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

[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"?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
How can they sue to block a Fed law that does not apply to their state legal business? Or are you saying it does apply; if so, why would it apply?

[ QUOTE ]
You are dead wrong that no one was injured if Party or Doyles Room left because of the Act becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]
They knew they were involved in unlawful internet gambling, I assume. They saw a chance to skeedaddle; did that cause injury or save injury? Either way, their business decision; sue them if you think you are injured due to their closing a long-time unlawful business.

[Legislurker]

Anything to be read into the extension request? Or anyone know about the lawyer assigned? G911 has an article up. too sleepy to go back and cnp

[oldbookguy]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...tend_81307.pdf

Reading the DoJ extension request, number 4:
Defendants expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction and service of
process.

OK guys, what gives? also, I notice in 1-3 there is no contest of standing, only number 4, Jurisdiction and service.

obg

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...tend_81307.pdf

Reading the DoJ extension request, number 4:
Defendants expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction and service of
process.

OK guys, what gives? also, I notice in 1-3 there is no contest of standing, only number 4, Jurisdiction and service.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

That's standard language, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. The reason they specify jurisdiction and service of process, as opposed to standing or other issues, is that arguably you waive any objections to jurisdiction if you take any act whatsoever in defense of the case, maybe even including a motion for extra time.

The government can still contest standing and other legal issues down the road.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...tend_81307.pdf


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.imega.org/2007/08/14/upda...nsion-v-imega/

Does anyone know if it's likely the extension won't be granted? From previous readings if the DOJ doesn't respond by the deadline ie: they're not granted the extension, this would be very favorable for the outcome on September 4th?

[Skallagrim]

Extensions of this kind are routinely granted the first time they are requested. The second time depends on the individual judge, the third time is rare in Federal Court, but judges tend to cut the government a lot of slack.

[JPFisher55]

The good news is that the government's trial attorney is from the D.C. head office. The govt. must some concern about the iMEGA case because they did not let local goverment attorneys handle it.
I would think that if the govt. believed that a challenge to standing alone would end the litigation, or that it lacked any merit, then the local office would have been permitted to represent the govt.

[BluffTHIS!]

JPFisher said: "Or maybe the PPA wants to spend its money by"

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



Regarding money, it should cost the PPA *zero* to join this suit, as if iMEGA takes Milton's very good suggestion, it would be still be their attorneys who are handling everything for the plaintiffs under the iMEGA umbrella. Although doubtless it costs something normally to be a member of iMEGA, one would think that they would be happy to waive same for the PPA if adding the PPA cured a potential defect in standing.

Regarding the PPA wishing to come to an "amicable resolution", if that is in fact their stance, then their board is totally incompetent. The DoJ/US gov't, has shown absolutely no willingness to come to an amicable solution with any party, including Antigua in the WTO issue. So the PPA should not be restricting artficially the means it uses to achieve the goals of its members, whether via the political process or litigation. If iMEGA were in fact to offer the PPA a cost-free ride under their umbrella to help the mutual cause, and the PPA board refused, then all PPA members should demand the resignation of the entire board.