OMT, that was a good laugh you gave me
Don't you know to Goodlatte and the rest of the Republicans (except John McCain) that only George Bush knows what is good for the world, hehe. Write them a letter and I GUARANTEE you will get some reply like "were building a strong and just Iraq and those people over there have no clue what is best for them so we do this all for their benefit blah blah blah".
I keep saying it, lawmakers are just completely out of hand. They get more and more donations and payoffs and they feel they need to do more and more to justify it. There used to be a thought in the Republican party a generation ago that government was all too often getting in the way and needed to be minimalistic and stay out of the way of the economy. A lot of us will probably start referring to that time as the "good ole days of the GOP" pretty soon here.
I keep saying it, lawmakers are just completely out of hand. They get more and more donations and payoffs and they feel they need to do more and more to justify it. There used to be a thought in the Republican party a generation ago that government was all too often getting in the way and needed to be minimalistic and stay out of the way of the economy. A lot of us will probably start referring to that time as the "good ole days of the GOP" pretty soon here.
Gotta love it when a country plays both sides with a straight face. Out of Law & Tax News ...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
US Angered By Preliminary WTO Ruling On Internet Gambling
by Glen Shapiro
The United States has reacted angrily to a preliminary report produced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel which is dealing with its dispute with Caribbean jurisdiction, Antigua and Barbuda over online gambling.
Antigua and Barbuda brought the case to the WTO in 2003, arguing that by restricting the internet gambling activities of US citizens, the United States was unfairly damaging the jurisdiction's economy, in contravention of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS).
Although the ruling is an interim judgement, with the final verdict not due until May, the US government has already announced its plans to appeal.
Speaking on behalf of the the US Trade Representative's department, spokesman Richard Mills revealed that:
"We intend to appeal and will argue vigorously that this deeply flawed panel report must be corrected by the appellate body."
He went on to suggest that the WTO panel had not taken into account the negotiating record in the Uruguay global trade talks which were responsible for the creation of the WTO in the mid-1990's.
"We believe that the language on US services commitments used by the Clinton administration clearly intended to exclude gambling when the United States joined the WTO in 1995," Mr Mills concluded.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet off of TaxNews.com the very same day ...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'China Must Play By The Rules', Says Evans
by Leroy Baker. New York
The United States will continue to ensure that China abides by international trade laws in order to protect US companies, Commence Secretary Don Evans said on Wednesday.
His words come after the US Trade Representative's Office filed a complaint against China at the WTO last week citing concerns about unfair tax policy.
"I can assure you that the Department of Commerce is dedicated to making sure China plays by the rules," Evans commented in testimony prepared for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"We are fully committed to ensuring that China complies with WTO rules, opens markets, drops barriers, eliminates state subsidies, and allows market forces to determine economic decisions," he added.
Evans is due to visit China in June this year where he will discuss trade issues with the Chinese leadership.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(emphasis added)
So basically, the U.S. will be god-damned if it's going to let the WTO push it around, and it will further be god-damned if it is going to let China not let the WTO push it around.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
US Angered By Preliminary WTO Ruling On Internet Gambling
by Glen Shapiro
The United States has reacted angrily to a preliminary report produced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel which is dealing with its dispute with Caribbean jurisdiction, Antigua and Barbuda over online gambling.
Antigua and Barbuda brought the case to the WTO in 2003, arguing that by restricting the internet gambling activities of US citizens, the United States was unfairly damaging the jurisdiction's economy, in contravention of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS).
Although the ruling is an interim judgement, with the final verdict not due until May, the US government has already announced its plans to appeal.
Speaking on behalf of the the US Trade Representative's department, spokesman Richard Mills revealed that:
"We intend to appeal and will argue vigorously that this deeply flawed panel report must be corrected by the appellate body."
He went on to suggest that the WTO panel had not taken into account the negotiating record in the Uruguay global trade talks which were responsible for the creation of the WTO in the mid-1990's.
"We believe that the language on US services commitments used by the Clinton administration clearly intended to exclude gambling when the United States joined the WTO in 1995," Mr Mills concluded.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet off of TaxNews.com the very same day ...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'China Must Play By The Rules', Says Evans
by Leroy Baker. New York
The United States will continue to ensure that China abides by international trade laws in order to protect US companies, Commence Secretary Don Evans said on Wednesday.
His words come after the US Trade Representative's Office filed a complaint against China at the WTO last week citing concerns about unfair tax policy.
"I can assure you that the Department of Commerce is dedicated to making sure China plays by the rules," Evans commented in testimony prepared for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"We are fully committed to ensuring that China complies with WTO rules, opens markets, drops barriers, eliminates state subsidies, and allows market forces to determine economic decisions," he added.
Evans is due to visit China in June this year where he will discuss trade issues with the Chinese leadership.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(emphasis added)
So basically, the U.S. will be god-damned if it's going to let the WTO push it around, and it will further be god-damned if it is going to let China not let the WTO push it around.
Phaedrus
WTO Rules in Favor of Antigua
A World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel today delivered a clear victory to Antigua and Barbuda in its case against the United States, declaring that U.S. domestic policy on interactive gaming is in breach of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS). The panel recommends that the United States comply with its obligations under the GATS by amending its laws to permit cross-border Internet gambling in its territory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a great victory for any small country that has decided to take on a big one, and particularly the United States."
- Sir Ronald Sanders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was obvious that the U.S.'s argument. . . wasn't going to go anywhere," said Sir Ronald Sanders, the chief foreign affairs representative for Antigua and Barbuda. "It was unsustainable, and that is exactly what the panel has found. The commitment under the GATS stands and the U.S. must now adjust its domestic laws to suit its international commitments."
He added, "It's a great victory for Antigua. It's a great victory for any small country that has decided to take on a big one, and particularly the United States. The U.S. had all of Washington behind it--the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice and also the U.S. Trade Representative. We had a handful of people from a very tiny country. But what were on our side were two things: Justice and God."
The decision was delivered in a confidential report to the parties directly involved in the case, and those parties are now under a stricture of confidentially until the verdict is made public around the end of May. The United States will then have two months to appeal, but only on technical grounds. The decision is not likely to change.
Sanders speculates that the United States will try to delay the process as long as possible. "They've filibustered and dragged their feet through this entire thing, and they will probably continue to do so," he said.
U.S. officials have expressed disapproval with the ruling. "We intend to appeal and will argue vigorously that this deeply flawed panel report must be corrected by the appellate body," Richard Mills, a spokesperson for the U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington, said.
Mills also said that the United States' commitments on services were "clearly intended to exclude gambling when the United States joined the WTO in 1995."
Assuming that the decision stands after the appeals process, there is not yet a clear indication of how the United States will react. The U.S. Department of Justice maintains that I-gaming is a violation of the Wire Act and recently began a grand jury investigation into advertising practices within the industry. Many speculate that the United States could choose to disregard the WTO decision and continue to perpetuate its restrictive policies.
Sanders, however, is confident that this won't be the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This makes it pretty clear that the U.S. is out of bounds for harassing offshore service providers based in Antigua."
- Jay Cohen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At some point they will have to face the reality of a final decision," Sanders said. "The rope does have an end. It isn't an unending rope. And so they will have to do it, either because Antigua has got its judgment in this or because the dispute settlement mechanism says that they are spitting in the face of the decision and therefore decides to take its own action. The WTO could very well levy other hardships on them that have nothing to do with what we can do as a country. They can levy things from all over the world on the U.S. if they want to continue to disregard a ruling of the panel and the dispute settlement body--because what they would then be saying is that they are bigger than the WTO except when they win."
World Sports Exchange founder Jay Cohen, who this week completed a two-year prison term in the United States for conspiracy and violations of the Wire Act, has been following the WTO case closely.
"I think this decision will put a stop to that [Grand Jury Investigation]," said Cohen. "This makes it pretty clear that the U.S. is out of bounds for harassing offshore service providers based in Antigua."
"They are not going to kill this industry," he added. "The fact is that the U.S. gets more out of the WTO than any other country, and the U.S. has never not abided by a WTO decision. Do they want to jeopardize all their favorable rulings over this? I would like to see how the U.S. will handle this, I don't think they can just ignore it. A lot of people think the U.S. does what it wants, and they do, but history has shown that they get more out of the WTO and they abide by what they say. I am not going to say they won't appeal this, I am sure they will, but even that process is quick in the WTO."
By all accounts, the decision is big, but Nigel Payne, chief executive of Sportingbet, points out that it may still be too early to predict how things will change.
"Potentially this is a very exciting development for Sportingbet and the online gambling industry," Payne said. "But we need to see the actual report before we can start celebrating."
Antigua and Barbuda, which together have a population of 68,000, turned to e-commerce and interactive gaming as a remedy for a tourism industry that is constantly ravaged by hurricanes. Before the U.S. ban on Internet gambling, the islands hosted 119 gambling operators and employed 5,000 people. Those figures have dwindled to 30 companies and 1,000 employed. Sanders estimates that the country has lost over $90 million in income as a result of U.S. restrictions.
In other Antiguan news, Prime Minister Lester Bird was defeated in yesterday's general elections, ending a dynasty that had dominated politics on the islands since the 1950s. Bird's father, Vere Bird, became the first prime minister when the islands gained independence from Britain in 1981 and he remained in office until his son took over the position in 1994.
Sanders, meanwhile, has retired from his post as chief foreign affairs representative for the islands and all other government services. Sanders said it was fitting that the newly elected prime minister be allowed to appoint the officials of his choice.
A World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel today delivered a clear victory to Antigua and Barbuda in its case against the United States, declaring that U.S. domestic policy on interactive gaming is in breach of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS). The panel recommends that the United States comply with its obligations under the GATS by amending its laws to permit cross-border Internet gambling in its territory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a great victory for any small country that has decided to take on a big one, and particularly the United States."
- Sir Ronald Sanders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was obvious that the U.S.'s argument. . . wasn't going to go anywhere," said Sir Ronald Sanders, the chief foreign affairs representative for Antigua and Barbuda. "It was unsustainable, and that is exactly what the panel has found. The commitment under the GATS stands and the U.S. must now adjust its domestic laws to suit its international commitments."
He added, "It's a great victory for Antigua. It's a great victory for any small country that has decided to take on a big one, and particularly the United States. The U.S. had all of Washington behind it--the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice and also the U.S. Trade Representative. We had a handful of people from a very tiny country. But what were on our side were two things: Justice and God."
The decision was delivered in a confidential report to the parties directly involved in the case, and those parties are now under a stricture of confidentially until the verdict is made public around the end of May. The United States will then have two months to appeal, but only on technical grounds. The decision is not likely to change.
Sanders speculates that the United States will try to delay the process as long as possible. "They've filibustered and dragged their feet through this entire thing, and they will probably continue to do so," he said.
U.S. officials have expressed disapproval with the ruling. "We intend to appeal and will argue vigorously that this deeply flawed panel report must be corrected by the appellate body," Richard Mills, a spokesperson for the U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington, said.
Mills also said that the United States' commitments on services were "clearly intended to exclude gambling when the United States joined the WTO in 1995."
Assuming that the decision stands after the appeals process, there is not yet a clear indication of how the United States will react. The U.S. Department of Justice maintains that I-gaming is a violation of the Wire Act and recently began a grand jury investigation into advertising practices within the industry. Many speculate that the United States could choose to disregard the WTO decision and continue to perpetuate its restrictive policies.
Sanders, however, is confident that this won't be the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This makes it pretty clear that the U.S. is out of bounds for harassing offshore service providers based in Antigua."
- Jay Cohen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At some point they will have to face the reality of a final decision," Sanders said. "The rope does have an end. It isn't an unending rope. And so they will have to do it, either because Antigua has got its judgment in this or because the dispute settlement mechanism says that they are spitting in the face of the decision and therefore decides to take its own action. The WTO could very well levy other hardships on them that have nothing to do with what we can do as a country. They can levy things from all over the world on the U.S. if they want to continue to disregard a ruling of the panel and the dispute settlement body--because what they would then be saying is that they are bigger than the WTO except when they win."
World Sports Exchange founder Jay Cohen, who this week completed a two-year prison term in the United States for conspiracy and violations of the Wire Act, has been following the WTO case closely.
"I think this decision will put a stop to that [Grand Jury Investigation]," said Cohen. "This makes it pretty clear that the U.S. is out of bounds for harassing offshore service providers based in Antigua."
"They are not going to kill this industry," he added. "The fact is that the U.S. gets more out of the WTO than any other country, and the U.S. has never not abided by a WTO decision. Do they want to jeopardize all their favorable rulings over this? I would like to see how the U.S. will handle this, I don't think they can just ignore it. A lot of people think the U.S. does what it wants, and they do, but history has shown that they get more out of the WTO and they abide by what they say. I am not going to say they won't appeal this, I am sure they will, but even that process is quick in the WTO."
By all accounts, the decision is big, but Nigel Payne, chief executive of Sportingbet, points out that it may still be too early to predict how things will change.
"Potentially this is a very exciting development for Sportingbet and the online gambling industry," Payne said. "But we need to see the actual report before we can start celebrating."
Antigua and Barbuda, which together have a population of 68,000, turned to e-commerce and interactive gaming as a remedy for a tourism industry that is constantly ravaged by hurricanes. Before the U.S. ban on Internet gambling, the islands hosted 119 gambling operators and employed 5,000 people. Those figures have dwindled to 30 companies and 1,000 employed. Sanders estimates that the country has lost over $90 million in income as a result of U.S. restrictions.
In other Antiguan news, Prime Minister Lester Bird was defeated in yesterday's general elections, ending a dynasty that had dominated politics on the islands since the 1950s. Bird's father, Vere Bird, became the first prime minister when the islands gained independence from Britain in 1981 and he remained in office until his son took over the position in 1994.
Sanders, meanwhile, has retired from his post as chief foreign affairs representative for the islands and all other government services. Sanders said it was fitting that the newly elected prime minister be allowed to appoint the officials of his choice.
Bottom line is if the US wanted to, they could easily make a law criminalizing the act of betting and then the WTO couldn't really do anything about it. That is the right of a country. I don't see anything that would push the country into doing it, but that is still within their rights.
The reason why the US is coming out on the wrong side of this argument is precisely because there is no law against the act of betting by the bettor. If there is no law against it and the book is taking the bet from a place they are within the law to do so, then that should be a legal agreement subject to international trade regulations. To block legal agreements such as that is unlawful disruption of trade. If one party isn't within the law to take part, then that isn't under the WTO's jurisdiction.
So while its a longshot, if the WTO and Antigua push this too far, the US could really get down and do something that would make offshore betting a lot less attractive to most Americans. Sure some would still do it, but I would guess a clear as can be law saying you are a criminal if you do this would stop many recreational players from taking part.
The reason why the US is coming out on the wrong side of this argument is precisely because there is no law against the act of betting by the bettor. If there is no law against it and the book is taking the bet from a place they are within the law to do so, then that should be a legal agreement subject to international trade regulations. To block legal agreements such as that is unlawful disruption of trade. If one party isn't within the law to take part, then that isn't under the WTO's jurisdiction.
So while its a longshot, if the WTO and Antigua push this too far, the US could really get down and do something that would make offshore betting a lot less attractive to most Americans. Sure some would still do it, but I would guess a clear as can be law saying you are a criminal if you do this would stop many recreational players from taking part.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Now that last bit is something I had never heard of. That would be interesting, but then again it would not do any benefit to the offshore industry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it would do quite a bit in opening the doors to the US giving in on this issue. Intellectual copyright is one of the most cherished rights of corporate america (and hence the politicians who receive their donations). I can just imagine the chaos if Antigua was allowed to circumvent all patent law.
Now that last bit is something I had never heard of. That would be interesting, but then again it would not do any benefit to the offshore industry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it would do quite a bit in opening the doors to the US giving in on this issue. Intellectual copyright is one of the most cherished rights of corporate america (and hence the politicians who receive their donations). I can just imagine the chaos if Antigua was allowed to circumvent all patent law.
WildBill, the WTO ruled that U.S. laws violate free trade. The U.S. cannot then make gambling a criminal act without still being in violation of the WTO ruling. The U.S. would then be sanctioned and Antigua would then be allowed to produce products protected by intellectual property rights agreements -- such as software -- without fear of punishment. This would severely hurt American companies. According to the article the appeal process is quick to avoid goverments from delaying the ruling indefinitely. This is great news!
Wild Bill - what do you do for a living - you seem to have a good idea of what's going on here. Do you work in Nevada?
The thing I have to keep telling myself is that the US is the WTO more or less and they won't allow their own organization to sanction them on something as petty as this.
I'll be interested to see if the court in Missouri makes any attempt to address this - or if anyone testifying decides to bring it up.
At the least it makes for an awkward situation - but in the end there may not be much to this. What happens on US soil ("aiding and abetting") is within the jurisdiction of the US technically. I can't figure out why they don't have bigger fish to fry but I guess thats the way politics is.
The thing I have to keep telling myself is that the US is the WTO more or less and they won't allow their own organization to sanction them on something as petty as this.
I'll be interested to see if the court in Missouri makes any attempt to address this - or if anyone testifying decides to bring it up.
At the least it makes for an awkward situation - but in the end there may not be much to this. What happens on US soil ("aiding and abetting") is within the jurisdiction of the US technically. I can't figure out why they don't have bigger fish to fry but I guess thats the way politics is.
Brussels warns Denmark on foreign bookie ban
Copenhagen must scrap restrictions on non-Danish bookmakers or face a challenge in the European Court of Justice.
The European Commission sent a warning to the Danish government on Tuesday as the first stage in its infringement procedure.
Under EU law a company established in any member state must be allowed to provide services in any other.
A law passed in Copenhagen last year prevents gambling companies which are not licensed in Denmark from advertising or supplying services in that country.
"Danish law restricts in particular the provision of sports betting services", the commission said on Tuesday.
"The commission intends to verify the compatibility of the ban in question with the provisions of the EC Treaty".
Copenhagen now has two months to assure Brussels it has or intends to lift its ban on betting companies.
If the commission is not satisfied it will send a formal request that the ban is scrapped which could result in Denmark facing the European Court of Justice if it fails to comply.
Sound familiar?
Copenhagen must scrap restrictions on non-Danish bookmakers or face a challenge in the European Court of Justice.
The European Commission sent a warning to the Danish government on Tuesday as the first stage in its infringement procedure.
Under EU law a company established in any member state must be allowed to provide services in any other.
A law passed in Copenhagen last year prevents gambling companies which are not licensed in Denmark from advertising or supplying services in that country.
"Danish law restricts in particular the provision of sports betting services", the commission said on Tuesday.
"The commission intends to verify the compatibility of the ban in question with the provisions of the EC Treaty".
Copenhagen now has two months to assure Brussels it has or intends to lift its ban on betting companies.
If the commission is not satisfied it will send a formal request that the ban is scrapped which could result in Denmark facing the European Court of Justice if it fails to comply.
Sound familiar?
The Denmark rule is being challenged in a bunch of EU countries. They have nothing to do with these issues, they are competitive monopoly issues. Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands all have casino industries that have laws that essentially block other EU countries from competing in the monopoly markets. That would be like Indiana saying that only the Indiana based company we set up can operate the casinos here, that Nevada companies even though they are the best aren't allowed in. That would clearly not be legal. There is still some vagueness about the legality if the member nation clearly states only the government can run the operation.
Chuck, the US government most certainly has the right to make the activity illegal and if it isn't a legal activity then the WTO can't apply their rules to it. The WTO just covers legal international trade, nothing else. The WTO can't make judgements against drug cartels after all. An attorney gave a good example of this. Saudi Arabia bans women from driving, that is a local law they enforce. Ford or BMW can't sue Saudi Arabia under WTO rules for restraint of trade because of this law. They can't force the Saudis to legalize women driving. Surely they would love to do it, would mean an instant increase in the auto market there, but the WTO does not oversee the specific laws of a country, just the practice of fair and free trading between legal participants. The US thought that since they can regulate gaming on a state by state basis, that they had the right to regulate it as an international trade issue and the WTO has now clearly stated that is not true.
As for the pirating of software or copyrighted material, Antigua can only do it to an amount equal to the harm done to their economy as judged by the WTO. They claim $90 million in harm, best guess is the WTO might say at best they get somewhere between 30-50 million declared. I wrote about this long before this decision was made that one of the toughest issues is just how do you prove harm for a dollar amount? It is extremely tough because Americans are clearly still betting with Antiguan books. Who can say exactly how many people WOULD be playing if not for the US policy? That is impossible to say and the WTO is likely to make that a low number. If they get $30 million in retaliation allowed, just how much does that equate to? They can't exceed that amount, they are only given authorization to inflict that much damage and nothing more. It is a drop in the bucket in the copyright world.
Chuck, the US government most certainly has the right to make the activity illegal and if it isn't a legal activity then the WTO can't apply their rules to it. The WTO just covers legal international trade, nothing else. The WTO can't make judgements against drug cartels after all. An attorney gave a good example of this. Saudi Arabia bans women from driving, that is a local law they enforce. Ford or BMW can't sue Saudi Arabia under WTO rules for restraint of trade because of this law. They can't force the Saudis to legalize women driving. Surely they would love to do it, would mean an instant increase in the auto market there, but the WTO does not oversee the specific laws of a country, just the practice of fair and free trading between legal participants. The US thought that since they can regulate gaming on a state by state basis, that they had the right to regulate it as an international trade issue and the WTO has now clearly stated that is not true.
As for the pirating of software or copyrighted material, Antigua can only do it to an amount equal to the harm done to their economy as judged by the WTO. They claim $90 million in harm, best guess is the WTO might say at best they get somewhere between 30-50 million declared. I wrote about this long before this decision was made that one of the toughest issues is just how do you prove harm for a dollar amount? It is extremely tough because Americans are clearly still betting with Antiguan books. Who can say exactly how many people WOULD be playing if not for the US policy? That is impossible to say and the WTO is likely to make that a low number. If they get $30 million in retaliation allowed, just how much does that equate to? They can't exceed that amount, they are only given authorization to inflict that much damage and nothing more. It is a drop in the bucket in the copyright world.
