Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Article: Massachusetts Casino Bill Struck Down

Reply to Thread
  1. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,248
    Joined: May 06

    Mar 27th, 2008 (3/27/2008 6:07pm)

     
  2. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,827
    Joined: Nov 07

    Mar 30th, 2008 (3/30/2008 3:06pm) in reply to Dan

    <p>Nice article, Dan!  Thanks.</p>
    <p>Randy Castonguay did a great job for us in making this happen.  We showed politicians in Mass and everywhere else that we'll no longer be run over.</p>
     
  3. Grange95 Grange95 is offline

    West Des Moines, IA
    United States

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Oct 07

    Apr 2nd, 2008 (4/2/2008 3:11am) in reply to Dan

    "The month of March has been full of encouraging news for online poker players. When March came in like a lion, the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, or iMEGA, was granted standing to sue the federal government, declaring the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) unconstitutional. Although Judge Mary L. Cooper disagreed with several of iMEGAs arguments, the case will move on to the Third District Court of Appeals."

    Wow, just out of curiosity, did you READ the court's decision in the IMEGA case?!? The court found IMEGA had standing to bring the suit (not a terribly difficult hurdle to jump), but then rejected every single argument made by IMEGA. Nowhere in the decision did the court declare the law unconstitutional or otherwise suggest the law should be struck down. Republishing IMEGA's bizarrely positive spin / misinformation is not helpful to the poker community.

    I'm an attorney and read the decision in its entirety. Poker Grump has a pretty detailed analysis that is spot on: <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-and-confusion-about-imega-case.html#links">Poker Grump: Lies and confusion about the iMEGA case</a>
  4. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,248
    Joined: May 06

    Apr 2nd, 2008 (4/2/2008 2:52pm) in reply to Dan

    <p>Hey, Grange. Yes, I read the decision. The main goal of iMEGA heading into the ruling was to be granted standing and that's exactly what happened. The Third District Court of Appeals has historically ruled favorably towards first amendment issues.</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  5. Grange95 Grange95 is offline

    West Des Moines, IA
    United States

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Oct 07

    Apr 2nd, 2008 (4/2/2008 11:21pm) in reply to Dan

    <p>To have as a goal merely to be granted standing is rather odd, particularly if iMEGA was using their standing to advance such weak arguments on the merits.  The 10th Amendment and ex post facto law arguments are almost laughable, and the other arguments look to have little merit, at least under current case law.  Relying on a 1st Amendment free speech claim when UIGEA pretty clearly only prohibits certain financial transactions is real long shot, no matter the court.  Although I think UIGEA is a flawed and ill-conceived piece of legislation, the legal challenges asserted by iMEGA do nothing to advance the cause of legalizing online poker.  In any event, iMEGA's "victory" in getting standing to challenge UIGEA really has no practical value when iMEGA hasn't asserted any reasonably meritorious legal basis to challenge the validity of UIGEA.  At the very least, iMEGA and the poker press should not misrepresent the decision as somehow striking down or even questioning the validity of UIGEA.</p>
    <p>FWIW, the current efforts by Barney Frank and others in Congress to rethink the scope of UIGEA is the best way to re-legalize online poker.  Perhaps iMEGA's resources are better directed to lobbying Congress for an online poker exception to UIGEA.</p>
    <p>P.S.  The appeal will be heard by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Third District (just a minor correction for any follow up articles).</p>
Reply to Thread