First legal challenge to UIGEA

[JPFisher55]

This link is article on motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Carruthers based on the WTO case.
http://www.gambling911.com/BetonSports-010807.html

[Wynton]

There is zero chance of a federal district court dismissing a criminal case on the ground that it violates the WTO agreement.

[JPFisher55]

I would not say zero but close to it. But it will be grounds for appeal. However, since the case is mostly based on bets taken over telephone lines, the judge could dismiss just the portion of the case based on accepting bets taken over the Internet or not allow evidence of bets taken over the Internet without disrupting most of the case. This would greatly help us Internet poker players but not let BetOnSports or Mr. Carruthers off the hook.

[Wynton]

I'll stick with zero, whether at the trial level or on appeal. Even if a criminal prosecution somehow violates a provision of the WTO agreement, it does not follow that the defendant is an agrieved party or entitled to the remedy of dismissal.

[permafrost]

How is this a "legal challenge to UIGEA"?

[MiltonFriedman]

Since valuations less than zero are not allowed ....

By the way, did BOS get anything for caving in before ? This is reportedly a motion related to a criminal indictment of the Company. I would have expected that to be negotiated away before coughing up the information and civil matters.

Something does not sound accurate. There must be a lot more to the motion than gambling911 is reporting.

[JPFisher55]

Wynton, I agree with you on the district court level, but not the appellate level. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is a liberal court. If the Wire Act and UIGEA are not enforceable (at least when applied to Internet gambling) because they violate international treaty under the supremacy clause of the US constitution then any counts relying on Internet bets must be dismissed. This is why it is a legal challenge to the UIGEA based on the WTO case.
BOS has caved in, but Mr. Carruthers attorneys filed the motion to dismiss.
I cannot see how such a motion would affect bets taken over telephone lines, especially US local lines. So maybe the judge would only dismiss all counts related to taking bets over the Internet since that would not let the defendants off the hook on most of the prosecution's case. It's a long shot at the district court, but fairly good chance at appellate level.

[MiltonFriedman]

Do you have ANY precedent to support dismissal of a criminal indictment because the US statute under which the defendant was charged violated a US treaty, leaving aside perhaps diplomatic immunity cases ?

Even assuming that a Wire Act application to internet gaming would violate GATT obligations of the US, how would that be equivalent to it being "unenforceable" in a US Court ?

(I do not know the answer and would like to see something substantive to support this claim, certainly something better than a gambling911 article. Any lawyers out there with access to online filings for the US District Court in Missouri ?)

[yeahright]

yeah, uh, I'm not excited about this at all.

The US has shown a history of telling the WTO to go screw themselves, and this case will be no different.

[JPFisher55]

The recent US Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Geneva Convention covered GITMO detainees and gave them rights that current federal law and regulations did not give them is a recent example. In this case the international treaty overruled the regulations that the Bush administration established for some of the legal rights for Gitmo detainees. The reason is that federal laws and regulations must conform to international treaties that the US Senate ratifies and GATT, like the Genava Convention, is such a treaty.
So the Wire Act and UIGEA should not apply to Internet gambling because of the WTO case. That is the legal argument. I do not know if the district court will follow it. Mr. Carruther and his attorneys hope it does. I am sure that much more legal precedent can be found in their filings. I am not sure how to access these filings by Internet or if that is possible. I do not practice federal law.
I think that this argument is more likely to succeed at the appellate level or supreme court.