Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

I haven't read any of the pleadings, but I find it extraordinary that iMega could not establish standing. Do they really make no effort at all to substantiate the claim that their members have suffered injury?

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

My lawyer's opinion: having identified that their association includes "affiliates" they have standing at least as far as affiliates can be hurt by the UIGEA. Unless they reveal more "members" of their association, this will limit the reach of their argument. Other folks who may be hurt will not be considered except to the extant of the 1st amendment claim (probably the weakest of the claims) as that has always been seen as broad enough to allow for associations to have standing.

But on the regulations, that issue will be found "not ripe" because there are no regulations yet.

It will be an interesting decision when it comes down.


Skallagrim

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

i have actually discussed with some people over at IMEGA at being a named plaintiff with damages if need be...however, what i would like to know if what some of the negatives to this would be?? on the surface, doesnt seem to be too many drawbacks, but i dont want to go into this blind and would like to know what if any negative repercussions could happen?? i too, feel as though, they actually need a named plaintiff to proceed successfully.....

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

Are your US taxes paid ? Do you live in a Good State or a Bad State ?

Are you an online poker player ? Affiliate ? or what ?

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

my taxes are pretty much paid, i live in NJ, i am an online player

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

[ QUOTE ]

But on the regulations, that issue will be found "not ripe" because there are no regulations yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, the government will insist that the regs it failed to publish, are unripe for challenge, because they were not published. Hardly seems fair. And makes me wonder whether or not the DOJ failed to publish them, only so the iMEGA suit could be declared unripe.

I suppose that the fact the court is willing to hear tomorrow's oral arguments, is a good sign. They did not throw the case out at the DOJ's first motion.

Is there a good chance of getting a ruling tommorrow? Whatever happens, I am sure both sides will appeal to hell and back.

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

The ruling wont be out for a while: the judge has taken the matter "under advisement," meaning she will issue a decision when she is ready.

Its still pretty basic that you cant challenge regulations not written yet, but there are a lot of other aspects of the UIGEA that are ripe. So some of this suit is likely to go forward IMHO.

Skallagrim

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

[ QUOTE ]
The ruling wont be out for a while: the judge has taken the matter "under advisement," meaning she will issue a decision when she is ready.

Its still pretty basic that you cant challenge regulations not written yet, but there are a lot of other aspects of the UIGEA that are ripe. So some of this suit is likely to go forward IMHO.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall, does this mean that you think that the judge will decide that iMEGA has standing to bring the litigation?
I am not worried about the regs and the ripeness issue. The heart of the case is the constitutionality of the UIGEA itself, regs or no regs. I agree that challenging regs is easier than challenging the whole statute. IMO that is why no regs have even been proposed yet. Well that and normal government slow operation.

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

Can the judge force the gov't to produce the actual regs since they are past due? If the gov't is stalling it out on purpose in her opinion, can she take action against their recalcitrance? That would seem to be the crux of not getting a ruling to me, and their is some injury in not knowing them.

Re: No, this is not Party\'s party and the Silver lining re Regs. argum
 

JP - I think IMEGA demonstrated at least some standing, certainly with respect to their First amendment claims. I think they have a shot, having identified affiliates as part of the group, at standing to challenge the UIGEA on WTO and Commerce Clause grounds, but that analysis is far more complex.

Legislurker - No, the judge cant order the Regs to happen (thank god) - but that part of the suit could be re-filed once they do appear (if ever).

Skallagrim