Legal Article on Internet Gambling

[cgrohman]

Hello All-

I am a frequent poster in the stud forum, a relatively new poster in the limit hold'em forum, a recent law school graduate.

I just had my first paper published- Its a general histroy of the legality of internet gambling/poker. It details the governments attempts to ban online gambling from the dawn of time until the passage of the recent SPA. Unfortunately, it went into the final edits before the NetTeller debacle.

Anyway, I think at least some of you will enjoy reading it. I welcome any comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. A table of contents should be added by the end of the week so you do not have to wade through all of the stuff you already know.

http://www.ltrm.org/ltrm_issues.html

[MiltonFriedman]

To say I was disappointed in the title and abstract is an understatement. Your choice of a title for your piece was extremely poor and sloppy writing. There was no Internet Gambling Ban passed by Congress in 2006. That is a basic fact which even the proponents of the UIGE Act adhere to. It was extremely poor writing to rename the UIGE Act the Internet Gambling Ban, as it expressly did NOT change existing laws as to the legality of gambling on the internet.

You have done a real disservice to American poker players by casually labelling the funding measure a "ban" on their online past time. We can expect to look forward to citations of your article as suporting the erroneous proposition that there was an Internet Gambling Ban passed last year.

I understand this was your first article. It is very well researched, but Jesus Christ ..... why that title ??? At page 62, you fatally stray from any principle of strict construction of a criminal law.

The UIGE Act section 5363 applies ONLY to a person in the business of wagering or betting. A sports book or a casino do both. A poker site does neither.

(Mr. Humphries' cogent argument about the effect of "rake" under the amended California law does not transform site into an entity covered by the UIGE Act. .... The same argument would also affect coverage under the 2006 Act for arugable violations of the Wire Act (clearly not valid), the Travel Act, or any other federal act.)

[Tuff_Fish]

Just glanced over it. Seems reasonably well researched.

I'll pm you about borrowing parts of it.

Tuff

[SixT4]

Still not given up poker yet Tuff?

JESUS GOD DAMN CHRIST [censored]!

(sorry, I love that quote).

[MiltonFriedman]

It would help discussions here to have what is called a first order of argeement. This article will help frame discussions here, at least to the point where we agree at least on what we are talking about.

I strongly feel that the author missed the point of the limits on the scope of coverage of the UIGE Act and chose a most unfortunate title. However, at least he has done homework and a lot of research. the issues for discussion can be framed, whether you want to discuss "coverage of poker in the absence of assumption of game risk" or "whether a skill games exception should be sought or is needed at all".

Although I was pretty harsh above on the analysis, I should have welcomed the post as the best work I have seen from a direct poster here in summarizing history.

[JPFisher55]

I would like to see the impact of the WTO case included. Also, what about the impact of the commerce clause on the ability of any state to regulate internet gambling. Most experts believe that a state can ban internet gambling, but not regulate it under the commerce clause. This impacts many state laws which regulate gambling to some extent and do not mention internet gambling.
Also, you fail to mention the BetonSports case and the motion by Mr. Carruthers, the chief defendant, to dismiss the case based on the WTO decision.
The enforcement efforts against some advertisers such as SportingNews, but not Cardplayer or CasinoCity is not mentioned.
The Neteller prosecution belongs in this article somewhere along with the PayPal case.
It is a good political and historical article, but a little short on the law part.

[MiltonFriedman]

Jp, you are a bit off base:

"I would like to see the impact of the WTO case included. "

The reason it likely was not included is two part: 1. It is only a motion, not yet ruled on, 2. It is complete and utter nonsense.

"what about the impact of the commerce clause ... ?"

The discussion of the Dromant Commerce Clause would have added content value, I agree. However, the focus was on Federal laws.

"Most experts believe ..." JP, the discussion will advance only if you can provide support for a statement like "Most experts believe ...."

"The enforcement efforts against some advertisers ... is not mentioned. "

I think he covers the DOJ Letter from 2003 pretty well.

"The Neteller prosecution belongs in this article somewhere along with the PayPal case."

The article was written before the Neteller case, AS the OP noted.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
To say I was disappointed in the title and abstract is an understatement. Your choice of a title for your piece was extremely poor and sloppy writing. There was no Internet Gambling Ban passed by Congress in 2006. That is a basic fact which even the proponents of the UIGE Act adhere to. It was extremely poor writing to rename the UIGE Act the Internet Gambling Ban, as it expressly did NOT change existing laws as to the legality of gambling on the internet.

You have done a real disservice to American poker players by casually labelling the funding measure a "ban" on their online past time. We can expect to look forward to citations of your article as suporting the erroneous proposition that there was an Internet Gambling Ban passed last year.

I understand this was your first article. It is very well researched, but Jesus Christ ..... why that title ???

[/ QUOTE ]

I will echo Milton's comment!

One other issue... I'm not sure how David would feel about his last name being changed to SKYlansky [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to avoid the murky question of whether it is legal to operate an
online poker business on United States soil, all the major sites have chosen to incorporate in
foreign jurisdictions

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing "murky" about it. Operating an unlicensed commercial gambling business is unlawful in all 50 states.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, the U.S. government’s decision to attempt to prohibit internet poker
rather than to regulate it has and will lead to a host of legal and public policy quagmires.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US is not prohibiting internet poker - it's up to the states to decide whether or when to license or otherwise allow internet gambling within their borders.

US Federal gambling law simply prohibits commercial gambling businesses from trying to circumvent state law by operating out of state.

...Meh.

[cgrohman]

Thanks for both the criticisms and the praise. FWIW, I did not choose the title and there was a bunch of bickering back and forth before it was decided upon. I wanted to take a more pro-internet gambling stance, but for various reasons I attempted to take a more neutral stance.

What did you mean by "I strongly feel that the author missed the point of the limits on the scope of coverage of the UIGE Act."

What do you think the point is?