Imega hearing outcome
 

Outcome

Re: Imega hearing outcome
 

The FBI states that gambling online is illegal in the US, but in court the DOJ states, in effect, that it is not illegal.
"Ms. Coleman Snead also claimed that the UIGEA was not intended to prosecute American citizens for betting online and that therefore no US citizen would be adversely affected by this law."
This administration's rhetoric is so twisted such that Baghdad Bob would blush.

Re: Imega hearing outcome
 

[ QUOTE ]
The FBI states that gambling online is illegal in the US, but in court the DOJ states, in effect, that it is not illegal.
"Ms. Coleman Snead also claimed that the UIGEA was not intended to prosecute American citizens for betting online and that therefore no US citizen would be adversely affected by this law."
This administration's rhetoric is so twisted such that Baghdad Bob would blush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last line is great, ROFLMAO

Re: Imega hearing outcome
 

Online Gambling Hearing in Trenton: iMEGA vs. The UIGEA
Updated 10:56 am: Gambling911.com was live this morning in Trenton, New Jersey where the Honorable Judge Mary L. Cooper (3rd District/Trenton division) heard arguments for a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Judge Cooper was through by 10:35 am EST and determined that "this was a case against a complicated backdrop" and would require her to review further over the coming weeks. No decision was made from the bench. However, iMEGA's legal team felt very confident after today's hearing.

The government was less than commanding in its performance and the attorney representing the US, Jacqueline Coleman Snead, at times seemed "intimidated". She sat alone in the court room while the iMEGA team arrived with two powerful attorneys and its organization representatives.

The Honorable Judge Cooper aggressively challenged the US government and its Motion to Dismiss.

The US Government repeatedly claimed that iMEGA did not have the legal standing to argue first amendment law while also stating that first amendment law did not apply to this case.

Ms. Coleman Snead also claimed that the UIGEA was not intended to prosecute American citizens for betting online and that therefore no US citizen would be adversely affected by this law. iMEGA's attorneys refuted this and pointed out that the civil portion of the law mentions "any person" could be prosecuted.

Originally, the hearing was scheduled for September 4, but the US government needed more time.

iMEGA is seeking judgment restraining the United States from enforcing the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006” (UIGEA) through its complaint (iMEGA v. Gonzales, et al,). The current law prevents US credit-card companies and banks from processing payments to online gambling businesses. According to the Act, violators are subject to civil and/or criminal penalties including imprisonment.

iMEGA feels that the law, if allowed to stand, would create a bad precedent that would chill innovation and the growth of e-commerce by US firms, and permit the flow of jobs and Internet firms out of the US to avoid stifling laws. In the case of UIGEA, iMEGA believes that the embrace of readily-available, commercial technology can help remedy the social ills (underage and compulsive gambling, as well as fraud) far better than this law, which - ironically - would likely exacerbate problem gambling.

iMEGA is accepting individual and corporate members in its trade association, as well as donations to the iMEGA Fund, which goes toward the work needed to keep the Internet “free, open and innovative”.

Re: Imega hearing outcome
 

The Websense category "Gambling" is filtered.

Please post a quick review for me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Thanks!

Re: Imega hearing outcome
 

Just an update to the update... The AP and Canadian Press have reported that the judge in the case will make a ruling within 30 days...

[ QUOTE ]
Judge Mary Cooper heard arguments in the case Wednesday morning, and said she expects to rule within 30 days.

[/ QUOTE ]
Full Article

Re: Imega hearing ... No decision from the Bench.
 

Not suprisingly, the Court did not rule from the Bench. I would like to know if the Court heard testimony. It does not sound like it.

Predicted Outcome: TRO will be denied when the Court does rule, reportedly within 30 days.

HOWEVER, was the Government's Motion to Dismiss heard at this hearing ? It is tough to tell from the insubstantial press reports.

Anyone know what was actually on the Docket for hearing today /

Re: Imega hearing ... No decision from the Bench.
 

G911 says motion to dismiss was heard and judge had a lot of questions for the government about it. Maybe all motions will be denied. Still that would lead to a trial on the merits on a final judgment and injunction.

Re: Imega hearing ... No decision from the Bench.
 

I am looking for some confirmation that the Motion to Dismiss was even calendared for that hearing, not a rehashing of a G911 cheerleading piece. I thought that, as usual, G911 threw in a lot of cheerleading gibberish.

They led off their piece stating that the Court "heard arguments for a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act". This was pretty clear.

However, they added their usual grandstanding gibberish,

1. about how the DOJ attorney seemed "intimidated", which is probably untrue and completely irrelevant if true,

2. about how DOJ "repeatedly claimed that iMEGA did not have the legal standing to argue first amendment law while also stating that first amendment law did not apply to this case". Again, this is meaningless commentary. DOJ is perfectly able to argue that the iMEGA lacks standing, but if iMEGA did have standing, the Complaint fails to state a 1st Amendment claim. G911's attempt to cast this as somehow contradictory is poor reporting and gibberish.

3. G911 did continue, saying that "The Honorable Judge Cooper aggressively challenged the US government and its Motion to Dismiss." However, they gave zero description of what "agressively challenged" means. (A Judge who asks a lot of questions is interested in what the counsel speaking has to say. If a Court asks you no questions or shows little interest, then however confident you might feel, you are likely in deep [censored].)

4. Finally, I guess the reporter got a new watch and made sure to report to the minute when things ended. It would have been a much better article had he or she gotten analysis from someone other than iMEGA, like the DOJ perhaps ?

(I am pretty sure that if a TRO is denied, and the case is not dismissed, then the next step would generally be a motion for a preliminary injunction, with a likely period for discovery and maybe an evidentiary hearing, not a trial on the merits for a permanent injunction.)

If the case is not dismissed, the time will arrive when iMEGA has to either put its cards face up to show irreparable injury to it members or fold. There will be no equitable relief without a showdown of hands, iMEGA cannot refuse to turn over its cards/members, period.

Re: Imega hearing ... No decision from the Bench.
 

Ok, I thought that the TRO was like a preliminary injunction, but I think you are right Milton. Next round is over the granting of a preliminary injunction with discovery etc. I think that the judge will deny all motions and the case will proceed to this next round.
I think that you are right that iMEGA must disclose some of its members in this case.
Good analysis of G911 article, but at least we know that the hearing was on both iMEGA and DOj motions.