[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TE, there are very few agencies whose regulations have the force of law. IRS regulations do not have the force of law and often do not survive a court challenge. I know that some agencies have the power to issue regulations that do make law. The SEC is one example.
But these regulations are not new law. So vague regulations do not make the case for online poker better, or worse, in court than a regulation expressly defining online poker to be unlawful internet gambling. Such an express regulation would not screw us for years and we could still comment against it. Just like we can comment to make these regulations less vague for our side; like my proposed definition of unlawful internet gambling.
However, if Skall and Milton believe that the PPA has standing to bring a declaratory action that online poker is not covered by the Wire Act or UIGEA, in most states, and they believe that this is the proper time for such litigation, then I am all for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a fairly moot point at this point, as the regs made it clear that the Treasury Dept. has no intention of defining poker as unlawful Internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But going to court and asking for the Declaratory judgement will enable banks to leave us alone, operators to advertise and operate without fear of persecution, and players to not fear jail. Maybe force the FBI and DoJ to stop airing commercials saying gambling online is a crime. And more importantly, create a headache for the DoJ. Especially, if individuals filed in every Federal district on a slightly different line. The PPA could support every one with money and plaintiffs. We should be fighting a battle of resources as well. I think our lawsuits are FAR, FAR cheaper to pursue than it is for the government to defend. And, we only need one victory, a defeat really doesn't set us further back.