LESNIAK CELEBRATES LEGAL VICTORY – COULD NJ POKER PLAYERS BE NEXT?

Big implications in New Hampshire case

"But I asked McGill what the broadest possible court victory could be in the case. Would it just be lotteries extricating themselves from the administrative tangle?

No, McGill explained. Part of the lawsuit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs how federal agencies issue regulations.

If the judge agrees on that angle – and a decision is expected later this month – then the new opinion is void and it’s back to Square One, which is that the Wire Act applies only to interstate sports betting.

That would erase concerns about the current online poker compact among New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware – and also open the door for Pennsylvania, which has announced its in-state online poker will launch by mid-July, to join the crowd."

https://www.njonlinegambling.com/les...poker-players/

Misleading clickbait lead ...

there has NOT been a ruling in the New Hampshire case as yet ...

To quote Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction:

"Let's not start sucking each others' d**ks just yet"

*cancels all future plans with Mr Wolf

"Nothing personal Sonny, it's just business." - Michael Corleone in Godfather.

You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Hilarious. But yet you come on here and then put forth an assertion without any support or at least reasoning behind it. Everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone can/should disagree freely with each other whenever referencing it. But not everybody evidently knows how to support that opinion from themselves in doing so. Hint: That is YOU.

How about this? Learn to have an adult dialogue with someone else in written English, then converse it so with that person on here without acting like a typical online troll, and then get back to me. In the words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, "YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Like I said, hilarious.

Go and read a dozen Gorsuch opinions from when he was an appellate judge on the Tenth Circuit. He’s generally Libertarian and generally very skeptical of agency interpretations of federal statutes. If faced with an interpretation of the wire act, he is certain to interpret the text as he reads it, without any particular result in mind. So too with Kavanaugh. The idea that either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh are somehow corrupt and in thrall to Sheldon Adelson is a ridiculous and stupid assertion, as any competent person who has read a dozen or so of each of their opinions would know.

I’ve read the 2018 OLC opinion letter and I’m aware of the general progress of the New Hampshire case. Your argument that the OLC letter has no effect because it is not signed is particularly uninformed. That letter is not binding precedent on any court. It instead is guidance for US prosecutors to use in deciding who to prosecute, and needs no signature to do so.

Your overall posting in this thread is an F. You are dogmatic, uninformed and biased. You should post less and think more.

This wire act interpretation issue is really interesting from a political and legal perspective.

Oh wow, you can read! So any person who disagrees with you who may have still read the opinions is "incompetent"? LOL. Those in glass houses should NOT THROW STONES. You want to talk about dogmatic, bias? Kavanaugh already showed his blatant partisan disgusting legacy "cards" by attacking someone who had nothing to do with the accusations against him at his confirmation hearings - disgusting partisan hack rants calling his attacks against him as part of a liberal, Hillary Clinton "conspiracy". Forget reading the transcripts and simply play the video. It was a disgrace! (Btw I have no love nor ever liked Hillary nor voted for her OR your Trumpy who it seems you probably did.) The Supreme Court is all the more a joke now IMHO after those latter two took the bench. You go ahead and give someone an F just because they disagree with you. Who the pluck are you to have the hubris to give out a grade to anyone in such a supercilious manner? I will tell you one thing - Thank God for the first amendment. And no, the 2019 reinterpretation after it was solidified in 2011 is NOT interesting from a political and legal perspective IMHO at all. It is part of the bullsht crony corrupt crooked capitalism run amok ruling this US govt (from top to bottom). Read up on Teddy Roosevelt whose very legacy was a TRUST BUSTER going against the robber barons of his day (unlike the robber barons like Trumpy and Sheldy etc. who run the govt today) sometime. And then lets talk again.

I just went and read Murphy v. NCAA. Alito, writing for a conservative majority, struck a federal statute on the grounds that it interfered with state sovereignty. In a concurrence, Thomas argues that it should be beyond the power of the federal government to make gambling illegal, so long as that gambling does not cross state lines. Your idea that conservative justices are reflexively antigambling is literally a figment if your obviously liberal imagination, and has no bearing whatsoever on reality.

Murphy doesn’t apply to the New Hampshire litigation. But it conclusively rebuts much of your thinking ITT.

You’re a moron and are now blocked.

FYI for other thread participants: I’m a lawyer. I have no particular expertise in gaming law, but I have argued several federal statutory interpretations in both district and appellate courts, and I’m comfortable that I understand the issues at play here. Happy to answer thoughtful questions.

Hilarious! OH NO!! I AM BLOCKED!! THE HORROR!

Thanks for the ad-hominem attack btw. Resorting to such is quite antithetical (to say the least) for someone so read up on and purportedly erudite about court justices and such. It only further cements my conclusion about you when initially posited.

Come back soon now!

LOL - "Well ain't that special!" - Church Lady from SNL (when it was good lol).
Actually, I disagree with Church Lady there. I find it rather scary and sad for the legal system that you are a lawyer operating in it. Maybe there will be another opening soon on the SCOTUS. LOL.

P.S. - Good luck concluding your court cases with remarks that "a plaintiff (or defendant) is a moron."

For someone such as yourself who brandishes his affinity for reading prior court cases AND is a lawyer is rather troubling to casual non-lawyer "little people" observers like me simply based on the content of your prior posts. What I said was that I believe the current crop of "conservative" justices on the bench were bots for robber barons like Trumpy and Sheldy. I did NOT say ALL conservative justices in the U.S. necessarily were such. And I already intimated if not expressly mentioned how I did not vote for either party candidate in last election PLUS I am T. Roosevelt fan who was a Republican!! So your a.s.s.umptions about my party affiliation are horrendous too. Retake your LSAT's again. LOL.

^^^ you're ranting and raving and it's pretty tilting to read, calm down and stop capitalizing full words

Am I mistaken to think that the judicial system is supposed to consider the original intention in interpretation?

How does every fkn thread on this forum turn into two old people arguing with each other?

Pretty sure the gentleman you're arguing with attended MIT and is good at the law thing.

No, you’re not mistaken. The first step is the statutory language itself, which is of course a reflection of original intention. There are several generally accepted principles of statutory interpretation. For example, a statute should be interpreted to give effect to all of its provisions. If the answer isn’t clear at that point, courts can go to the legislative record created in passing the bill, but that typically only happens as a relatively last resort.

In the last one of these I argued, two provisions of Dodd-Frank implied different and competing answers to a particular situation. Both interpretations were legitimate. After a long argument about the competing interpretations, the court decided on a different ground — courts often do this, ie don’t solve sticky interpretive issues unless they must.

Yeah and numbnuts George W. Bush attended Yale University. And many others may have come from Harvard etc.. who are scarily stupid, incompetent if not worse. So what's your point? You are entitled to be impressed. I am not.

Besides, now more than ever, where you went to school or what your pedigree is does not nor should not imply some sort of superiority to others whom they may merely converse with. I have met more people who never attended college and only have a high school degree who are miles smarter etc. than than others I know who went to the "best" schools. All the while, you know nothing of where I am from. But if it makes you feel any better, I come from the gutter and live in abject poverty writing this right now on a public computer at my public library.

We're in America it seems to always come down to 2 old people arguing.

I beg to differ sir.

"You're babbling, you're babbling...." - Jody Foster in Maverick

Now that I agree with!

No capitalizing words in the aforementioned. Okay? But.... I am so used to LIVING IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER, I sometimes have to speak loudly to make sure some things get heard lol.

Yeah, but I am sooooo close to finding the fountain of youth! Besides, if online poker were legal in as many states as possible and allowed for state compacts for interplay between them, you would not have me on these fine threads torturing you to begin with. So go out there and tell your reps (like I do mine) to get it done. And it is/was a fine thread btw especially before post #230 where many posters put forth their input, disagreed respectfully at times and yet still moved forward in productive forethought without base ad-hominem attacks by some big lawyer from MIT that all should purportedly bow down to like the lawyer in:

"May I remind you that PG&E is a 6 billion dollar company!" - some pissant lawyer in Erin Brokervich.

I have no clue who you've met, who you think is miles smarter than other people you know, or what best schools the latter group went to.

What you fail to acknowledge is that "the best schools" teach skill sets and analysis to the select few who attend. You are sorely mistaken to think that has no added value, whatever agenda those few pursue. I went to Yale, the people in those classes were pretty bright, same at the other "best schools" I attended. While there is a whole lot to be said for "street smarts", an essential skill, regardless of the level of education and training, it does not suffice under some circumstances.


Your personal testimony, while touching, does not refute the quality exhibited by better spoken, more analytic posters in this thread. It is NOT who they are, it is what they post.

Sorry, but you are losing your feud with Howard.

What makes you think it is different overseas ?