FLORIDA ALLOWING POKER GAME STAKES TO BE RAISED IN JULY!

[ThreeBeers]

I would guess that part of their expansion will be for the slot machines.

ThreeBeers

[ThreeBeers]

Rabid: I too agree with you. Many many moons ago when I was first out of Law School, I clerked for the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Florida and this issue came up many times. In fact some of "my" first published opinions were centered around this very topic (construction). Just noticed your post below.

ThreeBeers

[SpleenLSD]

Good job Hippo. How much is left on our retainer?

Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. On 7/1 we'll see how each cardroom has interpreted the law and I'm sure in the following year we'll see the State make "corrections" to cardroom policies. Remember the tournament shut-down last year? I would expect the regulators to enforce the intent of the law, and then we'll see how the chips fall if and when they are challenged. My feeling is we won't see anything like a uniform standard of allowable games & rules for 2 years.

[Rabid_Hippo]

I have no doubt that the State is going to try and enforce a conservative interpretation of the law, and I question whether the paramutuals will be the ones to challenge that interpretation. What I am curious about is whether an individual would have standing to challenge the new regulations if those regulations are inconsistent with the language of the statute.

We may need someone to volunteer to be a plaintiff.

[Atomic]

Let me ask the legal experts. Is the section about NLHE in 752 something the Governor could strike using his line item veto?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the State is going to try and enforce a conservative interpretation of the law, and I question whether the paramutuals will be the ones to challenge that interpretation. What I am curious about is whether an individual would have standing to challenge the new regulations if those regulations are inconsistent with the language of the statute.

We may need someone to volunteer to be a plaintiff.

[/ QUOTE ]

What could an individual do? If cardrooms don't offer a particular game or limit, it's not something an individual can force them to do whether it's legal or not. If Mardi Gras racino offers $50 NL, you can't sue them to offer $100 or whatever. It's not an inalienable right. It's a business decision.

Besides, I can see the parimutuels pushing the limits so to speak. It was the parimutuels, particularly Dania, that caused the hubbub about tournaments a year or so ago.

[Rabid_Hippo]

I was actually thinking about what to do if regulations are issued that interpret the statute as a $100 cap ... whether an individual would have standing to challenge the regulations governing the games as being inconsistent with the plain language of the statute.

It would be nice to see the paramutuals step up.

[Rabid_Hippo]

The Governor has line item veto authority which may be used to delete any specific budget item within an appropriations act. Since this is not an appropriations act, the answer is no.

[dozer]

1. Great thanks to all the lawyers in here who have dedicated a lot of time to this topic. For it, we're all more educated.

2. Thank God I'm not a lawyer.

[NY60]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the State is going to try and enforce a conservative interpretation of the law, and I question whether the paramutuals will be the ones to challenge that interpretation. What I am curious about is whether an individual would have standing to challenge the new regulations if those regulations are inconsistent with the language of the statute.

We may need someone to volunteer to be a plaintiff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good question also!! (Good job with the cut and paste from FlaJur by the way). I believe the "intent" section of the statute says that it is the "intent" of the legislature to offer more gaiming choices to the people of Florida.

So, I guess one could argue that since the statute was created to benefit the individuals, those individuals have standing to challenge either the statute or any regulations promulgated by the DBPR.

The problem is that the statute is an exception to the other sections of the penal code dealing with gambling.

Thus, for an individual to have standing they would have to further demonstrate that they are facing possible criminal prosecution under the new statute or regulations if a game is spread in violation of either.

Now the statute in question also deals solely with the authorization of cardrooms such that cardrooms are only authorized at licensed pari-mutuels.

So, for an individual to challenge the statute or regs, they also have to demonstrate that they are at risk of prosecution if playing in a game spread in violation of statute or regs AT A LICENSED PARI-MUTUEL.

So it appears that the ball would be in the court of the pari-mutuels first and foremost to spread a game in violation of the statute or regs. Then, I believe in my most humble opinion, that an individual would have one of two different arguments to make:

a) they face prosecution if they participate in these games, or

b) if the pari-mutuels offer these games and then shut them down because they get an "a fangool" letter from the state attorney's office (or worse), then I guess an individual could argue that they are being denied the benefit of expanded gaming choices as set forth in the "intent" section of the statute.

So, I guess without a pari-mutuel taking the first step in spreading a "questionable" game, I don't think an individual has standing to challenge the law without the first existence of a "questionable" game.

Unless, (this can go on and on), the regulatory language promulgated by the DPBR creates a "chilling effect" such that the pari-mutuels are afraid to spread the games in the first place.

Of course, we simply cannot speculate on this without first seeing the language of the regulations which have yet to be created.