iMEGA on standing & ripeness

BluffTHIS! · #1 09-11-2007, 12:11 AM

On their website , iMEGA has said that they have responded to a DoJ motion to dismiss their suit based on standing and ripeness, the same issues many attorneys in this forum have raised. Here is a quote:

In the response brief, iMEGA's attorneys provided ample precedent for both our standing as a trade association acting on the behalf of our members, and for the potential jeopardy of prosecution the new law puts some of our members in. They contend that it is not necessary to wait for one of our members to be prosecuted before the law may be scrutinized by the courts.

The brief also highlights the heretofore unexamined jeopardy that affiliate marketers who live and operate in the US may be in due to UIGEA.

Also, here is their link to a PDF of their brief.

So what comments do you legal dudes have to this? Also if the court rules in iMEGA's favor on this challenge motion, will they still hold the DoJ to the next deadline for filing a substantive response or will the DoJ likely get another continuance in that case?

Legislurker · #2 09-11-2007, 12:42 AM

Ill leave the legal analysis to our lawyers, but a related word about the so-called reporting at g911. They put two articles up todayish. One is about the response to the ripeness, but both are spinning way positive. Costigan is an unmitigated ass, but he sometimes has a source or two. He seems to be major hinting that word is out of some sort of small victory. I guess I should just stop even going there, but its habit for almost a year now.

Coy_Roy · #3 09-11-2007, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He seems to be major hinting that word is out of some sort of small victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do this often enough that I wonder if it's about stock manipulation.......

Legislurker · #4 09-11-2007, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He seems to be major hinting that word is out of some sort of small victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do this often enough that I wonder if it's about stock manipulation.......

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever the hell it is, I spread around banner click thrus and signups. Costigan will never get a 1 from me. I appreciate the idea and regular updating, but some sort of editing and credulity need to accompany it.

BluffTHIS! · #5 09-11-2007, 02:40 AM

Guys,

Plz don't derail this topic onto discussing G911. Thnx.

P.S. It's not even necessary to respond and say "OK". Thnx again.

MiltonFriedman · #6 09-11-2007, 09:47 AM

Bluff,

The Reply brief is about 70 pages, but the problem is that it looks like it is coated in vaseline, VERY tough to read. If anyone has a link to a more readable copy, that would be terrific.(I'll weight through this one, but it will be a real pain.)

BluffTHIS! · #7 09-11-2007, 09:57 AM

Milton,

I get the same blurry version as you. Yet the headnotes are fine. It seems as if they intentionally did this to prevent copy & pasting of the text for some reason. However you can read it if you try.

MiltonFriedman · #8 09-11-2007, 10:08 AM

Try this link: http://www.gambling911.com/iMEGA--Re...l--9-10-07.pdf

The copy was much better.

Briefly, my gut feeling is that the Plaintiff will lose on standing because it does not appear to have identified association members' who are real and therefore have a real case or controversy for a Court to decide .... i.e. Saying you are an association and have standing because your "members" have standing begs the question if nothing is done to show the members' real case or controversy. The much better practice would have been to JOIN some individual plaintiffs, all it takes is ONE and then the Association can tag along for the case.

There is a reason why the ACLU joins individuals as plaintiffs. It works on "standing'.

Individual Plaintiffs can establish an injury in fact and a 'legally protected interest". An Association of unidentified memebers has a tough row to hoe on these points. The words "personal" and 'individual" permeate the iMEGA argument, but they miss the point I am afraid.

I'll finish reading this later, on ripeness et cetera, and will re-read the Standing section to see if I missed something.

MiltonFriedman · #9 09-11-2007, 11:13 AM

In its eagerness to argue injury, iMEGA throws affiliates under the UIGEA bus. At pages 8 -9, iMEGA, in an incredibly stupid vein, argues that affiliate marketers are violating UIGEA because they somehow are conducting betting and wagering ..... Jesus, Mary and Joseph, protect us from our "friends".

Right, what we REALLY need is somoeone to jump up and offer an expansion of what Congress wrote in the UIGEA, to pull in POKER affiliates. The quoted Section 5362 language has NOTHING to do with affiliates, it deals with people who tell a site what amount is to be bet or wagered. Section 5363 itself is limited to businesses who bet or wager. AGAIN, clearly NOT an affiliate.

Nice job, iMEGA.... I now hope you lose quickly and quietly on Standing, before you do a greater disservice to poker players and related businesses in your thrashing about and trmapling on our rights.

BluffTHIS! · #10 09-11-2007, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason why the ACLU joins individuals as plaintiffs. It works on "standing'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Milton,

I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that there is a difference between the ACLU and iMEGA. Which is that the ACLU rarely(?) is litigating for its actual members, whereas iMEGA is a trade association who only advocates on behalf of its membership. Is this distinction I draw valid?

As to their tactic of broadening the scope of coverage of the UIGEA, one obviously does not have to look far to see who is behind that position, i.e. Party Poker. However when talking about Party's affiliates in particular, they would seem to have a point (and indeed in re Party itself, they used the example of the fall of their stock price).