U.S. Applies For iMEGA Case Dismissal

Published: Saturday, September 01, 2007 Online-Casinos.com

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 Online-Casinos.com/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 separate 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."