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

[MiltonFriedman]

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

1. iMEGA is swinging, poorly, at every pitch of Constitutional law. They HAVE to do so. They NEED to hit a home run.

2. iMEGA is not carrying water for poker. They have NO poker plaintiffs

3. iMEGA is burdened with carrying water for sportsbooks, who are engaged in a business which any court anywhere in the US would find violates the Wire Act. (Actually, the Kaplan defense motions about the WTO trumping the Wire Act for past actions may do more good for sportsbooks than anything that iMEGA has done or will do.)

4. The PPA has real members it can point to, who are engaged in lawful online poker activities.

5. Poker does not need a "home run" of Constitutional proportions. I am not talking about some long-shot Constitutional challenge. Rather, the PPA should go fo a fairly straight forward action for declaratory relief regarding coverage or not under a couple of Federal Statutes, the UIGEA and the Wire Act.

6. Contrary to what G911 wrote about me, I have no axe to grind against iMEGA or the PPA. I think the PPA would make a wonderful lead plaintiff in litigating to protect the rights of poker players. It can even help everyone from epassporte to CardPlayer to Bluff by spearheading a "poker" legal action.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a fairly moot point at this point, as the regs made it clear that the Treasury Dept. has no intention of defining poker as unlawful Internet gambling.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a fairly moot point at this point, as the regs made it clear that the Treasury Dept. has no intention of defining poker as unlawful Internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But going to court and asking for the Declaratory judgement will enable banks to leave us alone, operators to advertise and operate without fear of persecution, and players to not fear jail. Maybe force the FBI and DoJ to stop airing commercials saying gambling online is a crime. And more importantly, create a headache for the DoJ. Especially, if individuals filed in every Federal district on a slightly different line. The PPA could support every one with money and plaintiffs. We should be fighting a battle of resources as well. I think our lawsuits are FAR, FAR cheaper to pursue than it is for the government to defend. And, we only need one victory, a defeat really doesn't set us further back.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a fairly moot point at this point, as the regs made it clear that the Treasury Dept. has no intention of defining poker as unlawful Internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But going to court and asking for the Declaratory judgement will enable banks to leave us alone, operators to advertise and operate without fear of persecution, and players to not fear jail. Maybe force the FBI and DoJ to stop airing commercials saying gambling online is a crime. And more importantly, create a headache for the DoJ. Especially, if individuals filed in every Federal district on a slightly different line. The PPA could support every one with money and plaintiffs. We should be fighting a battle of resources as well. I think our lawsuits are FAR, FAR cheaper to pursue than it is for the government to defend. And, we only need one victory, a defeat really doesn't set us further back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. My comment was specific to wanting the regs to define poker as unlawful Internet gambling.

[JPFisher55]

Milton, I certainly agree that an Action for a Declaratory Judgment that online poker does not violate the Wire Act or the UIGEA, except for a few states, is far more likely to succeed than the iMEGA litigation. I am more optimistic about the iMEGA case than you, but you are right about it having to win on a broader basis than online poker which has clear supporting case law.
Not sure that iMEGA needs a home run, but at least a double. Declaratory Judgment for the federal legality of online poker and legality in most states just needs to avoid a strike out through bad umping. I do have one question, does the PPA have standing for such an action and is it ripe?

[Skallagrim]

The regulations are not final yet. I said IF they have the effect of hindering my abilty to deposit money (that specific enough for you Milton) at my favorite online poker sites, I have standing to sue. Same is true for many if not most PPA members.

First step is to try and get regulations that dont stop our play, if that does not happen, we sue. Again, the fear is regulations that encourage banks to disallow our "legal" activity. If we can stop that, we must. If we cant, courts are the next option.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Skall, how about Missouri. I believe that it has a case that ruled that poker is a game of skill and not a lottery under Missouri law.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Balderdash! Rulings and procedures do not have the force of law but all Federal (and nearly all State) regulations do. Where did you come up with this idea? A Wiki?

Jimbo

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The regulations are not final yet. I said IF they have the effect of hindering my abilty to deposit money (that specific enough for you Milton) at my favorite online poker sites, I have standing to sue. Same is true for many if not most PPA members.

First step is to try and get regulations that dont stop our play, if that does not happen, we sue. Again, the fear is regulations that encourage banks to disallow our "legal" activity. If we can stop that, we must. If we cant, courts are the next option.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Would simply being a real money account holder be enough to have standing or would you have to actually have paid e-pisspoorservice.com or someone else something to have standing.

Does your poker status pre-UIGEA make any difference. I.E. does it improve your case if you had made deposits pre-UIGEA?



D$D<--willing to move back to MO!

[Skallagrim]

Just being a player denied the right to play for money by being unable to engage in a lawful transaction should be sufficient standing to sue.

There are three "best" states for this suit: California and Missouri because they do have case law supporting (non-video) poker as a game of skill, and New Hampshire because the definition of gambling is so restrictive (basically betting on your result in any game where your actions make a difference to the outcome is excluded from "gambling").

In most of the other states we would have to use the "poker is more skill than chance" argument.

In a few states (like Ohio) poker is defined as gambling, but even that still leaves the "no mention of the internet" argument."

Some states mention the internet and poker (like Nevada) but the statutes are attackable because they allow for state licensed operators - a commerce clause argument.

Some states, like the always mentioned Louisiana and Washington are right out - although there is a creative challenge to the Washington law already working its way through the courts.

Skallagrim