Antigua-WTO: NY Times Article...

[SHRINK]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/...ess/gamble.php

NEW YORK: With long blond hair reaching his shoulders and dozens of cloth bracelets peeking out from under his sleeves, Mark Mendel hardly conjures up the image of a typical lawyer.

But then there is nothing run-of-the-mill about the case that Mendel, a Texan who was born and reared in Southern California, has been waging against his own government before the World Trade Organization.

It is a clash that at once challenges Washington's attempt to prohibit online gambling while simultaneously testing the ability of the WTO to enforce its own standards.

The dispute stretches back to 2003, when Mendel, 51, first persuaded officials in Antigua and Barbuda, a tiny nation in the Caribbean with a population of about 70,000, to make a trade complaint against the United States, claiming that its ban against Americans' gambling over the Internet violated Antigua's rights as a member of the WTO....

THE SHRINK

[yahboohoo]

Great article.

This country will pay a heavy price for its arrogance.

I'm sure the WTO has mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, they could go down in flames fighting an 800-lb gorilla, and looking like fools for defending a morally baseless activity. On the other hand, the tide may be turning, and the WTO could look like heroes to lesser economies everywhere -- sticking up for what's right, no matter what.

Either way, seems make or break for the WTO. It's just kind of odd that it's our issue.

[Legislurker]

Its a very similar article to what TheRegister ran, except it ommitted the part about the corrupt, incompetent cronies in the USTR and DOJ. They are still quoting Frist's ex-chief of staff, probably running up his royalties remuneration from Harrah's for trolling untrue sound bytes. I guess they don't take comments, but I was viewing on Firefox, and a lot of comment tabs don't show up for me.
I hope with the PPA turning over a new leaf, we hope, press relations will be paramount, and stopping reporters and editors from taking spoonfed information from goverment spokepeople.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
More than a few people in Washington initially dismissed as absurd the idea that the trade organization could claim jurisdiction over something as basic as a country's own policies toward gambling. Various states and the federal government, after all, have been deeply engaged for decades in where and when to allow casinos, Indian gambling halls, race tracks, lotteries and the like to operate.

But a WTO panel ruled against the United States in 2004, and an appellate body upheld that decision one year later. In March, the organization upheld that ruling for a second time and declared Washington out of compliance with its rules. That has placed the United States in a quandary, said John Jackson, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in international trade law.

[/ QUOTE ]

these two paragraphs suck.

they left out the part about why the WTO ruled as they did. it's sort of in there later but people will form an impression (that the case is "absurd"), especially since this comes early in the story.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More than a few people in Washington initially dismissed as absurd the idea that the trade organization could claim jurisdiction over something as basic as a country's own policies toward gambling. Various states and the federal government, after all, have been deeply engaged for decades in where and when to allow casinos, Indian gambling halls, race tracks, lotteries and the like to operate.

But a WTO panel ruled against the United States in 2004, and an appellate body upheld that decision one year later. In March, the organization upheld that ruling for a second time and declared Washington out of compliance with its rules. That has placed the United States in a quandary, said John Jackson, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in international trade law.

[/ QUOTE ]

these two paragraphs suck.

they left out the part about why the WTO ruled as they did. it's sort of in there later but people will form an impression (that the case is "absurd"), especially since this comes early in the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one reason why it gets so little coverage. I was talking to a guy who teaches an MBA course and he barely understood the whole process. The NYTimes doesn't have the best business talent going. Nor does USAToday. Ive written
WSJ, The Economist(and FT), and Bloomberg asking for some better coverage, but no results yet. Im the most disappointed in the lack of coverage from The Economist as they have the qualified staff to research it well, and they covered UIGEA favorably for us.

[dankhank]

i haven't read the threads on this forum that debate the longterm usefulness of the antigua lawsuit, because quite frankly, it exhausts me to read about pipe dreams that i desperately want to come true. but i did read this article. in a non-concise way i thought it laid out why i agree with those who argue this lawsuit won't make the united states budge one bit. i hope i'm wrong.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
i haven't read the threads on this forum that debate the longterm usefulness of the antigua lawsuit, because quite frankly, it exhausts me to read about pipe dreams that i desperately want to come true. but i did read this article. in a non-concise way i thought it laid out why i agree with those who argue this lawsuit won't make the united states budge one bit. i hope i'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the US is forced to pay BILLIONS or make trade concession worth BILLIONS or withdraw from the WTO unilaterally (thus losing TRILLIONS), something will have to give in Washington. Your pessimism is misplaced.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i haven't read the threads on this forum that debate the longterm usefulness of the antigua lawsuit, because quite frankly, it exhausts me to read about pipe dreams that i desperately want to come true. but i did read this article. in a non-concise way i thought it laid out why i agree with those who argue this lawsuit won't make the united states budge one bit. i hope i'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the US is forced to pay BILLIONS or make trade concession worth BILLIONS or withdraw from the WTO unilaterally (thus losing TRILLIONS), something will have to give in Washington. Your pessimism is misplaced.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

As the article explained Antigua is never going to get a check like in regular US court cases. Trade disputes are solved by balancing the trade inequalities, if the US in this case doesn't back down. Giving Antigua the right to violate American intellectual property laws would bring in Hollywood and the likes of Bill Gates et.al..

This combined with the E.U.'s attack on other service industries like lawyers and insurance companies really broadens the fight for poker players. Before now we were pretty much on our own. None of these others "had a dog in our fight." Now we get their help for damn near nothing, they will be protecting their self interests.

Before now it made little sense to write your state level legislators, except in the hope that some precentage might become futuer Congressmen. As the WSJ article pointed out, the insurance and legal field laws are regulated at the state level. States' rights vs. Federalism is also a good hook to get to previously ambivilant republican representitives. They may fear some backlash from church groups on moral grounds but my feeling is business and keeping them damn foriengers out of our court rooms and the French out of our insurance markets just might outweigh things. Republicans may pander to the religious right because of it's past associations, but when it comes down to brass tacks business is business.

Just my opinion,

D$D

[dankhank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i haven't read the threads on this forum that debate the longterm usefulness of the antigua lawsuit, because quite frankly, it exhausts me to read about pipe dreams that i desperately want to come true. but i did read this article. in a non-concise way i thought it laid out why i agree with those who argue this lawsuit won't make the united states budge one bit. i hope i'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the US is forced to pay BILLIONS or make trade concession worth BILLIONS or withdraw from the WTO unilaterally (thus losing TRILLIONS), something will have to give in Washington. Your pessimism is misplaced.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a response from rudy1957 on the lva sports forums, whose political opinions i respect, even if i don't often agree with them:

Nhreapa, don't be a putz. One doesn't need to be a lawyer to properly analyze this, and being a lawyer is probably a handicap, as I initially indicated.

If you'd followed the case over time, you'd have seen that the US has never yet filed a substantive response, choosing instead to stonewall it. But it is deliberately saying that it is not defying the WTO, which telegraphs the intent to keep doing the Dean Smith routine and zero intent to bend. It's highly debatable whether the category properly falls into the recreation category and rules, as noted in the IHT article. So each step, the US will up the ante a litle bit to make motion look like progress. If some tin-pot bureaucrat decides to force the US hand, he'll get slapped down so fast it will make his head spin. Antigua sure isn't going to look for a fight with the US over this, or tourism goes bye-bye.

If you knew anything about the WTO, it has no enforcement capability. World courts, in general, have no enforcement authority, which is why sovereignty is the ultimate issue. Tunnel-visioned lawyers tend to ignore that, as you are. Sovereignty is why wars are fought. The WTO exists only because of US support, and it is Quixotian to think some banana republic is going to force the US to change its internal laws. So there will never come a day of reckoning without blowing up the WTO. Ergo, endless delays on language and procedural grounds so the WTO can save face.
http://forums.lasvegasadvisor.com/me...hreadid=249958

[MiltonFriedman]

Try the Wall Street Journal article.