambler.

Don't rely on the sites you're promoting to tell you whether what you're doing is illegal.

 

[dominique]

Mitch Garber, PartyGaming's boss questioned the US' position on internet gaming, asking:

"If online gambling is illegal, why are there three Bills waiting to go to the Senate trying to make online gambling illegal?"

 

[winbig]

Mitch Garber, PartyGaming's boss questioned the US' position on internet gaming, asking:

I doubt that will ever be answered.

...and damn, I thought all along it was Internets! Oh well...

 

[Linus]

Mitch Garber, PartyGaming's boss questioned the US' position on internet gaming, asking:

Apparantly, it's just illegal enough to keep Mitch Garber out of the US, but not quite so illegal as to keep him from taking Americans' money.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Apparantly, it's just illegal enough to keep Mitch Garber out of the US, but not quite so illegal as to keep him from taking Americans' money.

There are no degrees of legality/illegality...it's either legal or not. For online casino officials who never had anything to do with US government in the past can come and go into US without a problem as they have in the past as long as they didn't violate the Wire Act by using telephones on sports betting. The US Courts have already ruled that the Internet is not covered by the Wire Act as the US Justice Department wants it to. Therefore the Justice Department or any other US enforcement agency have no basis to detain them. UNTIL the law(s) gets changed to include the Internet and/or casino-type gambling.

However, that isn't the issue in the Kaplan/Carruthers situation. Kaplan did illegal activities (using telephone for sports betting) while he was in the US and tried to avoid persecution by moving out of US which creates multiples of infractions. If you actually did something illegal in the US, don't thumb your nose at the authorities ....they never forget a slight and they will catch you one way or another....even if they have to arrest everyone else around you to get to you.