| |
Main
Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:27:44
From: lawhonac@HiWAAY.net
Subject: The Future of Poker
|
The December 12, 2006 edition of Card Player magazine, (with Linda
Johnson on the cover), has an interesting article by senior columnist
Roy Cooke. Mr. Cooke has a number of comments about how the recently
enacted UIGEA - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 -
will impact poker players and the poker industry. Mr. Cooke sees the
overall impact as being bad for players - and especially for those who
play (or have played) on the internet and/or play poker for a living.
Roy also believes that a side effect of all this is that the games
(including live action games) will get tougher as many of the less
skillful internet players will simply avoid the hassle and drop out.
Roy also points out other adverse effects of the legislation which you
can read in the article.
Mr. Cooke believes poker will eventually rebound from this "earthquake"
and prosper again, but it will take time. He encourages readers (and
players) to join the Poker Players Alliance as one of the solutions to
this dilemma lies in lobbying and political action by such
organizations as the PPA.
Interestingly, Mr. Cooke did not speculate (or comment) on what might
occur in the courts with respect to the UIGEA. Under the provisions of
the legislation that was passed, the Department of Justice and other
Government agencies have a period of 270 days in which to write the
rules and regulations that will put teeth into this new law. That
means the UIGEA won't really take effect until sometime in the summer
of 2007. Then the question will be just how vigourously our Government
intends to enforce the law - and just how determined opponents of the
legislation are to resist enforcement of the law?
Some internet web site operators, (Party Poker is the most prominent),
apparently have already decided that they are not going to risk picking
a fight with the U.S. Government. Other sites seem to be inviting
Uncle Sam to come after them. (I can't recall where I read this, but
somebody reported - maybe it was here on RGP - that Doyle Brunson is
virtually taunting the Government to arrest him.) Whatever the case,
once the regulations are issued the Government will have to enforce
them - otherwise what's the point of the law? The bottom line is that
somebody is going to get arrested - and then we have a court challenge.
Personally, I welcome a court challenge. The positive is that a ruling
will settle the issue once and for all. Once the judges have ruled,
all the ambiguity will be removed. We will know - one way or the other
- whether we have the right to [legally] play poker on the internet. I
am not a lawyer, but I think there is an excellent chance that the
UIGEA will not stand up to legal scrutiny. A number of attorneys and
legal scholars (including UNLV law professor and gambling expert I.
Nelson Rose) have noted numerous grounds on which the law can be
challenged. The bottom line is that if the Government is "serious"
about enforcing the UIGEA, (and they actually arrest somebody like
Doyle Brunson), the Government could [potentially] suffer the
embarrassment of seeing the law declared unconstitutional. Then it
would be back to square one for the Government.
Of course, it will take several years for a legal challenge to wind its
way through the courts. While that is going on, I suspect that both
parties, (i.e. the internet web site operators and the Government -
with the able assistance of the Poker Players Alliance), will come to
their senses and reach some kind of mutually agreeable accomodation.
In the end I suspect we will see an agreement that guarantees the right
of Americans to play poker [legally] on the internet. In exchange for
this guarantee, poker players (and the site operators) will have to
agree to taxation and regulation. (A condition of the settlement will
be that the Government agrees to drop enforcement of the UIGEA and
Doyle Brunson [or whoever] agrees to drop his lawsuit.)
The U.S. Government will get what they want - tax revenues and saving
face - and internet poker players will get what they want: The right to
play poker on their computers without the fear of hassle from the
Government. This is what I see as the future of poker.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:30:45
From: dan steele
Subject: Re: The Future of Poker
|
Dave Dale wrote:
> So, who will speak for us?
The Sands Corporation and MGM Mirage is my guess.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:18:22
From: poorolrich
Subject: Re: The Future of Poker
|
On Dec 11 2006 10:27 PM, lawhonac@HiWAAY.net wrote:
> The December 12, 2006 edition of Card Player magazine, (with Linda
> Johnson on the cover), has an interesting article by senior columnist
> Roy Cooke. Mr. Cooke has a number of comments about how the recently
> enacted UIGEA - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 -
> will impact poker players and the poker industry. Mr. Cooke sees the
> overall impact as being bad for players - and especially for those who
> play (or have played) on the internet and/or play poker for a living.
> Roy also believes that a side effect of all this is that the games
> (including live action games) will get tougher as many of the less
> skillful internet players will simply avoid the hassle and drop out.
> Roy also points out other adverse effects of the legislation which you
> can read in the article.
>
> Mr. Cooke believes poker will eventually rebound from this "earthquake"
> and prosper again, but it will take time. He encourages readers (and
> players) to join the Poker Players Alliance as one of the solutions to
> this dilemma lies in lobbying and political action by such
> organizations as the PPA.
>
> Interestingly, Mr. Cooke did not speculate (or comment) on what might
> occur in the courts with respect to the UIGEA. Under the provisions of
> the legislation that was passed, the Department of Justice and other
> Government agencies have a period of 270 days in which to write the
> rules and regulations that will put teeth into this new law. That
> means the UIGEA won't really take effect until sometime in the summer
> of 2007. Then the question will be just how vigourously our Government
> intends to enforce the law - and just how determined opponents of the
> legislation are to resist enforcement of the law?
>
> Some internet web site operators, (Party Poker is the most prominent),
> apparently have already decided that they are not going to risk picking
> a fight with the U.S. Government. Other sites seem to be inviting
> Uncle Sam to come after them. (I can't recall where I read this, but
> somebody reported - maybe it was here on RGP - that Doyle Brunson is
> virtually taunting the Government to arrest him.) Whatever the case,
> once the regulations are issued the Government will have to enforce
> them - otherwise what's the point of the law? The bottom line is that
> somebody is going to get arrested - and then we have a court challenge.
>
> Personally, I welcome a court challenge. The positive is that a ruling
> will settle the issue once and for all. Once the judges have ruled,
> all the ambiguity will be removed. We will know - one way or the other
> - whether we have the right to [legally] play poker on the internet. I
> am not a lawyer, but I think there is an excellent chance that the
> UIGEA will not stand up to legal scrutiny. A number of attorneys and
> legal scholars (including UNLV law professor and gambling expert I.
> Nelson Rose) have noted numerous grounds on which the law can be
> challenged. The bottom line is that if the Government is "serious"
> about enforcing the UIGEA, (and they actually arrest somebody like
> Doyle Brunson), the Government could [potentially] suffer the
> embarrassment of seeing the law declared unconstitutional. Then it
> would be back to square one for the Government.
>
> Of course, it will take several years for a legal challenge to wind its
> way through the courts. While that is going on, I suspect that both
> parties, (i.e. the internet web site operators and the Government -
> with the able assistance of the Poker Players Alliance), will come to
> their senses and reach some kind of mutually agreeable accomodation.
> In the end I suspect we will see an agreement that guarantees the right
> of Americans to play poker [legally] on the internet. In exchange for
> this guarantee, poker players (and the site operators) will have to
> agree to taxation and regulation. (A condition of the settlement will
> be that the Government agrees to drop enforcement of the UIGEA and
> Doyle Brunson [or whoever] agrees to drop his lawsuit.)
>
> The U.S. Government will get what they want - tax revenues and saving
> face - and internet poker players will get what they want: The right to
> play poker on their computers without the fear of hassle from the
> Government. This is what I see as the future of poker.
>
> Alan C. Lawhon
Here is a statement regarding the PPA that is interesting.
To: Mason Malmuth, Two Plus Two Publishing
From: Mark G. Tratos, Managing Shareholder, Las Vegas Office of Greenberg
Traurig
Date: December 8, 2006
RE: Poker Player's Alliance
____________________________________
Dear Mason:
You have asked us to undertake a review and analysis of the Poker Player's
Alliance (PPA) in order to determine whether Two Plus Two should advocate
for your patrons, support and membership in that entity. Our review has
been extended several months as we have found it difficult to verify
important factual information about the PPA during our due diligence
investigation. What follows is our brief summary of our findings and the
analysis that we undertook to complete the report. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
SUMMARY
Two Plus Two supports the proposition that poker is a game of skill and as
such should not be placed in the same category as casino games where
chance, luck or random occurrence solely control the outcome. Accordingly,
Two Plus Two has opposed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of
2006 (UIGEA) and supports the call for legislative amendments exempting
poker sites from UIGEA's broad coverage. Based upon this position, Two
Plus Two, through its counsel undertook a background investigation of the
Poker Player's Alliance to determine if Two Plus Two could endorse the PPA
and encourage your patrons and participants on the Two Plus Two website to
support the PPA through financial donations. Based upon our investigation,
we do not believe Two Plus Two can actively encourage the financial
support of the PPA because of the organizations lack of transparency.
Unlike most not for profit organizations that represent a large national
interest group, the PPA is unusually difficult to obtain information from.
It does not make information about its budgets, officer compensation,
lobbying expenditures, advertising and marketing, and political agenda or
strategy available to members or the public at large. The PPA's often
repeated refrain that "it will try to keep poker legal" is not an adequate
substitute for the full and open disclosure expected of any 501(c)(4)
membership based organization. As a not for profit organization, the PPA
is prohibited from allowing any part of the net earnings of the entity to
inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual (26 U.S.C. S
501(c)(4)(a). However, PPA members cannot verify the organization’s
compliance because it has never published an annual report, or made its
budget information available to its donors or members. In fact, we have
not seen a disclosure or list of any individuals who were compensated for
their services to the PPA.
Moreover, all not for profit organizations achieve their tax exempted
status through receiving an Internal Revenue Service “exemption letter.”
Those letters are typically made available to donors and members. The PPA
has not made such a determination letter publicly available.
Our investigation of the PPA’s Washington, D.C. office found a shared
rented office space with a receptionist who stated that she rarely saw any
PPA representatives physically at the Washington, D.C. location. Moreover,
our investigative phone calls and e-mails either went unanswered or we
were told the person answering the phone could not respond to our inquiry
about the corporate structure or the tax deductibility of donations to the
PPA.
Based upon this lack of information, we cannot recommend that Two Plus Two
actively encourage membership in, or donations to the PPA, despite Two
Plus Two’s agreement with the stated principal of “keeping poker legal.”
The best way of accomplishing this important objective is for an
organization that represents poker players to be above board in all of its
dealings, and transparent in its organization and finances.
Simply stated, in order to adequately represent the position of poker
players, the PPA must not act secretive in any way. Its actions and those
of its employees should be a matter of public record. If the PPA believes
that poker players’ activities on the internet are legitimate, PPA actions
must be as well.
The only way for legitimacy to be evident is for basic financial
information about the organization to be transparent. It is not. Thus, in
summary, we cannot encourage Two Plus Two to actively promote or endorse
the PPA.
ANALYSIS
Our review of the PPA revealed that it is a Nevada not for profit
corporation formed June 13, 2005 (Corp. # NOR E0369522005-5). According to
corporate records on file with the Secretary of State, one individual
serves as the PPA’s president, secretary and treasurer. That individual is
listed as Michael Bolcerek. The PPA’s website identifies itself as a
(501)(c)(4) organization. Such organizations may engage in lobbying
activities, however such organizations are statutorily prohibited from
allowing any portion of their net earnings to be paid to any individual or
private shareholder. Whether or not Principals or Board Members of the PPA
receive any financial benefit for their services is not known, because the
PPA has not seen fit to publish an annual report nor made any budget
information available to its donors, members or the public at large.
The PPA website at <pokerplayersalliance.com/org > contains general
information about the PPA’s activities, but fails to identify any specific
political activity or lobbying efforts commissioned by the organzation.
The site also does not identify who the organization has engaged as
lobbyists, what the organization’s lobbying strategy is, nor does it state
with any particularity how it intends to “keep poker legal.” Moreover the
PPA does not provide instructions on specific efforts poker players should
undertake to successfully challenge recent legislation that may affect the
legality of online poker.
WEBSITE INVESTIGATION
The PPA Website does not contain any financial information, budgets, or
information concerning how donors’ funds are used. Nevertheless, there are
several links and messages, telling visitors to “show up, sign up, and
donate” to the organization.
Perhaps most interestingly, a WHOIS search of the domain names associated
with the PPA website identified the initial registrant as a different
entity, the Professional Poker Players Association (PPPA). The PPPA is a
Northern Nevada not for profit corporation that received a default of
April 1, 2006, thus making it apparently inactive. The Nevada Secretary of
State lists Samuel Gorewitz, the previous President of the PPA as the sole
officer of the PPPA. The PPA’s website however, does not address the PPPA,
it does not address why it is the listed owner of the website nor does it
explain any connection that the two (2) not for profit organizations had
or may have. Only recently, on November 21, 2006, was the registration
information for these domains changed to the PPA.
LOCATION INVESTIGATION
In order to gain more information about the PPA we sent one of our
attorneys to the PPA’s listed office at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 200, Washington D.C.20004. The investigation revealed that the
address is a rented office space shared with about twelve (12) other
companies. The receptionist in charge of handling correspondence for all
of the businesses at that address indicated that no PPA employees were
present and that she very rarely saw anyone associated with a PPA
physically present at the Washington D.C. location. No other information
such as membership information, tax exempt status letter, employee
rosters, designated lobbyists or the like was available for inspection.
As additional follow-ups, attorneys and paralegals from our office
directed phone calls and e-mails to the PPA over several days. We sought
information regarding the deductibility of donations, the “not for profit”
status of the organization, the availability of annual reports, projected
budgets and the like. Unfortunately, our investigative efforts resulted in
no further information as phone calls and e-mails were either not returned
or the information that was returned was limited to a vague, non-specific
assurance by the PPA that “any donation made would go towards keeping
poker legal.” While the PPA’s website posts limited information about the
Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act and its adoption, the website
provides no more information than is available through public news sites
and fails to provide important information about how it tries to achieve
its stated purpose of “keeping poker legal. “
Two Plus Two has been subjected to a great deal of pressure to endorse,
publicly support, and otherwise promote the PPA. Yet, the PPA has never
provided its members with basic information critical to evaluating the
organization. While the PPA’s stated purpose is embraced by Two Plus Two,
it would be irresponsible of Two Plus Two to endorse, sanction, or promote
the PPA which is supported by “member donations” when it does not know,
and cannot easily determine how those donations are being used. We are not
suggesting that the PPA has done anything improper, nor are we suggesting
that the individuals involved are not well intended or that they are not
working to support keeping poker legal. We mean only that given the great
interest by poker players everywhere to preserve their legal right to
continue internet play, the organization that purports to represent them
should be transparent in every means possible. Its operations should be
above reproach, its plans should be publicly stated, and its member
supported budget should be made publicly available, its officers
compensation should be a matter of record, its lobbying efforts should be
known, and the lobbying it engages should be publicly disclosed.
CONCLUSION
Keeping internet poker legal is an important objective. In order to
accomplish the objective, the organization that purports to represent
poker players needs to be transparent and above board in all of its
actions. Full disclosure of its operations, budget and lobbying efforts
will be the best way to legitimize its good intentions and to sustain the
viability of its purpose. In much the same way that other not for profit
organizations explain how donations are being used, the PPA could add
credibility to its argument supporting poker players across America if it
demonstrated its credibility by being fully transparent. Two Plus Two has
always taken seriously its obligation to keep its visitors fully informed
about all aspects of poker.
Two Plus Two would be ill-advised to provide endorsements to any
organization without conducting due diligence. If the due diligence
results in a lack of credible information about any entity, Two Plus Two
should not publicly endorse, sponsor, recommend nor promote the
organization to its patrons.
> Huntsville, Alabama
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:42:19
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: The Future of Poker
|
Very interesting. Here is some correspondance I had with the PPA a few
months ago. I can't remember if I posted it. Read from the bottom up.
Hello
We are still working very hard on getting this exemption for the game of
poker. The president of the PPA has made numerous appearances on
television and radio and in print. He has spent a great deal of time
lobbying in DC and working with a lobbyist group. With or without the
shirts we are determined to keep poker alive and will continue fighting as
far as we need to.
Jason Chaput
Poker Players Alliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thumber2 [mailto:thumber2@se.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:16 PM
To: Jasonc@pokerplayersalliance.org
Subject: Re: Question Re: Where is our money being spent
You are not getting my point. I don't care about the shirt, I care about
defeating these criminal repulicans and would have preferred my money be
sent there. I think the maority who contributed would agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason
To: 'thumber2'
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Question Re: Where is our money being spent
Hi
The reason you did not receive the shirt is because you didn’t become a
full member when you registered. Did you receive the remained of the kit?
If not please let me know. From the correspondence I have with members
daily, most love the shirt and proud to wear it out in public and at games
and casinos at which they play. I have not received any word that a member
did not like the idea of the shirt.
Best of Luck,
Jason Chaput
Poker Players Alliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thumber2 [mailto:thumber2@se.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:47 PM
To: Jasonc@pokerplayersalliance.org
Subject: Re: Question Re: Where is our money being spent
Well, my honest opinion is that members could care less about the tee
shirt (et al) (btw I never got a tee shirt anyway). The members would
like to see you you do something with the money, such as supporting
candidtes who are running against incumbants like Kyl. Why didn't you do
TV commercials in Arizona. Is it because the shirts costs too much?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason
To: 'thumber2'
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: Question Re: Where is our money being spent
Hello
When a member signs up for $20, it includes the shirt, membership card,
pin, and shipping, which all has a cost. The remainder of the money goes
to keeping up the PPA including lobbying, sending the president out to DC
and various other expenses needed to run.
Jason Chaput
Poker Players Alliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thumber2 [mailto:thumber2@se.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:12 AM
To: email@pokerplayersalliance.org
Subject: Question Re: Where is our money being spent
Just curious. You have thousand of members at $20 a pop, plus donations.
I joined 3 times under family members' names. What are you doing with the
money?
Thanks
On Dec 11 2006 8:18 PM, poorolrich wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 10:27 PM, lawhonac@HiWAAY.net wrote:
>
> > The December 12, 2006 edition of Card Player magazine, (with Linda
> > Johnson on the cover), has an interesting article by senior columnist
> > Roy Cooke. Mr. Cooke has a number of comments about how the recently
> > enacted UIGEA - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 -
> > will impact poker players and the poker industry. Mr. Cooke sees the
> > overall impact as being bad for players - and especially for those who
> > play (or have played) on the internet and/or play poker for a living.
> > Roy also believes that a side effect of all this is that the games
> > (including live action games) will get tougher as many of the less
> > skillful internet players will simply avoid the hassle and drop out.
> > Roy also points out other adverse effects of the legislation which you
> > can read in the article.
> >
> > Mr. Cooke believes poker will eventually rebound from this "earthquake"
> > and prosper again, but it will take time. He encourages readers (and
> > players) to join the Poker Players Alliance as one of the solutions to
> > this dilemma lies in lobbying and political action by such
> > organizations as the PPA.
> >
> > Interestingly, Mr. Cooke did not speculate (or comment) on what might
> > occur in the courts with respect to the UIGEA. Under the provisions of
> > the legislation that was passed, the Department of Justice and other
> > Government agencies have a period of 270 days in which to write the
> > rules and regulations that will put teeth into this new law. That
> > means the UIGEA won't really take effect until sometime in the summer
> > of 2007. Then the question will be just how vigourously our Government
> > intends to enforce the law - and just how determined opponents of the
> > legislation are to resist enforcement of the law?
> >
> > Some internet web site operators, (Party Poker is the most prominent),
> > apparently have already decided that they are not going to risk picking
> > a fight with the U.S. Government. Other sites seem to be inviting
> > Uncle Sam to come after them. (I can't recall where I read this, but
> > somebody reported - maybe it was here on RGP - that Doyle Brunson is
> > virtually taunting the Government to arrest him.) Whatever the case,
> > once the regulations are issued the Government will have to enforce
> > them - otherwise what's the point of the law? The bottom line is that
> > somebody is going to get arrested - and then we have a court challenge.
> >
> > Personally, I welcome a court challenge. The positive is that a ruling
> > will settle the issue once and for all. Once the judges have ruled,
> > all the ambiguity will be removed. We will know - one way or the other
> > - whether we have the right to [legally] play poker on the internet. I
> > am not a lawyer, but I think there is an excellent chance that the
> > UIGEA will not stand up to legal scrutiny. A number of attorneys and
> > legal scholars (including UNLV law professor and gambling expert I.
> > Nelson Rose) have noted numerous grounds on which the law can be
> > challenged. The bottom line is that if the Government is "serious"
> > about enforcing the UIGEA, (and they actually arrest somebody like
> > Doyle Brunson), the Government could [potentially] suffer the
> > embarrassment of seeing the law declared unconstitutional. Then it
> > would be back to square one for the Government.
> >
> > Of course, it will take several years for a legal challenge to wind its
> > way through the courts. While that is going on, I suspect that both
> > parties, (i.e. the internet web site operators and the Government -
> > with the able assistance of the Poker Players Alliance), will come to
> > their senses and reach some kind of mutually agreeable accomodation.
> > In the end I suspect we will see an agreement that guarantees the right
> > of Americans to play poker [legally] on the internet. In exchange for
> > this guarantee, poker players (and the site operators) will have to
> > agree to taxation and regulation. (A condition of the settlement will
> > be that the Government agrees to drop enforcement of the UIGEA and
> > Doyle Brunson [or whoever] agrees to drop his lawsuit.)
> >
> > The U.S. Government will get what they want - tax revenues and saving
> > face - and internet poker players will get what they want: The right to
> > play poker on their computers without the fear of hassle from the
> > Government. This is what I see as the future of poker.
> >
> > Alan C. Lawhon
>
> Here is a statement regarding the PPA that is interesting.
>
> To: Mason Malmuth, Two Plus Two Publishing
>
> From: Mark G. Tratos, Managing Shareholder, Las Vegas Office of Greenberg
> Traurig
>
> Date: December 8, 2006
>
> RE: Poker Player's Alliance
> ____________________________________
>
> Dear Mason:
>
> You have asked us to undertake a review and analysis of the Poker Player's
> Alliance (PPA) in order to determine whether Two Plus Two should advocate
> for your patrons, support and membership in that entity. Our review has
> been extended several months as we have found it difficult to verify
> important factual information about the PPA during our due diligence
> investigation. What follows is our brief summary of our findings and the
> analysis that we undertook to complete the report. If you have any
> questions, please do not hesitate to call.
>
> SUMMARY
>
> Two Plus Two supports the proposition that poker is a game of skill and as
> such should not be placed in the same category as casino games where
> chance, luck or random occurrence solely control the outcome. Accordingly,
> Two Plus Two has opposed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of
> 2006 (UIGEA) and supports the call for legislative amendments exempting
> poker sites from UIGEA's broad coverage. Based upon this position, Two
> Plus Two, through its counsel undertook a background investigation of the
> Poker Player's Alliance to determine if Two Plus Two could endorse the PPA
> and encourage your patrons and participants on the Two Plus Two website to
> support the PPA through financial donations. Based upon our investigation,
> we do not believe Two Plus Two can actively encourage the financial
> support of the PPA because of the organizations lack of transparency.
>
> Unlike most not for profit organizations that represent a large national
> interest group, the PPA is unusually difficult to obtain information from.
> It does not make information about its budgets, officer compensation,
> lobbying expenditures, advertising and marketing, and political agenda or
> strategy available to members or the public at large. The PPA's often
> repeated refrain that "it will try to keep poker legal" is not an adequate
> substitute for the full and open disclosure expected of any 501(c)(4)
> membership based organization. As a not for profit organization, the PPA
> is prohibited from allowing any part of the net earnings of the entity to
> inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual (26 U.S.C. S
> 501(c)(4)(a). However, PPA members cannot verify the organization’s
> compliance because it has never published an annual report, or made its
> budget information available to its donors or members. In fact, we have
> not seen a disclosure or list of any individuals who were compensated for
> their services to the PPA.
>
> Moreover, all not for profit organizations achieve their tax exempted
> status through receiving an Internal Revenue Service “exemption letter.”
> Those letters are typically made available to donors and members. The PPA
> has not made such a determination letter publicly available.
>
> Our investigation of the PPA’s Washington, D.C. office found a shared
> rented office space with a receptionist who stated that she rarely saw any
> PPA representatives physically at the Washington, D.C. location. Moreover,
> our investigative phone calls and e-mails either went unanswered or we
> were told the person answering the phone could not respond to our inquiry
> about the corporate structure or the tax deductibility of donations to the
> PPA.
>
> Based upon this lack of information, we cannot recommend that Two Plus Two
> actively encourage membership in, or donations to the PPA, despite Two
> Plus Two’s agreement with the stated principal of “keeping poker legal.”
> The best way of accomplishing this important objective is for an
> organization that represents poker players to be above board in all of its
> dealings, and transparent in its organization and finances.
>
> Simply stated, in order to adequately represent the position of poker
> players, the PPA must not act secretive in any way. Its actions and those
> of its employees should be a matter of public record. If the PPA believes
> that poker players’ activities on the internet are legitimate, PPA actions
> must be as well.
>
> The only way for legitimacy to be evident is for basic financial
> information about the organization to be transparent. It is not. Thus, in
> summary, we cannot encourage Two Plus Two to actively promote or endorse
> the PPA.
>
> ANALYSIS
>
> Our review of the PPA revealed that it is a Nevada not for profit
> corporation formed June 13, 2005 (Corp. # NOR E0369522005-5). According to
> corporate records on file with the Secretary of State, one individual
> serves as the PPA’s president, secretary and treasurer. That individual is
> listed as Michael Bolcerek. The PPA’s website identifies itself as a
> (501)(c)(4) organization. Such organizations may engage in lobbying
> activities, however such organizations are statutorily prohibited from
> allowing any portion of their net earnings to be paid to any individual or
> private shareholder. Whether or not Principals or Board Members of the PPA
> receive any financial benefit for their services is not known, because the
> PPA has not seen fit to publish an annual report nor made any budget
> information available to its donors, members or the public at large.
>
> The PPA website at <pokerplayersalliance.com/org> contains general
> information about the PPA’s activities, but fails to identify any specific
> political activity or lobbying efforts commissioned by the organzation.
> The site also does not identify who the organization has engaged as
> lobbyists, what the organization’s lobbying strategy is, nor does it state
> with any particularity how it intends to “keep poker legal.” Moreover the
> PPA does not provide instructions on specific efforts poker players should
> undertake to successfully challenge recent legislation that may affect the
> legality of online poker.
>
> WEBSITE INVESTIGATION
>
> The PPA Website does not contain any financial information, budgets, or
> information concerning how donors’ funds are used. Nevertheless, there are
> several links and messages, telling visitors to “show up, sign up, and
> donate” to the organization.
>
> Perhaps most interestingly, a WHOIS search of the domain names associated
> with the PPA website identified the initial registrant as a different
> entity, the Professional Poker Players Association (PPPA). The PPPA is a
> Northern Nevada not for profit corporation that received a default of
> April 1, 2006, thus making it apparently inactive. The Nevada Secretary of
> State lists Samuel Gorewitz, the previous President of the PPA as the sole
> officer of the PPPA. The PPA’s website however, does not address the PPPA,
> it does not address why it is the listed owner of the website nor does it
> explain any connection that the two (2) not for profit organizations had
> or may have. Only recently, on November 21, 2006, was the registration
> information for these domains changed to the PPA.
>
> LOCATION INVESTIGATION
>
> In order to gain more information about the PPA we sent one of our
> attorneys to the PPA’s listed office at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
> Suite 200, Washington D.C.20004. The investigation revealed that the
> address is a rented office space shared with about twelve (12) other
> companies. The receptionist in charge of handling correspondence for all
> of the businesses at that address indicated that no PPA employees were
> present and that she very rarely saw anyone associated with a PPA
> physically present at the Washington D.C. location. No other information
> such as membership information, tax exempt status letter, employee
> rosters, designated lobbyists or the like was available for inspection.
>
> As additional follow-ups, attorneys and paralegals from our office
> directed phone calls and e-mails to the PPA over several days. We sought
> information regarding the deductibility of donations, the “not for profit”
> status of the organization, the availability of annual reports, projected
> budgets and the like. Unfortunately, our investigative efforts resulted in
> no further information as phone calls and e-mails were either not returned
> or the information that was returned was limited to a vague, non-specific
> assurance by the PPA that “any donation made would go towards keeping
> poker legal.” While the PPA’s website posts limited information about the
> Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act and its adoption, the website
> provides no more information than is available through public news sites
> and fails to provide important information about how it tries to achieve
> its stated purpose of “keeping poker legal. “
>
> Two Plus Two has been subjected to a great deal of pressure to endorse,
> publicly support, and otherwise promote the PPA. Yet, the PPA has never
> provided its members with basic information critical to evaluating the
> organization. While the PPA’s stated purpose is embraced by Two Plus Two,
> it would be irresponsible of Two Plus Two to endorse, sanction, or promote
> the PPA which is supported by “member donations” when it does not know,
> and cannot easily determine how those donations are being used. We are not
> suggesting that the PPA has done anything improper, nor are we suggesting
> that the individuals involved are not well intended or that they are not
> working to support keeping poker legal. We mean only that given the great
> interest by poker players everywhere to preserve their legal right to
> continue internet play, the organization that purports to represent them
> should be transparent in every means possible. Its operations should be
> above reproach, its plans should be publicly stated, and its member
> supported budget should be made publicly available, its officers
> compensation should be a matter of record, its lobbying efforts should be
> known, and the lobbying it engages should be publicly disclosed.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> Keeping internet poker legal is an important objective. In order to
> accomplish the objective, the organization that purports to represent
> poker players needs to be transparent and above board in all of its
> actions. Full disclosure of its operations, budget and lobbying efforts
> will be the best way to legitimize its good intentions and to sustain the
> viability of its purpose. In much the same way that other not for profit
> organizations explain how donations are being used, the PPA could add
> credibility to its argument supporting poker players across America if it
> demonstrated its credibility by being fully transparent. Two Plus Two has
> always taken seriously its obligation to keep its visitors fully informed
> about all aspects of poker.
>
> Two Plus Two would be ill-advised to provide endorsements to any
> organization without conducting due diligence. If the due diligence
> results in a lack of credible information about any entity, Two Plus Two
> should not publicly endorse, sponsor, recommend nor promote the
> organization to its patrons.
>
>
> > Huntsville, Alabama
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:07:26
From: Dave Dale
Subject: Re: The Future of Poker
|
>Keeping internet poker legal is an important objective. In order to
>accomplish the objective, the organization that purports to represent
>poker players needs to be transparent and above board in all of its
>actions. Full disclosure of its operations, budget and lobbying efforts
>will be the best way to legitimize its good intentions and to sustain the
>viability of its purpose. In much the same way that other not for profit
>organizations explain how donations are being used, the PPA could add
>credibility to its argument supporting poker players across America if it
>demonstrated its credibility by being fully transparent. Two Plus Two has
>always taken seriously its obligation to keep its visitors fully informed
>about all aspects of poker.
>
So, who will speak for us?
I can't understand why pokerstars, party, etc. haven't already set up
a lobbyist with a hundred million (i.e., a million per senator) to get
this dumb law withdrawn!
Dave Dale
www.clubwager.net
Online Poker Bonuses
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 10:41:09
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: The Future of Poker
|
Glad you took the time to tell us what Mr. Cooke said and meant instead of
posting a link or his actual article. <tongue firmly in cheek >
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:45:20
From: lawhonac@HiWAAY.net
Subject: Re: The Future of Poker
|
Speaking as a [dues paid] PPA member, this is all news to me. It will
be interesting to see what response, if any, comes from the PPA
concerning the points raised in this due diligence report. (I will be
inclined to interpret a deafening silence - or no response at all - as
an indication that something may be amiss within the PPA.)
I have encouraged my poker playing friends here in my hometown to join
the PPA. I did so with the knowledge that numerous top ranked pros,
(among them Howard Lederer and Greg Raymer - just to name two), serve
on the PPA board. Linda Johnson, the "First Lady of Poker," has also
endorsed the PPA as well as Allyn Jaffray Shulman - who recently joined
the PPA agreeing to serve as their legal advisor. (Ms. Jaffray Shulman
is an attorney with over twenty years of legal experience.) Greg
Raymer, prior to becoming the 2004 WSOP champion, worked as a patent
attorney, so he also [presumably] knows a little bit about the law.
Daniel Negreanu has also encouraged poker players to join the PPA.
There are several other well known pros who serve in "advisory
capacities" on the PPA board.
Shortly after the UIGEA passed, Mr. Michael Bolcerak, PPA President,
appeared for about half an hour on C-SPAN to discuss the act and how
his organization intended to go about addressing it. Michael took some
calls from viewers, but no questions concerning the issues raised in
the due diligence report came up.
Despite some perfunctory wording to the contrary, the "tone" of this
due diligence report seems to be a warning that the people running the
PPA may not have the true interests of poker players at heart. That
may be (or could be) the case, but I find it hard to believe that
people like Linda Johnson, Howard Lederer, Greg Raymer, Daniel Negreanu
and Mr. Cooke have allowed themselves to be duped by a slick charlatan
(i.e. Mr. Bolcerak) who is intent on collecting a lot of money and then
skipping town. I just find it hard to believe that these poker
luminaries, many of whom (like Linda Johnson) have devoted a major
portion of their lives to promoting the public image of poker; didn't
do some of their own "due diligence" before they agreed to join (and
publicly endorse) the PPA.
I hope that the PPA will (quickly) issue a statement and respond to the
issues raised in this report. Before we automatically jump to the
conclusion that something may be rotten here, I think the PPA (and Mr.
Bolcerak) deserve an opportunity to respond. The issues raised in this
due diligence report are troubling, but I think it is only fair that
Mr. Bolcerak (as well as all the pros who have endorsed the PPA) be
allowed the opportunity to give their side of the story. I would like
to hear their response(s) before I form a more definite opinion.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
|
|
