Kaplan Pleadings in BetOnSports - Page 3

Legislurker · #21 08-17-2007, 01:44 AM

Whats sad is Kaplan is the only fighter currently in the docket, and he is the biggest scumbag bigtime operator out there. I just thought about it while reading an article, and I realized I shouldn't start to like him, but only to be self-interested in teh outcome. I mean I wish he would go to jail, but not how he is charged.

JPFisher55 · #22 08-17-2007, 12:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Whats sad is Kaplan is the only fighter currently in the docket, and he is the biggest scumbag bigtime operator out there. I just thought about it while reading an article, and I realized I shouldn't start to like him, but only to be self-interested in teh outcome. I mean I wish he would go to jail, but not how he is charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I wish the govt. would drop the current charges and indict him for stealing his customers' money. Mail fraud would be a better charge against him than the current ones.

Legislurker · #23 08-17-2007, 04:11 PM

Or post on the internet the day he gets out of jail and where.
I know of 4 guys who had fairly large sums stolen who would be there to greet him. Just a case now of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

MiltonFriedman · #24 08-18-2007, 10:38 AM

Is someone making an argument that BetOnSports was not taking bets on sports, i.e something clearly covered by the Wire Act ? (I understand a creative argument that the trade agreement is supposed to trump the Wire Act, but that seems beyond any issue of whether "online casino" is covered.)

Why is a distinction between sports betting and casino operations relevant in this case ?

JPFisher55 · #25 08-18-2007, 11:54 AM

Apparently, BetOnSports is accused of violating the Wire Act by operating an online casino. So they are pleading that the Wire Act does not cover online casinos. This is a separate argument from the WTO one.
They are not challenging that the Wire Act covers sports betting, but they plead that the indictment does not specifically allege instances of accepting sports bets. They also want a statement of more particulars about alleged sports bets.

Legislurker · #26 08-18-2007, 03:14 PM

If the WTO argument wins a dismissal, will jeopardy attach for any sports betting activity? Or at the least speedy trial?

JPFisher55 · #27 08-18-2007, 04:01 PM

If the WTO argument wins then the government's case, except for maybe the tax charges, is kaput; along with the UIGEA and the DOJ's war of intimidation against all online gambling. And Neteller and its founders will look verry foolish for not fighting the charges against them.
Plus, the US would be in compliance with the WTO.
But it will take a final decision by the appellate court of last resort before this happens regardless of the decision of the trial judge.

tangled · #28 08-18-2007, 05:22 PM

Yes, but if the trial court rules in favor of the defendant on the WTO issue, then that could impact the legislative process. The threat would be that internet gaming could once again be unmanaged by the law if the appellate process were to uphold the trial court's decision, so Frank's bill could gain decisive popularity. Many Republican congress members would probably come over as the trial courts decision would provide political cover them.

Come on Judge, just one time!!

Legislurker · #29 08-18-2007, 05:54 PM

Septmeber is a month of HOPE. We have a WTO date. Maybe, maybe a hearing from imega. Must pass legislation could get a rider. Kaplan could win. Im not sure if Neteller guys can vacate their pleas still....lawyers? I guess we won't have UIGEA regs this month though. We do need a new targeting round of lobbying, and we HAVE to expand the base of who works with us. somehow.

JPFisher55 · #30 08-18-2007, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but if the trial court rules in favor of the defendant on the WTO issue, then that could impact the legislative process. The threat would be that internet gaming could once again be unmanaged by the law if the appellate process were to uphold the trial court's decision, so Frank's bill could gain decisive popularity. Many Republican congress members would probably come over as the trial courts decision would provide political cover them.

Come on Judge, just one time!!

[/ QUOTE ]

But with a favorable ruling we don't need or want any legislation. However, I think that such a ruling will have to be affirmed by an appellate court of final appeal either court of appeals or Supreme Court before the DOJ accepts it or any non-US poker sites or ewallets enter the US market.