Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Select your timezone:
Gamblers and casino interests are throwing in their cards as prospects to legalize poker gambling over the Internet are all but dead for this year in Congress.
Even though only days remain in the congressional session, lobbyists and Capitol Hill officials are reluctant to publicly throw dirt on the effort. Strange things can happen during the rush to adjournment, such as the surprise 11th hour passage of legislation by Republican conservatives in 2006 to restrict online gambling. But failing a last-minute turnabout this time, gamers are folding the hand that's been dealt. Negotiations "have pretty much come to a stop," said a lobbyist.
"We would be looking for a Christmas miracle for it to happen," said John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance that has advocated for a legalization bill.
"No bill is dead until Congress adjourns, but all indications right now from staff, from members of Congress, from lobbyists who work the issue, they would all agree it is not likely to move between now and the end of the year," Pappas said.
Likely the last best opportunity for passage disappeared late Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada shelved a trillion-dollar year-end spending bill where poker legislation could have been attached as an amendment.
Earlier, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., served notice he would block poker from being added to a major tax cut bill. That bill was passed by Congress this week and was signed into law Friday by President Barack Obama.
"We are trying to get it done," said Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, the main proponent of the bill that would legalize online poker while tightening restrictions on other types of Internet gaming.
"It is not looking great for this year but we are trying to get it done, and if we don't get it done this year we will try to get it done next year," Summers said.
The poker bill, which has not been formally introduced, does not have enough support to advance as a stand-alone measure. And while Congress continues to work on legislation, it was not clear Friday what upcoming bills might serve as a host for a poker amendment, even if Kyl or other Republicans can be persuaded to support it.
According to a lobbyist who had been in contact with Kyl, the Arizona senator was negotiating with Reid at one point, but was challenged by House Republicans who demanded the issue be shelved for this session.
"Negotiations were like the hamster that spins the wheel," the frustrated lobbyist said. "The faster you run you still get nowhere."
According to lobbyists who confirmed reporting by gaming trade websites, there also were several sticking points being negotiated late in the game. Among them was the inclusion of a "blackout period" following the passage of the bill before online poker rooms could be licensed. Another was the length of time before offshore gaming companies would be allowed to apply for a U.S. license.
The purpose of both, officials said, was to "level the playing field" for Nevada casinos that would compete against Poker Stars and Full Tilt, the two leading online poker rooms that are based outside the United States.
But there emerged a split in Nevada on that point, lobbyists said. Companies like Caesars Entertainment Corp. are eyeing their own poker brand while others may seek partnerships with outside companies. And casinos who believe they needed more time to catch up on the Internet were seeking a longer waiting period for overseas competitors.
The last big push came last week, when the American Gaming Association issued a statement in support of Reid's bill. It marked the first time the industry's usually behind-the-scenes political arm had endorsed online gaming legislation.
"The final gambit was to have the AGA come out and all the big companies that stand to benefit come out and endorse," said a congressional aide. "The aim was to convince people that this helps an industry that at least some Republicans want to court."
Even though only days remain in the congressional session, lobbyists and Capitol Hill officials are reluctant to publicly throw dirt on the effort. Strange things can happen during the rush to adjournment, such as the surprise 11th hour passage of legislation by Republican conservatives in 2006 to restrict online gambling. But failing a last-minute turnabout this time, gamers are folding the hand that's been dealt. Negotiations "have pretty much come to a stop," said a lobbyist.
"We would be looking for a Christmas miracle for it to happen," said John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance that has advocated for a legalization bill.
"No bill is dead until Congress adjourns, but all indications right now from staff, from members of Congress, from lobbyists who work the issue, they would all agree it is not likely to move between now and the end of the year," Pappas said.
Likely the last best opportunity for passage disappeared late Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada shelved a trillion-dollar year-end spending bill where poker legislation could have been attached as an amendment.
Earlier, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., served notice he would block poker from being added to a major tax cut bill. That bill was passed by Congress this week and was signed into law Friday by President Barack Obama.
"We are trying to get it done," said Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, the main proponent of the bill that would legalize online poker while tightening restrictions on other types of Internet gaming.
"It is not looking great for this year but we are trying to get it done, and if we don't get it done this year we will try to get it done next year," Summers said.
The poker bill, which has not been formally introduced, does not have enough support to advance as a stand-alone measure. And while Congress continues to work on legislation, it was not clear Friday what upcoming bills might serve as a host for a poker amendment, even if Kyl or other Republicans can be persuaded to support it.
According to a lobbyist who had been in contact with Kyl, the Arizona senator was negotiating with Reid at one point, but was challenged by House Republicans who demanded the issue be shelved for this session.
"Negotiations were like the hamster that spins the wheel," the frustrated lobbyist said. "The faster you run you still get nowhere."
According to lobbyists who confirmed reporting by gaming trade websites, there also were several sticking points being negotiated late in the game. Among them was the inclusion of a "blackout period" following the passage of the bill before online poker rooms could be licensed. Another was the length of time before offshore gaming companies would be allowed to apply for a U.S. license.
The purpose of both, officials said, was to "level the playing field" for Nevada casinos that would compete against Poker Stars and Full Tilt, the two leading online poker rooms that are based outside the United States.
But there emerged a split in Nevada on that point, lobbyists said. Companies like Caesars Entertainment Corp. are eyeing their own poker brand while others may seek partnerships with outside companies. And casinos who believe they needed more time to catch up on the Internet were seeking a longer waiting period for overseas competitors.
The last big push came last week, when the American Gaming Association issued a statement in support of Reid's bill. It marked the first time the industry's usually behind-the-scenes political arm had endorsed online gaming legislation.
"The final gambit was to have the AGA come out and all the big companies that stand to benefit come out and endorse," said a congressional aide. "The aim was to convince people that this helps an industry that at least some Republicans want to court."
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
If California is the most liberal state when it comes to gambling expansion over the past decade, then Texas may be the most conservative. While other states have continued to move in the direction of full casino gambling, Texas lawmakers have repeatedly turned away the idea.
Representative Richard Pena Raymond may understand that he has no chance to get a gambling laws passed that would regulate casinos. That is why he is proposing that Texans decide the issue. Raymond's bill deals with the dozens of amusement centers that are currently paying out more than the state legal limit.
The amusement halls operate what authorities are calling eight-liner slot machines. The maximum amount that can be won on the machines during a payout is $5. The centers can also give out prizes instead of cash to winners on the machines. Law enforcement officials, however, have busted many of these establishments for paying out more than $5 in cash.
Raymond claims that he has discussed the issue of the gaming establishments with many Texas residents, and they have varying views on the subject. Whether or not it is accepted through a vote, Raymond believes that Texans should have the final say.
The tough part of the proposal for current gaming facility owners is that the legislation would cause an immediate shutdown of the gaming centers. Once the law is in place, voters who want the gaming establishments would be permitted to petition to have the issue placed on the ballot.
Law enforcement officials have said that it is nearly impossible to police the gaming activity taking place in the state. The man power needed is not readily available, and it would cost millions of dollars to seek out and raid all of the establishments offering the slot-like games.
Texas legislators have started to take the gambling issue serious in the past couple of years, but they have not passed any legislation that would legalize casinos. In the meantime, most other states in the US have expanded gambling in some form since the economic recession.
Representative Richard Pena Raymond may understand that he has no chance to get a gambling laws passed that would regulate casinos. That is why he is proposing that Texans decide the issue. Raymond's bill deals with the dozens of amusement centers that are currently paying out more than the state legal limit.
The amusement halls operate what authorities are calling eight-liner slot machines. The maximum amount that can be won on the machines during a payout is $5. The centers can also give out prizes instead of cash to winners on the machines. Law enforcement officials, however, have busted many of these establishments for paying out more than $5 in cash.
Raymond claims that he has discussed the issue of the gaming establishments with many Texas residents, and they have varying views on the subject. Whether or not it is accepted through a vote, Raymond believes that Texans should have the final say.
The tough part of the proposal for current gaming facility owners is that the legislation would cause an immediate shutdown of the gaming centers. Once the law is in place, voters who want the gaming establishments would be permitted to petition to have the issue placed on the ballot.
Law enforcement officials have said that it is nearly impossible to police the gaming activity taking place in the state. The man power needed is not readily available, and it would cost millions of dollars to seek out and raid all of the establishments offering the slot-like games.
Texas legislators have started to take the gambling issue serious in the past couple of years, but they have not passed any legislation that would legalize casinos. In the meantime, most other states in the US have expanded gambling in some form since the economic recession.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
You've got to give Playboy a hand for getting the New Year off to a bang. The January 2011 issue of the ubiquitous men's magazine features blonde bombshell Pamela Anderson on its cover — for a record setting 13th time.
Founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner, Playboy magazine is known for providing men with top grade stroke material, short stories and interviews. The hottest of all hotties to grace its cover, Pamela Anderson, has been the mag's cover girl and main spread more than any other woman — her first big reveal dating as far back as 1989. In the new issue, you are treated to eight pages of Pamtastic pictures of Anderson shot poolside at the Playboy mansion in October, plus some of Pam's original poetry.
You heard me. Pam Anderson is a poet. Okay so her writing may be as good as her acting (or her dancing), but who the hell cares. If you're smart you'll tell your girlfriend or wifey that you want the January 2011 of Playboy not only because of the Baywatch babe, but also for the interview with architectural genious Frank Gehry and for Bret Easton Ellis' "Notes On Jersey Shore." That may be enough to send her running off to the corner store.
Founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner, Playboy magazine is known for providing men with top grade stroke material, short stories and interviews. The hottest of all hotties to grace its cover, Pamela Anderson, has been the mag's cover girl and main spread more than any other woman — her first big reveal dating as far back as 1989. In the new issue, you are treated to eight pages of Pamtastic pictures of Anderson shot poolside at the Playboy mansion in October, plus some of Pam's original poetry.
You heard me. Pam Anderson is a poet. Okay so her writing may be as good as her acting (or her dancing), but who the hell cares. If you're smart you'll tell your girlfriend or wifey that you want the January 2011 of Playboy not only because of the Baywatch babe, but also for the interview with architectural genious Frank Gehry and for Bret Easton Ellis' "Notes On Jersey Shore." That may be enough to send her running off to the corner store.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Police are currently searching for a man who stole around $1.5 million in chips from the Bellagio casino in Las Vegas. The man who robbed the casino apparently wore a motorcycle helmet and it all went down in a matter of just minutes, much to the shock of those who were observing the scene. The man parked his bike outside of the hotel just before 4:00 am, keeping his helmet on with the visor down as he walked inside. He walked straight up to the craps table, pulled out a hand gun, and grabbed a box filled with chips before running back to his bike to make a clean getaway.
The robbery of the Belagio was similar to that of one that occurred at the Suncoast Hotel casino which is only around 20 minutes away from the Bellagio.
A man wearing a motorcycle helmet took around $20,000 in cash from a poker tournament that was going on that night. Police have not yet commented as to whether or not the two robberies are related; however there is quite a bit of speculation because of the striking similarity of the two crimes. The man who robbed the Suncoast Hotel Casino wore a silver riding helmet whereas the man that robbed the Bellagio wore a black one.
The robbery of the Belagio was similar to that of one that occurred at the Suncoast Hotel casino which is only around 20 minutes away from the Bellagio.
A man wearing a motorcycle helmet took around $20,000 in cash from a poker tournament that was going on that night. Police have not yet commented as to whether or not the two robberies are related; however there is quite a bit of speculation because of the striking similarity of the two crimes. The man who robbed the Suncoast Hotel Casino wore a silver riding helmet whereas the man that robbed the Bellagio wore a black one.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Ladbrokes PLC said Sunday that it is in preliminary takeover talks with online gambling company 888 Holdings PLC.
"There can be no certainty that these discussions will ultimately lead to an offer for 888 being made, nor as to the terms of any such offer," the U.K. bookmaker said in an emailed statement.
The Sunday Telegraph reported earlier that Ladbrokes has made an offer of about 70 pence a share, or a total of £240 million ($372.5 million), for 888, which has also been courted by other suitors. Shares of the gambling company closed Friday at 49 pence.
A spokeswoman for 888 declined to comment.
Ladbrokes tried to buy 888 four years ago for £470 million. The deal, however, fell through over investigations from the U.S. Department of Justice on the gambling sector.
Ladbrokes is being advised by Deutsche Bank and Greenhill.
"There can be no certainty that these discussions will ultimately lead to an offer for 888 being made, nor as to the terms of any such offer," the U.K. bookmaker said in an emailed statement.
The Sunday Telegraph reported earlier that Ladbrokes has made an offer of about 70 pence a share, or a total of £240 million ($372.5 million), for 888, which has also been courted by other suitors. Shares of the gambling company closed Friday at 49 pence.
A spokeswoman for 888 declined to comment.
Ladbrokes tried to buy 888 four years ago for £470 million. The deal, however, fell through over investigations from the U.S. Department of Justice on the gambling sector.
Ladbrokes is being advised by Deutsche Bank and Greenhill.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Gibraltar has long been a haven for online gambling companies due to the low tax rates levied on those firms. However, it seems that Gibraltar will be increasing their gaming taxes tenfold, moving them from 1% to 10%.
This change may sound scary, but experts suggest that it is unlikely to cause any of the major gambling operations to move to greener pastures. According to a report in The Guardian, while online companies will now pay the standard 10% tax rate paid by other businesses, they will still not be subjected to any Value Added Tax (VAT), meaning Gibraltar will remain an attractive venue for hosting gambling companies.
“Nobody will leave,” said Victor Chandler to the El País newspaper, “although we’ll all complain about the tax going up.”
Chandler is the chairman of Victor Chandler International, one of the oldest independent bookmakers in the United Kingdom. Established in 1946, it does much of its business online now, including sports betting, casino games and online poker.
Even with the low tax rates, the Gibraltar government reportedly collected £10.5 million in online gambling tax revenue in 2009. If Chandler’s prediction of no significant defections proves to be accurate, Gibraltar could see that amount expand tremendously, perhaps close to the tenfold increase in the tax rate.
The change apparently comes as part of Gibraltar’s efforts to better conform with the laws of the European Union. According to first minister Peter Caruana, phasing out tax-exempt companies is necessary for this purpose.
“However,” he added, “in order to sustain our successful economic model we must retain a commitment to a very competitive corporate tax model.”
Some of the many online gambling companies headquartered in Gibraltar include PartyGaming, William Hill, and Ladbrokes.
This change may sound scary, but experts suggest that it is unlikely to cause any of the major gambling operations to move to greener pastures. According to a report in The Guardian, while online companies will now pay the standard 10% tax rate paid by other businesses, they will still not be subjected to any Value Added Tax (VAT), meaning Gibraltar will remain an attractive venue for hosting gambling companies.
“Nobody will leave,” said Victor Chandler to the El País newspaper, “although we’ll all complain about the tax going up.”
Chandler is the chairman of Victor Chandler International, one of the oldest independent bookmakers in the United Kingdom. Established in 1946, it does much of its business online now, including sports betting, casino games and online poker.
Even with the low tax rates, the Gibraltar government reportedly collected £10.5 million in online gambling tax revenue in 2009. If Chandler’s prediction of no significant defections proves to be accurate, Gibraltar could see that amount expand tremendously, perhaps close to the tenfold increase in the tax rate.
The change apparently comes as part of Gibraltar’s efforts to better conform with the laws of the European Union. According to first minister Peter Caruana, phasing out tax-exempt companies is necessary for this purpose.
“However,” he added, “in order to sustain our successful economic model we must retain a commitment to a very competitive corporate tax model.”
Some of the many online gambling companies headquartered in Gibraltar include PartyGaming, William Hill, and Ladbrokes.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
The New Jersey Legislature's rush to salvage Atlantic City's casino industry from competition from Pennsylvania and other states that has devoured a third of its market share now includes sports and Internet gambling. Putting aside that under federal law full sports betting is illegal in virtually every state except Nevada, as is Internet gambling, and putting aside whether either would require amending the state Constitution -- and noting that pending legislation permits only intrastate Internet wagers or Internet wagers from foreign jurisdictions -- would these expansions of gambling be the salvation of Atlantic City's gambling market?
No, they would not. Sports betting clearly would be an incremental benefit. Internet gambling, is an unknown except that what the Legislature should consider but seems to be ignoring is that it raises not only business issues but profound legal, regulatory, moral and ethical questions that deserve much consideration before enacting a law that can put a casino in every home in New Jersey.
Sports betting is like bread and milk in supermarkets. It gets people in the door, always the objective of a retail business and casinos are retail businesses. In and of itself, it will not produce vast new revenue. In Nevada during 2009, gamblers bet $2.57 billion on sports of which the casinos kept $136 million -- 5.3 percent. Would New Jersey's casinos welcome that much new revenue? Of course, but more than that, they would welcome sports bettors who would wager at the casinos' other games, eat in their restaurants, see their shows, shop in their stores and stay in their hotels.
But, in the unlikely event Congress passes and the president signs a law legalizing sports betting, it won't be unique to New Jersey. Expect it in every state that has commercial or Indian casinos including, Atlantic City's competitors. That will dilute the benefit.
Ironically, the bill to allow intrastate Internet gambling puts the regulatory responsibility chiefly on the Casino Control Commission at the same time other legislation barreling toward passage all but dismantles that agency and disembowels regulatory accountability that would be more essential than ever to control what may lie beyond real control, gambling through the ethers.
As a business proposition, does anyone know whether Internet wagering would be incremental or reduce wagering and traffic in the casinos? Is something sold online something that would have been sold in a store or something that never would have been bought otherwise? Will Internet wagering reduce real casino visits and strand more of the casino industry's capital investment, discourage new capital investment or cause further reductions in on-site employment? And what of the moral and ethical, as well as legal, questions inherent in making it possible to gamble any day, every day, all day from wherever you are in New Jersey, even on mobile devices? Or don't we care about things like that anymore?
The legislation is replete with extensive requirements that need a full set of new regulations concerning how wagering can be offered controlled and accounted, but legislators are not regulators and leave the messy complexity of regulations to others and Internet gambling could be a real mess. The enormous potential for social and economic harm and criminal activity inherent in Internet gambling; the heightened potential for cheating; the explicit need for the tightest systems of internal and accounting controls, and that the legislation essentially is limited to New Jersey make this a dubious proposition of questionable benefit to Atlantic City.
If something ever needed long, thoughtful, comprehensive examination it is Internet gambling. Equally with what it will do for Atlantic City the question ought to be what it would do to New Jersey and the nearly 9 million people who live here.
Carl Zeitz served as a member of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission from 1980 to 1988
No, they would not. Sports betting clearly would be an incremental benefit. Internet gambling, is an unknown except that what the Legislature should consider but seems to be ignoring is that it raises not only business issues but profound legal, regulatory, moral and ethical questions that deserve much consideration before enacting a law that can put a casino in every home in New Jersey.
Sports betting is like bread and milk in supermarkets. It gets people in the door, always the objective of a retail business and casinos are retail businesses. In and of itself, it will not produce vast new revenue. In Nevada during 2009, gamblers bet $2.57 billion on sports of which the casinos kept $136 million -- 5.3 percent. Would New Jersey's casinos welcome that much new revenue? Of course, but more than that, they would welcome sports bettors who would wager at the casinos' other games, eat in their restaurants, see their shows, shop in their stores and stay in their hotels.
But, in the unlikely event Congress passes and the president signs a law legalizing sports betting, it won't be unique to New Jersey. Expect it in every state that has commercial or Indian casinos including, Atlantic City's competitors. That will dilute the benefit.
Ironically, the bill to allow intrastate Internet gambling puts the regulatory responsibility chiefly on the Casino Control Commission at the same time other legislation barreling toward passage all but dismantles that agency and disembowels regulatory accountability that would be more essential than ever to control what may lie beyond real control, gambling through the ethers.
As a business proposition, does anyone know whether Internet wagering would be incremental or reduce wagering and traffic in the casinos? Is something sold online something that would have been sold in a store or something that never would have been bought otherwise? Will Internet wagering reduce real casino visits and strand more of the casino industry's capital investment, discourage new capital investment or cause further reductions in on-site employment? And what of the moral and ethical, as well as legal, questions inherent in making it possible to gamble any day, every day, all day from wherever you are in New Jersey, even on mobile devices? Or don't we care about things like that anymore?
The legislation is replete with extensive requirements that need a full set of new regulations concerning how wagering can be offered controlled and accounted, but legislators are not regulators and leave the messy complexity of regulations to others and Internet gambling could be a real mess. The enormous potential for social and economic harm and criminal activity inherent in Internet gambling; the heightened potential for cheating; the explicit need for the tightest systems of internal and accounting controls, and that the legislation essentially is limited to New Jersey make this a dubious proposition of questionable benefit to Atlantic City.
If something ever needed long, thoughtful, comprehensive examination it is Internet gambling. Equally with what it will do for Atlantic City the question ought to be what it would do to New Jersey and the nearly 9 million people who live here.
Carl Zeitz served as a member of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission from 1980 to 1988
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Bank of America is blocking all payments intended for WikiLeaks, amid growing speculation that the whistle-blowing site will embarrass the finance industry next year as it has the US government by leaking thousands of private diplomatic cables.
“This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”
In response, WikiLeaks called on its supporters to boycott Bank of America, whose shares have suffered from speculation that it could be a target for the site.
“We ask that all people who love freedom close out their accounts at Bank of America,” WikiLeaks said on its Twitter profile. “Does your business do business with Bank of America? Our advise is to place your funds somewhere safer.”
The site’s founder, Julian Assange, said on Friday that WikiLeaks would continue to release information about the financial services sector in spite of facing “attacks” by banks.
“Over the last four years we have published information from over 120 countries,” Mr Assange told reporters outside Ellingham Hall, the English country house where he must remain while released on bail over allegations of sexual offences in Sweden.
“It is our normal business to publish information about banks. We have been attacked primarily not by government … but in fact by banks: banks from Dubai, banks from Switzerland, banks from the United States, banks from the UK. So yes of course we are continuing to release material about banks.”
In an interview last year, Mr Assange reportedly said that WikiLeaks had many files about Bank of America that have not yet been released.
At the same time as facing constraints on its funding sources, WikiLeaks’ budget has been tripled this year, amid ongoing cyber attacks and a greater volume of publications. The US Department of Justice is considering several avenues for potential prosecution of Mr Assange, in the hopes of deterring future leaks.
“Over 85 per cent of our economic resources are spent dealing with attacks – dealing with technical attacks, dealing with political attacks, dealing with legal attacks, not doing journalism,” Mr Assange said.
Bank of America’s move could prompt reprisals from Anonymous, the loose group of pro-WikiLeaks online activists. Anonymous disrupted websites belonging to MasterCard and PostFinance, the Swiss bank which has frozen Mr Assange’s account, in revenge attacks earlier this month.
Lawyers for Mr Assange last week created a new defence fund for supporters to contribute to his legal expenses. Over the weekend, Mr Assange himself suffered the leak of a Swedish police file relating to allegations of rape and other sexual offences from two women, which the WikiLeaks founder has repeatedly denied.
The Guardian and the New York Times, newspapers with which WikiLeaks has partnered to examine thousands of US diplomatic cables over recent weeks, both published details of the alleged events in Stockholm last August, based on police interviews.
“This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”
In response, WikiLeaks called on its supporters to boycott Bank of America, whose shares have suffered from speculation that it could be a target for the site.
“We ask that all people who love freedom close out their accounts at Bank of America,” WikiLeaks said on its Twitter profile. “Does your business do business with Bank of America? Our advise is to place your funds somewhere safer.”
The site’s founder, Julian Assange, said on Friday that WikiLeaks would continue to release information about the financial services sector in spite of facing “attacks” by banks.
“Over the last four years we have published information from over 120 countries,” Mr Assange told reporters outside Ellingham Hall, the English country house where he must remain while released on bail over allegations of sexual offences in Sweden.
“It is our normal business to publish information about banks. We have been attacked primarily not by government … but in fact by banks: banks from Dubai, banks from Switzerland, banks from the United States, banks from the UK. So yes of course we are continuing to release material about banks.”
In an interview last year, Mr Assange reportedly said that WikiLeaks had many files about Bank of America that have not yet been released.
At the same time as facing constraints on its funding sources, WikiLeaks’ budget has been tripled this year, amid ongoing cyber attacks and a greater volume of publications. The US Department of Justice is considering several avenues for potential prosecution of Mr Assange, in the hopes of deterring future leaks.
“Over 85 per cent of our economic resources are spent dealing with attacks – dealing with technical attacks, dealing with political attacks, dealing with legal attacks, not doing journalism,” Mr Assange said.
Bank of America’s move could prompt reprisals from Anonymous, the loose group of pro-WikiLeaks online activists. Anonymous disrupted websites belonging to MasterCard and PostFinance, the Swiss bank which has frozen Mr Assange’s account, in revenge attacks earlier this month.
Lawyers for Mr Assange last week created a new defence fund for supporters to contribute to his legal expenses. Over the weekend, Mr Assange himself suffered the leak of a Swedish police file relating to allegations of rape and other sexual offences from two women, which the WikiLeaks founder has repeatedly denied.
The Guardian and the New York Times, newspapers with which WikiLeaks has partnered to examine thousands of US diplomatic cables over recent weeks, both published details of the alleged events in Stockholm last August, based on police interviews.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Unfortunately gambling online carries the same risks as in a casino: a few canny operators leave with money their pockets; everyone else goes home with an empty wallet. The one thing to be said for internet poker is that it does allow you to play at a level of staking you feel comfortable losing, however small that might me. You can also practise on a no-money table until you’re ready for the big leagues. However the shrewd financial journalists who work on the Telegraph’s excellent Personal Finance pages have discovered an apparently foolproof to make £400 from online bookies. The ingenious scheme involves you taking out those free bet offers that most bookmakers offer to new customers (so if you’re already registered with an online bookmaker, this won’t work for you) and placing a series of bets in such a way that, regardless of what happens, you will emerge £400 richer. There is one caveat, however, this system requires placing quite a number of separate bets and one bureaucratic slip can scupper the whole enterprise.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
In Australia’s latest push to control the use of nationwide poker machines, gamblers may soon be exposed to strict biometric technology controlling their citizen’s rights to gamble freely. Prime Minister, Julia Gillard says the government plans to move ahead with the “Big Brother” regulation if a mandatory “pre-commitment technology” is not enforced by May.
Biometric technology feeds information from a person’s unique stamp (fingerprints, retinal reading, face recognition, etc.) into a computer so every time they approach a poker machine they are instantly recognized and records are kept concerning their gambling behavior.
The problem with instating a regulation of this type is that Australian privacy acts are not updated to include the proper handling of such technology. This means that any information collected could be misused and which could lead to disaster.
At the moment the Australian government is looking to update their Privacy Act in order to properly cover all of their bases and prevent abuse. ZDNet also reported how currently there are many pubs and clubs who are using such biometric technologies without offering the safety to their customers.
Information Security Specialist, Christian Hinrich claims that pub and club owners are gearing up for a well-planned smear campaign to protect their rights and freedoms. He also mentioned how the industry could use biometrics as a physiological deterrent within the campaign by appealing to public fears that the technology is akin to “taking one’s soul.”
Let’s hope that breathalyzers on slot machines aren’t next; it just sounds like way too much government involvement, good thing Bodog casino players don’t have to worry about this issue.
Biometric technology feeds information from a person’s unique stamp (fingerprints, retinal reading, face recognition, etc.) into a computer so every time they approach a poker machine they are instantly recognized and records are kept concerning their gambling behavior.
The problem with instating a regulation of this type is that Australian privacy acts are not updated to include the proper handling of such technology. This means that any information collected could be misused and which could lead to disaster.
At the moment the Australian government is looking to update their Privacy Act in order to properly cover all of their bases and prevent abuse. ZDNet also reported how currently there are many pubs and clubs who are using such biometric technologies without offering the safety to their customers.
Information Security Specialist, Christian Hinrich claims that pub and club owners are gearing up for a well-planned smear campaign to protect their rights and freedoms. He also mentioned how the industry could use biometrics as a physiological deterrent within the campaign by appealing to public fears that the technology is akin to “taking one’s soul.”
Let’s hope that breathalyzers on slot machines aren’t next; it just sounds like way too much government involvement, good thing Bodog casino players don’t have to worry about this issue.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Jud Birza didn't do much playing during the game of Survivor. He laid around, was kind of a goof and claimed he feigned stupidity, which earned him the nickname "Fabio." This strategy, if you can call it that, worked like a charm and earned the 21-year-old California student the million-dollar prize.
Fabio played the game on the outside of many alliances. He didn't do much scheming and so for his fellow tribe members, there was always a bigger threat to vote off. By the time they realized Fabio, whose likability factor was through the roof compared to other players, was actually a threat, Fabio was playing the game to win, landing three Immunity Challenges in a row and securing him a spot in the top three.
On the show, Birza told cameras, "My key strategy was to basically make everybody laugh and be all crazy but it goes deeper than just, 'Oh haha, let's keep him around because he's funny…' I haven't double-crossed anybody on the jury and I won the final three Immunity Challenges, and if that's not outwit, outplay, outlast then maybe I'm a fool, but for right now, I'm feeling like a million bucks."
In the final three, with five votes Fabio beat 24-year-old North Carolina aspiring singer Chase Rice, who earned four, and 30-year-old New York real estate broker Matthew "Sash" Lenahan, who didn't receive a single vote from the jury.
"From how I felt down in Nicaragua, going through all the angles or whatever, I really thought I was going to win by a little more," Birza told AP after the finale. "It's all good, dude. I would rather it be super close. … As you could see, I was sweating. My armpits were going crazy. I was nervous."
Meanwhile, 56-year-old dog trainer Jane Bright, took home the Sprint Fan Favorite award and $100K for her efforts.
The next instalment of Survivor will be their new "Redemption Island" version, where voted off cast members can still vie to get back on the tribe by engaging in a physical battle. Bodog has all your reality TV and Oscar odds in the Bodog Sportsbook. Need an account? Join Bodog today!
Fabio played the game on the outside of many alliances. He didn't do much scheming and so for his fellow tribe members, there was always a bigger threat to vote off. By the time they realized Fabio, whose likability factor was through the roof compared to other players, was actually a threat, Fabio was playing the game to win, landing three Immunity Challenges in a row and securing him a spot in the top three.
On the show, Birza told cameras, "My key strategy was to basically make everybody laugh and be all crazy but it goes deeper than just, 'Oh haha, let's keep him around because he's funny…' I haven't double-crossed anybody on the jury and I won the final three Immunity Challenges, and if that's not outwit, outplay, outlast then maybe I'm a fool, but for right now, I'm feeling like a million bucks."
In the final three, with five votes Fabio beat 24-year-old North Carolina aspiring singer Chase Rice, who earned four, and 30-year-old New York real estate broker Matthew "Sash" Lenahan, who didn't receive a single vote from the jury.
"From how I felt down in Nicaragua, going through all the angles or whatever, I really thought I was going to win by a little more," Birza told AP after the finale. "It's all good, dude. I would rather it be super close. … As you could see, I was sweating. My armpits were going crazy. I was nervous."
Meanwhile, 56-year-old dog trainer Jane Bright, took home the Sprint Fan Favorite award and $100K for her efforts.
The next instalment of Survivor will be their new "Redemption Island" version, where voted off cast members can still vie to get back on the tribe by engaging in a physical battle. Bodog has all your reality TV and Oscar odds in the Bodog Sportsbook. Need an account? Join Bodog today!
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Shares in online casino operator 888 jumped 18.4pc after it confirmed it was the subject of a second takeover attempt by bookmaker Ladbrokes. 888 shares gained 9 to 58p on the news, leaving the business valued at just over £200m - still considerably under the £240m of Ladbrokes' bid.
Analyst Nick Batram from Peel Hunt downgraded 888, saying the online gaming company was "no stranger to disappointment" having seen its tie-up fizzle four years ago, and Ladbrokes' shareholders could "question if the company is backing the right horse". Ladbrokes, which has 2,200 shops across Britain, saw its share price slip 1.5 to 126.2p
However, analysts at Merrill Lynch said the deal would combine "the leading UK sportsbooks with one of the leading UK casinos" creating a combined online gambling business with sales of £350m and earnings of £85m and synergies of around £25m. "Strategically the deal also makes sense, we think. As well as the strong product overlap, we think the geographic mix is complementary," Merrill wrote.
Analyst Nick Batram from Peel Hunt downgraded 888, saying the online gaming company was "no stranger to disappointment" having seen its tie-up fizzle four years ago, and Ladbrokes' shareholders could "question if the company is backing the right horse". Ladbrokes, which has 2,200 shops across Britain, saw its share price slip 1.5 to 126.2p
However, analysts at Merrill Lynch said the deal would combine "the leading UK sportsbooks with one of the leading UK casinos" creating a combined online gambling business with sales of £350m and earnings of £85m and synergies of around £25m. "Strategically the deal also makes sense, we think. As well as the strong product overlap, we think the geographic mix is complementary," Merrill wrote.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Montgomery lobbyist Jarrod Massey pleaded guilty Monday in the Alabama gambling corruption case and became the second member of his lobbying firm to admit offering bribes to legislators to support pro-gambling legislation.
Massey, the lobbyist for the closed Country Crossing casino in Dothan, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel Jr. to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy and five counts of bribery.
"Jarrod Massey has admitted that he bribed members of the Alabama state Legislature in exchange for their votes in favor of electronic bingo gambling legislation," Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny Breuer said.
Massey, Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley, and nine others were arrested Oct. 4 on charges accusing them of buying and selling votes on pro-gambling legislation.
Gilley's lawyer, Doug Jones, said his client never authorized any bribes and trusted the well-known lobbyist to operate ethically. "Unfortunately, that trust was misplaced," he said.
Massey's lawyer, Brett Bloomston, said Massey wanted to accept responsibility for his actions and agreed to help federal prosecutors.
He is the second member of his firm, Mantra Governmental, to plead guilty. His assistant, Jennifer Pouncy, pleaded guilty Sept. 28 to conspiracy involving bribe offers.
Massey's plea agreement discusses several other defendants, including: Milton McGregor, owner of VictoryLand Casino in Shorter and a minority owner in Country Crossing; two current state senators, Democrat Quinton Ross Jr. of Montgomery and independent Harri Anne Smith of Slocomb; and two former senators who were in the Legislature when the gambling bill was being considered last spring, Democrats Jim Preuitt of Talladega and Larry Means of Attalla.
McGregor's lawyer, Joe Espy, said Massey's plea doesn't affect his client and he looks foward to demonstrating "that Milton McGregor is not guilty of the charges brought against him."
In the plea agreement, Massey describes meetings and phone calls involving Gilley and McGregor as they sought to pass legislation designed to let their casinos keep operating highly profitable electronic bingo machines.
Massey admitted that as Country Crossing's lobbyist, he offered Preuitt $1 million and that he authorized Pouncy to offer Preuitt substantial election assistance, including telling Pouncy they had up to $2 million of Gilley's money to use in obtaining Preuitt's vote.
Massey also admitted promising hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign support to an unnamed House member in 2009, offering $1 million per year in public relations work to an unnamed state senator for his support in the spring, giving $5,000 to Ross for his vote, and giving $13,000 to Smith in return for her vote.
Gilley and McGregor were pushing a bill that would allow electronic bingo casinos to remain open rather than being shut down by Gov. Bob Riley's task force on illegal gambling. The bill died in the 2009 session. On the second try in spring 2010, it passed in the Senate, but died in the House after news broke that the FBI was investigating the Legislature.
The two former senators and two present senators voted for the bill.
All of Alabama's privately owned electronic bingo casinos, including Country Crossing and VictoryLand, have closed under pressure for Riley's task force. Three electronic bingo casinos operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians remain open in Atmore, Wetumpka and Montgomery.
Massey is scheduled for sentencing Sept. 26. That is long after any testimony he might give in the April 4 trial for his 10 co-defendants.
He could received up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the conspiracy charge and 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each bribery charge.
Massey, the lobbyist for the closed Country Crossing casino in Dothan, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel Jr. to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy and five counts of bribery.
"Jarrod Massey has admitted that he bribed members of the Alabama state Legislature in exchange for their votes in favor of electronic bingo gambling legislation," Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny Breuer said.
Massey, Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley, and nine others were arrested Oct. 4 on charges accusing them of buying and selling votes on pro-gambling legislation.
Gilley's lawyer, Doug Jones, said his client never authorized any bribes and trusted the well-known lobbyist to operate ethically. "Unfortunately, that trust was misplaced," he said.
Massey's lawyer, Brett Bloomston, said Massey wanted to accept responsibility for his actions and agreed to help federal prosecutors.
He is the second member of his firm, Mantra Governmental, to plead guilty. His assistant, Jennifer Pouncy, pleaded guilty Sept. 28 to conspiracy involving bribe offers.
Massey's plea agreement discusses several other defendants, including: Milton McGregor, owner of VictoryLand Casino in Shorter and a minority owner in Country Crossing; two current state senators, Democrat Quinton Ross Jr. of Montgomery and independent Harri Anne Smith of Slocomb; and two former senators who were in the Legislature when the gambling bill was being considered last spring, Democrats Jim Preuitt of Talladega and Larry Means of Attalla.
McGregor's lawyer, Joe Espy, said Massey's plea doesn't affect his client and he looks foward to demonstrating "that Milton McGregor is not guilty of the charges brought against him."
In the plea agreement, Massey describes meetings and phone calls involving Gilley and McGregor as they sought to pass legislation designed to let their casinos keep operating highly profitable electronic bingo machines.
Massey admitted that as Country Crossing's lobbyist, he offered Preuitt $1 million and that he authorized Pouncy to offer Preuitt substantial election assistance, including telling Pouncy they had up to $2 million of Gilley's money to use in obtaining Preuitt's vote.
Massey also admitted promising hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign support to an unnamed House member in 2009, offering $1 million per year in public relations work to an unnamed state senator for his support in the spring, giving $5,000 to Ross for his vote, and giving $13,000 to Smith in return for her vote.
Gilley and McGregor were pushing a bill that would allow electronic bingo casinos to remain open rather than being shut down by Gov. Bob Riley's task force on illegal gambling. The bill died in the 2009 session. On the second try in spring 2010, it passed in the Senate, but died in the House after news broke that the FBI was investigating the Legislature.
The two former senators and two present senators voted for the bill.
All of Alabama's privately owned electronic bingo casinos, including Country Crossing and VictoryLand, have closed under pressure for Riley's task force. Three electronic bingo casinos operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians remain open in Atmore, Wetumpka and Montgomery.
Massey is scheduled for sentencing Sept. 26. That is long after any testimony he might give in the April 4 trial for his 10 co-defendants.
He could received up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the conspiracy charge and 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each bribery charge.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Buff Hollywood stars, Will Smith and Mark Wahlberg have been made an offer they will probably refuse, to fight each other in a boxing ring in Vegas in February for a $1 million prize.
According to CTV, the idea behind the match came from Damon Feldman, CEO of the Hollywood Boxing Federation who felt that since the two were actually trained to box in past films including “The Fighter” (Wahlberg) and “Ali” (Smith), then they should successfully be able to carry a celebrity boxing match. The $1 million prize will go to the star’s charity of choice but the bragging rights are theirs to keep.
“Come on, I really think that this would be a huge event and great way for them to donate to their favorite charities. We don’t think these two are going to rip each other’s heads off. We’re just hoping they get into the ring and have a little fun duking it out,” said Damon Feldman.
If the two actors agree to battle it out, then Will, 42, and Wahlberg, 39 will be heading to ring somewhere in Vegas in February of next year.
Apparently, the Hollywood Boxing Federation is responsible for pairing up other celebrities in the ring including Michael Lohan and Danny Bonaduce. Those two hardly compare to the likes of Wahlberg and Smith and I’d say the odds are pretty slim that these two will actually go through with it but if they do I’d say Wahlberg will have an advantage over Smith especially after his recent training but then again Smith is a much bulkier guy. In reality these guys are way to Hollywood to fight anyone but at least they're good at pretending.
According to CTV, the idea behind the match came from Damon Feldman, CEO of the Hollywood Boxing Federation who felt that since the two were actually trained to box in past films including “The Fighter” (Wahlberg) and “Ali” (Smith), then they should successfully be able to carry a celebrity boxing match. The $1 million prize will go to the star’s charity of choice but the bragging rights are theirs to keep.
“Come on, I really think that this would be a huge event and great way for them to donate to their favorite charities. We don’t think these two are going to rip each other’s heads off. We’re just hoping they get into the ring and have a little fun duking it out,” said Damon Feldman.
If the two actors agree to battle it out, then Will, 42, and Wahlberg, 39 will be heading to ring somewhere in Vegas in February of next year.
Apparently, the Hollywood Boxing Federation is responsible for pairing up other celebrities in the ring including Michael Lohan and Danny Bonaduce. Those two hardly compare to the likes of Wahlberg and Smith and I’d say the odds are pretty slim that these two will actually go through with it but if they do I’d say Wahlberg will have an advantage over Smith especially after his recent training but then again Smith is a much bulkier guy. In reality these guys are way to Hollywood to fight anyone but at least they're good at pretending.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Ok, so if two people were involved in an altercation and there were two different sides to the story, who would you believe – a trained Betty Ford employee, or a spoiled, drunk celebrity?
The Palm Desert Police Department is investigating a fight that occurred after Lindsay Lohan and her roommates reportedly went to a bar and arrived back at Betty Ford, naturally. Aren't bar field trips a normality in rehab?
TMZ is reporting that when Lohan got back to Betty Ford 10 minutes after her curfew, a female staffer began questioning her and asked her to take a drug/alcohol test, which is when things got nasty. The argument turned physical.
The police received a call regarding a "hand-to-hand battery" and went to Betty Ford. They arrived on the scene to question both the Betty Ford employee, as well as Lohan.
Sources say Lohan claims that she did push the employee during the argument, but only after the woman "put her hands on Lindsay."
Sources close to Lohan claim she told the woman, who she believes has it out for her, "Take your hands off of me" and then "pushed back."
For her part, the staffer told the cops she, "desired prosecution" and the case will be forwarded to prosecutors. Could this be the nail in the legal coffin for Lohan? Bodog Sportsbook has all your entertainment props including early American Idol lines. Get in on the action now.
The Palm Desert Police Department is investigating a fight that occurred after Lindsay Lohan and her roommates reportedly went to a bar and arrived back at Betty Ford, naturally. Aren't bar field trips a normality in rehab?
TMZ is reporting that when Lohan got back to Betty Ford 10 minutes after her curfew, a female staffer began questioning her and asked her to take a drug/alcohol test, which is when things got nasty. The argument turned physical.
The police received a call regarding a "hand-to-hand battery" and went to Betty Ford. They arrived on the scene to question both the Betty Ford employee, as well as Lohan.
Sources say Lohan claims that she did push the employee during the argument, but only after the woman "put her hands on Lindsay."
Sources close to Lohan claim she told the woman, who she believes has it out for her, "Take your hands off of me" and then "pushed back."
For her part, the staffer told the cops she, "desired prosecution" and the case will be forwarded to prosecutors. Could this be the nail in the legal coffin for Lohan? Bodog Sportsbook has all your entertainment props including early American Idol lines. Get in on the action now.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Manne wrote:
All the poker/casino/bingo sites are all hungry for new players!! This means you need to keep an eye out for the signup bonus offers.
Ex: Poker Bonus Codes
There’s a catch, of course. Typically, you must make a minimum deposit and play a specified number of raked hands before the additional money is added to your account. These requirements are there to prevent people from signing up for an account, receiving the bonus, and instantly cashing out.
CHEERS!!
I SURE DIDNT KNOW THAT TY VM:confused:
Join:
2010/03/10
Messages:
19
My favorite i have 2.ncis i love abby gayle.walker texas ranger.because got a lot of good action and i love action
Join:
2010/03/10
Messages:
19
Hey ever body i downloaded pdc from ixgames im so proud and happy about happy about this ty vm ixgames:dance:
Join:
2010/03/10
Messages:
19
A discussion paper on the future regulation of gambling has been approved by the Government.
It outlines a number of options which the Department of Justice & Law Reform says could be the basis any new legal framework for gambling. Among the options are suggestions for licensing two kinds of casinos: registered casinos with a maximum of 15 tables; and a resort casino which would be part of a large-scale complex to include hotels, conference centres and other leisure facilities.
For companies not based in Ireland which offer gambling here - such as internet betting - the paper suggests a non-judicial authorisation or licensing process under the department's authority. But it warns that any sanctions against firms that do not comply must be capable of being enforced. It says a ban on advertising would be difficult to enforce, and suggests looking at blocking offending websites.
It also says that remote gambling is a global phenomenon which 'may well be incapable of full regulation'.
The paper envisages improved protection for minors and vulnerable adults, more transparent operations by gambling providers, and more effective measures against fraud and illegal gambling. It would cover gambling by telephone, mobile phones, internet and interactive television.
The paper suggests that the power of local authorities to permit or ban gaming could cease, but they could have powers in relation to planning and licensing arrangements.
The paper also suggests greater enforcement of the District Court certification processes, and legal measures to prevent problem gambling.
The Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, said existing gambling laws were not fit for purpose in this age of mass global communications, and a new regulated environment needed to reflect 21st century thinking in this area of policy.
It outlines a number of options which the Department of Justice & Law Reform says could be the basis any new legal framework for gambling. Among the options are suggestions for licensing two kinds of casinos: registered casinos with a maximum of 15 tables; and a resort casino which would be part of a large-scale complex to include hotels, conference centres and other leisure facilities.
For companies not based in Ireland which offer gambling here - such as internet betting - the paper suggests a non-judicial authorisation or licensing process under the department's authority. But it warns that any sanctions against firms that do not comply must be capable of being enforced. It says a ban on advertising would be difficult to enforce, and suggests looking at blocking offending websites.
It also says that remote gambling is a global phenomenon which 'may well be incapable of full regulation'.
The paper envisages improved protection for minors and vulnerable adults, more transparent operations by gambling providers, and more effective measures against fraud and illegal gambling. It would cover gambling by telephone, mobile phones, internet and interactive television.
The paper suggests that the power of local authorities to permit or ban gaming could cease, but they could have powers in relation to planning and licensing arrangements.
The paper also suggests greater enforcement of the District Court certification processes, and legal measures to prevent problem gambling.
The Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, said existing gambling laws were not fit for purpose in this age of mass global communications, and a new regulated environment needed to reflect 21st century thinking in this area of policy.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
.jpg?v=1.014689161)
.png?v=1.014689161)
The disparity caused at least two complaints to be brought up before the commission. Some industry leaders believe that the sizable difference in tax rates constitutes an unfair competitive advantage. Also, most online casinos operate with much less overhead than the land-based gaming halls. A lower tax rate could lead to high profits for the online gambling sites while the real-world casinos struggle.
The tax move comes as a surprise to many industry observers. In many cases, European states will institute higher tax rates on the online casinos in order to protect the land-based sites. Since the respective member state governments control much of the gaming industry within their borders, the rates proposed by the Danish government seem to contradict that trend.
Denmark had a state-controlled monopoly on casinos within its borders, but disbanded the monopoly last year. Still, even the small privately-owned casinos in and around Copenhagen must pay up to three-quarters of their gross revenue to the government.
Earlier this month, Danish gaming officials suspended the granting of online casino licenses. They also announced that they would push back the launch date from 1 January to an undetermined date this summer.