Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Starnet (SNMM)Online gaming, sexsites, lottery, Sportsbook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerard DeSantis who wrote (3607)	7/16/1999 2:00:00 PM
From: trader14U	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8858

SNMM does not take ANY, ZERO, NO, bets from US citizens. ..........WRONG.....

To: Gerard DeSantis who wrote (3607)	7/16/1999 5:42:00 PM
From: robert duke	Respond to of 8858

Hey you are 100% correct and the best way to get rid of all those people that keeps fighting is to ignore them. I was in at about 16 a share and so far the stock keeps going up and up. Even though we have had a slight pul back. If the earnings are good then this stock wil be at 30 before the end of the month. I know it will by at least aug 15.

To: Gerard DeSantis who wrote (3607)	7/16/1999 6:09:00 PM
From: THOMAS GOODRICH	Respond to of 8858

More appropriately Starnet doesn't knowingly accept wagers from the United States. This is probably true for Canada as well. Starnet elected not to accept US customers due to future legal uncertainties and potential problems with individual states who have declared Internet gambling illegal in their jurisdictions. Secondly, while Starnet could legally do business in the United States, they felt it simply wasn't worth the risk of having assets frozen or indictments from states with rogue laws (you know who you are) as was the case with Intersphire, if I recall correctly, whose CEO had to answer to Missouri. There is an interesting case pending in California, Providian Bank versus Cynthia Haines of Marin County who with knowledge aforethought racked up considerable debt on credit cards from a number of casinos, then asserted because gambling on the Internet was illegal in California she shouldn't have to pay and further, that it wasn't legal for the banks to pursue collection of a gambling debt. Further, she and her attorneys filed suit against some thirty online casinos and counter sued Providian Bank who is attempting to recover their losses. This is a pathetic example of what could happen and supposedly the case goes to trial in October.