sent (although mine i think is apparently hardheaded and not open to changing his mind)

 

Originally Posted by scarface_79

sent (although mine i think is apparently hardheaded and not open to changing his mind)

It's probably most important to make sure the hardheaded ones hear the most from us. While they may never like us, perhaps they'll have to respect us.

 

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

To follow the progress of the Twitter efforts, just CLICK HERE to check out all the activity.

Gov. Perry is starting to hear from poker players. Let's all call and send a Tweet today. Thanks!

Sent
I haven't been too active in any of this and involved with online poker much over the past couple years, but I used to be and know how big of a deal this would have been to me when I was playing nonstop. I hope all this hard work pays off for you guys.

 

Originally Posted by DOITDEALER

Sent
I haven't been too active in any of this and involved with online poker much over the past couple years, but I used to be and know how big of a deal this would have been to me when I was playing nonstop. I hope all this hard work pays off for you guys.

Thanks for the encouragement. I appreciate your taking the time to send it. When you come back to playing, the plan is to have a lot of poker available.

sent

Sent. My legislative representatives, or at least their office staffers, hear from me on this on a regular basis.

They all support and voted for the UIGEA, but what the hell, maybe some others in Congress will change their positions and on-line poker will survive, who knows.

Good article in the LA Times:<title>LA Times: A push to legalize Internet gambling</title>

Read/digg: http://digg.com/d1r4Ae

Direct digg link: http://digg.com/politics/LA_Times_A_..._casino_gaming

Twitter: http://is.gd/zkkL

<hr>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6672183.story

A push to legalize Internet gambling

Supporters tell Congress that online gaming can be regulated and taxed. Critics worry that such easy access to betting could worsen addictions.

By Ben Meyerson

May 13, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The online gambling industry is waging a campaign in Congress to legalize Internet betting, arguing that it is here to stay and can be regulated and taxed. But opponents are raising moral objections.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), head of the House Financial Services Committee, is leading the fight for gamblers. A previous effort by Frank failed to get out of committee, but the combination of grass-roots and corporate support -- as well as the weakening of the Republican Party -- might improve the odds, advocates said.

"The poker players and other online gamblers have gotten organized," Frank said, adding that he supported the legislation as a matter of personal freedom.

I. Nelson Rose, a professor at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa and coauthor of the book "Internet Gaming Law," thinks Frank will have the power to push legislation through the House this time around.

"It will pass, although there will be changes," Rose said. "Very few people in Congress really care at all about Internet gambling.".......

sent

Got a quick response from the Congressman who represents my district...although he didn't take a stand one way or the other.

<SPAN class=Normal-H>May 11, 2009</SPAN>

<SPAN class=Normal-H>Dear xxxx,</SPAN>

<SPAN class=Normal-H>Thank you for contacting me about the Federal regulation of online gambling. This is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your concerns. </SPAN>

<SPAN class=Normal-H>The Wire Act of 1961 makes the electronic transmission of betting funds or betting information a crime. While this law has been interpreted by the <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_0 class=yshortcuts>Department of Justice</SPAN> to include a prohibition of online poker playing, the US <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_1 class=yshortcuts>Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals</SPAN> ruled in November 2002 that the Wire Act "does not prohibit internet gambling on a <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_2 class=yshortcuts>game of chance</SPAN>." The <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_3 class=yshortcuts>Supreme Court</SPAN> has not made a final ruling as to whether the Wire Act applies to online poker. </SPAN>

<SPAN class=Normal-H>The <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_4 class=yshortcuts>Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act</SPAN> (UIGEA) was passed into law on October 13, 2006. The UIGEA makes it a crime for businesses involved in betting or wagering to accept credit or <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_5 class=yshortcuts>electronic fund transfers</SPAN> or any other <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_6 class=yshortcuts>financial transaction</SPAN> in connection with <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_7 class=yshortcuts>unlawful Internet gambling</SPAN>. </SPAN>

<SPAN class=Normal-H>H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, and H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, were both introduced in the <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_8 class=yshortcuts>110th Congress</SPAN> in an effort to allow some Internet gambling. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the <SPAN id=lw_1242323050_9 class=yshortcuts>111th Congress</SPAN> consider similar legislation. </SPAN>

<SPAN class=Normal-H>Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can assist in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me.</SPAN>

Sincerely,

John Hall
Member of Congress

"Sent" to all my local & state, OBAMA,and to all of the known supporters of poker through out the federal and state agencies.

Which by the way I wish was an easier process to accomplish on PPA. I think it may help if the public servents who can and will recieve corospondence from outside ditricts got it!

Great news. The new PPA letter is up and running. Please send, of course. Also, let's Digg and Twitter to get new eyes on this. I believe we can get non-poker playing libertarians to help out here via hearing about it on the social networks.

Send/Digg: http://digg.com/d1ujyC
Click here to Twitter

When you send the letter, please reply with "sent" to encourage everyone, of course.

Thanks!

hasnt everyone done this x103892489234? i think they get the point(not being a dick, im all for helping..)

 

Originally Posted by pokerpoker69

hasnt everyone done this x103892489234? i think they get the point(not being a dick, im all for helping..)

1. It's a new letter complaining specifically about the fund seizure.
2. It will be the new letter in the PPA system. We can all edit it prior to that, so it will reflect the community.
3. Unfortunately, not every PPA member has sent a letter.
4. If they got the point, the DoJ would not have seized our money.

 

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

TE, I would like to remove the paragraphs about Rep. Franks' bill and the UIGEA. It is too soon to further push Rep. Franks' bill because it is not finalized and the state opt out provisions are completely unacceptable. In addition, IMO it is not consistent for the PPA to push this bill in Congress and argue in a court of law that it is not necessary because no federal law covers online poker. I think that it is best if the PPA ignores the UIGEA on the grounds that it does not cover online poker for the same reason.

I would focus on the overreaching seizure and overzealous nature of the SDNY. IN addition, I would describe the PPA's intention to fight it in court if the DOJ does not change its position on the legality of online poker and reverse this seizure.

I added a version of the letter that does not endorse the Frank bill to the OP.