Ray Bitar turns himself in to Feds?

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by lawdude

It's basically an act of futile legal onanism because of the particular lawyers they chose to hire. Nobody who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid accepts their position.

The PPA did not choose the lawyers in the Staten Island case. Nor did we choose the lawyers for any of the BF defendants, nor any of the lawyers for other defendants and plaintiffs who have raised the "skill v. chance" issue with respect to poker. All those lawyers came to the PPA seeking assistance with the argument and were given that assistance. None were given Kool-Aid.

Regardless, it seems quite clear that personal animosity has a far greater effect on the ability to think rationally than does Kool-Aid.

Skallagrim

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

Haha, the PPA brief isn't terrible. It is very good. Point out the flaws in the PPA argument with respect to the NY statute all you like; you never even get to the issue of whether poker is illegal under NY law unless you say that running a poker room is conducting an illegal gambling business under the IGBA.

And the PPA absolutely nailed the IGBA argument.

Are you guys so butt hurt that the PPA retained Skall rather than you that you can't give the PPA credit where it is due? Cuz I really dint understand how anybody who actually graduated law school can look at the amicus brief and not think it is a pretty damn good piece of work.

I have my own issues with the PPA and Skall; I'm royally pissed at them. But be a ****ing man and acknowledge a good piece of work.

I am quite happy actually about 'Poker is Different" as the broad PPA rationale for supporting the business model that has dealt poker to US players for over 10 years.

The "business coverage" argument, arguing that a poker operation is not in the business of gambling because it is not a banked game, has been floating around for almost 7 years.

(It happens to be entirely unrelated to the "skill game" argument heretofore the one-trick pony of PPA ltitigation. It is nice to see the switch from Poker is a Skill Game to "Poker is different" as a means of including the different nature of the poker business; it is relevant in defending poker businesses.)

I have no issue with the PPA finally stepping up, in the NY BF cases, to argue on behalf of the poker business model. in fact, I welcome it as long overdue.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

Haha, the PPA brief isn't terrible. It is very good. Point out the flaws in the PPA argument with respect to the NY statute all you like; you never even get to the issue of whether poker is illegal under NY law unless you say that running a poker room is conducting an illegal gambling business under the IGBA.

And the PPA absolutely nailed the IGBA argument.

Are you guys so butt hurt that the PPA retained Skall rather than you that you can't give the PPA credit where it is due? Cuz I really dint understand how anybody who actually graduated law school can look at the amicus brief and not think it is a pretty damn good piece of work.

I have my own issues with the PPA and Skall; I'm royally pissed at them. But be a ****ing man and acknowledge a good piece of work.

I don't want the job of representing the PPA. But the first thing any judge is going to ask about NY law is "what about Katz's Delicatessen?". If you don't address the most important case that counters your position, your brief is toilet paper.

[mpethybridge]

Lol, I said something similar when I got a rejection letter from harvard. "**** them, I didn't really want to spend 3 years in Boston, anyway..."

And if the first question a judge asks relates to a secondary issue that only needs to be addressed if the PPA loses on the primary issue, then you can safely assume the judge is an idiot.

The PPA could have conceded the new York statute and the IGBA argument would still have been an excellent effort.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge this exposes a hidden agenda, IMO.

[mpethybridge]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Numbers runners avoid crossing State lines?

The point is that Skall said the PPA was submitting an amicus brief in that case as well, and after reviewing the briefs and listening to hours of testimony, the judge responded with a joke: "they (congressman) were probably too embarrassed to include poker on the list because they play it".

After that showing, it should have occurred to someone to go back to the drawing board on their argument - though PokerStars nailed it so well I don't know what else the PPA could add.



How preposterous would it have seemed to add poker to the list directly following that paragraph back in 1970?

I don't know where your unsourced quote came from, but just read Stars' brief at page 13. It lays out the legislative history, complete with quotes from the DOJ officials who were pushing it.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

I don't know where your unsourced quote came from, but just read Stars' brief at page 13. It lays out the legislative history, complete with quotes from the DOJ officials who were pushing it.

That's the preceding paragraph to the actual statute in my gaming law manual, you can get read the rest here: http://www.gaminglawclass.com/fgl.pdf

In 2006 Congress couldn't agree to pass a law making internet gambling intrastate illegal, in 1992 they couldn't agree to pass a law that would make intrastate sports gambling that had already been established by the States illegal - and many scholars argue that even the law preventing other States establishing sports betting is unconstitutional - yet you argue that leaving a game, which could not possibly have been dealt interstate in 1970 without putting the card table on the border, off of the non-inclusive list of games targeted by the IGBA is somehow a tacit federal authorization of that game?

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

That's the preceding paragraph to the actual statute in my gaming law manual, you can get read the rest here: http://www.gaminglawclass.com/fgl.pdf

In 2006 Congress couldn't agree to pass a law making internet gambling intrastate illegal, in 1992 they couldn't agree to pass a law that would make intrastate sports gambling that had already been established by the States illegal - and many scholars argue that even the law preventing other States establishing sports betting is unconstitutional - yet you argue that leaving a game, which could not possibly have been dealt interstate in 1970 without putting the card table on the border, off of the non-inclusive list of games targeted by the IGBA is somehow a tacit federal authorization of that game?

Why does it mention roulette, dice tables, and slot machines?

[tamiller866]

That's where the debate started:

Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
Blackjack is certainly a game promoted by the 'underground', and they didn't list that either, because for the most part the list consists of gambling that lends itself to be conducted over state lines (bookmaking, lottery, bolita, policy, numbers and pools), but what confuses people is the inclusion of sot machines, dice tables and roulette wheels.

But the statute doesn't actually cover operating a roulette wheel, slot machine or dice table, which obviously couldn't occur interstate, it covers maintaining the equipment, which of course could be used in one State then moved to another.

So it wouldn't have occurred in 1970 to add poker or blackjack to that list, since there was no way to play interstate, and no specific equipment to be maintained other than a deck of cards to move the game from one state to the next.

[LastLife]

That's pretty thin. Owning a dice table or roulette wheel does not on its own mean anything.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by LastLife

That's pretty thin. Owning a dice table or roulette wheel does not on its own mean anything.

It could mean an IGBA violation if you maintain it in a public setting:

“gambling” includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein.

[LastLife]

So I understand, it is only illegal if and only if it is moved from one state to another, and then it is used for illegal purposes. Any deviation of this and the IGBA doesn't apply.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by LastLife

So I understand, it is only illegal if and only if it is moved from one state to another, and then it is used for illegal purposes. Any deviation of this and the IGBA doesn't apply.

No, the IGBA made any type of gambling that is a violation of State law AND:

either:

A) CAN be conducted over State lines (poker didn't fit this list in 1970)

or

B) The equipment maintained to conduct the game (they wouldn't want a deck of cards included even today) CAN be moved across State lines.

In other words, the game would need to at least be a 'threat' to be used in interstate commerce to make the official list the DOJ wanted congress to sign off on, obviously they would have loved to just get a blank check, but Congress doesn't like writing checks that the courts might bounce.

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

No, the IGBA made any type of gambling that is a violation of State law AND:

either:

A) CAN be conducted over State lines (poker didn't fit this list in 1970)

or

B) The equipment maintained to conduct the game (they wouldn't want a deck of cards included even today) CAN be moved across State lines.

In other words, the game would need to at least be a 'threat' to be used in interstate commerce to make the official list the DOJ wanted congress to sign off on, obviously they would have loved to just get a blank check, but Congress doesn't like writing checks that the courts might bounce.

So a roulette wheel or dice table is not illegal under IGBA unless it is used for an illegal purpose. The fact that it can be moved from state to state is really irrelevant, because it would still have to be illegal in state xyz for it to apply, or is it simply illegal to move a roulette wheel and dice table across state lines?

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by LastLife

So a roulette wheel or dice table is not illegal under IGBA unless it is used for an illegal purpose. The fact that it can be moved from state to state is really irrelevant, because it would still have to be illegal in state xyz for it to apply.

No, there is an exception for antique display, but the purpose of the law going back to the mob element was that local law enforcement could be compromised, so there was a need for federal legislation.

But a need (like healthcare, e.g.) isn't justification for violating States rights, because as we saw with the ACA, the courts put limits on the federal government's authority under the commerce clause (it would be hard to construe a ban on gambling as a tax).

So everything they wrote into the law needed to fit the justification that it could be conducted/sold/booked/moved in interstate commerce, that doesn't limit the law from being used against even B&M poker, it just explains the reasoning behind it's omission from the statute.

As we saw in the Staten Island case, where local law enforcement officers were participating in the game, State authorities can voluntarily request Federal involvement for games that don't fit into the proscribed list, Congress was simply careful not to grant Federal agencies an unconstitutional authority to intervene on an entirely intrastate activity without an invitation.

Edit: Just re-read your post, yes it would have to be in violation of State law, but most states have parallel gambling equipment laws, so actual illegal use wouldn't be required in most States.

The actual transportation of gambling devices had already been a federal crime when this law was voted on, again, the fact that the equipment COULD be transported was merely a justification to put them on the list, they had no such justification for poker.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

Lol, I said something similar when I got a rejection letter from harvard. "**** them, I didn't really want to spend 3 years in Boston, anyway..."

And if the first question a judge asks relates to a secondary issue that only needs to be addressed if the PPA loses on the primary issue, then you can safely assume the judge is an idiot.

The PPA could have conceded the new York statute and the IGBA argument would still have been an excellent effort.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge this exposes a hidden agenda, IMO.

You have a different definition of "idiot judge" than I do.

My agenda is to get regulated, expressly legal ipoker in the US, where law abiding adult non-cheating players who pay their taxes play against each other. And I think when our advocates make stupid arguments like "poker is legal in New York" (which would come to a surprise to a lot of people there who have had their games shut down for a century) and "US gaming laws have no application to offshore firms that did billions of dollars of US business", it costs our community valuable credibility and makes it look like we are a bunch of lawless anarchists.