Keep us updated pls as to whats going on...

prep... preliminary stuff... actual litigation... whatever...

GO TEAM (imo)

Right now, two things are going on:

1. Our attorneys are getting their oral arguments ready for game time (10:00 am EST, July 7th @ the US Courthouse in Philadelphia). We have two attorneys speaking: Eric Bernstein, who represented us at the trial level in US District Court; and Stephen Saltzburg, professor of law at George Washington U., and former deputy attorney-general of the United States.

2. Taking care of some housekeeping details, such as notifying the court of who gets what amount of time (Saltzburg, 10 min.; Bernstein, 5 min.).

That's right. If you're adding correctly, you'll see that we have FIFTEEN MINUTES to argue why UIGEA should be overturned. The DoJ gets the same fifteen minutes to defend the law. So, a total of 30 minutes for oral arguments in this challenge.

That's amazing to me. Sure, our attorneys and the DoJ's have sacrificed an entire rain forest's worth of trees with all of the briefings that have been submitted in advance of this court date. There is no lack of written arguments for the judges (and their clerks) to consider before even one word is spoken.

But after more than two years since we first filed to challenge this law, a mere 15 minutes seems mighty short.

We're ready, though. Saltzburg and Bernstein are ready to go, and I think they have a strong hand to play. I'm sure it is the height of over-confidence, but given everything we've documented for the court about the flaws of this law - from the vagueness and lack of a definition of what "unlawful Internet gambling" is, to the over-blocking of fully-exempted and legal Internet gambling transactions (state lotteries, horse racing) - I just can't see how the DoJ's attorneys can counter what, to me at least, seems like a textbook case of "void for vagueness".

It will be at least 30 days - likely more - after oral arguments before we might see a decision from the court. Stay tuned.

Joe@iMEGA

gogogogogogogogogogogogogogogogogo
glgl

Thanks Joe,

I really hope you guys have the best of luck. I know the chance factor in trials can be large so whatever happens in regards to things that are uncontrollable I hope you do your best.

I hope this doesn't seem like fearmongering... but...

Do you think there is any wisdom to perhaps moving money away from the sites before the ruling comes out?

I keep mid five figures online and I would hate to see there be a problem with withdrawal.

I would never presume to tell you how to do your job, and I know you have done this kind of thing before. But I have always wondered if you hire outside specialized help to prepare a compelling presentation?

Is it open to the public?

I hope this goes extremely well. Best wishes on the 7th!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Joe….your efforts and professionalism are appreciated

After the sacrifice of a forest of trees, all the preparation time and 30 minutes of oral argument of which most will be judges questioning the lawyers, it would not surprise me if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court on the narrow grounds that the iMEGA has standing to raise its original privacy legal argument, the void for vagueness argument and the first amendment argument.

Having so ruled, the Court sends the case back to the District Court for trial and ruling on the former two arguments. Thus, after another two years, two more forest of trees, hundreds of hours of preparation time and maybe another hour of oral argument are expended, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals finally decides that yes indeed no one understands the UIGEA so it is void for vagueness.

One of the observations I have made in my short legal career is no matter how strong you think your argument is, your opposition (assuming they are competent) will be well versed in it and will almost always present compelling arguments of their own.

Quoted from the iMEGA site about the upcoming hearing:
“This law will finally have to stand on it’s own two feet in court, free from politics and all other outside influences,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “We feel very confident that when the judges take a look at the law, they will see just how defective it is, and they will overturn it.”


I hadn't heard anything about this court hearing coming up next week until the recent 2+2 PokerCast (interview with Joe Brennen Jr.). Is there actually a realistic potential for the UIGEA to be overturned once oral arguments are heard?

If so, how in the world hasn't this been one of the bigger news stories in the industry lately?

(afterall, the iMEGA is 2 for 2 in court cases, MN and KY)


GOOD LUCK !!!! FINGERS CROSSED ON JULY 7TH!!!

You guys are awesome, thanks for everything.

gogogo good luck joe and IMega keep us informed!

The latest stats I was able to find (2007) showed an average of 2.8 months between arguments and a decision out of the 3rd Circuit.

I think the answer from JBJ above explains that July's oral arguments are to determine standing only, assuming they are successful then the case returns to the Third Curcuit of Appeals. This is my understanding from discussions with Joe as well as his post above. Hope this helps!

TT, I think that your impression is not completely correct. The oral argument is about the appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from the District Court that granted the DOJ's motion to dismiss iMEGA's case. The actual grounds for this dismissal was lack of standing to argue any legal issue except for a first amendment claim which the Court then rejected.

Thus, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals must first decide if the judge properly rejected the first amendment issue, then determine if iMEGA has standing to bring other issues like the substantive due process privacy claim and the void for vagueness claim and finally, if it chooses, the decide the merits of these other claims assuming it grants iMEGA standing to argue them.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals could reverse the District Court on the first amendment issue and rule that the UIGEA violates first amendment rights, but this is not likely.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals could affirm the first amendment ruling and affirm the ruling that the iMEGA lacks standing to bring any other issues and thus affirm the District Court. This is possible, but IMO it will grant iMEGA standing to argue the other issues. (just a guess)

So if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court on the standing issue, then it may send the case back to this court for hearing on the other issues. If so, then more trees dies, more legal time for lawyers to bill and more time before we get a ruling on the UIGEA constitutionality. IMO, the District Court will uphold the UIGEA based on her first opinion, so the case will go back to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which will take another year or two. This is likely because appellate courts like to rule on the narrowest of grounds that it can rather than save everyone time and decide the case. However, sometimes they just decide all the issues.

So you may be right that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will only decide the standing issues, but it may decide on the whole case. The briefs and oral arguments do cover the whole case; not just the standing issues. IMO iMEGA should have included some individual plaintiffs because establishing standing would then have been much easier. Other attorneys posting in the legislation forum wondered why individual plaintiffs were not included in the original petition.

will this be open to the public on the 7th? Im in philly and would like to attend. Possible?

These are public cases Phils08, and the public is allowed to attend.

Expect plenty of security, and expect to be turned away in the event (possible, given the media attention) that the courtroom is filled before you get there.

But generally speaking you have the right to attend this hearing.

Skallagrim

thanks skall, im going to make plans to attend.

You're right that this is a very real possibility. It's our "worst best" result, in that it would demonstrate that UIGEA is clearly flawed, incapable of being upheld by the 3rd Circuit, but would leave us in a position of having to expend even more of our resources to arrive at a conclusion that we believe should be reached by the panel - UIGEA should be overturned.

Joe@iMEGA

That's not necessary. The only threat to your bankroll would be if the operator you use was to go under (like BetonSports). The top operators in the marketplace have survived a Darwinian culling of the herd since UIGEA passed, and are in good shape. Collapses like Netteller and BoS that leave players empty-handed are unlikely.

Joe@iMEGA

As a point of fact, I don't believe Neteller left many players empty handed.

FFR,

I'm asked this just about every day (today, it was a reporter from NPR Marketplace) - "If this law is so bad, and if your challenge is so good, why have I never heard about it, and how come the banks and credit card companies haven't joined you?"

My answer is always, "That's a great question that I don't know the answer to, unfortunately."

Every other party that opposes UIGEA has chosen to lobby Congress. We chose a litigation strategy. Almost three years in to this, Rep. Frank is on his second iteration of his i-gaming bill, and we're appearing next Tuesday before the US 3rd Circuit.

Hopefully, by the time Rep. Frank and his co-sponsors take this up again in September, we have a decision in our favor that will help them craft and pass sensible legislation.

Joe@iMEGA

No suitable individual plaintiffs presented themselves. Given the subject matter and the defendants, that is not necessarily unexpected. Not many people volunteer to be guest-of-honor at a firing squad.

Joe@iMEGA

anyone else from philly planning on attending?