|
|
#21
07-23-2007, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I predict no TRO, maybe a loss on Motion to Dismiss
Standing issues are fatal, in my view. Likelihood of success on the merits is near zero, as they need to show some LAWFUL activity is impacted, i.e. poker, and some US persons' rights are infringed. (It is highly unlikely that a Judge in New Jersey is going to enjoin the Federal government, especially in favor of an unlicensed, unregulated industry. An unlicensed, unregulated industry is an anathema to New Jersey, why the suit was brought there and not elsewhere in the 3d Ciruit is beyond my understanding. Even Nevada would have been better, as it is eager to get into the online gaming industry and has favorable 1st Amendment Federal judges.
|
|
#22
07-23-2007, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I predict no TRO, maybe a loss on Motion to Dismiss
I have to agree that the questionable strategic decisions about how to bring this lawsuit are most likely going to mean that its handful of good legal issues are not likely to be reached.
The real way to bring this lawsuit is to first find the perfect plaintiff: a pro online player in a state with legal regulated B&M poker, home poker, and no online specific laws. California is that state. Nevada is second best because it does have an internet law (one that is almost certainly unconstitutional, but its there). This pro could clearly demonstrate that his ability to earn a legitimate living is likely to be negatively affected. Now thats standing...and you get the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals. But who knows, maybe these guys know something I dont. Skallagrim
|
|
#23
07-23-2007, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I predict no TRO, maybe a loss on Motion to Dismiss
[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree that the questionable strategic decisions about how to bring this lawsuit are most likely going to mean that its handful of good legal issues are not likely to be reached. The real way to bring this lawsuit is to first find the perfect plaintiff: a pro online player in a state with legal regulated B&M poker, home poker, and no online specific laws. California is that state. Nevada is second best because it does have an internet law (one that is almost certainly unconstitutional, but its there). This pro could clearly demonstrate that his ability to earn a legitimate living is likely to be negatively affected. Now thats standing...and you get the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals. But who knows, maybe these guys know something I dont. Skallagrim [/ QUOTE ] This is my fear also. I think that it is sound on the merits, but weak on standing and ripeness issues. If it can get to the merits then I think its odds are 50%, but I doubt it will reach the merits. OTOH maybe Doyle Brunson or the owners of Full Tilt are members of iMEGA.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
