7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill

[snappo]

7/10/2007
http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...bill_46779.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/imega_suit_against_uigea_strongest_fight_against_t he_us_bill_46779.html)

very sorry if this is a repost. snippet:

"According to the iMEGA website their legal team today filed a brief in US Circuit Court in the US 3rd District (New Jersey), supporting their request for a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the UIGEA. "

wasn't sure if it's cool to post the whole article..

"The case iMEGA brings to the court is one of the strongest forces against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The legal team for iMEGA has done quite a bit of research and believes its case is so strong that they are requesting for an immediate court date based on the strength and merit of its case.

Normally, a case is proposed and then does not see the light of day for months. But iMEGA claims that the UIGEA is so unconstitional and so damaging to those they represent that a TRO against the bill is imperative. "

[niss]

The case has been filed in the US District Court for the District of NJ. Not the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was commenced in early June. The motion papers were filed yesterday (7/10).

According to the docket, the hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 4.

[MiltonFriedman]

"an immediate court date "

Basically, DOJ has not even answered the complaint nor appeared. They have NO reason to move this forward, nor should they. DOJ would be foolish to do anything until they have to do so, and certainly will not before the Regulations are proposed.

The timetable for a TRO is generally WAY quicker than "a hearing" in about 8 weeks. However, it is up to the plaintiffs to move it forward.

Are any litigation counsel out there with experience in federal court in NJ who can comment on the glacial pace of this matter to date ?

[MiltonFriedman]

It would help tremndously here if some NJ litigators could explain:

Is there no difference between a preliminary injunction and a TRO in that Court ? A TRO has a nuch faster track in other jurisdictions than that afforded for a preliminary injunction.

The filing says an Application was made for a TRO when the Complaint was filed. Why wasn't the supporting set of papers filed then ? Were supporting affidavits filed about irreparable injury ?

Sept 4 seems like a long time to wait for a TRO hearing, especially as the Regs sought to be enjoined will be out long before then AND, the football season will be underway.

Finally, wouldn't a brief cite the local rules about temporary restraining orders and cite some local caselaw ?

Anyone with substantive knowledge of NJ Federal procedures have a comment ?

[oldbookguy]

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me.

The reg's, once posted, will have a 60 day comment period before they actually go into effect.

So, if the reg's are published, say tomorrow, it will be 60 more days till they go into effect, or more if comments cause changes to them.

This will take them, at a minimum, past the Sept. 04 hearing date?

obg

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me.

The reg's, once posted, will have a 60 day comment period before they actually go into effect.

So, if the reg's are published, say tomorrow, it will be 60 more days till they go into effect, or more if comments cause changes to them.

This will take them, at a minimum, past the Sept. 04 hearing date?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

what are the regs passing going to change?

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
It would help tremndously here if some NJ litigators could explain:

Is there no difference between a preliminary injunction and a TRO in that Court ? A TRO has a nuch faster track in other jurisdictions than that afforded for a preliminary injunction.

The filing says an Application was made for a TRO when the Complaint was filed. Why wasn't the supporting set of papers filed then ? Were supporting affidavits filed about irreparable injury ?

Sept 4 seems like a long time to wait for a TRO hearing, especially as the Regs sought to be enjoined will be out long before then AND, the football season will be underway.

Finally, wouldn't a brief cite the local rules about temporary restraining orders and cite some local caselaw ?

Anyone with substantive knowledge of NJ Federal procedures have a comment ?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm not a NJ litigator, but I'm a NY litigator. I do some federal litigation, but it's been a while and I've never sought emergent relief (TROs, etc.) in a federal court (although I do it all the time in NY courts). So take this with a slight grain of salt. I'll try to answer some of the questions above and others that people might have....

First, there is no NJ Federal Law or NJ Federal Procedure Law. The US District Courts all have the same procedural law. There will be local rules that govern minutia of procedure (format of papers, what days and times hearings are held, etc.), but for the most party the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are going to govern this.

Yes, a TRO is different than a preliminary injunction. Here's how it works -- a preliminary injunction asks the court to take some action (here, stay the enforcement of the UIGEA), on an emergency basis, for the duration of the lawsuit. A party makes a "motion" for a preliminary injunction, usually toward the beginning of the lawsuit, to avoid irreperable injury while the lawsuit is ongoing.

Now, motions are not decided all that quickly, and the party may still be at risk of irreparable injury while the motion for the prelim inj. is pending. Thus, one may apply for a TRO (temporary restraining order), which would ask the court to give certain relief (here, most likely staying the enforcement of the UIGEA) while the MOTION for Prelim. Inj. is being argued & decided. So, usually the TRO is decided very quickly (the day or week it is filed), and usually courts do not grant them. They are tough to get, and the party seeking a TRO has a very high threshold to meet before one will be granted. He may still ultimately win his preliminary injunction motion, and even the lawsuit, but the most drastic and expedient relief -- the TRO -- is hard to get.

I have not read up on this lawsuit, but from a quick reading of this thread, it sounds like the moving party seeks a preliminary injunction, which is set down for a Sept. 4 hearing (usually the judge will hear arguments that day, and the parties submit briefs in advance of that day), and has asked for a TRO to be in effect from now until that motion is determined. If the TRO was granted, we would've heard about it. If it is granted, we'll hear about it. It would be major news for a District Court to stay the enforcement of a federal statute on a TRO application. Don't count on that happening.

I hope this helps some of you understand the procedure. Does anyone have copies of the papers filed? If so, if I can get my hands on those I can tell you exactly what's going on, and give an assessment of the likelihood of success, whether the lawyers are any good, etc.

This does sound exciting, and I'm going to read up on this case, see what it's all about. Please post if anyone knows where I can read the complaint, the motion papers, etc.

[oldbookguy]

Link to the brief that was filed:

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1967-001-brf-brief-in-support-of-otsc070705.pdf

[JPT III]

OK, the website in the original post had a link to the brief that was filed. I'll read it and post again tonight. Substantively, we need a Constitutional lawyer to opine on the merits of the case, which is an action grounded in First Amendment rights. I can probably help out tonight with procedural and other questions, but I'm no First Amendment maven.

[JPT III]

Ummm....third sentence of the text of the brief and the lawyers show the court that they don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect." Not good for us. We all make mistakes, I suppose, but it seems like you'd proof read your brief submitted to the federal court a few times -- particularly the opening argument.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Please post if anyone knows where I can read the complaint,

[/ QUOTE ] complaint (http://www.igamingnews.com/articles/files/iMEGAcomplaint.pdf)

[elevationzero]

Here's a comment, there is no such thing as NJ Federal procedures. You have state procedures and you have federal procedures. There is nothing that any New Jersey State Court is going to do about federal regulations.

[elevationzero]

Regulations don't get passed. The law was already passed and the regulations are simply the governing agency's means of implementing the law.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me.

The reg's, once posted, will have a 60 day comment period before they actually go into effect.

So, if the reg's are published, say tomorrow, it will be 60 more days till they go into effect, or more if comments cause changes to them.

This will take them, at a minimum, past the Sept. 04 hearing date?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I was curious about this too and contacted the Treasury Department yesterday and ended up getting directed down to an attorney at the IRS. He told me that yes, this is what happens but the allotted comment period 30,60,90, 120 or whatever days isn't stated until the regulations are published.

He left a voice mail and seemed pretty certain this was the case. Where did you hear it was 60 days? I could call him back tomorrow to see if he could verify.

[MiltonFriedman]

Comment noted.

There is a US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It certainly has local rules and procedures. The suit was filed in the US District Court there. I think it would be covered by both the FedR.Civ.Pro and the local (New Jersey) US District Court rules.

(But of course, since you read the underlying brief document you already knew the matter was pending in Federal court, not State court.)

[MiltonFriedman]

"The US District Courts all have the same procedural law. "

Yes, they all follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but each District Court also has local procedural rules. These local rules can affect the timing and availability of relief, which is why I was asking about New Jersey, specifically.

Thanks for the write-up about TROs v. Preliminary Injunction, your interest is most welcome.

[oldbookguy]

Looking at other like financials (www.regulations.gov), they looked all to be 60, though there is the 30 - 120 days.

obg

[MiltonFriedman]

Well, they can clarify only what the Banks have to watch for, but could indicate, perhaps, the scope of the legislation ... i.e is poker exempted by some discussion or definition of skill games ?

If you think I have been critical of the PPA for ignoring the regulatory process, the above is why, in a nutshell.

[MiltonFriedman]

Thanks for the nitful insight. The question was a very good substantive one, deserving of a better response.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, they can clarify only what the Banks have to watch for, but could indicate, perhaps, the scope of the legislation ... i.e is poker exempted by some discussion or definition of skill games ?

If you think I have been critical of the PPA for ignoring the regulatory process, the above is why, in a nutshell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you the PPA is lobbying the reg's and the PPA is (now) aware of the 'skill' games.
They were surprised a month ago to learn about 'skill' games as they had never heard of them........

As to the reg's, the following is part of their problem:

Exerted from a report to congress - "The act generally
defines “unlawful Internet gambling” as
transmitting a bet by any means that
involves the use, at least in part, of the
Internet and where such bet or wager is
unlawful under any applicable federal or
state law in the state or tribal lands in
which the bet or wager is initiated, received,
or otherwise made.(page 147)"

Since only 7 states have specific laws and 4 ambigious ones addressing Internet Wagering, there is a problem here.

I think the reg's will be generic since the UIGEA is in the face of things, generic, I.E. it does not specifically define illegal as well, nor does it distinguish between 'skill' and non-skill, neither will the reg's.

The report:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

obg

[MiltonFriedman]

That the PPA had not "heard" of skill games is sad, but hardly suprising. Certainly PStars and others raised the issue immediately AND the Act discusses skill games. However, please understand, the PPA is NOT looking to change or limit the UIGE Act, unless or until the US B&M operators can go internet, hence something like the Frank Bill.

On another note, you wrote "Since only 7 states have specific laws and 4 ambigious ones addressing Internet Wagering, there is a problem here."

I think that is NOT a problem, it is a benefit, under any constitutional challenge, as well as the practical one which Banks would face as unpaid policemen.

The Regs will do two things: Limit the Banks' role AND provide a safe-harbor for the areas in which they must act.

[Legislurker]

If the regs are posted as unfavorable, is there a clearly defined way to complain, provide public input or however the procedures govern public input. Or are the 60 days just window dressing? Can individuals demand to be heard or is there another way to stall things?

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that is NOT a problem, it is a benefit, under any constitutional challenge, as well as the practical one which Banks would face as unpaid policemen.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, sorry, I mean a problem for them, for us it is a good thing!

obg

[oldbookguy]

Yes, once they are posted the public can comment.
There will be an address for mail comments and a link for e-mail comments.

I think this issue will generate more comments than any reg's they have ever published!

obg



[ QUOTE ]
If the regs are posted as unfavorable, is there a clearly defined way to complain, provide public input or however the procedures govern public input. Or are the 60 days just window dressing? Can individuals demand to be heard or is there another way to stall things?

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]


There is a US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It certainly has local rules and procedures. The suit was filed in the US District Court there. I think it would be covered by both the FedR.Civ.Pro and the local (New Jersey) US District Court rules.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes, MiltonF. You are correct, and we're on the same page. I just don't think those local court rules are going to give us much info or guidance on this, that's all. They're more in the nature of minutia, and if it is true that there is a Sept. 4 hearing date (presumably the return date for the prelim. Inj. motion), that's what we're looking forward to (and the decision rendered sometime thereafter).

I do agree with you that a NJ federal litigator would be helpful here. For one, it's strange that the TRO application is in the complaint. Is that a federal thing?! And as you suggested, why is the brief only filed this week, if the TRO application was made upon the filing of the complaint? And as you also touched on, where the hell are the supporting affidavits showing irreparable harm?!

Keep fighting the good fight.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Legislurker]

How much help to the lawsuit would NJ poker players be if they
submitted affadavits showing harm? Every trip to AC I have made the last 6 months Ive seen dispirited online players from NJ who are making a lot less money grinding it out at the Borgata one table a time.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
How much help to the lawsuit would NJ poker players be if they
submitted affadavits showing harm? Every trip to AC I have made the last 6 months Ive seen dispirited online players from NJ who are making a lot less money grinding it out at the Borgata one table a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you are being serious or not, lurker, but it won't help. The affidavits would have to be from parties in the action. I hear ya about Borgata though! Luckily still a lot of drunks and noobs to keep the 8-16 limit game soft enough for an amateur like me to keep winning.

[CPOSteve]

Milton,

I have enjoyed reading your commentary in this forum over the last few months, and wonder if you wouldn't mind answering a couple questions I had about your recent post.

You say:
On another note, you wrote "Since only 7 states have specific laws and 4 ambigious ones addressing Internet Wagering, there is a problem here."

"I think that is NOT a problem, it is a benefit, under any constitutional challenge, as well as the practical one which Banks would face as unpaid policemen."

So first, is it your contention that the UIGEA is vulnerable to constitutional challenge? If so, what would be the basis of that challenge, in your mind?
I ask because in seems to me that, although gambling laws have traditionally been an issue resolved at the state level, the fact that the internet breaks down those borders leads to a logical conclusion that internet gambling fits neatly into the "interstate commerce" function of Congress.

Second, one of the things I've found interesting about the events of the past six months has been the smattering of threads along the lines of "the bank wouldn't cash my check from xxx site." It seems to me that the clear intent of the UIGEA was to "prohibit" internet gambling without actually making it illegal by simply choking off the funding. Furthermore, I think the specifics of the regulations are less important than their existence. In other words, the Congress and DOJ are betting (pun intended) that banks will react to this law and regulations by making it extremely difficult to cash checks, move money electronically etc. NOT because it's explicitly against the law but rather because the potential business loss is not great enough to run the risk of running afoul of the feds. I'm interested in your thoughts on this line of reasoning.

Anyway, thanks again for all the work you've done here. You and The Engineer and a few others have done a great deal of good and made me think.

Steve

[MiltonFriedman]

If some poker players were willing to join as Plaintiffs or at least join the iMEGA, that would cure what I think is an otherwise possibly FATAL hole in the standing argument.

PLEASE contact the iMEGA and ask to join the association, whether you are from NJ or other states.

[MiltonFriedman]

LOL, He says no, I say yes ..... ask two lawyers you get two different answers. Ask the iMEGA and its lawyers.

[MiltonFriedman]

"So first, is it your contention that the UIGEA is vulnerable to constitutional challenge? If so, what would be the basis of that challenge, in your mind?"

What I think is not relevant really, the issue has been joined already in this litigation (to which I am neither a party nor counsel, not even a friend of the court.) The argument to make is Commerce Clause based. There is a precedent to stand on in ACLU v Gonzales, where DOJ was enjoined from enforcing the Child Porn Act. The problem is that case was also clearly a 1st Amendment case. I think these litigants are making a HUGE mistake by not joining individual plaintiffs.

You are absolutely right as to the minimal goals of the people who pushed this through. The same tactic worked with respect to marketing, to a degree. However, be clear that there IS an intent to put operators into jail if possible, by bootstrapping an obscure, unintentional state law violation into a federal case. (

[MiltonFriedman]

regs they have ever published"

We cannot rely on the suspect interests of the PPA. US poker players need to make their voices heard, and address some common points ..... Let's see what the Regs say to pinpoint what to raise.

I think that the US facing sites will urge their players to write in, wonder if Party will contact their former players ? (Mike Sexton has shown interest in that, generating emails in the past to former Party players.)

You KNOW Focus On Family will be active.

[snappo]

http://www.gambling911.com/Online-Gambling-UIGEA-071207.html

Updated: UIGEA Hearing Set for September 4

"A Federal Judge in the state of New Jersey has assigned a hearing date for its lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that seeks to have an new online gambling law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) overturned. Gambling911.com has learned that the hearing date is set for September 4. Judge Mary L. Cooper of the US District Court in Trenton, NJ will hear the matter.

The group, the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA), has a good shot, according to Cassimir Medford who has been covering the online gambling legal climate for Red Herring

iMEGA's goal is to get the court to declare the UIGEA unconstitutional and unenforceable, according to Medford. That’s because the group says the act violates the First Amendment’s rights to freedom of speech and commercial association as well as the Tenth Amendment’s protections of states’ rights to regulate online gambling.

'The UIGEA can still be enforced prior to the September 4 date,' he said. 'But we feel confident that the judge will prevent that from happening.'"

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Comment noted.

There is a US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It certainly has local rules and procedures. The suit was filed in the US District Court there. I think it would be covered by both the FedR.Civ.Pro and the local (New Jersey) US District Court rules.

(But of course, since you read the underlying brief document you already knew the matter was pending in Federal court, not State court.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They filed their request for a TRO by notice of motion and not by Order to Show Cause. Hence the return date of September. Very unusual. I can't see how you get a TRO without showing exigency, and if there is exigency they would have proceeded by Order to Show Cause. I was going to say in my original response that I think this motion has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, having read the papers, but I don't want to kill the party.

By the way I practice in NJ federal court regularly and can try to answer any questions about procedure (I haven't made it all the way through the thread yet so if there's anything further below I'll respond if I can).

[JimmytheHat19]

So, this is what I wanna know. I am no legal expert nor do I even understand half the terms I have just read in this thread. Here is what I DO know: I'm 25 yrs old and I derive most of my income from playing online poker. I live in Colorado. I have very serious concerns (maybe paranoia) about one day waking up and finding that I wont be able to withdraw money to pay my bills. I also have concerns that long-term losing players won't be able to deposit money onto the sites, which ultimately ends up in the hands of players like me. This obv creates a problem as to how much money I am able to make.

From everything I've read, it sounds to me like there is a good chance of things working out. But I want someone who knows what they are talking about to tell me the WORST CASE SCENARIO for a guy like me. What if Imega fails in court to prove their case and the judge grants the UIGEA constitutional and everything moves forward from there? What if the fed writes the rules into play and prohibits banks from transferring any money between players and the sites, and vice-versa? Again, I really dont understand all this stuff and I am just describing it as I understand it. Please correct me if I sound like an idiot. Will I be out a job? Even if it all goes to hell, will there ALWAYS be a way to get money out of the site and for losing players to deposit? One other fear I have is that the remeaining US-accepting sites might get scared and pull out of the US market for a few yrs until things cool down and online gaming is legalized and regulated, a la partypoker? If THAT happens, I am definately screwed. I make a good living for myself playing poker online, 12-tabling for 5 to 7 hrs a day. I make about 3 times as much as I would hanging sheetrock or swinging a hammer. I am an uneducated person but intelligent when it comes to poker and right now I am very happy with how things are going for me and I get really upset everytime I think about what the govt is trying to do to online poker which is so clearly a skill game. Is there anything I can do to help you guys with the fight? I sent letters to my state congressman several months back and I am a paid member of the PPA.

Well, I realize this was long and prbly boring to most of you but this is a super-important issue to me and I dont really understand all the legal mumbo-jumbo I read in these threads. Any feedback on my questions would be greatly appreciated, especially the worst-case scenario questions. Thanks.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
For one, it's strange that the TRO application is in the complaint. Is that a federal thing?!

[/ QUOTE ]

While not procedurally correct, I have seen this before. It's nothing more than attorneys who are either doing a belt and suspenders thing or who do not understand that a claim for a TRO or injunctive relief does not give rise to a cause of action separate and distinct from the substantive causes of action alleged in the complaint.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
So, this is what I wanna know. I am no legal expert nor do I even understand half the terms I have just read in this thread. Here is what I DO know: I'm 25 yrs old and I derive most of my income from playing online poker. I live in Colorado. I have very serious concerns (maybe paranoia) about one day waking up and finding that I wont be able to withdraw money to pay my bills. I also have concerns that long-term losing players won't be able to deposit money onto the sites, which ultimately ends up in the hands of players like me. This obv creates a problem as to how much money I am able to make.

From everything I've read, it sounds to me like there is a good chance of things working out. But I want someone who knows what they are talking about to tell me the WORST CASE SCENARIO for a guy like me. What if Imega fails in court to prove their case and the judge grants the UIGEA constitutional and everything moves forward from there? What if the fed writes the rules into play and prohibits banks from transferring any money between players and the sites, and vice-versa? Again, I really dont understand all this stuff and I am just describing it as I understand it. Please correct me if I sound like an idiot. Will I be out a job? Even if it all goes to hell, will there ALWAYS be a way to get money out of the site and for losing players to deposit? One other fear I have is that the remeaining US-accepting sites might get scared and pull out of the US market for a few yrs until things cool down and online gaming is legalized and regulated, a la partypoker? If THAT happens, I am definately screwed. I make a good living for myself playing poker online, 12-tabling for 5 to 7 hrs a day. I make about 3 times as much as I would hanging sheetrock or swinging a hammer. I am an uneducated person but intelligent when it comes to poker and right now I am very happy with how things are going for me and I get really upset everytime I think about what the govt is trying to do to online poker which is so clearly a skill game. Is there anything I can do to help you guys with the fight? I sent letters to my state congressman several months back and I am a paid member of the PPA.

Well, I realize this was long and prbly boring to most of you but this is a super-important issue to me and I dont really understand all the legal mumbo-jumbo I read in these threads. Any feedback on my questions would be greatly appreciated, especially the worst-case scenario questions. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can go to a live card room. Its a boring bitch of a way to make a living but you can.

What you can do. Well, talk to people, make an effort to go out and make conversation about poker/gambling. If you can support him, sign up for a Ron Paul group. Do what the rest of us do, keep writing your legislators, regulators, and editors. Call into a radio talk show. Vote. Donate money. Im in the same boat you are, a nice living has come crashing down to where Im afraid to spend money outside of a stripped down monthly nut. Congrats on still multi tabling that many hours a day, I cant stomach how little I make doing it, so I barely play. This summer SHOULD be the worst of your life if you stay in poker. None of us KNOW if it will get better, but we think the worst has hit barring a massive IRS crackdown.

[MiltonFriedman]

As for the snowball chances of success, a procedural quote from the US District Courts' Procedural FAQs :

"Question:
What is the proper way to address an online gaming operator in US Federal District Court ?"

"Answer: Will the Defendant please rise ?"

[MiltonFriedman]

All your concerns are justified. Do not count on even the current situation to remain. (I think it will to a large extent, but be prepared for change. Keep in mind that eight years ago your "job" did not exist afterall.)

Do not leave money you need to pay bills in your poker bankroll. Take it out and put it somewhere a bit more liquid and safe.

If you really make 3x as much playing online poker as hanging sheetrock, consider leaving the country to keep your "job". (People leave their home country to pursue a better economic situation every day. Why do you think online operators are offshore ?)

[MiltonFriedman]

Joe Brennan, Jr., iMEGA founder and a former executive of AOL, quoted in Gambling911.com:

"The UIGEA can still be enforced prior to the September 4 date," he said. "But we feel confident that the judge will prevent that from happening."
Brennan went on to explain how enforcement of the UIGEA would only serve to make the judge's job more cumbersome.
"She (the judge) will then have to wade through all the rules and regulations in addition to reviewing our complaint."

This is possibly the most inane reasoning I have ever seen, even on Gambling911. (Please note the crucial transitional paragraph is not a direct quote) Did iMEGA really say the Judge would act before the Regs are out BECAUSE otherwise she would have too much to read through ? wtf kind of public statement would that be ? It is patently absurd, worse than the late NROG's legslative analysis or most of what Gaboonviper posts.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Brennan, Jr., iMEGA founder and a former executive of AOL, quoted in Gambling911.com:

"The UIGEA can still be enforced prior to the September 4 date," he said. "But we feel confident that the judge will prevent that from happening."

Brennan went on to explain how enforcement of the UIGEA would only serve to make the judge's job more cumbersome.

"She (the judge) will then have to wade through all the rules and regulations in addition to reviewing our complaint."

This is possibly the publicly posted reasoning I have ever seen, even on Gambling911. (Please note the crucial transitional paragraph is not a direct quote) Did iMEGA really say the Judge would act before the Regs are out BECAUSE otherwise she would have too much to read through ? wtf kind of public statement would that be ? It is patently absurd, worse than the late NROG's legslative analysis or most of what Gaboonviper posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole reporting of this has been retarded. First they said that the application had been filed directly with the Third Circuit (which I am pretty sure is a legal impossibility). Then they are quoted as saying that the judge might act on the motion before the return date, before the government has submitted its opposition, and before she's heard argument (assuming argument is even held), something that happens in, oh, about 0% of cases.

It's stuff like this that makes these type of applications, and indeed the fight against the UIGEA, come across as utter nonsense. They'd be a whole lot better off if they'd either shut their mouths or say stuff like "we've filed our papers, we think we've made good arguments, it's now in the hands of our lawyers and the courts". And if I was the attorney and I would tell my client that all statements to any type of press outlet, no matter how loosely we define "press", must be run through me first.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comment noted.

There is a US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It certainly has local rules and procedures. The suit was filed in the US District Court there. I think it would be covered by both the FedR.Civ.Pro and the local (New Jersey) US District Court rules.

(But of course, since you read the underlying brief document you already knew the matter was pending in Federal court, not State court.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They filed their request for a TRO by notice of motion and not by Order to Show Cause. Hence the return date of September. Very unusual. I can't see how you get a TRO without showing exigency, and if there is exigency they would have proceeded by Order to Show Cause. I was going to say in my original response that I think this motion has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, having read the papers, but I don't want to kill the party.

By the way I practice in NJ federal court regularly and can try to answer any questions about procedure (I haven't made it all the way through the thread yet so if there's anything further below I'll respond if I can).

[/ QUOTE ]

niss, welcome to the thread, and thanks for chiming in! Since you seem to have access to the court docket (e.g., you knew about the notice of motion filed), can you tell us whether the TRO application was filed just this week (when the brief was), or earlier (with the complaint in June). Also, if you have access, were there supporting affidavits filed with that brief??? I don't see anything in that brief referring to any evidence on the record submitted by anyone with PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the facts they are arguing. Good luck with the standing argument and irreparable injury argument without and evidence!!! niss, please tell me there are supporting affidavits.

OK, just a couple more questions and I'll let you get back to work: Why in the hell would they even seek a TRO if moving under a notice of motion?!?! I mean, the whole point of a TRO is to get (usually) ex parte relief, and to get it immediately; a notice of motion (rather than OSC) isn't going to get that done. It seems to me that their TRO app is really a de facto motion for a preliminary injunction, right? Maybe NY state court practice is drastically different, but I've NEVER HEARD OF MOVING FOR A TRO BY NOTICE OF MOTION.

Finally, what's with the count in the complaint seeking a TRO?! Is that a federal court thing? In NY state practice, a TRO is an application -- a motion to be made -- perhaps simultaneously with the complaint, but not within the complaint. Since when do we include motion practice as a claim in a pleading??? Either federal practice in the area of provisional remedies is strangely different than NY state practice (which I find doubtful), or these attorneys are as*-clowns. Talk to me....

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]


The whole reporting of this has been retarded. First they said that the application had been filed directly with the Third Circuit (which I am pretty sure is a legal impossibility). Then they are quoted as saying that the judge might act on the motion before the return date, before the government has submitted its opposition, and before she's heard argument (assuming argument is even held), something that happens in, oh, about 0% of cases.

It's stuff like this that makes these type of applications, and indeed the fight against the UIGEA, come across as utter nonsense. They'd be a whole lot better off if they'd either shut their mouths or say stuff like "we've filed our papers, we think we've made good arguments, it's now in the hands of our lawyers and the courts". And if I was the attorney and I would tell my client that all statements to any type of press outlet, no matter how loosely we define "press", must be run through me first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Had they moved by order to show cause, the judge might have acted before the return date, but I cannot imagine it happening now. Even that would have been unlikely, as the TRO language would have either been granted or denied very close to, or contemporaneous with, the filing of the motion and the generation of the return date.

And the statement that the UIGEA "can still be enforced prior to Sept. 4" is wildly misleading and will give readers false hope. 25 to 1 says it can be enforced after the Sept. 4 return date, regardless of the outcome of the motion or the iMedia case.

[niss]

The motion was filed 7/10. There is an Affidavit, which I've read. If I recall correctly, it was from a consultant for IMEGA. He didn't seem to have personal knowledge of a whole hell of a lot. Nothing from any member of IMEGA testifying as to how they have been damaged by the UIGEA.

I just took a look at the Notice of Motion. It's worse than I thought. It's titled as a motion for a preliminary injunction ... but it describes the relief they are seeking as a Temporary Restraining Order only. Nowhere in the body of the notice of motion do they refer to a preliminary injunction. Perhaps it's in the brief somewhere. BRUTAL.

Let's not beat around the bush here. It's not like IMEGA has hired the best and brightest minds in NJ to handle this case. They hired a small firm (I think it's 5 attorneys) in Warren to handle this. Don't get me wrong ... solos and small firm litigators can be just as capable as, if not more capable than, those of us at the larger firms, but it's a case of "show me" with them, and their papers don't show me anything.

[JPFisher55]

I read iMEGA's original petition and its recent brief. It seems to me that they are seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the UIGEA in their brief and a final injunction against application of the Wire Act to online gambling and the UIGEA in their petition.
They used the term TRO, but the documents didn't seem to be in the nature of immediate relief.
Besides what regulations are going to become effective by September 4? None.
I am perplexed by the failure to name any members of the iMEGA. I thought that this was needed to prove standing. Maybe they intend to provide this information in a sealed document to the court. Their documents suggest this necessity because their members fear prosecution.

[JimmytheHat19]

[ QUOTE ]
All your concerns are justified. Do not count on even the current situation to remain. (I think it will to a large extent, but be prepared for change. Keep in mind that eight years ago your "job" did not exist afterall.)

Do not leave money you need to pay bills in your poker bankroll. Take it out and put it somewhere a bit more liquid and safe.

If you really make 3x as much playing online poker as hanging sheetrock, consider leaving the country to keep your "job". (People leave their home country to pursue a better economic situation every day. Why do you think online operators are offshore ?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man, worst-case scenario indeed. Are you serious about this? Do you think it will come to that potentially? I am "prepared for change" as you say, but IDK if I'm prepared to leave the country. Won't players always be able to send in paper checks (personnal or cashier) and then won't the sites always be able to send me a check (assuming all the e-wallets pull out)? I thought I heard someone say once that AG Gonzalez wasnt confident that the UIGEA could be enforced and that paper checks would likely slip through the cracks... is this true? I mean, give me a little hope here. How soon do you think sh*t might hit the fan, if it indeed does? Will the current situation remain the same for at least 6 months? 3 months? Does ANYONE have ANY idea what the future of online poker holds? I mean, how bad is it really gonna get. I scare myself sometimes when I read these threads and cause myself extra stress and worry.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I am perplexed by the failure to name any members of the iMEGA. I thought that this was needed to prove standing. Maybe they intend to provide this information in a sealed document to the court. Their documents suggest this necessity because their members fear prosecution.



[/ QUOTE ]

Help me here.

If the member's businesses are lawful then UIGEA doesn't apply to them, where's the problem?

If the member's businesses are unlawful, then why is UIGEA's added penalty for that unlawfulness unconstitutional? Or are they saying all gambling laws are unconstitutional?

[MiltonFriedman]

See, ACLU v. Gonzales. A business which is lawful in some states is subjected to a federal law exposing it to unwarranted risk in other states, which have different laws.

In the ACLU case, there was 1st Amendment speech protected, even though the websites involved were businesses. The Court there said that the less intrusive means of internet technologies protected the US' interest in protecting children against viewing "porn" , so the "ban" which placed the sites at risk was unconstitutional because it interfered with their rights (and their viewers' rights) in the states where their activity was not illegal.

The shared issue with the iMEGA claim would be whether a given site's content was "legal" under various state laws. This is analogous to whether poker is unlawful internet gambling under various state laws.

iMEGA needs to get both US players and US suppliers to the online gaming industry to join to make its case in the strongest posture.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
A business which is lawful in some states is subjected to a federal law exposing it to unwarranted risk in other states, which have different laws.


[/ QUOTE ]

But if it is a lawful business in some state, UIGEA ignores it, so how does UIGEA expose it to any risk?

Now if that business enters another state where their service is unlawful, UIGEA applies along with the state laws that were broken. What's unconstitutional about a penalty for lawbreaking?

[MiltonFriedman]

That an internet site is subjected to risk of prosecution in State B or under a federal law adopting a violation of State B law, while the same content is legal in State A is the crux of the Constitutional issue, as applied in ACLU v Gonzales to the federal Child Porn Act, enforcement of which was enjoined permanently.

Unless I am missing some facts, I do not think the Child Porn Act made conduct in State A illegal. (That the same discredited Child Porn Act structure, though already enjoined, would be used in drafting the 2006 UIGE Act is not surprising, consider the sources of both.) (Someone with time to do so might want to review the ACLU facts to make sure I have it right, I do not have the case in front of me.)

Internet gaming is not exactly the same a publishing text and pictures, which enjoy a high protection under the 1st Amendment, but the case is full of alternatives the federal government COULD have used to protect its state interest short of subjecting site operators ro prosecution under State B claims for conduct legal in State A.

That the site is a business does not mean it is ineligible for 1st Amendment protection (albeit lesser scrutiny) and does mean that the Commerce Clause may protect the business's interest.

Some "legal" players would help the case posture immensely.

[JPFisher55]

I live in Missouri. Missouri case law has ruled that poker is a game of skill. Thus, I can legally play online poker for money. But the UIGEA (but for Epassporte) is impinging on my right to play online poker under the First Amendment because it makes it illegal for businesses to move my money for me.
While the govt. has some legitimate interest in restricting my rights, the UIGEA is not narrowly designed to protect these interests.
I agree with Milton that an affected individual or business would help the standing issue, but I do not know much about standing issues.

[CPOSteve]

JP, Where do you find the "right" to play on-line poker in the First Amendment?

Hey, I'd love to see on-line poker legalized in every state, but I would prefer to see it become legal because the legislative branch passed a law making it so rather than because the judicial branch discovered yet another "right" hiding there in the Constitution.

Steve

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in Missouri. Missouri case law has ruled that poker is a game of skill. Thus, I can legally play online poker for money. But the UIGEA (but for Epassporte) is impinging on my right to play online poker under the First Amendment because it makes it illegal for businesses to move my money for me.
While the govt. has some legitimate interest in restricting my rights, the UIGEA is not narrowly designed to protect these interests.
I agree with Milton that an affected individual or business would help the standing issue, but I do not know much about standing issues.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Missouri AG (http://www.ago.mo.gov/publications/gambling2.htm) doesn't agree with your legality
[ QUOTE ]
Missourians may legally participate in games or contests of skill or chance where no consideration is required to be eligible for a prize. Many fast-food restaurants offer no-purchase-necessary games in which consumers can obtain free tickets without a purchase.



[/ QUOTE ]

If it was legal and there was a legal Missouri business dealing poker, how would UIGEA affect you, them or the financing?

[JPFisher55]

CPO read iMEGA's brief. It is part of the freedom of association in the first amendment. I would prefer court ruling UIGEA and Wire Act not enforceable against online gambling because I think that any enabling laws will have a lot of regs and taxes attached.

Permafrost, the case is Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission ruling poker is a game of skill. Social clubs offering poker of an entry fee (no rake) are legal, but rare due to numerous casinos, in Missouri. Skallagrim has pointed this out in the past.

[CPOSteve]

I've read the brief and I don't agree...but then again I have a tough time finding a lot of other "rights" in the Constitution that others don't seem to have trouble finding. Vive le difference.

As to the fact that new laws will have a lot of regs and taxes attached, my comment is "I certainly hope so" and I would argue that all of us should hope so.

I'm a recreational player. I'm much more successful at live poker than I am on-line. The fact is that attracting players like me is the key to the future of on-line poker. I haven't played for real money on-line since last year. The reasons for this are several:
- Getting money onto a site has gotten difficult. Not impossible. Certainly within my abilities. But difficult nonetheless.
- There is significant doubt in my mind that I can get my money back out.
- Based on my reading of any number of threads on this board I am increasingly concerned about the integrity of the games. Collusion. Bots. Multi-accounting. I'm uninterested in playing a game that I can't trust to be on the level.
- Complete lack of a competent gaming commission to which I can refer complaints or disputes.

The fact is that I won't deposit money onto an on-line site again until there is federal regulation of on-line gaming. I know several friends, recreational players and former on-line gamblers, who have the same attitude. Again, this won't stop the dedicated "professional" poker player, but I believe it will eventually have an impact on the pool of players (if it already hasn't).

In short (if it's not too late to say that) there will always be a portion of the population that is willing to overlook the "wild west" aspects of on-line poker for the chance to participate. I won't and I believe there are many others who share my concerns.

Steve

[FreeBeer]

[ QUOTE ]

Won't players always be able to send in paper checks (personnal or cashier) and then won't the sites always be able to send me a check (assuming all the e-wallets pull out)?



[/ QUOTE ]


No. For instance, Sportingbet PLC, owners of Paradise Poker, refuses to issue checks to US citizens, citing the UIGEA as the reason. Getting paid is a stone bitch sometimes. Just ask the FTP and Bodog players.

[Skallagrim]

Just back from vacation folks, and havent read the petition or other legal documents filed yet, but there are a few points I can make:

1) September 4 is hardly unusual as hearing date for this kind of petition - 6-7 weeks is actaully pretty fast for a federal court civil case. I do not know the local rules, but it is pretty clear these guys didnt ask for an "immediate" HEARING.

2) The UIGEA, as I have said many times, is the most poorly drafted piece of federal legislation in some time, what it really says is subject to a lot of debate. What is clear, by its own terms, is that it is not making any particular game or gambliing legal or illegal; it exists to say that if a game is already illegal under STATE OR FEDERAL law, then FUNDING THAT GAME is now a new federal crime.

3) Since poker is not covered by the wire act, whether its illegal to fund online poker under the UIGEA has to be determined by individual state law. This gets extremely complex. Basically, everything other than the laws in Washington and Louisianna can be argued not to apply to online poker (those 2 states specifically make it a crime to play online poker) and even for those 2 states the question exists as to whehter they have the authority to outlaw online play since interstate commerce is supposed to be a federal matter. I am still too tired from the retrun trip to go further into this now.

4) The complexity of a federal law that says your interstate banking activity is either legal or illegal depending on future interpertations of state law is what has everybody going nuts (at least as far as poker is concerned) including the DOJ and the folks who have to write the regulations. The idea that an interstate bank or CC company must know that its OK for JP to play from Missouri (another long and complex interpertation, but pretty safe because poker is a game of skill according to the Missouri Supreme Court, and thus not inherently illegal - the other Missouri laws that ban unregulated for-profit cardrooms clearly only deal with physical places in Missouri) but probably not OK for a guy from South Carolina (where playing any card game for money is illegal) is nuts and will keep an army of lawyers employed for many years.

5) Thus most companies with other profit areas see it as just easy to stop all US transfers to poker sites so that they are sure they can never be held to violate the UIGEA - that does not make play from states like Missouri illegal, yet it effectively stops it. It is this effect on otherwise legal players that may be enough for this lawsuit to get somewhere, similar to ACLU v. Gonzales without the first amendment having to come into play.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Thanks, this is the clearest, most consise post i have read on this matter.

I think IMEGA could use you!

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost, the case is Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission ruling poker is a game of skill. Social clubs offering poker of an entry fee (no rake) are legal, but rare due to numerous casinos, in Missouri. Skallagrim has pointed this out in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that proves your claim that you 'can legally play online poker for money' when the AG plainly says you can't bet on skill games. Sorry, but I doubt the AG is wrong.

[Gonso]

I love NJ sometimes

[MiltonFriedman]

Permafrost, take the time to actually read the ACLU v. Gonzales cases. My unrefreshed recollection is that the answer would be:

A person with a protected right in State A (let's call it Missouri) to access a site can be impacted because State B (let's call it Washington) has a law which defines the exact same conduct legal in Missouri to be illegal in Washington. What is the conduct ? ... The SITE discussing poker or gambling software perhaps. (This content actually is privately banned from Google Adwords.)

(Let's further say that the Washington law is sufficiently narrow to outlaw the site's conduct there.... and the site's conduct in Missouri is clearly allowed.)

The impact is on the Site and on the guy in Missouri. Their activity is chilled becasue the Federal Anti-Strategy law leaves the site open to conflicting state standards and criminal prosecution. Because a less intrusive means exists to ensure the Federal goal, the rights of Mo. players and sites looking to provide that service must be protected.

Bluntly put, the argument is that the Federal UIGE Act fails because it sinks to the lowest common denominator in addressing US players' rights and imposes upon Missourians' access to online poker the mores and rules of Utah. The service providers' rights are also trampled because, even if they block 10 or 11 States, their ability to accept deposits from ANY US player is blocked.

(Permafrost, I would be shocked if the Regs turn out to say, (a) Sports betting violates the Wire Act, therefore no deposits are okay, but (b) deposits from these 39 States are okay while deposits from these 11 States are not okay for poker. That would be an insanely well-tailored regulation, and permissible under the Act.)

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
September 4 is hardly unusual as hearing date for this kind of petition - 6-7 weeks is actaully pretty fast for a federal court civil case. I do not know the local rules, but it is pretty clear these guys didnt ask for an "immediate" HEARING.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is somewhat misleading. Two months is a LONG TIME when someone is seeking a TRO or a preliminary injunction. The problem is, as discussed above, a movant almost always seeks this relief by Order to Show Cause, which they inexplicably didn't do here.

While the rest of your post may make loads of sense, the issue in this thread is less whether the UIGEA can/should be blocked and more the poor effort that IMEGA seems to be making to do so. Read the papers and see if you think otherwise.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
(Permafrost, I would be shocked if the Regs turn out to say, (a) Sports betting violates the Wire Act, therefore no deposits are okay, but (b) deposits from these 39 States are okay while deposits from these 11 States are not okay for poker. That would be an insanely well-tailored regulation, and permissible under the Act.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Milton, you are correct, insanly well taylored, but it is what I would like to see initially and is the real solution to this mess for the government. Then, the other states could change their local laws to opt in or the others to opt out.

Ah, but this is way to simple for the government.....

obg

[Legislurker]

But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out.

[MiltonFriedman]

"But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out."

Really think so ?

"Hello, Governor Schwartnegger, would you like a 40% affiliate deal to help out the State of California ? Yes, just like the Lottery, only better."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that?

[Skallagrim]

Niss, I said that 6-7 weeks was not a long time BECAUSE there appered to be no request for an immediate hearing. I suspect there was not a request for an immediate hearing because, factually, there is no "enforcement" of the UIGEA going on right now. I will try to read the actual filings later this afternoon.

I also doubt that most states would opt out under such a regulation scheme as suggested, at least as long as poker is separated from online slots, sportsbetting and games like blackjack. The general public has quite different feelings about poker and those other games/gambling. If online Bridge suddenly became very popular, do you think state governments would rush to "opt out" of that?

UNfortunately, OBG, the 11 state skill game ban is not as clear cut as you would like it to be, it probaby (I am still researching this area) would only apply to poker tournaments, and also there are states where skill games for money are okay, but poker is specifically forbidden. I told you this was complex /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The impact is on the Site and on the guy in Missouri. Their activity is chilled becasue the Federal Anti-Strategy law leaves the site open to conflicting state standards and criminal prosecution. Because a less intrusive means exists to ensure the Federal goal, the rights of Mo. players and sites looking to provide that service must be protected.

Bluntly put, the argument is that the Federal UIGE Act fails because it sinks to the lowest common denominator in addressing US players' rights and imposes upon Missourians' access to online poker the mores and rules of Utah. The service providers' rights are also trampled because, even if they block 10 or 11 States, their ability to accept deposits from ANY US player is blocked.


[/ QUOTE ]


You mention a "Site" providing an internet service in Missouri and assume legality. The only online poker sites I know of in Missouri (and other states), are unlawful foreign businesses. How is trying to chill their unlawful activity unconstitutional?

UIGEA "imposes" nothing on a lawful Missouri activity. Missouri can legalize and regulate and UIGEA can't touch them --- but they have not done that. Be nice if they did...

[JPFisher55]

Permafrost, you still don't get it. The foreign websites are operating lawfully where they are located. As a Missouri citizen, I can legally access their sites and play online poker for real money.
The UIGEA attempts to prevent or restrict my legal right to do so; this is not allowed under the US Constitution as I remember it. Hopefully, the judge in the iMEGA case will agree.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost, you still don't get it. The foreign websites are operating lawfully where they are located. As a Missouri citizen, I can legally access their sites and play online poker for real money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your Attorney General still says it's illegal if you bet. Should I believe JPFisher55 of 2+2 or the AG of Missouri? I wish it was lawful, and no offense, but wishing seems like all we got here.

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA attempts to prevent or restrict my legal right to do so; this is not allowed under the US Constitution as I remember it. Hopefully, the judge in the iMEGA case will agree.




[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA doesn't restrict your legal rights at all, it further penalizes unlawful businesses, only. You aren't running an unlawful internet gambling business are you?.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Your Attorney General still says it's illegal if you bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post the AG opinion statement? That should clarify, especially to the extent poker is affected.

[JPFisher55]

Unfortunately, AG's like a lot of prosecutors, think Nifong and DOJ, make lots of statements of law that they can't and won't back up.
Don't believe Jay Nixon; believe the case law that I and Skallagrim have cited.

[MiltonFriedman]

I think you are feigning an ignorance which is beneath you. That is a disappointment. You ain't Socrates.

I referred you to the ACLU v Gonzales caselaw which is on point as to how the Federal Act cannot simply trod on peoples' rights in State B because State A law provides a different measure of what those rights are for State A residents. The measure of such State A rights in cyberspace is discussed, as is the need for less intrusive legislation.(I am not saying what the standard will be among possible reviews by the Court, but pointing out that precedent does exist for determining the proper way to balance rights among citizens of differing States when they intersect in cyberspace.)

To address your point directly, I nowhere said the hypothetical site was in Mo.

In any event, why would a site's location offshore make illegal its otherwise lawful conduct ?* Being foreign does not make a business unlawful, ever buy a foreign automobile / The location of the poker site is irrelevant under UIGE Act, especially if a site is located and licensed to conduct its business legally from say the UK or Costa Rica, Antigua or the Isle of Mann. If there is no federal ban on poker sites, and we are assuming arguendo State B allows players to play, what is "unlawful" ?

What is chilled is the availability of services, including banking services, to conduct that lawful activity. Congress used a meat-ax, a scapel was required to protect whatever "legitimate state interest" may underly the enacted prohibition.

* The WTO case involves that premise, that discrimination on nation origin cannot be legal under that trade agreement. Just wait until some of the other trade agreement litigation picks up steam, under GATT and other agreements.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, AG's like a lot of prosecutors, think Nifong and DOJ, make lots of statements of law that they can't and won't back up.
Don't believe Jay Nixon; believe the case law that I and Skallagrim have cited.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I was curious to see the statement.

It's fine for the AG to have an opinion, but AGs don't make laws (legislative branch), nor do they interpret them (judicial branch). Seems odd for Bachus and the other prohibitionists to cite executive branch opinions, as their only function is to enforce the laws others pass and interpret. As such, it would be interesting to see what laws the AG cites in his opinion.

[Skallagrim]

I'd like to see the actual statement of that Missouri AG too, are you certain he was specifically referring to PLAYING poker on the internet? I doubt it, he was probably referring to laws that forbid runnning an unlicensed casino in Missouri. And even if he believes that law applies to the internet (Missouri gambling laws do not mention the internet at all) this is a highly dubious opinion for legal reasons we have discussed too many times before for me to repeat them now and would not apply to players anyway.

Whose opinion is correct? No one will know for certain until there is an opinion from the highest court with jurisdiction.

And one final point on AG opinions, it was not that long ago that many US Attorneys were running around saying that poker was "unquestionably" covered by the Wire Act (a few of the political appointees STILL do); this did not in any way stop 2 US Circuit Courts of Appeal from ruling that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting, rulings pretty much accepted as final now in the legal community given the same US Attorney Office's decision to not appeal these cases to the US Supreme Court.

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your Attorney General still says it's illegal if you bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post the AG opinion statement? That should clarify, especially to the extent poker is affected.

[/ QUOTE ]

JP claimed upthread that poker is a skill game in Missouri, then leapt to the conclusion that betting on internet poker was legal there. I made a link upthread (http://www.ago.mo.gov/publications/gambling2.htm) to the AG's website that states betting on skill games in unlawful. That's as close to an opinion as we are likely to get. If it was lawful to deal poker as an unregulated skill game in Missouri, there would be a business or two in every town. When some enterprise opens dealing poker, gets hauled to court and wins, the AG can change his stance. If you think he needs to sooner, please write him

Until we find some legal business at risk from or injured by UIGEA, where's the complaint?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
JP claimed upthread that poker is a skill game in Missouri, then leapt to the conclusion that betting on internet poker was legal there. I made a link upthread (http://www.ago.mo.gov/publications/gambling2.htm) to the AG's website that states betting on skill games in unlawful. That's as close to an opinion as we are likely to get. If it was lawful to deal poker as an unregulated skill game in Missouri, there would be a business or two in every town. When some enterprise opens dealing poker, gets hauled to court and wins, the AG can change his stance. If you think he needs to sooner, please write him

Until we find some legal business at risk from or injured by UIGEA, where's the complaint?

[/ QUOTE ]

The AG's website states the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Internet gambling in Missouri
Don't be fooled by assurances from Internet gambling operators that it is legal to play online in Missouri. It is illegal for out-of-state gambling operations to offer Internet gambling to Missouri residents.

[/ QUOTE ]

It claims it's illegal for out-of-state sites to offer gambling, but nothing about playing. It also doesn't list applicable laws, nor it is specific what's meant by "gambling".

Applicable laws are summarized at www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Missouri (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Missouri). Their definition of chance:

[ QUOTE ]
"Contest of chance" means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that the skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein;

[/ QUOTE ]

As for skill games, King.com lists Missouri as one of the 14 states in which it cannot offer its games.

Off-topic, it looks like we're all professional players in MO:

[ QUOTE ]
"Professional player" means a player who engages in gambling for a livelihood or who has derived at least twenty percent of his income in any one year within the past five years from acting solely as a player;

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

I cited a case Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission in which the court ruled that poker is a game of skill not chance in Missouri. Skallagrim first cited this case.
Maybe the AG's website refers to other games such as blackjack and sportsbetting. Although Missouri lacks a law making the activity of the online player illegal.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I cited a case Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission in which the court ruled that poker is a game of skill not chance in Missouri. Skallagrim first cited this case.
Maybe the AG's website refers to other games such as blackjack and sportsbetting. Although Missouri lacks a law making the activity of the online player illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. That's what I meant when I commented on the fact that the website didn't define the term "gambling". The AG's website reads exactly as I posted it. However, this doesn't mean the AG knows what he's talking about.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

is chilled actually a legal term?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Being foreign does not make a business unlawful, ever buy a foreign automobile / The location of the poker site is irrelevant under UIGE Act, especially if a site is located and licensed to conduct its business legally from say the UK or Costa Rica, Antigua or the Isle of Mann.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your foreign car manufacturer has to obey US rules and regulations that pertain to cars and their sale here. They don't come here with a product for sale and claim their car is legal in their home country, so too bad about your safety or emission standards, hiring laws, state mandates, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no federal ban on poker sites, and we are assuming arguendo State B allows players to play, what is "unlawful" ?


[/ QUOTE ]
That's my point, if a state allows players to play at regulated businesses, where is the risk of injury and unconstitutionality since UIGEA wouldn't apply? If a bank has a new law to follow, they will just deal with it like the hundreds of other laws they obey.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
is chilled actually a legal term?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, many court cases use the term to mean that some government action makes it harder, riskier or otherwise less desirable to conduct an activity that has some protection under the constitution. Usually the court states that the governmental action or law etc. has or may have a chilling affect.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is chilled actually a legal term?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, many court cases use the term to mean that some government action makes it harder, riskier or otherwise less desirable to conduct an activity that has some protection under the constitution. Usually the court states that the governmental action or law etc. has or may have a chilling affect.

[/ QUOTE ]

isnt that an "urban" word?

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
"But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out."

Really think so ?

"Hello, Governor Schwartnegger, would you like a 40% affiliate deal to help out the State of California ? Yes, just like the Lottery, only better."

[/ QUOTE ]

State budget offices are still under the impression, right or wrong, that poker competes with lotteries. State lotteries are declining in sales. In a state such as California. the Indians would fight tooth and nail against online poker. Every horse lobby would fight. The horse lobbies aren't just the betting services, but jockeys, breeders, and trainers. If they think horse handle will decline, they will fight it. FoF will fight us state by state, and governors can count voters. States will be harder than the Feds.

[Skallagrim]

I disagree legislurker, although all your observations are correct IMHO. But the general public is not going to go worry about just poker in most states. California already has all the legal poker you could want...adding internet poker, which already takes place as everyone knows, is not going to change the income streams of any of your groups by enough to make it important enough for them to really buy the votes needed, I think. Its internet slots that worry them.

PS, the point is now clear for JP, the AG is only threating sites. Has he tried to indict any yet JP /images/graemlins/wink.gif ?

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
But the general public is not going to go worry

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the general public that will worry, it's the racetracks, the thoroughbred industry, the already established b&m casino's, etc;

I have to agree with Legislurker.

[JPFisher55]

To the best of my knowledge no. Like most states Missouri rarely attempts to enforce its gambling laws. The only cases that I have have knowledge concern giveaways that the AG deems to be illegal lotteries. Usually such cases result in a cease and desist order but not criminal prosecution.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the general public is not going to go worry

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the general public that will worry, it's the racetracks, the thoroughbred industry, the already established b&m casino's, etc;

I have to agree with Legislurker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of those instances where it's easy to believe the press. However, if we look more deeply, our inevitable defeat is not so obvious.

First off, if NO state will allow Internet poker, how do we expect the feds to pass it? Should we give up? I'm not ready to.

Perhaps it's time for us to be as powerful as the horses. We'll keep speaking up. The horses are more powerful than even FoF, apparently. All we need is a little of that.

Also, it's the established casinos that will run this. MGM is in favor of Internet gaming; Harrah's is on the fence. Internet poker helps casinos; just look at the "poker craze" and what it meant to B&M casinos. Internet poker doesn't really hurt racetracks or horses either. In fact, greater acceptance of wagering helps them.

Finally, there are more of us than there are of them. We just have to stay on messsage.

P.S. I have to correct one thing. Nevada will not opt out. They already have Internet gaming licensing on the books. All they'll need is federal legislation permitting them to allow accpetance of international wagers to move forward. With that, other states will likely gradually fall in line, with poker leading the way.

Let's not write our own obituaries just yet.

[Legislurker]

Pass it or not, if the states have any input, they will say no. Frank is being pushed by the banks, not poker players. Whatever gets the banks off the hook, he is gone from our camp. I dont think its defeat we are headed for, but a long uphill fight if a state opt-out is included. It IS a poison pill.

BTW, we will never be as powerful as the horses. They have farms that buy from other farms, and pay huge property taxes. Its a part of local economies that they rely on. The revenue from them is on the books and in use. States for the most part have bicameral legislatures with one house representing counties. Horse interests have people they have given to for life, and family run businesses that vote for them. We can only dream.

The established casinos, I still don't think they are on board fully. Execs have always dissed poker, look how poorly Harrah's handles WSOP. They still suspect they may be canniblizing their own revenues. Their execs are low talent
and conservative with established business models. Change is a 4 letter word.

Youre right, we may get Nevada, ND, and a few other tiny ones. But unless the feds wield the commerce clause we are [censored] in the A.

[TheEngineer]

The equine industry is strong? Well, let's use that to our advantage, like judo masters. Check out [censored] the horses (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11191084&an=0&page=0#Pos t11191084).

[Legislurker]

How? only a small sliver of the horse industry would maybe benefit. No breeders, trainers, or jockeys. They hate us as bad as FoF. Money to poker is money from them in their eyes.
And Mcconnell is the big Republican on the HIll for now, and Kyl's butt buddy to boot

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
How? only a small sliver of the horse industry would maybe benefit. No breeders, trainers, or jockeys. They hate us as bad as FoF. Money to poker is money from them in their eyes.
And Mcconnell is the big Republican on the HIll for now, and Kyl's butt buddy to boot

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I personally don't give a flying [censored] about horses. They're not as powerful as they think they are, honestly. I also don't mind pointing out the hypocrisy. In fact, I had fun writing to McConnell. I'm very familiar with McConnell. He won't vote with us, but it would be nice if he wouldn't screw us over so much.

You sound defeatist. I fully recognize this is an uphill struggle, but I don't see the need to give up just yet.

I'm going to do everything I can to fight this. I'd rather lose fighting than lose by giving up. After all, we've been at this full-speed since November, and it looked impossible at that time. Now it just looks hard.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think its defeat we are headed for, but a long uphill fight if a state opt-out is included.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's your point? You want us to all oppose IGREA? Then what? Sit back with Permafrost and hope for the best?

It seems some here take the text of the various legislation far too seriously. WE LOST HR 4411 BY 317-96!!! When someone loses that badly, they don't get to cherry pick legislation. The fact that we have any is a minor miracle. Rather, I think our goal for this year is to build support for our position while keeping worse bills from being introduced by Goodlatte or Kyl. We can worry about the strength of family farms somewhere way down the road....we're nowhere near that stage yet.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For one, it's strange that the TRO application is in the complaint. Is that a federal thing?!

[/ QUOTE ]

While not procedurally correct, I have seen this before. It's nothing more than attorneys who are either doing a belt and suspenders thing or who do not understand that a claim for a TRO or injunctive relief does not give rise to a cause of action separate and distinct from the substantive causes of action alleged in the complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. That's what I thought. So in other words, as I suspected, the attorneys fighting for our rights don't know their *sses from a whole in the ground. Great.

And it's not belt and suspenders. One cannot plead a claim for a TRO. Period. Any first year law student could tell us this. I hope iMEGA, whoever they are, didn't pay a whole lot to these attorneys.

[jlkrusty]

If you were a betting man (which we all are), what odds (especially from you lawyers) would you place on whether or not this TRO (or preliminary injunction) will be granted?

[JPFisher55]

50% but I am not a litigator and would state those odds for most cases. May not matter much since the regs for the UIGEA are not in sight and the DOJ has not really tried to enforce them UIGEA; even the Neteller case was based on the Wire Act.
The petition seeks a final injunction of enforcement against online gambling for both the UIGEA and the Wire Act. This is more important.

[Karak567]

50 %? seriously? that's pretty damn high i'd think

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Pass it or not, if the states have any input, they will say no. Frank is being pushed by the banks, not poker players. Whatever gets the banks off the hook, he is gone from our camp. I dont think its defeat we are headed for, but a long uphill fight if a state opt-out is included. It IS a poison pill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legislurker,

If you think about this, it's obvious that Congress won't pass a bill that won't be supported by any state (congressmen won't vote for something opposed by their own state....at least not a large majority of them). I do have data...within the past twelve months we lost a vote in the House 317-93. It's hard to imagine we'd get support in Congress to force states to accept gambling, especially as gaming has always been controlled at the state level.

However, it's also obvious that states would have already started licensing instate online gaming if they wanted it. None have. So, how do we succeed?

The problem now is that states are confined to acting within their own borders. That's why none offer poker cash games. However, given international access, many states (and tribes) will open up their access. We won't get every state, but we'll get some, so we'll have something to build on.

[Skallagrim]

I would wish otherwise, but I dont give this lawsuit more than 10-15% chance of success, and that only if the lawyers can get their argument across as least as good as MF did above. The biggest problem I see is that the suit is premature in many ways: the regs are not even out yet, and, as I have stated previously, the law itself is very uncertain, so even more uncertain is how the DOJ will interpret it. Courts are very reluctant to enjoin enforcement before they even know what that enforcement will be. The handfull of clear points, like the fact that certain gambling sites are committing a new felony when they accept US money from certain states, but not from others, may be enough to get somewhere, but not the over-arching claims made, since no one knows if the DOJ will really use this law to, for example, try and shut down places like 2+2 because you can link directly to a for-money site (an extreme example I know and one I realy doubt would ever come to pass - which is part of the same reason a court will likely not "enjoin" such enforcement).

As to the state issue, I fail to see the basis for the wide spread pessimism. Poker is already popular. The horse lobby may think that poker competes with them for money, but that is hogwash - and is only relevant in a small number of areas. The bigger issue is the skill issue - honestly IMHO. As more people see poker and poker tournaments as skill competitions, the fear is mostly lost. No one worries about entry fees for "Magic, the Gathering" tournaments do they? Nor Chess tournaments. Nor golf tournaments. Nor Bridge Clubs.

Once we are squarely seen as in the "skill" category, the forces that will try and stop us will be a clear minority with very little public support. Few politicians will see an anti-POKER platform as a vote getter, far less at least, than the typical anti-GAMBLING platform. The very same folks who give politicians their every last spare cent to stop a casino from coming here locally could not care less whether I play online poker or not, and wont join any such fight.

Of course, by the same token, it would be hard to get a pro-poker platform to carry much weight either, there's just not enough of us and the libertarians, and again most people just dont care. But thats the beauty of the Wexler "skill-games" bill: it takes poker and makes it legal almost everywhere and requires our opponents to do the hard work to get the new state laws needed to ban us.

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pass it or not, if the states have any input, they will say no. Frank is being pushed by the banks, not poker players. Whatever gets the banks off the hook, he is gone from our camp. I dont think its defeat we are headed for, but a long uphill fight if a state opt-out is included. It IS a poison pill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legislurker,

If you think about this, it's obvious that Congress won't pass a bill that won't be supported by any state (congressmen won't vote for something opposed by their own state....at least not a large majority of them). I do have data...within the past twelve months we lost a vote in the House 317-93. It's hard to imagine we'd get support in Congress to force states to accept gambling, especially as gaming has always been controlled at the state level.

However, it's also obvious that states would have already started licensing instate online gaming if they wanted it. None have. So, how do we succeed?

The problem now is that states are confined to acting within their own borders. That's why none offer poker cash games. However, given international access, many states (and tribes) will open up their access. We won't get every state, but we'll get some, so we'll have something to build on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get out of my "sit back" mode for a minute and say excellent summary of where we stand, TheEnergizer!

I don't know how much the states currently depend on international access for internet betting on horses, and I suspect internet access is illegal for state lotteries. There was no international access when the states legalized those gambling businesses, and they did well, then grew.

A legal intrastate poker site would be fine with me if the alternative is nothing besides the local casino. Maybe the status quo will hold and we don't see it go to nothing. But if it does go...we need new state laws. Maybe it has to hit nothing before enough people make noise.

How to change states? No expert advice here however concentrate on legal poker, find friendly state legislators, write letters to the editor. Find out why Nevada has laws on the books and no businesses. Again, it has to be done sooner or later unless we hit a miracle river. The Fed level wouldn't be neglected since they are part of the problem; but the origin of the problem is state law. [/sit up mode]

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Once we are squarely seen as in the "skill" category, the forces that will try and stop us will be a clear minority with very little public support. Few politicians will see an anti-POKER platform as a vote getter, far less at least, than the typical anti-GAMBLING platform. The very same folks who give politicians their every last spare cent to stop a casino from coming here locally could not care less whether I play online poker or not, and wont join any such fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put my friend and why we need to really support th Wexler Bill and pound them with the world winner / AOL, MSN & YAHOO! Skill Games like solitaire!

obg

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Ok, my friend just confirmed that the word chilled was first coined by an African American music artist named James Brown. So it is infact a 'negro' word. Its interesting to see how even the American legal system was influenced by hip hop music.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
But thats the beauty of the Wexler "skill-games" bill: it takes poker and makes it legal almost everywhere and requires our opponents to do the hard work to get the new state laws needed to ban us.


[/ QUOTE ]

What would be wrong with some large player's group also pushing this good skill strategy in some likely states? If it fails in DC, we could still flip some states.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me get out of my "sit back" mode for a minute and say excellent summary of where we stand, TheEnergizer!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how much the states currently depend on international access for internet betting on horses, and I suspect internet access is illegal for state lotteries. There was no international access when the states legalized those gambling businesses, and they did well, then grew.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horse betting is interstate. Also, the Internet wagering augments existing horse betting (at the track, over the phone, other OTB, etc.). Internet bets are extra money to them....pure profit. We're free-standing, which may make for differences. I recall MGM tried Internet gaming outside the U.S., and even the rest of the world failed to provide economy of scale.


[ QUOTE ]
A legal intrastate poker site would be fine with me if the alternative is nothing besides the local casino. Maybe the status quo will hold and we don't see it go to nothing. But if it does go...we need new state laws. Maybe it has to hit nothing before enough people make noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Right now, our fight has helped in keeping the status quo; we showed that we have strength and that we vote. Barney Frank said as much in one of his interviews on the topic. We used to be cannon fodder....holier-than-thou politicians could use us for free points with their constituents, under the false assumption that there was no pro-poker constituency. This may be good enough to, at worst, keep the status quo for a while longer.

[ QUOTE ]
How to change states? No expert advice here however concentrate on legal poker, find friendly state legislators, write letters to the editor. Find out why Nevada has laws on the books and no businesses. Again, it has to be done sooner or later unless we hit a miracle river. The Fed level wouldn't be neglected since they are part of the problem; but the origin of the problem is state law. [/sit up mode]

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with all of that. I do believe our primary focus should be at the federal level right now, mainly because there is proposed federal legislation that helps us make the political case for our position. There is a state component to this. However, our size (here at this forum on 2p2) limits what we can do. I know I cannot have an action thread for each state. Hell, I don't know who the state reps in Alabama are. Hopefully everyone is writing to their governor and state rep.

[MiltonFriedman]

about 1%

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were a betting man (which we all are), what odds (especially from you lawyers) would you place on whether or not this TRO (or preliminary injunction) will be granted?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere in the 1-2% range. No way it's anywhere near 10%. The only hope is that we draw a judge that really sees things our way. The pending application, supported by the brief that is the subject of this thread, is not going to get it done. Basically, we need to hit our gutshot straight draw on the river, and three of the four cards helpful to us are already in the muck.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
50 %? seriously? that's pretty damn high i'd think

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's way too high. Not even close to that.

[JPFisher55]

Actually I was speculating about the lawsuit eventually succeeding on it merits; not about the TRO. I don't understand the purpose of the TRO. The regulations are not even written and the DOJ is not enforcing the UIGEA. Yes it does have a chilling affect, but why a TRO for that reason. Since I don't think that the iMEGA can establish the irreparable harm if a TRO is not issued, I agree with the low odds for it.
However, it's different for the actual final relief sought in iMEGA's petition. You might want to read some of the articles at Majorwager.com or gambling911 that site some opinions of legal experts. They opine that the UIGEA raises serious constitutional issues. However, iMEGA might have problems with such issues as standing and ripeness to get to the actual merits.

[oldbookguy]

Since we are always looking to get our message out, here is a neat site, Fantasycongress.com a site started by a college kid that works like fantasy sports.

The link:
http://fantasycongress.com/public/search...er=&status= (http://fantasycongress.com/public/search_legislation?search=gambling+skill&limit=10& chamber=&status=)

is a filtered page with all gambling related bills and you can vote YES / NO. If you should join, you can detail your selection or just a generic YES if you wish.

OBG

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, my friend just confirmed that the word chilled was first coined by an African American music artist named James Brown. So it is infact a 'negro' word. Its interesting to see how even the American legal system was influenced by hip hop music.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, my friend just confirmed that the word chilled was first coined by an African American music artist named James Brown. So it is infact a 'negro' word. Its interesting to see how even the American legal system was influenced by hip hop music.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF

[/ QUOTE ]

Also please note that India Pale Ale is more bitter than English Pale Ale because the British used hops as a natural preservative in beer, and would put more in to ship beer to their colonies in India, hence the names.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, my friend just confirmed that the word chilled was first coined by an African American music artist named James Brown. So it is infact a 'negro' word. Its interesting to see how even the American legal system was influenced by hip hop music.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure what is written above is factual.

[JPFisher55]

Not sure how far back this term goes in court decisions. I think it may be farther back than 1950's. OTOH most decisions dealing with laws that have a chilling affect on constitution rights start from the 1950's.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure how far back this term goes in court decisions. I think it may be farther back than 1950's. OTOH most decisions dealing with laws that have a chilling affect on constitution rights start from the 1950's.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree. Also, it is definitely plausable that James Brown borrowed the phrase from earlier Blues and Jazz musicians. I could be mistaken, but I think I remember seeing it used in Jack Kerouac's On The Road.

[beset]

In the 1980s and 1990s, chill gained currency as a slang term meaning "to relax, calm down." It is first recorded in 1979 and comes from Black English slang, which has frequently been a source of slang and informal words in Standard English, often through the medium of various African-American musical styles (in this case, rap and hip-hop). In fact, the word chill has had several incarnations as a slang term both inside and outside Black English. An older slang sense, recorded first in the 1870s, has been "to lose interest (in something), sour (on something)." Since the late 1920s it has also been used transitively to mean "to quash" and even "to kill." The recent use in the sense "to calm down" is another example of slang's innovativeness: English has always used words referring to heat and cold metaphorically to refer to emotions, and has used cool to refer to calmness since Old English times. Chill is a novel way of saying cool down, an old metaphor. The semantic evolution of chill continues as this is being written; the new sense of "to relax" has even more recently been extended to mean "to relax among friends, socialize." Chill thus offers a good example of how living languages are constantly changing in ways that are at once unpredictable and immediately comprehensible. (from on living languages)

[beset]

sorry for the derailment. I looked over some of these pleadings and they are crap. I would worry too much about them totally failing to satisfy the procedural formalities of the TRO; the odds of getting one would have had to have been close to zero.