Online Gambling Industry Could See Relief with Suit Against Gonzalez

[Coy_Roy]

http://www.gambling911.com/Alberto-G...it-060507.html

Alberto Gonzales Lawsuit Could Set Precedent

The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) filed a request Tuesday seeking judgment restraining the United States and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from enforcing the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" (UIGEA). The current law prevents U.S. credit-card companies and banks from processing payments to online gambling businesses.

iMEGA is believed to be made up of many different individuals with extensive amounts of funding. Rumors that a suit against Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, one of the architects of UIGEA, is forthcoming have not been confirmed.

The news is some of the best for a billion dollar online gambling industry that has seen its fair share of ups and downs - but mostly downs - over the past nine months.

Eric Martin Bernstein, Esq. represents iMEGA and is presently speaking at an online gambling industry tradeshow in Montreal, Canada this week.

"The purpose of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is to
prevent Americans from engaging in their fundamental rights to conduct
their lives in the manner they wish to live it - to be free from the
government imposing public morality in the privacy of one's home", says
Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., attorney for iMEGA.

The lawsuit also seeks to stop the enforcement of the UIGEA based on the
recent ruling of the World Trade Organization in a final appeal which
found the United States in contempt of treaty obligations regarding
Internet gambling. Washington spokesmen recently said the United States
would not appeal the ruling in favor of Antigua and Barbuda, the
Caribbean nation which won the WTO challenge against the US and one
nation where Internet gambling is legal. Instead, Washington says, the
US will try to modify its treaty obligation to eliminate Internet
gambling. The WTO ruling permits sanctions to be imposed against the
US.

With 25 years of experience, Mr. Bernstein handles matters on a wide range of subjects within the labor / employment law fields, including general advice and assistance, contract negotiations, interest and grievance arbitrations, fact-finding and mediation, disciplinary matters involving public safety and non-public safety employees.

As a municipal attorney, Mr. Bernstein has handled such diverse issues as land use matters, ethics issues, municipal construction, local public contracts law issues, tax appeals, open space acquisition and government affairs. And as a board of education attorney, Mr. Bernstein has handled matters of special education, teacher/student discipline and budget appeals.

In regard to First Amendment / Internet law, Mr. Bernstein is a member of the First Amendment Lawyer's Association and the Free Speech Coalition. Mr. Bernstein handles all aspects of First Amendment and Internet law, except for patent issues.

In addition to his practice, Mr. Bernstein is a regular and frequently requested speaker at state and national organizations and has been teaching for the Rutgers University Bureau of Government Research since the early 1980s. Mr. Bernstein has written articles for publication and serves as a Director of the New Jersey State Bar Association Local Government Law Section, where he was previously Vice President and Editor of its newsletter.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally like the idea that the guy in the story is talking about "the privacy of your own home" but that principle has a very limited usefulness in the courts (or you could smoke pot in your own home).


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't smoke weed anywhere. You can play poker in casinos.

The equivalent would be if the government said "you can't drink in your own home, but you may go to a bar and drink".

Huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. You do have a right to contract with sites and individuals to play poker over the Internet. But does a valid governmental purpose (think protection of addicts, etc.) overcome your right? Who knows.

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally like the idea that the guy in the story is talking about "the privacy of your own home" but that principle has a very limited usefulness in the courts (or you could smoke pot in your own home).


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't smoke weed anywhere. You can play poker in casinos.

The equivalent would be if the government said "you can't drink in your own home, but you may go to a bar and drink".

Huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. You do have a right to contract with sites and individuals to play poker over the Internet. But does a valid governmental purpose (think protection of addicts, etc.) overcome your right? Who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are people addicted to alcohol, porn, coffee, tobacco, etc. They are still allowed to indulge in these addictions in their own home. How is poker different?

[JPFisher55]

I agree, but modern courts have permitted lots of legislation designed to protect addicts from themselves.

[Legislurker]

Forgive my legal stupidity here. IF the suit somehow found the UIGEA in violation of the treaty, and it was stricken down........but AFTER the ruling on it the US renegotiated its committments..........would the UIGEA have to be repassed. I guess what I am asking is if you pass a law that is illegal when passed, and now, but becomes legal.........does it stay legal? Would they need a new UIGEA or would it just be suspended until such time as its legally enforceable?

[JPFisher55]

The court will have to consider the legality of the USTR's actions to withdraw the gambling commitments. It is not certain that this is lawful under WTO in this circumstance. Most likely the WTO will have to rule on this matter before the federal judge decides this lawsuit. Unless the judge finds that the UIGEA violates the US Constitution. It will take a long time.

[MiltonFriedman]

Was the suit filed yet ?

[MiltonFriedman]

Certain issues will be contested pretty quickly, if there was a request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order filed.

(As a curious matter, why would Bernstein be beating the bushes at GIGSE ? He has plenty of work to do at home now.)

A party seeking injunctive relief must, in laymen's terms, show the Court two things: Irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits.

Preliminary equitable relief requests can be pretty fast track, depending upon what precisely is sought and local court rules/customs.

The ACLU v Gonzales precedent for injunctive relief may be limited however here. The underlying activity of the individual plaintiffs there was legal in some states.

Associational standing only gets you so far, you also need real plaintiffs with real, lawful activity being impacted.

Unless this case has/gets some poker plaintiffs, it will fail on showing a likelihood of success on the merits and a motion to dismiss.

Was there a motion for a TRO or preliminary relief filed ? That starts a short clock running.

[JPFisher55]

From the articles on gambling911, it seemed that the lawsuit was more like an action for declaratory judgment than a TRO. But the articles were not that specific.
I, also, wondered about the standing of the plaintiffs.

[Emperor]

I know that the PPA has voiced that they don't wish to go the brute force route, but I can't avoid the desire to get my checkbook out and send a contribution to iMEGA.