Are Poker Contests going to be popular in the US ? Recent Court ruling

[Skallagrim]

The decision was by the US District Court for New Jersey. It is precedent for the whole of NJ. NJ folks should look at NJ gambling law and see if there is anything specific about poker. My RECOLLECTION (not researched opinion) is that it does not. IF NJ gambling law does not ban playing poker specifically (just unlicensed "gambling" in general), A NJ person running a "poker contest" could use this opinion as a defense to any prosecution ("this judge said it was OK" is a real defense). GO FOR IT NJ!

RIIT, I know its hard to fathom the logic here, because this has no "real world" logic, only legal logic. This judge defined "contests" and said "contests" are not gambling. So to not be gambling, per this judge, you must meet his definition of a contest: set fee guarantees right to play; non-variable prize to winner(s) announced in advance; no participation in contest by organizers.

Why a contest along these lines SHOULD be legal and why a contest organized differently SHOULD NOT, is a good question, but not a legal one.

Skallagrim

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.
.
I think TruePoker should jump on this angle as soon as they can; I'm sure if they don't then someone else will. I mean heck, we're already seeing duplicate poker sites and other variations of 'different' poker that is likely to fit more within the legal scope of online poker.
.
.



[/ QUOTE ]

Would there be an advantage, for precedent purposes, to doing the signups, payouts, announcements, advertising, etc in the location where this ruling was given?

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

There are as many as 3 jurisdictions involved depending on the physical location of the following entities:

a) The company brokering the wagers
b) The end-user making the wagers
c) The poker server computer(s)

These 3 can be in same or different jurisdictions. If all 3 were located in the jurisdiction where the ruling was made, I would think it would involve less risk and not more.

RIIT

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
It is precedent for the whole of NJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're excited about the decision, but you know this is not true. A trial level federal court decision is not binding precedent on anyone other than the parties to the case. A subsequent case brought in state court, or before a different judge in federal court, could result in the opposite decision.

There's no "binding precedent" in the State of New Jersey until either the NJ Supreme Court rules or the US Supreme Court rules.

[Skallagrim]

First off niss, I did not use the word "binding" for ONE of the reasons you stated: it is not binding on a Federal Appeals Court, nor the US Supreme Court. It is, however, undeniably a "precedent." You added the word "binding" to what I said in order to say "you know this not to be true." I, however, choose my words carefully.

But Federal Court opinions do trump state court opinions, generally, and this judge was interpreting NJ law. More research then I care to do at this time would be needed to conclude whether this was "binding" on NJ courts. Another reason the word "binding" does not appear in my post.

The point I was making was that, as a matter of criminal law, mistake of law is a valid defense (in most if not all US jurisdictions) if you are following to the letter written advice from an attorney and/or a Court opinion from a court having jurisdiction (which is met here).

However, to the extent that an average reader may confuse precedent and binding precedent, I appreciate your reply. I just did not appreciate being told I would post something I know not to be true.

Skallagrim

[niss]

Sorry I didn't mean that you intentionally posted something false. I meant that I thought in your excitement and exuberance you were overstating the value of the opinion.

I don't mean to hijack this thread into a legal primer. Suffice it to say briefly that federal court opinions do not trump state court opinions on issues of state law. The federal courts try to follow state court decisions and, where there is not adequate state precedent, they try to guess as to how the state's high court would rule.

Also, "precedent" and "binding precedent" are pretty much the same thing. A "precedent" is a decision "recognized as authority for the disposition of future cases". Judge Cavanaugh's decision comes with no authority except as to his particular case. But to make sure we are on the same wavelength, I'll clarify -- this decision is of no precedential value in New Jersey. One can only hope that other courts will accept its rationale and choose to follow it.

[Skallagrim]

Thanks for removing the attack on my credibility.

As it relates to the usefulness of this opinion, I will comment a little on the difference between precedent and binding precedent - the former is a case on a similar topic that therefore can be used to advance an argument ("there is precedent for my conclusion") the latter is a case from a higher court that concludes the argument ("the SCOTUS already has decided this"). Judges are free to ignore precedent, not free to ignore binding precedent.

This opinion is precedent for the conclusion that contests are not gambling, it is not binding (as near as I can tell w/o further research - was there a federal issue involved, for example)) on any other court.

But that does not mean people in NJ cannot use this opinion.
They can use it to advance the argument in a different court and urge that different court to agree. AND IF NJ has a traditional "mistake of law" defense, then a poker contest operator could say to the DA, look I was relying on this case. In that situation the DA and whatever court the operator was in could still conclude that poker contests were illegal gambling, but could not convict this operator of the crime in light of the defense. Disclaimer; please note my ifs, NJ residents; consult w/ a local lawyer before running any such contest.

Maybe lawyers where you are use the terms precedent and binding precedent differently, thats the way we use 'em up here. The terms dont matter though, as long as folks understand the practical use. So no more quibbling.

Skallagrim