Re: The WTO challenge looks well written overall, and is good for all
[ QUOTE ]
When you write that "without the WTO the DOJ has won", you need to distinguish between sportsbetting and poker.
Jay's case was Wire Act specific, New York specific and sports specific. There is no coverage of poker under the Wire Act.
As for the more recent UIGE Act, it doesn't matter where a poker "bet" originates, so long as the poker site is not accepting the bet for its own account. Poker is played between players, the poker site does not "accept" any bets. Only a player who calls accepts the win/loss risk of that proffered "bet".
A sportsbook "accepts" a bet. A poker player accepts a bet. A poker site is not in the business of betting or wagering.
[/ QUOTE ]
All good additions TruePokerCEO (how have you been by the way?) - when I said the DOJ won in Jay's case, it was only (I thought obviously) meant to refer to the question of jurisdiction over where the bet is placed, and to disagree with that postition.
And although I am in 100% agreement with your statements about "the business of betting and wagering" I wouldnt state them as fact; that courts can make strange twists of logic to enforce a criminal statute is all to amply demonstrated by Jay's case. But a poker site's case is a far better one then Jay's sportsbetting case, no question, for the reasons you have mentioned and a few others we have discussed in the past.
Skallagrim
|