Washington Lawyer Sues state over Internet gaming ban...

[EL Burro Loco]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/322849_poker07.html

Lawyer raises stakes against state's Internet poker ban
Suit claims law really aims to protect gambling industry

By MIKE LEWIS
P-I REPORTER

Football buffs host holiday-grade parties for the year's Big Game. World Cup soccer zealots gather and sing anthems in nation-flagged bars. Tour de France fans camp along French highways to wait for the peloton.

So how does a poker aficionado kick off the year's biggest event, the World Series of Poker? If he's Renton-based attorney Lee Rousso, he does what comes natural: He goes all in with a lawsuit.

On Friday, as the poker championship began in Las Vegas, Rousso sued the state of Washington in an effort to overturn its 2006 ban on Internet poker. Calling it a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, Rousso said the first legal challenge to the state law also should be the last.

"I think my chances are darn good," he said.

The ban, which took effect last spring, specifically prohibited the type of Internet-based card games such as Texas Hold 'Em that poker players in Washington -- Rousso among them -- have used to qualify for the annual multimillion-dollar tournament. Rousso said that Washington residents who qualified for the event likely did so through Internet-based tournaments even though it now is a felony to do so.

Susan Arland, spokeswoman for the Washington Gambling Commission, said commission lawyers have not seen the lawsuit and would comment only after they had read it. "We don't have anything to say just yet," she said.

Rousso said the state law is flawed. In his complaint in King County Superior Court, he argued that the state measure was passed not to put the state in compliance with the federal wire act -- something it does not do anyway, he said -- but instead to protect the in-state gambling industry, including card rooms and casinos.

This, he said, puts Washington in clear conflict with the Constitution's commerce clause, which forbids individual states from passing protectionist laws against other states' business.

Approved as Senate Bill 6613, Washington's law also banned Internet-based sport gambling. Lawmakers said it was an effort to put the state in compliance with the Interstate Wire Act. Originally approved in 1961, the act was a federal effort to limit betting on sports over the telephone.

No one has yet been prosecuted under the Washington law.

Internet card rooms boomed in 2003 when an unknown accountant and amateur card player named Chris Moneymaker won the world champion's bracelet after honing his craft solely on Internet Hold 'Em.

Moneymaker is Rousso's inspiration.

"He created the modern poker boom. He's a guy who everyone says, 'If he can do it why can't I?' "

This year's tournament is the largest in its 37-year history, with 12,000 players vying for the final table and eventually, the final seat and a first-prize worth more than $12 million. Prospective players can either qualify through satellite tournaments or by paying $10,000 up front to sit in.

Rousso, 49, qualified online for the 2005 World Series by winning an Internet tournament. He lasted 14 hours.

The Mercer Island native likes his chances better in court. If he loses there, he says, he'll push for legislation to return Internet poker to legal status. It never violated the Wire Act, he said, because the federal law refers only to sports gambling, not poker.

"Our backup plan is to get this done politically."

[TheJokerIsWild]

Nice. Good for him.

[boohaa12]

[ QUOTE ]

Rousso, 49, qualified online for the 2005 World Series by winning an Internet tournament. He lasted 14 hours.


[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[JimmytheHat19]

This country needs more ppl like this guy pushing BACK at the ridiculous online anti-gambling laws popping up everywhere. If the supreme court would rule once and for all that poker is indeed a skill game rather than a game of chance then poker could become exempt from any and all "anti-gambling" legislation. Period.

But kudos to this guy, I admire his fight. I will be very interested to see how this pans out.

[TomG]

Thank you Lee Rousso. So far, this law has amounted to nothing but a ridiculous scare tactic. No one has been arrested. However, this law has taken on new significance in the last few months. If Frank's legislation passes, we in Washington would remain locked out due to our current statewide anti-internet gambling laws. It is important we get our state laws changed in case legalization ever occurs on the federal level.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you Lee Rousso. So far, this law has amounted to nothing but a ridiculous scare tactic. No one has been arrested. However, this law has taken on new significance in the last few months. If Frank's legislation passes, we in Washington would remain locked out due to our current statewide anti-internet gambling laws. It is important we get our state laws changed in case legalization ever occurs on the federal level.

[/ QUOTE ] No point waiting for the Feds to legalize gambling, not their job.

State laws get you lawful online gambling without doing anything at the Fed level. UIGEA says so.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
State laws get you lawful online gambling without doing anything at the Fed level. UIGEA says so.

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that the reason states can have intra-state online poker isn't because the UIGEA allows them to do so. It is because the federal government can't stop them from doing so. The UIGEA didn't grant a new right to the states, but merely acknowledged one that already existed and couldn't be taken away by the federal government.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
State laws get you lawful online gambling without doing anything at the Fed level. UIGEA says so.

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that the reason states can have intra-state online poker isn't because the UIGEA allows them to do so. It is because the federal government can't stop them from doing so. The UIGEA didn't grant a new right to the states, but merely acknowledged one that already existed and couldn't be taken away by the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I think that is what I said, but you said it more clearly.

If you want legal online poker businesses to play at, your state laws must change to allow them.

[Legislurker]

And the reason you need state laws is that so far, the Feds have NOT asserted jurisdiction. If California doctors prescribing tiny amounts of medical pot affects interstate commerce, then if they so desire, they can say ANY poker law affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court would back that up 100%. Its a question of willpower on the state or federal level, but its stacked agaisnt us on both fronts.

[jackaaron]

Unrelated, but the article says:
"This year's tournament is the largest in its 37-year history, with 12,000 players vying for the final table and eventually, the final seat and a first-prize worth more than $12 million. Prospective players can either qualify through satellite tournaments or by paying $10,000 up front to sit in."

I thought the WSOP was considerably down this year? Like to 5500-6000?