Should the PPA join in the iMEGA litigation, on behalf of "poker" ?

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why the PPA has not joined in this lawsuit or initiated their own. Perhaps they think that once the regs are issued it is easier to show standing and attack the regs rather than the whole statute.
Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by lobbying, wining and dining in Washington, D.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone can tell us what the PPA is doing and whom they are actually representing, I'd love to hear it. Some transparency would be nice, wouldn't it?

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why the PPA has not joined in this lawsuit or initiated their own. Perhaps they think that once the regs are issued it is easier to show standing and attack the regs rather than the whole statute.
Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by lobbying, wining and dining in Washington, D.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone can tell us what the PPA is doing and whom they are actually representing, I'd love to hear it. Some transparency would be nice, wouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how much effort it would take to get 100-200 people to DC to protest AT their office. Get a TV crew as well. Poker players protest own Union for incomeptence, drunkeness, and fraud! I can see the headlines now.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IIf a federal law is passed that says conduct X is illegal, then a US person covered by that law who engages in conduct X before the law is passed likely has standing to sue on a claim that the federal law prohibiting conduct X in states where it is <font color="blue">illegal </font> under State law violates his First Amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should the "illegal" at the end of the above sentence be "legal"?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is the "it" that is legal/illegal in states; conduct X or other?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why the Plaintiffs in the ACLU v. Gonzales, who engage in conduct X in states where it is legal to so act have standing to sue to block a Federal law which rests on conduct X being illegal in other States.


[/ QUOTE ]
How can they sue to block a Fed law that does not apply to their state legal business? Or are you saying it does apply; if so, why would it apply?

[ QUOTE ]
You are dead wrong that no one was injured if Party or Doyles Room left because of the Act becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]
They knew they were involved in unlawful internet gambling, I assume. They saw a chance to skeedaddle; did that cause injury or save injury? Either way, their business decision; sue them if you think you are injured due to their closing a long-time unlawful business.

[MiltonFriedman]

Read the Court's decisions in ACLU v. Gonzales, which permanently enjoined enforcement of a Federal Child Access to Porn Ban law because it impacted websites' presence on the whole of the Internet available to US users, reaching into in States where receipt of such websites was legal. (The same website reaching into other States was arguably illegal in other states.)

The Court discussed extensively how technology could have been used to lessen the Federal law impact on the "legal" use states, rather than a "ban" being appropriate being dependant upon what State a person accessed the Site from.

The "ban" under the UIGEA is on financial transactions, application again dependent upon what State an online poker site is being accessed from.

If you have read the ACLU v Gonzales line of cases, fine. We can refine the analysis further ... because it's NOT without issues.

However, permafrost, if you are too lazy to educate yourself, when, again, you have been provided the sources, then forget it.

[Legislurker]

Anything to be read into the extension request? Or anyone know about the lawyer assigned? G911 has an article up. too sleepy to go back and cnp

[BluffTHIS!]

JPFisher said: "Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by"

UglyOwl said: "I believe the PPA has stated it wants to work towards a amicable resolution than try using brute force."



Regarding money, it should cost the PPA *zero* to join this suit, as if iMEGA takes Milton's very good suggestion, it would be still be their attorneys who are handling everything for the plaintiffs under the iMEGA umbrella. Although doubtless it costs something normally to be a member of iMEGA, one would think that they would be happy to waive same for the PPA if adding the PPA cured a potential defect in standing.

Regarding the PPA wishing to come to an "amicable resolution", if that is in fact their stance, then their board is totally incompetent. The DoJ/US gov't, has shown absolutely no willingness to come to an amicable solution with any party, including Antigua in the WTO issue. So the PPA should not be restricting artficially the means it uses to achieve the goals of its members, whether via the political process or litigation. If iMEGA were in fact to offer the PPA a cost-free ride under their umbrella to help the mutual cause, and the PPA board refused, then all PPA members should demand the resignation of the entire board.

[oldbookguy]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...tend_81307.pdf

Reading the DoJ extension request, number 4:
Defendants expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction and service of
process.

OK guys, what gives? also, I notice in 1-3 there is no contest of standing, only number 4, Jurisdiction and service.

obg

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...tend_81307.pdf

Reading the DoJ extension request, number 4:
Defendants expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction and service of
process.

OK guys, what gives? also, I notice in 1-3 there is no contest of standing, only number 4, Jurisdiction and service.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

That's standard language, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. The reason they specify jurisdiction and service of process, as opposed to standing or other issues, is that arguably you waive any objections to jurisdiction if you take any act whatsoever in defense of the case, maybe even including a motion for extra time.

The government can still contest standing and other legal issues down the road.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...tend_81307.pdf


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/2007/08/14/upda...nsion-v-imega/

Does anyone know if it's likely the extension won't be granted? From previous readings if the DOJ doesn't respond by the deadline ie: they're not granted the extension, this would be very favorable for the outcome on September 4th?