Betcha.com arrest/legal issues

[Legislurker]

Wasshington has a felony law, and they are extraditing them to Louisiana? WTF? If this is legal I think I am in the wrong country.

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mess-ha...g-web-site.html (http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mess-hall/153847-louisiana-state-police-arrest-owner-illegal-gambling-web-site.html)

[JPFisher55]

They alleged violated a Louisiana statute. Louisiana has indicted them for it. That is why the extradition to Louisiana.
The State of Washington doesn't like these guys because they operated a website that the State wishes, but doesn't, violate their internet gambling ban. The State of Washington seized the assets of this website and is being sued by these guys for unlawful seizure. But the State of Washington could not indict them for anything.
So they found an anti-internet gambling law in Louisiana that they could be indicted for violating it and arranged it with the State of Louisiana. The violation is because some residents of Louisiana accessed the site to place a bet between themselves.
Which is why all these state anti-internet gambling laws should be a violation of the commerce clause. An attorney in Washington has sued the State to have its anti-internet gambling statute declared to violate the commerce clause of the constitution. Let's hope he succeeds.
I am sure that the guys in Washington will use this defense in their case in Louisiana, but they will be put through the ringer in the meantime. Some of our government officials would do just fine in Nazi Germany 1933-1945.

[tangled]

Dang, the way the government is going over backwards on this, you would think somebody had done something really despicable, like...say...lied to Congress under oath or something.

[Legislurker]

Extraditing someone for a felony over $.70 though.............thats like two hemp seeds in the floorboard of your rental car qualifies you for 6 months in Guantanamo.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
An attorney in Washington has sued the State to have its anti-internet gambling statute declared to violate the commerce clause of the constitution. Let's hope he succeeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a huge ruling since the UIGEA basically bootstraps off the laws of the several states. SCOTUS has previously overturned bans on interstate wine sales in Granhom v. Heald on commerce clause issues, as discussed in this article (http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050516.asp) from the tech law journal, which states:

While the facts of these cases involve wine sales, this opinion will make it easier for businesses that engage in electronic commerce to challenge the constitutionality of state protectionist statutes that discriminate against internet based commerce. Also, this case is notable because, the states have a stronger case for restricting commerce in wine than in other products and services, because the 21st Amendment grants states special powers to regulate alcohol sales.

However note that this ruling was re states that allowed in-state shipments of wine from that state's wine distributors. The question perhaps some of the attorney posters here could answer, is whether that ruling only came about because the states in question did in fact allow shipping wine. If instead, a state did not allow in-state shipments either, and required purchase on-site, then could out of state shipments still be barred? If so, then it would seem that electronic commerce is not at issue, which doesn't help us.

[JPFisher55]

The actions of the State of Louisiana and Washington are amazing. I don't know if the attorney in Washington will prevail and he has standing issues before he gets to the merits. But with the various governments enforcing ant-gambling statutes like they never have in the past, I expect lots of litigation over the whether such statutes really pass constitution muster.

[tangled]

Isn't this case really good for us? It's a freeroll. If the government wins, we are no worse off than before. But if the govt loses, then we are potentially much better off.

This reminds of the quote (I don't remember the exact phrasing or who said it, although it seems like it might have been Lincoln), that the best way to defeat an unjust law is to enforce it zealously.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
The actions of the State of Louisiana and Washington are amazing. I don't know if the attorney in Washington will prevail and he has standing issues before he gets to the merits. But with the various governments enforcing ant-gambling statutes like they never have in the past, I expect lots of litigation over the whether such statutes really pass constitution muster.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they deny him bail on a $.70 crime? Wow, for something that minor he should be able to demand bail immediately, and press for speedy trial. Almost want to be found guilty, as I think he would need to be guilty to sue in Federal Court? I think any sentence he could appeal and be released pending appeal, especially if its harsh for that small a monetary crime. Cruel and unusual might attach. I guess we can thank God some of these people appear to have way overreacted.

I don't think its a total freeroll though. A ruling that these laws are constitutional might scare Stars, FT, epasse, someone away. Thats why we need more lawsuits, one winning is enough to overcome 5 failing. But just losses incrementally hurt.

[JPFisher55]

We really haven't won or loss any lawsuit. Neteller didn't try their case and the other ones are still pending. It will take some time into next year for sure.

[MiltonFriedman]

Habla Espaniol ?

[CPOSteve]

Bluff This,

Not an attorney, but am a wine drinker so I followed this closely. Your paragraph at the end is correct. The ruling is specific to states that allow in-state wineries to ship directly to customers but denied out-of-state wineries the same accomodation. Therefore, in most states you still cannot buy wine off the internet.

Analogously, if I lived in a state that allowed poker rooms, let's say California, and I set up an internet poker site then it could be argued that people who lived in another state that allowed poker rooms (Washington for example) should be able to play. Those of us in states that do not allow poker rooms (Maryland) wouldn't be able to make that argument.

Steve

[Skallagrim]

Steve got it pretty much correct, the basic principle is that a state cannot forbid an out of state company to offer services that would be allowed by an in-state company, unless Congress has specifically exempted the service from the Constitution's Commerce Clause (which they did with Insurance, for example).

So if a state law says NO INTERNET BETTING, then every company is illegal, no constitutional problem. If a state (like Nevada, currently) says NO INTERNET BETTING except at sites licensed in our state, BIG constitutional problem.

And with respect to poker, the question is even more complex because it is an open issue whether most state gambling laws actually apply to poker, and still again whether those laws apply to the internet (Louisiana and Washington amended their laws to make them specific to the internet).

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

I think that the attorney in the State of Washington is arguing that if a state permits any gambling in state then it cannot, under the commerce clause, ban internet gambling.
Since Washington permits Indian casinos, he is arguing that their internet gambling ban violates the commerce clause and the WTO, but that is a separate argument.

[oldbookguy]

Has yourself or anyone else read the Louis. Stat?
Link:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78701

Of interest Sections E and I:
E: E. Whoever designs, develops, manages, supervises, maintains, provides, or produces any computer services, computer system, computer network, computer software, or any server providing a Home Page, Web Site, or any other product accessing the Internet, World Wide Web, or any part thereof offering to any client for the primary purpose of the conducting as a business of any game, contest, lottery, or contrivance whereby a person risks the loss of anything of value in order to realize a profit shall be fined not more than twenty thousand dollars, or imprisoned with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.

I.: I. The providing of Internet or other on-line access, transmission, routing, storage, or other communication related services, or Web Site design, development, storage, maintenance, billing, advertising, hypertext linking, transaction processing, or other site related services, by telephone companies, Internet Service Providers, software developers, licensors, or other such parties providing such services to customers in the normal course of their business, shall not be considered gambling by computer even though the activities of such customers using such services to conduct a prohibited game, contest, lottery, or contrivance may constitute gambling by computer for the purposes of this Section. The provisions of this Subsection shall not exempt from criminal prosecution any telephone company, Internet Service Provider, software developer, licensor, or other such party if its primary purpose in providing such service is to conduct gambling as a business.

Under the exclusions would one need only have the gambling as a secondary business?

Is it me, or does Sec I contradict most / all of Sec. E or at the least can be argued that way?

obg

[Legislurker]

That a state can make and enforce such a broad law strikes me as wrong. It does appear to give a prosecutor or a court too much leeway to determine what is the nature of a business or business transaction. Wouldn't that law criminalize a Lake Charles casino if it had a webpage to encourage business?

[oldbookguy]

More importantly, it can be easily argued the statue actually legalizes Internet gaming.

Say I have a website, it is a legitimate business doing very well. Since that would be my PRIMARY business, the secondary business could be Internet poker and as secondary a correct reading would be it is exempt.

Lawyers please?


obg

[CPOSteve]

OBG,

Again, not a lawyer, but it appears that Section I is meant to exempt an ISP assuming that that ISP does not exist primarily to provide access to internet gambling. In other words, Verizon isn't in violation of the statute if somebody uses their service (or router or whatever) to operate an internet gaming site. Running such a site, however, is clearly prohibited.

Again, just a layman's opinion, but that's how it reads to me.

Steve

[ktulu22]

Anarchy looms

[oldbookguy]

Lets focus on the precise wording in both, each states PRIMARY business.

Since, say, AOL who provides access and all those things, then could they not offer in this state, as a Secondary Business, gaming. Afterall, they derive income from many sources and gaming would be but one facet and not the primaty source.

That is the point I am making.

I think a company who is not intimidated could successfully argue this point and may win on an appeal.

Even if a business was a primary provider, would they then not have a case of unequal treatment as well provided the previous could be proved?

obg

[Grasshopp3r]

Your inference is very interesting. I would like to see Louisiana, which is possibly the most corrupt state in the Union, go up against the Feds.