Is Obama a friend or foe to online poker?

Druff wrote this in the Merge ending p2p transfer thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think this is their new way of fighting secret rakeback, as player-to-player transfers were the primary way this was accomplished.

I can't wait until online poker becomes legal in the US and this crappy network is crushed out of existence.

---

So you mean your going to vote Republican and hope the Democrats win, and bring online poker back. Its only going to be a US player base anyways if it happens. The days of making a living off of online poker are over if you live in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I can't wait until online poker becomes legal in the US and this crappy network is crushed out of existence.

---

So you mean your going to vote Republican and hope the Democrats win, and bring online poker back.

---

http://cdn.airsoftsociety.com/forums...kelso-burn.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyJ

So you mean your going to vote Republican and hope the Democrats win, and bring online poker back.

---

http://cdn.airsoftsociety.com/forums...kelso-burn.jpg

---

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

http://cdn.airsoftsociety.com/forums...kelso-burn.jpg

---

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

---

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

---

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

---

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

---

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law.

---

Barry's statement is laughable.

Since he was appointed, AG Eric Holder has cherry picked the laws he wanted to pursue. He did this precisely because of his political agenda and beliefs. His selective prosecution and meddling has been glaringly obvious. A race-based lens pervades Holder's DOJ which consistently skews enforcement of the law.

Holder blocked the SC Voter ID law. He said it was racist.

He intervened on behalf of a Muslim school teacher who claimed the Illinois school district was guilty of religious bias.

He misused the FACE Act to shut down and silence Pro Life protestors.

He refused to aggressively prosecute the New Black Panther voter intimidation goons. He said race had nothing to do with his decision.

Ever heard about Fast and Furious?

I could go on and on. As the country's top law enforcement official Holder is supposed to be color blind. He's not. Race enters into too many of his decisions.

P.S. Obama destroyed online poker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

---

I won't go as far as STP and blame everything on Obama, but I will point out two things. Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally. Obama also managed to push his healthcare reform through solely on party lines so theoretically he could have done it for online poker had he so chosen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally.

---

That's just not true. Under Obama, deportations are at an all time high.

http://www.ibtimes.com/under-obama-d...er-2011-781511

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally.

---

That's just not true. Under Obama, deportations are at an all time high.

http://www.ibtimes.com/under-obama-d...er-2011-781511

---

This sounds a lot like he told Homeland Security to halt deportations until he could get congress to pass his DREAM act.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZLAJKQpcKg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

---

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

---

Not necessarily, I really don't think that Obama gave a shit. Remember Obama played poker in college and he knows a few professional poker players.

He doesn't officially support online poker but I don't believe he would veto a bill to legalize it.

Remember Obama's official position on marriage is that it should be between a man and a woman.
However, he said a few months ago he personally believes that gay people should have the right to marry.

Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid wants online poker/gambling legalized and has most of the democrats and a few republicans standing by to support it.

An opportunity to push it through Congress could happen some time during the next few years.

If elected Mitt Romney would veto any bill that has to do with online poker/gambling.



:facepalm3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

---

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

---

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

---

Not necessarily, I really don't think that Obama gave a shit. Remember Obama played poker in college and he knows a few professional poker players.

He doesn't officially support online poker but I don't believe he would veto a bill to legalize it.

Remember Obama's official position on marriage is that it should be between a man and a woman.
However, he said a few months ago he personally believes that gay people should have the right to marry.

Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid wants online poker/gambling legalized and has most of the democrats and a few republicans standing by to support it.

An opportunity to push it through Congress could happen some time during the next few years.

If elected Mitt Romney would veto any bill that has to do with online poker/gambling.



:facepalm3

---

Thats a fact and everyone in the world except Druff knows it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

---

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

---

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyJ

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

---

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

---

It can be clearer if we link the Whitehouse's response: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/res...t-online-poker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuntmissioner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

---

It can be clearer if we link the Whitehouse's response: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/res...t-online-poker

---

Quote:

---

The rapid and anonymous nature of the internet distinguishes online games from onsite games, such as those in casinos, and creates distinct challenges. For example, there are many means of technologically circumventing restrictions on online gambling that can allow individuals from countries where gambling is illegal -- or even minors -- to play using real currency. Online games also have greater potential for fraud because gambling websites are much cheaper and easier to establish than on-site locations, and like telemarketing scams, can appear and disappear overnight. Finally, online gambling can be used in money laundering schemes because of the volume, speed, anonymity, and international reach made possible by internet transactions. The Administration will continue to examine this issue and is open to solutions that would help guard against the use of online gambling sites as tools for conducting illegal activities or preying on unsuspecting individuals to the extent that online gambling is permitted.

---

That doesn't seem like an Administration looking to legalize online poker.

It looks like they have stated every reason not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyJ

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

---

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

---

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

---

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

---

Yeah. How dare the Department of Justice officials do what they swore an oath to do. It's like they're some kind of agency that enforces all of the laws that Congress passes, even ones that you don't like. What bastards. They should really check in with you so they know which laws to enforce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

---

In that sense the Dems could have also sneaked internet poker into the healthcare bill as a rider in some ridiculous fashion. That is assuming that they do in fact want regulated gaming and all of the tax revenue that it would bring in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

---

Yeah. How dare the Department of Justice officials do what they swore an oath to do. It's like they're some kind of agency that enforces all of the laws that Congress passes, even ones that you don't like. What bastards. They should really check in with you so they know which laws to enforce.

---

This wasn't about enforcing laws. It was about confiscating assets and levying big fines from what appeared to be rich "criminal" organizations.

Obama's White House came out with a statement against federally legalized online poker, so I don't see the point of continuing a debate as to whether or not Obama is a friend to the poker player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Yeah. How dare the Department of Justice officials do what they swore an oath to do. It's like they're some kind of agency that enforces all of the laws that Congress passes, even ones that you don't like. What bastards. They should really check in with you so they know which laws to enforce.

---

This wasn't about enforcing laws. It was about confiscating assets and levying big fines from what appeared to be rich "criminal" organizations.

Obama's White House came out with a statement against federally legalized online poker, so I don't see the point of continuing a debate as to whether or not Obama is a friend to the poker player.

---

You're actually trying to convince Barry that Lord Obama may have made even one mistake? Good luck with that.

I have made a separate thread (this one) for the Obama-related content, so the one about Merge doesn't get cluttered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally.

---

That's just not true. Under Obama, deportations are at an all time high.

http://www.ibtimes.com/under-obama-d...er-2011-781511

---

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1331564.story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

Not necessarily, I really don't think that Obama gave a shit. Remember Obama played poker in college and he knows a few professional poker players.

He doesn't officially support online poker but I don't believe he would veto a bill to legalize it.

---

The KOOL-AID is strong in this one.

With one swipe of his pen or nod of his head President Obama OK'd Black Friday and the total destruction of online poker as we knew it.

Check one check two, you know what to do
Primo, cold crush when I give it to you
Friend or foe yo, state your biz
Ya tend to dough, ah, there it is
Me, I run the show, oh, and these kids
Don't like nobody commin around here fuckin wit they doe for shit

You enterprisin though,
And I like it
But fuck with the big dogs though, I gotta bite ya,
Look, its out of my hands
And you gettin money round here, its not in the plans
So hop yo ass out of that van, head back to kansas
I'm sendin niggas back up in campuses
Chance is slimmer than that chick in calvin klien pantses

Let me guess, they said it was money round here
And the rest is me stoppin you from gettin it, correct?
Sorry to hear that, my guess is you got work at the hotel
I'll take care of that, you'll see, now please

Give me the room key
You're twitchin, don't do that, you makin me nervous
My crew, well, they do pack, them niggas is murderous
So would ya, please put your hand back in sight
They don't like to see me nervous you can understand that, right?
You draw, better be picasso, y'know the best
Cause if this is not so, ah, god bless

You leave me no choice, I leave you no voice
Believe me son I hate to do it just as bad as you hate to see it done
Now calm your boys,
Cause I'm findin it a little hard to concentrate with all the noise
Get the point, I'll let ya go,
Before ya leave, I guess I aughta let you know, I need those keys
And promise you never, no matter the weather
Evaevaevaevaevaevaevaevaeva come around here no mo'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The UIGEA has almost nothing to do with the situation American players find themselves in today, though UIGEA charges (accepting/processing deposits from US players) were included in the BF indictments.

It was the IGBA seizures of player (withdrawal) funds from 2009 through BF, and the use of the IGBA as a predicate to seek a $1B civil forfeiture penalty that caused this situation.

All the UIGEA authorized the government to do is seize the domains of companies caught violating it, and file criminal charges against individuals who conspired to violate it, it had nothing to do with FTP's financial problems.

The Bush administration DOJ testified before Congress that none of the existing laws (Wire Act, IGBA etc) or their forfeiture features were useful against offshore (non-sports betting - Wire Act) internet gambling sites, so a new law was needed to curtail the activity, that new law, the UIGEA, did not authorize the forfeiture of any funds.

It wasn't until June 2009 that the IGBA was first used to seize internet poker player funds, six months after the Republican administration left office, six months after AG appointee Holder testified before congress that he would use every tool at his disposal to target all offshore internet gambling.

It was the Obama administration DOJ's reinterpretation of the IGBA (a law designed to give the Federal government jurisdiction over entirely intrastate illegal gambling businesses) to apply to entirely international offshore poker sites that caused the situation which they are now professing to be doing us the favor of 'fixing', by returning the player money ($155M in FTP seizures alone) which they didn't have a lawful basis to seize in the first place.

The UIGEA sucked, it made it inconvenient to deposit and scared away publicly traded sites and many fish, but had almost nothing to do with BF or the downfall of FTP.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by three_dee

That last paragraph is an insane statement, IMO. The UIGEA was the reason PokerStars and Full Tilt started committing fraud in the first place -- to evade the law and retain their massive US customer base.

In fact you could argue that that was the whole reason for the UIGEA -- to do the casino lobby a huge favor, by setting a trap, fully expecting the two biggest companies to walk into it and incriminate themselves, which they did.

Then wait 5 years, build a case, let them hang themselves, and then sweep the competition out of the way so that the casinos can eventually come in and corner the market, without any interference from offshore, quasi-untaxable competitors.

Even with their awful business practices, which of course they should take 100% of the blame for, they were still printing money. If Full Tilt wasn't forced to operate in the oppressive environment of the UIEGA, which was expensive and time consuming, they may never have been forced to go under, even with the company engaging in such shady practices (they certainly wouldn't be the first poker company to do so).

I'm not sure how anyone say these things are not connected.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The bank fraud (assuming any occurred - no one has claimed to have been damaged) had nothing to do with their problems either, those charges were the risks the processors were getting paid to take, and without the IGBA charge there is no money laundering predicate (UIGEA is not an SUA).

The UIGEA made it expensive for them to operate in the US (deposit processing fees/thefts), but they chose to continue to operate in the US because it was still profitable until 2009 when the Holder/Obama DOJ reinterpreted the IGBA to allow them to target withdrawal processors.

It wasn't until player funds (withdrawals) were put at risk, thanks to that ridiculous interpretation of a statute specifically written to justify Federal jurisdiction over illegal gambling activity with no interstate nexus, that it was no longer profitable to offer poker to the US.

Of course that doesn't excuse FTP for continuing to take their profit distributions as if that player money had never been (unjustly) forfeited, and the fact that the PPA (before FTP even admitted being insolvent) proffered the idea of using those prior forfeitures to to repay US players via remission makes one wonder if that wasn't FTP's (PPA board member's) doomsday plan for US players all along.

As gambling prohibitions go, the UIGEA couldn't have been less intrusive, it targeted only the businesses and their profits, made gambling less of an impulse purchase due to the inconvenience, yet never prevented (and still doesn't prevent) individuals from jumping through a few hoops to gamble online.

Black Friday and it's aftermath is entirely attributable to the prosecution of a statute (IGBA) the DOJ knew had no extraterritorial application when they asked for the UIGEA to be passed - but the UIGEA they passed has no teeth, so Holder invoked a statute designed to shut down intrastate mafia operations.

The biggest government failure of all is the judicial branch, no judge should have ever signed an IGBA seizure warrant for player funds from an internet (interstate by definition) offshore gambling site - the courts effectively signed off on a license to steal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by three_dee

That last paragraph is an insane statement, IMO. The UIGEA was the reason PokerStars and Full Tilt started committing fraud in the first place -- to evade the law and retain their massive US customer base.

In fact you could argue that that was the whole reason for the UIGEA -- to do the casino lobby a huge favor, by setting a trap, fully expecting the two biggest companies to walk into it and incriminate themselves, which they did.

Then wait 5 years, build a case, let them hang themselves, and then sweep the competition out of the way so that the casinos can eventually come in and corner the market, without any interference from offshore, quasi-untaxable competitors.

Even with their awful business practices, which of course they should take 100% of the blame for, they were still printing money. If Full Tilt wasn't forced to operate in the oppressive environment of the UIEGA, which was expensive and time consuming, they may never have been forced to go under, even with the company engaging in such shady practices (they certainly wouldn't be the first poker company to do so).

I'm not sure how anyone say these things are not connected.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The bank fraud (assuming any occurred - no one has claimed to have been damaged) had nothing to do with their problems either, those charges were the risks the processors were getting paid to take, and without the IGBA charge there is no money laundering predicate (UIGEA is not an SUA).

The UIGEA made it expensive for them to operate in the US (deposit processing fees/thefts), but they chose to continue to operate in the US because it was still profitable until 2009 when the Holder/Obama DOJ reinterpreted the IGBA to allow them to target withdrawal processors.

It wasn't until player funds (withdrawals) were put at risk, thanks to that ridiculous interpretation of a statute specifically written to justify Federal jurisdiction over illegal gambling activity with no interstate nexus, that it was no longer profitable to offer poker to the US.

Of course that doesn't excuse FTP for continuing to take their profit distributions as if that player money had never been (unjustly) forfeited, and the fact that the PPA (before FTP even admitted being insolvent) proffered the idea of using those prior forfeitures to to repay US players via remission makes one wonder if that wasn't FTP's (PPA board member's) doomsday plan for US players all along.

As gambling prohibitions go, the UIGEA couldn't have been less intrusive, it targeted only the businesses and their profits, made gambling less of an impulse purchase due to the inconvenience, yet never prevented (and still doesn't prevent) individuals from jumping through a few hoops to gamble online.

Black Friday and it's aftermath is entirely attributable to the prosecution of a statute (IGBA) the DOJ knew had no extraterritorial application when they asked for the UIGEA to be passed - but the UIGEA they passed has no teeth, so Holder invoked a statute designed to shut down intrastate mafia operations.

The biggest government failure of all is the judicial branch, no judge should have ever signed an IGBA seizure warrant for player funds from an internet (interstate by definition) offshore gambling site - the courts effectively signed off on a license to steal.

---

---

Check Mate

the real Mafia is Obama's DOJ

You can debate certain things, but facts are facts. How many Repubs are writing bills right now for online poker? Its simple if you want a chance to play online poker again you have to vote for Obama. If your other convictions outweigh getting online poker legalized then vote for Romney. I could care less who anyone votes for, but its not debateable that the Dems are more for, or not against online poker then the religious repubs. You all know theres a huge diffence of not being for something, and being against something. If you dont understand this then I realize why you like someone named Mitt in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The bank fraud (assuming any occurred - no one has claimed to have been damaged) had nothing to do with their problems either, those charges were the risks the processors were getting paid to take, and without the IGBA charge there is no money laundering predicate (UIGEA is not an SUA).

The UIGEA made it expensive for them to operate in the US (deposit processing fees/thefts), but they chose to continue to operate in the US because it was still profitable until 2009 when the Holder/Obama DOJ reinterpreted the IGBA to allow them to target withdrawal processors.

It wasn't until player funds (withdrawals) were put at risk, thanks to that ridiculous interpretation of a statute specifically written to justify Federal jurisdiction over illegal gambling activity with no interstate nexus, that it was no longer profitable to offer poker to the US.

Of course that doesn't excuse FTP for continuing to take their profit distributions as if that player money had never been (unjustly) forfeited, and the fact that the PPA (before FTP even admitted being insolvent) proffered the idea of using those prior forfeitures to to repay US players via remission makes one wonder if that wasn't FTP's (PPA board member's) doomsday plan for US players all along.

As gambling prohibitions go, the UIGEA couldn't have been less intrusive, it targeted only the businesses and their profits, made gambling less of an impulse purchase due to the inconvenience, yet never prevented (and still doesn't prevent) individuals from jumping through a few hoops to gamble online.

Black Friday and it's aftermath is entirely attributable to the prosecution of a statute (IGBA) the DOJ knew had no extraterritorial application when they asked for the UIGEA to be passed - but the UIGEA they passed has no teeth, so Holder invoked a statute designed to shut down intrastate mafia operations.

The biggest government failure of all is the judicial branch, no judge should have ever signed an IGBA seizure warrant for player funds from an internet (interstate by definition) offshore gambling site - the courts effectively signed off on a license to steal.

---

---

Check Mate

the real Mafia is Obama's DOJ

---

Thats like blaming a cop for arresting someone over a stupid law. Hes doing his job he didnt make the laws. Theres a difference between making a law and enforcing it. If the idiot Repubs didnt tack on UIGEA we would still be making a good living playing poker. You cant get around that in any way shape or form. Its a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SixToedPete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

Not necessarily, I really don't think that Obama gave a shit. Remember Obama played poker in college and he knows a few professional poker players.

He doesn't officially support online poker but I don't believe he would veto a bill to legalize it.

---

The KOOL-AID is strong in this one.

With one swipe of his pen or nod of his head President Obama OK'd Black Friday and the total destruction of online poker as we knew it.

---

It's actually Attorney General Eric Holder who signed off on it and Preet Bharara U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York who has a hard-on for cases like these. The President of the United States doesn't interfere with what they do or who they go after.



:facepalm3

When UIEGA passed it was of course shit for poker. For starters all politicians look at internet gambling as a whole minus lottery and the ponies who had lobbyists in their back pocket. It's hard for anyone clueless about the industry to understand how poker is a game of skill and shouldn't be grouped with internet slots and virtual casino table games as people will continue to bunch it all together.

Getting rid of something like UIEGA that passed is hard to do especially when it's not considered a top priority to the United States and by removing it they sort of are saying we were retarded to let that get passed in the first place.

With it being an election year most people including myself thought the odds of getting any regulation on a federal level was not going to happen this year but their have been a few movements that could be beneficial later on. What are these? Well we had that case in New York ruling poker as a game of skill which can help people in favor of poker to show to ruling and another big thing was the ruling that Online Poker isn't in violation of the wire act.

We also have had several court rules on individuals such as those involved in the payment processing and Stars/FTP settling with DOJ that has to be done before they entertain legalization on the federal level.

Their were a lot of people that though "Yes! We got Obama in office and he likes poker so he will get UIEGA removed" yet the status of legalization only got worse for a few years then leading to Black Friday.

The state regulated poker could play a big key in legalization federally as they will definitely look into how well that gets ran so lets hope the casinos given a license don't fuck it up.

With everything else going on in the country and rest of the world that affects tens of millions of people you can bet legalization of internet poker is a very minor thing to the US Government.

I don't think Obama has a stance for that matter but he certainly isn't strongly for online poker otherwise UIEGA could of got pushed for removal. I don't think Romney cares either way it's going to take other people to get Poker legalized but their is a lot of money in the casino gambling industry to lobby for poker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SixToedPete

The KOOL-AID is strong in this one.

With one swipe of his pen or nod of his head President Obama OK'd Black Friday and the total destruction of online poker as we knew it.

---

It's actually Attorney General Eric Holder who signed off on it and Preet Bharara U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York who has a hard-on for cases like these. The President of the United States doesn't interfere with what they do or who they go after.



:facepalm3

---

Incorrect, POTUS can, does and has interfered with his DOJ, from not enforcing immigration laws, challenging the DOMA, to issuing executive orders, no POTUS has micromanaged the priorities/discretion of his DOJ than the one about to be reelected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadyJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

---

Check Mate

the real Mafia is Obama's DOJ

---

Thats like blaming a cop for arresting someone over a stupid law. Hes doing his job he didnt make the laws. Theres a difference between making a law and enforcing it. If the idiot Repubs didnt tack on UIGEA we would still be making a good living playing poker. You cant get around that in any way shape or form. Its a fact.

---

The enforcement of the UIGEA is done by the financial institutions, blocking unlawful gambling transactions, other than forcing the exit of publicly traded gaming companies and dedicated gambling deposit processors, and prohibiting advertisement of real money sites, it had no effect on your ability to make a living playing poker.

The withdrawal processor seized by the Obama/Holder DOJ in June 2009 had been under investigation since 2007, a California bank reported an unusual volume of transactions, but as they didn't process deposits, there was nothing the Bush DOJ could do about it under the UIGEA.

The Obama DOJ then decided not to enforce the law Congress passed to curtail internet gambling, but to enforce a law passed in 1970 designed to fight organized crime by cutting off the mafia's source of income, underground gambling.

To be fair, this wasn't the first time the IGBA was used against internet gambling, under Bush, if a deposit processor was located in a State (MD, e.g.) with a promotion of gambling law, they would charge that deposit processor itself as being an Illegal Gambling Business within that State because it's sole purpose was moving the money that was being wagered.

The Obama DOJ took the IGBA to an entirely different level, since they couldn't charge the withdrawal processor (and seize player funds) with promoting gambling, they charged the money itself from the overseas poker sites as being proceeds of Illegal Gambling Businesses (making the processor guilty of money laundering) - which by definition overseas sites can't be as the law was designed to target entirely intrastate activity.

But it didn't matter and since the sites (and players) would never oppose the seizures and the penalties for money laundering make it too risky for the processor not to accept a plead, they were then able to legally steal a half billion dollars from the poker economy, not including the BF settlements, and even on BF, rather than use the UIGEA to block access to the 'unlawful' sites, the Obama/Holder DOJ used the IGBA to seize ownership of those domains as 'gambling devices'.

It's simply a myth that the UIGEA or 'evil Republicans' caused you or anyone else to no longer be able to play internet poker, the UIGEA regulations didn't even go into effect until a year after Obama's seizing spree began, and the regulations included a provision allowing banks with a reasoned legal opinion that said poker wasn't unlawful gambling to process poker deposits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

When UIEGA passed it was of course shit for poker. For starters all politicians look at internet gambling as a whole minus lottery and the ponies who had lobbyists in their back pocket. It's hard for anyone clueless about the industry to understand how poker is a game of skill and shouldn't be grouped with internet slots and virtual casino table games as people will continue to bunch it all together.

Getting rid of something like UIEGA that passed is hard to do especially when it's not considered a top priority to the United States and by removing it they sort of are saying we were retarded to let that get passed in the first place.

With it being an election year most people including myself thought the odds of getting any regulation on a federal level was not going to happen this year but their have been a few movements that could be beneficial later on. What are these? Well we had that case in New York ruling poker as a game of skill which can help people in favor of poker to show to ruling and another big thing was the ruling that Online Poker isn't in violation of the wire act.

We also have had several court rules on individuals such as those involved in the payment processing and Stars/FTP settling with DOJ that has to be done before they entertain legalization on the federal level.

Their were a lot of people that though "Yes! We got Obama in office and he likes poker so he will get UIEGA removed" yet the status of legalization only got worse for a few years then leading to Black Friday.

The state regulated poker could play a big key in legalization federally as they will definitely look into how well that gets ran so lets hope the casinos given a license don't fuck it up.

With everything else going on in the country and rest of the world that affects tens of millions of people you can bet legalization of internet poker is a very minor thing to the US Government.

I don't think Obama has a stance for that matter but he certainly isn't strongly for online poker otherwise UIEGA could of got pushed for removal. I don't think Romney cares either way it's going to take other people to get Poker legalized but their is a lot of money in the casino gambling industry to lobby for poker.

---

Obama actually seems to be very strongly in favor of online poker, and sees his home State (IL) as a future hub for lottery ran poker, but first he had to eliminate the underground competition.

When Harry Reid tried to get the DOJ to remind States that they couldn't sell lottery tickets online, his OLC instead released an opinion saying that they could not only sell lottery tickets online, they could offer any form of gambling online other than sports betting.

The PPA asked for his position on poker in 2010 in a We The People Petition, which he ignored until earlier this year when legislation was introduced in Illinois to offer poker via lottery, when he came out in favor of online poker as a 'State right'.

If/when IL gets legislation passed, expect Obama to issue an executive order allowing lottery States to 'powerball' compact their poker players.