First legal challenge to UIGEA

[JPFisher55]

This link is article on motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Carruthers based on the WTO case.
http://www.gambling911.com/BetonSports-010807.html

[Wynton]

There is zero chance of a federal district court dismissing a criminal case on the ground that it violates the WTO agreement.

[JPFisher55]

I would not say zero but close to it. But it will be grounds for appeal. However, since the case is mostly based on bets taken over telephone lines, the judge could dismiss just the portion of the case based on accepting bets taken over the Internet or not allow evidence of bets taken over the Internet without disrupting most of the case. This would greatly help us Internet poker players but not let BetOnSports or Mr. Carruthers off the hook.

[Wynton]

I'll stick with zero, whether at the trial level or on appeal. Even if a criminal prosecution somehow violates a provision of the WTO agreement, it does not follow that the defendant is an agrieved party or entitled to the remedy of dismissal.

[MiltonFriedman]

Since valuations less than zero are not allowed ....

By the way, did BOS get anything for caving in before ? This is reportedly a motion related to a criminal indictment of the Company. I would have expected that to be negotiated away before coughing up the information and civil matters.

Something does not sound accurate. There must be a lot more to the motion than gambling911 is reporting.

[JPFisher55]

Wynton, I agree with you on the district court level, but not the appellate level. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is a liberal court. If the Wire Act and UIGEA are not enforceable (at least when applied to Internet gambling) because they violate international treaty under the supremacy clause of the US constitution then any counts relying on Internet bets must be dismissed. This is why it is a legal challenge to the UIGEA based on the WTO case.
BOS has caved in, but Mr. Carruthers attorneys filed the motion to dismiss.
I cannot see how such a motion would affect bets taken over telephone lines, especially US local lines. So maybe the judge would only dismiss all counts related to taking bets over the Internet since that would not let the defendants off the hook on most of the prosecution's case. It's a long shot at the district court, but fairly good chance at appellate level.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
There is zero chance of a federal district court dismissing a criminal case on the ground that it violates the WTO agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, depends on where it is. If it were in the 9th or 1st Circuits, there is a minuscule chance. Anyone know the venue?

Also, if anyone tells me the venue, I'll grab the filings and post them.

[JPFisher55]

The case is in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which is a liberal court.
Originally, the case had nothing to do with the UIGEA. It was under the 1961 Wire Act. However, the original complaint and indictment included charges for accepting bets made over the Internet. It is true that Mr. Carruther's motion to dismiss is based on the WTO case ruling making the Wire Act unenforceable against accepting Internet bets. But such a motion, if successful, would kill the UIGEA too.
At the very least, the whole issue is on track to the Supreme Court. But a settlement might end this case.

[cgrohman]

Technically, from a mathematical stand point, it is less than zero.

[permafrost]

How is this a "legal challenge to UIGEA"?