WTO ruling to be offered as grounds for dismissal re Carruthers

[MiltonFriedman]

First, I owe an apology to JPFisher. I blasted his claim that the WTO actions may give grounds for dismissal of the Wire Act counts filed versus David Carruthers, formerly of BetOnSports.

Apparently, the Court is willing to consider such an argument as grounds for dismissal,according to Orders filed April 2 and April 25th. Interactive Gaming News provided a copy of the April 25th Order and explained:

"Carruthers May Use WTO Defense
Lawyers for ex-BetonSports CEO David Carruthers are being allowed to use the most recent World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling in the Antigua/United States dispute as grounds for dismissal of the case against their client.

According to court documents, Judge Mary Ann Medler of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, ruled that based on the March 30 WTO ruling, which said that the U.S. ban on Internet gambling is not compliant with the WTO General Agreement on Trade Services, Carruthers' lawyers may file another motion to dismiss the indictment. However, she stipulated that arguments must be based on the new WTO ruling, not on any past ruling.

Carruthers was arrested and indicted in July 2006 for conspiracy, racketeering and fraud in connection with taking illegal Internet bets from U.S. citizens. He remains on house arrest in a suburb of St. Louis.

The lawyers have until May 2 to file motions. "

[farmslicer7]

does this mean i get my 21k soon?

[Jack Bando]

How is a WTO ruling binding on a US court? Since the US is part of the WTO, it has to abide by it's decisions on a federal level since we are a member is my guess, am I close?

[bekman]

The WTO ruling can legally be used only as a "recommendation" to the court. While I am hoping that the judge will utilize this in her decision making, I feel that this might decrease the strength of the judges written opinion as precedent because the federal court system is in no way to be held responsible for ruling consistently with the opinion of WTO.

Cliff notes: I hope this changes the judges mind, but she doesn't officially write it down that the WTO changed her mind.

[Wynton]

Your apology is premature. The quoted language merely indicates that the judge is willing to consider the motion, which is far different from indicating that the motion will be granted.

[Skallagrim]

While I will not speculate on the outcome of the Motion, it is a general rule of law that when a Federal Statute is in conflict with an international treaty we have signed, the treaty controls.

[MiltonFriedman]

The apology was due, because I was pretty strong in calling him an idiot, or words to that effect, for posting it as a slam dunk.

Apparently, the Court is willing to listen, although I think it is, at best, a 1 outer chance of the motion being granted. LONG odds against it prevailing, but NOT drawing dead.

[JPFisher55]

Apology accepted. Actually I read an article on Gambling911 some time ago about this motion. Mr. Carruthers is represented by Mr. Scott Rosenblum who is a noted criminal defense attorney in St. Louis. He represented Leonard Little in his drunk driving case last year and got him acquitted of the DWI charge.
I have done some brief research on conflict of Federal Statute and treaty. Little case law exists. The last USSupCt decision seem to be over 100 years old and holds that the law or treaty last passed or ratified has precedence. But I could not find any instance where a criminal law used to prosecute individuals conflicted with an international treaty.
I do agree that this motion is not likely to be granted at the trial court level. Wynton and Skallagrim have much more experience at this matter than I, a real estate and small business attorney who mostly handles transaction matters.
Maybe at some appellate level the issue of WTO v. Wire Act will be strongly considered. Even after Rep. Franks bill, I think that such consideration is more likely to force US compliance with the WTO decision rather than federal legislation.

[Grasshopp3r]

Does anyone know the judge in question? Is the judge likely to send down a ruling that will embarass the AG?

This judge ruled against MLB back in August, 2006. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17252

[Vern]

Could it also go to mens rea of the defendant? If our properly signed and ratified treaties makes conduct appear like it is legal, could the defendant not argue that he relied upon the language of the treaty when engaging in his conduct, thus eliminating the criminal intent necessary in the statute.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it also go to mens rea of the defendant? If our properly signed and ratified treaties makes conduct appear like it is legal, could the defendant not argue that he relied upon the language of the treaty when engaging in his conduct, thus eliminating the criminal intent necessary in the statute.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a hell of an argument to make: sophisticated gaming executive thinks he's doing nothing wrong in the eyes of U.S. law because of a WTO ruling that the Government has been publicly treating with utter contempt? Sounds ridiculous to me.

IMO this criminal intent argument could never be grounds for dismissal. If the judge thinks it's a legitimate argument then the defendent's intent becomes a matter of fact for the jury to decide. But even being allowed to argue it during trial would help the defense greatly because it's humiliating for the Government and would tend to nullify the jury.

It would also deter future prosecutions at least a little. Having this ugly topic reraised every last time they prosecute someone is politically horrible.

[JPFisher55]

I don't know about the mens rea argument. However, I hope that having to argue against the WTO deters prosecution of the two Neteller executives and other ewallets in future.

[dave88]

Why should China pay any attention to the WTO ruling against them regarding piracy of primarily US software and movies. If the US ignores WTO rulings against them regarding gambling?

[Grasshopp3r]

China does not pay any attention to the WTO. There is no enforcement mechanism that is meaningful.