BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

poker Archive

Monday

26

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Obama Administration Sides With Freedom For Once

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Finally, there is an issue for which the Obama administration has not reflexively sided with centralized government and limits on freedom:

A Justice Department opinion dated September and made public on Friday reversed decades of previous policy that included civil and criminal charges against operators of some of the most popular online poker sites.

Until now, the department held that online gambling in all forms was illegal under the Wire Act of 1961, which bars wagers via telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders.

The new interpretation, by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said the Wire Act applies only to bets on a “sporting event or contest,” not to a state’s use of the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within its borders or abroad.

…But the department’s conclusion would eliminate “almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws,” Rose wrote on his blog at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.If a state legalized intra-state games such as poker, as Nevada and the District of Columbia have done, “there is simply no federal law that could apply” against their operators, he said.

No comment yet from the despicable, odious weasel Preet Bharara, whose ongoing crusade against human freedom has destroyed the once booming online poker industry in the U.S.

Wednesday

21

September 2011

2

COMMENTS

Government Has Nerve to Complain About Poker Ponzi Scheme

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, a vile cretin, has decided – now that the government has hounded their business, inhibited their use of reliable financial transaction services, and stolen $100+ million from U.S. poker players – that Full Tilt is a “ponzi scheme” because it can’t pay out what it owes. Gee, I wonder why that might be!

On Tuesday, the U.S. Justice Department in a civil suit accused Messrs. Lederer, Ferguson and Furst, and another director of the company behind the Full Tilt Poker website, of defrauding thousands of online poker players out of more than $300 million that is still owed to them…

“Full Tilt was not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in a statement Tuesday. The U.S. government views online poker operations, at least those that cross state lines, as illegal.

…In a statement in August, Full Tilt acknowledged that it was having problems processing player money and said it lost $115 million to government seizure and $42 million it says was stolen by a third-party payment processor.

This thug has the gall to claim from his federal government perch that someone else is running a Ponzi scheme. What, is the government worried about the competition?

I’m not going to defend Full Tilt’s business practices, because I don’t know exactly what they did or did not do. It sounds like they made some questionable, shady and possibly criminal choices when they had reason to believe the noose was tightening. The government drove the market underground, and while individuals bear responsibility for their choices, so too must government accept responsibility for the consequences of not respecting fundamental individual rights. No matter the strength of their claims, it’s rather appalling for the government to seize $100 million in player funds from a company, then slap them with a crime for not having enough funds to met their obligations.

As a customer, I never expected that money deposited on poker sites sat in a bank account untouched anymore than I expect bank deposits to sit in a vault. But if Full Tilt was really scamming customers and not adequately prepared to meet their obligations, as significant evidence does suggest, then DoJ should have built a case on that basis, not stormed in and seized everything in reach from them and other sites. But all we really know now is that Full Tilt met all its obligations until the government thugs moved in for their cut, and then they didn’t. Even if the Feds can make their case, this still reeks of justification after the fact.

And just what is Preet Bharara doing with his ill-gotten goods, anyway? I don’t see him returning the money stolen by the government which is owed to me and millions more. And everything which the government has accused Full Tilt of doing, so too have they done with Social Security. Politicians promised that your involuntary deposits were safe, secure from the rest of the general funds, just as they say Tilt dishonestly claimed. It was a lie. Your money is gone, long ago spent on political pork and criminal vote-buying schemes. But don’t expect those indictments coming down anytime soon. So I ask: who are the bigger criminals here?

Thursday

26

May 2011

0

COMMENTS

Legalize, But Why Regulate?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Free Markets, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

First, this is excellent news:

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is planning to introduce legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker and said he hopes the measure can pass both chambers of Congress this session.

…The FBI shut down three of the largest online poker sites last month as part of the Obama administration’s enforcement of online gambling and piracy statutes.

U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized another 10 online betting sites Monday, including two popular poker sites.

…Barton called the current law unenforceable and argued that online poker itself isn’t illegal, so the government has targeted the deposits made by players instead. An estimated 10 million Americans played poker online until recently, including roughly 50,000 PPA members who depend on it for their livelihood.

This is undoubtedly good news, should legalization pass, compared to the current environment of rampant government thuggery and ill-conceived prohibition.

But why must we legalize and regulate? Why can’t we just legalize? The market has proven perfectly capable of self regulating itself up to this point, with the top sites having worked hard to earn reputations as reliable and honest brokers. Sure there have been some scandals, but they were also dealt with. The market will punish thieves and fraudsters and reward quality service, as it has done up until now even with the legal clouds hanging over the market.

There’s little evidence that heavy handed regulation is needed here. I just don’t understand why poker advocates have gone into negotiations already ceding the big government point. Every time I hear poker advocates talk about legalizing the game, they follow it up with talk of regulating and taxing. I understand you need to make points about revenue to convince certain politicians, but let’s not get carried away on this taxing stuff. I also understand if some concessions need to be made regarding the scope of regulations in order to get enough votes, but why start from the position of regulation? Granted, we don’t know the details of this particular legislation yet, so perhaps it won’t involve too much government. But experience gives me reason not to get my hopes up.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a big improvement in either case. Get it legalized now, and regulate it if the political dynamics require it, and then we can always deregulate later.

Sunday

17

April 2011

3

COMMENTS

Thugocrats Target Online Poker

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

You, being too stupid to manager your own affairs, have been prohibited from playing poker online. Technically, financial institutions have been prohibited from helping you get your money on- and off-line, which has the same affect. Naturally, as this law was both unjust and unconstitutional, poker and financial institutions found a way to keep you playing anyway, because that’s what tens of millions of Americans, myself included, wanted.

This angered the thugocrats who commanded you not to use your own money in ways they disapprove (or in competition with their own gambling rackets), and so they have charged the CEO’s of the biggest poker sites with fraud, and also a fake crime known as “money laundering.” Any time prosecutors don’t have enough evidence to convict on real crimes, they pull out “money laundering” charges in hopes to confuse jurors, because no one really knows what it is, including the prosecutors. To add insult to injury, the thugs also stole their domain names.

This is not a partisan issue. A Republican Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act as a hidden inclusion in the Safe Port Act, and Obama appointed thugocrat U.S. Attorney Preet  Bharara brought the charges (his office phone number is 212-637-2200, so call and tell him how much you appreciate his thuggery).

In case you have not figured it out, you are not free and this is not a nation of law. This is a Thugocracy.

Monday

12

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Kentucky Sues For Gamblers' Losses

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

The state of Kentucky is suing to recover the losses of Kentucky citizens who played online poker:

I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert at Whittier Law School in California, said the Beshear administration is attempting to use an old statute that is still on the books in many states.

The Kentucky law says that in instances of illegal gambling the winners have no right to collect. Losers who pay up can sue to recover triple the amount of their loss under the law.

The statute goes further, stating that if the loser doesn’t sue within six months “any other person may sue the winner. …”

This is an outrageous assault on personal freedom.  It’s not the first time Kentucky as tried such a thing.  In 2008 the state filed suit to protect their own gambling racket:

In its previous legal initiative, the Beshear administration filed suit in 2008 in an effort to seize and shut down 141 online gambling domain names — Web sites — in part because of concern that they were draining revenue from the state’s horseracing industry.

Is this really how the people of Kentucky want their government to spend its time and resources?  I think the voters need to send these meddling nannies packing.

Hat-tip: Overlawyered

Tuesday

30

June 2009

0

COMMENTS

Government Seizure Of Poker Funds Is Outrageous

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Earlier this month, a rogue New York prosecutor took it upon himself to illegally freeze $34 million in online poker winnings.

Prosecutors’ seizure of $34 million belonging to online poker players ups the ante in a long-running struggle between the Justice Department, which wants to shut down the online-gambling industry, and members of Congress who want to make it legal.

The government has used several laws to prosecute online gambling. Critics claim those laws are unclear and are sometimes contradicted by a patchwork of state laws.

Although it’s stupid no matter how you cut it, what is most pathetic about this action is that it targeted individual players whose activities were not illegal even under the ill advised stealth passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006.  Over 27,000 Americans exercising their natural right to use their property as they see fit were assaulted by this policy.  Although some misguided legislators think it’s their place to protect the peasants from themselves, a large part of government antagonism toward online gambling is simply a turf war.  The government has skin in this game, as they sanction or even sponsor gambling all across the country.  It is utterly hypocritical and immoral to use the force of government to protect chosen gambling venues while attacking others.  This nanny state foolishness must stop, immediately.

It’s sad to say that what should be an issue of small government seems to be best understood by democrats, while many republicans oddly take the statist view.  I don’t get it, but at least there’s one issue where some good might come with having the democrats in power.

Tuesday

11

July 2006

0

COMMENTS

House Passes Bill On Online Gambling

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

AP

The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions – for state-run lotteries and horse racing – and passage isn’t a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.

The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

…Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings.

Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. “Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age,” he said.

Yes, people certainly could lose their savings, but only if they choose to risk their savings. It can’t happen by accident. This kind of nanny-state, protect-the-people-from-themselves logic is typical of the ideologies of big government. To see it used here by  conservatives is telling as to the nature of their beliefs. In the end, only 17 Republicans, self proclaimed believers in small government, stood up for personal freedom.