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

[JPFisher55]

Ok Skall, I reside in St. Louis. I looked up Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission. It is about what games boat-in-the-mote casinos could offer during the brief time that they violated the MO constitution. FWIW, the lawyers for the casinos really blew it on that one and the gaming commission granted licenses that they should not have granted. Fortunately for the casinos, the voters quickly approved an amendment to the MO constitution permitting casinos within 1000 feet of river. However, a lawyer with whom I attended high school was indicted in federal court, pled guilty and disbarred essentially for assisting the casinos in bribing certain members of the gaming commission.
Anyway the case clearly holds that poker is a game of skill and thus not a lottery that the MO constitution makes illegal.
So I guess I could be a named plaintiff. I am a customer of Epassporte. If the final regs give prevent me from using Epassporte, I am ready to serve as a named plaintiff. I assume that the Action for Declaratory Judgment would be premature until the final regs are published. This might not occur until 2009, according to Ms. Schluman of CardPlayer.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]


These instances also go to the "problem" banks would face if given the governmental duty of determining the legality of the source of funds being transfered, IMO.

I still have Missouri bank accounts. But my bank does not know where I am playing poker or where I played poker on-line when I won all or part of any money being transfered.

So my premise would be even if the government was some how able to give the banks and money transfer institutions this uniquely governmental duty, determining legality, even the banks in a perfect world would not know if any of my winnings in the form of a withdraw were legal or not.

Take this to the extreme. Say I lived in WA where poker is considered illegal. If I every traveled into Canada and played in my on-line poker account the money I won there was not gained from any illegal activity in the eyes of Canada, the US, or even WA state. Unless I missed something. So when I make a withdraw to my WA state bank in WA, how the hell can it it ever know 100% that it was illegal? Sure the bank might be able to prove that the money was comming from an "evil semi-black listed" off shore gambling site, but how can it determine I actually broke a law when I won the money?

Or is this some how covered by some other law?


D$D<--loves mixing arguements.

[oldbookguy]

Though this thread is devoted to relief for poker, it is time for relief from the entire UIGEA.

The writers acknowledge ALL the problems noted as correct.

To my lawyer friends, since the Government argued against IMEGA that no regs were published, it was not ripe, can IMEGA now, ask for a secondary hearing for additional fact finding and present the acknowledged UIGEA,2006 problems now even though the hearing is over since no ruling has been made.

I would think that the DoJ, FSRB & Treasury knew these were being released and withheld them from publication (and the court) until AFTER the hearing to bolster their unripe position.

obg

[Skallagrim]

OBG - an attack based on the content of the regulations will have to wait until the regulations are final. The ones we have now are just "proposed."

But we should start planning the attack now, the regulations are not likely to change much.

Skallagrim