UIGEA Lawsuit Update

[oldbookguy]

Seems the case centers on seven areas:

Case details as follow:
1- Interference with the right to association
2- Interference with the right to privacy
3- Interference with the right to free speech
4- Ultra vires acts by the Executive Branch regarding the WTO
5- Violation of WTO Order
6- Ex Post Facto Law Enforcement
7- Violation of the Tenth amendment to the constitution

read full story:
http://majorwager.com/frontline-514.html

Comments??????

obg

[Wynton]

My gut reaction is disappointment, as some of those grounds seem frivolous. But I wish we were able to locate a copy of the actual complaint for review. I don't trust reporters to describe things accurately.

[Truthiness24]

You always throw out everything you can think of & see what sticks. You only need to win on one count to win the case.

I too would like to see the complaint.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
But I wish we were able to locate a copy of the actual complaint for review.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

[ProsperousOne]

Would someone post the text for those of us behind a firewall? TIA! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Wynton]

Thank you, Mr. Permafrost. I will try to peruse it and say something half-way intelligible about it later.

[MiltonFriedman]

I looked thru the 39 page Complaint and noted the following points of interest:

1. iMEGA did not join any individual plaintiffs. Maintaining this suit may be difficult unless some "legal" plaintiffs join in. The issue of standing will certainly arise.

2. The Complaint describes iMEGA members as being in the Online Casino business, nothing about poker or about sports.

3. The Complaint alleges harm to memebers of the general public in the US.

4. In addition to seeking a TRO against promulating regulations or enforcing the UIGE Act, the Complaint also seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Wire Act, which is a dead-bang loser given 40+ years of Wire Act enforcement.

5. The case was filed in Federal Court in New Jersey in Newark. This is a curious choice, does anyone know if this is in the same Federal Circuit as the ACLU v. Gonzales case (I am too lazy to look it up.)

6. The Utah "uncoded credit card" prosecution is expressly mentioned.

[Grasshopp3r]

Doesn't iMega have standing as a NJ non-profit?

The Wire Act is specifically targeting sports betting, so to request an enjoinment of the Wire Act with respect to casino gambling is appropriate. I believe that this is a precedent with respect to casino gambling in other cases as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act

[MiltonFriedman]

1. Associational standing will not suffice if the unerlying members have no colorable injury. It is standard to add at least ONE plaintiff with a clear injury, which is what the ACLU does. Then the association can proceed with the litigation.

2. As for the Wire Act prayer for relief, the point I am making is that no federal judge is going to enjoin enforcement of an Act with 40+ years of history ... the equity balance is not there. How do you show a likelihood of success on the merits if you are covered by the Wire Act.

The DANGER of a Wire Act prayer for relief is precisely that it raises in a new Circuit the whole issue of whether the Wire Act extends beyond sports. They are giving DOJ a free bite at that apple.

[oldbookguy]

A web address link to the filing for those who need it.

http://www.igamingnews.com/articles/...Acomplaint.pdf

obg