[MiltonFriedman]

"the important distinction here is whether the membership is secret or known. "

Not quite .... I happen to think it is inevitably going to arise, given what representations need to be made at various stages of an action like this. What I or anyone else thinks is less important than what the Court thinks. he Court could find for iMEGA on standing, but I doubt it. I doubt further that they win on Ripeness as to the request to enjoin Regulations not yet written.

(Losing on ripeness on the Regs does not mean they lose on everything, by the way. The Act may still be open to challenge anyway. The Regs will not additionally criminalize conduct or affect anyone other than financial institutions really. The Constitutional challenge to IUGEA, dormant commerce clause or otherwise, is not dependent upon the Regs. Rather, it is based upon the Act itself.

Who "the man behind the curtain may be" becomes irrelevant largely, if the guy in front has standing. Would poker players or poker affiliates or poker sites who fled the country or shareholders in such fleeing sites have standing ? Arguments could be made that they would ... but they really do need to step up, in my opinion of how to defend a motion to dismiss.

Please keep in mind that iMEGA apparently filed a certification of some sort, which was not linked in. For all we know, EVERY sort of possible plaintiff or member interest fully disclosed and identified in that filing ... but left out of the iMEGA Reply Brief It may also be that the Court plans to hold a hearing with testimony, but that would be odd on a Motion to Dismiss.