[Skallagrim]

Just back from vacation folks, and havent read the petition or other legal documents filed yet, but there are a few points I can make:

1) September 4 is hardly unusual as hearing date for this kind of petition - 6-7 weeks is actaully pretty fast for a federal court civil case. I do not know the local rules, but it is pretty clear these guys didnt ask for an "immediate" HEARING.

2) The UIGEA, as I have said many times, is the most poorly drafted piece of federal legislation in some time, what it really says is subject to a lot of debate. What is clear, by its own terms, is that it is not making any particular game or gambliing legal or illegal; it exists to say that if a game is already illegal under STATE OR FEDERAL law, then FUNDING THAT GAME is now a new federal crime.

3) Since poker is not covered by the wire act, whether its illegal to fund online poker under the UIGEA has to be determined by individual state law. This gets extremely complex. Basically, everything other than the laws in Washington and Louisianna can be argued not to apply to online poker (those 2 states specifically make it a crime to play online poker) and even for those 2 states the question exists as to whehter they have the authority to outlaw online play since interstate commerce is supposed to be a federal matter. I am still too tired from the retrun trip to go further into this now.

4) The complexity of a federal law that says your interstate banking activity is either legal or illegal depending on future interpertations of state law is what has everybody going nuts (at least as far as poker is concerned) including the DOJ and the folks who have to write the regulations. The idea that an interstate bank or CC company must know that its OK for JP to play from Missouri (another long and complex interpertation, but pretty safe because poker is a game of skill according to the Missouri Supreme Court, and thus not inherently illegal - the other Missouri laws that ban unregulated for-profit cardrooms clearly only deal with physical places in Missouri) but probably not OK for a guy from South Carolina (where playing any card game for money is illegal) is nuts and will keep an army of lawyers employed for many years.

5) Thus most companies with other profit areas see it as just easy to stop all US transfers to poker sites so that they are sure they can never be held to violate the UIGEA - that does not make play from states like Missouri illegal, yet it effectively stops it. It is this effect on otherwise legal players that may be enough for this lawsuit to get somewhere, similar to ACLU v. Gonzales without the first amendment having to come into play.

Skallagrim