NOW IS the time to seek declaratory relief for "poker", huh, PPA ?

MiltonFriedman · #1 10-02-2007, 05:19 PM

I have been reading the Proposed Regulations. In my opinion, by their refusal to determine which forms of "gambling" are covered, the Agencies understandably punted.

The proposed Regs ARE out, they will not single out whetehr or not "poker" is covered by the UIGE Act.

Engineer,

PPA should seek a declaratory judgement, as a representative of "poker" players, and others such as CardPlayer and epassporte should join as plaintiffs, that the UIGEA does not cover poker, and, even if so, "poker" is not illegal under Federal laws. Such a suit was practically invited by these proposed Regulations.

Read the Sections why there is reluctance to publish a 'blacklist" and how questions of legality of internet gambling should be resolved by reference to underlying substative law.

Senator D'Amato is quoted publicly in the press as saying online poker is NOT prohibited by federal law. Unlike iMEGA, the PPA can show standing, the PPA can show ripeness, and the PPA can show a need for declaratory relief, as the FBI has threatened to prosecute people who play card games online. I think Al D'Amato would make a great individual plaintiff, not to mention getting great press.

If "poker" is NOT federally prohibited, why should PPA memebers be left to the whims of banks' business risk assesment. A Federal suit declaring that poker is NOT covered by the UIGE or is not federally prohibited would give Banks cover to process online poker deposits. The time to seek relief is NOW.

Well, okay then PPA, file a suit to clarify that "poker" is

(a) not covered by the business model addressed by the UIGEA, poker sites are not engaged in "betting or wagering" but are simply a third party interactive service provider to individuals who DO bet or wager, and, even IF covered by the UIGE,

(b) online poker is not prohibited by any Federal Statute, despite the FBI's website threatening prosecution of individual players.

IF the PPA loses, and poker is federally prohibited, then there is always the Wexler Bill to back.

Milton Friedman

Skallagrim · #2 10-02-2007, 05:29 PM

I am with you on this Milton, and I hereby publicly volunteer to be the named plaintiff and/or lead counsel if my ability to play poker is in anyway hampered by these regulations: I live in NH. NH gambling law does not mention the internet at all. NH law defines gambling as wagering on an outcome that the wagerer does not control or influence. My actions in poker control (when I fold) and influence (when I bet or raise thereby inducing others to fold) the outcome. Poker is not illegal in NH. Poker is not illegal under the wire act. If these regulations stop me from engaging in a lawful activity I enjoy, I believe I am entitled to undertake the lawsuit.

Only problem is I can't bankroll the lawsuit, or I'd do it without the PPA.

Skallagrim

MiltonFriedman · #3 10-02-2007, 05:36 PM

I am serious about lobbying PPA to act in their representative capacity.

On the other hand, there are limits to the benefits of litigation.

"if my ability to play poker is in anyway hampered by these regulations"

I asked my Doctor's office about my upcoming knee surgery:
"Doctor, will I be able to play poker after the operation ?"

Doctor: "Sure. You'll be able to play poker just fine."

Me: "Really ? That's terrific. I can't play worth a damn now."

Wynton · #4 10-02-2007, 05:53 PM

Until there are final regulations out, an action for declaratory relief would be deemed premature.

On the other hand, it's not too early to prepare the action for filing, using the proposed regulations as a starting point. And since this will likely take a few months anyway, might as well start the process now.

Skallagrim · #5 10-02-2007, 05:57 PM

OK, OK - what an old joke, LOL.

You know I was talking about standing to bring the lawsuit, any PPA member who lives in a state that does not have a specific internet poker law could be the plaintiff.

Better still is a plaintiff in a state with the skill v. luck definition of gambling.

Best is a plaintiff in a state where poker is pretty clearly NOT gambling.

JPFisher55 · #6 10-02-2007, 06:22 PM

Wait a minute, last week I was chastigated for stating that we would be better off if the regs clearly outlawed online poker because then we would clearly have standing to sue for declaratory relief. Maybe I was somewhat optimistic about the outcome. But Milton and Skall wanted to use litigation as a last resort.
Now the regs come out and are vague as we feared. Now you want the PPA to sue before we even attempt to favorably change the regs by submission of comments. You must think that the case is good. I do agree. However, you should know that some federal magistrate in the BetonSports case wrote a finding for the court that stated that the magistrate felt that In Re MasterCard was wrong and the Wire Act covers all online gambling. http://www.gamblinglawupdate.com/archive...5%2008%2007.pdf
Of course, this is not a ruling but only a recommendation. So I still think the case is strong. But I thought the idea was to exhaust our alternatives in the comment process before litigation.

TheEngineer · #7 10-02-2007, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute, last week I was chastigated for stating that we would be better off if the regs clearly outlawed online poker because then we would clearly have standing to sue for declaratory relief. Maybe I was somewhat optimistic about the outcome. But Milton and Skall wanted to use litigation as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. We didn't want the regs to clearly restrict funding for poker...we would have been screwed for years. This is much better for us, as the authors pretty much admitted that gaming laws are vague. That makes it more likely to get a result in our favor.

We still want to use litigation as a last resort. Still, it is a "resort", so we need to be prepared to use it.

I'll discuss this with John Pappas tomorrow.

JPFisher55 · #8 10-02-2007, 06:48 PM

TE, there are very few agencies whose regulations have the force of law. IRS regulations do not have the force of law and often do not survive a court challenge. I know that some agencies have the power to issue regulations that do make law. The SEC is one example.
But these regulations are not new law. So vague regulations do not make the case for online poker better, or worse, in court than a regulation expressly defining online poker to be unlawful internet gambling. Such an express regulation would not screw us for years and we could still comment against it. Just like we can comment to make these regulations less vague for our side; like my proposed definition of unlawful internet gambling.
However, if Skall and Milton believe that the PPA has standing to bring a declaratory action that online poker is not covered by the Wire Act or UIGEA, in most states, and they believe that this is the proper time for such litigation, then I am all for it.

Grasshopp3r · #9 10-02-2007, 07:05 PM

iMEGA is already in court, so they will be able to get a result sooner than the PPA.

What needs to happen is that Neteller should accept US deposits again and reopen their US accounts, stating that they are in compliance with the proposed regs. Also, a successor to Neteller may decide that the legal risk is relatively low and open.

Tuff_Fish · #10 10-02-2007, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
iMEGA is already in court, so they will be able to get a result sooner than the PPA.

What needs to happen is that Neteller should accept US deposits again and reopen their US accounts, stating that they are in compliance with the proposed regs. Also, a successor to Neteller may decide that the legal risk is relatively low and open.

[/ QUOTE ]

A poker only Neteller would be a better bet. Sterring clear of the casinos and sports betting will give our new Neteller a much better chance of succeeding. IMHO

Tuff