[Skallagrim]

Id love to see the Humphrey case, because it cant just say what has been quoted here: a lottery also has an "entry fee and a prize" - so there must be more distinction. I suspect the element of "competition" as opposed to pure chance factored somewhere in the opinion, so yes, TruepokerCEO, the "poker is mostly skill" argument comes back into play.

That the government is saying it can violate the WTO agreement and no INDIVIDUAL can complain is not a surprise. The context in the Kaplan case is different and more compelling (the defendant being someone who thought his government had bargained for and obtained the right to do what he did). And Jay, what the government is saying is that the statute ratifying the WTO included language prohibiting private action, so the DOJ concludes that if congress passes a law violating the WTO then the new law controls because the WTO cannot be privately enforced.

The DOJ mishmosh on horseracing and the wire act is also old news, but at least they are consistent in being inconsistent.

The only thing the Imega suit had going for it, IMHO, was the argument that the UIGEA would harm the interests of members where playing was legal (because they would be barred along with the illegal players - in other words the UIGEA would stop California (legal) players from depositing money along with the illegal players from Washington) - but this is unripe without the actual regulations to challenge. Though they can still argue right now that this is an over burdensome restriction on internet trade (requiring every Internet site to know and enforce the laws of each of the 50 states).

But I always figured their 1st and 10th amendment arguments were going nowhere.

Skallagrim