UIGEA Lawsuit Update

oldbookguy · #1 06-07-2007, 10:39 AM

Seems the case centers on seven areas:

Case details as follow:
1- Interference with the right to association
2- Interference with the right to privacy
3- Interference with the right to free speech
4- Ultra vires acts by the Executive Branch regarding the WTO
5- Violation of WTO Order
6- Ex Post Facto Law Enforcement
7- Violation of the Tenth amendment to the constitution

read full story:
http://majorwager.com/frontline-514.html

Comments??????

obg

Wynton · #2 06-07-2007, 10:49 AM

My gut reaction is disappointment, as some of those grounds seem frivolous. But I wish we were able to locate a copy of the actual complaint for review. I don't trust reporters to describe things accurately.

Truthiness24 · #3 06-07-2007, 11:06 AM

You always throw out everything you can think of & see what sticks. You only need to win on one count to win the case.

I too would like to see the complaint.

permafrost · #4 06-07-2007, 11:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I wish we were able to locate a copy of the actual complaint for review.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

ProsperousOne · #5 06-07-2007, 12:03 PM

Would someone post the text for those of us behind a firewall? TIA! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Wynton · #6 06-07-2007, 12:09 PM

Thank you, Mr. Permafrost. I will try to peruse it and say something half-way intelligible about it later.

MiltonFriedman · #7 06-07-2007, 12:29 PM

I looked thru the 39 page Complaint and noted the following points of interest:

1. iMEGA did not join any individual plaintiffs. Maintaining this suit may be difficult unless some "legal" plaintiffs join in. The issue of standing will certainly arise.

2. The Complaint describes iMEGA members as being in the Online Casino business, nothing about poker or about sports.

3. The Complaint alleges harm to memebers of the general public in the US.

4. In addition to seeking a TRO against promulating regulations or enforcing the UIGE Act, the Complaint also seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Wire Act, which is a dead-bang loser given 40+ years of Wire Act enforcement.

5. The case was filed in Federal Court in New Jersey in Newark. This is a curious choice, does anyone know if this is in the same Federal Circuit as the ACLU v. Gonzales case (I am too lazy to look it up.)

6. The Utah "uncoded credit card" prosecution is expressly mentioned.

vgs · #8 06-07-2007, 07:36 PM

wait and see what happen