iMEGA Gets Response from US

[eddytom]

Casino Gambling Web has just released an article on the latest news from the iMEGA case. I read on this forum the other day someone asking if there was an update on this case, couldn't find where it was though so just started a new topic... Anyway...

[ QUOTE ]
Today, Casino Gambling Web came across the USDJ's written response and the arguments are much the same as they were in their initial filing for a dismissal.




The new documents state that the members in iMEGA's suit have not been harmed specifically by the passing of the UIGEA. They also state that the iMEGA members, if they are breaking laws presented in the UIGEA, are not acts of free speech, but rather acts of conduct that may or may not be pursued by prosecution. The USDJ also states that no member is currently being prosecuted, as well there is no reason to fear prosecution, therefore iMEGA has no grounds to further pursue a TRO against the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a great deal more to the response than that, below is the pdf file from CGW of the complete filing by the US. This pdf file is only 18 pages long and much more readable than the last one they filed that was 46 pages long.

PDF File of Full US Response

CGW Article on US' Response

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no reason to fear prosecution

[/ QUOTE ]

Orly?

[BluffTHIS!]

Dude,

Quit shilling for CGW and get lost. Here is the thread I started a week ago with the exact same info: iMEGA on standing & ripeness . And no one needs to download that PDF from CGW as they just took it off the iMEGA or G911 sites, and posters can just go to that directly.

[eddytom]

Bluff, this is updated information, chill out and stop bashing everything I say when you don't know what your talking about. G911 and iMEGA do not have this information posted yet because it is brand new.

[Uglyowl]

Chill out Bluff, why are you so hostile. This is new information and harmless.

[JPFisher55]

I read the government's reply. I don't think it adds anything. However, I am still skeptical about the standing of iMEGA to bring this litigation because I have no idea who or what entities are members of the iMEGA.

[CompatiblePoker]

iMEGA sends out early press to news sites via email before they upload the .pdf's or write news stories on imega.org. They uploaded the originals today.

Sept. 21 .pdf brief
Sept. 23 News Story from Imega

[Legislurker]

So.............what happens Wednesday? iMega gets tossed out?
TRO issued? Continuance? If the 26th is the actual hearing date, Im not sure who keeps what website up to date any more.

Also, G911 wrote in something about a prominent 1st Amendment lawyer joining the case. Is it spin or is Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., someone with cache?

[HelloandGoodby90]

From Gambling911.com:

Countdown to Court Ruling on Internet Gambling
September 26 (this coming Wednesday) is an important date for anyone involved in online gambling, whether an operator or player. This is the day that a US Court in New Jersey will decide what to do in regard to a challenge against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The UIGEA essentially makes banks responsible for enforcing policies that would prevent Internet gambling via money transactions.

Pushing its time right down to the limit, the US Department of Justice, on the behalf of the other two defendants (Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve) just made the deadline of Sept. 21st that was set by Hon. Judge Mary L. Cooper (3rd District/Trenton division) for submitting a response brief, addressing the request by iMEGA's legal team for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIEGA), as part of our suit to have that law overturned and declared unconstitutional.

The brief opposing the TRO request essentially repeats the defendants' arguments in their motion to dismiss our suit (iMEGA v Gonzales, et al), on the grounds that iMEGA lacks sufficient standing to bring its complaint, and that - even if that were not the case - that the law is (in their opinion) "unripe" for challenge, due to the government's missing the deadline of 270 days from the signing of the law (Oct. 13, 2006) to provide the necessary regulations for enforcing the law. This amounts to the government trying to have it both ways - insisting that the law cannot be challenged due to its failure to meet the requirements of the law.

Regardless of what decision comes into play on Wednesday, either side is likely to appeal, thus buying time for the burgeoning industry. A decision initially favoring the US government stance won't stop the banking sector from enforcing UIGEA however.

Most industry experts believe that the Honorable Judge Cooper will request a period between 30 and 60 days for both sides to gather additional information supporting their case.

The industry has also begun to take notice of iMEGA's efforts - www.imega.org - regularly reporting on news coming out of the iMEGA camp. With the revelations that iMEGA will now be utilizing the services of Ogilvy PR, skeptics realize this Internet trade organization is for real."

"The one thing a lot of people questioned was why we were not using a Washington based law firm to represent us," said Joe Brennan, Jr., founder of iMEGA.org. "The simple answer is that none would touch a case involving online gambling."

Instead, iMEGA is having representation from one of the foremost First Amendment attorneys in the US, Eric M. Bernstein, Esq.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
From Gambling911.com:

Countdown to Court Ruling on Internet Gambling
September 26 (this coming Wednesday) is an important date for anyone involved in online gambling, whether an operator or player. This is the day that a US Court in New Jersey will decide what to do in regard to a challenge against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The UIGEA essentially makes banks responsible for enforcing policies that would prevent Internet gambling via money transactions.

Pushing its time right down to the limit, the US Department of Justice, on the behalf of the other two defendants (Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve) just made the deadline of Sept. 21st that was set by Hon. Judge Mary L. Cooper (3rd District/Trenton division) for submitting a response brief, addressing the request by iMEGA's legal team for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIEGA), as part of our suit to have that law overturned and declared unconstitutional.

The brief opposing the TRO request essentially repeats the defendants' arguments in their motion to dismiss our suit (iMEGA v Gonzales, et al), on the grounds that iMEGA lacks sufficient standing to bring its complaint, and that - even if that were not the case - that the law is (in their opinion) "unripe" for challenge, due to the government's missing the deadline of 270 days from the signing of the law (Oct. 13, 2006) to provide the necessary regulations for enforcing the law. This amounts to the government trying to have it both ways - insisting that the law cannot be challenged due to its failure to meet the requirements of the law.

Regardless of what decision comes into play on Wednesday, either side is likely to appeal, thus buying time for the burgeoning industry. A decision initially favoring the US government stance won't stop the banking sector from enforcing UIGEA however.

Most industry experts believe that the Honorable Judge Cooper will request a period between 30 and 60 days for both sides to gather additional information supporting their case.

The industry has also begun to take notice of iMEGA's efforts - www.imega.org - regularly reporting on news coming out of the iMEGA camp. With the revelations that iMEGA will now be utilizing the services of Ogilvy PR, skeptics realize this Internet trade organization is for real."

"The one thing a lot of people questioned was why we were not using a Washington based law firm to represent us," said Joe Brennan, Jr., founder of iMEGA.org. "The simple answer is that none would touch a case involving online gambling."

Instead, iMEGA is having representation from one of the foremost First Amendment attorneys in the US, Eric M. Bernstein, Esq.

[/ QUOTE ]

If G911's opinions or articles had merit, Id not bother to ask the question here.