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

[MiltonFriedman]

A huge practical hole in the iMEGA effort is its inability, in my view, to show irreparable injury to a lawful activity by someone somewhere in the US.

The PPA, and its poker playing members in "legal states", CAN show standing and irreparable injury much more easily than a trade association. The ACLU, which is very successful in constitutional challenges, will always present a court with some concrete claims by injured individuals as named plaintiffs.

The PPA HAS members with concrete injuries. Yet it refuses to litigate on their behalf ...... even when someone else is paying the bulk of the tab.

Why ?

If you are a PPA member, why not yell at them to join a fight which has already been started.

Milton

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
A huge practical hole in the iMEGA effort is its inability, in my view, to show irreparable injury to a lawful activity by someone somewhere in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, unless you have personal knowlege, may be a fact since the actual memers of IMEGA are not publicly known. One or more may reside here or at the least one or more members may be the paid pro's who endorse sites, thus, standing in that respect.

obg

[JPFisher55]

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.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA, and its poker playing members in "legal states", CAN show standing and irreparable injury

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming injury was caused when UIGEA was incorrectly used in "legal states"?

[MiltonFriedman]

I am not sure what you mean by "used". Can you clarify that term ?

Let's say that a player in a State with no ban on online poker was a customer of Party. Let's also assume that Party's decision to block his play was caused by UIGEA, not a great leap, given their public statements. Finally, assume that the player is a member of PPA.

Can you clarify what you mean by "used", so I respond to your question ?

[Uglyowl]

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

[Legislurker]

If they want to be little peaceful pussies they need to placate their angry indians instead of drinking cocktails with the enemy's chiefs. Otherwise, I think its high time the poker community declared war.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure what you mean by "used". Can you clarify that term ?

Let's say that a player in a State with no ban on online poker was a customer of Party. Let's also assume that Party's decision to block his play was caused by UIGEA, not a great leap, given their public statements. Finally, assume that the player is a member of PPA.

Can you clarify what you mean by "used", so I respond to your question ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Party accused of UIGEA's crime?

If no accusations were made, then they foolishly left "no ban" states; and even if you could prove UIGEA influenced their decision, how is anyone besides Party injured from that stupidity? A companies misreading or misunderstanding of a law hardly stretches to need to restrain.

If yes, and Party foolishly left states other than the banned states, then they again misunderstood UIGEA since it would not apply to them in "no ban" states.

[MiltonFriedman]

I will try and explain standing to sue, injury, or any of other terms which you are asking about.

If 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 illegal under State law violates his First Amendment rights.

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.

This US person may not win, but he presents a justicable (sp ?) controversy to the Court and can point to an injury in fact.

You are dead wrong that no one was injured if Party or Doyles Room left because of the Act becoming law. Party shareholders were royally screwed, including those shareholders in the US. (Why Party did not retreat offshore and file an action for Declaratory Relief is an interesting question in itself.)

How many former Party or Doyle affiliates from the US lost income derived from "legal" States players ? How many players could not access Party anymore. (For the record, I would be delighted for hypothetical Poker Plaintiffs to LOSE the iMEGA case on a ruling that UIGEA does not apply to poker.)

I think there are plenty of US poker players/affiliates with an injury in fact and with standing to sue. The issue would not be even close.

Liklihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury present different issues for getting injunctive relief of course, but a Plaintiff needs to survive a standing challenge, on a motion to dismiss, to even get to them.

[Merkle]

[ 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"?