The latest on the House Bill 2143 is that as of 6/11/03 it has been passed by the full house and referred to the Senate committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs.
The Senate Bill 627 is also in the same committee as of 3/13/2003, no change since.
The Senate committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs has not had any discussions on either bill nor is any on the calendar.
Side note, this is the "Conclusion" section of HR 2143 as quoted in its entirety:
CONCLUSION
Although the intent of this legislation is laudable, we believe conscripting credit card companies to enforce our criminal laws is ineffective and will set a bad precedent regarding the Internet. In addition, criminalizing only the Internet gambling business without placing any penalty on the individual bettor further weakens the enforcement scheme of the bill. In the end, it is unlikely that this legislation will successfully halt Internet gambling.
John Conyers, Jr.
Melvin L. Watt.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Tammy Baldwin.
Anthony D. Weiner.
Linda T. Sanchez.
The Senate Bill 627 is also in the same committee as of 3/13/2003, no change since.
The Senate committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs has not had any discussions on either bill nor is any on the calendar.
Side note, this is the "Conclusion" section of HR 2143 as quoted in its entirety:
CONCLUSION
Although the intent of this legislation is laudable, we believe conscripting credit card companies to enforce our criminal laws is ineffective and will set a bad precedent regarding the Internet. In addition, criminalizing only the Internet gambling business without placing any penalty on the individual bettor further weakens the enforcement scheme of the bill. In the end, it is unlikely that this legislation will successfully halt Internet gambling.
John Conyers, Jr.
Melvin L. Watt.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Tammy Baldwin.
Anthony D. Weiner.
Linda T. Sanchez.
John Conyers, Jr.
Melvin L. Watt.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Tammy Baldwin.
Anthony D. Weiner.
Linda T. Sanchez.
The names cited here mean nothing. They are equivalent to a bunch of kindergartners voicing their concern in a local city council over the rise of ice cream prices. IOWs, you couldn’t pick more meaningless and insignificant voices in congress than these guys and gals.
Anyhow, the fact that there has not been any debate, or scheduled debate, in the Senate is in my opinion a very good sign. But there’s still lots of time-- mid December I believe they adjourn.
Melvin L. Watt.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Tammy Baldwin.
Anthony D. Weiner.
Linda T. Sanchez.
The names cited here mean nothing. They are equivalent to a bunch of kindergartners voicing their concern in a local city council over the rise of ice cream prices. IOWs, you couldn’t pick more meaningless and insignificant voices in congress than these guys and gals.
Anyhow, the fact that there has not been any debate, or scheduled debate, in the Senate is in my opinion a very good sign. But there’s still lots of time-- mid December I believe they adjourn.
I have to disagree with you suetoneous one point in that those 5 are not kindergartners. Conners is the ranking member of the judiciary committee with 35 years of experience. The other 3 are in their 3rd, 4th, and 5th terms. Only Sanchez is a rookie.
I do agree with you on the fact that it is good news that nothing has been done and won’t be for a while. I don’t think we will have to worry about this at all.
I do agree with you on the fact that it is good news that nothing has been done and won’t be for a while. I don’t think we will have to worry about this at all.
That was a pretty silly comment about the type of Senators you thought they were. Conyers is determined to get a regulated gaming business going in Michigan and is fighting any and all bills that prevent it from happening. After all you have to be a major league jerk or Presidential candidate to really be known. How many senators could the average person name outside of their home state? Even more important is that the Senate has only 100 votes so everyone has a lot more power than the 435 in the House.
Nothing is going to happen for awhile, Congress is on summer break. No word is out on any progress on the issue either. I am told that is a very good sign, that it probably doesn't have a whole lot of backing and isn't considered all that important. I still have no idea what might happen in the Fall and I doubt even the insiders do.
Nothing is going to happen for awhile, Congress is on summer break. No word is out on any progress on the issue either. I am told that is a very good sign, that it probably doesn't have a whole lot of backing and isn't considered all that important. I still have no idea what might happen in the Fall and I doubt even the insiders do.
WildBill,
How can anyone take your analysis seriously?
Conyers is a member of the House of Represenative.
Also, your statement (which appears to be a regurgitation of what you've read about the bill in the media) concerning the lack of "teeth" or enforcement in the bill couldn't be further off.
The bill creates an underlying offense for money laundering.
It would criminalize the use of a monetary instrument to transfer money for "illegal" internet gambling, but there is no punishment under the provisions of the bill.
HOWEVER, the banks, credit card companies, etc would now be (potentially) guilty of money laundering as the funds become "tainted" per federal statute.
No bank wants any part of this.
The bill would effectively force 3rd party payment providers to become more stealthy in issuing checks and would probably force them to quit doing business with corresponding banks altogether.
Western Union will probably be unaffected unless they put pressure on WU for WU Corporate to go after certain WU office owners in 3rd world countries that provide services to the offshore world.
Credit cards are a lost cause as it is. Some books like sportsbook and canbet are great at keeping their processing up and they will continue to thrive.
I felt it was necessary to set the record straight on this as its been a while since I've seen someone mislead the posting room public to such severity.
Les
How can anyone take your analysis seriously?
Conyers is a member of the House of Represenative.
Also, your statement (which appears to be a regurgitation of what you've read about the bill in the media) concerning the lack of "teeth" or enforcement in the bill couldn't be further off.
The bill creates an underlying offense for money laundering.
It would criminalize the use of a monetary instrument to transfer money for "illegal" internet gambling, but there is no punishment under the provisions of the bill.
HOWEVER, the banks, credit card companies, etc would now be (potentially) guilty of money laundering as the funds become "tainted" per federal statute.
No bank wants any part of this.
The bill would effectively force 3rd party payment providers to become more stealthy in issuing checks and would probably force them to quit doing business with corresponding banks altogether.
Western Union will probably be unaffected unless they put pressure on WU for WU Corporate to go after certain WU office owners in 3rd world countries that provide services to the offshore world.
Credit cards are a lost cause as it is. Some books like sportsbook and canbet are great at keeping their processing up and they will continue to thrive.
I felt it was necessary to set the record straight on this as its been a while since I've seen someone mislead the posting room public to such severity.
Les
All the names mentioned are members of Congress, and far left wing democrats. Congress has already acted on this bill with overwhelming support.
The vote on HR2143 was 318 Yeas / 104 Nays…Only 87 democrats voted against this bill. Gephardt along with 10 other congressmen didn’t vote - my guess is Gephardt didn’t want to be seen in the same camp as Conyers and Lee. Oddly, Maxine Waters, as flaming a black liberal you could ever find, voted FOR this bill. So the 74 year-old Conyers couldn’t even muster support from the Black Caucus – a group THAT HE FOUNDED.
You don’t really need to know about all the inner working of Congress to know that if John Conyers or Sheila Jackson Lee are the leading voices on any issue, it’s likely DOOMED.
If this bill is not going to die quietly in the Senate, then we what need to see are senators voicing their concerns – preferably on the republican side.
[This message was edited by suetoneous on July 17, 2003 at 01:50 PM.]
The vote on HR2143 was 318 Yeas / 104 Nays…Only 87 democrats voted against this bill. Gephardt along with 10 other congressmen didn’t vote - my guess is Gephardt didn’t want to be seen in the same camp as Conyers and Lee. Oddly, Maxine Waters, as flaming a black liberal you could ever find, voted FOR this bill. So the 74 year-old Conyers couldn’t even muster support from the Black Caucus – a group THAT HE FOUNDED.
You don’t really need to know about all the inner working of Congress to know that if John Conyers or Sheila Jackson Lee are the leading voices on any issue, it’s likely DOOMED.
If this bill is not going to die quietly in the Senate, then we what need to see are senators voicing their concerns – preferably on the republican side.
[This message was edited by suetoneous on July 17, 2003 at 01:50 PM.]
P.S. The source of the Shrink's so-called "sharpness" and beloved buddy BW is well aware of what can happen when source of the funds is questionable.
It was the same legal theory that got him indicted. The underlying offense according to the DA was bookmaking. BW said it was from betting (which would shield him from money laundering since betting is legal in NV). If the source of the funds is illegal (as claimed by the State), then the money laundering statute comes into play.
This is a little different as BW case was a local issue, but the same legal theory applies to Federal statutes.
To say this law doesn't have teeth stands in sharp contradiction to the reality of the judicial system.
It was the same legal theory that got him indicted. The underlying offense according to the DA was bookmaking. BW said it was from betting (which would shield him from money laundering since betting is legal in NV). If the source of the funds is illegal (as claimed by the State), then the money laundering statute comes into play.
This is a little different as BW case was a local issue, but the same legal theory applies to Federal statutes.
To say this law doesn't have teeth stands in sharp contradiction to the reality of the judicial system.
Suetanious,
Someone that can vote on a bill (house or senate) is by definition a member of Congress. Thanks for celaring that up for the civic challenged among us. Their numbers are plentiful.
You are right about Conyers and Jackson Lee. No one takes them seriously on non civil rights issues.
Someone that can vote on a bill (house or senate) is by definition a member of Congress. Thanks for celaring that up for the civic challenged among us. Their numbers are plentiful.
You are right about Conyers and Jackson Lee. No one takes them seriously on non civil rights issues.
Foretelling the future is hard and other than what I outlined there would be neglible repercussion to the bettor.
It would be a legal stretch, but the bettor could be charged with aiding and abetting or conspiracy to violate this law if (for example) he deposits a check from his offshore book.
What many people don't understand is that federal statutes take up legions of books. I'd say 80% or more of the population has violated a federal crime at least once in their life.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see this bill passed but no one is interested in going after individual bettors unless there is something more at stake.
It would be a legal stretch, but the bettor could be charged with aiding and abetting or conspiracy to violate this law if (for example) he deposits a check from his offshore book.
What many people don't understand is that federal statutes take up legions of books. I'd say 80% or more of the population has violated a federal crime at least once in their life.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see this bill passed but no one is interested in going after individual bettors unless there is something more at stake.
