Didn't see this posted anywhere......but take a look!

Looks like the DOJ is making the Wire Act to ONLY sports betting, which is one step closer to online poker coming back to the US!

http://news.bluffmagazine.com/us-doj...betting-25683/

I still want Holder to resign or be fired.

This won't make any immediate impact, but it is a step in the right direction.

More news- http://www.pokernewsreport.com/absolute-poker-co-founder-guilty-in-plea-deal-6762

It sounds good on the surface, but nothing that says the UIGEA act will not be used against online poker now or in the future. I would like to be optimistic, but I dont know that this is going to mean a lot. It sounds like the Department of Justice is simply not going to use the Wire Act( which is a very antiquated law) to make its case against online poker.

The UIGEA has no backbone without the Wire Act. The UIGEA doesn't take a stand on anything that isn't covered in the Wire Act. Now that the Wire Act doesn't pertain to online poker, they'll need to come up with new legislation to cover prohibiting online poker.

I agree with James..... from what I've been hearing they might be pulling the UIGEA or at least tweaking it to remove online poker.

Mighty fine of them to come to this conclusion right after they ran off the foreign competition that had a head start and hurt a lot of innocent people in the process.

Don't get me wrong this is really good news but what hypocrites they are.

So bottom line what is the end game of this?And how is it going to affect my near future of online poker in the U.S.?

Will online poker in the states come back?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gambling-gets-boost-obama-administration-223603723.html?l=1

Well, just think about it. This is an election year, and the politicians are going to do what they can to get support from online poker players.

Originally Posted by ythelongface

It sounds good on the surface, but nothing that says the UIGEA act will not be used against online poker now or in the future. I would like to be optimistic, but I dont know that this is going to mean a lot. It sounds like the Department of Justice is simply not going to use the Wire Act( which is a very antiquated law) to make its case against online poker.

Because of...

Originally Posted by JamesDaBear

The UIGEA has no backbone without the Wire Act. The UIGEA doesn't take a stand on anything that isn't covered in the Wire Act. Now that the Wire Act doesn't pertain to online poker, they'll need to come up with new legislation to cover prohibiting online poker.

^^^ this.

The UIGEA does not itself determine what forms of gambling are legal/illegal. It merely states that US financial institutions cannot broker transactions for gambling operations that have been deemed illegal by other federal legislation. Up to this point, the Wire Act was the federal legislation used to deem online poker illegal. Now that the Act is finally determined to not apply to online poker, it completely neuters UIGEA as enforceable against online poker, unless they can come up with another sham of legislation to take its place.

That doesn't mean things will change quickly, because the government and legal system rarely act immediately on a rulling, but it does remove an obstacle and open the door a bit wider to positive legislation in the future.

All in all, it's a great Christmas gift for the online poker industry and players, even if it doesn't immediately undo all the damage the DOJ has done up to this point.

And I'm not a huge Obama fan but I'm glad to see the administration weighing in before elections. I hope enough momentum is made to cement some action that can't be undone in the event November brings a new "moral outlook" to the White House.

From the reports I've seen/read so far, the concensus seems to be that gaming/gambling sites will be allowed 'WITHIN THE U.S.'.
It does not say that internet gambling/poker sites that are based outside the U.S. borders will be allowed to operate within the U.S. All they seem to be doing is opening another avenue for tax revenues for the states where sites or players are 'based'.

Don't believe this will open any free-for-all for internationally based sites. Wait till the Indian casinos see how much their revenues drop, just like Vegas and AC have felt the bite from riverboat and Indian casino gambling. Lawsuit City.....

We will also be on the sidelines watching the battles between 50 state legislatures over who gets how much in new tax revenues. I'm sure they already have it all spent before it even starts to flow.

If poker forums were rife with complaints about rake amounts before ... watch this ... Sites need revenue, plus more to pay THEIR U.S. taxes, plus the states want THEIR share for revenues.

****************************

dont know if this has already been posted.......

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/full-tilt-owners-ratify-gbt-deal/

Originally Posted by nevadanick

From the reports I've seen/read so far, the concensus seems to be that gaming/gambling sites will be allowed 'WITHIN THE U.S.'.
It does not say that internet gambling/poker sites that are based outside the U.S. borders will be allowed to operate within the U.S. All they seem to be doing is opening another avenue for tax revenues for the states where sites or players are 'based'.

Don't believe this will open any free-for-all for internationally based sites. Wait till the Indian casinos see how much their revenues drop, just like Vegas and AC have felt the bite from riverboat and Indian casino gambling. Lawsuit City.....

We will also be on the sidelines watching the battles between 50 state legislatures over who gets how much in new tax revenues. I'm sure they already have it all spent before it even starts to flow.

If poker forums were rife with complaints about rake amounts before ... watch this ... Sites need revenue, plus more to pay THEIR U.S. taxes, plus the states want THEIR share for revenues.

****************************

This does mean there's nothing stopping international sites such as 888.com from introducing their poker intrastate or between states that sign interstate deals... then next it will be with canada... maybe latin america... then, who knows? I want to play against the world, but I know there are plenty of action just from US players (even if I won't be able to fire up a late night/early morning session as easily).

As far as Indian Casinos go... in my idiot locale of Washington State, our games have dried up significantly with many casinos forced to close after UIGEA was passed and the state "criminalized" online poker, incentivized by the significant campaign contributions from Indian Casino lobbyists. You can see this as coincidence if you like, since a major downturn in the economy followed/continued afterward.

If Indian Casinos (and Vegas, LA and AC) want us to pay their high rake and tournament fees, then we need somewhere to get our feet wet, so to speak. Since we can't expect them to profitably offer microstakes at a reasonable rake, they need online poker. Online poker creates better funded, better skilled poker players. How could that be bad for a casino anywhere?

I am not sure if this has been reported on cardschat before this post.

If not why not?

But the possible legalisation of online poker in the United States is being reported here:
http://mashable.com/2011/12/27/justice-department-ruling-online-gambling/
Welcome back USA players.

Originally Posted by deucem

I am not sure if this has been reported on cardschat before this post.

If not why not?

It's been posted a number of times, including in this very thread which is what the last several posts have been discussing. Seems odd that you'd question "why not?" without even looking...

Originally Posted by deucem

I am not sure if this has been reported on cardschat before this post.

If not why not?

But the possible legalisation of online poker in the United States is being reported here:
http://mashable.com/2011/12/27/justice-department-ruling-online-gambling/
Welcome back USA players.

Originally Posted by dmorris68

It's been posted a number of times, including in this very thread which is what the last several posts have been discussing. Seems odd that you'd question "why not?" without even looking...

I merged his separate thread with this one which he must have missed.

Doesn't pokerstars have an office in San Jose Ca?

Originally Posted by alaskabill

Mighty fine of them to come to this conclusion right after they ran off the foreign competition that had a head start and hurt a lot of innocent people in the process.

Don't get me wrong this is really good news but what hypocrites they are.

This times 1 million. Welcome to the USA: a government of the people, by the people and purely for corporate profits... ::facepalm::

is true that regardless of how the legal issues are decided for poker in USA, that poker stars will never be open to usa players?

I think this is a step in the right direction and hopegful that gambling does become legal here.

Definitely a step in the right direction. Still sucks that were waiting to get back something that shouldn't have been taken away in the first place.

I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but anyone know WHY the about face-does the DOJ figure it has extorted the maximum value from it's previous stance? Is it just that they have destroyed the competition for US casinos?

Does this mean that Microsoft, Google and Yahoo will get their $31.5 million back from the settlement in 2005 over the charge that they "promoted illegal gambling" by hosting ads?

...or is it worse? By making the news, do they think anti-gaming forces will step up their lobbying to make all online gaming illegal?

I just don't trust these b*****ds.

Seems some of you guys are not fond of the DOJ. I personally am glad they shined the light on some of the back-room antics of the sites.

Originally Posted by calicard

Doesn't pokerstars have an office in San Jose Ca?

My guess that it is in San Jose, Costa Rica

Originally Posted by PaulThePokerCat

Seems some of you guys are not fond of the DOJ. I personally am glad they shined the light on some of the back-room antics of the sites.

Ya-that was their goal What light did they shine on any site other than FTP? --and that was just unintended fallout.

I won't politard up this thread but feel free to do some research on their over-reaching, political moves against businesses and states not to mention their coverup of selling guns to drug cartels.

Originally Posted by Charade You Are

... not to mention their coverup of selling guns to drug cartels.

Okay, I'm no lover of the DOJ, but let's not cloud the issues with misinformation.

While I'd be the first to agree the "Fast and Furious" operation was entirely ill-conceived and poorly executed, the DOJ wasn't selling guns to drug cartels. They were staking out straw purchases by cartel representatives and allowing them to transport the weapons over the border. That's completely different than selling them directly.

I think they need to burn these sites good and hard, these sites from other countries will tell you straight up they do not have to abide by US laws and will take no responsibility for your funds. Will not play again til US based poker sites are up and going

Originally Posted by dmorris68

Okay, I'm no lover of the DOJ, but let's not cloud the issues with misinformation.

While I'd be the first to agree the "Fast and Furious" operation was entirely ill-conceived and poorly executed, the DOJ wasn't selling guns to drug cartels. They were staking out straw purchases by cartel representatives and allowing them to transport the weapons over the border. That's completely different than selling them directly.

My statement was: the coverup of selling guns to gun cartels.

They gave the gun shops permission to sell guns to known gun runners knowing that the guns were going to drug cartels then lost track of the guns.

I don't see how that's "completely different".

Straw Buyers: Gun runners who purchase weapons legally in the U.S. and sell them to Mexican Cartels through middlemen or occasionally transporting them into Mexico themselves for larger payouts, often Straw Buyers are American Citizens

Originally Posted by Charade You Are

Ya-that was their goal What light did they shine on any site other than FTP? --and that was just unintended fallout.

While I take your point, they also shone some light on AP/UB - that site just folded a bit more quietly than Full Tilt and nobody was as surprised when it happened.

---Quote (Originally by alaskabill)---
Mighty fine of them to come to this conclusion right after they ran off the foreign competition that had a head start and hurt a lot of innocent people in the process.

Don't get me wrong this is really good news but what hypocrites they are.
---End Quote---
------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Originally Posted by Lofwyr

This times 1 million. Welcome to the USA: a government of the people, by the people and purely for corporate profits... ::facepalm::

Sure, the U.S. gaming operators want legalized online gambling as fast as it will progress, but I would suggest that the ULTIMATE reason the U.S. (or any government today) wants legalized gambling is......... (drum rollllllllllllllllllllll..............)

TAXES, MORE TAX REVENUES ....

In the case of U.S. online gambling, the sites will be required to report all winnings to the government just as casinos must do now. It will make it mandatory for operators to cooperate fully with the U.S. taxing structure from ALL agencies at all levels, state and federal.

***********************

Originally Posted by sharkraizer

I think they need to burn these sites good and hard, these sites from other countries will tell you straight up they do not have to abide by US laws and will take no responsibility for your funds. Will not play again til US based poker sites are up and going

Yeah because everyone knows that it has to be based in the US to be legit. Do you believe all of the propaganda? You probably think there were WMDs in Iraq as well.

The government applied an outdated law incorrectly (by their own admission now) along with the wildly vague UGIEA to attack businesses that were providing services to a willing customer base. Now that they have eliminated the foreign competition they will be nice enough to allow us to do something that was never illegal to begin with.

People with your mentality are why this country is becoming a bankrupt laughingstock.

Freedom includes the freedom to be a dumbass I suppose.

Oh, sorry we are supposed to be friendly around here. Welcome to CC

Not to mention Republicans only got the UIGEA passed by attaching it to a far more important bill.

Originally Posted by Charade You Are

Ya-that was their goal What light did they shine on any site other than FTP? --and that was just unintended fallout.

I won't politard up this thread but feel free to do some research on their over-reaching, political moves against businesses and states not to mention their coverup of selling guns to drug cartels.

Didn't they bring to light the methods the sights used to make payouts? Aren't two guys about to go on trial (Sun Bank) in about a month. Just to name one example.

Originally Posted by dmorris68

Okay, I'm no lover of the DOJ, but let's not cloud the issues with misinformation.

While I'd be the first to agree the "Fast and Furious" operation was entirely ill-conceived and poorly executed, the DOJ wasn't selling guns to drug cartels. They were staking out straw purchases by cartel representatives and allowing them to transport the weapons over the border. That's completely different than selling them directly.

Sorry, guilt by collusion.

Being beaten to death is completely different than being killed by a single shot to the head, so, uh,
Defending the indefensible do be a booger don't it, D.

Still DOJ shy, not leaving any more funds than minimal to keep my addiction going.

Nothing like the government to determine who stays in business and who shuts down. Same nonsense as twisting Switzerland's arm to turn over names of overseas account holders. Think any Senator's names will be on that list?

Did you know that all US citizens are going to become gamblerholics now? That's what I just learned from the TV news report just now.

Originally Posted by plainluck

Did you know that all US citizens are going to become gamblerholics now? That's what I just learned from the TV news report just now.

Please link me to these idiots

Reporting from Sacramento—
When state lawmakers convene again Jan. 4, their plates will be filled with leftovers.
Their agenda is expected to be dominated by issues that have been unresolved in the last few years: state budget problems, pension reform, a new water supply system and legalizing poker on the Internet.
But lawmakers face a huge distraction: The 2012 elections will be the first since their districts were redrawn to make them more competitive. Many officeholders face an uncertain political future.
The backdrop for those anxieties is the state's persistently grim financial situation. The deficit is expected to be nearly $13 billion for the new fiscal year that starts July 1.
"That is the big issue of the year, how we continue to grapple with the economic crisis," said Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles).
So officials are revisiting earlier ideas for raising money — besides increasing taxes, which Gov. http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/jerry-brown-PEPLT007547.topic hopes voters will do on the November ballot.
One revenue-spinner could be Internet gambling. Lawmakers held hearings in 2011 on a proposal that the state sanction certain websites for poker and other gambling, with a cut of the action going to the treasury. The matter was postponed until this year amid opposition from some Indian tribes that see such games as competition for their brick-and-mortar casinos.
Now, http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-senate-ORGOV0000134.topic President Pro Tem http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/darrell-steinberg-PEPLT006319.topic (D-Sacramento) has brought the two sides together in hopes of forging a compromise that lawmakers will pass, according to Mark Hedlund, a spokesman for the leader. Steinberg wants to regulate cyber-gambling "while providing revenue — hopefully hundreds of millions of dollars — to help us reinvest in public schools, higher education and public safety," Hedlund said.

Source please?

Originally Posted by dj11

Source please?

Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-legislature-20120102,0,6323620.story

Looks like a state senate thing? Is it only for Cal? or did I misread it?

Originally Posted by hawtshawt420

Looks like a state senate thing? Is it only for Cal? or did I misread it?

That one is just for California but I believe other states are looking at the same options due to the fact that they need money to blow on useless programs.

I'd hardly call education and public safety useless programs but ok. I'm Texas so I'll google some Texas stuff since I assume you wouldn't keep up with it. Do you happen to know anything about the national climate? Since Texas, like California, is such a big state I'd be fine with a State policy and just feel bad for less populated states. But I would hope for at least a national, if not international option.

Found this link about the individual climate of each state. Seems like most of the posts here are about California and I just can't believe that 99% of US posters are from California. Anyways, I read the Texas and they seemed pretty positive about it. To check if it was totally "cup half full" I just guessed a state which may not support. I picked Conn. (no offense if that is you) and their page wasn't as positive. Just thought players outside of CA might also be having a hard time finding anything that pertains to them.



It's set at texas since that's what I read. and sorry if it's been posted before. I know flopturnriver is a popular place for poker news so sorry if it's old news to you.

Originally Posted by PaulThePokerCat

Didn't they bring to light the methods the sights used to make payouts? Aren't two guys about to go on trial (Sun Bank) in about a month. Just to name one example.

And why do you think they had to do that? If it wasn't for the UIGEA, none of that crap would have been necessary. We were all happy with neteller until the government forced them to stop serving US poker players. Neteller, Citadel Commerce, Central Coin and Nexum Financial's (FTP's "Instant eCheck" provider) all stopped allowing U.S. players to conduct transactions with Internet gambling companies.

2007

Neteller to forfeit $136 million as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with prosecutors in their probe of illegal online gambling. At a hearing in federal court in Manhattan, John Carroll, a lawyer for the Isle of Man company, said Neteller had agreed to enter the agreement, in which the firm will avoid being prosecuted on a conspiracy charge if it avoids further wrongdoing for two years.