legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The WTO gambling case is ALL about DoJ: Antigua legal counsel
The Register
Antigua attorney speaks out on landmark WTO case
DOJ, USTR keep heads in sand
By Burke Hansen
July 16/07
| Quote: | What role does the DOJ play in this? The USTR represents the US at the WTO, but they still work with the DOJ on establishing the legal position of the US government, correct? The DOJ has taken a very hard line position on the internet gambling industry, and that seems to be reflected in this case.
Although I could very easily be wrong, what I have finally concluded is that this case is almost 100 per cent about the DOJ. One or more DOJ members have been present at almost every meeting we have held with the United States over the past four years, at almost every WTO session - their footprint is big in this case. This may sound odd, but I think that this issue - remote gambling - has been hijacked of sorts by a kind of dated old crowd in the DOJ who are still lost in the days of Bugsy Malone and smoky backrooms, when gambling was run by the mob. |
| Quote: | Gangsters
The Warner Bros. Gangsters Collection
DVD
Seriously, the one DOJ guy who has been a lingering presence in this case from the beginning even looks and talks like he stepped off a movie set about 50s-era gambling. I think this crowd has gotten the ear of senior DOJ officials, and are not going to budge one bit. And nobody else in the administration has had the courage, fortitude, or perhaps just the interest to take them on over this.
This is particularly more interesting given that until 1998, the official DOJ position was completely different. The official DOJ spokesman said on many occasions in the mid- to late-1990s that United States laws did not cover this kind of gambling service offered from and under the sanction of government in foreign countries. In fact, as we told the WTO as late as 1997, the United States government was affirmatively working with the Antiguan government on ways to ensure the fairness of gaming services and protection of American consumers. For some reason, that all changed in 1998 and this gambling crowd at DOJ has been very successful at establishing the myth of America having "had strong laws against this activity" since forever. As regards licenced, regulated services from foreign countries, the current United States policy is less than ten years old. (emphasis added) |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=631#631 |
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
New Yorker
Magazine Subscription
The Sporting Scene
What would Jesus bet?
A math whiz hones the optimal poker strategy
By Alec Wilkinson
March 30/09
| Quote: | The Department of Justice says that, in addition to the Safe Port Act, the Federal Wire Act also applies to online poker. The Wire Act also applies to online poker. The Wire Act was passed in 1961 to prevent the use of telegraphs and telephones to send horse-racing information to bookies. In 2002, two men argued in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the money they owed their credit-card companies didn't have to be paid, because they had been gambling with it in an online casino, and, according to the Wire Act, gambling online was illegal. The court ruled that the Wire Act specified only bets on sports, and "does not prohibit non-sports Internet gambling."
"That ruling gave a lot of comfort to people interested in ramping up gaming sites," Amy Marlyse Burgert, a lawyer in Houston, whose practice includes online gaming, told me. "So long as you weren't sports wagering, you could look at this and see an opportunity."
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice, in an email, told me, "The Department's view for some time has been that all forms of Internet gambling, including sports wagering, casino games and card games, are illegal under federal law. While many of the federal statutes do not use the term 'Internet gambling,' the Department believes that their staturoty language is sufficient to cover Internet gambling." As to why there had been no prosecutions for online poker, the spokesperson said,"Just because someone hasn't been prosecuted yet doesn't mean that they won't be." (-- p. 33) |
From In Re Mastercard International, Inc. Internet Gambling Litigation (Feb. 23/01), in which Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., J., held:
| Quote: | | As the plain language of the statute and case law interpreting the statute are clear, there is no need to look to the legislative history of the Act as argued by plaintiffs. See In re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1995). However, even a summary glance at the recent legislative history of internet gambling legislation reinforces the Court's determination that internet gambling on a game of chance is not prohibited conduct under 18 U.S.C. §1084. (emphasis added) Recent legislative attempts have sought to amend the Wire Act to encompass "contest[s] of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of [the bettor]" while exempting from the reach of the statute data transmitted "for use in the new reporting of any activity, event or contest upon which bets or wagers are based.'" See S.474, 105th Congress (1997). Similar legislation was introduced the 106th Congress in the form of the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999." See, S. 692, 106th Congress (1999). That act sought to amend Title 18 to prohibit the use of the internet to place a bet or wager upon "a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game of chance..."Id. ."Id. As to the legislative intent at the time the Wire Act was enacted, the House Judiciary Committed Chairman explained that "'this particular bill involves the transmission of wagers or bets and layoffs on horse racing and other sporting events." See 107 Cong. Rec. 16533 (Aug. 21, 1961). Comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act's prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests. Plaintiffs' argument flies in the face of the clear wording of the Wire Act and is more appropriately directed to the legislative branch than this Court. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=657#657 |
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
