big deal?

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-clarification

*lawdude pre-emptive strike: "DOJ Says Clarification Irrelevant, Asks the Court to Deny Motions"

And lawdude's rumored forthcoming post stating that the ruling is irrelevant because neither man is charged with violating the Wire Act is going to be correct.

I really wish we could just get a win in one of these cases that turns everything around. F the DOJ.

seems like the actual summary (fta) is:

1. defendants ask charges to be thrown out due to interpretation
2. doj says wire act is ambiguous but uigea and igba are not (lol)
3. defendants say yes, they are ambiguous
4. objection!
5. objection!

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT
OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT [google docs]

How about if I just say that if you are a criminal defense lawyer, you take as many shots as you can and try to put as many bumps in the road for the government as possible. That's entirely proper.

This is a real long shot, however, because the government's theory is that STATE LAW supplies the predicates for UIGEA and IGBA violations, not the Wire Act.

I think it helps to read motions first before commenting on them.

While the argument here may or may not be a long shot, it is not premised on the need for a state law crime.

There are preliminary aspects to both UIGEA and IGBA that must be met in addition to the state law violation before the Federal Crime is committed. For UIGEA the scope of the statute is for "games subject to chance." For IGBA the scope of the statute is contained in the definition: " "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."

For both statutes the defendants have argued (among other things) that the scope of the statute as written does not include poker. The DOJ says it does. The defendants in this latest motion are pointing out how the DOJ now admits they got the scope of the Wire Act wrong for decades and how they are committing the same error with respect to the scope of "gambling" that is covered by IGBA and UIGEA.

You may now make light of that argument lawdude, so long as you recognize that that is the argument being made and it has nothing to do with state law.

Skallagrim

I agree with this 1000% and thats been the gist of the argument, among a few other points, since they first filed motions to dismiss months ago. A considerable amount of time was spent on these issues during oral arguments on December 1, including argument by the former Solictor General.

While the judge at that time did say that he felt it was highly unlikely that all charges would be dismissed and to prepare for trial, the fact that he now (just in late January), issued the order for additional briefs re the Wire Act opinion by the OLC, could infer that his decision is not as easy as first expected.
It should be considered as well, that none of the defendants were charged under the Wire Act on BF, although at least one of the probable cause affidavits for forfeiture/seizure of bank accounts, do refer to it.

this actually has a much better summary:

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/02...e-act-opinion/

edit: i guess last responder and this site same person?

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled

Any links to the earlier filings in response to the Court's Order ?

Defendants first filing re DOJ Letter impact ?
DOJ opposition re DOJ Letter impact. ?

If these Defendants win, Dikshit is due a BIG refund from his counsel who "negotiated" a $300 million Indulgence purchase for him.

I was disappointed to NOT see an argument re the UIGEA*, drawing on the tortured syntax needed to construe "in the business of betting or wagering" to exclude outcome risk as a key element of the type of business activity targeted, i.e. the business of "betting or wagering".

These Defendants made an argument based upon the IGBA covering only banked games, a shorthand for "outcome risk" taken by the business.

Diamondflush summaried a DOJ concession that: "The USAO accepts that the OLC relied on logic and legislative history to conclude that the phrase modified both clauses. However, they assert that that analysis has no application to either IGBA or UIGEA, which do not suffer from the same syntax and punctuation ambiguities."

Interestingly, not too long ago, a lot of folks here were arguing vehemently that ANY violation of a State's laws, as those state laws defined gambling, sufficed to establish coverage by and a violation of the UIGEA. I still think that "coverage" is lacking, absent outcome risk for the business accepting deposits. Even if NYS outlaws poker, it does not necessarily follow that an out-of-state poker business, which does not engage in any outcome risk, violates the UIGEA by accepting deposits from NY residents.

(*in the absence of any UIGEA charges however, a UIGEA argument was not really dispositive of anything, even if successful.)

yessir, thats me. Ty for the compliment.

Skalla, my reference to state law was to point out why the argument's not likely to get anywhere. The Wire Act's applicability to poker as opposed to sports betting is neither here nor there with respect to whether IGBA or UIGEA apply to conduct that violates state law. The defendants are trying to make arguments that the government must construe IGBA and UIGEA to exclude whatever they construe the Wire Act to exclude, but that's not really correct; the statutes are worded differently.

In any event, on a broader level, it's important to remember that the DOJ letter on the Wire Act isn't even binding on the DOJ; there's no legal principle that requires the DOJ to construe all statutes consistently.

It's a weak argument, but as I said, the defense lawyers are doing their jobs.

I will make a flat-out prediction here. If there is a dispositive ruling in this case (i.e., no plea bargain), it will hold that any offense that a state defines as unlawful internet gambling and which involves an activity that contains even a minor element of chance is a sufficient predicate for a UIGEA and IGBA violation.

The government's brief was quite persuasive that this is exactly how federal gambling statutes have worked for years and UIGEA simply followed in that tradition.