Should the PPA join in the iMEGA litigation, on behalf of "poker" ?

[MiltonFriedman]

A huge practical hole in the iMEGA effort is its inability, in my view, to show irreparable injury to a lawful activity by someone somewhere in the US.

The PPA, and its poker playing members in "legal states", CAN show standing and irreparable injury much more easily than a trade association. The ACLU, which is very successful in constitutional challenges, will always present a court with some concrete claims by injured individuals as named plaintiffs.

The PPA HAS members with concrete injuries. Yet it refuses to litigate on their behalf ...... even when someone else is paying the bulk of the tab.

Why ?

If you are a PPA member, why not yell at them to join a fight which has already been started.

Milton

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
A huge practical hole in the iMEGA effort is its inability, in my view, to show irreparable injury to a lawful activity by someone somewhere in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, unless you have personal knowlege, may be a fact since the actual memers of IMEGA are not publicly known. One or more may reside here or at the least one or more members may be the paid pro's who endorse sites, thus, standing in that respect.

obg

[JPFisher55]

I wonder why the PPA has not joined in this lawsuit or initiated their own. Perhaps they think that once the regs are issued it is easier to show standing and attack the regs rather than the whole statute.
Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by lobbying, wining and dining in Washington, D.C.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA, and its poker playing members in "legal states", CAN show standing and irreparable injury

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming injury was caused when UIGEA was incorrectly used in "legal states"?

[MiltonFriedman]

I am not sure what you mean by "used". Can you clarify that term ?

Let's say that a player in a State with no ban on online poker was a customer of Party. Let's also assume that Party's decision to block his play was caused by UIGEA, not a great leap, given their public statements. Finally, assume that the player is a member of PPA.

Can you clarify what you mean by "used", so I respond to your question ?

[Uglyowl]

I believe the PPA has stated it wants to work towards a amicable resolution than try using brute force.

[Legislurker]

If they want to be little peaceful pussies they need to placate their angry indians instead of drinking cocktails with the enemy's chiefs. Otherwise, I think its high time the poker community declared war.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure what you mean by "used". Can you clarify that term ?

Let's say that a player in a State with no ban on online poker was a customer of Party. Let's also assume that Party's decision to block his play was caused by UIGEA, not a great leap, given their public statements. Finally, assume that the player is a member of PPA.

Can you clarify what you mean by "used", so I respond to your question ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Party accused of UIGEA's crime?

If no accusations were made, then they foolishly left "no ban" states; and even if you could prove UIGEA influenced their decision, how is anyone besides Party injured from that stupidity? A companies misreading or misunderstanding of a law hardly stretches to need to restrain.

If yes, and Party foolishly left states other than the banned states, then they again misunderstood UIGEA since it would not apply to them in "no ban" states.

[MiltonFriedman]

I will try and explain standing to sue, injury, or any of other terms which you are asking about.

If a federal law is passed that says conduct X is illegal, then a US person covered by that law who engages in conduct X before the law is passed likely has standing to sue on a claim that the federal law prohibiting conduct X in states where it is illegal under State law violates his First Amendment rights.

This is why the Plaintiffs in the ACLU v. Gonzales, who engage in conduct X in states where it is legal to so act have standing to sue to block a Federal law which rests on conduct X being illegal in other States.

This US person may not win, but he presents a justicable (sp ?) controversy to the Court and can point to an injury in fact.

You are dead wrong that no one was injured if Party or Doyles Room left because of the Act becoming law. Party shareholders were royally screwed, including those shareholders in the US. (Why Party did not retreat offshore and file an action for Declaratory Relief is an interesting question in itself.)

How many former Party or Doyle affiliates from the US lost income derived from "legal" States players ? How many players could not access Party anymore. (For the record, I would be delighted for hypothetical Poker Plaintiffs to LOSE the iMEGA case on a ruling that UIGEA does not apply to poker.)

I think there are plenty of US poker players/affiliates with an injury in fact and with standing to sue. The issue would not be even close.

Liklihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury present different issues for getting injunctive relief of course, but a Plaintiff needs to survive a standing challenge, on a motion to dismiss, to even get to them.

[Merkle]

[ QUOTE ]
IIf a federal law is passed that says conduct X is illegal, then a US person covered by that law who engages in conduct X before the law is passed likely has standing to sue on a claim that the federal law prohibiting conduct X in states where it is <font color="blue">illegal </font> under State law violates his First Amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should the "illegal" at the end of the above sentence be "legal"?

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why the PPA has not joined in this lawsuit or initiated their own. Perhaps they think that once the regs are issued it is easier to show standing and attack the regs rather than the whole statute.
Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by lobbying, wining and dining in Washington, D.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone can tell us what the PPA is doing and whom they are actually representing, I'd love to hear it. Some transparency would be nice, wouldn't it?

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why the PPA has not joined in this lawsuit or initiated their own. Perhaps they think that once the regs are issued it is easier to show standing and attack the regs rather than the whole statute.
Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by lobbying, wining and dining in Washington, D.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone can tell us what the PPA is doing and whom they are actually representing, I'd love to hear it. Some transparency would be nice, wouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how much effort it would take to get 100-200 people to DC to protest AT their office. Get a TV crew as well. Poker players protest own Union for incomeptence, drunkeness, and fraud! I can see the headlines now.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IIf a federal law is passed that says conduct X is illegal, then a US person covered by that law who engages in conduct X before the law is passed likely has standing to sue on a claim that the federal law prohibiting conduct X in states where it is <font color="blue">illegal </font> under State law violates his First Amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should the "illegal" at the end of the above sentence be "legal"?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is the "it" that is legal/illegal in states; conduct X or other?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why the Plaintiffs in the ACLU v. Gonzales, who engage in conduct X in states where it is legal to so act have standing to sue to block a Federal law which rests on conduct X being illegal in other States.


[/ QUOTE ]
How can they sue to block a Fed law that does not apply to their state legal business? Or are you saying it does apply; if so, why would it apply?

[ QUOTE ]
You are dead wrong that no one was injured if Party or Doyles Room left because of the Act becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]
They knew they were involved in unlawful internet gambling, I assume. They saw a chance to skeedaddle; did that cause injury or save injury? Either way, their business decision; sue them if you think you are injured due to their closing a long-time unlawful business.

[MiltonFriedman]

Read the Court's decisions in ACLU v. Gonzales, which permanently enjoined enforcement of a Federal Child Access to Porn Ban law because it impacted websites' presence on the whole of the Internet available to US users, reaching into in States where receipt of such websites was legal. (The same website reaching into other States was arguably illegal in other states.)

The Court discussed extensively how technology could have been used to lessen the Federal law impact on the "legal" use states, rather than a "ban" being appropriate being dependant upon what State a person accessed the Site from.

The "ban" under the UIGEA is on financial transactions, application again dependent upon what State an online poker site is being accessed from.

If you have read the ACLU v Gonzales line of cases, fine. We can refine the analysis further ... because it's NOT without issues.

However, permafrost, if you are too lazy to educate yourself, when, again, you have been provided the sources, then forget it.

[Legislurker]

Anything to be read into the extension request? Or anyone know about the lawyer assigned? G911 has an article up. too sleepy to go back and cnp

[BluffTHIS!]

JPFisher said: "Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by"

UglyOwl said: "I believe the PPA has stated it wants to work towards a amicable resolution than try using brute force."



Regarding money, it should cost the PPA *zero* to join this suit, as if iMEGA takes Milton's very good suggestion, it would be still be their attorneys who are handling everything for the plaintiffs under the iMEGA umbrella. Although doubtless it costs something normally to be a member of iMEGA, one would think that they would be happy to waive same for the PPA if adding the PPA cured a potential defect in standing.

Regarding the PPA wishing to come to an "amicable resolution", if that is in fact their stance, then their board is totally incompetent. The DoJ/US gov't, has shown absolutely no willingness to come to an amicable solution with any party, including Antigua in the WTO issue. So the PPA should not be restricting artficially the means it uses to achieve the goals of its members, whether via the political process or litigation. If iMEGA were in fact to offer the PPA a cost-free ride under their umbrella to help the mutual cause, and the PPA board refused, then all PPA members should demand the resignation of the entire board.

[oldbookguy]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/imega-govt-mtn-to-extend_81307.pdf

Reading the DoJ extension request, number 4:
Defendants expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction and service of
process.

OK guys, what gives? also, I notice in 1-3 there is no contest of standing, only number 4, Jurisdiction and service.

obg

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/imega-govt-mtn-to-extend_81307.pdf

Reading the DoJ extension request, number 4:
Defendants expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction and service of
process.

OK guys, what gives? also, I notice in 1-3 there is no contest of standing, only number 4, Jurisdiction and service.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

That's standard language, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. The reason they specify jurisdiction and service of process, as opposed to standing or other issues, is that arguably you waive any objections to jurisdiction if you take any act whatsoever in defense of the case, maybe even including a motion for extra time.

The government can still contest standing and other legal issues down the road.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/imega-govt-mtn-to-extend_81307.pdf


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/2007/08/14/update-us-doj-wants-extension-v-imega/

Does anyone know if it's likely the extension won't be granted? From previous readings if the DOJ doesn't respond by the deadline ie: they're not granted the extension, this would be very favorable for the outcome on September 4th?

[Skallagrim]

Extensions of this kind are routinely granted the first time they are requested. The second time depends on the individual judge, the third time is rare in Federal Court, but judges tend to cut the government a lot of slack.

[JPFisher55]

The good news is that the government's trial attorney is from the D.C. head office. The govt. must some concern about the iMEGA case because they did not let local goverment attorneys handle it.
I would think that if the govt. believed that a challenge to standing alone would end the litigation, or that it lacked any merit, then the local office would have been permitted to represent the govt.

[Legislurker]

Two weeks puts it around the 18th? Thats pushing up hard on the ruling on the size and scope of Antigua's sanctions.

[Coy_Roy]

I have to admit I'm beginning to lose trust/faith in the PPA. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I'm beginning to lose trust/faith in the PPA. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Lose, heck, I never really have had any. I really believe we are as, no, make that MORE effective than they are.

obg