View Single Post
  #254  
Old 11-15-2007, 01:37 AM
JPFisher55 JPFisher55 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 963
Default Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

It was a very good hearing for us. Ms. Duke was excellent and so was Prof. Weiler.
I was very dismayed by Ms. Hanaway's testimony. She stated that the DOJ has prosecuted some cases involving online horse racing. She gave the BetOnSports case as an example. I have read the original complaint and petition in that case. It alleges operating an online casino in addition to online sports betting, but does not allege horse racing. I do not remember even a reference to the Interstate Horseracing Act. I have read the Defendants' motion to dismiss the petition. It does not mention horseracing or the Interstate Horseracing Act. In addition, Ms. Hanaway stated that the Eastern District has a view that the Wire Act applies to all online gambling. However, she admitted that the court has not ruled on the Defendants' motion to dismiss which includes a motion to dismiss the allegation of operating an online casino because, under the In Re Mastercard case, the Wire Act does not cover online casinos. I do not remember where, but I read an article about the federal magistrate in this case recommending to the court that it ignore In Re Mastercard because it is wrong. But this is not a ruling of the court. I feel that Ms. Hanaway deliberately misrepresented the known law on online gambling. She gave the impression that the Travel Act and the Interstate Gambling Act make all online gambling an illegal enterprise. However, both statutes require that one engage in illegal gambling under some other federal or state statute to violate either of them. Ms. Hanaway did not mention the In Re Mastercard case until Ms. Duke reminded her about it. Ms. Hanaway then stated that it did not count because the DOJ was not a party to the case. IMO if Ms. Hanaway had made these statements in a court of law, the court may have felt mislead and might have been perturbed. I expected more candor from a public servant even though the committee hearing is not a court of law.
Fortunately, she probably hurt the FOF cause much more than she helped.
Reply With Quote