That you do not understand about how the world works, how legal risk is measured, how law enforcement works or the financial world reacts to statements issued by a government, signed or not, is apparent.

Logic and evidence, and past government enforcement against providers to online gambling, actually strongly weigh against your illusory belief that "but it was not signed" is somehow persuasive in the marketplace. Your "point" does not count at all to the payment processors assessing their risk re online gambling.

A basic rule of law is that having a new last name of "Defendant" is seldom +EV, even if no conviction ensues. The basic rule of law is to" know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run".

Where we are is back pretty much to the day before the original OLC memo was issued .... The OLC memo is not now nor was whatever version you like, a "law".

The UIGEA is a law, the IGBA is a law, neither of those has a poker carveout, so this Wire Act memo discussion is less relevant than you may believe, even if you are correct....

Reality may suck in your view, but it is reality.

Let's assume that there is no signature, and the document was indeed a draft. How would the lack of a signature have any impact on a court challenge? The document is the legal opinion of the DOJ. It's something that guides the DOJ's work, not a law. I suppose you could argue that because it wasn't signed and is just a draft, that the DOJ haven't changed their opinion after all and won't be going after online poker. But if they do go after online poker, whether or not that legal opinion was approved or simply a draft would have nothing to do with any ensuing court case, unless there's something I'm missing.

The bold is key. That is important. The article, not me, intimates that because the document was not signed, this OLC wire act reversal opinion PROBABLY if not absolutely should NOT carry any weight of enforcement by the DOJ if it so decides to do so in the future. All I am adding is that the aforementioned makes a lot of sense b/c any future enforcement/execution upon any written document usually if not always has SIGNATURE(S) of SOMEONE in the organization behind it. This particular detail here should be challenged now in any court battles imho. At least clear the uncertainty knowing IF this opinion has ANY standing for possible future enforcement if the DOJ chooses to do so by demanding WHO in the OLC wrote this reversal opinion. IF that is too much to ask, then the U.S. is in even bigger trouble than I already thought when it comes to basic rule of law. The attorney generals of NJ and PA are already seeking FOIA requests finding the link behind any lobbying monies from any persons out of govt linked to individuals within govt to this document (cough Sheldy/Las Vegas Sands - Trump cough). Besides all of this, businesses and payment processors and banks need certainty. So far, this Reversal opinion adds more UNCERTAINTY. Unlike 2011, NOW the online casinos and lotteries in NV, NJ, PA, and DE have invested many billions since then based on the 2011 opinion. They're going forward, not backward with all the more money at stake than ever.

Umn, many of the things you posit are aspects either I do not necessarily dispute nor asserted in the first place. Please see my reply to Bobo.

Yes I believe you are missing something (if it wasn't already clear above): Should or will the DOJ base any future enforcement action based on 2011 opinion OR the new 2019 opinion? Businesses from existing online casinos and payment processor to banks NEED to get final certainty on this once and for all as A LOT of money has been based on the 2011 opinion and NOT 2019 opinion. And yes, any ensuing court case imho should if not will flush this out imho.

WSOP just announced the online bracelet schedule for this summers wsop. It looks like it just says players in Nevada right now, but at least they are planning to run intrastate poker still.

WSOP online only in Nevada sounds like words put together that are practically opposite in intent/meaning (aka "oxymoron"); but better than nothing for now. Sheldy and his connections in Washington (can you say Trump cough cough)are such corrupt crony capitalist crooks heh?

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/35...re-act-window/

Looks like they've extended this another 60 days as states with regulated online gaming (NJ) are fighting back.

From DoJ's standpoint, it definitely makes sense. As the judicial branch has jurisdiction over the interpretation of laws, DoJ should be happy to have judges weigh in. If they rule against the DoJ's new interpretation, the DoJ will be able to take that ruling and apply it in making yet another interpretation. If they rule for the DoJ, it will serve to remove some "gray area" from their new interpretation.

I obviously hope for the former, but I think clarity will help the industry either way. They are too dependent on the financial system to be in anything even possibly seen as a gray area. And, a negative ruling could spur federal legislation to modernize the Wire Act, as many states would have interests in such legislation.

(cross posted from Poker Legislation forum)

NEW (March 22, 2019) The US Department of Justice appears to be doubling-down on the OLC's re-interpretation of the Wire Act. News Friday afternoon that the DOJ is requesting that the New Hampshire lawsuit (which challenges the new interpretation) be dismissed.





Immediate reaction from Legal Sports Report anchor Dustin Gouker...




---
For readers who would like more insight into the New Hampshire lawsuit being referred to, listen to (40:53-50:16) of this Feb 19th NAGRA webinar hosted by current NJDGE official Robert Moncrief, Jr. It includes commentary from former NJDGE official George Rover and Ifrah Law managing partner Jeff Ifrah.

The lawsuit can be viewed in its entirety via OPR.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/wp...1712230074.pdf
---
I'll edit this post here if I see any other observations/articles in next 30 minutes. Overall this is more negative news for regulated U.S. online poker, in my opinion.
_____

but the NJ players are major fish!

I just want to finally play some online poker....Gees Frustrated in PA!

Spot on Rich.

Now is the time for you poker players to reach out to your heros in the Democrat party and tell them THIS is the mountain they should die on in their fight with Donald Trump! Where are those Dems?

Interstate lotteries among others are in trouble if this new interpretation is enforced.
Don't Powerball and megamillions operate by having servers in multiple states for interstate gambling? I don't understand how these lotteries will NOT be in trouble under new Wire Act assuming proper and practical enforcement.

This is a pretty bad take. The Wire Act isn’t going to affect nonprofit groups that distribute proceeds of lotteries to state governments. For more reasons than I have the inclination to explain you are seeing this completely wrong.

Hi arcdog,

A number of states are lining up to challenge the new DOJ-OLC Wire Act interpretation specifically because they perceive it as a threat to their lottery/iLottery interests.

The most high profile statewide effort at the moment is New Hampshire, which has lodged a formal civil compliant along with motions for a speedy hearing and summary judgement, challenging what it deems as a "binding opinion" advanced as a result of the Wire Act re-interpretation.

More resources/information can be found at the link below.

https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-med...5-wire-act.htm
---

Former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement official George Rover and Ifrah Law managing partner Jeff Ifrah also discussed how the new Wire Act opinion might impact state-sponsored lotteries in a recent webinar published by the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA). It was moderated by current NJDGE Technical Services Bureau Chief Robert Moncrief, Jr.

Here are the 'statewide lotteries' topic timestamps for the audio file, which can be found here:

(20:23-20:55) Jeff Ifrah says the (now-reversed) 2011 opinion had provided "comfort" to statewide U.S. iLotteries

(30:30-32:42) Jeff Ifrah on how Powerball, Mega Millions and online lotteries might be affected by restrictions placed on "interstate" (across state lines) transactions related to wagering as a result of the new interpretation

(40:53-44:04) George Rover provides an in-depth overview of the New Hampshire suit. The new DOJ opinion could cost the state as much as $90 million in revenue, according to the complaint. Communication that state-sponsored lotteries are already regulated under Title 18: U.S. Code CHAPTER 61
---

Here's a local Mississippi story I found that's from March 25th. It states that "25 Attorneys General" are seeking clarification on how the DOJ interpretation "may negatively impact state-run and multi-state lotteries."

https://yallpolitics.com/2019/03/25/...ate-lotteries/
---

I can definitely see where you're coming from in assuming that state lotteries aren't going to be impacted (and that very well could turn out to be the case -- there's a lot of uncertainty leading up to the June 14th, 2019 compliance grace period end-date).

But U.S. state-sponsored lotteries are being perceived as a potential target of DOJ enforcement/prosecution by many who deal directly with these issues on an operational/governmental/legal front.

Thanks dhubermex. A lot of what you posited (along with links) is key. While nothing is certain, the facts (as I understand them currently) are that 1. lotteries ARE a form of gambling where participants are wagerers placing "bets" in a game of chance and 2. b/c of 1. fall under new Wire Act which governs ALL forms of gambling placed across telecommunication "wires" aka internet and 3. those gambling games that operate interstate which are reliant on servers sending info back and forth across state lines can only mean one thing under this new Wire Act if and when enforced:

Powerball or Megamillions let alone interstate online poker etc.. ARE in violation under this ridiculous new 2019 (vs. the 2011) Wire Act interpretation imho. But again, time will have to play out in the courts as next step regardless.

Btw, "nonprofit groups that distribute proceeds of lotteries to state governments" is a completely moot point arcdog. Placing bets and the sharing of info across state lines by servers is key and that occurs not just in interstate online poker pacts but also interstate lotteries today. Sports betting across interstate lines will/should be in danger under the 2019 interpretation too imho. IF this Wire Act interpretation is upheld, many states imho may go into mini (if not larger economic tailspins) due to loss of major revenue generators from their lotteries alone. Many states are already hungry for more revenue to pad their dwindling budgets. This will just send them nicely in the OTHER direction when all is said and done. Now only if states were like stocks that could be shorted. Oh well.

Understand first, there is no NEW Wire Act.

Understand next that Sportsbetting across State lines is not illegal if such betting activity in each state is legal. Section 1084 (b)

There is no valid argument that an intrastate lottery operation would violate the Wire Act. As for interstate lottery operations, like Powerball , well .... we shall see. I think even those can be/are structured so all betting activity and prizing can be intrastate. I have confidence that learned counsel on the clock can propose that to their clients in the lottery business.

At the end of the day regardless of what the academic arguments might be to the Powerball as it relates to the Wire Acr there is ZERO chance anyone in Washington is going to support shutting that down. You find me the States where Congressmen wouldn’t be pressured to support keeping lottery funds flowing. If the Powerball was threatened by the DOJ there’d immediately be a new Wire Act before Congress but even the boneheaded administration we have now would never go there.

Duh. No one said there is a new one. I am simply talking about this 2019 interpretation and IF enforced under such by the DOJ.

As far as b), online poker is legal intrastate in those states that or will pass it too. However, this new interpretation if enforced prohibits ALL gambling using information and corresponding bets that cross state telecommunication wires. We are talking about how things are spelled out in English and FAIRLY INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED. YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO RULES OF LAW (HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO) UNLESS ONE IS CRONY CAPITALIST CORRUPT CROOK. And that now may be as this Constitutional Republic is almost gone as far as I am concerned.

Arcdog, please see the aforementioned too.

Yes imho, those former interstate games like Powerball etc.. will have to now be intrastate. Because how can your b) hold under this new interpretation that already prohibits other gambling like interstate poker pacts between those states where it is already legal??? Like I said, under one rule of law, YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

Moreover, now more than ever it comes down to physically where the servers of gambling operators like interstate sports bettors to interstate lotteries were placing their servers and physically interacting between such. Ridiculous? Cost prohibitive? Impractical? Yes arcdog. But that is not the point. Sheldy and other crony capitalist corrupt crooks (based on lobbying pact(s) etc.) ultimately got us to this point and here we are. Time will tell as the next step is in the courts. BUT, I am not holding my breath unfortunately.

Actually, that's precisely what you said not once, but twice, in the first paragraph of the post he was replying to. I get that in the second paragraph you added "interpretation", but I don't think it was a bad idea for him to provide that clarification in case anyone was confused by your post.

Don't forget 2 more times in the third paragraph of that original post (#117) too!

"You get my drift? Or am I (still) being obtuse?"

Duh ? Please, I bolded where you said precisely twice "New Wire Act" in your post that I responded to.

Secondly, did you even read Section 1804(b) of the Wire Act, which expressly deals with not prohibiting activity which is legal in both the sending and receiving States ? It is written in English and is part of the statute.