ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2007, 10:40 AM
Rogthedodger Rogthedodger is offline
Editor-in-Chief, MajorWager.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,871
Default Hartley Henderson's Letter to the Editor of The Minot Daily News...By Hartley Henderson

The editorial Hartley is commenting on is located here:

Minot Daily News


To Whom it May Concern,

Your editorial regarding the WTO issue is full of misinformation.

First, you state "U.S. law does not permit Internet gambling. Rightly or wrongly, that's our rule".

The above is not true. Internet gambling, along with all forms of gambling in the United States is governed by the states themselves, not by federal law. In some states such as Washington and South Dakota betting on the Internet is forbidden. In other states it is not. As for your own state, North Dakota, there are no laws that specifically deal with the Internet. All North Dakotan laws relate to gambling in general and you should note that gambling does legally take place in your state, and in fact across America. This notion that "Internet gambling is illegal" is just not true for every state. By the way, in North Dakota bets under $25 on anything, even placed on the Internet are perfectly legal, and bets between $25 and $500 are simply an infraction, possibly subject to a fine by those placing the bets. It is true that almost all states make it illegal for Americans to operate gambling services, whether on the Internet, in a bar or in a backroom, but those "anti-mobster" laws have been around long before the Internet was invented.

Secondly, you write, "But the European Union, Canada and Japan complained to the WTO about that - and the world organization ruled that the United States is wrong. This past week, U.S. officials agreed to make up for our lapse by granting certain trade concessions to the EU, Canada and Japan. In addition, the United States will have to drop its restrictions on bank and credit card payments to international gambling organizations."

This comment shows a lack of understanding about anything that happened in the WTO dispute since the inception of the suit close to four years ago. The United States made a commitment to provide recreational services (including gambling) to all WTO members. They had every chance to take out gambling from their commitments when they signed the agreement, but chose not to. When they realized that this decision may not have been a smart one they tried to renege on the agreement and Antigua called them to task on it. The WTO ruled numerous times in Antigua's favor and the U.S. chose to wave the white flag and then announced they would be withdrawing that commitment. As part of WTO rules, in exchange for changing ones mind any countries that feel they could be hurt as a result of this change have the right to demand compensation. The EU (which lost almost $5.5 billion as a result of the U.S.'s decision to block companies from selling services to the U.S.), Canada, which could stand to lose billions, Japan, India, Macau and Costa Rica chose to seek compensation. The U.S., as you stated, came to an agreement which many would see as a pretty cheap form of getting their way.

Suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say China allowed the U.S. to sell American made software to China, but after the U.S. companies spent billions setting up the infrastructure and sales networks, China changed its mind and told the U.S. they couldn't sell the products there. Would you claim that it is China's right to dispute their agreement and shouldn't be obligated to allow the U.S. software into the country?

Your claim that the United States will have to drop its restrictions on bank and credit card payments to gambling companies is also untrue. Can you please provide the source where you received that information from? I'm sure Visa and Citibank would love to see that decision so they can resume offering those services.

Lastly, the whole scope of your editorial, ending with, "When such organizations dictate to the United States that it will enforce its own laws, something is terribly wrong," is ignorant and fails to understand why the WTO was set up in the first place by countries like the U.S. The WTO was intended to provide small countries with the same trade opportunities as large companies without being dictated to because of size. Unfortunately, such has not happened in past WTO trade agreements. In case after case, the United States has won decisions against smaller countries in the WTO causing many to feel the WTO has not been acting fairly because it has been favoring the United States and other large countries. This is the one of the very few times where a smaller country has won against the U.S., and unfortunately people like you seem to be screaming when you should be applauding that the WTO is finally operating as it should.

But most concerning is your comment, "When such organizations dictate to the United States that it will enforce its own laws, something is terribly wrong." "Its own laws are also the United States' laws." The WTO is not a foe to the United States. The WTO is a multilateral organization that has come up with rules that all countries agreed to INCLUDING the United States. It is the United States that is trying to change the rules that it happily signed without duress.

Sincerely,

12-28-2007
Hartley Henderson
MajorWager.com
henderson@majorwager.com
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
MajorWager.com
editor@majorwager.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2007, 10:50 AM
stevo stevo is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 64,180
Default

Nice job Hartley!

They"ll just keep repeating it (legalities of it all) and its gets so freaking old.
__________________
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2007, 01:21 PM
drunkguy drunkguy is offline
MW Mod & Writer, Jay Graziani
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 8,678
Send a message via MSN to drunkguy Send a message via Yahoo to drunkguy
Default

make sure to let us know if they run it


doubtful though, you make too much sense to get printed
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2007, 05:00 PM
StarnetGypsy StarnetGypsy is offline
Five Star Gypsy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miles From Nowhere.
Posts: 21,489
Default

well thought out letter Hartley. good job.

looking forward to seeing their form letter reply ...
__________________
no matter where you go, there you are ...
"And remember, no matter where you go, there you are." .—Confucius


Gyps


AL 29:11 Just Win Baby
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does Hartley Henderson sound the least bit Islamic? Hartley Mess Hall 3 10-24-2007 11:47 AM
Like It or Not, Polytrack is Here to Stay...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 0 08-03-2007 12:05 PM
Enough With the Excuses...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 13 05-13-2007 10:09 PM
News Flash: NETeller Hearing Held Over Until April 16th...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 5 03-17-2007 12:44 AM
WTO Ruling on Antigua Due Out Soon...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 19 01-26-2007 04:20 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 PM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6