UIGEA Lawsuit Update

[vgs]

wait and see what happen

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Associational standing will not suffice if the unerlying members have no colorable injury. It is standard to add at least ONE plaintiff with a clear injury, which is what the ACLU does. Then the association can proceed with the litigation.

2. As for the Wire Act prayer for relief, the point I am making is that no federal judge is going to enjoin enforcement of an Act with 40+ years of history ... the equity balance is not there. How do you show a likelihood of success on the merits if you are covered by the Wire Act.

The DANGER of a Wire Act prayer for relief is precisely that it raises in a new Circuit the whole issue of whether the Wire Act extends beyond sports. They are giving DOJ a free bite at that apple.

[/ QUOTE ]


Milton,

In your professional opinion, given the deficiencies you note in the filing, was the complaint drafted in a competent manner by their attorneys? Or indeed is this possibly a case where the attorneys made the same points you raised but their clients insisted on doing "something" anyway?

[BluffTHIS!]

Milton,

In this interview on the Gambling911 site, the spokesman for the group filing suit gave this explanation for why he thinks they have standing:

"We are a 501 (c) 6 trade organization," Brennan explains. "This (classification) gives the association an opportunity to have standing to lobby on behalf of our members and to maintain their privacy."

[Grasshopp3r]

http://www.gambling911.com/Internet-...ng-060707.html

There is the rest of the that article. I think that Milton's reference to the ACLU using someone to be a plaintiff is due to the nature of most of the ACLU litigation being about individual rights. I don't claim to be an expert on this. My experience is real estate.

The legal forces behind this appear to be competent.

It doesn't seem like it would hurt to find an individual to add to the case, so I wonder if there is a strategy behind what they did.

[MiltonFriedman]

I am not offering a professional second-guess opinion in any sense, just my analysis and some issues which should be looked at in evaluating the likelihood of any injunctive relief against the UIGE.

The Complaint is certainly competently done and generally well-written.

I have no view on ripeness or on standing under the Casino City case law, but think there must be some ripe, injured poker-related plaintiffs out there now, with a real injury ..... HEY, Neteller users, PartyPoker players, US based PartyPoker Affiliates !!! why not contact the lawfirm and seek to join the suit ? .... You are US based, have not broken any laws, and are certainly injured under the UIGE Act.

I also do not know why they filed in New Jersey specifically (versus, say D.C.) and how the courts there view injunctive relief, gaming, or the ACLU v Gonzales decisions. (I have not even looked to see if it is the same Circuit.)

As for the Wire Act inclusion, it is a small but important point. It is arguable that the Wire Act issue could arise inevitably. DOJ will certainly raise it as an issue, sweeping everyone under its coverage. Including the Wire Act in the Complaint's prayer for relief however, virtually concedes the point to DOJ of convincing the Court the Wire Act IS even a relevant issue.

Why ask for relief under an Act you would argue does not apply to your activities ? It is a heavy enough load to try and enjoin the UIGE Act enforcement.

[MiltonFriedman]

The strategy from the Gonzales litigation which enjoined enforcement of the Child Porn act against internet site operators included both individual plainitffs and website operators. The Court's opinions which imposed, upheld the injunction seemed to me to be centered on the specific rights of specific plaintiffs. (I have not read the opinion granting preliminary relief to the ACLU plaintiffs, so the voluminous details in the Final Order may have come out at trial.)

Clearly, a PartyPoker affiliate or player or shareholder would fit the bill.

[oldbookguy]

Suits can be modified later and really the best relief may boil down to Equal Protection if when the UIGEA Regulations are finally published old ladies card games are allowed to continue as 'skill' games.

I mean those that allow wagering on AOL, MSN & Yahoo! such as solitaire, spades ect.

Then ANY poker player would have standing to walk into any Federal Court and file papers / have papers filed seeking injunctive relief and likely would win.

Still, the rules if they ever get done are 30 days away although for them to actually take effect July 10 / 11 they need to be published 30 days early for public comment.

To keep watch if they are published go to:

www.regulations.gov

obg

[mbpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
they need to be published 30 days early for public comment.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK - it's 60 days for comments not 30 days, which means they missed the deadline already.

[oldbookguy]

Go to www.regulations.gov
They can be 30 days, look at some of them, treasury / banking specifically, most all are 30 day comment period!

obd

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they need to be published 30 days early for public comment.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK - it's 60 days for comments not 30 days, which means they missed the deadline already.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

I have read the entire petition in this case. I can't comment on the standing issues, but they could be a problem for the plaintiff.
But I would like to comment on the Wire Act part of the petition. The petition does not attack the Wire Act on its original intent which is prohibiting bookmaking by telephone lines, mail or direct contact in the US.
It does attack the constitutionality and enforceability of the Wire Act against strictly online gambling. The arguments include constitutional freedoms and the WTO ruling.
The petition also attacks the Wire Act as it is applied to online gambling and financing by the UIGEA.
I don't think that these aspects of the Wire Act have been tested in court on constitutional grounds or WTO.
I have no idea if this litigation will succeed.