Friday’s a BIG day for many poker players.  It’s the last day poker players can make a claim in federal court for funds seized/frozen by the federal government on Black Friday.  So if you have money out there, stake your claim.  If nothing else, it will show solidarity and interest in poker to the feds monitoring the situation.  Good luck!  It may be the last online hand you win for quite some time.

All indications are that the AGA will not back the legislation introducted by Congressman Joe Barton in response to Black Friday.  The strange thing is that the bills are fairly similar.  I get wanting to protect your interests above those of others, but there is something called biting off your nose to spite your face.  (Anyone remember Seven?)  It has to be in poker’s best interest (and gaming generally) to legalize poker (and gaming), and then later tweak it if necessary.  These internal divisions are killing us.

Not too long PLB wrote about how the District of Columbia was set to become the first U.S. jurisdiction to have legal online poker.  Well, don’t bet on it.  The launch of the DC site has been delayed.  The alleged reason is to give D.C residents sufficient time to weigh in on where the “gambling hot spots” (it’s not like they are opium dens) can be located.  Please.  Let’s call a spade a spade.  This is a con to delay the launch because it would look bad to the federal government for the FEDERAL District of Columbia to make legal exactly what the feds recently took down, and are in the process of prosecuting.  We can do without the subterfuge.  Let’s cut out the BS and have an honest conversation.  We’re all adults.  Even if the government does not treat pokers players as them.

Bradley Franzen, one of the people who operated the online payment processors, has pled guilty to money laundering and aiding unlawful Internet gambling.  He cut a deal to talk.  Can’t blame the guy – he faces more than twenty years in prison, though likely will get far less in exchange for his plea and cooperation.  (Even though pleading guilty to a federal indictment is far less forgiving than the movies make it out to be or pleading guilty to a state indictment usually is.)  If I’m one of the other 10 indicted people, I’d be pretty nervous though.  The Feds doesn’t cut deals out of the goodness of its heart.  More dominoes likely will fall soon.

Just passing on a piece from Professor I. Nelson Rose.  Worth a read.

I’ve posted on this before (I think) years ago, and certainly thought about it after living in NYC for decades, but rather than reinvent the wheel I’ve decided in these troubling times simply to pass on another bloggers post.  At the end of the piece he questions why the SDNY is pursuing the action and not the jurisdictions in which state law specifically outlaws online poker.  I cannot be certain – only US Attorney General Holder knows the answer – but I would harbor a guess that the SDNY took action for a variety of reasons, including that Manhattan is the home of numerous large banks that have been hampered by the UIGEA’s requirements, the SDNY often takes the lead in pursuing advanced financial fraud, and NY federal law (precisely because of the first two reasons) is more developed than most jurisdictions on financial issues.  One other point about the post.  The allegations include bank fraud (i.e., lying to the banks about what the companies did) as opposed to admitting it was poker-related.  This is a significant distinction as proving poker is a game of skill will not remove the bank fraud allegations.  In other words, the sites still could be shut down.  Well, at least Absolute Poker.

Remember that World Trade Organization case from not too long ago that Antigua brought against the U.S. (and, by the way, won, though it had no practical effect)?  Well, it is rearing its head again and could be a boon to poker players around the world, and especially in the U.S.  Absolute Poker is based in Antigua, a tiny Caribbean nation that gets a significant portion of its gross national product from online poker/gaming.  It has long alleged that the U.S.’s anti-online poker stance when contrasted with it allowing online horse-betting and live poker is protectionist.  In perhaps one of my favorite quotations of all time, the Antiguan government’s legal advisor said “It’s as if Antigua would put Americans in jail for selling pineapples.”  How can anyone argue with that logic?  Unfortunately, many Americans are not against pineapples for moral reasons.  So here we are.

Anyway, all this is well and good, but the legal system pretty much played itself out with the original case and failure of the international community to stand up to the U.S.  But, just maybe, if Antigua can make enough noise again, and, just maybe, if the U.S.’s current stance ends up having a significant effect on the pocket books of larger countries via reduced rake from decreased play (think Britain), just maybe enough pressure will be exerted on the U.S. that it will alter its stance.  If you asked me whether I would bet on this happening my answer would be that you better be laying me some serious pot odds — more than it takes to draw to a one-outer on the river.  But in the game of life, and with nothing for me to lose at this point, I’ll take those odds cause it’s all I’ve got.  In the immortal words of Jim Carrey — “So you’re telling me there’s a chance… *YEAH!*”

Straight from the Government’s mouth:  This “Office expects the companies to return the money that U.S. players entrusted to them.”  Check out the “good” news here.

I find it interesting that we have not heard a peep from the banks.  Now banks do not normally comment on current events, but given how significant a cost enforcing the UIGEA’s regulations was(ugh, not is, was) on them I would have expected some sort of statement.  It makes me wonder.  For years the banks have had considerable influence on Capitol Hill — they are long-time residents of Gucci Gulch.  And they are the ones that benefit the most by the closing of the sites (public morals aside, of course…dripping with sarcasm…).   So their silence is damning. 

I hope some day we learn the truth about the bank’s role in this, if any.  Cause with all the banking options (brick-and-mortar and online, see a parallel…?) I just may choose to take my money to one that did not lobby in favor of UIGEA enforcement.

This may not be a popular opinion in these parts, but the more I think about it the more I support the government’s actions.  Let me clarify.  I am against criminalizing online poker, am against arresting players, and am against shuttering the sites.  But I’m also against people that flaunt the laws of the U.S. by engaging in subterfuge and deceit.  People that bribe bank officials and lie to regulators.  People that break the law not to prove some moral principle but to make money.  And that’s what the poker sites did (according to the government at least).  They wanted to make as much money as possible despite laws designed to stop their activities.  Rather than just lobby to change the laws, they covered up their activities by lying to banks (who are on the hook financially and legally for accepting banned payments) and, failing that, bribed some of them to ignore the law.  I sympathize with the underlying cause — online poker — but cannot support anyone that openly breaks U.S. laws.  As an American I cannot.  Our legal system is just too important to the stability and prosperity of our society.  It is a value I will not sacrifice, even if it means sacrificing poker played from the comfort of my couch, in boxer shorts.