Online Gambling Industry Could See Relief with Suit Against Gonzalez

[Coy_Roy]

http://www.gambling911.com/Online-Ga...ez-060507.html

[oldbookguy]

Exactly a point I have made before, though they may be jumping the gun until the actual rules are posted and put into action.

obg

[vabogee]

can someone put this lawsuit action into layman's terms? what could this potentially mean for us?

[JPFisher55]

It could mean that a federal court declares the UIGEA to violate the US Constitution or that the WTO decision has precedence over the UIGEA. Thus, the DOJ could not enforce it. If the law is not enforceable, then you could use credit cards, ewallets etc. to fund online gaming sites or to withdraw funds from online gaming sites. The other federal anti-gambling laws could be held to not apply to offshore online gaming sites.
We will not know the extent of the lawsuit until we read the actual petition.
I don't know if this organization has standing to bring this litigatiion. If they do, then why didn't the PPA bring a similar lawsuit.
Skallagrim can probably explain this better than I can.

[JPFisher55]

I just googled the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association. Their website is under construction. Some parties that oppose the UIGEA must have established this organization to be a front to go after the UIGEA. Probably the banks are behind it, but it could be some online gaming sites or even big poker pros. Good news overall.

[Grasshopp3r]

I would like to see Sen. Kyl's response to this.

For those who need avatar suggestions, here is the Eric Bernstein: http://www.embalaw.com/attorneys_bernstein.htm

He is presenting at a conference on this topic at GIGSE.

http://www.gigse.com/2007/index.cfm/page/speakers

[Skallagrim]

I will keep an eye on this one friends, but at this point it is hard to say what is actually being contested.

I personally like the idea that the guy in the story is talking about "the privacy of your own home" but that principle has a very limited usefulness in the courts (or you could smoke pot in your own home).

But it is a basic rule that a properly ratified treaty trumps any passed law (except the constitution itself), so the WTO thing has life, its just hard to say exactly where that ends up (i.e., if we agree to pay the penalties per the treaty are we breaking the treaty? - does that mean all gambling or just horse racing; things like that. It is settled that we are breaking the treaty though).

There are some other possible challanges (commerce clause, principle jurisdiction, etc...) that could be intersting.

The article said nothing specific about a "poker is skill" based challenge.

What I will say at this point is that there is very little "settled" law in this area. So anything could happen and this should be interesting.

Skallagrim

Wish I was on the inside of this one, but I am not.

[TheJokerIsWild]

While I certainly like their agenda, it sounds like a pretty stupid lawsuit. Unless the article is leaving out other legal grounds, their argument is simply..."this law interferes with our freedom and we don't like it." How many laws are there that don't do that? In order to overturn an enacted statute, you must prove that it is unconstitutional -- either on its face, or as applied. Well, it hasn't been applied yet, so that leaves the "on its face" analysis. This statute is not unconstitutional on its face. Congress has the power to regulate/control/direct interstate commerce. There are several seminal interstate commerce cases proving that the courts allow Congress apply an extremely broad brush in "regulating" interstate commerce. For instance, discrimination is illegal under federal law simply because virtually every employer, lodging establishment, etc utilize instrumentalities of interstate commerce (ie. US mail, telephones, various products and services from other states). The same argument is used to allow a federal prohibition on the use, distribution, or sale of narcotics. Both of these prohibitions infringe on personal freedoms. For example, a KKK member would complain that a prohibition on discrimination prevents him from running his business in conformity with his personal beliefs. A recreational drug user's freedom of choice to place a particular substance in his body is infringed by US drug laws. A pedophile is not allowed to pursue his sexual preferences by way of pornographic material because of Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. Morality is legislated all the time. So how the hell is this argument going to work??? Are these people on drugs? Unless there is something else in the Complaint that isn't mentioned in this article, I predict this lawsuit will be dismissed almost immediately by way of demurrer, a motion to dismiss, or by summary judgment within the next 8-10 months, or sooner.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Unless there is something else in the Complaint that isn't mentioned in this article,"

Take a look at the ACLU v. Gonzales case, DOJ was enjoined from enforcing the federal statute against children access to porn. The reason was that a website and content legally offered over the Internet for viewers in some states might be illegal in others. The burden on the interstate businesses offering the services was overly heavy because of uncertainty and the availability of such things as age verification, which Congress ignored.

This seems the best argument here, at least for poker, but not for sportsbetting.

It is not that Congress cannot regulate interstate commerce, it is the half-assed way it has chosen to do so ... by subjecting businesses and consumers whose activity is legal in some states to a defacto ban on their financial transactions.

Clearly, geographic screen would have been less intrusive.

(I think a Motion to Dismiss will be filed a lot sooner than 8 months. If there are some "legal" activities impacted, the suit has some chance. I'd say about 20%, depending upon where it is/was filed.)

[Sniper]

Website coming soon... http://imega.org/

This is a newly formed organization, and it will be interesting to see who is really behind this action. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]