Poker Players Alliance Action Plan
lawh...@hiwaay.net
Alliance) on October 1, 2006. This "action plan" was signed by Mr.
Michael Bolcerek, President of the PPA.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
----------------------------
Dear Members,
As you may already know, the U.S. Congress approved an online poker
prohibition late Friday evening. The ban was snuck into the Port
Security Act during a back room deal and following extensive political
strong-arming by the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the
Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL). This tactic discouraged
debate on the bill and allowed it to pass without any public
discussion. Why a poker ban was included in the Port Security Act is
beyond me and most poker players and should be of concern to every
American. It was a "bad beat" but we are still at the table.
This is no time to panic, but rather we must learn and build from this
loss. The Poker Players Alliance is not leaving the fight, although now
it is going to take an even greater effort from poker players and our
organization to achieve our objectives.
What do we want to do now?
Poker Exemption
We continue to demand that poker receive separate treatment from other
forms of gaming. It is a game of skill, where performance is merited,
and a community game, where the house is not your competition. These
are real and significant differences. Our desire is to achieve the same
type of exemption from legislation that other interests have received
(Horseracing, Lotteries, and Fantasy Sports). We will continue to push
forward to obtain this separate treatment when Congress comes back from
the elections and into the next legislative session. Between now and
when the new bill becomes effective (3 to 6 months) poker has an
opportunity to achieve the same exemption. This is our most immediate
short-term goal.
License, Regulate and Tax
Regulation is the best public policy solution for both the federal
government and the American poker player. Prohibition of on-line poker
will only drive the game underground and build distrust and
misunderstanding amongst the 70 million Americans who enjoy the great
game of poker. I spent the better part of the year engaging members of
the House and Senate about the idea of regulating Internet poker. This
has raised interest from both Democrats and Republican's alike. There
has even been legislation introduced that seeks to establish a
Congressional commission that would examine the best way to regulate
this industry. Early this summer the PPA commissioned an economic
analysis of the potential tax revenue that could be raised through
regulation. Members of Congress have been receptive to this study and
the $3.3 Billion that could be raised annually for the federal
government. This is our ultimate goal and the PPA will drive this
agenda.
What should you do now? First, every member of the PPA should be
registered to vote in the upcoming state and federal elections. If you
are not yet registered there is still time, click here to find out
about how to register in your state.
https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/e4/nvra/ Second, be sure to vote on
Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 7th. We must put our vote where our voice
is and establish a poker voting block. While the Port Security Act
which included the prohibition legislation was passed near unanimously
in both the House and the Senate, the House did have a clean vote on
the poker prohibition in July. A list of how House members voted in
July is available on our Web site too, click here. Finally, the PPA
needs your help to spread the word about our organization. Please tell
at least nine friends who might not know about the Poker Players
Alliance to join the fight. We need to be 1 Million strong going into
2007.
Very soon a brief analysis of the Internet Gambling Prohibition
Amendment will be posted on our website. Please return to
www.pokerplayersalliance.org soon so you can learn how this legislation
will affect you.
Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
level of commitment. This is not over.
Regards,
Michael Bolcerek
President
Poker Players Alliance
arlo payne
> http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ soon so you can learn how this
> legislation
> will affect you.
>
> Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
> continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
> level of commitment. This is not over.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Bolcerek
> President
> Poker Players Alliance
There is so much wrong with this on so many different levels it is beyond funny
it is sad.
This just adds one more level of support to my statement that the PPA is over
their heads and have not a clue how to really go about addressing this issue.
AP
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
international exchange of information on the internet or to regulate businesses
with no presence in the US is a huge, huge mistake. It's a very short term
view.
> http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org soon so you can learn how this legislation
> will affect you.
>
> Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
> continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
> level of commitment. This is not over.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Bolcerek
> President
> Poker Players Alliance
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
arlo payne
On Oct 8 2006 1:01 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
> I think taking the position that the US has the right to regulate the
> international exchange of information on the internet or to regulate
> businesses
> with no presence in the US is a huge, huge mistake. It's a very short term
> view.
Totally agree. This is just one of many holes in their so called plan. The 3.3
billion quote was clearly pulled out of thin air also.
As it stands now I would bet the PPA does more harm than good in the long run.
> > http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ soon so you can learn how this
> > legislation
> > will affect you.
> >
> > Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
> > continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
> > level of commitment. This is not over.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael Bolcerek
> > President
> > Poker Players Alliance
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
It is only a phase these dark cafe days
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
lawh...@hiwaay.net
the one merit [to their plan] is that they actually have a plan - as
opposed to all the moaning, groaning, and unorganized bitching of all
those who have no plan.
The one thing that Michael Bolcerek is correct about is the need for
poker players to band together into an organized (and united) lobby.
Politicians DO respect numbers, especially large numbers. Without the
"clout" of a million-member lobbying organization, ambitious
politicians such as Senator Frist and Congressman Goodlatte will listen
to (and side) with people who hold "strong moral objections" to poker
and gambling. As long as we remain unorganized, those who oppose our
game will hold sway over politicians like Bill Frist.
Also, Mr. Bolcerek's suggestion that every poker player go to the polls
and vote is good advice. In the upcoming mid-term elections, many of
these races are now very close. Political operatives for both parties
(as well as news media organizations) will be doing extensive "exit
polling" on election day - especially in the close races. I have been
"quizzed" by an exit poller (who was working for ABC News) when I voted
in the 1986 election. I remember answering a series of about 10-12
questions centering on why I did (or did not) vote for certain
candidates. If exit voters are specifically asked, (especially in the
close races), if their vote was in any way influenced by this [new]
Internet Gambling Prohibition Enforcement Act, the answers to that
question will be tabulated and carefully analyzed by the winning (as
well as the losing) candidates. If a substantial "trend" is evident
either way, that will be noted by our elected representatives. If we
don't band together and unite around an organization such as the PPA,
then those who adamantly oppose internet poker will prevail.
People who are complacent or fail to act in their own self interest get
run over - just like at the poker table. That's just the way the
"political game" works in this country. Even if you disagree with the
PPA and their approach toward addressing the problem, hold your nose
and consider supporting them anyway. Right now, getting organized is
our one best hope for turning this abomination around.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
Victor Victoria
What really needs to be done is for U.S. financial institutions to take this
matter to the courts. They must challenge the U.S, government. The U.S.
government is over stepping it's boundaries. The governments legislative action
here is effectively "prohibition" for poker players. But it also is a dagger in
the hearts of financial institutions that must deal with the new regulation. U.S
financial institutions will suffer financially both in having to police
themselves and lost business. Foreign financial institutes may be less and less
willing to deal with U.S. fianacial concerns because of potential conflicts with
this new law.
Vv
> > > http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ soon so you can learn how this
> > > legislation
> > > will affect you.
> > >
> > > Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
> > > continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
> > > level of commitment. This is not over.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Michael Bolcerek
> > > President
> > > Poker Players Alliance
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Your Online Poker Community - /
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Oct 8 2006 3:53 AM, lawh...@HiWAAY.net wrote:
> While not everyone may agree with the PPA's "approach" to this problem,
> the one merit [to their plan] is that they actually have a plan - as
> opposed to all the moaning, groaning, and unorganized bitching of all
> those who have no plan.
>
> The one thing that Michael Bolcerek is correct about is the need for
> poker players to band together into an organized (and united) lobby.
Why do you think that's correct?
> Politicians DO respect numbers, especially large numbers.
No, they don't.
What they respect is money. Money gets them re-elected.
>Without the
> "clout" of a million-member lobbying organization, ambitious
> politicians such as Senator Frist and Congressman Goodlatte will listen
> to (and side) with people who hold "strong moral objections" to poker
> and gambling.
Yes, strong attitudes translate into votes. They translate a lot more directly
than a large group of people with loosely held attitudes.
As long as we remain unorganized, those who oppose our
> game will hold sway over politicians like Bill Frist.
It's not clear at all that the kind of organization he proposed will make any
difference at all.
>
> Also, Mr. Bolcerek's suggestion that every poker player go to the polls
> and vote is good advice.
Yes. I said that 6 years ago. Six years ago when Bush was running against Gore
I said that if the republicans got control they'd eventually go after online
gambling.
Nobody took it seriously.
In the upcoming mid-term elections, many of
> these races are now very close. Political operatives for both parties
> (as well as news media organizations) will be doing extensive "exit
> polling" on election day - especially in the close races. I have been
> "quizzed" by an exit poller (who was working for ABC News) when I voted
> in the 1986 election. I remember answering a series of about 10-12
> questions centering on why I did (or did not) vote for certain
> candidates. If exit voters are specifically asked, (especially in the
> close races), if their vote was in any way influenced by this [new]
> Internet Gambling Prohibition Enforcement Act, the answers to that
> question will be tabulated and carefully analyzed by the winning (as
> well as the losing) candidates. If a substantial "trend" is evident
> either way, that will be noted by our elected representatives.
Politicians are well aware that exit polls aren'tt reliable.
If we
> don't band together and unite around an organization such as the PPA,
> then those who adamantly oppose internet poker will prevail.
What does voting have to do with joining PPA?
>
> People who are complacent or fail to act in their own self interest get
> run over - just like at the poker table.
I don'tt think his agenda is in the self interest of the typical poker player.
That's just the way the
> "political game" works in this country. Even if you disagree with the
> PPA and their approach toward addressing the problem, hold your nose
> and consider supporting them anyway. Right now, getting organized is
> our one best hope for turning this abomination around.
The government regulating the internet is not in the interest of any american.
Poker player or not. He's either an idiot or he has a hidden agenda.
> > > http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ soon so you can learn how this
> > > legislation
> > > will affect you.
> > >
> > > Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
> > > continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
> > > level of commitment. This is not over.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Michael Bolcerek
> > > President
> > > Poker Players Alliance
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Your Online Poker Community - /
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
arlo payne
On Oct 8 2006 2:34 AM, Victor Victoria wrote:
>
>
> What really needs to be done is for U.S. financial institutions to take this
> matter to the courts. They must challenge the U.S, government. The U.S.
> government is over stepping it's boundaries. The governments legislative
> action
> here is effectively "prohibition" for poker players. But it also is a dagger
> in
> the hearts of financial institutions that must deal with the new regulation.
> U.S
> financial institutions will suffer financially both in having to police
> themselves and lost business. Foreign financial institutes may be less and
> less
> willing to deal with U.S. fianacial concerns because of potential conflicts
> with
> this new law.
>
> Vv
LOL
Now this truly is funny!
Maybe Santa will bring you a brand new clue for christmas
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
arlo payne
On Oct 8 2006 4:07 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
> The government regulating the internet is not in the interest of any
> american.
> Poker player or not. He's either an idiot or he has a hidden agenda.
>
I vote 1 part idiot 6 parts hidden agenda.
Wonder just how much concern he would have if you removed the money headed
towards HIS pocket.
Olemite
US let alone 70 MILLION that he states in his letter!
Also, the PPA will never get 1 million members charging $20 to get in.
Why not let people join for free, and let the rich websites and their
employees fund the effort?
Ole
Edward
> Michael Bolcerek, President of the PPA.
> Dear Members,
>
> As you may already know, the U.S. Congress approved an online poker
> prohibition late Friday evening.
WOW, you are really on the ball. But you might want to reread the bill
so that you can point out where this bill can be determined to be a
prohibition on ONLINE POKER.
> What do we want to do now?
>
> Poker Exemption
>
> We continue to demand that poker receive separate treatment from other
> forms of gaming. It is a game of skill, where performance is merited,
Performance is merited? Tell that to Poker Stars so maybe they can cut
down on the bad beats.
> License, Regulate and Tax
>
> Early this summer the PPA commissioned an economic
> analysis of the potential tax revenue that could be raised through
> regulation. Members of Congress have been receptive to this study and
> the $3.3 Billion that could be raised annually for the federal
> government. This is our ultimate goal and the PPA will drive this
> agenda.
They would be more interested if you could show them how to do this
without repealing the Wire Act and how they're going to handle the
biggest group of lobbiest ever gathered in one place that will fight it
tooth and nail.
> Very soon a brief analysis of the Internet Gambling Prohibition
> Amendment will be posted on our website. Please return to
> www.pokerplayersalliance.org soon so you can learn how this legislation
> will affect you.
We've seen all the analysis. Will the bill change in some way because
yoou post an analysis?
> Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will
> continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next
> level of commitment. This is not over.
It's obvious that a huge membership may have some (very little) power
to sway the thinking of a few (very few) politicians to think as we
do. Maybe if you made membership free the PPA would get the numbers
necessay. BTW, can you post an expence report so that those who have
already given you $20.00 can see exactly what you did with that money.
I think I noticed a "Michael Bolcerek" playing in the $1000/2000 limit
holdem game on Fulltilt. How did you do in the game :)
Gary Carson
On Oct 8 2006 10:40 AM, Edward wrote:
> > Michael Bolcerek, President of the PPA.
>
> > Dear Members,
> >
> > As you may already know, the U.S. Congress approved an online poker
> > prohibition late Friday evening.
>
> WOW, you are really on the ball. But you might want to reread the bill
> so that you can point out where this bill can be determined to be a
> prohibition on ONLINE POKER.
>
>
The guy is apparantly taking the position that online poker has always been
illegal. I don't know why he'd want to take that position. One appeals court
has found otherwise. There was a WTO ruling a few years ago that found
otherwise. There's the district court ruling that CP referred to.
If he didn't have a hidden agenda of some sort he'd be spending his money
putting together a legal argument (which has nothing to do with "skill")
supporting the legality. But instead he's arguing that it's illegal but should
have higher rakes.
He reminds me of that clown who claims to represent mental health patients. He
argues that they should all be locked up for their own protection.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Victor Victoria
On Oct 8 2006 8:42 AM, Edward wrote:
> > Michael Bolcerek, President of the PPA.
>
> > Dear Members,
> >
> > As you may already know, the U.S. Congress approved an online poker
> > prohibition late Friday evening.
>
> WOW, you are really on the ball. But you might want to reread the bill
> so that you can point out where this bill can be determined to be a
> prohibition on ONLINE POKER.
>
>
Maybe you should ask the online poker sites that are pulling out of the U.S.
market why they are doing so if you do not believe this legislation prohibits
online poker in the U.S.
vv
Victor Victoria
On Oct 8 2006 4:39 AM, arlo payne wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 8 2006 2:34 AM, Victor Victoria wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What really needs to be done is for U.S. financial institutions to take this
> > matter to the courts. They must challenge the U.S, government. The U.S.
> > government is over stepping it's boundaries. The governments legislative
> > action
> > here is effectively "prohibition" for poker players. But it also is a
> > dagger
> > in
> > the hearts of financial institutions that must deal with the new regulation.
> > U.S
> > financial institutions will suffer financially both in having to police
> > themselves and lost business. Foreign financial institutes may be less and
> > less
> > willing to deal with U.S. fianacial concerns because of potential conflicts
> > with
> > this new law.
> >
> > Vv
>
> LOL
> Now this truly is funny!
> Maybe Santa will bring you a brand new clue for christmas
The law is directed at financial institutions.
vv
Lynx
> international exchange of information on the internet or to regulate
businesses
> with no presence in the US is a huge, huge mistake. It's a very short term
> view.
Yes. There's been a lot of loose talk about "regulating" (and taxing)
lately. I may be guilty of that myself. Just to clarify, I don't think
that we can realistically regulate the flow of information over the
internet. I was thinking more along the lines of English companies that
provide online poker.
By legalizing such institutions within the U.S., the U.S. companies that
did emerge, would be responsible to U.S. laws and taxation, as are other
U.S. companies. Presumably, there might be ways of providing incentives
and benefits as well, so that they could compete with offshore entities.
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
That would need to be done state-by-state. It might require an exemption from
the wire act.
It's not going to happen if republicans stay in power.
Lynx
> > did emerge, would be responsible to U.S. laws and taxation, as are other
> > U.S. companies. Presumably, there might be ways of providing incentives
> > and benefits as well, so that they could compete with offshore entities.
>
> That would need to be done state-by-state. It might require an exemption
from
> the wire act.
>
> It's not going to happen if republicans stay in power.
It certainly won't happen under the current administration. Individual
states would still have the ability to illegalize various forms of
gambling, inlcuding online poker. It could require an exemption in the
wire act, although I think not. My interpretation is that the wire act
doesn't really pertain in this case.
I was thinking along these lines, what if, instead of passing a bill that
attempts to illegalize deposits to online gaming sites, congress had
passed a bill that stated in order for such deposits to continue legally,
said gaming companies must have U.S. offices? (They would not have to be
exclusively U.S. companies, only have some offices in the U.S.)
They would then have be subject to U.S. laws, U.S. taxes, and presumably
hire at least some U.S. residents. In exchange for this they get to go on
having their transactions with U.S. clients unmolested.
That would not make it legal in all parts of the U.S. Individual states
wold maintain that power.
I think this would have been a much more sensible way to go.
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com