7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill
 

7/10/2007
http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...bill_46779.html

very sorry if this is a repost. snippet:

"According to the iMEGA website their legal team today filed a brief in US Circuit Court in the US 3rd District (New Jersey), supporting their request for a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the UIGEA. "

wasn't sure if it's cool to post the whole article..

"The case iMEGA brings to the court is one of the strongest forces against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The legal team for iMEGA has done quite a bit of research and believes its case is so strong that they are requesting for an immediate court date based on the strength and merit of its case.

Normally, a case is proposed and then does not see the light of day for months. But iMEGA claims that the UIGEA is so unconstitional and so damaging to those they represent that a TRO against the bill is imperative. "

Re: 7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill
 

The case has been filed in the US District Court for the District of NJ. Not the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was commenced in early June. The motion papers were filed yesterday (7/10).

According to the docket, the hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 4.

: 7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit .... any NJ Federal litigators out there ?
 

"an immediate court date "

Basically, DOJ has not even answered the complaint nor appeared. They have NO reason to move this forward, nor should they. DOJ would be foolish to do anything until they have to do so, and certainly will not before the Regulations are proposed.

The timetable for a TRO is generally WAY quicker than "a hearing" in about 8 weeks. However, it is up to the plaintiffs to move it forward.

Are any litigation counsel out there with experience in federal court in NJ who can comment on the glacial pace of this matter to date ?

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

It would help tremndously here if some NJ litigators could explain:

Is there no difference between a preliminary injunction and a TRO in that Court ? A TRO has a nuch faster track in other jurisdictions than that afforded for a preliminary injunction.

The filing says an Application was made for a TRO when the Complaint was filed. Why wasn't the supporting set of papers filed then ? Were supporting affidavits filed about irreparable injury ?

Sept 4 seems like a long time to wait for a TRO hearing, especially as the Regs sought to be enjoined will be out long before then AND, the football season will be underway.

Finally, wouldn't a brief cite the local rules about temporary restraining orders and cite some local caselaw ?

Anyone with substantive knowledge of NJ Federal procedures have a comment ?

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

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

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 ]

what are the regs passing going to change?

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

[ QUOTE ]
It would help tremndously here if some NJ litigators could explain:

Is there no difference between a preliminary injunction and a TRO in that Court ? A TRO has a nuch faster track in other jurisdictions than that afforded for a preliminary injunction.

The filing says an Application was made for a TRO when the Complaint was filed. Why wasn't the supporting set of papers filed then ? Were supporting affidavits filed about irreparable injury ?

Sept 4 seems like a long time to wait for a TRO hearing, especially as the Regs sought to be enjoined will be out long before then AND, the football season will be underway.

Finally, wouldn't a brief cite the local rules about temporary restraining orders and cite some local caselaw ?

Anyone with substantive knowledge of NJ Federal procedures have a comment ?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm not a NJ litigator, but I'm a NY litigator. I do some federal litigation, but it's been a while and I've never sought emergent relief (TROs, etc.) in a federal court (although I do it all the time in NY courts). So take this with a slight grain of salt. I'll try to answer some of the questions above and others that people might have....

First, there is no NJ Federal Law or NJ Federal Procedure Law. The US District Courts all have the same procedural law. There will be local rules that govern minutia of procedure (format of papers, what days and times hearings are held, etc.), but for the most party the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are going to govern this.

Yes, a TRO is different than a preliminary injunction. Here's how it works -- a preliminary injunction asks the court to take some action (here, stay the enforcement of the UIGEA), on an emergency basis, for the duration of the lawsuit. A party makes a "motion" for a preliminary injunction, usually toward the beginning of the lawsuit, to avoid irreperable injury while the lawsuit is ongoing.

Now, motions are not decided all that quickly, and the party may still be at risk of irreparable injury while the motion for the prelim inj. is pending. Thus, one may apply for a TRO (temporary restraining order), which would ask the court to give certain relief (here, most likely staying the enforcement of the UIGEA) while the MOTION for Prelim. Inj. is being argued & decided. So, usually the TRO is decided very quickly (the day or week it is filed), and usually courts do not grant them. They are tough to get, and the party seeking a TRO has a very high threshold to meet before one will be granted. He may still ultimately win his preliminary injunction motion, and even the lawsuit, but the most drastic and expedient relief -- the TRO -- is hard to get.

I have not read up on this lawsuit, but from a quick reading of this thread, it sounds like the moving party seeks a preliminary injunction, which is set down for a Sept. 4 hearing (usually the judge will hear arguments that day, and the parties submit briefs in advance of that day), and has asked for a TRO to be in effect from now until that motion is determined. If the TRO was granted, we would've heard about it. If it is granted, we'll hear about it. It would be major news for a District Court to stay the enforcement of a federal statute on a TRO application. Don't count on that happening.

I hope this helps some of you understand the procedure. Does anyone have copies of the papers filed? If so, if I can get my hands on those I can tell you exactly what's going on, and give an assessment of the likelihood of success, whether the lawyers are any good, etc.

This does sound exciting, and I'm going to read up on this case, see what it's all about. Please post if anyone knows where I can read the complaint, the motion papers, etc.

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

Link to the brief that was filed:

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...otsc070705.pdf

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

OK, the website in the original post had a link to the brief that was filed. I'll read it and post again tonight. Substantively, we need a Constitutional lawyer to opine on the merits of the case, which is an action grounded in First Amendment rights. I can probably help out tonight with procedural and other questions, but I'm no First Amendment maven.

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

Ummm....third sentence of the text of the brief and the lawyers show the court that they don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect." Not good for us. We all make mistakes, I suppose, but it seems like you'd proof read your brief submitted to the federal court a few times -- particularly the opening argument.

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

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.

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

"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?"

What I think is not relevant really, the issue has been joined already in this litigation (to which I am neither a party nor counsel, not even a friend of the court.) The argument to make is Commerce Clause based. There is a precedent to stand on in ACLU v Gonzales, where DOJ was enjoined from enforcing the Child Porn Act. The problem is that case was also clearly a 1st Amendment case. I think these litigants are making a HUGE mistake by not joining individual plaintiffs.

You are absolutely right as to the minimal goals of the people who pushed this through. The same tactic worked with respect to marketing, to a degree. However, be clear that there IS an intent to put operators into jail if possible, by bootstrapping an obscure, unintentional state law violation into a federal case. (

I think this issue will generate more comments than any
 

regs they have ever published"

We cannot rely on the suspect interests of the PPA. US poker players need to make their voices heard, and address some common points ..... Let's see what the Regs say to pinpoint what to raise.

I think that the US facing sites will urge their players to write in, wonder if Party will contact their former players ? (Mike Sexton has shown interest in that, generating emails in the past to former Party players.)

You KNOW Focus On Family will be active.

* 7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US
 

http://www.gambling911.com/Online-Ga...EA-071207.html

Updated: UIGEA Hearing Set for September 4

"A Federal Judge in the state of New Jersey has assigned a hearing date for its lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that seeks to have an new online gambling law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) overturned. Gambling911.com has learned that the hearing date is set for September 4. Judge Mary L. Cooper of the US District Court in Trenton, NJ will hear the matter.

The group, the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA), has a good shot, according to Cassimir Medford who has been covering the online gambling legal climate for Red Herring

iMEGA's goal is to get the court to declare the UIGEA unconstitutional and unenforceable, according to Medford. That’s because the group says the act violates the First Amendment’s rights to freedom of speech and commercial association as well as the Tenth Amendment’s protections of states’ rights to regulate online gambling.

'The UIGEA can still be enforced prior to the September 4 date,' he said. 'But we feel confident that the judge will prevent that from happening.'"

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

[ QUOTE ]
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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They filed their request for a TRO by notice of motion and not by Order to Show Cause. Hence the return date of September. Very unusual. I can't see how you get a TRO without showing exigency, and if there is exigency they would have proceeded by Order to Show Cause. I was going to say in my original response that I think this motion has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, having read the papers, but I don't want to kill the party.

By the way I practice in NJ federal court regularly and can try to answer any questions about procedure (I haven't made it all the way through the thread yet so if there's anything further below I'll respond if I can).

Re: * 7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US
 

So, this is what I wanna know. I am no legal expert nor do I even understand half the terms I have just read in this thread. Here is what I DO know: I'm 25 yrs old and I derive most of my income from playing online poker. I live in Colorado. I have very serious concerns (maybe paranoia) about one day waking up and finding that I wont be able to withdraw money to pay my bills. I also have concerns that long-term losing players won't be able to deposit money onto the sites, which ultimately ends up in the hands of players like me. This obv creates a problem as to how much money I am able to make.

From everything I've read, it sounds to me like there is a good chance of things working out. But I want someone who knows what they are talking about to tell me the WORST CASE SCENARIO for a guy like me. What if Imega fails in court to prove their case and the judge grants the UIGEA constitutional and everything moves forward from there? What if the fed writes the rules into play and prohibits banks from transferring any money between players and the sites, and vice-versa? Again, I really dont understand all this stuff and I am just describing it as I understand it. Please correct me if I sound like an idiot. Will I be out a job? Even if it all goes to hell, will there ALWAYS be a way to get money out of the site and for losing players to deposit? One other fear I have is that the remeaining US-accepting sites might get scared and pull out of the US market for a few yrs until things cool down and online gaming is legalized and regulated, a la partypoker? If THAT happens, I am definately screwed. I make a good living for myself playing poker online, 12-tabling for 5 to 7 hrs a day. I make about 3 times as much as I would hanging sheetrock or swinging a hammer. I am an uneducated person but intelligent when it comes to poker and right now I am very happy with how things are going for me and I get really upset everytime I think about what the govt is trying to do to online poker which is so clearly a skill game. Is there anything I can do to help you guys with the fight? I sent letters to my state congressman several months back and I am a paid member of the PPA.

Well, I realize this was long and prbly boring to most of you but this is a super-important issue to me and I dont really understand all the legal mumbo-jumbo I read in these threads. Any feedback on my questions would be greatly appreciated, especially the worst-case scenario questions. Thanks.

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

[ QUOTE ]
For one, it's strange that the TRO application is in the complaint. Is that a federal thing?!

[/ QUOTE ]

While not procedurally correct, I have seen this before. It's nothing more than attorneys who are either doing a belt and suspenders thing or who do not understand that a claim for a TRO or injunctive relief does not give rise to a cause of action separate and distinct from the substantive causes of action alleged in the complaint.

Re: * 7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the U
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, this is what I wanna know. I am no legal expert nor do I even understand half the terms I have just read in this thread. Here is what I DO know: I'm 25 yrs old and I derive most of my income from playing online poker. I live in Colorado. I have very serious concerns (maybe paranoia) about one day waking up and finding that I wont be able to withdraw money to pay my bills. I also have concerns that long-term losing players won't be able to deposit money onto the sites, which ultimately ends up in the hands of players like me. This obv creates a problem as to how much money I am able to make.

From everything I've read, it sounds to me like there is a good chance of things working out. But I want someone who knows what they are talking about to tell me the WORST CASE SCENARIO for a guy like me. What if Imega fails in court to prove their case and the judge grants the UIGEA constitutional and everything moves forward from there? What if the fed writes the rules into play and prohibits banks from transferring any money between players and the sites, and vice-versa? Again, I really dont understand all this stuff and I am just describing it as I understand it. Please correct me if I sound like an idiot. Will I be out a job? Even if it all goes to hell, will there ALWAYS be a way to get money out of the site and for losing players to deposit? One other fear I have is that the remeaining US-accepting sites might get scared and pull out of the US market for a few yrs until things cool down and online gaming is legalized and regulated, a la partypoker? If THAT happens, I am definately screwed. I make a good living for myself playing poker online, 12-tabling for 5 to 7 hrs a day. I make about 3 times as much as I would hanging sheetrock or swinging a hammer. I am an uneducated person but intelligent when it comes to poker and right now I am very happy with how things are going for me and I get really upset everytime I think about what the govt is trying to do to online poker which is so clearly a skill game. Is there anything I can do to help you guys with the fight? I sent letters to my state congressman several months back and I am a paid member of the PPA.

Well, I realize this was long and prbly boring to most of you but this is a super-important issue to me and I dont really understand all the legal mumbo-jumbo I read in these threads. Any feedback on my questions would be greatly appreciated, especially the worst-case scenario questions. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can go to a live card room. Its a boring bitch of a way to make a living but you can.

What you can do. Well, talk to people, make an effort to go out and make conversation about poker/gambling. If you can support him, sign up for a Ron Paul group. Do what the rest of us do, keep writing your legislators, regulators, and editors. Call into a radio talk show. Vote. Donate money. Im in the same boat you are, a nice living has come crashing down to where Im afraid to spend money outside of a stripped down monthly nut. Congrats on still multi tabling that many hours a day, I cant stomach how little I make doing it, so I barely play. This summer SHOULD be the worst of your life if you stay in poker. None of us KNOW if it will get better, but we think the worst has hit barring a massive IRS crackdown.

Likelihood of success on the merits ....
 

As for the snowball chances of success, a procedural quote from the US District Courts' Procedural FAQs :

"Question:
What is the proper way to address an online gaming operator in US Federal District Court ?"

"Answer: Will the Defendant please rise ?"

Protect yourself from \"industry risk\"
 

All your concerns are justified. Do not count on even the current situation to remain. (I think it will to a large extent, but be prepared for change. Keep in mind that eight years ago your "job" did not exist afterall.)

Do not leave money you need to pay bills in your poker bankroll. Take it out and put it somewhere a bit more liquid and safe.

If you really make 3x as much playing online poker as hanging sheetrock, consider leaving the country to keep your "job". (People leave their home country to pursue a better economic situation every day. Why do you think online operators are offshore ?)

Worrisome possible quote from iMEGA
 

Joe Brennan, Jr., iMEGA founder and a former executive of AOL, quoted in Gambling911.com:

"The UIGEA can still be enforced prior to the September 4 date," he said. "But we feel confident that the judge will prevent that from happening."
Brennan went on to explain how enforcement of the UIGEA would only serve to make the judge's job more cumbersome.
"She (the judge) will then have to wade through all the rules and regulations in addition to reviewing our complaint."

This is possibly the most inane reasoning I have ever seen, even on Gambling911. (Please note the crucial transitional paragraph is not a direct quote) Did iMEGA really say the Judge would act before the Regs are out BECAUSE otherwise she would have too much to read through ? wtf kind of public statement would that be ? It is patently absurd, worse than the late NROG's legslative analysis or most of what Gaboonviper posts.