Can someone clarify

Is online gambling to become illegal in USA??? I've been reading a few confusing posts the these last weeks. Can anyone that knows whats going on please clarify?


Thanks

Peter

It's a felony. It violates the interstate wire act of 1961. A man named Jay Cohen has been convicted for being an owner. The cowardly crooks that run online rooms and advertize here know it. That's the real reson they remain anonymous. Every government in the free world has identified online gambling as controlled by organized crime, open for business to launder terrorist and drug cartel money, and basically give Uncle Sam the middle finger.


The addicted mental cases below whine that that the French, The American, The German, The Uk, and The Commonwealth States' law enforement agencies are all full of it. Of course, if you are collecting revenue as an insider you have a reason to put out such crap.


Sklansky and Malmuth won't pay your legal bills when the Feds come knocking on your door with an indictment. Matter of fact, they will probably laugh all the way to the bank.

The 1961 Wire Act that you often here about

can only be directed at the sites who take/

solicit wagers.


And if the owner of that site is not an American citizen,

they have nothing to worry about.


Jay Cohen is the only person prosecuted who tried to

defend himself. Unfortunately he was found guilty

since the judge had no clue how the internet works.

His first appeal was also thrown out.


As a side note he was also taking phone wagers,

which clearly violates the wire act. Its still

actually unclear whether his internet activities

were illegal.


Here is a link on part of that story:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/369978.asp


This is also more than likely why the owners of paradise

are so hush.


So you as a player have nothing to worry about.


Our lawmakers are currently trying to pass more

than 1 bill aimed at stopping internet gambling,

but it will be hard to do at this stage

(They even tried to

throw this into one of the terrorism bills, so

it could get a quick rubber stamp, but it was

taken out right before it got passed..I believe

the Senate took it out)


The current momentum seems to indicate that it

will be fully legalized before it becomes illegal.

Even major US Casinos have been gearing up for

the transition.


But don't listen to me, do a search and read up as

much as you can on Jay Cohen, and Senator Kyle.

This is 3 years old and probably dated. The state in which you live has jurisdiction. Laws vary from state to state. With the advent of the new surveillance policies that passed seeking financial sources of terrorism, you can bet that organized crime links to these businesses will be further investigated, and prosecuted. Of course, many people here don't believe that the country is at war.


STATEMENT OF KEVIN V. DI GREGORY DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CRIMINAL DIVISION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING

GAMBLING ON THE INTERNET PRESENTED ON JUNE 24, 1998

The Department continues to believe, however, that in the absence of fraud or organized crime involvement, primary regulatory enforcement responsibility for gambling laws should remain with the states.


That being said, 18 U.S.C. 1084 -- the Wire Communications Act --currently prohibits someone in the business of betting and wagering from using a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest. This law was originally enacted to assist the states and territories in enforcing their laws and to suppress organized crime involvement with gambling. To the extent that Internet casinos are likely to be located abroad and beyond the easy reach of state authorities, the states are likely to seek federal assistance more frequently when foreign casinos offer gaming to local citizens in violation of local law. Assisting states through enforcement of the Wire Communications Act, therefore, is fully consistent with the Department's law enforcement priorities.


To be perfectly clear, however, the Department believes that many forms of Internet gambling can be effectively prosecuted under existing state and federal law. Because most methods of connecting to the Internet involve the use of "wire communication facilities" as defined in the Section 1084, anyone in the business of betting or wagering who transmits or receives bets and wagers on sporting events via the Internet is acting in violation of the Wire Communications Act. In appropriate cases, the Department will bring prosecutions under this statute. The recent complaints filed in the Southern District of New York illustrate this point. In those cases, the United States Attorney's Office filed criminal complaints against twenty-one individuals who owned and managed nine overseas sports betting establishments that accepted bets and wagers from United States citizens over the telephone and via the Internet. All of the complaints charged violations of Section 1084, the Wire Communications Act. Already, three of the individuals charged in those complaints have pled guilty to violating section 1084.


However, the Department also recognizes that the advent of Internet gambling may have diminished the overall effectiveness of the Wire Communications Act, in part, because that statute may relate only to sports betting and not to the type of real-time interactive gambling (e.g., poker) that the Internet now makes possible for the first time. Therefore, the Department generally supports the idea of amending the federal gambling statutes by clarifying that the Wire Communications Act applies to interactive casino betting and that the Act covers all Internet use, even if the Internet transmissions use modern technology -- such as satellite communications -- that may not be included in the traditional definition of "wire communications."


That's from just a Deputy US Attorney General. Not a credible source for the patrons of twoplustwo.

Is the legal state of on-line gambling is the same in Canada as in the States?

About three months ago I called the office of the FBI on advice from the Oregon State police (who told me there is NO state law against gaming - by players) and asked if there is any federal prohibition against online gaming. The answer was an unequivocal 'NO'. There may be some way they keep you from starting up your own site in the U.S., but there's nothing to prevent us from playing.


There are politicians who want to make it illegal someday but they haven't done it yet. When it is prohibited, it's going to require brand new laws, because the Internet is something that was not conceived of back in 1961. With online activity nothing is crossing state lines except electrons.

GO ahead and play then. You haven't stayed up to date.You are not credible.

What was the name of the Special Agent you spoke to? I don't think you are credible. The FBI testified last week in the PATRIOT hearings that internet gambling is used to launder money for organized crime,that they suspect terrorist organizations of doing the same, and that they are fully against it. I think you made this up.

George,


Where did you get your law degree? In which jurisdiction do you practice? Are you currently licensed and insured to give legal opinions and advice? If not, *you* are the one that's breaking the law. (I can tell from your response that you are not a lawyer nor do you know what you are talking about) As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I think you're safe on that front.


I am a lawyer. I would advise any concerned party to get *qualified* legal advice in their jurisdiction.

You right on the state laws issue.

I believe there are a few states that

strictly prohibit internet gambling.

He didn't offer any advice. You know internet gambling is a crime. Telling people that a felony is a felony is not a crime.


Lawyers don't do well in prison. Come on, Mr. Bigshot. What's your name, where are you licensed, whats your license number, and how much online poker do you play?


I bet that you won't respond with any of the above, except perhaps what a great internet gambler you consider yourself to be.

I agree with anonymous. No advice was given other than don't break the law. I believe that your post , considering you included an e-mail address, qualifies as unethical advertizing. What is your license number? What is you name? You have posted several times before about your internet poker activity. If you are a lawyer, I have a good joke for your kind......;.

I didn't give or offer any advice, unlike you. I did suggest that the 1961 law makes internet gambling illegal. That is the truth.


Where are you licensed? What is your license number? Who gives you the right to offer unsolicited legal advice? You did post an e-mail address. I wonder what disciplnary district governs your license?

Well, how much would you like to bet, and who will we get to hold the money? Let's make it something worthwhile. Say...$5000?

Lets have your States' Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel hold the "stakes". I consider your offer of legal advice under your e-mail address unethical advertizing. Let the judicial ethics system decide.

Someone asks whether it's illegal for him to play internet poker. You say something to the effect "Yes, if you play internet poker you are committing a felony, and this is the statute that prohibits it." How is that not offering a legal opinion and advice?


I, on the other hand, advised him to seek qualified legal advice in his jurisdiction. How is that offering legal advice?


As I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Ah, you misread my statement. I stated that internet gambling is a felony under the 1961 statute. I didn't say poker;nevertheless, there is a quote from the former Deputy Attorney General of the USA below that supports my argument.


I decline your unsolicited offer for representation.

No bet then? Gotta love people who offer to bet then run like little babies when called on it. You must be an awful poker player. Very lame bluff on your part.

You are the fool putting forth that you are a lawyer. The bet is that your State's disciplinary processs would find your posts hear unethical. I consider it an unsolicted offer. I declined. If you want to gamble, give me your name and license number.

George quit while you are behind. You're really starting to embarrass yourself.

Congratulations, you win the dumbest poster of the year award.

I think not. I think at least 2 people have rejected your unsolicited advertizing. The only one risking his license here is you. That is, of course, if you really have one. Claiming to be an attorney when you aren't is a crime. Unsolicited advertizing is unethical. Either way, you are the fool. If you think you won't have a problem with the discplinary authorities, then publish your name and license number. Otherwise, your just another smoke and mirror supporter of what the FBI states is an industry rife with organized crime.

Of course I win this silly debate. You can't reveal who you truly are without facing disciplinary action. I do win.

Internet gambling is not a federal felony.

If you base your claims on Jay Cohen


As I previously stated:

Just because he was successfully prosecuted under

the wire act doesnt mean its cut & dry. There are still

issues that are unanswered since he was actually

"soliciting phone wagers" at the same time as taking

internet bets.


Go preach somewhere else troll (really).


You probably don't even play poker.

>You can't reveal who you truly are


Of course I can. I'm happy to reveal who I am. My identity is no secret anyway. I'm fairly well known and there's hundreds of people in the internet poker scene who know who I am and where I live. But *you* offered to bet that I wouldn't reveal my identity in this thread, and I want to know how much a little girl like you is willing to bet before I do.

Let's recap.


1. Someone posted a question asking for a legal opinion.


2. In response you rendered an incredibly simplistic and uninformed legal opinion.


3. I immediately recognized from the information contained in your response that you could not possibly be a lawyer, and were therefore wholly unqualified to render such an opinion.


4. I cautioned the original poster to ignore your advice and to seek qualified legal advice in his jurisdiction.


Guess what? That's not an advertisement.It's not a solicitation for business. It's not legal advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a blanket warning for people not to accept legal advice from any anonymous net kook that comes along wanting to play armchair lawyer.


As I stated to "anonymous" (but that's really you isn't it?) my identity is no secret. But like the idiot he is, he wanted to bet me that I wouldn't post my name,jurisdiction, etc. I'm just waiting patiently for him to clarify how much he wants to bet and what assurances he can offer that I will get paid. As you can tell, I'm literally shaking in my boots over the prospect of disciplinary action ;-)


Do yourself a favor: I'm sure you must know something about something. Maybe it's lawn bowling, or knitting, or kite flying. It sure as hell ain't the law. Go find a discussion group on something that you actually know something about. Maybe your "advice" will be well received there.

It's never a good idea to give a net kook personal info.


http://www.smbtech.com/lawsuit.html


MS Sunshine

" I want to know how much a little girl like you is willing to bet before I do."


I'll bet the type whose mother will not let her leave the house with a skirt on unless it hangs below her knees.


MS Sunshine

Lets recap. Someone claiming to be a lawyer gives unsolicited legal advice on the internet with an e-mail address as a contact. That's unsolicited advertizing. He also gives poor legal advice. He threatens to sue. Another ethical problem for attorneys. If an attorney is going to sue, he damn well better do it. He offers over state lines using the US telephony network to wager $5,000 on an activity. A clear violation of the 1961 statute. He refuses to identify himself when asked about his license number or his name. Unethical once again. Unless you are a jail house lawyer, you are subject to discipline. You said that you wanted to wager. I said that I would take it up with your State's Supreme Court. You still haven't identified yourself. Of course you cannot now if you are in fact an attorney, for fear of losing your livlihood. You are no different than the anonymous owners of Paradise Poker, and other offshore gambling establishments.


You are simply another charlatan.

Lets recap. Someone claiming to be a lawyer gives unsolicited legal advice on the internet with an e-mail address as a contact. That's unsolicited advertizing. He also gives poor legal advice. He threatens to sue. Another ethical problem for attorneys. If an attorney is going to sue, he damn well better do it. He offers over state lines using the US telephony network to wager $5,000 on an activity. A clear violation of the 1961 statute. He refuses to identify himself when asked about his license number or his name. Unethical once again. Unless you are a jail house lawyer, you are subject to discipline. You said that you wanted to wager. I said that I would take it up with your State's Supreme Court. You still haven't identified yourself. Of course you cannot now if you are in fact an attorney, for fear of losing your livlihood. You are no different than the anonymous owners of Paradise Poker, and other offshore gambling establishments.


You are simply another charlatan.

Thanks MS. You are of course right, but as I said to El Kook-o,it's too late: my identity is no secret. In fact, if he had half a brain he wouldn't even be bothering to ask me my name.


As for reporting me to a disciplinary committee for "advertizing", he can of course go right ahead. I can take a joke. The folks on the discipline committee deserve a good laugh once in while too. Of course, they wouldn't laugh at him to his face. They'd send him a polite letter telling him in so many words to go away.


You know many times I've heard threats like this? More times than GeorgeMcG has brain cells (in other words, dozens). You can probably guess how many times I've been disciplined. It gets kinda old after a while.


I exposed him for what he is, and he did what most net kooks do: threatened some bogus legal action. I fully expected as much. (BTW, did you ever read the reasons for judgment in the Doug Grant case? You should...it's hilarious).


Now that I've made it clear to him that he doesn't scare me in the slightest he's making bogus posts in my name. These guys are so pathetic. I actually feel kinda sorry for the guy. He must be awfully lonely. OK deep down I'm a softy...but imagine what kind of life this guy has as an internet troll. It's pretty sad.

Federal law only prohibits interstate bookmaking, the crime for which Jay Cohen was convicted. See, e.g., the link below ("Existing [federal] laws apply only to people in the business of betting or wagering"). No one has been ever been federally prosecuted for playing internet poker, and there's no reason to believe that anyone ever will.


You might want to consult your local statutes to see if they apply.

I suppose that playing in unlicensed casinos is legal in Colorado? The gaming commision would disagree.


You are not credible.

Lets recap. Someone claiming to be a lawyer gives unsolicited legal advice on the internet with an e-mail address as a contact. That's unsolicited advertizing. He also gives poor legal advice. He threatens to sue. Another ethical problem for attorneys. If an attorney is going to sue, he damn well better do it. He offers over state lines using the US telephony network to wager $5,000 on an activity. A clear violation of the 1961 statute. He refuses to identify himself when asked about his license number or his name. Unethical once again. Unless you are a jail house lawyer, you are subject to discipline. You said that you wanted to wager. I said that I would take it up with your State's Supreme Court. You still haven't identified yourself. Of course you cannot now if you are in fact an attorney, for fear of losing your livlihood. You are no different than the anonymous owners of Paradise Poker, and other offshore gambling establishments.


You are simply another charlatan.

Only winners should worry about gambling online. You don't get arrested for gambling, you do for tax evasion as most gamblers don't pay taxes on their winnings.