WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS DEAL?? (semi-long)

[Jax_Grinder]

Since you have seen fit to challenge not only my conclusion, but my credibility, I feel compelled to respond.

First, do not mistake your ability to quickly retrieve topical information online as a substitute for the ability to digest and understand that information and apply it to the issue at hand. As you will recall, my original post addressed two issues: 1) whether or not the contract would be enforceable based on 2) my conclusion that internet gaming (in this context, wagering on the outcome of a hand of poker) is likely illegal. Perhaps I should have inserted the phrase most likely in front of the term illegal in my original post, but I wrongly assuemd that anyone reading the post would derive that caveat from the context of my post. You will also note that I expressly stated that I was not familiar with the laws of all 50 states (though I was then, and remain now, confident that my position is the majority rule).

That said, the following quote leads me to question your reading comprehension skills:

[ QUOTE ]
Your statement that a gambling contract is not enforceable by the courts in any state is correct, I believe, but not for the reason you gave (illegality). Traditionally, gambling contracts are not enforceable at common law because to do so would be against public policy. That does not mean such contracts are illegal (although they are illegal in some, but not all, states).

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply did not say that the making of the contract itself was an illegal act. I said then, and will repeat now, that the contract is unenforceable because it seeks to impose legal obligations upon the parties arising out of an underlying illegal purpose (i.e., internet gaming). The public policy you speak of is the policy against enforcing contracts with an illegal purpose. In your reply, you agree to what is the proper conclusion, but wrongly imply that my initial analysis was faulty (and as evidence of that you simply restate my original position - thats just silly).

Finally, if you take the time to read even a portion of Prof. Rose's writings on this topic, you will see that his conclusion re: internet poker (and gaming in general) is "Noone is sure." He repeatedly references the absence of governing law on these issues and, not surprisingly, concludes that any lawyer offering advise to a client as to criminality of internet gaming (from the players perspective - this post never has been about hosting) must warn the client that such activities may certainly be found illegal under application of current, general gambiling statutes.

Money quote from your link:

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to know for sure is to check the laws of your state. I do not know of any state which has passed a law stating that players can play poker online. The best you can hope to find is that the state simply has never made this form of gambling [expressly] illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

(emphasis and edit are mine). I could go on and on about this. Suffice it to say that the next time you poke your nose into a thread for no other reason that to question another posters conclusions or credibility, you better come with better ammunition. As they say, you made the mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

PS: I have not bothered to reread my original post, but I recall that I may have used the term "illegal contract" and that may have confused you. "Illegal contract" is a term of art, and if you were knowledgeable on the subject, you would know that illegal refers to the intent of the parties to the contract rather than the act of making the contract.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
One other site I should have mentioned, with lots of information and articles on U.S. gaming law, by lawyers much more knowledgeable about the topic than those who have posted in this thread:

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting site. I've been reading up on the law in my state, and it's full of things like this:

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Prohibited.- A person may not conduct or operate with pari-mutuel betting, or with any similar form of betting, wagering, or gambling:
(1) the game, contest, or event commonly known as "jai alai"; or
(2) any other game, contest, or event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I could make stuff like that up.

[Jdanz]

i worked breifly for the NYPD, this is not true in practice, i don't any of the statuettes, but i know we've busted people for playing in NYC poker clubs, and for playing numbers.

-JDanz

[M.B.E.]

Jaxgrinder, sorry if I bruised your ego. I never disagreed with your statement that the OP's contract is unenforceable; in fact I expressly agreed with you on that point.

In response to a statement that online gaming is not illegal, you posted "Yes, online gaming is illegal in every jurisdiction that i am aware of." You also referred to gambling online as "an illegal activity".

Later you said, "Go read your state statute on gambling and you will see why online gaming is illegal in the jurisdiction from which the wager is placed."

I didn't want anyone to be misled by your statements, because the reality is that only about half the states make it a crime to make bets in some circumstances (according to the article by I. Nelson Rose that I linked to).

Later, you challenged me on my statement that playing online poker is not illegal in New York state.

I would have expected an apology from you after I backed up my statements, but instead in your most recent post you do your best to back away from your earlier statements without appearing to do so, all the while maintaining the arrogant, condescending tone.

Your explanation about the public policy rule in contract law is also inaccurate (you suggest it is inherently linked to the contract being for an illegal purpose), but I don't propose to discuss that point with you in detail on a poker forum.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is, because I'm confident in my abilities, that I will win at least two seats

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So you are expecting to win at least 2 $13,500 seats from a $500 stake. Good lord. Where do I sign up to stake you?

You are f'in delusional.

[Jax_Grinder]

In re-reading my post, I will admit that there were comments that were unnecessary as they related to the substance of the discussion. That was not constructive, I hate it when others do that, and I will work to avoid doing so in the future.

That said, I believe that we simply disagree on the issue, but perhaps more importantly, that disagreement may arise from approaching such a complex issue from different angles from which there are bound to be perceived differences (whether real or not). This is especially true given the space and time limitations inherent in posting messages online.

I suppose until someone decides to start prosecuting online user activity (beyond child pornography) this is all a moot point anyway.

Cheers