Thank you Andy for including these comments in your post. I have a few thoughts on what he wrote. First of all I agree with much of what he wrote, and found the insight from an insider interesting.

The new law is how it related to barring transferring money to online gaming accounts. It also clarifies Congress' inention that the federal law barring the use of phone lines to tranfer a bet interstate, apply to the internet, even as it applies to gaming outside the nation.

Interestingly there were no mass arrests by federal officers under the law as it previously existed, and as I understand it, the few high profile arrests that did occur were based upon violations of States laws.

I do not believe that the law as it existed before, or the law that was just passed is legally valid, as it applied to internet gambling. This is based upon past world economic court rulings against the US. The Justice department takes the position, that US law is valid, yet they have not done anything to enforce it.

They will probably act under the new law, but in what context, I don't know. Furthermore, they will be able to act in good conciense until the new law is challenged in court. Regardless of what the originating court says, the matter will ultimately have to be ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.

THe issue is whether we will abide by a ruling of a non US court. While not getting into the debate over whether we answer to any court but our own, we did sign on to the treaty that created the court, and have frequently relied on the court to force markets open to us. Not unlike the World Court.

If the US signs a treaty, it is then approved by congress it takes on the force of law. All laws are subject to interpretation, and if two laws seem to conflict, they must be interpreted in a manner that eliminates the conflict, even if the result seems outlandish. I think that is what may happen here.

It is possible that certain nations may challenge our new law in the sames courts as before, but they are small, and we ignore them. The UK is also affected by the law, but their economy is large enough, and their relationship with us significant enough that the relatively minor aspect issue is not going to result in Tony Blair rushing off to the International courts.

If the law is challenged in the US, it will mean large amounts of money (especially in paying for lawyers).

Interesting to note, this effects the interstate (remember federal government cannot pass laws that deal solely with issues that belong to the states, such as intrastate gambling.

Bets can be made by phone from within the State of Nevada, and technology now is being developed that will allow folks to sit at the pool, and make bets on special handheld devices. But will individuals be allowed to trasfer funds from some other state to Las Vegas for the purposes of gambling?

IN the words of Homer Simpson...litigation...ooooo.