Enough With the Excuses...By Hartley Henderson

[Rogthedodger]

Last week the United States government conceded defeat in the WTO dispute with Antigua, but rather than abiding by court's ruling, the USTR (U.S. trade reprentatives) chose instead to remove its commitment regarding gambling from the services schedule under GATS. This is the first time a country has simply disobeyed a ruling of the WTO, and it could have serious ramifications for U.S. trade in the future. I am in the process of putting together a detailed article discussing the ramifications of the decision as well as the reactions of other WTO member countries and various free trade experts. However, prior to publishing that article I thought it was important to address the United States' response since making that decision and issue an editorial about the blatant misrepresentation and half truths spewed by the U.S. government.

As soon as the United States issued the announcement conceding defeat, they were quick to point out that they hadn't intended to include gambling in the agreement and the inclusion was just an oversight. That is just not truthful. As Mark Mendel, Antigua's lawyer, pointed out in a statement:

"There is simply no basis for such a statement. When the schedules were drawn up over ten years ago, there was extensive debate, proposal and counterproposal from all WTO members in determining what commitments would be made. More than a dozen countries were able to expressly exclude gambling from their commitments, and many dozens more excluded the commitment in other ways. For the United States to say this was a mistake is just not true."

The reason the United States did not exclude gambling from its commitments is obvious. The USTR felt they could benefit at some point in the future by including gambling as part of its agreement. Gambling is prevalent throughout the U.S. and contributes enormous amounts of money to government coffers. Aside from selling gambling paraphernalia such as slot machines and blackjack tables worldwide, there is no doubt the United States envisioned someday of allowing Harrah's, Caesar's or some other U.S. companies to set up operations elsewhere in North or South America or overseas. And with this WTO agreement in place, should the time arise, they could force other countries who did not carve out exceptions to welcome those companies to set up shop in those countries. As for remote betting, the internet was hardly an issue in 1993 when the agreement was signed in Uruguay, but horse racing did allow for remote betting and no doubt the powerful U.S. horse racing lobby didn't want to shut itself out if they wanted someday to offer their product overseas. The U.S. may now regret that decision not to specify gambling in the agreement, but with hundreds of politicians and lawyers reading every word of what they signed, they knew full well what they were agreeing to and there was no "oversight."

As well, the United States has suggested that the laws in the United States make it illegal to bet online and hence they have no obligation to compensate anyone since "everybody was on notice that the United States had very strong criminal prohibitions at the state and federal level in the area of gambling."

Hogwash, gambling is legal almost everywhere in the United States. You can't drive more than an hour anywhere in the U.S. (save for Hawaii and Utah), without coming in contact with a casino, race track, poker room or other gambling establishment. And of course every store sells lottery tickets of some sort or another. So to say there are "strong criminal prohibitions in the area of gambling" is a misnomer. Sure, there are some laws on the books that make bookmaking illegal, but that is for local people operating as bookies in the United States. The U.S. superior courts have stated that the wire act really doesn't apply to online casinos or poker rooms and it is questionable if it applies to internet sportsbooks. As for the UIGEA, that law was only passed in October of 2006 upon being slipped into the Safe Port bill, but it can only apply for agreements signed after October 2006. You can't pass a law and then somehow backdate it to a time when the law wasn't applicable. Laws are always intended to apply from the time they were passed. Mind you, in this case both countries have different interpretations of the law and the only relevant agreement was the one signed at the WTO and ruled upon by the appelate court in Antigua's favour.

Furthermore, the United States continues to state its "morals objection," that betting at a brick and mortar establishment is ethical but betting remotely is unethical, except for horse racing, lotteries and fantasy games. This argument has always been illogical and still is. The internet is not immoral. The activity is the only thing that can be moral or not. People who oppose pornography oppose all pornography as immoral. They don't somehow suggest that Hustler Magazine is moral but sex.com is not. By this definition, buying a book at Barnes and Noble is ethical, but purchasing the same book from Amazon.com is immoral. At least Jon Kyl had the fortitude to state that he "is no fan of gambling." Clearly he doesn't like the activity and finds gambling to be immoral despite the fact that it is prevalent throughout Arizona. But the U.S. government, which is only too happy to take revenues from gambling, doesn't find the activity immoral. To state otherwise is just untrue. If the U.S. government truly finds gambling to be immoral then they should shut down Nevada and Atlantic City, close every riverboat and native casino, stop selling lottery tickets and close up every horse race track. Only then will the rest of the world believe that the U.S. has objections to gambling.

Finally, the United States is suggesting it should not have to compensate any other country for its decision because there is no real loss to the other countries as a result of its decision. That suggestion is unfathomable. The country of Antigua has built its economy around internet wagering, and most of it from U.S. citizens. It reaps hundreds of millions of dollars from the industry. When Britain was forced to pull out of the U.S. market, the country's stock market plummeted almost $6 billion. And many other countries which intended to get into the internet betting arena to raise badly needed funds, now have to abandon those plans. It's one thing for the USTR to believe their decision hasn't affected other countries, but the reality is that it has, and the United States could be on the hook for billions of dollars in compensation, which of course will all eventually come out of U.S. taxpayers' pockets.

The USTR is trying to justify its decision to breach the agreement at the WTO by making excuses. However, a country with as many international lawyers as the U.S. should know that signed agreements are binding regardless of whether a country regrets signing it later. Even in day to day life people sign agreements all the time that they may later regret. I recall signing a contract to join a fitness club for 3 years which I later regretted. However, my signature was legally binding and I paid the fee until the contract ran out. Movie stars sign prenuptial agreements and then often regret it when the marriage dissolves and they realize they could have received more assets. And in the United States large companies sign international agreements to import or export goods all the time and often regret it. But in the end they live up to the agreement because their signature is legally enforceable. That is where the U.S. currently stands. They signed an agreement in good faith along with hundreds of other countries, and now regret not excluding gambling. But they did indeed sign the agreement to include gambling in the schedule and should honor their commitment. The United States has been the biggest benefactor from WTO rulings, and while many countries that lost decisions to the United States may not have liked the ruling or wished they hadn't signed the agreement, in the end they live up to their commitments and obey the WTO court's ruling. The WTO is not a one way street. This decision by the U.S. shows them to be poor sports and dirty dealers. In the future why would anyone want to deal with the U.S. if they can't trust them to honor their commitments? The USTR likely feels that this will blow over soon, but the case was being watched with great interest worldwide to see how the U.S. would actually respond to a major loss, especially in light of recent decisions that went against the U.S. in agriculture and softwood lumber where the United States government dragged their feet as long as possible to force the other countries to accept lesser settlements.

As stated earlier, I am in the process of gathering quotes from many countries represented at the WTO as well as GATS representatives themselves. The next article will list all the quotes and also examine the ramifications of the decision so that U.S. taxpayers can decide whether they are being well represented by their government.

05-13-2007
Hartley Henderson
Majorwager.com
henderson@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-497.html

[stevo]

As soon as the United States issued the announcement conceding defeat, they were quick to point out that they hadn't intended to include gambling in the agreement and the inclusion was just an oversight. That is just not truthful. As Mark Mendel, Antigua's lawyer, pointed out in a statement:


Motherfukin liars. Thanks for the work on this Hartley.

[Mr Falcone]

Furthermore, the United States continues to state its "morals objection," that betting at a brick and mortar establishment is ethical but betting remotely is unethical, except for horse racing, lotteries and fantasy games.

Friggin hypocrisy

[Highwayman]

Get over it…

The Offshore Gaming Industry has been irresponsibly voiding their agreements with U.S. customers based upon “bad-lines” ever since inception with no recourse for consumers, while the Offshore Gaming Industry is justifiably receiving a dose of their own medicine.

One who attempts to justify why the U.S. trade agreement “bad line” should be upheld without acknowledging that all agreements made between the Offshore Gaming Industry and their customers must first be upheld regardless of “bad line” excuses is blinded by their own hypocrisy.





.

[JC]

Very well said Hartley.

[Total Square]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

The Offshore Gaming Industry has been irresponsibly voiding their agreements with U.S. customers based upon “bad-lines” ever since inception with no recourse for consumers, while the Offshore Gaming Industry is justifiably receiving a dose of their own medicine.


.

didnt you point out quite the opposite last night?

nothing like talking out of both sides of your mouth

[Minnow]

Hartley, thanks for breaking this WTO situation down in a way that a layman can understand.

This is an excellent summary, and I am looking forward to reading your follow-up.

[Juice]

Vey informative.

[Dell Dude]

Interesting. America Online is sending nine American internet players (but not Michigan!) to the WSOP through free satellite tournaments. I'm assuming this is okay with John Gomer Kyle.

World Series of Poker Main Event Tournament Rules - AOL Games

AOL 2007 WORLD SERIES OF POKER NO LIMIT TEXAS HOLD'EM TOURNAMENT CONTEST OFFICIAL RULES


1. ELIGIBILITY: The AOL 2007 World Series Of Poker No Limit Texas Hold'em Tournament Contest (the "Contest") is open only to legal residents of the United States and the District of Columbia, 21 years of age and older, except residents of the following states: Oklahoma, Mississippi, Nevada, Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa, Rhode Island, Vermont, Michigan. Void in OK, MS, NV, IL, MA, IA, RI, VT, MI, Puerto Rico and where prohibited.

2. CONTEST DESCRIPTION/TIIMING: The Contest is a contest of skill. Contest begins at 12:00 noon Eastern Time (ET) on 4/16/07 and ends 2:00 PM ET on 6/17/07 (the "Contest Period"). No money or other consideration of any kind is required to participate in this Contest. AOL will hold online poker tournaments ("qualifying tournaments") around World Series of Poker No-Limit Texas Hold'em Poker throughout the Contest Period in order to qualify participants for the nine (9) major poker tournaments (the "Main Event Tournament") that will take place during the Contest Period. The winner of each Main Event Tournament will be declared a Grand Prize winner and will be invited to attend and participate in the 2007 World Series of Poker No-Limit Texas Hold'em World Championship Event in Las Vegas, NV in July, 2007.

6. PRIZE DESCRIPTION: A total of nine (9) Grand Prizes will be awarded: a 7-day, 6-night trip for the winner and one (1) guest selected by the winner to Las Vegas, NV, in July 2007 where the winners will participate in the World Series of Poker. Each Grand Prize for winner and guest includes roundtrip coach class air transportation from major U.S. gateway airport nearest winner's home, round-trip ground transportation via private sedan service between airport and hotel in Las Vegas, hotel accommodations (double occupancy) and an opportunity for the winner to participate in the 2007 World Series of Poker No Limit Texas Hold'em World Championship Tournament. Sponsor will pay all fees associated with securing winner's seat for participation in tournament and in no event will winner be required to expend additional monies or other consideration to compete in tournament. Approximate Retail Value (ARV) of each Las Vegas Trip: $3,350.00/ea. Total ARV of all prizes: $30,150.00

So you can do this but you're not supposed to try to get in through a Party Poker satellite? This kind of stuff makes me even more angry about UIGEA. What does AOL poker have in common with the state run lotteries? Both are fukkin scams that almost guarantee you can't win as opposed to the "illegal" gambling on the internet.

[Dell Dude]

One more thing about this internet gambling debate, and it tells a lot about what kind of people run our government. When they talk about possibly legalizing internet gambling, their motive is getting their hands on that tax revenue. That's number one. Second motivation is prosecuting people (both Americans and non-Americans) who dare to take offshore/online bets from US citizens without being taxed and regulated by the government. Providing a safe and regulated activity for Americans who clearly desire to gamble on the internet is an after thought if a thought at all. They don't give a shitt about that. They don't give a shitt about the American people. It's all about how this will will them more power and give the government more money.

[Crony]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Get over it…

The Offshore Gaming Industry has been irresponsibly voiding their agreements with U.S. customers based upon “bad-lines” ever since inception with no recourse for consumers, while the Offshore Gaming Industry is justifiably receiving a dose of their own medicine.

One who attempts to justify why the U.S. trade agreement “bad line” should be upheld without acknowledging that all agreements made between the Offshore Gaming Industry and their customers must first be upheld regardless of “bad line” excuses is blinded by their own hypocrisy.





.

Highwayman,

That is some seriously asinine chit you are spewing.

From a gamblers point of view, wtf does a bad line rule which rarely gets used have anything to do with the US not honoring trade agreements due to corrupt special interest influences?

[Bucky]

Hartley,

What could Antigua or the WTO offer the USA in the form of tax revenue collection? You know - forget free trade and offer to collect tax on the deposits and withdrawals of Americans and provide a 1099 to said USA citizens in exchange for a regulated market? At this point doesn't the USA feel the bookmakers in Antigua are no more evolved than local operations on street corners? That the Antiguan license is no more than a fishing permit?

I guess what I am asking is do you have an idea for Antigua that would make online gaming work - that the USA would be happy with?

[homedog]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Get over it…

The Offshore Gaming Industry has been irresponsibly voiding their agreements with U.S. customers based upon “bad-lines” ever since inception with no recourse for consumers, while the Offshore Gaming Industry is justifiably receiving a dose of their own medicine.

One who attempts to justify why the U.S. trade agreement “bad line” should be upheld without acknowledging that all agreements made between the Offshore Gaming Industry and their customers must first be upheld regardless of “bad line” excuses is blinded by their own hypocrisy.





.

What a moron.

[Dell Dude]

If I had a chance to interview this klown Kyle, I would remind him that we have a representative government, and congress is supposed to represent the views and will of the their constituents which are the American people. My question would be, does this effort to ban internet gambling represent the views and will of the American people? Does it represent the views and will of the Arizona people? Or is he doing it because he is representing his views and his will. Or the views and will of the people who donate money to his campaign and help keep him in power. Then when he gave me a bullshitt answer I would Bill O'Reilly his stupid ass.

The United States is a representative government in name only. Only when and if there is so much pressure on these idiots from the American people will they vote accordingly. Iraq War is an example. They will let these soldiers continue to die until there is so much pressure, they either vote to end it or they get voted out.

Hate that guy. Who the hell does he think he is? Just a Goddamn Junior Senator from a nothing state.