Can the issue of online poker legality be resolved?

JPFisher55 · #1 02-13-2007, 08:53 PM

Posters have written a lot of posts about the issue of legality of online poker. No one opinion is shared by all.
So I have a question. Can anyone think of a method to resolve this issue?
Few posters believe that the PPA can cause favorable legislation to resolve the issue. The reporting of the hiring of former Sen. Al D'Almato by PPA and/or some poker sites as a lobbyist does not seem to have much impact here. I think that the clear majority do not seem to think that a legislative solution is likely anytime soon.
So can anyone think of any type of litigation that a group of online poker players, online poker sites or affiliates could file to seek some court decision on this issue? I cannot but I am not a litigation attorney. I practice real estate and corporate law.

damaniac · #2 02-13-2007, 08:58 PM

Courts can't give advisory opinions in this country. It would need to come up as an essential element to a case of some kind, civil or criminal. So unless and until there is some prosecution or other action, the resolution of which depends on a determination of whether or not people playing poker is against federal law (so not arising in a state where it is illegal), we will only be able to speculate.

SplawnDarts · #3 02-13-2007, 09:26 PM

It's already been resolved from the prosecutorial peerspective. If you decide not to believe the DOJ, then you can be a test case and see what the judge says about the relevant points of law.

Just be aware that federal DAs almost never lose a case that goes to trial. P(you get ass raped by Buba|you try to fight it in court) >= .8

JPFisher55 · #4 02-13-2007, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Courts can't give advisory opinions in this country. It would need to come up as an essential element to a case of some kind, civil or criminal. So unless and until there is some prosecution or other action, the resolution of which depends on a determination of whether or not people playing poker is against federal law (so not arising in a state where it is illegal), we will only be able to speculate.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is what I thought too. Frustrating isn't it. OTOH, if enough time goes by without the DOJ prosecuting anyone for owning, advertising or playing online poker maybe the online gambling industry and ewallets will reopen to the US online poker market.
There is the WTO case, but I don't think that the Bush Administration will take any action to comply with it.

SplawnDarts · #5 02-13-2007, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That is what I thought too. Frustrating isn't it. OTOH, if enough time goes by without the DOJ prosecuting anyone for owning, advertising or playing online poker maybe the online gambling industry and ewallets will reopen to the US online poker market.
There is the WTO case, but I don't think that the Bush Administration will take any action to comply with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO case is irrelivant. Courts have repeatedly ruled that such actions are meaningless within the US.

JPFisher55 · #6 02-13-2007, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO case is irrelivant. Courts have repeatedly ruled that such actions are meaningless within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite any case to back this opinion? My knowledge is that the USSUPCT has ruled that the federal statute or treaty most recently enacted or ratified has priority in the event of a conflict. But I do not know of any case where a federal criminal statute conflicted with an international treaty and the DOJ prosecuted persons under such a statute. The Carruthers case and Neteller case may be cases of first impression on this issue.

damaniac · #7 02-13-2007, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO case is irrelivant. Courts have repeatedly ruled that such actions are meaningless within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite any case to back this opinion? My knowledge is that the USSUPCT has ruled that the federal statute or treaty most recently enacted or ratified has priority in the event of a conflict. But I do not know of any case where a federal criminal statute conflicted with an international treaty and the DOJ prosecuted persons under such a statute. The Carruthers case and Neteller case may be cases of first impression on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO tends to be effective mostly because of the sanctions the victorious state gets to impose. They are generally well-designed in providing an equal penalty/benefit. But their legal effect shouldn't pre-empt federal law. I wish I had paid attention in Transnat or International Trade Law...stupid pass/fail option.

What the WTO would have to do is rule against the US, and the resulting pressure would have to help convince lawmakers to repeal or modify the law. It might actually help push the Dems, who are probably ambivalent to poker as a whole, into some sort of action. Who knows? That's my only real hope from the WTO.

JPFisher55 · #8 02-13-2007, 10:38 PM

Actually, the WTO has ruled against the US. Mr. Carruther's attorney, Mr. Scott Rosenbloom, has filed motion to dismiss the case against him based on the WTO supremacy over the Wire Act. Mr. Rosenbloom IMO is the best criminal defense attorney in St. Louis where I live. But I do not expect this motion to prevail at the trial court level, but could be an issue for appeal to appellate court or USSupCt. The time period for that process is so long that I agree that the WTO pressure is more likely to help. Also, it does not address the issue of the legality of online poker under the Wire Act and related statutes.

MoolahMuerte · #9 02-14-2007, 01:28 AM

I am sorry but most of you seem to be missing the point as to why this is becoming a problem. When you speak of "poker legality" - this is a STATE law issue. Until and unless the gov says the internet is somehow the exclusive domain of the federal gov - the playing of cards at various stakes in various betting structures is going to be the domain of the states - and alot of the officials in charge don't seem to be in the mood to allow unlimited/unregulated cardplaying over the internet. Granted, the bigger issue is the sportsbetting and general casino gambling, but poker is now lumped in. And as long as it is illegal in a number of jurisdicitions, then the UIGEA is going to let them go after funding - and funding is the key here - IMO.

I really find it interesting how people like to theorize how this got started - it was "Harrah's" - they want a bigger piece of the pie and everyting. From what i have seen, people are saying - "Hey wait a second - we have laws on gambling - why aren't they being enforced" and the sherriffs and atty generals of the states in this country went to Congress and said WTF - why are you letting Antigua push us around. And Congress - seizing on the oppportunity - said screw that - what's the best way to shut them down? Funding someone said - and now that is their focus - it doesn't really matter what we do - they have decided to cut off the funding and now they are focused on it - and in my personal experience - the DOJ doesn't give up easily.

IMHO - our best hope is that this all goes the way of downloading music over the internet - at first there was a big fight - but then everyone stepped back and said - hey if we just say they have to be in the us and regulated, and somebody taxable collects all the money - then i guess we are ok.

The only problem is people generally like taxable gambling in small amounts - not nationwide - so it remains to be seen whether this could possibly happen. In the short term, i think the tide is going the other way.