- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The long awaited iMEGA ruling has come in and the results are… confusing.
Here’s our take on the situation. iMEGA won the right to have their claims ruled on, thus they won the case, however, the claims that were ruled on all basically were thrown out by the judge. iMEGA sees the case as a victory of sorts in that the judge defined how weak the UIGEA is, but they will appeal some of the rulings, like their fight that says the UIGEA is a violation of first amendment rights, which the judge ruled to be false.
this is the real victory IMO that came out of this:
“Granting iMEGA standing is a major victory any way you look at it,” said Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., attorney for iMEGA. “Judge Cooper’s ruling holds that, even with the passage of UIGEA, online gambling is only illegal in states where a statute specifically says it is.”
:colgate:
Bigger that that is this:
Judge Cooper found that banks, credit card companies and other payment system instruments are exempt from criminal sanctions under UIGEA, significantly undercutting UIGEAs enforcement mechanism. Her ruling echoes the growing consensus of opinion that UIGEA is a fundamentally flawed statute.
Gambling911 has about ten articles on the results of this case. The important thing they report is that iMEGA got standing as an organization that can fight on behalf of the online gambling community. Meaning, they can appeal this case, bringing it to the ‘Court of Appeals’, which, Ed Layden, head of iMEGA, says is very much on the side of protecting first amendment rights.
Here’s the AP article that just came out, basically saying the same stuff as CGW and 911 already reported…
As much as I support the industry, and iMEGA’s efforts to get the UIGEA overturned, I cannot at all agree that the court case was a victory – I do believe that the “victory” was way overhyped – indeed, a victory from the jaws of defeat.
I see no reason not to support iMEGA – but don’t get your hopes up. I hope they prepare their appeal way better than they prepared the original case.
@Spearmaster 156091 wrote:
I do believe that the “victory” was way overhyped…
Yea, we know it’s not a technical victory, but a moral one. I think it’s good for the troops to see a judge make comments on UIGEA like this.
We need to keep public support up, and the government always spins stories to suit their needs… no reason we can’t do the same.
@Spearmaster 156091 wrote:
I hope they prepare their appeal way better than they prepared the original case.
That seems to be a sharred hope… and many believe that they will get their stuff together for the appeal.
Sadly, I don’t share that opinion – I believe that if they had been serious the first time around, they could have caused great damage. iMEGA perked my interest when it was formed – but as soon as I found out that heretofore unknown people were leading the charge, I knew where it was going to end up.
There are a number of gaming legal experts they could have consulted with – and as far as I know, they have consulted with none.
It’s actually not that bad, she basically decided not to make a ruling on a controversial case. Although, she did render some interesting opinions on the matter. Are opinions etched in stone no? They have no legal bite at all. The do however; make for good legal arguments in the future if a case is ever brought to trial. So its not the victory everyone wanted. But it does lay the foundation for further challenges.
Personally I take ANY victory in the US Courts as a very positive movement.
The important things to remember here is:
1.The Judge ruled on the case, it wasnt dismissed. That meant the argument had legal merit. This is very useful for future actions.
2. When a Judge rules on a case is provides LEGAL PRECEDENCE that a US Court to the position that UIGEA was enforcable ONLY in the states where it was already illegal. This could potentially be huge in future actions/cases and it affirms what many had already contended in regards to application of UIEGA.
I disagree that this was a small or meaningless victory. Every battle won leads to eventual victory of a war.
@Professor 156213 wrote:
1.The Judge ruled on the case, it wasnt dismissed. That meant the argument had legal merit. This is very useful for future actions.[/quote]
The judge ruled on a number of points brought up in the case. One was that iMEGA had standing to appeal.The remainder were dismissed because iMEGA did not have standing, or the issue was not within her jurisdiction.
Quote:2. When a Judge rules on a case is provides LEGAL PRECEDENCE that a US Court to the position that UIGEA was enforcable ONLY in the states where it was already illegal. This could potentially be huge in future actions/cases and it affirms what many had already contended in regards to application of UIEGA.I assume you mean “ONLY in the states where online gambling was already illegal”. I am not sure where you drew this conclusion from. The judge said that UIGEA was legally enacted. On the issue of the 10th Amendment, however, she said that iMEGA was NOT a legitimate plaintiff since this would require a state affected by the enactment of UIGEA to file a complaint (and thus iMEGA could not mount a challenge on this point).
iMEGA won nothing but the right to appeal her decision in an appeals court.
Quote:I disagree that this was a small or meaningless victory. Every battle won leads to eventual victory of a war.This was not a battle won, not by any stretch of the imagination. This was a battle where the vanquished said “I live to fight another day”.
Having said that, I would love to see iMEGA mount a serious challenge which brings UIGEA’s validity into a dubious state. But I’m not holding my breath based on the weakness of their first challenge.
@Spearmaster 156246 wrote:
I assume you mean “ONLY in the states where online gambling was already illegal”. I am not sure where you drew this conclusion from.
This conclusion can be (and was by Microgaming) drawn from UIGEA itself.
I think we should all be supportive of ANY efforts being made to promote our industry. I see no reason to pick apart anything positive that occurs no matter how small.
The chance of a 100% sweeping change, in one fell swoop, that meets everyones best case scenario is unrealistic.
Changes can occur gradually. A small trickle of water can wear away a mountain given time. Everything doesnt have to change by a great flood.
@Professor 156297 wrote:
I think we should all be supportive of ANY efforts being made to promote our industry. [/quote]
On this we definitely both agree
Quote:I see no reason to pick apart anything positive that occurs no matter how small.The chance of a 100% sweeping change, in one fell swoop, that meets everyones best case scenario is unrealistic.
Changes can occur gradually. A small trickle of water can wear away a mountain given time. Everything doesnt have to change by a great flood.
I think the point I’m trying to make here is that we should not view things through rose-colored glasses – it’s one thing to reflect and build on the positive points – but it’s another thing entirely to declare it a huge victory in the manner that they did.
Had they said “We’ve fought a tough battle, and although we were not successful in all instances, we did win the right of appeal and we will focus on this positive outcome as we prepare to take the issue to the Federal Appeals court” – I think that would’ve been very graceful and accepted by most sides.
Contrast that with what was actually said – and I think you can see that this “putting on a brave face” is getting old.
