US Players and Casinomeister

[babs7262]

Im still confused....someone buy me a brain

There are 50 states in America. Only 13 states are banned from online gambling. What about us 37 states that can still gamble? Can't you just keep the accredited list and put a line like "if you live in the following states (list them here) it is illegal to gamble onlilne

Isnt that just like when your at an adult site or a gambling site and it says "if your under 18, you can't come in" You can have a yes/no with a one of those lil dots that you can check and you can ask.......Are you from one of the states listed above? If they lie and check no...that is on them right?

 

[Casinomeister]

Like I said, some things take time. It won't happen overnight - but there is a plan. Hang tight.

 

[jetset]

Good op-ed article from NY Times

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

 

[jetset]

And right across the country in the LA Weekly....

Old / Expired Link

 

[Pinababy69]

Good reading Jetset. I just posted a link to another that just came out in Newsweek (in Casino Industry Discussion). Another worth the read. Where was this media attention prior to this bill being signed? Someone should remind these journalists that HR 4411 is still a threat....as is HR 4777 if Goodlatte gets his way.

 

[jetset]

The stories are coming thick 'n fast today...

Old / Expired Link

 

[babs7262]

I went looking

I just floated around at some other sites, they dont have forums and it isnt nearly as cool as this site but I was curious as to what other "advice" places were doing

games and casinos has a site that lists bonuses, good ones, bad ones etc and on the top of the page it has a warning. I couldnt copy it, i wouldnt let me but it said "gambling may be illegal in your state, please be advised that if you live in (states here) you are gambling, it is up to you to find out if your in the jurisdiction that does not allow gambling" Something to that effect, I dont want to write word for word but if you go to gameandcasinos.com you can see how they are still helping US players and covering themselves at the same time

 

[dominique]

It reads like this:

People from thousands of jurisdictions access the internet. It is impossible for us to stay current with the laws of every jurisdiction. Please make sure that any activities you engage in online are legal where you live.

We have reason to believe that it may be illegal to gamble online in: Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Michigan, New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin. If you live in one of these states, we advise you NOT to gamble online.

GamesandCasino also still has a page that lists Casinos available to people from everywhere.

GamesandCasino is owned by a company in a jurisdiction that licences and welcomes online casinos. I don't own it anymore, nor do I own the company.

That makes for a different situation entirely from Casinomeister.

Because the online gambling community is so international, there are lots and lots of different situations. Each site has to find it's own way through the legal jungle, depending on local and international law. No one wants to run afoul of the law, certainly if the site owner is wearing a striped jumper suit and viewing the world through bars it won't help anyone.

This law is still young and everyone in the gambling community is trying to figure out what exactly it means to them. Give it some time, and things will fall into place. At this stage it is difficult for everyone to find their way, operators, webmasters, players - everyone is trying to find their way as yet.

 

[Simmo!]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

 

[dominique]

As far as I know there are a number of states where the law can be interpreted various ways, and the exclusions are based on legal analysis.

I am out of my water there, I don't understand the half of it.

 

[Casinomeister]

Why not continue to list acredited casinos, but just not link to them? I'd guess that's safe ground.

Here ya go:
Link Removed (Old/Invalid)

 

[Westland Bowl]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

Maybe it is, maybe it's not...but let's not help the online casinos by doing their work for them!!

 

[Simmo!]

Here ya go:
Link Removed (Old/Invalid)

You should put a note at the top Bryan with the 11 States that MG casinos restrict

 

[Casinomeister]

You should put a note at the top Bryan with the 11 States that MG casinos restrict

Done.

 

[Peaceful1]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! (I hope not anyway...)

 

[lots0]

Every gambling website owner is going to have to decide for themselves what to do in this situation.

I give CM a big hand for attempting to take the high road in all of this.

But to be honest, I had hoped to see most all the American Webmasters ignore this bull shit law and continue to operate like normal. Civil disobedience is a real tool in this battle.

The analogy about driving down the road at 75 mph (In my state 75 mph is the speed limit, because the PEOPLE wanted that way - the government wanted to keep it at 55mph) is the same one I would use to argue the other side of the coin with.

If everyone is driving faster than the government speed limit, then the government is going to be forced to change the speed limit, sooner or later... My State is a perfect example of this.

As for mounting a legal defense, how about the un-constitutionality of this law?

I would also like to mention that I do not believe that this law is a valid law.

There was no debate in congress, no vote in the Senate (as a matter of fact 94 out of 100 Senators never read the Bill and none of 100 Senators or the 435 Congress people had a chance to vote on the specific Bill). So how could this be a valid law... well it just can’t be a valid law and I for one refuse to acknowledge it as a valid law.

The US Constitution is very specific about how a bill becomes a law and it is required that Congress votes on a Bill to either make it a law or not...

 

[Peaceful1]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

Just some serious thoughts on this topic (although I'm wondering how Maryland came into play here ), looking over Maryland State Code it does not even ADDRESS Internet gambling (from what I could see). Primary sources of gambling cited and addressed are: bingo halls, antique slot machines, pools.. so what I gather is that these are the traditional laws set and not repealed as such to address Internet gambling (before it even existed). The primary debate here in Maryland has been the ongoing slots debate, to legalize slot machines in Maryland as we do not have them now. And with Maryland being the home of Pimlico and the Preakness, online and telephone betting WIDELY advertised through our local cable companies' channels (and yes, I know..horse racing is an altogether different "carve-out") of this legislation, IMO it may be considered too complex an issue here, and possibly affect Maryland's revenue if its residents become confused by the laws, therefore reluctant to place wagers. This is just speculation of a scenario as to why it has not been addressed here...too much to lose, don't "open a can of worms" unless forced to..type of thing. (sorry for rambling ...lol)

But I guess my point is that this seems to be a State that: #1 You will NEVER get rid of any current type of gambling currently allowed (many protest groups want to rid it altogether in the state, as with other states)..#2 If anything (legislators) are constantly looking for ways to legalize MORE forms of gambling (currently, slots) on a local level, rather than pay attention to or seek out ways to propose new State laws to ban any other forms of gambling (i.e., Internet). IMO Maryland is moreso of a "gambling state"...they are not thinking about their residents and Internet gambling. But, who knows..after the changes in Federal law..but I am not worried about it.

 

[Peaceful1]

Back on topic of this thread (sorry if I veered off)...Bryan, I admire your handling of this situation. I know that this issue had to be a "heated" one (apparently from many in the forum, and I am sure in your other dealings within the industry, in your capacity).

I, (as well as many others) can see that you were acting on the side of caution by making changes to your site, whether one agreed with your decisions or not. Once opinions surfaced, and you were practically bombarded (and understandably so...) with questions, you took the time to thoroughly explain and rationalize the scenario to your forum's posters, readers, and guests. Moreover, you took this into consideration and apparently made every effort (no doubt not without "doing your homework" first) to carefully make safe compromise and take into consideration so many of our suggestions and opinions.

I think that if anyone ever had any doubts about you or your site, or even for someone new looking for an online casino forum, this situation/experience further demonstrates your credibility.

Good job!!

 

[Rollo]

Seconded... don't let the negativity of some get you down. If their asses were in the hot seat, I'm sure they'd have a very different attitiude. Facts are that if someone decided to go after affilaites, this site would almost surely be near the top of the list. Yeah, best to "watch your speed" 4 shizzle

As I posted in another thread https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rasmussen-reports-on-online-gambling.14655/ it looks like a DEM victory will bring no relief :xxx

(yes, that was a completely gratuitous use of :xxx, I just found it pretty amusing... along with , , and of course

 

[Rollo]

I'm with you lots0 but I'm afraid the law is valid, there is nothing unconstitutional about it that I can see, and the senate did vote on it and passed it overwhemingly. I agree it seems a travesty that outside of authors and us that no one likely read it, but if actually reading bills were a requirement, 95% of US legislation would never pass (remember Michael Mooore, the Patriot Act and the Ice cream truck???). No one reads anything, maybe their staff briefs them on important matters, but most legislation is never read by anyone other than it's sponsors and *maybe* some committee members will give it a glance before they give it a yeah or nay. Yes, I was an intern back in the day and I can confirm no one reads shit.

I think the only loopholes at this point are two, and neither very promising...

1) It violates WTO rules (which it clearly does) and 2) "the law doesn't apply to poker, blackjack, et al. becuase there are games of skill agruement".

The former (#1) I think the US will just ignore as no one is in a position to do anything but sling rhetoric... what are a few angry Caribbean nations going to do about it, use their massive economic might to bring trade sanctions against the US? A total joke. Britian, who clearly took the biggest hit, doesn't want a piece of this obviosuly. No official outcry there.

The later (#2) has a long-shot chance, but it's a serious longshot. I think the casino exects should start making major contributions to the ACLU and hope for the best.

Sadly, this crappy law is probably here to stay. It could have been prevented if an huge effort had been made months ago, but I think the law's heals are "digging themselves in" as we speak.

Too many US interests are happy about this law... Vegas casinos, Paypal, the religious right, horse racing and lottery industries, etc...

We're only a deeply divided and disorganized scant 3% of the electorate with no leadership and little financial backing. Until this changes, in their eyes, we're nobody.

 

[Simmo!]

Sadly, this crappy law is probably here to stay. It could have been prevented if an huge effort had been made months ago, but I think the law's heals are "digging themselves in" as we speak.

If that's the case, we ought to be doing something about the "big one" - HR4411 asap the UIGEA is the chicken to HR4411's cock. Up.

 

[lots0]

the senate did vote on it and passed it overwhemingly.

No I am afraid your wrong. Not a single US Senator voted on this Bill, and 96 of the 100 Senators were not even able to read the bill before it was tacked onto the port security bill. A parliamentary trick was used to avoid the Senate Vote.

But your most likely correct, the law is here to stay... Can anyone say war on gambling, kinda like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on crime or the war on prostitution or the war on the middle class...

What has really gotten to me and made me sick in this whole thing is the scummy way most of the casinos are dealing with this. Some of them are acting like this law is a free ticket to steal from americans. This whole thing has really exposed the rotten underbelly of the online gambling business, I am old and I have never seen anything like this in my life... such a huge collection of thieves and scumbags in one business...

If I give up this business, it will be because of the dirty rotten casino managers & owners, not because of some stupid law that most folks are going to ignore, just like the laws about smoking pot or the laws about scratching my ass in public.

 

[amatrine]

Re

Looks like we will be seeing more horse racing affilate sites,lol

Oh can you tear me away!

Not

Ama

 

[happygobrokey]

Why not continue to list acredited casinos, but just not link to them? I'd guess that's safe ground.

not just you rollo, but others here are of this opinion, i chose to quote yours since is was succinctly phrased.

the way i interpret it is that bryan is not sure he CAN ACCREDIT casinos that take US bets, totally aside from whether he links you to them or not. if the casino engages in a practice (be it shafting players on cashouts, taking bets from certain jurisdictions, operating without a licence, etc) that could be injurious to the players, it is bryan's responsibilty not to accredit them.

if bryan continued to accredit casino xyz that accepts US bets, then even without linking to them, he is still indirectly encouraging players to play there, from the US or otherwise. if the casino is subsequently shut down and its assets seized citing the illegality of accepting US bets, then players from all over the world, not just US, will get hurt because of it. and it would be bryan's fault everyone played there, and then especially if he was linking the site, then he might find himself in hot water.

would you encourage lending money to a drug dealer? would you send your kids to school knowing the teacher did time for molestation? bryan can't endorse his followers investing in a place that might be shady, whether the recommendation is direct through links or indirect through mentioning their name.

arguably also by endorsing sites that accept US players, bryan is encouraging US players to use neteller etc to put money into a casino, which may indeed be illegal. in this case, cm would be wilfully blind that his readers are committing these acts in order to gamble. though it's not his fault you went to the casino on your own time and deposited money however you did, by giving the impression that he promotes use of the casino, he incurs some liability when readers from the US choose to perform these acts based on his opinion. by omitting US-friendly casinos, bryan doesn't encourage any US citizens to a) play at casinos, and b) put money in casinos, and he does encourage all of his readers to play at casinos that he is certain are complying with the law.

unfortunately this means he is encouraging his US readers to play at no casinos, this is the residual that makes it seem like he is turning his back on you. but still he offers to mediate disputes for US players that DO CHOOSE to play wherever their bets are taken. so he still wants to help, but he just doesn't want to associate himself with the questionable legal issues regarding facilitation or encouragement of the placing of wagers.

that's my five cents on it. i understand americans' frustration, but realize that just like smoking pot, you are now somewhat of an out-group if you gamble online. considering the clout cm holds, i don't blame him in the least for wanting to exclude himself from liability.

p.s. bryan, in this topic there has been mention of your military service and that your family lives overseas in germany. are the two related, and is there any like "get to know me" thread where interested parties can learn more about bryan bailey the person?

 

[happygobrokey]

But your most likely correct, the law is here to stay... Can anyone say war on gambling, kinda like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on crime or the war on prostitution or the war on the middle class...

what about most importantly, the war on terror