San Antonio D.A. Takes Big Money Deal in Exchange for Gambling Prosecution

2006 WSOP finalist, Richard Lee, was congratulated for his efforts by his home town D.A. by raiding his home. In August of 2006, not long after the WSOP, Lee was charged with operating a gambling and bookmaking operation from his home in San Antonio.
On Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007, the D.A. accepted a plea bargain where Lee got a misdemeanor slap-on-the-wrist for keeping a place of gambling in exchange for a no contest plea and $2.5 million dollars. See article here.
Wow, what does a murder rap buy-out cost?
Is the war on gambling about truth? justice? morals? ...or perhaps, it's about the Benjamins.

This Doesn’t Look Like Kansas, Toto...Kansas First to Have State-Owned Casinos

During the past two years, several people have asked me for my opinion of various proposals to expand gambling Texas. My answer has usually been: "well it is not the plan I would create if it were up to me, but I am for any plan that gives us the freedom to gamble in our own State."
Many have then asked: "what would you do if it were up to you?" My response has been to suggest a plan where the state owned the casinos so that a larger chunk of the profits went back to the state rather than just placing a tax on a privately-owned casino.
The ususal reply I get is: "Is that possible?"
Possible? Kansas is aiming to do just that.
Kansas will be the first state to open state-owned casinos. The State will own the equipment, land, and buildings of four casinos soon to be constructed and opened. They will contract out the management of day-to-day operations to private companies for "privilege fees" totalling 80.5 million. The casino employees will be employees of the contractor. Kansas will receive 22% of the annual revenue of each casino.
To put this in perspective, Mississippi casinos generated 2.6 billion in revenues in 2006. 22% would amount to $576 million annual revenues. That could reduce alot of property taxes and fund alot of educations.
Kansas has finally woken up to the fact that its people are going to play somewhere. It can either be in their own state, or the one next door. When will Texas finally wake up?

Obsolete Poker Chips for Trade

I have acquired some poker chips from a closd casino-- The Jack Niemann Casino that was located in Bellingham, Washington. It was reportedly closed after about 3 months of operation.
I have about 100 of the $1.00 denomination chips for trade. I am interested in trading them for other obsolete casino chips, hard-to-find chips, foreign chips or current chips from states other than Louisiana, Texas or Nevada. $1.00 denomination preferred.
If you are interested, email me at paul@legalizetexasgambling.com with the chips you have for trade.
Paul
click here for chip image.

Focus on the Family Plays Politics Again

Once upon a time, James Dobson's Focus on the Family was a good family-service organization. Dobson wrote and promoted several great books and Bible studies that were aimed at helping people.
Then one day, they decided to play politics. Forget the separation of church and state notion this country was founded on, by golly Focus on the Family and other religious organizations decided they wanted to legislate morality through politics.
This has not fared well. The republicans immediately jumped in bed with them and gained their political support by claiming they supported "family values." Then churches followed, with political speeches from the pulpit denouncing the democrats in favor of good brother Bush and other "conservative" candidates. Now, after watching the Rush Limbaugh's abuse drugs and senators sending naughty emails to little boy interns, people wonder what "family" the republicans and these religious organizations envisioned in their family value campaign.
The good name of Focus on the Family has, in my opinion, been tarnished. In addition to the above, they were linked to helping convicted felon, Jack Abramoff, stop an indian tribe from expanding a casino that was in direct competition with one of Abramoff's clients. See article here. Of course, Dobson et al claim it was a coincidence they were fighting the same casino, but emails obtained from Abramoff and cohorts by subpoena suggest otherwise.
Now Dobson and crew have joined with other religious groups in writing a letter to the U.S. Congress attacking online gambling and urging congress to continue to defy the World Trade Organization's ruling against the U.S...a defiance that could result in severe sanctions including the dishonoring of our copyright, trademark and patent laws.
What is their justification for asking this? In their letter, they justify their request by making self-serving conclusory allegations such as their claim that internet gambling "creates fertile ground for criminal activity and threatens homeland security by potentially funding terrorist activity." But they offer no evidence to support this claim.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am unaware of a single internet casino that has been proven to have links to terrorist funding. I am unaware of anyone who has been convicted of funding terrorism through online gambling. But of course, if you want the government to do something, the best thing you can do is claim the opposite action has links to terrorism so that the government can justify it to the people--true or not.
If we are going to outlaw online gambling because it "threatens homeland security by potentially funding terrorist activity," then logically, we should outlaw everything that has the potential to fund terrorist activity. The first thing we outlaw in that category will have to be religion.
Think about it. There is a large amount of loosely accounted for cash flowing through in the offering plates that can easily be piped to terrorist organizations. In fact, after 911, a number of religious organizations were shut down as groups that funded terrorists. Thus, we know for a fact religion has funded terrorism. I'm sorry Mr. Dobson, but under your own logic, you will have to shut down Focus on the Family. It clearly has the potential to fund terroist activity.
I am not advocating the banning of religion. I am merely pointing the above out because it shows how poorly thought out the letter to Congress was in this case. The letter throws around politically motivating phrases without any substantiation of the claims and the argument for banning online gaming is completely illogical.
The family values movement was a farce. The first gambling letter got Focus on the Family scruitinized for having assisting a now convicted felon. Now this letter resorts to unsubstantiated self-serving allegations and illogical arguments to obtain a desired result. These do not seem like the tactics of a good religious organization. They seem like the tactics of a dirty politician. Perhaps the reason our forefathers separated the church and the state is not because of the effects religion would have on politics but because of the effects politics has upon all it touches. The more Dobson and Focus on the Family delve into politics, the less they look...well, for lack of a better description...Christ-like.

Neteller Returns 94 Million to U.S. Customers

The official email notice has been sent. Neteller has announced that U.S. customers may log in and request a fund return starting July 30, 2007. Here is the official announcement:

The NETELLER Plc Group has announced that the distribution of funds to its US members will begin on July 30, 2007.
You are receiving this e-mail because our records reflect that you are a US member who may request funds from NETELLER. As of July 30, you will be able to make a request for funds on NETELLER's website by signing in to your account. In the meantime, you should visit our online FAQs for more information about the distribution plan.
Please note that US members will not be able to request funds from the NETELLER website after January 26, 2008.
NETELLER Plc Group

Get your money by January 26, 2008 or kiss it goodbye.

H.R. 2046, Are We Replacing Bad Law with More Bad Law?

On its hype, H.R. 2046, The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, sounds like the savior of the online gambling world. It's sponsor, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, talks of how the Unlawful Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is an intrusion upon individual freedoms in interviews as if his Bill would do away will all prohibitions on online gambling. However, the Bill is a far cry from that. Perhaps we should focus on repealing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act instead of substituting one problematic law for another.
H.R. 2046 provides a method for online gambling companies to become licensed to operate in the U.S. by subjecting themselves to U.S. jurisdiction, regulation and taxes. But this would not give them the right to operate openly and freely across the United States.
H.R. 2046 contains specific exclusions for States and Indian Nations who do not allow certain types of gambling. Those States and Nations could notify the Federal Government that they wish to "opt out" with respect to some or all forms of gambling. It would then be up to the Internet Gambling Companies to sort state-by-state, and disallow each type of gambling prohibited in the individual states.
So, in theory, if you lived in a state that allowed card rooms but not craps, you might be allowed only to play in certain parts of the website.
The Act is clearly an attempt to allign U.S. laws with the World Trade Organization's latest ruling--that the U.S. Internet Gambling Laws are an unfair restriction upon free trade. But how will it reconcile with states that have a state-run monopoly on certain forms of gambling such as the Texas Lottery? Texas would presumably opt out of allowing Internet Lotteries since Texas citizens cannot run a lottery. But this still runs afoul of free trade.
In addition, the sponsor's justification for the Act--to remove the government's intrusion upon individual freedoms--is wholly lost when some states will allow internet gambling and others will opt out. What happens to the individual freedoms of those in the opt out states? Texas would most likely opt out since casino gambling is not legal here. What happens to my individual freedoms, Barney?
Another problem is that the bill codifies a potential 5 year imprisonment penalty for an online company allowing a prohibited form of gambling in a state that opted out of that type of gambling. Prior to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the U.S. could only try to prosecute online gambling under the old vague, Wire Act. Then, at least the online gambling operators could claim the law was to vague to enforce and that it made no sense to apply it against them because gambling is not really illegal under Federal Law. Furthermore, they could argue that the U.S. had no right to prosecute them since they were not located in the U.S.
Mr. Frank's Bill will make it clear that the online gambling companies must screen out the players or face jail time. Moreover, because they have agreed to submit to U.S. jurisdiction, they will have no way to claim that U.S. laws do not apply to them as foreign companies. They will be, in effect, taking on a legal liability they simply should not legally have to.
In summary, it seems to me that the Bill neither achieves its stated purpose--protecting individual freedoms--nor it's substantial purpose--to comply with the WTO ruling. Furthermore, it will take away the defenses of online gambling companies that have allowed them to extend their sites to all Americans in the past.
With sanctions looming on the horizon, the U.S. must either repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act or redraft it to comply with the WTO ruling. Repealing it gets us out of hot water with the WTO and back to where we were before. Replacing it with another law that violates our WTO agreements simply does not make sense.

The 2007 Legislative Session Recap

The 2007 legislative session ended with no new gambling bills passing. Norma Chavez' Indian Gaming bill receives the prize for best effort. Her bill made the House floor and was voted on. Unfortunately, the vote ended in a tie 66-66 which equals a loss by one vote.

Second place goes to the Texas Poker PAC's bill to legalize poker which was set for consideration but, due to a shortage of time, never got a chance to be voted on.

Third place goes to Chris Shields and the Texas Gaming Commission for their heavily funded bill to create 12 Casinos in Texas that died in committee.

This is the closest a gambling bill has come to passing in a long time. We are hopeful that the door is opened wide enough so that 2009 will bring about the freedom to gamble in Texas again.

Thank you to all of those who supported the battle.