7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill

[JPFisher55]

I live in Missouri. Missouri case law has ruled that poker is a game of skill. Thus, I can legally play online poker for money. But the UIGEA (but for Epassporte) is impinging on my right to play online poker under the First Amendment because it makes it illegal for businesses to move my money for me.
While the govt. has some legitimate interest in restricting my rights, the UIGEA is not narrowly designed to protect these interests.
I agree with Milton that an affected individual or business would help the standing issue, but I do not know much about standing issues.

[CPOSteve]

JP, Where do you find the "right" to play on-line poker in the First Amendment?

Hey, I'd love to see on-line poker legalized in every state, but I would prefer to see it become legal because the legislative branch passed a law making it so rather than because the judicial branch discovered yet another "right" hiding there in the Constitution.

Steve

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in Missouri. Missouri case law has ruled that poker is a game of skill. Thus, I can legally play online poker for money. But the UIGEA (but for Epassporte) is impinging on my right to play online poker under the First Amendment because it makes it illegal for businesses to move my money for me.
While the govt. has some legitimate interest in restricting my rights, the UIGEA is not narrowly designed to protect these interests.
I agree with Milton that an affected individual or business would help the standing issue, but I do not know much about standing issues.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Missouri AG doesn't agree with your legality
[ QUOTE ]
Missourians may legally participate in games or contests of skill or chance where no consideration is required to be eligible for a prize. Many fast-food restaurants offer no-purchase-necessary games in which consumers can obtain free tickets without a purchase.



[/ QUOTE ]

If it was legal and there was a legal Missouri business dealing poker, how would UIGEA affect you, them or the financing?

[JPFisher55]

CPO read iMEGA's brief. It is part of the freedom of association in the first amendment. I would prefer court ruling UIGEA and Wire Act not enforceable against online gambling because I think that any enabling laws will have a lot of regs and taxes attached.

Permafrost, the case is Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission ruling poker is a game of skill. Social clubs offering poker of an entry fee (no rake) are legal, but rare due to numerous casinos, in Missouri. Skallagrim has pointed this out in the past.

[CPOSteve]

I've read the brief and I don't agree...but then again I have a tough time finding a lot of other "rights" in the Constitution that others don't seem to have trouble finding. Vive le difference.

As to the fact that new laws will have a lot of regs and taxes attached, my comment is "I certainly hope so" and I would argue that all of us should hope so.

I'm a recreational player. I'm much more successful at live poker than I am on-line. The fact is that attracting players like me is the key to the future of on-line poker. I haven't played for real money on-line since last year. The reasons for this are several:
- Getting money onto a site has gotten difficult. Not impossible. Certainly within my abilities. But difficult nonetheless.
- There is significant doubt in my mind that I can get my money back out.
- Based on my reading of any number of threads on this board I am increasingly concerned about the integrity of the games. Collusion. Bots. Multi-accounting. I'm uninterested in playing a game that I can't trust to be on the level.
- Complete lack of a competent gaming commission to which I can refer complaints or disputes.

The fact is that I won't deposit money onto an on-line site again until there is federal regulation of on-line gaming. I know several friends, recreational players and former on-line gamblers, who have the same attitude. Again, this won't stop the dedicated "professional" poker player, but I believe it will eventually have an impact on the pool of players (if it already hasn't).

In short (if it's not too late to say that) there will always be a portion of the population that is willing to overlook the "wild west" aspects of on-line poker for the chance to participate. I won't and I believe there are many others who share my concerns.

Steve

[FreeBeer]

[ QUOTE ]

Won't players always be able to send in paper checks (personnal or cashier) and then won't the sites always be able to send me a check (assuming all the e-wallets pull out)?



[/ QUOTE ]


No. For instance, Sportingbet PLC, owners of Paradise Poker, refuses to issue checks to US citizens, citing the UIGEA as the reason. Getting paid is a stone bitch sometimes. Just ask the FTP and Bodog players.

[Skallagrim]

Just back from vacation folks, and havent read the petition or other legal documents filed yet, but there are a few points I can make:

1) September 4 is hardly unusual as hearing date for this kind of petition - 6-7 weeks is actaully pretty fast for a federal court civil case. I do not know the local rules, but it is pretty clear these guys didnt ask for an "immediate" HEARING.

2) The UIGEA, as I have said many times, is the most poorly drafted piece of federal legislation in some time, what it really says is subject to a lot of debate. What is clear, by its own terms, is that it is not making any particular game or gambliing legal or illegal; it exists to say that if a game is already illegal under STATE OR FEDERAL law, then FUNDING THAT GAME is now a new federal crime.

3) Since poker is not covered by the wire act, whether its illegal to fund online poker under the UIGEA has to be determined by individual state law. This gets extremely complex. Basically, everything other than the laws in Washington and Louisianna can be argued not to apply to online poker (those 2 states specifically make it a crime to play online poker) and even for those 2 states the question exists as to whehter they have the authority to outlaw online play since interstate commerce is supposed to be a federal matter. I am still too tired from the retrun trip to go further into this now.

4) The complexity of a federal law that says your interstate banking activity is either legal or illegal depending on future interpertations of state law is what has everybody going nuts (at least as far as poker is concerned) including the DOJ and the folks who have to write the regulations. The idea that an interstate bank or CC company must know that its OK for JP to play from Missouri (another long and complex interpertation, but pretty safe because poker is a game of skill according to the Missouri Supreme Court, and thus not inherently illegal - the other Missouri laws that ban unregulated for-profit cardrooms clearly only deal with physical places in Missouri) but probably not OK for a guy from South Carolina (where playing any card game for money is illegal) is nuts and will keep an army of lawyers employed for many years.

5) Thus most companies with other profit areas see it as just easy to stop all US transfers to poker sites so that they are sure they can never be held to violate the UIGEA - that does not make play from states like Missouri illegal, yet it effectively stops it. It is this effect on otherwise legal players that may be enough for this lawsuit to get somewhere, similar to ACLU v. Gonzales without the first amendment having to come into play.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Thanks, this is the clearest, most consise post i have read on this matter.

I think IMEGA could use you!

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost, the case is Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission ruling poker is a game of skill. Social clubs offering poker of an entry fee (no rake) are legal, but rare due to numerous casinos, in Missouri. Skallagrim has pointed this out in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that proves your claim that you 'can legally play online poker for money' when the AG plainly says you can't bet on skill games. Sorry, but I doubt the AG is wrong.

[Gonso]

I love NJ sometimes