New case involves same pattern of offshore web site accepting sportsbets from US residents over the phone
Four men were indicted for allegedly running an illegal offshore gambling operation, federal authorities said.
The U.S. attorney's office reported Wednesday that four men have been indicted in connection with an ongoing investigation into a gambling and money laundering scheme that allegedly involves facilitating illegal betting through a Costa Rica-based Web site.
According to the 12-count indictment, which was issued last Thursday and unsealed Tuesday, the defendants face charges of conspiracy and conducting an illegal gambling business, conspiracy to launder funds from the business, and conspiracy to use facilities in interstate and foreign commerce to promote the unlawful activity.
Those facilities include e-mail, telephone communication and an Internet Web site.
The web site www.bettheduck.com no longer appears to be online, and returns "502" error messages, indicating that several steps have been taken to ensure that the web site, if it is still operating, is impossible to access.
Prosecutors said the indictment is the expansion of a criminal complaint filed on July 26 that charged eight men with similar crimes.
The indictment charges 61-year-old Houshang "Hoosh" Pourmohamad of Richmond, who also was charged in the July 26 complaint.
The indictment also charges 62-year-old Richard "Alex" Anderson of Los Angeles; Darwin Mobley of San Jose, Costa Rica; and Jorge Esteban Hall Zumbado, also of San Jose, Costa Rica.
Prosecutors said the charges are the result of an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service's criminal investigation unit.
According to the indictment, the defendants were part of a gambling scheme whereby players placed bets and wagers via the Internet, at Web site bettheduck.com or through a toll-free number, with one or more people in Costa Rica who were paid to operate the illegal gambling business there.
The indictment alleges that "agents" within the U.S. collected the bets and wagers, in the form of checks and currency, from the players and then delivered them to "runners," who delivered the funds to the bookmaker.
Betting funds were used to pay expenses of the business, including the salaries of persons working in Costa Rica, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the illegal gambling business.
The indictment says Anderson, Mobley, and Zumbado allegedly operated the gambling business in Costa Rica and received compensation for doing so with funds sent by wire transfer from the U.S. to a bank account in Costa Rica.
Pourmohamad allegedly worked as an agent in the U.S., collecting currency from players in the U.S. and delivering it either to the bookmaker or to the runners.
As an agent, Pourmohamad received a commission based on a percentage of his players' losses, according to the indictment.
Pourmohamad was arrested in Richmond on July 26 on the earlier criminal complaint and made his initial appearance in federal court in Oakland today. He's scheduled to return to court on Sept. 12
Anderson, Mobley, and Zumbado haven't yet been arrested.
Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, three years supervised release and a $100 special assessment.
The web site www.bettheduck.com no longer appears to be online, and returns "502" error messages, indicating that several steps have been taken to ensure that the web site, if it is still operating, is impossible to access.
Does that mean that the U.S. can block or error code any site that it desires?
i'm wondering if this is going to have any affect on the bill thats being voted on.it sure isn't helping our cause any with these knuckleheads getting caught......
The web site www.bettheduck.com no longer appears to be online, and returns "502" error messages, indicating that several steps have been taken to ensure that the web site, if it is still operating, is impossible to access.
Does that mean that the U.S. can block or error code any site that it desires?
It probably means the site's data center removed the DNS records. The US government cannot block it. (At least not yet....)
If the government blocks gambling sites and doesn't block porn sites, we need to file a class action suit to force them to either block porn sites or leave gambling sites alone. Are there any lawyers who want a lot of publicity on a pro bono basis? Perhaps we can start by suing the two moron "Con" gressmen who started this mess to start with.
The people need to hold our alleged representatives directly responsible for the trouble they cause. That will make them think twice before pushing trash legislation instead of defending their nation and upholding the Constitution.
I suspect that once the election is over, it will go away until the next election cycle. The morons who represent us refuse to protect us from illegal aliens and terrorists, but they sure can take hard stands on flag burning and online gambling. The "Con" gress is obviously full of gutless traitors who are more interested in campaign funds and reelection than the people they represent.
I'm so glad with people wanting to blow us up and others selling children for sex that they take the time out to focus on the real enemy, Americans gambling in their own homes.
Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, three years supervised release and a $100 special assessment.
No excuse is too small to lock a man behind bars and confiscate his property in the US.
You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded.
Even though I'm saddened to see another piece of freedom noisily disintegrate under the iron heel there's something mildly satisfying in watching your whines when the freedoms going away are some you happen to enjoy.
If it's progress and legitimate social improvement when they build another prison to hold prostitutes, drug possessors, all manner of victimless criminals, so's this.
I read somewhere there are millions of porn sites these days, which is a bizarre statement about something in humanity.
Each of those millions of sites must have hundreds, maybe thousands of people visiting them. Thousands of millions of people visiting porn sites? I don't applaud it, but it's the business of the people visiting the sites and the godawful mess that must be going on in the (has to be) millions of people who are performing sex acts for cameras.
Some of you've alluded to how they ought to be focusing on that, instead of this behavior, which is okay because you happen to like it.
May you get as much iron heel as you've begged for.
Quote: Originally posted by Rip Snorter on Aug 18, 2006
Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, three years supervised release and a $100 special assessment.
No excuse is too small to lock a man behind bars and confiscate his property in the US.
You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded.
Even though I'm saddened to see another piece of freedom noisily disintegrate under the iron heel there's something mildly satisfying in watching your whines when the freedoms going away are some you happen to enjoy.
If it's progress and legitimate social improvement when they build another prison to hold prostitutes, drug possessors, all manner of victimless criminals, so's this.
I read somewhere there are millions of porn sites these days, which is a bizarre statement about something in humanity.
Each of those millions of sites must have hundreds, maybe thousands of people visiting them. Thousands of millions of people visiting porn sites? I don't applaud it, but it's the business of the people visiting the sites and the godawful mess that must be going on in the (has to be) millions of people who are performing sex acts for cameras.
Some of you've alluded to how they ought to be focusing on that, instead of this behavior, which is okay because you happen to like it.
May you get as much iron heel as you've begged for.
J
I agree100%. If there is no victim, there is no crime. We can't read victims or create potential victims into the "crime" as defined by our government or social mores. A crime has to have a victim to be a crime. If a person commits a crime against themselves it is a crime against themselves and there is no victim. A criminal and a victim involve two individuals not one: One person perpetrating the crime (criminal) and the victim being an unwilling and injured participant of that crime.
That is why the US has the highest prison population per capita in the world and is still building more prisons as we speak.
Gambling, prostitution and drug possession are examples of jailable crimes that do not involve a victim.
I've said it before and I'll say it 'till my last breath, we must get the chihuahuas out of our privates, or we won't have any privates left.
If gambling was a crime, there would be no horse and dog races, no casinos, no states' and country lotteries.
Gambling itself is not a crime, prostitution and illegal drug use are.
I mean here on the U.S.A. in some countries, prostitution and drug use might be or is legal, at least prostitution is.
As it was said: "If there is no victim there is no crime", after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s) have different morality, rules and laws.
Right(s) and wrong(s) are not the same to everybody.
What is a right to you, might be a wrong to somebody else.
And what is a wrong to you, might be a right to somebody else.
What might have been a right to a people at one time, might become a wrong at another time (In the future) and vice-versa.
And then there are things that are both right and wrong to the same people at the same time, like killing and gambling, for example: They are O.K. if they are done with the government or with their permission and not otherwise.
Here we have double standards.
Same with other illegal activities beside those like having monopolies, it is OK for the government to do and have, but not for anybody else.
Illegal activities become legal if the government does them, but only for the government, they are still illegal for anybody else to do, like having and running a lottery.
It is a case of:
Do as I say to do, but not as I do.
Morality is on the eye of the beholder or something like that, they say.
Go to Utah and have many wives and children with them, or go to San Francisco and marry your same sex "Friend", maybe not anymore.
Or go South and have black slaves, well, I guess this one is no more, now they are Mexican slaves instead and not just South either, but everywhere.
Quote: Originally posted by EXCALIBUR on Aug 19, 2006
If gambling was a crime, there would be no horse and dog races, no casinos, no states' and country lotteries.
Gambling itself is not a crime, prostitution and illegal drug use are.
I mean here on the U.S.A. in some countries, prostitution and drug use might be or is legal, at least prostitution is.
As it was said: "If there is no victim there is no crime", after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s) have different morality, rules and laws.
Right(s) and wrong(s) are not the same to everybody.
What is a right to you, might be a wrong to somebody else.
And what is a wrong to you, might be a right to somebody else.
What might have been a right to a people at one time, might become a wrong at another time (In the future) and vice-versa.
And then there are things that are both right and wrong to the same people at the same time, like killing and gambling, for example: They are O.K. if they are done with the government or with their permission and not otherwise.
Here we have double standards.
Same with other illegal activities beside those like having monopolies, it is OK for the government to do and have, but not for anybody else.
Illegal activities become legal if the government does them, but only for the government, they are still illegal for anybody else to do, like having and running a lottery.
It is a case of:
Do as I say to do, but not as I do.
Morality is on the eye of the beholder or something like that, they say.
Go to Utah and have many wives and children with them, or go to San Francisco and marry your same sex "Friend", maybe not anymore.
Or go South and have black slaves, well, I guess this one is no more, now they are Mexican slaves instead and not just South either, but everywhere.
Have a nice weekend.
As it was said: "If there is no victim there is no crime", after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s) have different morality, rules and laws.
Right(s) and wrong(s) are not the same to everybody.
What is a right to you, might be a wrong to somebody else.
And what is a wrong to you, might be a right to somebody else
Morality might be defined in a lot of ways. Probably in the US the most common and universal definition is that morality is the avoidance of law-breaking, whatever the laws might be.
Legality's a different matter. In times past legal thinkers within the US assumed criminal legality fell into tiers, or layers:
Federal Statutes were confined within the powers and limitations granted and limited by the US Constitution.
State criminal codes were limited by and confined within powers and limitations not granted to the Federal Government, but not forbidden by the Constitution.
Local codes were limited to those not forbidden by the Constution, the Federal Statutes, State Statutes.
That's the reason prohibition of alcohol required an amendment to the US Constitution to allow the Federal Government to enforce it. It's also the reason it continued to be enforced until that Constitutional amendment was repealed.
Otherwise, the only Constitutionally granted right (as opposed to the 'right' implied by overwhelming force) of the Federal Government to enforce such prohibitions lies in interstate commerce and traffic.
The problem with the Internet Gambling criminality is that the entire issue of Federal criminality's become a matter of nuance and questions over which powers other than those granted by the Constitution the Feds have granted themselves at any given moment.
Those powers it's granted itself cover a wide range of regulation and statutes allowing powers it's granted itself in one area, say, anti-terrorism, to spill over into enforcement of other powers it's given itself, say, forbidden drug possession (though that's actually only a small example).
The result is that, for instance, most illegal drugs aren't even named in statutes passed through Congress and signed by the President. That authority's been delegated to the Food and Drug Administation. People are spending time in prison for possessing chemical items elected representatives have never named in statute as Criminal.
Similarly, notice the indirect approaches to enforcement of the Internet Gambling issues in this story.
Until Federal Statutes clearly define what is legal under the powers the Feds have granted themselves, and what is illegal, anything's up for grabs. The only test for legality's in the act of doing it and seeing whether you're prosecuted for it.
now they are Mexican slaves instead and not just South either, but everywhere.
Slavery is a word that gets a lot of usage where it doesn't apply. Slaves attempt to escape the condition of slavery whenever possible. Slavery exists in a legal environment, or physical environment, where force is used to keep them from escaping.
I've read of many isolated instances where Mexican and other laborers were held in bondage on ranches and in other remote places. When those ranchers and other slave holders were discovered the slaves were released and the slaveholders prosecuted for kidnapping and other offenses.
In the US today the only slaves I'm aware of are people being held in prison facilities. They work free, cannot move from whatever place they're directed to be, and they exist in an environment of constant physical, sexual and mental abuse.
The suggestion that Mexican workers who've struggled desparately to arrive here to work for wages and have to avoid law-enforcement to remain here are slaves does you no credit.
By their own standards, those who use legality as the measure of morality should feel repelled by the entire issue of online gambling once it's passed by an Act of Congress and signed by the Prez. They should applaud as they are, themselves, hauled off to the slammer for a few years if they're caught doing it.
By the same token, they should have no problem with pornography because it is evidently not illegal (immoral). (Except in the instance of kiddie porn, which is both illegal and immoral and actively investigated and enforced by criminal prosecution where the Internet's involved.)
"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."
I'd like for you to clarify who you've included in this blanket statement. One finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you. Unless you are a life-long political activist, you can cram it with peanut butter, sunshine!
Quote: Originally posted by Lurk More N00b on Aug 20, 2006
"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."
I'd like for you to clarify who you've included in this blanket statement. One finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you. Unless you are a life-long political activist, you can cram it with peanut butter, sunshine!
It's not important enough to clarify for your benefit. But if you've ever served on a jury and refused to vote for conviction and imprisonment of a person who was clearly guilty of a victimless crime, if you've ever done anything at all to change the situation I'll disinclude you.
Otherwise, count yourself inside the fences, amigo.
No need for me to cram it with butter and sunshine. You excluded me inside your 'unless you're a' piece of the permission you gave me, though the 'life-long' piece of it gets fairly shaky nowadays. I did enough in years past to make up for it.
You have no idea what I've done. Your assumptions are baseless and asinine. You cannot blame society as a whole while leaving yourself out of the equation. It's just ignorant.
Quote: Originally posted by Rip Snorter on Aug 19, 2006
By their own standards, those who use legality as the measure of morality should feel repelled by the entire issue of online gambling once it's passed by an Act of Congress and signed by the Prez. They should applaud as they are, themselves, hauled off to the slammer for a few years if they're caught doing it.
By the same token, they should have no problem with pornography because it is evidently not illegal (immoral). (Except in the instance of kiddie porn, which is both illegal and immoral and actively investigated and enforced by criminal prosecution where the Internet's involved.)
J
Let me start by saying that I do not support the ban on Internet gambling, as I do not feel it is immoral.
Then, my point:
You have it backwards. People do not use laws as the basis for what they feel is moral. They create laws based on what they feel is moral.
I understand that libertarians want fewer laws, and I support that to a degree, but that is because libertarians generally do not feel that there is a heck of a lot that could be deemed "immoral". Hence, they do not want a lot of laws.
As a society, we try to come together to create laws that cover us all, but as our population grows ridiculously large and diverse, it becomes harder and more divisive to do that, no matter which direction the country moves in.
Quote: Originally posted by Lurk More N00b on Aug 20, 2006
You have no idea what I've done. Your assumptions are baseless and asinine. You cannot blame society as a whole while leaving yourself out of the equation. It's just ignorant.
I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More. I only gave you a couple of factors you could use to exclude yourself.
I have no idea what you've done, nor what you haven't done. And I haven't a care either way.
If you wish to exclude yourself, by all means do it with my best wishes.
However, if you wish to exclude yourself you probably ought to be ecstatic such things are being discussed, as opposed to worrying you aren't getting pats on the back and kudos for whatever you might have done.
All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire.
But you don't need my admiration and I certainly don't need yours.
Whatever any of us might have done obviously wasn't enough to stop the steamroller.
So, in my own case, I'm perfectly happy to see the steamroller squash a few feet who've done as I described, sat silently in tacit consent, applauded, or gloated while others were hauled off to the slammer for victimless crimes.
It won't change anything, but at least they'll have a taste of the pinch they've wished on others.
Let me start by saying that I do not support the ban on Internet gambling, as I do not feel it is immoral.
Then, my point:
You have it backwards. People do not use laws as the basis for what they feel is moral. They create laws based on what they feel is moral.
I understand that libertarians want fewer laws, and I support that to a degree, but that is because libertarians generally do not feel that there is a heck of a lot that could be deemed "immoral". Hence, they do not want a lot of laws.
As a society, we try to come together to create laws that cover us all, but as our population grows ridiculously large and diverse, it becomes harder and more divisive to do that, no matter which direction the country moves in.
Todd:
I don't know how a Libertarian might reply to your post, but here's an alternative viewpoint:
In a free society where freedom of religion is an ideal there's a lot of elbow room for differing beliefs concerning morality.
Criminal laws is such a society would be intended to do the following:
Discourage people from harming one another,
Discourage people from threatening one another,
Discourage people from destroying the property of one another,
Discourage people from stealing the property of one another,
Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.
However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.
I'm not easily angered, nor easily drawn into flamewars on message boards, but you must understand that the way you presented your statement was very accusatory of others while offering no evidence whatsoever that you are any better than the rest of us. If you are a saint, then by all means, present evidence that shows us how it's all our fault and you had nothing to do with it.
"I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More."
Then what was this?
"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."
Are you including yourself in this statement? Because that would be "We all".
"All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire."
Again, you have no idea what I may or may not have done nor the reasons for which I may or may not have done it. Keep your assumptions to yourself.
Quote: Originally posted by Rip Snorter on Aug 20, 2006
Todd:
I don't know how a Libertarian might reply to your post, but here's an alternative viewpoint:
In a free society where freedom of religion is an ideal there's a lot of elbow room for differing beliefs concerning morality.
Criminal laws is such a society would be intended to do the following:
Discourage people from harming one another,
Discourage people from threatening one another,
Discourage people from destroying the property of one another,
Discourage people from stealing the property of one another,
Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.
However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.
Just my own viewpoint.
Jack
Yes, there plenty of "elbow room for differing beliefs", but only one set of laws.
Numbers 1-4 make sense, but number 5 is very unclear. I think number 5 may even be wrong. I also don't understand your sentence, "However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue."
Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.
Quote: Originally posted by Lurk More N00b on Aug 20, 2006
I'm not easily angered, nor easily drawn into flamewars on message boards, but you must understand that the way you presented your statement was very accusatory of others while offering no evidence whatsoever that you are any better than the rest of us. If you are a saint, then by all means, present evidence that shows us how it's all our fault and you had nothing to do with it.
"I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More."
Then what was this?
"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."
Are you including yourself in this statement? Because that would be "We all".
"All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire."
Again, you have no idea what I may or may not have done nor the reasons for which I may or may not have done it. Keep your assumptions to yourself.
Lurk More:
I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be.
Whatever I might have said that you find offensive, I apologize.
I promise you've not done less than you've actually done as a result of my post here. I also promise that whatever I might have done, or haven't done, is also unmoved by what I've said here. Both exist in the inaccessible past.
Consider yourself unharmed by my blanket statements. Your past is safe from my attacks and underminings.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it. Feel free to say what you wish without fear of me replying.
Yes, there plenty of "elbow room for differing beliefs", but only one set of laws.
Numbers 1-4 make sense, but number 5 is very unclear. I think number 5 may even be wrong. I also don't understand your sentence, "However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue."
Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.
Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.
However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.
I'm uncertain which part of the Item 5 was unclear. However, there's probably no reason for us to elaborate. We're both well established in our viewpoints and in no danger of changing them as a result of anything one of us might say to the other.
Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.
If so, the collective morality of the citizens preceding us in this nation wasn't entirely out of step with the collective morality of the citizens of the early 21st century in spirit, if not in detail.
The collective morality that made it a criminal offense to help slaves escape their bondage,
The collective morality that allowed Japanese American citizens to be jailed during WWII,
The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black man to sit in the front of a vehicle of public transportation,
The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black person to use a public restroom other than the one designated for use by blacks,
The collective morality that made it a criminal act for black people to marry white people,
all those are gone.
All that's left is the spirit, the confidence that it's right, that collective morality. That it's sufficient reason, that collective morality, to exchange those details of past criminality for others more germane to today.
Which is the reason we have more prisons and prisoners in this country than any other country in the world (as RickG correctly pointed out).
What sort of people, a person might ask himself, would be willing to imprison others for behaviors they might find offensive, but which behaviors do not touch the lives of those doing the imprisoning?
Quote: Originally posted by Rip Snorter on Aug 20, 2006
Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.
However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.
I'm uncertain which part of the Item 5 was unclear. However, there's probably no reason for us to elaborate. We're both well established in our viewpoints and in no danger of changing them as a result of anything one of us might say to the other.
Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.
If so, the collective morality of the citizens preceding us in this nation wasn't entirely out of step with the collective morality of the citizens of the early 21st century in spirit, if not in detail.
The collective morality that made it a criminal offense to help slaves escape their bondage,
The collective morality that allowed Japanese American citizens to be jailed during WWII,
The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black man to sit in the front of a vehicle of public transportation,
The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black person to use a public restroom other than the one designated for use by blacks,
The collective morality that made it a criminal act for black people to marry white people,
all those are gone.
All that's left is the spirit, the confidence that it's right, that collective morality. That it's sufficient reason, that collective morality, to exchange those details of past criminality for others more germane to today.
Which is the reason we have more prisons and prisoners in this country than any other country in the world (as RickG correctly pointed out).
What sort of people, a person might ask himself, would be willing to imprison others for behaviors they might find offensive, but which behaviors do not touch the lives of those doing the imprisoning?
The answer is clear enough.
J
Your post is a cliché. It is a common crutch of the left to throw out "bad things" that happened in history, as if people on the right were the ones who did those things, or as if the liberals of the time were the ones who "righted the wrongs".
The fact is that people of the liberal persuasion were most often the ones who started and maintained those problems, and the conservatives were the ones who ended them. I could go into detail on each of your bullet points, but I'll leave that up to your inevitable reply.
Your posts are sounding angry these days, and I don't think you realize it. Yes, the posts are being made with your literary flare, but they sound like pent-up anger. Just telling it like it is.
The web site www.bettheduck.com no longer appears to be online, and returns "502" error messages, indicating that several steps have been taken to ensure that the web site, if it is still operating, is impossible to access.
Does that mean that the U.S. can block or error code any site that it desires?
i'm wondering if this is going to have any affect on the bill thats being voted on.it sure isn't helping our cause any with these knuckleheads getting caught......
It probably means the site's data center removed the DNS records. The US government cannot block it. (At least not yet....)
If it's about tax Put big computers in Biloxi and run all bet though them . The Gulf states need the Tax $$$$ and jobs problem sloved
I wonder how long this internet gambling crusade is going to last.
They say that China runs or has a country wide blockade, that is they filter out what comes in and also what goes out.
The BILLION + "children " there can only see and send what Big Red Papa allows them too.
The US might not be too far behind on also doing the same here.
They might even add gov propaganda pop-ups to everything that you see, something like what Hitler would had done.
There already are some ISPs that run the Web thru a filtered proxy, like PAX.
It might not be too long now.
Where is "Triangle Boy" when I need it?
If the government blocks gambling sites and doesn't block porn sites, we need to file a class action suit to force them to either block porn sites or leave gambling sites alone. Are there any lawyers who want a lot of publicity on a pro bono basis? Perhaps we can start by suing the two moron "Con" gressmen who started this mess to start with.
The people need to hold our alleged representatives directly responsible for the trouble they cause. That will make them think twice before pushing trash legislation instead of defending their nation and upholding the Constitution.
I suspect that once the election is over, it will go away until the next election cycle. The morons who represent us refuse to protect us from illegal aliens and terrorists, but they sure can take hard stands on flag burning and online gambling. The "Con" gress is obviously full of gutless traitors who are more interested in campaign funds and reelection than the people they represent.
Orangeman
I'm so glad with people wanting to blow us up and others selling children for sex that they take the time out to focus on the real enemy, Americans gambling in their own homes.
Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, three years supervised release and a $100 special assessment.
No excuse is too small to lock a man behind bars and confiscate his property in the US.
You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded.
Even though I'm saddened to see another piece of freedom noisily disintegrate under the iron heel there's something mildly satisfying in watching your whines when the freedoms going away are some you happen to enjoy.
If it's progress and legitimate social improvement when they build another prison to hold prostitutes, drug possessors, all manner of victimless criminals, so's this.
I read somewhere there are millions of porn sites these days, which is a bizarre statement about something in humanity.
Each of those millions of sites must have hundreds, maybe thousands of people visiting them. Thousands of millions of people visiting porn sites? I don't applaud it, but it's the business of the people visiting the sites and the godawful mess that must be going on in the (has to be) millions of people who are performing sex acts for cameras.
Some of you've alluded to how they ought to be focusing on that, instead of this behavior, which is okay because you happen to like it.
May you get as much iron heel as you've begged for.
J
I agree100%. If there is no victim, there is no crime. We can't read victims or create potential victims into the "crime" as defined by our government or social mores. A crime has to have a victim to be a crime. If a person commits a crime against themselves it is a crime against themselves and there is no victim. A criminal and a victim involve two individuals not one: One person perpetrating the crime (criminal) and the victim being an unwilling and injured participant of that crime.
That is why the US has the highest prison population per capita in the world and is still building more prisons as we speak.
Gambling, prostitution and drug possession are examples of jailable crimes that do not involve a victim.
I've said it before and I'll say it 'till my last breath, we must get the chihuahuas out of our privates, or we won't have any privates left.
If gambling was a crime, there would be no horse and dog races, no casinos, no states' and country lotteries.
Gambling itself is not a crime, prostitution and illegal drug use are.
I mean here on the U.S.A. in some countries, prostitution and drug use might be or is legal, at least prostitution is.
As it was said: "If there is no victim there is no crime", after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s) have different morality, rules and laws.
Right(s) and wrong(s) are not the same to everybody.
What is a right to you, might be a wrong to somebody else.
And what is a wrong to you, might be a right to somebody else.
What might have been a right to a people at one time, might become a wrong at another time (In the future) and vice-versa.
And then there are things that are both right and wrong to the same people at the same time, like killing and gambling, for example: They are O.K. if they are done with the government or with their permission and not otherwise.
Here we have double standards.
Same with other illegal activities beside those like having monopolies, it is OK for the government to do and have, but not for anybody else.
Illegal activities become legal if the government does them, but only for the government, they are still illegal for anybody else to do, like having and running a lottery.
It is a case of:
Do as I say to do, but not as I do.
Morality is on the eye of the beholder or something like that, they say.
Go to Utah and have many wives and children with them, or go to San Francisco and marry your same sex "Friend", maybe not anymore.
Or go South and have black slaves, well, I guess this one is no more, now they are Mexican slaves instead and not just South either, but everywhere.
Have a nice weekend.
As it was said: "If there is no victim there is no crime", after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s) have different morality, rules and laws.
Right(s) and wrong(s) are not the same to everybody.
What is a right to you, might be a wrong to somebody else.
And what is a wrong to you, might be a right to somebody else
Morality might be defined in a lot of ways. Probably in the US the most common and universal definition is that morality is the avoidance of law-breaking, whatever the laws might be.
Legality's a different matter. In times past legal thinkers within the US assumed criminal legality fell into tiers, or layers:
That's the reason prohibition of alcohol required an amendment to the US Constitution to allow the Federal Government to enforce it. It's also the reason it continued to be enforced until that Constitutional amendment was repealed.
Otherwise, the only Constitutionally granted right (as opposed to the 'right' implied by overwhelming force) of the Federal Government to enforce such prohibitions lies in interstate commerce and traffic.
The problem with the Internet Gambling criminality is that the entire issue of Federal criminality's become a matter of nuance and questions over which powers other than those granted by the Constitution the Feds have granted themselves at any given moment.
Those powers it's granted itself cover a wide range of regulation and statutes allowing powers it's granted itself in one area, say, anti-terrorism, to spill over into enforcement of other powers it's given itself, say, forbidden drug possession (though that's actually only a small example).
The result is that, for instance, most illegal drugs aren't even named in statutes passed through Congress and signed by the President. That authority's been delegated to the Food and Drug Administation. People are spending time in prison for possessing chemical items elected representatives have never named in statute as Criminal.
Similarly, notice the indirect approaches to enforcement of the Internet Gambling issues in this story.
Until Federal Statutes clearly define what is legal under the powers the Feds have granted themselves, and what is illegal, anything's up for grabs. The only test for legality's in the act of doing it and seeing whether you're prosecuted for it.
now they are Mexican slaves instead and not just South either, but everywhere.
Slavery is a word that gets a lot of usage where it doesn't apply. Slaves attempt to escape the condition of slavery whenever possible. Slavery exists in a legal environment, or physical environment, where force is used to keep them from escaping.
I've read of many isolated instances where Mexican and other laborers were held in bondage on ranches and in other remote places. When those ranchers and other slave holders were discovered the slaves were released and the slaveholders prosecuted for kidnapping and other offenses.
In the US today the only slaves I'm aware of are people being held in prison facilities. They work free, cannot move from whatever place they're directed to be, and they exist in an environment of constant physical, sexual and mental abuse.
The suggestion that Mexican workers who've struggled desparately to arrive here to work for wages and have to avoid law-enforcement to remain here are slaves does you no credit.
Jack
By their own standards, those who use legality as the measure of morality should feel repelled by the entire issue of online gambling once it's passed by an Act of Congress and signed by the Prez. They should applaud as they are, themselves, hauled off to the slammer for a few years if they're caught doing it.
By the same token, they should have no problem with pornography because it is evidently not illegal (immoral). (Except in the instance of kiddie porn, which is both illegal and immoral and actively investigated and enforced by criminal prosecution where the Internet's involved.)
J
"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."
I'd like for you to clarify who you've included in this blanket statement. One finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you. Unless you are a life-long political activist, you can cram it with peanut butter, sunshine!
It's not important enough to clarify for your benefit. But if you've ever served on a jury and refused to vote for conviction and imprisonment of a person who was clearly guilty of a victimless crime, if you've ever done anything at all to change the situation I'll disinclude you.
Otherwise, count yourself inside the fences, amigo.
No need for me to cram it with butter and sunshine. You excluded me inside your 'unless you're a' piece of the permission you gave me, though the 'life-long' piece of it gets fairly shaky nowadays. I did enough in years past to make up for it.
Gracias,
J
You have no idea what I've done. Your assumptions are baseless and asinine. You cannot blame society as a whole while leaving yourself out of the equation. It's just ignorant.
Let me start by saying that I do not support the ban on Internet gambling, as I do not feel it is immoral.
Then, my point:
You have it backwards. People do not use laws as the basis for what they feel is moral. They create laws based on what they feel is moral.
I understand that libertarians want fewer laws, and I support that to a degree, but that is because libertarians generally do not feel that there is a heck of a lot that could be deemed "immoral". Hence, they do not want a lot of laws.
As a society, we try to come together to create laws that cover us all, but as our population grows ridiculously large and diverse, it becomes harder and more divisive to do that, no matter which direction the country moves in.
I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More. I only gave you a couple of factors you could use to exclude yourself.
I have no idea what you've done, nor what you haven't done. And I haven't a care either way.
If you wish to exclude yourself, by all means do it with my best wishes.
However, if you wish to exclude yourself you probably ought to be ecstatic such things are being discussed, as opposed to worrying you aren't getting pats on the back and kudos for whatever you might have done.
All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire.
But you don't need my admiration and I certainly don't need yours.
Whatever any of us might have done obviously wasn't enough to stop the steamroller.
So, in my own case, I'm perfectly happy to see the steamroller squash a few feet who've done as I described, sat silently in tacit consent, applauded, or gloated while others were hauled off to the slammer for victimless crimes.
It won't change anything, but at least they'll have a taste of the pinch they've wished on others.
J
Todd:
I don't know how a Libertarian might reply to your post, but here's an alternative viewpoint:
In a free society where freedom of religion is an ideal there's a lot of elbow room for differing beliefs concerning morality.
Criminal laws is such a society would be intended to do the following:
However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.
Just my own viewpoint.
Jack
I'm not easily angered, nor easily drawn into flamewars on message boards, but you must understand that the way you presented your statement was very accusatory of others while offering no evidence whatsoever that you are any better than the rest of us.
If you are a saint, then by all means, present evidence that shows us how it's all our fault and you had nothing to do with it.
"I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More."
Then what was this?
"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."
Are you including yourself in this statement? Because that would be "We all".
"All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire."
Again, you have no idea what I may or may not have done nor the reasons for which I may or may not have done it. Keep your assumptions to yourself.
Yes, there plenty of "elbow room for differing beliefs", but only one set of laws.
Numbers 1-4 make sense, but number 5 is very unclear. I think number 5 may even be wrong. I also don't understand your sentence, "However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue."
Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.
Lurk More:
I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be.
Whatever I might have said that you find offensive, I apologize.
I promise you've not done less than you've actually done as a result of my post here. I also promise that whatever I might have done, or haven't done, is also unmoved by what I've said here. Both exist in the inaccessible past.
Consider yourself unharmed by my blanket statements. Your past is safe from my attacks and underminings.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it. Feel free to say what you wish without fear of me replying.
Jack
"I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be."
Hey, thanks mom!
Rather than blowing mud all over Todd's forums, I will agree to let it be and call it a day.
However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.
I'm uncertain which part of the Item 5 was unclear. However, there's probably no reason for us to elaborate. We're both well established in our viewpoints and in no danger of changing them as a result of anything one of us might say to the other.
Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.
If so, the collective morality of the citizens preceding us in this nation wasn't entirely out of step with the collective morality of the citizens of the early 21st century in spirit, if not in detail.
all those are gone.
All that's left is the spirit, the confidence that it's right, that collective morality. That it's sufficient reason, that collective morality, to exchange those details of past criminality for others more germane to today.
Which is the reason we have more prisons and prisoners in this country than any other country in the world (as RickG correctly pointed out).
What sort of people, a person might ask himself, would be willing to imprison others for behaviors they might find offensive, but which behaviors do not touch the lives of those doing the imprisoning?
The answer is clear enough.
J
Your post is a cliché. It is a common crutch of the left to throw out "bad things" that happened in history, as if people on the right were the ones who did those things, or as if the liberals of the time were the ones who "righted the wrongs".
The fact is that people of the liberal persuasion were most often the ones who started and maintained those problems, and the conservatives were the ones who ended them. I could go into detail on each of your bullet points, but I'll leave that up to your inevitable reply.
Your posts are sounding angry these days, and I don't think you realize it. Yes, the posts are being made with your literary flare, but they sound like pent-up anger. Just telling it like it is.