Betcha.com arrest/legal issues

[Legislurker]

Wasshington has a felony law, and they are extraditing them to Louisiana? WTF? If this is legal I think I am in the wrong country.

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mess-ha...g-web-site.html

[JPFisher55]

They alleged violated a Louisiana statute. Louisiana has indicted them for it. That is why the extradition to Louisiana.
The State of Washington doesn't like these guys because they operated a website that the State wishes, but doesn't, violate their internet gambling ban. The State of Washington seized the assets of this website and is being sued by these guys for unlawful seizure. But the State of Washington could not indict them for anything.
So they found an anti-internet gambling law in Louisiana that they could be indicted for violating it and arranged it with the State of Louisiana. The violation is because some residents of Louisiana accessed the site to place a bet between themselves.
Which is why all these state anti-internet gambling laws should be a violation of the commerce clause. An attorney in Washington has sued the State to have its anti-internet gambling statute declared to violate the commerce clause of the constitution. Let's hope he succeeds.
I am sure that the guys in Washington will use this defense in their case in Louisiana, but they will be put through the ringer in the meantime. Some of our government officials would do just fine in Nazi Germany 1933-1945.

[tangled]

Dang, the way the government is going over backwards on this, you would think somebody had done something really despicable, like...say...lied to Congress under oath or something.

[Legislurker]

Extraditing someone for a felony over $.70 though.............thats like two hemp seeds in the floorboard of your rental car qualifies you for 6 months in Guantanamo.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
An attorney in Washington has sued the State to have its anti-internet gambling statute declared to violate the commerce clause of the constitution. Let's hope he succeeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a huge ruling since the UIGEA basically bootstraps off the laws of the several states. SCOTUS has previously overturned bans on interstate wine sales in Granhom v. Heald on commerce clause issues, as discussed in this article from the tech law journal, which states:

While the facts of these cases involve wine sales, this opinion will make it easier for businesses that engage in electronic commerce to challenge the constitutionality of state protectionist statutes that discriminate against internet based commerce. Also, this case is notable because, the states have a stronger case for restricting commerce in wine than in other products and services, because the 21st Amendment grants states special powers to regulate alcohol sales.

However note that this ruling was re states that allowed in-state shipments of wine from that state's wine distributors. The question perhaps some of the attorney posters here could answer, is whether that ruling only came about because the states in question did in fact allow shipping wine. If instead, a state did not allow in-state shipments either, and required purchase on-site, then could out of state shipments still be barred? If so, then it would seem that electronic commerce is not at issue, which doesn't help us.

[JPFisher55]

The actions of the State of Louisiana and Washington are amazing. I don't know if the attorney in Washington will prevail and he has standing issues before he gets to the merits. But with the various governments enforcing ant-gambling statutes like they never have in the past, I expect lots of litigation over the whether such statutes really pass constitution muster.

[tangled]

Isn't this case really good for us? It's a freeroll. If the government wins, we are no worse off than before. But if the govt loses, then we are potentially much better off.

This reminds of the quote (I don't remember the exact phrasing or who said it, although it seems like it might have been Lincoln), that the best way to defeat an unjust law is to enforce it zealously.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
The actions of the State of Louisiana and Washington are amazing. I don't know if the attorney in Washington will prevail and he has standing issues before he gets to the merits. But with the various governments enforcing ant-gambling statutes like they never have in the past, I expect lots of litigation over the whether such statutes really pass constitution muster.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they deny him bail on a $.70 crime? Wow, for something that minor he should be able to demand bail immediately, and press for speedy trial. Almost want to be found guilty, as I think he would need to be guilty to sue in Federal Court? I think any sentence he could appeal and be released pending appeal, especially if its harsh for that small a monetary crime. Cruel and unusual might attach. I guess we can thank God some of these people appear to have way overreacted.

I don't think its a total freeroll though. A ruling that these laws are constitutional might scare Stars, FT, epasse, someone away. Thats why we need more lawsuits, one winning is enough to overcome 5 failing. But just losses incrementally hurt.

[JPFisher55]

We really haven't won or loss any lawsuit. Neteller didn't try their case and the other ones are still pending. It will take some time into next year for sure.

[MiltonFriedman]

Habla Espaniol ?