Brushing up on iMEGA

[jetset]

iMEGA WELL RECEIVED AT ONLINE GAMBLING CONFERENCE

"We want a quick hearing," says spokesman on legal action against US Attorney General

The mysterious organisation that surfaced so dramatically this week by initiating legal action against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) expanded on its aims and objectives at a Montreal online gambling conference.

Addressing delegates at the Global Interactive Gaming Summit and Expo, spokesman Joe Brennan Jnr described iMEGA as a grass roots organisation that is seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

iMEGA entered industry affairs with something of a bang, filing litigation in a New Jersey District Court against the US Attorney General, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission earlier this week. The filings asked for an injunction to stop US banks from having to enforce whatever policies have or may be created until the courts can fully hear all the arguments against the UIGEA.

If the injunction is granted, it will derail the mid-July timing for the introduction of specific and as yet unrevealed UIGEA regulations formulated by the Treasury and the AG.

Brennan revealed that iMEGA has plans beyond the online gambling industry, and he stressed that his organisation was not a front for any gambling group or groups. The organisation is concerned at the erosion of constitutional liberties and fears that over-zealous government intervention could extend to other areas of American society. He pointed to other major Internet entities such as Google and YouTube as potential targets should the UIGEA concept, regulations and powers become more widely used by the authorities.

"This law will cause problems for the entire Internet," Brennan told delegates, explaining that his organisation was backed by a small group of wealthy individuals with strong moral convictions, who were concerned at the dangers that a ban on Internet financial flows such as that used in the UIGEA could imply.

iMEGA is concerned that if the UIGEA is allowed to continue, with its potential for absolute enforcement, the United States will fall far behind other major nations as far as online development is concerned, Brennan emphasised. "We understand there are problems that must be recognised such as underage and problem gambling, but there are ways to get rid of this instead of relying on draconian laws that will only exacerbate problems, especially when it comes to fraud and addiction," he claimed.

Brennan said he had gathered a number of like minded colleagues together after reading the text of the UIGEA and coming to the conclusion that the law was clearly unconstitutional.

"I immediately realised the slippery slope this represented and the larger issue this could present over the long haul," he said.

"iMEGA wants to focus broadly. We won't be a one issue association. It just happens that iGaming is the hot topic right now, and that iGaming has implications for Internet technologies going forward. If Jon Kyl [Senator and co-author of the UIGEA] is serious about protecting minors, he needs to rely on technology, not a blatant law that attacks the mechanisms behind problems they want to solve."

Brennan explained the hitherto low profile of iMEGA as part of its strategy to enter its action into the US legal system without prematurely warning other interested parties like the US Department of Justice. "We wanted to keep everything quiet. If the US Justice Department had found out about this, it may have begun targeting those involved. It was a strategy to get into court without tipping off the DOJ," he said.

"We are a 501 (c) 6 trade organization. This gives the association an opportunity to have standing to lobby on behalf of our members and to maintain their privacy."

The iMEGA initiative was apparently positively received by GIGSE delegates.

iMEGA's president, Edward Layden will be appearing at the House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington this week on Congressman Frank's proposal to regulate and license online gambling in the USA. Although he will not be personally testifying, he will be submitting expert written testimony within the next two weeks, which will be entered into the Congressional Register.

According to the PACER system, the case number for the iMEGA action is 3:2007cv02625 filed on June 5, 2007 in the Trenton office of the New Jersey District Court before Judge Mary J Cooper and referred by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. The Nature of Suit is described as: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights. Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights.

 

[lots0]

Any news on this?

Like a court date.

 

[Mousey]

I haven't seen anything more about this either.

They have been working on their website a little bit at least. You can sign up for their newsletter

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

 

[jetset]

Update

UK'S REMOTE GAMING ASSOCIATION BACKS FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUALS TO GAMBLE ONLINE

Trade association throws its weight behind Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

The Remote Gambling Association (RGA), which represents some of the largest global remote gambling companies, has endorsed the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative for its efforts to promote the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards.

"RGA endorses the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative in its mission to support regulated Internet gambling and protect consumers betting online," said Clive Hawkswood, Chief Executive.

"Internet gambling is capable of control in order to prevent it from being used as a source of crime. Only through a regulatory framework as championed by the Initiative, will the proper protection be in place to guard against money laundering, fraud and identity theft, he added."

The RGA provides the online gambling industry with a single voice on issues of importance to regulators, legislators, and key decision makers.

"RGA's endorsement is a significant indication of the importance of mobilising support for regulated Internet gambling, and we are delighted they are joining our effort," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "We encourage supporters to visit

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

to urge Members of [the US] Congress to co-sponsor legislation to regulate Internet gambling, thereby protecting consumers and capturing billions in [tax] revenue that is needed for critical government programs."

Hawkswood pointed out that the RGA recently offered further evidence to Members of Congress in testimony to the House Committee on Financial Services that a regulatory framework for Internet gambling would protect consumers and provide integrity to Internet gambling financial transactions. Existing systems and technology have proven successful in combating underage and compulsive gambling and protecting Internet gambling transactions according to the RGA.

Other endorsers of the Initiative include the UC Group and Baker Tilly.

 

[lots0]

Still no word on a court date?

The deadline is fast approaching, in just a few days the UIGEA will go into full effect, July 1, 2007.

It would seem to me that iMEGA would want the first hearing to happen before the law takes effect.

 

[sdaddy]

Still no word on a court date?

This was reported today:

Gambling911.com has learned that a court date in the UIGEA injunction complaint is expected to be announced towards the end of this week or early next week.

 

[jetset]

Update

iMEGA NUDGES U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Still awaiting official US response to suit filed a month ago

The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) lawyers are apparently not about to let their litigation against the US Attorney General be stonewalled. Despite the passage of only a month since the suit was filed, lawyers for the pressure group have this week pressed the courts to expedite a response still awaited from the US Department of Justice.

iMEGA's original suit filed in a New Jersey court (see previous InfoPowa reports) by spokesman Joe Brennan and lawyers attacked the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which it claims infringes upon basic constitutional rights and sets a dangerous precedent for I-commerce by criminalising the transmission of money where the end activity is illegal in an unspecified location.

If the court rules favourably on the litigation, iMEGA expects it to impact the enforcement of the UIGEA, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling sites.

Coincidentally, the 270 days that Congress allowed for the promulgation of specific UIGEA regulations expires this week, with no regulations in sight yet. The US Treasury and the US Attorney General were tasked with designing the regulatory support for the UIGEA when it was rammed through Congress late last year.

iMEGA President Edward Leyden commented: "Two major benefits come immediately from U.S. recognition and regulation of Internet gaming; transparency and tax revenues.

As with the U.S. financial markets, transparency assures that broad access to relevant data and the balancing forces of a free market all operate to maintain fairness and prevent corruption. Similarly, in this age of a yawning federal "tax gap," U.S. taxation of Internet gaming transactions and companies could generate more than $20 billion during the next several years - all while saving federal law enforcement dollars for the fight against terrorism and other dire issues.

 

[Mousey]

Ah! I had wondered if this was going to just disappear into the justice system ether...

 

[sdaddy]

The court date is now set for Sept. 4th

A Federal Judge in the state of New Jersey has assigned a hearing date for its lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that seeks to have an new online gambling law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) overturned. Gambling911.com has learned that the hearing date is set for September 4.

 

[Mousey]

The court date is now set for Sept. 4th

I signed up for their newsletter on their website (IMEGA), it would be nice if they actually would send one out. LOL

 

[LaurieJim]

I signed up for their newsletter on their website (IMEGA), it would be nice if they actually would send one out. LOL

diddo mousey, still waiting. lol

 

[jetset]

Update

U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS MORE TIME IN IMEGA CASE

Delay expected to September 4 hearing date for iMEGA

Jacqueline Coleman Snead, a U.S. Justice Department legal eagle from Washington DC will be defending the government in the iMEGA case....but not for another two weeks. Originally set down for hearing in New Jersey by a federal judge for September 4, the government has requested a two weeks stay, presumably to prepare its case.

Scheduled for hearing in the US Circuit Court (3rd District - New Jersey) the case was brought by the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) which attacks the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which it claims infringes upon basic constitutional rights and sets a dangerous precedent for I-commerce by criminalising the transmission of money where the end activity is illegal in an unspecified location.

If the court rules favourably on the litigation, iMEGA expects it to impact the enforcement of the UIGEA, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling sites, and for which regulations still remain unpublished despite the passage of more than 270 days since the law's promulgation.

iMEGA spokesmen and lawyers have consistently claimed that the organisation's interest in challenging the UIGEA stems from concerns about the impact on present and future Constitutional freedoms, and not online gambling-specific issues.

iMEGA's original suit filed in a New Jersey court (see previous InfoPowa reports) by spokesman Joe Brennan and lawyers attacked the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which it claims infringes upon basic constitutional rights and sets a dangerous precedent.

Supporting regulation rather than prohibitionary moves like UIGEA, iMEGA President Edward Leyden commented: "Two major benefits come immediately from U.S. recognition and regulation of Internet gaming; transparency and tax revenues.

As with the U.S. financial markets, transparency assures that broad access to relevant data and the balancing forces of a free market all operate to maintain fairness and prevent corruption. Similarly, in this age of a yawning federal "tax gap," U.S. taxation of Internet gaming transactions and companies could generate more than $20 billion during the next several years - all while saving federal law enforcement dollars for the fight against terrorism and other dire issues.

 

[EasyRhino]

Darn, I'd really like this to hit the courts as soon as possible. Mainly because UIGEA desperately needs to get wrung out in court, but also for the amusement value of hearing the arguments made on each side.

 

[jetset]

Update

iMEGA'S DAY IN COURT NOW SEPTEMBER 26

Parties agree to new date

Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA)'s case against the US Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has been re-scheduled for September 26 before the Hon. Judge Mary L. Cooper in the US District Court of New Jersey (Trenton Division) by mutual consent of the opposing parties.

The pressure group launched the temporary restraining order action against US government moves to curtail online gambling through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits financial transactions with Internet gambling companies.

iMEGA spokesmen and lawyers have consistently claimed that the organisation's interest in challenging the UIGEA stems from concerns about the impact on present and future Constitutional freedoms, and not online gambling-specific issues. iMEGA contends that the law creates bad precedent and has the potential to negatively affect both innovation and the growth in the USA of e-commerce.

Judge Cooper will hear oral arguments on the iMEGA petition, together with a government response requesting that the iMEGA motion be dismissed, and iMEGA's argument against such a dismissal.

If the court rules favourably on the litigation, iMEGA expects it to seriously restrict the enforcement of the UIGEA, for which regulations still remain unpublished despite the passage of well over the 270 days government was given by Congress since the law's promulgation.

 

[jetset]

Update

U.S. APPLIES FOR iMEGA CASE TO BE DISMISSED

"Lack of jurisdiction" and "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" cited as grounds for dismissal

The upcoming legal tussle between the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association [iMEGA] and US Justice authorities appears to be gaining momentum with details of a US application to have the case dismissed out of hand, promising lively legal argument.

Although the parties have mutually agreed to a hearing on September 26th in a New Jersey federal court (see previous InfoPowa reports) it has now become apparent that the U.S. government has filed a cross-motion for dismissal, claiming that iMEGA lacks standing and its case lacks substance. This could he heard as early as September 4.

iMEGA has asked for a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies, but which remains unsupported by regulations despite the passage of more than 270 days from its promulgation.

iMEGA's suit lists several justifications for its application, including the inappropriate restriction of a form of 'consensual private conduct;' an overbroad criminalisation of financial transactions relating to online gambling and an inconsistent and therefore unconstitutional regulation of states' rights matters.

The body claims the right to litigate because it was formed to represent the interests of members, which are businesses or individuals involved in Internet interactive media, entertainment and gaming, including Internet gambling.

On August 21, the US government representative gave notice that government will move for the case to be dismissed at a seperate September 4 hearing, claiming lack of jurisdiction and that iMEGA has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The US filing includes the wording: "Plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of its members who fear prosecution under the UIGEA. None of Plaintiff's members, however, has been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution. Thus, their fears are insufficient to confer standing on them or on an association purporting to represent them."

The government is also using its tardiness in presenting UIGEA's supporting regulations to its advantage. The Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve were charged with framing and presenting supporting regulations for UIGEA within 270 days of its promulgation, and this deadline has not been met.

This being the case, claims the government, the iMEGA case cannot be judged on events that have yet to occur: in other words, because the financial regulations have yet to be presented, the UIGEA itself cannot be blocked by a temporary restraining order!

According to iMEGA President Edward Leyden, the organisation's own case is being improved in the meantime. "As with any lawsuit," commented Leyden, "ours is an evolving being that may well be amended to take into account unfolding events and legal arguments, including naming additional defendants as necessary and appropriate."

 

[Mousey]

On August 21, the US government representative gave notice that government will move for the case to be dismissed at a seperate September 4 hearing, claiming lack of jurisdiction and that iMEGA has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Isn't that a hoot?!?! Considering the US has been determined to ruin several legitimate foreign casinos and NETeller ...

As always, thanks for the updates, Jetset!!

 

[lojo]

What DOJ? The AT is gonzo, the deputy position and associate position have been empty for some time.

Off the top of my head no one has been prosecuted under UIGEA, just the wire act. But they have sure fexed our passtime and some people's business with their well-timed arrests and warrants.

And not many prosecutions under UIGEA will hold up through appeals, as the act only applies to UNLAWFUL internet gambling i.e. things covered under the wire act and possibly the 11 states with laws against online gambling.

I'm confident the cross-motion for dismissal will be denied anyway. (too lazy to look for supporting case law) but in layman's thinking you have the ability for a conviction of aggravated assualt (enforcement of UIGEA) if there is a threat and the ability to carry it out. And 'constructive possession', where if you could be in possession of an instrument, you are... and... the loaded gun, and screaming 'FIRE" in a theater, on and on.

Anybody seen whose docket this cross-motion will fall on? It would help to divine it, but it's only a couple of days anyway I guess.

 

[jetset]

The part of the US argument for dismissal that I found most amusing (in a contemptuous sort of way) was this:

"The government is also using its tardiness in presenting UIGEA's supporting regulations to its advantage. The Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve were charged with framing and presenting supporting regulations for UIGEA within 270 days of its promulgation, and this deadline has not been met.

"This being the case, claims the government, the iMEGA case cannot be judged on events that have yet to occur: in other words, because the financial regulations have yet to be presented, the UIGEA itself cannot be blocked by a temporary restraining order!"


So....the attitude of government is that you can't sue us on this law because we haven't yet managed to get our stuff together long enough to design the supporting regulations LOL!

 

[Mousey]

The part of the US argument for dismissal that I found most amusing (in a contemptuous sort of way) was this:

"The government is also using its tardiness in presenting UIGEA's supporting regulations to its advantage. The Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve were charged with framing and presenting supporting regulations for UIGEA within 270 days of its promulgation, and this deadline has not been met.

"This being the case, claims the government, the iMEGA case cannot be judged on events that have yet to occur: in other words, because the financial regulations have yet to be presented, the UIGEA itself cannot be blocked by a temporary restraining order!"


So....the attitude of government is that you can't sue us on this law because we haven't yet managed to get our stuff together long enough to design the supporting regulations LOL!

I sometimes feel as if I live in the world of Catch-22... or Animal Farm... So... Even though the US gov't. likes to pretend that it's illegal for banks to process funds to and from a casino ('illegal' gambling though no one has challenged this in a court of law), it doesn't apply when they don't want it to. And have banks not received any warnings, guidelines, etc.? So why can't I deposit/withdraw via ACH. And why are payment processors and casinos and poker rooms given the old 'intimidate, coerce, then extort' treatment if the UIGEA isn't enforceable.

Hell... now I've confused myself...

 

[JPFisher55]

The biggest problem with the iMEGA lawsuit is lack of standing. Yes, the regulations might solve this problem. Yes, the DOJ does state that all online gambling is illegal despite case law to the contrary. But the DOJ has never prosecuted any online gambling firms except those involved in the online sports betting industry.
I hope that iMEGA has a member in that industry and such member should have been named as an additional plaintiff. I think that the iMEGA arguments about the UIGEA violating the first and tenth amendments and the WTO have substantial merit. However, I fear that they may not be heard by the court.

 

[lojo]

Looks like the motion has been moved to 9-26 any specific news?

 

[jetset]

Update

iMEGA CONTESTS U.S. GOVERNMENT DISMISSAL MOTION

Legal team refutes claims that trade association has no legal standing and has not been prosecuted

The legal 'tennis match' between the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association [iMEGA] and US Justice authorities continues this week (see previous InfoPowa reports) with news that iMEGA has responded to the US attempt to have its case dismissed with a strong legal argument refuting government claims that it has no standing and has not seen members prosecuted.

The US government lawyers will now have to respond by 21 September to the latest exchange in the back-and-forth legal arguments surrounding the issue.

Although the parties mutually agreed to a hearing on September 26th in a New Jersey federal court (see previous InfoPowa reports) the U.S. government subsequently filed a cross-motion for dismissal, claiming that iMEGA lacks standing and its case lacks substance. The government also made the extraordinary claim that its failure to meet Congressional deadlines for the introduction of the supporting regulations for the UIGEA meant that the rules and regulations for the new law have not yet been created, therefore rendering the law "unripe" for this kind of challenge.

In the latest development, iMEGA lawyers argued against any dismissal, claiming that the organisation had provided ample precedent for both its legal standing as a trade association acting on the behalf of its members, and for the potential jeopardy of prosecution which the new law holds for iMEGA members. iMEGA lawyers contended that it is not necessary to wait for one of its members to be prosecuted before the law may be scrutinised by the courts.

iMEGA has asked for a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies, but which remains unsupported by regulations despite the passage of more than 270 days from its promulgation.

iMEGA's suit lists several justifications for its application, including the inappropriate restriction of a form of 'consensual private conduct;' an overbroad criminalisation of financial transactions relating to online gambling and an inconsistent and therefore unconstitutional regulation of states' rights matters.

The body claims the right to litigate because it was formed to represent the interests of members, which are businesses or individuals involved in Internet interactive media, entertainment and gaming, including Internet gambling.

iMEGA remains confident that it has a strong case. President Edward Leyden said earlier that the organisation's own case is being continually improved. "As with any lawsuit," commented Leyden, "ours is an evolving being that may well be amended to take into account unfolding events and legal arguments, including naming additional defendants as necessary and appropriate."

 

[jetset]

iMEGA holding its own in US legal scrap

POWERFUL ARGUMENTS IN iMEGA RESPONSE

The US government appears to have a real fight on its hands over UIGEA

When the largely unknown Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association [iMEGA] burst onto the online gambling scene earlier this year, challenging the US government's Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, there was some scepticism about its motivation and ability to stay the course. In recent months those sceptics will be reconsidering their opinions as the nascent organisation has shown an impressive legal capability that has US officials on the back foot.

In the latest exchange, the defending US government tried to have the iMEGA challenge dismissed as lacking in legal standing and challenging an "unripe" law. iMEGA came back with a cogent and powerful riposte which the government must answer by September 21(see previous InfoPowa reports).

iMEGA's website shows the extent and depth of that 50 page riposte, where the Department of Justice's motion for dismissal is dismantled with telling precedents and new and important points are added to the developing iMEGA argument...an evolving process as promised by the organisation's president, Edward Leyden who said earlier that the organisation's own case is being continually improved.

Among the additional points, iMEGA claims that its actions meet the legally accepted standard of review; that it does have standing based on prior legal precedent and that the UIGEA "directly causes injury-in-fact to plaintiff's members and the public." The brief stresses that it is important to "....recall the terms of the UIGEA, in particular its impact on the First Amendment, the commercial livelihood of iMEGA's members, and the UIGEA's criminal penalty provisions."

iMEGA goes on to cite respected legal precedent in cases dealing with the battle between government control and personal control regarding Internet access, pointing out that courts have repeatedly struck down over-reaching regulations on unconstitutional grounds, especially those related to fundamental freedoms in the US Constitution.

A more technical argument revolves around the failure of the US authorities to produce supporting regulations for the UGIEA within the 270 days stipulated by Congress. Somewhat disengenuously, the government tried to turn this failure of authority into an advantage in the iMEGA case, claiming that the UGIEA was "unripe law" and could not therefore be challenged.

Describing this tactic as "intriguing" the iMEGA brief comments: "Under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, "agency action includes the whole or a party of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.

"Simply put, the government missed the deadline to define legal and illegal transactions," the brief continues, referring to UGIEA which seeks to disrupt private financial transactions with online gambling companies. The brief goes on to enumerate other reasons why the case should be considered ripe at this time.

The World Trade Organisation bind in which the US has found itself over online gambling disputes with Antigua is prominent in the current iMEGA brief, with iMEGA making the logical point that the US, in dropping its World Trade Organisation appeal, has made a de facto acknowledgment that such gambling was and is legal from the time when the treaty round referred to as the Uruguay Round - went into effect over a decade ago.

Irrespective of the ongoing attempts by the US Trade Representative to withdraw its online gambling obligations from the WTO treaty terms, the fact that it dropped its appeal raises legal questions that can be brought up by individual parties in a US-federal action, even if those same parties would have no grounds for action in the WTO matter itself, iMEGA argues.

Thus far it would appear that iMEGA is more than holding its own, and the next legal exchanges will be watched with close interest as this important issue develops.

 

[Mousey]

It's rather refreshing to see a group holding it's own and going toe to toe rather than rolling over and handing all their money over with a 'so sorry, we were bad'.

 

[jetset]

More publicity clout for iMEGA

BIG PUBLICITY PLANS FOR iMEGA

Getting the word out could have far-reaching benefits

The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association [iMEGA] has been hitting global headlines in recent months with its determined legal action against the US government over the validity and constitutional propriety of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. With more action promised as the two sides clash again in a federal court hearing on September 24, the non-profit body is keeping the pressure on with a new ally - high-powered and internationally respected New York public relations firm Ogilvy.

Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide is headquartered in New York, with more than 60 offices located around the world. In the United States, the agency has offices in Atlanta, Cambridge, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington, DC. In the EAME region, there are major hubs in London, Paris, Madrid and Dubai. In the Asia-Pacific Region, Ogilvy has more than 20 offices in key locations including Beijing, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney and Singapore.

Bringing the influence, professionalism and contacts of this sort of publicity outfit to bear is likely to substantially raise the profile of iMEGA and its altruistic fight against a law that seeks to hamstring American online gamblers by prohibiting financial transactions with online gambling companies.

And by highlighting the adverse effects on the United States of a negative approach to online gambling such as the World Trade Organisation debacle (see previous InfoPowa reports) and the assault on constitutional rights that UGIEA represents, it may persuade American politicians across the parties to consider supporting anti-UIGEA legislative proposals such as Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation Enforcement Act.

Appearing from nowhere, and asserting that its fight against UIGEA is not so much support of online gambling as a defence of American rights, iMEGA continues to impress with the sound legal approach it has demonstrated so far.

Styling itself as a not-for-profit trade organisation, iMEGA says its goal is to work constructively and cooperatively with government at all levels, and with other concerned citizens and corporations, to perpetuate the remarkable growth of the Internet, and to promote innovation, openness and freedom as the path to even greater benefit of this medium for all.

 

[jetset]

Update

LATEST iMEGA ARGUMENT FROM U.S. APPEARS LARGELY UNCHANGED

If the judge approves, it looks as if this issue is headed for a court hearing

In previous reports we have detailed the back-and-forth legal arguments between the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association [iMEGA] and the US government following the launch of a legal action by the former, challenging the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and requesting a temporary restraining order on its implementation.

Despite the fact that regulations have still not been framed by the government for the UIGEA, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies, the legislation has caused widespread international damage to Internet betting companies.

Just before the weekend deadline, the United States submitted its latest argument on Case Number 3:07-cv-02625-MLC-TJB to Judge Mary L Cooper in the Trenton Division of the US District Court for New Jersey.

The fresh US submission remains largely unchanged from its previous motion for the out-of-hand dismissal of the case, which iMEGA had already addressed in a fifty page submission last week (see previous InfoPowa report)

Departed US Attorney General Gonzales is replaced in the document by new acting AG Peter D Keisler, and 18 cases are quoted as references to the 4 basic arguments against the iMEGA case, accusing it of "Mischaracterisations of the UIGEA and misapplications of the law."

The four basic arguments remain largely unaltered as:

1) Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge UIGEA under the First Amendment to the Constitution because:

a) Plaintiff has not demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution under UIGEA

b) Plaintiff cannot base standing on rank speculation about the economic losses to third parties.

2) Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the UIGEA's alleged inconsistency with a World Trade Organisation decision.

3) Plaintiff's Constitutional challenge of the forthcoming regulations under the UIGEA is unripe because these regulations have yet to issue.

4) UIGEA is not a content-based restriction on speech and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny.

Unless Judge Cooper concedes to the government's demand that the case be dismissed, the argument now seems set to unfold in oral submissions before the judge on September 26.

 

[Mousey]

Thanks Jetset!

I was kind of hoping they'd leave Gonzo in there... But if the new guy will do just as well (even though he's just come on board as AT) then that's ok, too.

 

[Mousey]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(AP) ATLANTIC CITY An association of online gambling groups is challenging a federal law that seeks to choke off electronic payments from gamblers to Internet companies operating in other countries.

In suing the federal government, the Internet Media Entertainment & Gaming Association claims that Internet gambling is protected by First Amendment privacy rights, and that filtering technology already exists to make sure children and compulsive gamblers cannot access offshore betting sites.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton, asks for an immediate halt to enforcement of the law, and ultimately seeks to have it declared unconstitutional. The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Judge Mary L. Cooper heard arguments in the case Wednesday morning, and said she expects to rule within 30 days.

Last fall, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which makes it illegal for U.S. banks and credit card companies to process payments to online gambling businesses based outside the United States.

Edward Leyden, president of the industry association, said the law is having a chilling effect on an industry that he estimated generates as much as $50 billion to $60 billion a year.

Its a large market now, and its growing, he said.

But the federal governments stance is clear: online gambling is illegal.

You can go to Vegas. You can go to Atlantic City. You can go to a racetrack, Leslie Bryant, head of the FBIs Cyber Crime Fraud unit wrote on the agencys Web Site earlier this year. You can go to those places and gamble legally. But dont do it online. Its against the law.

Leyden said the online gambling industry wants to become regulated by the government, including paying taxes and having its actions monitored by government inspectors. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has sponsored legislation that would regulate the industry, but not tax it. The bill is still pending, Frank spokesman Steve Adamske said.

Thats exactly what we wantthat kind of protection for ....

***************************
And from Forbes:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

on Challenge to Flawed Online Gaming Law
09.26.07, 1:17 PM ET

New Jersey Court Takes Issue under Advisement; Decision on Motion to Dismiss anticipated in approximately30 Days



WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
The following statement may be attributed to Edward J. Leyden, president of the Internet Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA).



"Based on the decision of the U.S. District Court earlier today, iMEGA eagerly awaits the action of the Honorable Mary L. Cooper and the Court.



"We agree that children and problem gamblers need protection. We know that technology is available that will accomplish this. This law -- in addition to being defective and unconstitutional -- will not provide greater protections. In fact, it will only make these groups more vulnerable.



"UIGEA passed in the waning minutes of the 109th Congress with very little input from members of Congress and is a misguided attempt to regulate content developed for the Internet. Although UIGEA is purportedly designed to limit illegal Internet gambling, it falls woefully short of having the ability to accomplish that purpose and fails the American people on a number of fronts. These regulations, if promulgated, would stifle online innovation and commerce; inadequately protect children by failing to ensure adequate safeguards; have a chilling effect on the privacy rights of individuals; and potentially lead to the loss of thousands of U.S. white collar jobs. iMEGA strongly suggests an immediate congressional review of the numerous pieces of legislation that address the issue of online gaming and recommends passage of new laws that ensure safe Internet use, protect U.S. Internet leadership and promote the Internet as a bastion of innovation."



About iMEGA -- The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA), a .....

 

[Mousey]

From

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

the article is generally a repeat of what has already been reported, except for this (talking about UIGEA):

Justice Department lawyer Jacqueline Coleman Snead urged Cooper to reject the gambling industry's bid to delay enforcement of the law. Snead said the industry's claims were premature because enforcement guidelines haven't been issued.

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are drafting regulations to implement the law. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 25 approved draft regulations to implement the measure, according to its Web site.

BTW... if anyone has the secret as to how the hell to actually find anything remotely related what you're searching for at these gov't websites, please let me in on it.

 

[sdaddy]

no word yet

Well, it's been over 30 days since the iMEGA case was heard, so it's taking longer than expected for the judge's ruling.

The delay is disappointing, but maybe it's also positive in the sense that iMEGA's challenge must have some strength otherwise it would probably have been dismissed long ago.

 

[jetset]

Update

iMEGA DECISION NEXT WEEK?

Judge Cooper's decision could have a major impact on the UIGEA

Online gambling industry observers will be on the lookout in the coming week for a decision by the US District Court in Trenton, New Jersey that could allow the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to be challenged in court by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, a pressure group formed to protect the freedoms of the Internet.

Judge Mary L. Cooper has for the past 30 days been considering the complicated legal arguments arising from iMEGA's legal action to challenge and temporarily suspend the US Administration's UIGEA, with the ultimate objective of setting it aside. The US government legal representatives want the action dismissed without further legal argument in open court.

If Judge Cooper decides in favour of the iMEGA action, the debate will be decided judicially after a full court hearing.

"It is our hope that we will see a decision from Judge Cooper before days end," an iMEGA.org representative said this week.

"We do recognize, though, that it is up to the discretion of a Federal judge as to how long they wish to take to render a decision. So, though the court said 30 days, Judge Cooper can and should take as long as she feels is necessary to provide a fully-considered decision.

"Frankly, we feel that it is a good sign that Judge Cooper is taking her time. We believe it confirms iMEGAs suit is not a nuisance suit - one lacking in merit - which would likely have been dismissed immediately."

Meanwhile, the recently released draft of supporting regulations for the UIGEA, open for comment until December, have been entered into the court record.

If Judge Cooper rules in favour of the iMEGA motion, it will open the door to a full-on contest of the UIGEA based on two principal grounds:

1. It is an egregious violation of Americans digital civil rights, in that Americans should enjoy the same freedoms online that they enjoy in the real world and

2. UIGEA is functionally a bad law. In an effort to protect minors, gambling addicts, and American players from fraud, UIGEA instead - by removing the banks and credit card companies, along with the safeguards they employ every day - has in fact made those groups more vulnerable.

The iMEGA spokesman said: "What is most important to iMEGA is that this law is overturned, so that Americans digital civil rights are preserved, and that this bad law does not become a precedent for targeted attacks on other popular Internet entertainment categories.

"Laws have already been proposed that would target other Internet mainstays like social networking, online dating, video games and more. Americans must preserve their right to choose what activities they wish to enjoy online, in the privacy of their homes, in their own free time."

 

[Westland Bowl]

2. UIGEA is functionally a bad law. In an effort to protect minors, gambling addicts, and American players from fraud, UIGEA instead - by removing the banks and credit card companies, along with the safeguards they employ every day - has in fact made those groups more vulnerable...

As much as I would like to see UIGEA be overturned, just how does UIGEA make minors, gambling addicts, and American players be MORE vulnerable? As an American player, I have more difficulty funding any online casino account. I've been lucky a couple of times to use a credit card for funding casino accounts but I haven't been lucky lately at that. No e-wallets work for US players. So just how are US minors and US gambling addicts funding their accounts if banks and credit card companies no longer work for funding casino accounts and e-wallets? Didn't UIGEA make these groups LESS vulnerable? I guess I'm not getting the logic and certainly a judge would see that the "principle" #2 is a little bit of logic-bending. But maybe I'm not understanding wright,er, rite, er...right.

 

[lots0]

...just how does UIGEA make minors, gambling addicts, and American players be MORE vulnerable?

Before UIGEA, there was some self regulation by the industry leaders (The US Government sure was not putting any protections in place). But as soon as UIGEA was passed into law, most of the law abiding and socially responsible gambling companies, the industry leaders, left the US market.

Now all but a very very few of the online casinos that accept US players are Rogue.

Most of the casinos remaining open to Americans don't care if the credit card they just processed is stolen or being used by a 13 year old, as long as the cash transfers from the bank are good.

It is fairly easy to make a DEPOSIT into a Rogue Casino... I know several that will take your credit card, personal check or echeck with no questions asked.

I just saw last week a Rogue Casino that was for a short time (until they were caught) taking paypal...

Yet as has been pointed out, because of the UIGEA, currently it is neigh impossible for an American to make a deposit into an honest and socially responsible Online Casino.

 

[Mousey]

Anything new on iMega and the lawsuit?

 

[sdaddy]

Anything new on iMega and the lawsuit?

I haven't heard anything, so I'm assuming the case is still pending.

How can the judge just not issue a ruling after all this time? I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

 

[jetset]

iMEGA APPEALS IN U.S. ONLINE GAMBLING LAW CASE

Notice of appeal filed in 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia

Having achieved legal standing to litigate in its case against the US government's UIGEA earlier this year (see previous InfoPowa report) the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) online gambling trade group has now filed a Notice of Appeal in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (Philadelphia) to progress its challenge against "policy enforcement" of the UIGEA.

In a press announcement this week the organisation recapped on previous litigation, commenting that the prior ruling by the Honorable Mary L. Cooper contained a great deal of good and yet some bad aspects for iMEGA and for the rights, the people and the medium it seeks to defend.

"First and foremost, the Court established, with crystal clarity, the standing (and associational standing) of iMEGA to challenge this (UIGEA) law in court," explains the statement. "This is no small thing. Judge Cooper herself spent 15 pages of her 29-page decision establishing iMEGAs standing, in the process knocking down the US governments primary challenge to our suit. iMEGA flat-out beat the government on that point.

"Many legal commentatorsboth supporters and naysayersfrom the beginning viewed the question of iMEGAs standing as an insurmountable barrier to moving forward. Well, weve crossed over that barrier, and now the government has to contend with iMEGA as fully and unquestionably empowered by the Court to assert our rights in the courts of the United States. The fact that the Federal courts have now recognized iMEGA as the champion of the Internet Gambling industry cannot be overstated," the statement adds.

iMEGA recognises that it failed to obtain a definitive ruling on the "groundbreaking questions we presented, namely, that those fundamental rights we all enjoy of privacy, speech, expression, and conduct should not be lessened in any way when we are using the Internet." Judge Cooper simply affirmed that Congress had the right to pass the law in a constitutional manner - a point iMEGA never challenged.

"As a result, the Court is in essence standing aside and reserving these issues to be decided by a higher authority, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and, potentially, the United States Supreme Court," iMEGA claims, before emphasising that Judge Cooper acknowledged the failings of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and, in Footnote 12 on Page 27 of her decision, stated categorically that the criminal penalties provided for under the UIGEA do not apply to financial businesses, such as financial transaction providers.

The statement clarifies that the next step for iMEGA is to continue the battle for the overthrow of the UIGEA to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, an appellate court that has been traditionally protective of the fundamental rights of speech and expression.

"One need only look to that Courts striking down (multiple times) of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) another well intentioned but over-reaching Federal law for an example of how favorable that Court can be to iMEGAs challenge," it avers.

A positive result for iMEGA in the Third Circuit, affirming its digital civil rights, would represent a landmark victory with historic consequences.

iMEGA is under no illusions about the magnitude of its next battle, saying that in light of political pressures, it anticipates that the US Justice Department will bring all of its vast resources to the fight. "(But) with the possible exception of the American Banking Association, no one has more precisely and effectively portrayed how faulty the proposed UIGEA regulations are, in the hope of preventing them from being promulgated or weakened to such an extent that they become meaningless," the statement claims.

"While we were disappointed that Judge Cooper dismissed our (original) lawsuit, this case is far from over. We always knew that this would be the first round in a serious fight, as most important legal battles are. Many legal challenges that lost their first round make up many of the rights Americans now take for granted," the organisation claims, giving as examples:

Brown v. Board of Education (Separate but Equal school systems) - Originally lost in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

Miranda v. Arizona (Illegal Interrogations) - Originally lost in the Arizona Supreme Court

Gideon v. Wainwright (Right to Counsel) - Originally lost in the Florida Supreme Court and Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida

Tinker v. Des Moines (Freedom of Speech) - Originally lost in U.S. District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

iMEGA is also currently active on the lobbying front, and president Edward Leyden will provide detailed verbal and written testimony for the Congressional hearing on UIGEA on April 2, 2008 by the House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.

The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. and will include testimony from representatives from the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Several representatives of financial institutions are also listed on the witness list, including Harriet May, who will be speaking on behalf of the Credit Union National Association; Wayne Abernathy, representing the American Bankers Association; Leigh Williams, from the Financial Services Roundtable; and Ted Teruo Kitada, on behalf of Wells Fargo & Co.