[ QUOTE ]
Let me say, I am just an ordinary man who looks at things in an ordinary way, a simplistic view of things you might say.
In looking at issues I look to common sense and applied reasoning.
This issue to me is really no different that eBay and cap guns. For instance, I am in West Virginia and I wish to sell an old Wyatt Earp cap gun on eBay. Trouble is this toy is old and not like modern toy cap guns that have those orange removable plugs in the end. Well, California law says ALL toy guns must have this, no matter the age carrying the federal Law that all new toy guns must have these orange caps.
Now, since eBay is located in California, no matter where I am, California law must be followed since the transaction takes place on eBay’s server located in California even if my buyer is in West Virginia and pays me in cash, I must still follow California law, no toy vintage gun auctions without that orange cap.
Now, poker sites servers are located not in California or even in the United States, therefore I must follow the laws governing where the server is located. Simplistic, yes, correct, no, the government now says the transaction takes place where I am located, not the server location.
The latter argument was successfully argued in International Internet gaming cases in the past.
Now, the UIGEA, if looked at closely seems to contradict this. How? It states transactions MUST be made AND received in the same state, with the operative word being received. Now however, the UIGEA passed by congress is in a sense acknowledges transactions are to be considered to be completed where they are received (must be made and received in the same state), contradicting the earlier cases in that the DoJ argued the transaction was considered made where the transaction was placed with no concern of where it was received.
Simplistic, yes, correct though? Perhaps lawyers can complicate this simplistic view and find us an answer.
obg
[/ QUOTE ]
If you read the pleadings at
www.freejaycohen.com, you will find that Jay used this exact legal argument in his trial and appeal for violating the Wire Act. Both the trial court and the court of appeals ignored his argument bys stating that the rule that a bet originates, placed and received in the jurisdiction to which the money is transmitted only applies to tax and contract law; not criminal law.
It amazes me that the US judicial system comes up with such rulings when the politics demand it.