| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: Internet gambling ALREADY in the U.S.? |
 |
|
HUH?! Is Internet gambling already legal in the U.S.?
Yahoo! Finance
Online gaming initiative gathers steam as industry stakeholders meet for Los Angeles summit
With leadership from state legislatures, legalization and regulation of online gaming industry may be closer to reality, BETonSPORTS plc Hosts Summit as Part of National Public Policy Initiative.
Sept. 27/04
| Quote: | | In the fourth in a series of summit meetings held here Friday, a panel of experts agreed that although consumers will have to wait for regulation of online gambling, and for laws to offer them basic protections, there is reason to be encouraged. Although moves at the federal level are complicating the process -- most notably an effort last week to attach a bill prohibiting online gambling to anti-terrorism legislation -- the panel expected that when it comes to gambling law it's the state governments which always have, and likely will, find the ultimate solution. |
Our e-mail to BETonSPORTS:
Link to this entry
http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=133#133
Last edited by legal on Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:30 pm; edited 20 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part I - North Dakota bill to make live poker a 'lawful contest of skill', leads the way to state-regulated online gambling:
IGN alert:
| Quote: | From: <NewsLetter>
To: <legal>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:54 AM
Subject: IGN Exclusive Interview with Jim Kasper
IGamingNews.com is carrying an exclusive audio interview with Jim Kasper, the U.S. state representative who recently introduced a bill to bring regulated Internet poker to North Dakota (emphasis ours). Kasper's bill was passed in the House last week and will go before the Senate next month. Now he's asking the I-gaming industry for support and will bring representatives of the industry to Bismarck to testify in favor of the bill. In the interview, Kasper talks about why he wants to legalize online poker, why he thinks he can get it done and why he believes federal policies won't stand in the way of his efforts. |
See also, Proposed Bill Could Lead to Legalized Internet Poker in North Dakota by Bradley Vallerius at IGNFeb. 5/05:
| Quote: | House Bill 1509 was introduced on Jan. 17 by Reps. Jim Kasper (R), Mark Dosch (R), Ronald Iverson (R) and Dave Weiler (R) and Sen. Randy Schobinger (R). It would amend section 12.1-28-01 of the North Dakota Century Code by revising the definition of gambling. A subsection that exempts "lawful contests of skill" from a list of prohibited activities would be supplemented with the phrase "including Internet live poker." According to Kasper, "Poker is much different than gambling. The skill is what you do with what you are given."
The bill would also provide for the authorization of live Internet poker games and empower the attorney general to license and regulate Internet poker operations. To develop and implement a sufficient licensing and regulatory program, the attorney general would be asked to contract a knowledgeable private entity for assistance.
At the moment, the bill's tax structure would impose an eight per cent tax on the first $1 million in adjusted gross proceeds earned by a licensed operator. A six per cent tax would then be levied on the second $1 million, followed by four per cent on the third, two per cent on the next five, 0.5 percent on the next $50 million and 0.25 percent on any amount in excess of $58 million. |
Link to this entry
http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=138#134
Last edited by legal on Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:02 pm; edited 10 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part II - DoJ says North Dakota bill violates federal law, bill defeated
Reviewed-Poker.com
North Dakota poker bill facing legal challenges
By InfoPowa
Mar. 15/05
| Quote: | But legal experts who follow the industry say the DOJ is not on firm ground. Attorneys Anthony Cabot, Frank Catania, Pat O'Brien and Allyn Jaffrey Shulman testified last week before the North Dakota Senate, and all four were adamant that regulated online poker in North Dakota would not violate any federal laws. "They (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.
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." (emphasis added)
Catania said the Anti-Gambling Act would be a moot point because it allows the federal government to bring charges only against individuals who are operating gambling services that are in violation of state laws. "If North Dakota, or a similar state, passed a bill that allowed for the activity to be licensed and regulated," Catania pointed out, "then individuals would hardly be in violation of state laws."
The attorneys also argued that the Travel Act applies only to the distribution of funds gained from "illegal" activities. Therefore, if Internet poker was deemed legal in the state, any funds derived from the activity would be perfectly legal. |
See also, Justice Dept. to Stenehjem: ND Internet poker bill illegal, by Dale Wetzel of Associated Press March 11/05:
Soon after:
Bismarck Tribune
Internet poker bill defeated
By Dale Wetzel, Associated Press
March 22/05
| Quote: | The Legislature's dalliance with Internet poker regulation ended abruptly Monday, when a bill to make North Dakota the first state to license cyberspace poker tables got only three Senate votes to support it.
"This is just another vehicle for more gambling in North Dakota, and I'm not so sure we want it," said Sen. David Nething, R-Jamestown.
The measure lost in the Senate, 44-3, after a brief debate Monday. It squeaked through the House last month, 49-43, and its sponsor, Rep. Jim Kasper, R-Fargo, has been lobbying senators on the measure's behalf.
Sens. Connie Triplett, D-Grand Forks, John Syverson, R-Fargo, and Jack Traynor, R-Devils Lake, backed the measure. They supported it in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which reviewed the legislation. |
See also, Internet poker measure draws lousy hand in Senate, March 26/05, also by Wetzel:
| Quote: | Internet poker's run of bad luck continued in the North Dakota Senate, with senators overwhelmingly defeating a constitutional amendment that sought to require the Legislature to regulate the game.
The amendment drew only three votes on Friday, the same number that a separate bill to regulate and tax Internet poker sites received when senators rejected it on Monday. The amendment was defeated 43-3.
Supporters of licensing cyberspace poker had hoped the constitutional amendment would draw more support, because North Dakota voters would ultimately decide whether the state would regulate the game. The amendment, had it been approved, would have been placed on the June 2006 ballot, and would not have taken effect unless voters endorsed it. |
Link to this entry
http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=135#135
Last edited by legal on Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:04 pm; edited 17 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What about Utah's jealously-guarded total gambling prohibition?
desertnews.com
Is gambling Utah bound? A WTO ruling could result in Net gaming — or more
By Jerry Spangler
March 26/05
| Quote: | Utah politicos have long been proud of the fact the state has no legal gambling of any kind — one of only two states in the country that can say so. But those days could come to an end. A ruling in a legal dispute between the United States and the tiny island nation of Antigua could ultimately result in legalized Internet gambling in the Beehive State.
Racetracks and even casinos would likely not be far behind if the decision, expected in the next two weeks by the World Trade Organization, goes against the United States and if gaming companies decide to push the limits of free-trade agreements. The state could do little, if anything, to stop them.
"That is a possibility," said Robert Stumberg, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, "unless the United States renegotiates its present trade commitments on recreation and gambling services." (See Prof. Stumberg's Publications).
Antigua, which has replaced its sugar and banana economy with Internet gambling targeted primarily at Americans, complained to the WTO that the Americans were violating a 1993 trade agreement when the United States tried to stop Antigua from offering Internet gambling to American citizens. The trade agreement, signed by the United States, involved cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. A WTO dispute panel ruled this past November that the United States was in violation of its international trade obligations. In other words, Antigua can't be stopped by the United States.
The WTO decision, in general terms, means that laws used by particular states to limit or forbid gambling are considered by the dispute panel as a violation of "market access" principles of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
The U.S. appealed, and a ruling is expected by April 7.
"In trade-speak, Utah's prohibition amounts to the use of a zero-quota on the supply of Internet gambling services, and that's a violation of market access," said Peter Riggs, director of the Forum on Democracy and Trade. |
| Quote: | | Note: Both the prof and Mr. Riggs will be speaking April 15-16/05 in Washington, D.C. at a special seminar of the National Conference of State Legislatures entitled, International Trade, Preemption and the States: A Policy and Legal Primer for State Legislative and Legal Officials. Their topic: |
| Quote: | The Alphabet Soup of the World Trading System: An Overview of the Status Quo - GATT, WTO, GATS, NAFTA, CAFTA … what does this alphabet soup mean? What is the current law of the land regarding trade agreements? What agreements are already in place and what has been the states’ experience so far? NAFTA Chapter 11 claims like Metalclad (challenging local land use and environmental safety standards), Methanex (challenging state environmental law), and Loewen (challenging state court authority), among others, will serve as case studies. In addition to answering some of these important questions, this session will also explain many of the key provisions and terms – such as ‘least burdensome,’ ‘no greater rights,’ and ‘investor-state dispute resolution’ – in trade agreements and what states need to know about them.
Presiding: Elliot BURG, Assistant Attorney-General, Public Protection Division, Vermont.
Speakers: Peter RIGGS, Director, Forum on Democracy & Trade, New York, Robert STUMBERG, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, District of Columbia (invited), Richard FRANK, Chief Deputy Attorney General for Legal Affairs, Department of Justice, California (invited) and Andrea MENAKER, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, District of Columbia.
|
We've asked Prof. Stumberg for his comments from the seminar. We'll post any replies we receive here. Please check back updates.
Link to this entry
http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=138#138
Last edited by legal on Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:07 pm; edited 20 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
