Kaplan Pleadings in BetOnSports

[JPFisher55]

Actually Jay, I thought that your argument about betting being legal in NY was wrong and the Judge was right on this point. While a bettor does not commit a crime by betting in NY, his betting constitutes an unlawful and unenforceable contract. Which is why if he wins he cannot enforce the debt in court.
While the judge did not let the jury consider the exemption, I don't think it is a question for the jury. If the exemption applies, then the case should be dismissed by the judge. The appellate court did consider it and unfortunately ruled that the bet originates where the bettor resides despite case law to the contrary, albeit not criminal cases. If the appellate court had followed the case law, then NY law would have not mattered. But we are stuck with its ruling.
However, thanks to your efforts in the WTO case, the situation may change. Funny that Mr. Kaplan and BetOnSports may benefit from your efforts. I wish the situation was reversed.

[Skallagrim]

Jay, as someone who has practiced criminal defense in state and federal courts for 20 years. I know the truth of what you are saying.

The courts actually ruled that betting in NY was "unlawful," even though there was no criminal statute making the bet itself illegal. The NY Constitution does say all betting and wagering shall be unlawful, but the NY legislature only passed laws making the accepting of bets illegal (or making money from others bets).

So the Fed. court held that even though the person making the bet in NY could not be prosecuted in NY (no criminal statute was violated), it was an "unlawful" bet (under the NY Constitution) because a person accepted it, even though the person accepting it did so in accord with the laws where it was accepted. So the NY bettor didnt break NY law, and the Antiguan bookmaker (Jay) didnt break Antigua's law, but together the completed bet was still unlawful in NY. Two rights thus make a wrong.

The Spanish Inquisition or a Soviet Tribunal would have instantly understood the wisdom of this reasoning.

Skallagrim

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Jay, I thought that your argument about betting being legal in NY was wrong and the Judge was right on this point. While a bettor does not commit a crime by betting in NY, his betting constitutes an unlawful and unenforceable contract. Which is why if he wins he cannot enforce the debt in court.
While the judge did not let the jury consider the exemption, I don't think it is a question for the jury. If the exemption applies, then the case should be dismissed by the judge. The appellate court did consider it and unfortunately ruled that the bet originates where the bettor resides despite case law to the contrary, albeit not criminal cases. If the appellate court had followed the case law, then NY law would have not mattered. But we are stuck with its ruling.
However, thanks to your efforts in the WTO case, the situation may change. Funny that Mr. Kaplan and BetOnSports may benefit from your efforts. I wish the situation was reversed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I disagree. Like we tried to get across to the court, it is the criminal code thath delineates what is illegal. In the absence of a specific law, it's legal. By the government's theory, if something isn't explicitly allowed by law, then it is illegal. It's not supposed to work that way.

As for the constitution there was case law stating that it does not apply to the casual bettor.

Don't get me started on the 2nd Circuit. They were more intellectually dishonest than the trial court. Go look up Judge Keenan's resume, the one who wrote the opinion that buried me. He was a District Judge that got bumped up to the Court of Appeals that week. He was a former head of the NY Racing Association, or OTB, or something like that.

What a coincidence of all the judges on the Federal bench that day that he was the one chosen to sit on my case, and that he was the one to write the opinion. Go figure.

If some of you are interested, please read the appelate briefs in order, mine, gov't, my reply, decide who is right on the law. And then read the opinion.

It always amazes me how when they can't answer a point, they just omit it in the opinion, like we never even said it.

[TruePoker CEO]

When you write that "without the WTO the DOJ has won", you need to distinguish between sportsbetting and poker.

Jay's case was Wire Act specific, New York specific and sports specific. There is no coverage of poker under the Wire Act.

As for the more recent UIGE Act, it doesn't matter where a poker "bet" originates, so long as the poker site is not accepting the bet for its own account. Poker is played between players, the poker site does not "accept" any bets. Only a player who calls accepts the win/loss risk of that proffered "bet".

A sportsbook "accepts" a bet. A poker player accepts a bet. A poker site is not in the business of betting or wagering.

[Legislurker]

I guess the Clerk of Court chose your judge randomly. Probably related to the Clerk in WV who tried to sabotage the table games vote.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the Clerk of Court chose your judge randomly. Probably related to the Clerk in WV who tried to sabotage the table games vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, she did her best but her best was not good enough.

obg

[JPFisher55]

Jay, I am a corporate and real estate attorney so I tend to look at it from a contractual side. If lawful means not criminal and unlawful means criminal then you are right. The actual word in the statute is "unlawful." Unlawful could mean illegal under a criminal statute or it could refer to any bet that cannot be enforced by a court.
Thinking about it further if the court had strictly interpreted the statute and exemption in your favor, which it should have, then you are right. But then it should not have mattered because the bets should have been interpreted to originate in Antiqua anyway and not NY.
But then one reason that I am not a litigator is that I do not have all that much faith in judges especially trial judges. Your case is a sad tale of US jurisprudence. What was worse is that a friend of yours predicted the outcome.
I hope that the pending iMEGA and Kaplan/Carruthers cases turn out better.

[Legislurker]

Do we have a political profile of the judge in either case?

And did you attempt to have your judge recuse himself because he was associated with a competing business interest? or did you find that out later?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
When you write that "without the WTO the DOJ has won", you need to distinguish between sportsbetting and poker.

Jay's case was Wire Act specific, New York specific and sports specific. There is no coverage of poker under the Wire Act.

As for the more recent UIGE Act, it doesn't matter where a poker "bet" originates, so long as the poker site is not accepting the bet for its own account. Poker is played between players, the poker site does not "accept" any bets. Only a player who calls accepts the win/loss risk of that proffered "bet".

A sportsbook "accepts" a bet. A poker player accepts a bet. A poker site is not in the business of betting or wagering.

[/ QUOTE ]

All good additions TruePokerCEO (how have you been by the way?) - when I said the DOJ won in Jay's case, it was only (I thought obviously) meant to refer to the question of jurisdiction over where the bet is placed, and to disagree with that postition.

And although I am in 100% agreement with your statements about "the business of betting and wagering" I wouldnt state them as fact; that courts can make strange twists of logic to enforce a criminal statute is all to amply demonstrated by Jay's case. But a poker site's case is a far better one then Jay's sportsbetting case, no question, for the reasons you have mentioned and a few others we have discussed in the past.

Skallagrim