- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thank you for posting this.
“They (the DOJ) are real good at writing letters and threatening jurisdictions without having any basis of case law,” O’Brien said during a press conference last week
Yep. They have a real talent for that – threats without legal basis.
“They can say what they want, but in 10 years they haven’t brought one non-sports betting operator up on charges for violating the Wire Act or any of these other statutes,” O’Brien explained
Yep again.
Shulman said that a state wanting to regulate online poker is above refute from the Wire Act.
“I would stake my reputation on the fact that the Wire Act doesn’t apply to online poker,” she said. “I said that six years ago, and I stand by that today. There is a clear definition of the Wire Act as it applies to sports betting, and online poker doesn’t meat that definition.”
True again, except MEAT has nothing to do with it. :tounge2: It’s meet. :colgate:
Interesting article.
The DOJ cites three federal statutes that the state could be violating if it moves forward with the legislation: the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Anti-Gambling Act.
I’m familiar with the Wire Act, but what are the other two about? Are they even real?
As far as “anti-gambling,” isn’t poker considered a “game of skill?”
