PDA

View Full Version : Washington Lawyer Sues state over Internet gaming ban...


EL Burro Loco
07-07-2007, 08:54 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/322849_poker07.html

Lawyer raises stakes against state's Internet poker ban
Suit claims law really aims to protect gambling industry

By MIKE LEWIS
P-I REPORTER

Football buffs host holiday-grade parties for the year's Big Game. World Cup soccer zealots gather and sing anthems in nation-flagged bars. Tour de France fans camp along French highways to wait for the peloton.

So how does a poker aficionado kick off the year's biggest event, the World Series of Poker? If he's Renton-based attorney Lee Rousso, he does what comes natural: He goes all in with a lawsuit.

On Friday, as the poker championship began in Las Vegas, Rousso sued the state of Washington in an effort to overturn its 2006 ban on Internet poker. Calling it a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, Rousso said the first legal challenge to the state law also should be the last.

"I think my chances are darn good," he said.

The ban, which took effect last spring, specifically prohibited the type of Internet-based card games such as Texas Hold 'Em that poker players in Washington -- Rousso among them -- have used to qualify for the annual multimillion-dollar tournament. Rousso said that Washington residents who qualified for the event likely did so through Internet-based tournaments even though it now is a felony to do so.

Susan Arland, spokeswoman for the Washington Gambling Commission, said commission lawyers have not seen the lawsuit and would comment only after they had read it. "We don't have anything to say just yet," she said.

Rousso said the state law is flawed. In his complaint in King County Superior Court, he argued that the state measure was passed not to put the state in compliance with the federal wire act -- something it does not do anyway, he said -- but instead to protect the in-state gambling industry, including card rooms and casinos.

This, he said, puts Washington in clear conflict with the Constitution's commerce clause, which forbids individual states from passing protectionist laws against other states' business.

Approved as Senate Bill 6613, Washington's law also banned Internet-based sport gambling. Lawmakers said it was an effort to put the state in compliance with the Interstate Wire Act. Originally approved in 1961, the act was a federal effort to limit betting on sports over the telephone.

No one has yet been prosecuted under the Washington law.

Internet card rooms boomed in 2003 when an unknown accountant and amateur card player named Chris Moneymaker won the world champion's bracelet after honing his craft solely on Internet Hold 'Em.

Moneymaker is Rousso's inspiration.

"He created the modern poker boom. He's a guy who everyone says, 'If he can do it why can't I?' "

This year's tournament is the largest in its 37-year history, with 12,000 players vying for the final table and eventually, the final seat and a first-prize worth more than $12 million. Prospective players can either qualify through satellite tournaments or by paying $10,000 up front to sit in.

Rousso, 49, qualified online for the 2005 World Series by winning an Internet tournament. He lasted 14 hours.

The Mercer Island native likes his chances better in court. If he loses there, he says, he'll push for legislation to return Internet poker to legal status. It never violated the Wire Act, he said, because the federal law refers only to sports gambling, not poker.

"Our backup plan is to get this done politically."

TheJokerIsWild
07-07-2007, 03:16 PM
Nice. Good for him.

boohaa12
07-09-2007, 03:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Rousso, 49, qualified online for the 2005 World Series by winning an Internet tournament. He lasted 14 hours.


[/ QUOTE ]
lol

JimmytheHat19
07-09-2007, 04:47 AM
This country needs more ppl like this guy pushing BACK at the ridiculous online anti-gambling laws popping up everywhere. If the supreme court would rule once and for all that poker is indeed a skill game rather than a game of chance then poker could become exempt from any and all "anti-gambling" legislation. Period.

But kudos to this guy, I admire his fight. I will be very interested to see how this pans out.

TomG
07-09-2007, 10:39 AM
Thank you Lee Rousso. So far, this law has amounted to nothing but a ridiculous scare tactic. No one has been arrested. However, this law has taken on new significance in the last few months. If Frank's legislation passes, we in Washington would remain locked out due to our current statewide anti-internet gambling laws. It is important we get our state laws changed in case legalization ever occurs on the federal level.

permafrost
07-09-2007, 12:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you Lee Rousso. So far, this law has amounted to nothing but a ridiculous scare tactic. No one has been arrested. However, this law has taken on new significance in the last few months. If Frank's legislation passes, we in Washington would remain locked out due to our current statewide anti-internet gambling laws. It is important we get our state laws changed in case legalization ever occurs on the federal level.

[/ QUOTE ] No point waiting for the Feds to legalize gambling, not their job.

State laws get you lawful online gambling without doing anything at the Fed level. UIGEA says so.

jackaaron
07-09-2007, 03:09 PM
Unrelated, but the article says:
"This year's tournament is the largest in its 37-year history, with 12,000 players vying for the final table and eventually, the final seat and a first-prize worth more than $12 million. Prospective players can either qualify through satellite tournaments or by paying $10,000 up front to sit in."

I thought the WSOP was considerably down this year? Like to 5500-6000?

Uglyowl
07-09-2007, 03:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the WSOP was considerably down this year? Like to 5500-6000

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, the article is wrong, good catch.

KEW
07-09-2007, 03:24 PM
Note that Lee Rousso is the PPA's Washington State Representative..

BluffTHIS!
07-09-2007, 04:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
State laws get you lawful online gambling without doing anything at the Fed level. UIGEA says so.

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that the reason states can have intra-state online poker isn't because the UIGEA allows them to do so. It is because the federal government can't stop them from doing so. The UIGEA didn't grant a new right to the states, but merely acknowledged one that already existed and couldn't be taken away by the federal government.

permafrost
07-09-2007, 10:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
State laws get you lawful online gambling without doing anything at the Fed level. UIGEA says so.

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that the reason states can have intra-state online poker isn't because the UIGEA allows them to do so. It is because the federal government can't stop them from doing so. The UIGEA didn't grant a new right to the states, but merely acknowledged one that already existed and couldn't be taken away by the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I think that is what I said, but you said it more clearly.

If you want legal online poker businesses to play at, your state laws must change to allow them.

Legislurker
07-10-2007, 01:05 AM
And the reason you need state laws is that so far, the Feds have NOT asserted jurisdiction. If California doctors prescribing tiny amounts of medical pot affects interstate commerce, then if they so desire, they can say ANY poker law affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court would back that up 100%. Its a question of willpower on the state or federal level, but its stacked agaisnt us on both fronts.

TheEngineer
07-10-2007, 01:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And the reason you need state laws is that so far, the Feds have NOT asserted jurisdiction. If California doctors prescribing tiny amounts of medical pot affects interstate commerce, then if they so desire, they can say ANY poker law affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court would back that up 100%. Its a question of willpower on the state or federal level, but its stacked agaisnt us on both fronts.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the prohibition bills so far have been careful to exempt intrastate gambling, so we're okay there. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. First of all, what states are currently licensing online casinos for instate play (or even ring game poker sites)? None, unfortunately. And, why would they? Without access to the international market or to even other states, they'd be small time. Imagine Wyoming attempting an intrastate poker site. They'd be lucky to keep a few games going.

IGREA, OTOH, establishes a national framework of regulation for an interstate and international market. Now, states would be opting for businesses that service the whole world....a very different proposition. As Nevada will certainly come on board, along with several Indian tribes, it would be only a matter of time before more and more states came on board for their share of the revenue pie. Would WA come on board? I don't know....that's up to the residents of that state. Some will join immediately, some will join later, and some may never join. Federalism, for better or worse. Beats the current situation, where we have no U.S.-based Internet poker sites for cash games (there are some for tournaments).

Legislurker
07-10-2007, 03:21 AM
Ah, but if the revenue goes to the feds and NOT the states, then what? You can't possibly pay everyone off in remote gaming.
This leaves the feds two tools to get into the revenue. Hey, states, either allow this or we regulate you out of Powerball, Megamillions, WAJs, OTBs, et al. Two, the WTO comes thru for us this year or next, and the feds assert the same reasoning, except saying ban all gambling or allow internet poker. For NOW, states have say, but the second the Federal government wants it, it can take it.

TheEngineer
07-10-2007, 08:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but if the revenue goes to the feds and NOT the states, then what? You can't possibly pay everyone off in remote gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine (and freely admit I have no data....just an opinion) some states would accept a smaller percentage in return for higher overall revenues that would be generated by an international market. Also, they'd be relieved of the regulatory burden. It is cheaper to have one regulatory body than 50, even when that regulatory body is the U.S. government. Also, states typically look at gaming like a cash cow. It's SUPPOSED to bring in revenue. If they approve it on their own on an intrastate basis, rakes may be equivalent to B&M casinos (especially once the B&M casinos complain about the "unfairness" of online gaming undercutting them), with no rakeback.

Also, the idea of states "legalizing" (i.e., either licensing or permitting sites within their borders to offer poker) online poker is an interesting hypothetical, but the fact is that no state currently does, and there is no proposed legislation out there to do so. Nevada passed a provision to license gaming sites, but they seem to have little interest in instate Internet gaming. North Dakota tried, but was warned by the DOJ to keep it instate, at which point they lost interest. Unfortunately, that's all we have at the state level. Without the scope of the international market, it seems this is a dead end. No data, except the number of states with poker sites within their borders equals zero.

I discussed my ideas in my last post concerning how federal regulation could bring the states in over time. To me, it's much more doable than the reverse. And, our show of some political strength has been paying off already, so it's been worth it even from that standpoint alone. Here are the 2p2 poll results (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=law&Number=10741057&Searc hpage=1&Main=10700063&Words=+TheEngineer&topic=&Se arch=true#Post10741057).

[ QUOTE ]
For NOW, states have say, but the second the Federal government wants it, it can take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The feds regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause. They'll likely be involved one way or another. Even a skill-game exemption for us will likely involve the feds in some capacity for cash ring games (though maybe not for some tournament-style play).