EPTWhy am I not suprised?
Feds cracking down on online poker..? - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Pokerstars is an online poker site. Pokerstrategy is an educational training site. They are not the same site. The TSL3 is sponsored by pokerstrategy.com. | ||
|
Ethic
Canada439 Posts
Why am I not suprised? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:19 travis wrote: Except pokerstars isn't an american business in the first place. What they got caught doing was breaking laws to bypass the roadblocks the U.S. government was intentionally putting in their way. They weren't actually harming anyone, nor taking money from anyone. This is a situation the DOJ wanted to happen, the DOJ was never in the right in the first place they just wanted a cut of what wasn't theirs. Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes? | ||
|
GeeseHoward
United States78 Posts
On April 16 2011 06:59 Jibba wrote: If they could get a cut, there'd be no qualms about it. I know people here are extremely invested in poker, but a lot of you would be cheering for the DoJ if it had been one of the other multi-billion dollar companies abusing loopholes and using offshore bank accounts. A dirty business got caught. Some of you are starting to sound like hardcore libertarians, especially the Europeans. :x Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are. I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement. On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC. | ||
|
Ingenol
United States1328 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:06 GeeseHoward wrote: Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are. I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement. On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC. The real issue isn't whether or not poker is gambling, it's why on Earth should the government's purpose include determining what people can or cannot spend their money on? Pragmatism FTL. | ||
|
trias_e
United States520 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote: Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15673 Posts
 | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote: Ok, ORS 167.109: ORS 167.117 (24): Is Pokerstars/FTP/AB/etc "specifically authorized by law" in Oregon? Are you "specifically authorized by law" to gamble on the internet? No. Thus it is "unlawful gambling" for you to play internet poker in Oregon, and it is illegal for the sites to receive your money, even indirectly. Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Time to leave "work", bbl. The law you quoted talks about the transferring of funds. In what way does it make it illegal to play poker for money that is already on a site? (it doesn't) | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21549 Posts
Sounds like it's talking about the person running the business. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:06 GeeseHoward wrote: Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are. I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement. On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC. They're not jailed. They invested money (mostly unknowingly) in a business conducting illegal activities. Freezing it is standard procedure, regardless of what the business is. When public companies are charged by the SEC, their stock and all their assets are frozen. This is no different. | ||
|
TrANCE,
301 Posts
Do you even understand the situation? The reason they were engaging in fraud and money laundering was so that US citizens could play poker on their sites (i.e. do what they wanted with THEIR money). They weren't stealing money from anyone. They broke other laws to get around a terrible law: the UIGEA. Not saying what they did wasn't illegal but people are incensed because there is no reason playing online poker should have been rendered effectively illegal by the United States government in the first place. Edit: quote tags messed up. What im saying is it's law im not getting into if it's right or wrong to stop US citizens from gambling online and the large poker sites has known this fact for years but still they knowingly break the law, Im not saying the uigea isn't a shit law but money laundering and fraud isn't. The Bigger poker sites didn't feal sorry for the american online poker players they just wanted access to the american market knowing fullwell it was illegal. the uigea is pritty much unenforceable. The exception being against the biggest sites that still flaunt the law | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:11 Mohdoo wrote: This should sure help unemployment -_-. I have a few friends who make their (insanely comfortable living) off of online poker. Are they gonna have to find work? Actually it wouldn't do jack all to uneployment. The people who work will still have their jobs, and the people who havent worked in awhile and play poker for a living wont be eligible for any substantial unemployment benefits. So short answer to your question: probably. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:04 Jibba wrote: Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes? Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes. I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can. How is this comparable to taxes? | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
| ||
|
trias_e
United States520 Posts
http://twitter.com/ESPN_Poker/status/59009874633310209 | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:17 travis wrote: Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes. I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can. How is this comparable to taxes? The point is that your argument that you should be allowed to play poker on offshore sites carries that same validity as theirs that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Yet neither side that holds those beliefs believes in the others'. It's both a matter of opinion. I believe in voodoo, but your business of juju is complete nonsense. You stick true to your juju gods, but I'm a fool for believing in voodoo. Ultimately neither of us play by the rules used in the rest of society. | ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10340 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:21 trias_e wrote: Full Tilt, AP, and Stars are apparently getting shut down in 48 hours. So I wouldn't be so happy about playing those guarantees. http://twitter.com/ESPN_Poker/status/59009874633310209 That just means the DNS will have propagated in 48 hours. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:24 Jibba wrote: The point is that your argument that you should be allowed to play poker on offshore sites carries that same validity as theirs that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Yet neither side that holds those beliefs believes in the others'. It's both a matter of opinion. I believe in voodoo, but your business of juju is complete nonsense. You stick true to your juju gods, but I'm a fool for believing in voodoo. Ultimately neither of us play by the rules created in the rest of society. haha alright | ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
| ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:17 travis wrote: Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes. I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can. How is this comparable to taxes? So are you enjoying your cuban cigars then? Different situation, but If you wanted to buy a product from this country, you most certainly cannot. Legally, that is. The government did nothing wrong here(speicifically in regards to seizures), they followed standard procedure to sieze someone performing illegal activity (bank fraud). Yes innocent people were fucked over by this, but they should be mad at the poker sites for participating in illegal activity to get a larger customer base and make more money. You are arguing that the reason they performed bank fraud is because of a law that you think is stupid. Well guess what, a law is still a law. The taxes question is related to someone who is arrested for tax evasion, then in defense forms an argument about how taxes shouldnt exist. While he could create a completely logical argument for this, the fact still stands that he broke a law that exists. What he feels about that law does not matter at this point. | ||
|
GeeseHoward
United States78 Posts
On April 16 2011 08:15 Jibba wrote: They're not jailed. They invested money (mostly unknowingly) in a business conducting illegal activities. Freezing it is standard procedure, regardless of what the business is. When public companies are charged by the SEC, their stock and all their assets are frozen. This is no different. I never said they were jailed. Merely saying United States is jailing a lot of people arugable illegally. Sorry if you find it confusing but I just want to stress that they may be innocent and we should wait till all the facts are out before condemning them. | ||
| ||
