Thanks for the information, keep in mind the function of the Regs
 

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.

Re: Thanks for the information, keep in mind the function of the Regs
 

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?

Re: Thanks for the information, keep in mind the function of the Regs
 

[ 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

Re: Thanks for the information, keep in mind the function of the Regs
 

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 ]

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

[ 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.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

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.

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

[ 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.

Re: Thanks for the information, keep in mind the function of the Regs
 

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

That would be GREAT, it would cure a HUGE problem
 

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.

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

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