Devilkin 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 iMEGA Legal Victory Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!! Link to post Share on other sites
PrtyPSux 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 It doesn't really sound like a legal victory to me, maybe I'm wrong but it said that the Judge ruled against a ton of the iMEGA claims. To me it sounds pretty inconsequential, but then again I don't understand much of the article....can someone explain it better? Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 It doesn't really sound like a legal victory to me, maybe I'm wrong but it said that the Judge ruled against a ton of the iMEGA claims. To me it sounds pretty inconsequential, but then again I don't understand much of the article....can someone explain it better?LOL... I don't either. I just took the word of the bottom of the article that says it was a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 According to iMEGA's lead council, Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., the ruling by Judge Cooper also upholds the idea that certain online gambling activity is only illegal in states that specifically declare it so. I like that part Link to post Share on other sites
ForRealDD 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 cliff notes plz. Link to post Share on other sites
bull62 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 cliff notes plz."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," Bernstein said. Further explanation of the ruling came from the chairman of iMEGA, Joe Brennan Jr. "iMEGA is very pleased that the Court recognized our standing and the weaknesses in UIGEA," Brennan Jr. said, "Judge Cooper found that banks, credit card companies and other payment system instruments are exempt from criminal sanctions under UIGEA, significantly undercutting UIGEA's enforcement mechanism. Her ruling echoes the growing consensus of opinion that UIGEA is a fundamentally flawed statute." Link to post Share on other sites
ForRealDD 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 nice...thx Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 So basically, we're not breaking the law. Link to post Share on other sites
bull62 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 nice...thxDid you get my PM? Link to post Share on other sites
Flushgarden 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 We need people to know that they can legally deposit and withdraw. Whenever I play live and the topic comes up everybody thinks its illegal to play online. I think the major online sites should get together and figure out how to get the word out. The casual players and people who might like to give the game a try need to know that it is completely safe and legal. Also Party Poker needs to come back to the U.S. now please. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 We need people to know that they can legally deposit and withdraw. Whenever I play live and the topic comes up everybody thinks its illegal to play online. I think the major online sites should get together and figure out how to get the word out. The casual players and people who might like to give the game a try need to know that it is completely safe and legal. Also Party Poker needs to come back to the U.S. now please. And get new software while they're at it. Link to post Share on other sites
tuckermitchell 1 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I don't see how this changes anything tbh. I always thought it was okay to play poker online. Doesn't the UIGEA just say American financial institutions can't transfer money to companies that are known to allow online gambling? Just wondering. If online poker were illegal I'm fairly certain at least one famous person would have been arrested by now to show how "serious" the govt was about it. Link to post Share on other sites
bull62 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I don't see how this changes anything tbh. I always thought it was okay to play poker online. Doesn't the UIGEA just say American financial institutions can't transfer money to companies that are known to allow online gambling? Just wondering. If online poker were illegal I'm fairly certain at least one famous person would have been arrested by now to show how "serious" the govt was about it.No, it doesn't really change anything. It just clarifies that the UIGEA is a bogus piece of crap that is unenforceable. Link to post Share on other sites
KHSPoker21 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 No, it doesn't really change anything. It just clarifies that the UIGEA is a bogus piece of crap that is unenforceable.And that, once the word gets out, we get to go fishing weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 In This thread on 2+2, the consensus seems to be that this ruling was a huge loss and IMEGA is just trying to save face by spinning the narrow portion they won as a huge win. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 In This thread on 2+2, the consensus seems to be that this ruling was a huge loss and IMEGA is just trying to save face by spinning the narrow portion they won as a huge win.That thread makes less sense to me than the op. Link to post Share on other sites
rawkodd 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 it's not about freedom of speech... not sure how they plan to support that arguement... the fact that they'd continue to pursue that charge makes me really worry about how strong a case they have at all Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Here's my understanding of the case. iMEGA: The UIGEA is unconstitutional because it violates free speech and is an invasion of privacy. DOJ: #1 You don't have standing to raise this issue because who the fk are you, none of your members have been prosecuted under this law and #2 UIGEA does not violate free speech. Judge: They do have standing to raise the issue, but there's really not much of a case for UIGEA violating free speech, so no. Result is iMEGA has legal standing if they want to appeal, but their original case has been dismissed. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 The problem is that there are no laws to dispute the BS that they're doing to us. So apparently the picked some crap that makes no sense, just to make a case. Which seems kinda dumb. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Too bad they couldn't get it heard in the 9th circuit court. Probably would have a better chance of success there since they're more inclined to stretch free speech to include a great deal more than most of the other circuit courts would. Link to post Share on other sites
bull62 0 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 This actually sounds more promising.http://www.texasholdem.com/news/Legalized_...ing_in_Billions Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 This actually sounds more promising.http://www.texasholdem.com/news/Legalized_...ing_in_Billions THANK GOD SOMEONE FINALLY SAID WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS!! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now