- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Maybe you’re right that they’d like to be audited. I’m sure they do since they’ve sought some free market solutions for that.
If players could deposit their own money via their debit cards, there would be a lot more people playing. The industry has hardly suffered by not being under US government control.
Larry Walters called me and hes back to work:woohoo:
The bad news is I was in the frigging shower and he hit my phone mail! :Cry:
I called back and spoke to his office and hes out on errands for a few hours but he will be calling me back before the days end.
:woohoo:Professor,
Please make sure that Larry address exactly what the current definition of “illegal internet gambling” is since it is used in the bill so often. My legal advisor told me that according to the Wire Act “illegal internet gambling” still only applies to sportsbetting outfits.
D
Let’s all be honest and let the world know that as workers in the casino industry, making sure that gamblers are 21+ and strong enough to choose to bet within their budget is a difficult thing to do.
:yang2: ~~ What is the current definition of “illegal internet gambling?” ~~
On making it illegal for American credit cards and banks to fund casinos: Does this apply to outgoing payments like affiliate commission payments?
On Casino City going all CPA: Where is your long term loyalty? What are you saying to other casino affiliates?
My legal sites:
:flamer::madat:Ok Guys I spoke with Larry Walters yesterday afternoon and unfortunately he cannot/ will not issue a public assessment of the proposed new law. He cites the following reasons:
1. The impact of the law on each individual will vary dependant upon their circumstance and marketing techniques therefore a blanket statement will not provide adequate legal protection.
2. Larry is a firm supporter of client/attorney confidentiality. To provide legal advice in a public setting violates this tenent.
3. A public statement may reveal legal strategies or arguments he may eventually use in court to defend clients based upon the new laws and he has no desire to tip his cards to prosecutors.
Larry indicated he will consult with clients one on one and help you develop a game plan that will minimize your exposure moving forward. He also agreed to a group meeting if we can bring everyone who is interested together in one place and verify the identities of those in attendence. The logistics of this would obviously be very difficult to work out.
I mentioned that Nelson Rose had issued a statement/opinion and Larry was quick to point out that what Nelson Rose issued was an article and was NOT a legal briefing. Basing what you choose to do on that particular article is not a suitable replacement for actual legal advice with an attorney representing you. I agree with that assessment and will be having a consultation with Larry next week at his office to discuss my personal options.
I suggest everyone who intends to stay in this business secure competant legal counsel ASAP. Its MY opinion that its highly unlikely US affiliates will face CRIMINAL prosection, it does not appear that the new laws increase our exposure in that respect. What is likely though is that the VIABILITY of the business has changed dramatically and we will each have to assess wether it makes sense from a financial standpoint to invest heavily in moving servers, setting up offshore corporations and the like.
There is also a strong possibility that ISPs will be asked to block access to online gaming related content. If that occurs they will be legally compelled to comply. This will also effect the viability of our businesses and should not be taken lightly.
Reasonable arguments, thanks for you efforts proffesor.
Professor,
Thanks for trying, dude. I can’t say I blame Larry for not wanting to publicize generic rules and legal statements – I’m sure he doesn’t want to be held liable for any statements. More importantly (for him), this is an extremely tumultuous time, and the floodgates have opened for him. He stands to take on quite a few clients from this mess, and yes, stands to make a boatload of money. So if I were him, why would I want to give advice away for free ?? I certainly can’t fault him for that.
Everyone must make their own personal choice on what to do after Friday. My personal choice is diversification. I built up a great business in gambling that supported my family over several years, and with my business and technical skills, there is no question that I can do it again (and again and again) ! This may be a huge blow to us Americans, but there is still plenty of fertile opportunities out there. The Internet is definitely where it’s at, even though Big Brother has diminished that somewhat.
Diversify, diversify, diversify !!!!
Well, I understand what Larry the Lawyer is trying to do. Nevertheless he could have given a teaser statement and then said if you want more seek proper consultation.
Can anybody who goes to see him ask him about the legal grounds for class action suits?Thanks professor for the update. I am not moving anywhere my service on the advice of my service provider. They will back me up to the hilt and do not see any current or future laws that take away my freedoms.
It is very much a personal choice, but I am not moving no where!
I have to agree with Prof and Larry on this – you can read all the articles and opinions from lawyers, but ultimately these are not legal opinions. Best to check with Larry or any other gaming lawyer worth his salt.
I can’t remember well now , but I think that Lawrence Walters was giving some legal advice a cup of years ago in the Online Pharmacy field.
I can’t remember well now , but I think that Lawrence Walters was giving some legal advice a cup of years ago in the Online Pharmacy field.
According to his website, he still does. Along with a few other thing.
Thats what we expected; a show me the money response, but thanks for trying anyway professor.
He also agreed to a group meeting if we can bring everyone who is interested together in one place and verify the identities of those in attendence.
I’d be interested.
This is what I’ve found to be useful:
The Definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling
Of extreme importance in a statute is the definitional section that sets forth the parameters of a bill. The term “Unlawful Internet gambling” is given a definition. Section 5362(6) defines unlawful Internet gambling to mean placing or receiving a bet “where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law.” This raises the question regarding what type of online gambling is already illegal. That will be discussed below.
First, let’s move on to the meat of the bill. This is the section that states just what is prohibited. Section 5363 begins by saying that “No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept…” electronic transfers, credit cards, etc. where a person is engaged in “unlawful Internet gambling.” This new law applies, if and only if, the gambling is already illegal under current law.
This brings us directly to the issue of what has been deemed illegal in the last 10 years since the first online casino opened its virtual doors. In a nutshell, sports betting is made illegal by the 1961 Wire Act, but casinos and poker are not.
Remember please, that the Attorney General’s office has not brought one lawsuit in 10 years against a poker site, even though it takes the position that online poker is prohibited by the Wire Act.
Basically what I’ve been trying to say for quite some time now, but an attorney said this, not me. Read more at http://www.macpokeronline.com/legal/documentation/hr49543-analysis/
