by Hillary LaClair, Senior Editor
Although the Kentucky domain seizure court case has been the center of attention in the internet poker industry, iMEGA’s litigation against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act came back into the limelight this week.
Following iMEGA having received legal standing by a lower court earlier this uear, on September 29th, iMEGA’s intense legal team filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court against the earlier ruling by Judge Mary Copper. The intention? To overturn the UIGEA on grounds that it is unconstitutional. The appeal gave the US government a deadline by which to offer a response, and an additional 15 days to iMEGA following to response to launch a counterattack.
In the end, each side’s argument will be analyzed by a panel of judges to determine whether the UIGEA is constitutional, whether the UIGEA should be more clearly defined or if inevitably it will stay as it is.
The United States issued an official response this week essentially saying that the Enforcement Act is perfectly clear in its definition of internet gambling. “It prohibits the knowing acceptance of financial instruments in connection with gambling when the bet in question is illegal in the place it was made or received.”
In coming to a full response, the Department of Justice has overlooked the criticism of the need for more clarity in what is considered illegal internet gambling. Criticisms have come not only from the online poker, casino and sports betting industry and advocates, but also from the financial institutions in charge of enforcing the Act, politicians and federal officials.
Despite the fact that iMEGA was granted legal grounds to appeal to the Third Circuit, the Department of Justice has continued to insist that the organization has no legal leg to stand on. The Department has challenged iMEGA’s litigation saying that it “failed to advance this argument to the district court, either in its motion for injunctive relief or in its opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss.”
In a press release Joe Brennan, Chairman at iMEGA said that he finds it “hard to believe the government is making that claim,” maintaining that Judge Mary Cooper preserved due process concerns in her ruling.
Brennan continues, “We’re very confident, after reviewing the government’s brief, that we are on track for having this law overturned. We’re looking forward to the opportunity, once this fatally flawed law has been dealt with, to work toward a reasonable, common sense approach by our country to internet gaming, one that above all affirms our rights and their place in the online world.”
Similar initiatives have been taken by members of the Congress such as Barney Frank to either overturn or further define the UIGEA. The Payments System Protection Act, or HR 6870, is on a long list of legislative proposals in reference to internet gambling, that will be left to a Congressional vote. These proposals are calling for a definition of what is and is not legal under law to help financial institutions left to enforce the ban.
Additionally, the challenge remains that the US law discriminates against some forms of internet gambling, while horse racing wagers are still legal online. Finally, online poker advocates still maintain that poker is a game of skill, and should be altogether left out of the Act.
|
