Retweet this/facebook like if you like this blog post! thanks!
Harrah’s/Caesar’s will be the first to roll out interstate online poker. The UIGEA only covers ” funding thru a financial institution illegal gambling”.. Nevada has legal gambling, and regulates it. It will be up to each individual state as to whether or not to allow online poker in their state. As it stands now, only a handful of states did not allow FTP/PS and others to serve them, and specifically have laws forbidding it. See, PS, by trying to team up with The Wynn Hotel, was trying to get into Nevada, and around The UIGEA. They were prepared to put in a ton of money to get into the “interstate online poker game”.. My contacts tell me that this triggered Harry Reid and Caesar’s to use their contacts to give the “go ahead” for The DOJ to essentially muscle out the offshore giants, PS, FTP, AND UB/AP, opening up the market for Caesar’s first, then others will follow. In time, PS will return to the USA Market, once Interstate Poker is flowing, and most states allow it. This will trigger Federal regulation to allow PS/FTP and others to enter back into The USA Market, eventually. However, they will have to be legally incorporated in The USA, accepting corporate liability along with all other corporate law, and abide by any and all regulation at the time they enter back in. Basically, what has happened here is Caesar’s/Harrah’s saw a big offshore site, Pokerstars, try to move into their market in Nevada, and basically used/paid off their “people” to ensure that would just not happen.
This is common in The USA, and it is a reality that money talks, and bullshit talks!! Is it corrupt? Sure it is, does that shock anyone reading this? Certainly you guys cannot be living in a fairytale, “LA-LA LAND” can you be?
Once this legal matter is settled with the big 3 offshore sites, then Caesar’s will roll out their ready to go “turn key” online poker site, then others will follow.
This is a future market grab, and PS, FTP, and UB/AP miscalculated their positions, and obviously did not have the right politicians “in their pockets” and/or other companies, such as Caesar’s/Harrah’s simply paid more!
The information I present here is based on reliable sources. I will continue to provide the best information I can when I get it. For the record, My Brother Mike Matusow knows nothing of this stuff. He is not my source for this! As per my other blog post today, FTP will eventually pay everyone, as it is in their best interest to do so!
But (and it’s a big but) will FullTilt pay their US affiliates? I feel lucky I only have a couple thousand in fees owed. It’s probably naive of me to think that if they don’t treat their (former) US affs with some kind of respect and financial responsibility (as in paying them) it will leave a bad taste in the mouths of FT affs still operating in more civilized countries.
I don’t suppose you have any word on this?
First, your statement, “As it stands now, only a handful of states did not allow FTP/PS and others to serve them, and specifically have laws forbidding it.” is utterly wrong. Online poker sites could not operate legally under most (if not all) current state gaming laws. Why else are all of these states currently debating whether to legalize online gaming? Don’t drink the PPA/Stars/Tilt kool-aid, online poker sites have been and will continue to be illegal until states change their laws.
Second, given the bank fraud and money laundering charges, I think it is highly unlikely Stars, Tilt, or Cereus will ever operate in the U.S. again. There’s simply no political cover to allow them to return.
Really? name each state and each law!! PPA koolaide? you obviously have not read things I have said or listened to my show in depth before. Why do most states allow Horse betting? They are not illegal in most states. Horse racing is licensed in certain states, and serve betting accross state lines via the internet to other states. You may be correct on those sites never returning, that I will give you. But if you are going to say what I am saying is wrong, name for me each state that has specific statute concerning online betting. While most states have laws that expressly forbid gambling, Intrastate, they do not have laws that cover interstate online “gambling” Also, the majority of studies have shown that Poker is a game of skill. where long term winners have won based on skill.. But even if you do not agree, you seem to be confusing each state forbidding gambling in a live sense in their own state, like live poker games, live blackjack, etc. They can debate all day long, the fact is that they would need to pass specific laws forbidding online gambling/poker, like Washington state for an example. PS, FTP were not licensed in any state, were not incorporate in any state, having no license whatsoever, without any state based head of operations.
I think you should rethink entirely what I have said, and not assume I agree with The PPA. I do not agree with them and have made that clear quite a bit.. Do you care to explain why online horse racing bets are allowed in most states?
Great post.
Do you think we will see anything by WSOP in Vegas?
I think you’re confusing intrastate and interstate. UIGEA will allow intrastate online gambling – like DC recently sort of passed – if implemented it’ll be a site run within DC that allows online gambling by people located in DC. It’s quite possible that other states will do similar setups but the DOJ has indicated that they won’t allow those intrastate systems to inter-operate.
John, please show me where The DOJ has indicated they will not allow interstate play. UIGEA specifically mentioned offshore “Illegal Gambling operations” Rico covers interstate Gambling in terms of defining similar, “illegal gambling operations” But how would a website from Harrah’s-Caesar’s be defined under both if the state Of Nevada LICENSES THEM AS BEING LEGAL? The offshore sites did not have any base of operations here. more importantly, none of them were INCORPORATE in The USA.. no biz licenses. not taxed under US Law.. no states where they were sanctioned and had a base of Incorporate operations in. Intent and scope of federal Legislation is very important here. The scope of The UIEGA seems to be clear here to me after reading it over several times… That is, targeting non incorporate Offshore, unlicensed in USA ILLEGAL GAMING SITES.
Wow, re online poker being legal, you essentially parroted every PPA talking point.
But let’s give this a quick go. I’m a lawyer. I’ve read numerous state gaming statutes. I’m not aware of a single state that permits a business to accept wagers outside of the state’s regulatory system. The mere fact a company is based outside the state is irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes; do you think foreign companies are immune to state laws? As for the skill argument, every state appellate court to consider the issue has ruled that poker is gambling for purposes of state gaming laws, despite the element of skill inherent in the game. In fact, in many states the skill argument is irrelevant because poker is explicitly included in the statutory definition of gambling.
So let me ask you these questions:
In what state(s) is it legal for a person or business to offer poker and take a rake or fee from the game without a state gaming license?
In what state(s) is poker legal and immune from state gaming regulations because it is a “game of skill”?
I suspect you will have no answer to those questions. Let me give you a hint–the answers are: None and None.
P.S. As for why horseracing betting is legal online (at least in some states), they have a strong lobby and convinced Congress and numerous states to pass the necessary laws and regulations to make it legal. Laws, like life, often seem unfair. Poker would do well to fight for similar regulations.
Red herring and irrelevant, goes to the point of interstate commerce. The topic is online poker, not live and in state. The topic is the internet. the skill part of your argument is also irrelevant, as I already clearly was ready to concede that point. If you are a laywer, you must not be a very good one since it appears you did not comprehend what I said above;
“Poker is a game of skill. where long term winners have won based on skill.. But even if you do not agree, you seem to be confusing each state forbidding gambling in a live sense in their own state.” Notice the “But even if you do not agree”? Hence, nice strawman there bud!
Let’s review though, before I go answering questions from you, I asked you specific ones first. else this reply thread, I will just ignore it.. Since you being a lawyer as you say, you should know better. Strawmans and Red Herrings are basically not going to cut it with me. I will be happy to go point for point, but not when you are not willing to do the same. Fair enough?
As well, there are opinions and interpretation of law.. you should know this as a lawyer. also, in this corrupt country where money talks and opinion and speculation. hence BULLSHIT walks, the big 3 sites just did not “pay enough”.. So while you are entitled to your opinion. all of this bantering is bullshit.. When these sites come up online as I have predicted here they will, then what? More argument on that it is not legal? I have my own show, you are welcome to come on as a caller, provided you keep things civil enough, and I will be happy to discuss with you, and even concede points if I feel you have made yours. I am a fair guy. But do not go with your bullshit about me “parroting” a group I do not even like. I do not even read their position. I have and form my own opinions, and I also ” know” certain people very deep into this issue on a political level.
Thanks for all your Tweets Scott. I’m just a VERY low level cash player who played online poker for enjoyment and winning some extra spending money to suppliment my income. I live in SoCal. When Caesar’s/Harrah’s goes live, will I be able to play living in another state. I don’t even try to understand all the legal stuff involved. But I do understand that corporate greed in this country (ie Wall Street, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, etc) always win out and don’t care that average people lost thier homes, retirement, savings or possibly their poker money (AB/UB). I just want to be able to keep playing poker online which I’ve been doing for 10 years now.
I didn’t throw out any red herrings or strawmen, I merely responded to your comments. *You* brought up the “poker as a game of skill” argument, not me. Since you have disavowed this theory
However, since you obviously misunderstood the main point of my prior comment (hint: where I mentioned “jurisdiction”), let me put it more plainly:
Under what legal theory do you support your claim that online commerce is immune from state law? You mention the Commerce Clause, but the Commerce Clause argument was rejected by the Washington Supreme Court, correctly in my opinion. I posted extensive analysis of the briefs and arguments by the parties, as well as my reasoning why the PPA would lose. My posts on the topic are linked as a group at the end of this post: http://craakker.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-janus.html , and there are several other links to posts about the unsuccessful poker litigation that’s occurred in recent years.
Since out of state businesses are subject to state laws, the conclusion is inescapable that online sites are subject to state gambling laws. In my legal opinion, running a poker business that takes money from U.S. citizens is almost certainly illegal in almost every state, regardless of whether it is live or online, inside or outside the U.S. In fact, I’m willing to put money down that running an online poker site for profit in the manner of Stars/Tilt/UB is currently illegal under state law in all 50 states.
As for keeping things civil, I think my tone has been more than civil. Your comments, however, seem rather hostile for someone who claims to seek comment and debate.
Grange, i told you, i dont deal with arrogance and a lack of good faith debate. I asked you questions first.. your tone in arrogance is for example,
“I suspect you will have no answer to those questions. Let me give you a hint–the answers are: None and None.”
I wont deal with that type of arrogance and i wont engage in a debate when someone wont answer my original questions.. if u choose to continue the arrogant krap, then I will either ignore it, or boot you off the blog.. you have a right to your opinion, and i welcome debate, I do not welcome someone who refuses to debate, or consider another point of view. I dont need to hear how I am a parrot for the PPA either.. Now, I am on my show, if you wish to engage in a honest point for point debate, fine.. u made a point, and I asked you to name the specific state laws you were referring to. you didnt, and went on to bring forth off the my question point.. i will not tolerate that. so please think twice and think about your tone and good faith debate more, thanks!
I’ve referred to the state laws in every post, but to make it crystal clear:
EVERY state gaming law bars operating a poker room or poker website for a profit (rake or fee). These laws have been in force for decades and apply to online poker sites. If you want more details on why merely being based out of state or out of the country is no exemption from state law, here’s my analysis:
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2011/02/intersection-of-law-online-poker.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2011/02/intersection-of-law-online-poker-part.html
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2011/04/intersection-of-law-online-poker-part-3.html
Apparently, you feel an ad hominem attack of calling me “arrogant” is actually analysis. My posts, however, have consistently given my legal analysis and asked for yours (which you have yet to provide). So, once again, what is your legal basis for claiming online poker sites are legal under current state laws? You have provided no analysis to date, merely platitudes and attacks on my character (even though you don’t know me). I’m still waiting for any legal argument from you. You have my legal argument. So, are you going to post an argument, or are you simply going to ban me because you have no argument?
No, you did not refer to each specific law. You are on my blog, I did not comment on yours. There are a handful of states that expressly forbid online poker, period, while there are other states that do not have any laws regarding this. You are confusing State Laws which forbid live in person gambling within the state. Why didn’t these other states do what Washington State did, and specifically ban online poker?
Washington State is one state which rejected the commerce clause argument. That is there right to do so. The fact is that Nevada will start to offer intrastate, then very soon after, interstate online Poker, and most other states, except for a handful, will allow it just as they allowed the offshore sites.. So name each state that has express statute that specifically addresses online poker. 5 or 6? I mention your character because you fail to listen, and to show proper respect for another person’s blog. I did ask you to name each specific State and each law. You have yet to do this. Take away the UIGEA, and the offshore sites still would be doing biz as before 2006, with specific states specifically having statute expressly forbidding it, such as the before mentioned Washington State. The offshore sites now have been shut out of The USA, under FEDERAL Law that specifically covers how these sites are financed via deposits by financial institutions, UIGEA. Scope and legislative intent is very important in The UIGEA.. Namely, offshore sites are mentioned, “Illegal Gambling operations” Intent defined as to curtail “money laundering” as well as ” potential terrorist activity” Therefore UIGEA does clearly apply to these offshore sites, not licensed by any state in the USA, hence “Illegal Gambling sites” Do not confuse specific Federal Statute with specific state statute. See, you give an opinion as fact saying these state laws that do not allow gaming Intrastate applies to online poker. If this is the case, why did Washington State feel the need to add specific statute that specifically banned online poker? Why have not the other states done this? your opinion Sir as you state;
“These laws have been in force for decades and apply to online poker sites.” Please then site case precedence from each state that specifically ruled against ONLINE POKER.. See, just because you have an opinion, does not make it fact, I take your arguement therefore as “arrogant” and not in good faith. Now when I state, ” online poker will be rolled out first in Nevada, sooner than people think, it is not an opinion, but a fact based on inside sources, the same sources that I used to specifically and correctly predict the busts that happened. As well, I also tried to warn players on my show to get their money out, and only leave what they needed to have, in order to play.
Now is it really simple, Please name each State specific Statute, that specifically forbids online poker. Please as well cite case precedence from each state that pertains to specifically online poker. Please explain why most states did not do anything to stop the offshore online sites from serving them, while a few others did by legislating new statute. Please explain why states such as Washington State, specifically legislated new statute to specifically include online poker. Please explain why the existing Washington State Laws were not good enough to forbid online, that they legislated new statute… It is like we started here. If you will explain that, I am certainly willing to listen. Good faith debating is good. Is it really that hard? Just address my questions and points, “point by point” with rebuttal. Since you are a lawyer, I assume you did take debate classes. I am sure they did mention what I just did, did they not? I gave you my legal opinion in this reply. I respectfully ask you to address each point I made again, point for point rebuttal. Then I have no problem discussing this with you sir.. Is that fair enough?
Oh and I will answer an original question (which obviously was rhetorical, none the less, I will answer it) you asked in your first blog response here;
“Why else are all of these states currently debating whether to legalize online gaming?”
Simple; to specifically address the OFFSHORE SITES, allowing THEM to serve their states regardless of UIGEA.. However, those laws if they were passed, would either be vetoed by the state’s gov, and have no effect on UIGEA.. they could have made it “legal” all day long in their states, but the federal law of UIGEA would take the precedence, still illegal to deposit thru one’s bank, period… Their discussions had nothing to do with Intrastate online poker sites based in their states, incorporate. or did it? what u DO NOT KNOW, is that those big 3 sites were busy pumping in a ton of money to those state reps, basically BUYING THE ISSUE.. When Pokerstars tried to team with Wynn, to try to get in position to enter into the Nevada Market, UNDER CURRENT State Law in Nevada, The powers that be, gave the green light to the DOJ to bring the indictments down. you state all 50 states, that no laws exist to allow online poker.. That is where I think u miss the point. There does not have to be!! This is obviously why WS State felt the need to pass SPECIFIC law to forbid online poker. However, Gambling is legal in Nevada, Nevada regulates it thru the nevada state gaming commission. I also think you may be a tad bit over focused on pure legal arguments, and not on the reality how things really work in this Country. Obviously, other states would want a “piece of the action” if Nevada decides to go interstate from their intrastate start, which they most certainly will according to one of my sources. Harrah’s then would be than happy to partner with other state gaming interests… to end, states need to pass specific statute to ban online poker(Like Ws State) THAT IS BASED FROM A STATE THAT LEGALLY LICENSES AND REGULATES GAMBLING! again, your question to make a point on “why are some states trying to legalize online poker” was expressly in connection with THE OFFSHORE SITES, regulated in NO STATES. When Nevada does what I am saying they are doing, sure, any state can bring a suit against Nevada, if the proper jurisdiction exists, to stop Nevada from serving their state.. But why would they if The Big money Casinos in Nevada are willing to cut those states in for a piece? This is what my sources combined are telling me. So it may be great to argue this all day long, and it’s cool to have an opinion. I am going by sources on this.
Keep speaking the truth Scott. FTP has been shutting up their pros and PS has been very quiet after paying out. Heck even Merge is backing out of New York and Doyle quit Doyle’s Room. Everyone is scared they are next.
Wow, you really can’t follow a legal argument at all. My point has been very precisely stated several times in these comments: EACH AND EVERY STATE currently bans online poker because no state authorizes a poker site to operate for a profit without a license, and no state currently licenses online poker. Whether the poker site is live or online is irrelevant. Merely making a business an “internet” business doesn’t excuse it from complying with state law.
Since you can’t identify a state which licenses online poker, my point stands as valid and unrefuted. But as just one example, let’s take Illinois, which I broke down in great detail in respect to the Pokerhaus lawsuit:
http://craakker.blogspot.com/2010/10/pokerhaus-lawsuityes-they-can.html
EVERY SINGLE STATE has similar laws banning unlicensed gambling, and no state has exempted poker from gambling regulations. Thus, operating a for-profit poker site is illegal under every state statute. If you think some state authorizes legal poker, please identify it and we can debate the law. Otherwise, your claim that online poker is legal is exposed as utterly unmoored from the actual law.
And just to be perfectly clear, I am giving you 50:1 odds here. Identify a state, any state, which you think permits online poker. I’ll debate that state’s gambling laws with you. The ball is totally in your court. I’m taking the field against a watered-down version of your claim that online poker is legal in the entire U.S. by asking you to support a substantially lesser claim that even one measly little state somewhere, somehow, permits online poker. Please, pick just one state! I suspect you can’t identify any state whatsoever where online poker is legal. I await your legal analysis.
sorry, u didnt answer my questions first.. typical of many lawyers and politicians.. arrogant and hi minded
i dont do arrogance Kid..which state has a specific law that bans me from taking a piss with a rubber hand? and when im proven right as per this intial blog post, You are welcome to come back and argue how they are breaking laws, and see if anything is done about it. So I kindly suggest you stop arguing in this. Again, you refuse to address my questions point for point, and if on your site, you can shape the debate any way you like.However, when on my site, you follow my simple and fair rules, or you be gone and banned. I have been fair enough with you and allowed this endless arrogance to continue.. Again, i will not answer your questions, and allow you to refuse to answer mine, so you can shape your debate anyway you see fit.. Can you understand and respect my site, or do I have to ban you?