Company Seeks Judgement Restraining Enforcement of UIGEA

[retleftolc]

Not sure if this was posted yet.

Article (http://www.bluffmagazine.com/pokernews/newsArticle.asp?newsID=1101755)


Ret

[Wynton]

This is interesting. If anyone finds a link to the actual complaint, please post it.

[Sniper]

Recent thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10670498)

[TheJokerIsWild]

While I certainly like their agenda, it sounds like a pretty stupid lawsuit. Unless the article is leaving out other legal grounds, their argument is simply..."this law interferes with our freedom and we don't like it." How many laws are there that don't do that? In order to overturn an enacted statute, you must prove that it is unconstitutional -- either on its face, or as applied. Well, it hasn't been applied yet, so that leaves the "on its face" analysis. This statute is not unconstitutional on its face. Congress has the power to regulate/control/direct interstate commerce. There are several seminal interstate commerce cases proving that the courts allow Congress apply an extremely broad brush in "regulating" interstate commerce. For instance, discrimination is illegal under federal law simply because virtually every employer, lodging establishment, etc utilize instrumentalities of interstate commerce (ie. US mail, telephones, various products and services from other states). The same argument is used to allow a federal prohibition on the use, distribution, or sale of narcotics. Both of these prohibitions infringe on personal freedoms. For example, a KKK member would complain that a prohibition on discrimination prevents him from running his business in conformity with his personal beliefs. A recreational drug user's freedom of choice to place a particular substance in his body is infringed by US drug laws. A pedophile is not allowed to pursue his sexual preferences by way of pornographic material because of Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. Morality is legislated all the time. So how the hell is this argument going to work??? Are these people on drugs? Unless there is something else in the Complaint that isn't mentioned in this article, I predict this lawsuit will be dismissed almost immediately by way of demurrer, a motion to dismiss, or by summary judgment within the next 8-10 months, or sooner.

[Wynton]

The article plainly doesn't explain the legal arguments behind the complaint. That is why I asked earlier if anyone had a link to the complaint.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
How many laws are there that don't do that? In order to overturn an enacted statute, you must prove that it is unconstitutional -- either on its face, or as applied. Well, it hasn't been applied yet, so that leaves the "on its face" analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly a point I have made many times. It really is too soon for everyone to be so against the UIGEA until the regulations are passed, then there may be a equal protection case for poker if AOL, MSN, Yahoo and others are allowed to continue offering Solitaire and other card / board games as 'SKILL' wagering as they are now.
if the regulations still permit these games then poker players will have an equal protection case.

obg

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many laws are there that don't do that? In order to overturn an enacted statute, you must prove that it is unconstitutional -- either on its face, or as applied. Well, it hasn't been applied yet, so that leaves the "on its face" analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly a point I have made many times. It really is too soon for everyone to be so against the UIGEA until the regulations are passed, then there may be a equal protection case for poker if AOL, MSN, Yahoo and others are allowed to continue offering Solitaire and other card / board games as 'SKILL' wagering as they are now.
if the regulations still permit these games then poker players will have an equal protection case.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

The company does not necessarily need to wait until regulations are passed in order to seek an injunction or a declaratory judgment on the ground that the statute is unconstitutionally applied. For one thing, the statute has many effects even before regulations are enacted.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
For one thing, the statute has many effects even before regulations are enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]