7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill - Page 7

MiltonFriedman · #61 07-13-2007, 09:31 AM

Permafrost, take the time to actually read the ACLU v. Gonzales cases. My unrefreshed recollection is that the answer would be:

A person with a protected right in State A (let's call it Missouri) to access a site can be impacted because State B (let's call it Washington) has a law which defines the exact same conduct legal in Missouri to be illegal in Washington. What is the conduct ? ... The SITE discussing poker or gambling software perhaps. (This content actually is privately banned from Google Adwords.)

(Let's further say that the Washington law is sufficiently narrow to outlaw the site's conduct there.... and the site's conduct in Missouri is clearly allowed.)

The impact is on the Site and on the guy in Missouri. Their activity is chilled becasue the Federal Anti-Strategy law leaves the site open to conflicting state standards and criminal prosecution. Because a less intrusive means exists to ensure the Federal goal, the rights of Mo. players and sites looking to provide that service must be protected.

Bluntly put, the argument is that the Federal UIGE Act fails because it sinks to the lowest common denominator in addressing US players' rights and imposes upon Missourians' access to online poker the mores and rules of Utah. The service providers' rights are also trampled because, even if they block 10 or 11 States, their ability to accept deposits from ANY US player is blocked.

(Permafrost, I would be shocked if the Regs turn out to say, (a) Sports betting violates the Wire Act, therefore no deposits are okay, but (b) deposits from these 39 States are okay while deposits from these 11 States are not okay for poker. That would be an insanely well-tailored regulation, and permissible under the Act.)

niss · #62 07-13-2007, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
September 4 is hardly unusual as hearing date for this kind of petition - 6-7 weeks is actaully pretty fast for a federal court civil case. I do not know the local rules, but it is pretty clear these guys didnt ask for an "immediate" HEARING.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is somewhat misleading. Two months is a LONG TIME when someone is seeking a TRO or a preliminary injunction. The problem is, as discussed above, a movant almost always seeks this relief by Order to Show Cause, which they inexplicably didn't do here.

While the rest of your post may make loads of sense, the issue in this thread is less whether the UIGEA can/should be blocked and more the poor effort that IMEGA seems to be making to do so. Read the papers and see if you think otherwise.

oldbookguy · #63 07-13-2007, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
(Permafrost, I would be shocked if the Regs turn out to say, (a) Sports betting violates the Wire Act, therefore no deposits are okay, but (b) deposits from these 39 States are okay while deposits from these 11 States are not okay for poker. That would be an insanely well-tailored regulation, and permissible under the Act.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Milton, you are correct, insanly well taylored, but it is what I would like to see initially and is the real solution to this mess for the government. Then, the other states could change their local laws to opt in or the others to opt out.

Ah, but this is way to simple for the government.....

obg

Legislurker · #64 07-13-2007, 10:20 AM

But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out.

MiltonFriedman · #65 07-13-2007, 10:52 AM

"But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out."

Really think so ?

"Hello, Governor Schwartnegger, would you like a 40% affiliate deal to help out the State of California ? Yes, just like the Lottery, only better."

TheEngineer · #66 07-13-2007, 10:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I think we would lose every single state if they can opt in or out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that?

Skallagrim · #67 07-13-2007, 11:47 AM

Niss, I said that 6-7 weeks was not a long time BECAUSE there appered to be no request for an immediate hearing. I suspect there was not a request for an immediate hearing because, factually, there is no "enforcement" of the UIGEA going on right now. I will try to read the actual filings later this afternoon.

I also doubt that most states would opt out under such a regulation scheme as suggested, at least as long as poker is separated from online slots, sportsbetting and games like blackjack. The general public has quite different feelings about poker and those other games/gambling. If online Bridge suddenly became very popular, do you think state governments would rush to "opt out" of that?

UNfortunately, OBG, the 11 state skill game ban is not as clear cut as you would like it to be, it probaby (I am still researching this area) would only apply to poker tournaments, and also there are states where skill games for money are okay, but poker is specifically forbidden. I told you this was complex [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Skallagrim

permafrost · #68 07-13-2007, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The impact is on the Site and on the guy in Missouri. Their activity is chilled becasue the Federal Anti-Strategy law leaves the site open to conflicting state standards and criminal prosecution. Because a less intrusive means exists to ensure the Federal goal, the rights of Mo. players and sites looking to provide that service must be protected.

Bluntly put, the argument is that the Federal UIGE Act fails because it sinks to the lowest common denominator in addressing US players' rights and imposes upon Missourians' access to online poker the mores and rules of Utah. The service providers' rights are also trampled because, even if they block 10 or 11 States, their ability to accept deposits from ANY US player is blocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mention a "Site" providing an internet service in Missouri and assume legality. The only online poker sites I know of in Missouri (and other states), are unlawful foreign businesses. How is trying to chill their unlawful activity unconstitutional?

UIGEA "imposes" nothing on a lawful Missouri activity. Missouri can legalize and regulate and UIGEA can't touch them --- but they have not done that. Be nice if they did...

JPFisher55 · #69 07-13-2007, 01:45 PM

Permafrost, you still don't get it. The foreign websites are operating lawfully where they are located. As a Missouri citizen, I can legally access their sites and play online poker for real money.
The UIGEA attempts to prevent or restrict my legal right to do so; this is not allowed under the US Constitution as I remember it. Hopefully, the judge in the iMEGA case will agree.

permafrost · #70 07-13-2007, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost, you still don't get it. The foreign websites are operating lawfully where they are located. As a Missouri citizen, I can legally access their sites and play online poker for real money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your Attorney General still says it's illegal if you bet. Should I believe JPFisher55 of 2+2 or the AG of Missouri? I wish it was lawful, and no offense, but wishing seems like all we got here.

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA attempts to prevent or restrict my legal right to do so; this is not allowed under the US Constitution as I remember it. Hopefully, the judge in the iMEGA case will agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA doesn't restrict your legal rights at all, it further penalizes unlawful businesses, only. You aren't running an unlawful internet gambling business are you?.