- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I want to thank all of you for your continued support.
I must say that I am not in high spirits these days. It seems that — no matter what I think of — there’s still some small way that the government can come get me… if so inspired.
The thought of selling off (or throwing away) these portals that have been my life for almost five years is devastating to me… but I fear that the rest of my friends here in the States will soon be faced with this delima as well.
I have a good gaming attorney: Over 11 years on the Washington State Gambling Commission… 30 years legal experience… contacts at several governmental agencies… I will hear back from him late next week. If he tells me I’m sunk, then that’s just how it is.
Is McDonalds hiring?
:toidy:
I want to also stress that we cannot give a dollar amount at this time but will give what we can when and if needed. But we believe in sticking together and there is more hope if we all stick together.:beatup:
http://www.visitmalta.com/ :drunk2:
axl wrote:Sadly I think its much too late to think about lobbying efforts. As I stated months ago, this goodlatte bill is going to pass through with flying colors; and all on half-baked facts.Freedom? Whats that?
This is not true
Many say the bill will have a VERY hard time in Senate getting passed and thats fist in september/october.I find it VERY strange the litle support for my lobby idea –
specially from USA webmasters that could be soon out of business.We could easy make a difference if we all stand togheter and collect money for lobby.
Money rules Washington
Dominique wrote:JTodd, you are famous.I hope that that does not mean they will make an example of you.
I really think they should not go after advertisers, we do have free speech in this country.
I will definitely be there with a helping hand whenever and however I can.
What happened to the link to the news article that was in this post? Why was it edited out?
Ok…I have so many questions and concerns about this situation. I realize some of you may feel I’m being overly critical, however, I do feel there are some things not being said here that need to be said.
I don’t understand agreeing to an interview with a newspaper (which includes a photo), given the situation, particularly without FIRST consulting with an attorney. Am I the only one here that feels this is a bit backward?
Challenging this law is a GOOD thing, if it is done with proper thought and the assistance of the best legal minds available. The best example of this would be Casino City Press vs. USDOJ. While this ultimately ended in CCP dropping its suit, it DID press the issue.
By challenging things without forethought and a tight, legal plan, I can’t help but ultimately be concerned about all those who have given information to the APCW. Should JT’s hard drives be seized for any reason, the affiliates who’ve entrusted their information, could very well be targeted in the future, regardless of location. IMO, these affiliates gave information to the APCW in good faith and should have been consulted before JT went public as he has. This is serious stuff.
At this point, I can’t begin to know the best course to follow–certainly JT needs legal counsel and in discussion with legal counsel, protection of participants in the APCW should be paramount. I realize that outside of a precious few, these affiliates live outside the bounds of Washington, however, those that are in the US will need to be protected, equally.
greedygirl wrote:What happened to the link to the news article that was in this post? Why was it edited out?At CAP we edit posts/threads at request of the poster, the originator of the thread, or parties who feel their privacy has been compromised.
So, Integrity gave an interview, posed for a photo, but doesn’t want anyone here to see the link? :huh2:
Seems like it’s a bit late to close the barn door………
greedygirl wrote:What happened to the link to the news article that was in this post? Why was it edited out?.Debbie, from reading your post you seem very concerned about privacy. So, I guess that answers that :blush:
greedygirl wrote:I don’t understand agreeing to an interview with a newspaper…If you are all really that facinated about the details behind how the newspaper interview came about, it went like this:
1) I believed that the public needed to know about this law, because the state did nothing to inform the people. I also believed that when people found out, there may have been a public backlash.
2) I called the state senator who introduced this bill, and was informed by her the legal advisor that the law would not apply to webmasters, but to players only.
3) I then contacted several newspapers and radio stations around the state about the law, hoping to get the public interested. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer did the story without mentioniong me on May 27th.
4) My home town paper agreed to do the story, but the editor insisted on a “local angle”… so I agreed, still believeing that webmasters were safe. The reported agreed not to use my name or mention that I had family in the area…. he lied.
I hope that satisfies your curiosity :turn:
greedygirl wrote:Challenging this law is a GOOD thing, if it is done with proper thought and the assistance of the best legal minds available.And that is exactly what I have now. If there are grounds to challenge this law, I will know this coming week and I may very well take the lead on this. If we do not have a leg to stand on, I will let you know that as well.
greedygirl wrote:…I can’t help but ultimately be concerned about all those who have given information to the APCW …hard drives be seized …the affiliates who’ve entrusted their information…Well, it would have been nice to address you privately about this… so as not to cause any undo alarm with APCW Members… but since that ship has sailed:
1) When webmasters submit data, they use only their usernames and nothing more. No contact information, real names, or IP Addresses are stored with usernames in the database.
2) Once we generate a report for the month, no record is kept of which members submitted what data. All data is compiled into a file for that month and querried that way.
3) I do not keep any webmaster records on my hard drive whatsoever. All APCW data is stored on a server in California. They can seize whatever they want here, and even look at the hard drive in California… it won’t do them any good.
4) Many webmasters who are submitting data are located outside of the USA, and all of them (except me) are outside of Washington.
5) Finally, I dare say that (if the US Government want’s to look into your cash flow) they will find a way get your records via a much more reliable source then my database.
As far as I can tell, I don’t think you even submit data to the APCW at all. I will do everything in my power to protect my members, and moving my physical location out of the country is certainly on the table at this point.Believe me when I tell you this: My ass is a lot more exposed than anyone elses right now… I am the one facing fines and years in prison…
… but I understand your concerns.
That helps to clarify somethings.
Get some good lawyers fast.
good luck
I have posted this article on another thread. I sent Professor Rose an email asking his opion and he sent me back this article.
2006 – #4 © Copyright 2006, all rights reserved worldwide. GAMBLING AND THE LAW® is a registered trademark of Professor I Nelson Rose, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA
Gambling and the Law®
Washington State Makes It A Felony To Play Poker OnlineAs of June 7, it is now a felony in the state of Washington to play poker on the Internet.
The bill, S.S.B. No. 6613, has stirred up great anxiety in poker forums. Many feel, correctly, that they have been blind-sided. I searched the databases of Washington newspapers and could find almost nothing written about the law as it was making its way through the Legislature. In fact, when the Seattle Times published an article about bills to make Internet gambling a crime, it only mentioned proposals pending in Congress.
Now, players are worried that they might get arrested. Some are trying to organize political committees to get the new law changed.
In the real world, the new law will make little difference. In fact, the Washington State Gambling Commission has taken the official position that the bill merely “clarifies” existing law:
Although Internet gambling has never been an authorized activity in Washington, this law was passed to make it very clear that Internet gambling is illegal in Washington. This includes gambling on the Internet, operating an Internet gambling site, or facilitating Internet gambling in any way.
Is the Commission right, that being a mere bettor has always been illegal in Washington? Yes – at least to some forms of gambling.
Prior to being amended by S.S.B. No. 6613, the law read:
Whoever knowingly transmits or receives gambling information by telephone, telegraph, radio, semaphore or similar means, or knowingly installs or maintains equipment for the transmission or receipt of gambling information shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor…
This made betting by phone with a bookie a crime. But it is questionable whether playing poker on the Internet fell under this law.
Other Washington statutes make it a crime to participate in any form of gambling that is not authorized by the state or a pure social game. But there is at least some doubt as to whether these apply to the Internet at all, let alone to a game where the operator and all of the other players are in foreign states.
S.S.B. No. 6613 added the words “the internet” and “a telecommunications transmission system” to the list. So, it clearly now is a crime to send or receive any gaming information online, which would include playing poker.
Washington is probably the only state to expressly make it a crime to merely bet online. It certainly is the only state to make it a felony.
A “Class C felony” means a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
It is interesting to speculate who was behind this bill. The real impetus appears to be a desire to prevent the State Lottery from using the Internet. But other political players probably had a role in creating this draconian law.
Making Internet gambling a felony allows religious conservatives, opponents of Indian gaming, and anti-gambling activists to make a strong statement. Some of them may even have thought the law might be enforced, although even they must know that no one is ever going to be arrested for playing poker from his own home.
And one of the most powerful federal anti-gambling laws, RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, only kicks in if an illegal gambling operation is committing state felonies, not misdemeanors.
Then there are Washington’s licensed card clubs. As the Commission stated, in its Focus on Gambling Newsletter, “Some card room operators asked that we help get the word out that gambling over the Internet is illegal.”
The Commission complied. It created a sign that can be posted in poker rooms to remind players that, at least in Washington, they must leave home to make a legal wager.
END
© Copyright 2006. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law. His latest books, GAMING LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS and INTERNET GAMING LAW, are available through his website, http://www.GAMBLINGANDTHELAW.comIntegrity wrote:2) I called the state senator who introduced this bill, and was informed by her the legal advisor that the law would not apply to webmasters, but to players only.I would direct your attention to the Washington State Gaming Commission who officially said that even having a link on your website to a gambling operation is the same as if you were offering gambling online and thus you could be prosecuted under the law.
BTW, moving your site outside of Washington will not do anything. If you are in Washington, you are still under the law no matter where your servers reside.
IMO, which is that of a non legal entity and hence not to be taken as advice, the above Washington law is unconstitutional and collides with the free speech amendment.
While I would LOVE to agree with you, speech that is about illegal activities is not neccessarily protected. It’s really a gray area issue and one that would need to hit the court system and hopefully get a granted write of certiorari for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, only about 1% get granted annually.
Market Junction wrote:…even having a link on your website to a gambling operation is the same as if you were offering gambling online…For the most part, yes. It would be the ol’ “aiding and abetting” bull-caca. There are three ways to come after me:
1) Breaking the law directly by offering “gambling information”
2) By linking to “illegal operations” and therefore aiding and abetting.
3) By getting paid from funds which are “tainted”.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. And more specifically, there are three types of speech. The good old dialouge like we have here… Political speech… and commercial speech.
Commercial speech has had more restrictions placed on it than any other form of “free speech”.
Market Junction wrote:BTW, moving your site outside of Washington will not do anything. If you are in Washington, you are still under the law no matter where your servers reside.Also true. Although, if push comes to shove, this may well be the area where the law is most vulnerable to challenge. Can I live in this state (where marijuana is illegal) and own a legally operated “smoke shop” in Amsterdam? Can I live in this state (where prostitution is illegal) and own a legally operated brothel in Nevada?
If so, why can’t I own a website based in the UK where it’s all legal and still live here? Because the internet is virtual and goes everywhere? The argument is not only a slippery slope, but a rediculously ignorant slippery slope…
However, in post-September 11th nazi-America, don’t think it won’t happen. I’ve come to realize that just becasue something is so obviously wrong, so obviously stupid, and so obviously against all common sense doesn’t mean our government won’t try it.
I know this might be a stupid question but Washington state you guys are mentioning:
is it the District of Columbia?!?
Or is it Washington state on the Northwest of the states?
I am moving to the District of Columbia just beside Maryland am I at risk?!
Thanks
