Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire
 

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

[/ QUOTE ] complaint

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

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.

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

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

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

[ 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.

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

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.)

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire
 

"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.

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

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

obg

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

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.

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

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

Re: Read the brief, nice background \"facts\" , but procedural quagmire ?
 

[ 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/boardd...06/pdf/fro.pdf

obg