Thanks joe...

As an aside what is the worst that could come of this trial...

is there a possibility of this trial leading to online poker playing being declared illegal in the US?

Skall had mentioned this as a possibility in either this trial or the SDNY seizure case and I was wondering if that was possible here.

Pyro,

The worst that comes from this is that the 3rd Circuit panel upholds UIGEA.

There is no support anywhere (except for Washington state and perhaps the US attorneys' office in SDNY) for declaring online poker illegal - that's how you wound up with a defective law like UIGEA in the first place. After numerous attempts by the law's authors to pass clear anti-online gambling laws (six years, six failures), they realized this was the only way it was going to work (targeting the financial concerns, not players).

I've had this one posed to me a number of times: "aren't you afraid that your suit will only make things worse, that it will lead to bad law being created?"

No. Period.

Despite what you hear in the press and from politicians about "legislating from the bench", almost all of the time what they are referring to is when a court overturns - based on rational, constitutional scrutiny - a law that was crafted for expedient, purely political purposes. Like UIGEA. And nothing ticks off a politician as much as some judge messing with their handiwork.

But as someone pointed out in a previous post, decisions at the appellate level are normally very narrowly crafted - judges are aware of their power, but they also don't like to get too expansive, because it may give grounds for a subsequent appeal and overturning of their own decision. Look at the Ricci decision (the New Haven firefighters case before the US Supreme Court). The Supremes overruled the appellate court's decision on purely statutory grounds rather than constitutional, and it is arguable that there may be no case - given the court's composition and balance - that would have been more likely to yield an expansive, constitutional decision than Ricci. In the end, it didn't.

I wish they would be more expansive, in our favor, and tell the Federal government to stay out of homes and away from our Web usage, but that's not likely to happen, either.

Joe@iMEGA

If I said something like this pyro, I must have been drunk and sloppy.

The iMEGA challenge to the UIGEA is just that, and as Joe has explained, will result only (at best) in the end of the UIGEA. Since the UIGEA does not by itself make any game legal or illegal, the legality of online poker can not be a result of that case. Still, getting rid of the UIGEA would be a very good thing. Good luck Joe and iMEGA!

The SDNY seizure, however, is 100% premised on online poker being illegal (at least for the sites and money-handlers). If the SDNY seizure case goes all the way to a final adjudication, it will by necessity have to rule on whether online poker is legal or not in the US.

Skallagrim

srry skall i meant to say that you said the SDNY case would rule on the legality of poker

my mistake.

good luck with this guys

I do not think that 30 minutes of oral argument tips either way.

The forest of trees was sacrificed for complete briefing. Eac of these judges seems to have a good reputation for being prepared.

Saltzburg is well versed in oral argument in federal courts, as are the DOJ attorneys. DOJ attorneys will be defending the half-assed work that Congess did in this Act, but they are used to having to do that.

Not sure there wouud be a remand to District Court in NJ if iMEGA wins, the case could resolve on the record.

The remand wasn't a prediction, but more a continuing joke about the sacrifice of forest of trees. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if the appellate court just rules on standing and remands if it grants iMEGA standing to argue vagueness and privacy. However, I agree that it could resolve the case on the record.

is this being broadcast anywhere, either on TV or on the internet?

Short legal career, HA! You just remember this from watching Perry Mason at your grandparents house when you were a little kid.

When is a result expected??

.

Joe,

Any post game report???

How did it go?

.

.

.

.

??

hope it goes/went well guys glglglgl

.

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...ry-070709.html

doesn't look good at all.

appears to me the imega legal council should have immediately called an audible in the proceedings today once the panel began to steer the void for vaugness argument in the uninteded direction. why not focus on having the law instead clarified, rather than voided, via asking the court to interpret the vaugness.

"You know you're in Delaware," Ambro said. "So it doesn't make any difference that you agreed to be bound by Costa Rica law."

IMO, only a judge in the United States would make that statement. The US courts are the only courts to apply its nation's laws to acts that occur in another country. In this article http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-757.html Prof. Nelson Rose stated that he warned Jay Cohen that US courts would do so. Sometimes I wonder if I live in China, Russia of the United States of America.

Based on the reporting, little chance of iMEGA prevailing. It seems that the judges will rule that the UIGEA is not unconstitutionally vague because banks and online gamblers can litigate how each state law defines unlawful Internet gambling. So if expensive litigation can clarify the meaning and scope of a law, then it is not vague? I thought a reasonable person had to be able to determine whether his conduct violates a criminal law based on its language; not another court case. Guess I'm wrong, but I'm not an expert on constitutional law.

looks terrible.

gg online poker imo

yeah cause that's going to be the end result of this particular hearing, I've heard "gg online poker" quite a few times before