Legal Challenges Face North Dakota Poker Bill
Published: Friday, March 18, 2005 Online-Casinos.com
LEGAL CHALLENGES FACE NORTH DAKOTA POKER BILL
US Department of Justice
shows it's (heavy) hand
The US mainstream media continued to follow the
North Dakota attempts to legalise online poker last week, with some prominence
given to reports that the US Department of Justice was showing it's heavy hand.
The Department reportedly sent a letter to the attorney general of North Dakota
stating that the proposed bill "...could be in violation of federal laws."
Addressed to North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, and signed
by U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Laura Parsky, the letter apparently
mirrors those sent to the Nevada Gaming Commission and the U.S. Virgin Islands
after those jurisdictions passed laws seeking to regulate the online gaming industry.
The correspondence apparently cites three federal statutes that the state
could be violating if it moves forward with the legislation: the Wire Act, the
Travel Act and the Anti-Gambling Act.
But legal experts who follow the
industry say the DOJ is not on firm ground. Attorneys Anthony Cabot, Frank Catania,
Pat O'Brien and Allyn Jaffrey Shulman testified last week before the North Dakota
Senate, and all four were adamant that regulated online poker in North Dakota
would not violate any federal laws.
"They (the DOJ) are real good
at writing letters and threatening jurisdictions without having any basis of case
law," O'Brien said during a press conference last week. Shulman said that
a state wanting to regulate online poker is above refute from the Wire Act.
"I would stake my reputation on the fact that the Wire Act doesn't apply
to online poker," she said. "I said that six years ago, and I stand
by that today. There is a clear definition of the Wire Act as it applies to sports
betting, and online poker doesn't meat that definition."
Catania
said the Anti-Gambling Act would be a moot point because it allows the federal
government to bring charges only against individuals who are operating gambling
services that are in violation of state laws. "If North Dakota, or a similar
state, passed a bill that allowed for the activity to be licensed and regulated,"
Catania pointed out, "then individuals would hardly be in violation of state
laws."
The attorneys also argued that the Travel Act applies only
to the distribution of funds gained from "illegal" activities. Therefore,
if Internet poker was deemed legal in the state, any funds derived from the activity
would be perfectly legal.
The perhaps premature nature of the DOJ's response
to the North Dakota bill--it has yet to go before the full Senate is worthy of
note.
"They can say what they want, but in 10 years they haven't
brought one non-sports betting operator up on charges for violating the Wire Act
or any of these other statutes," O'Brien explained.
Novertheless,
the DOJ letter is seen by some to cast some doubt on the Bill's chances of passing
the Senate. Stenehjem told Associated Press that he's convinced the DOJ means
business. "At one point or another, we are going to be, if this law is passed,
in court, in a very protracted and potentially expensive lawsuit to defend the
statute," Stenehjem said.
Stenehjem added that no online poker activity
will be permitted in the state until the courts weigh in with their opinion on
the law. "Before I would be willing . . . to establish an Internet gaming
program in North Dakota, I would have to have a ruling from a court indicating
that in doing so, we're not violating [federal law]."
The Senate
Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on the bill last week, is scheduled
to vote on the bill this week. The bill was amended to include a "defense
fund" created for the sole purpose of financing a court challenge if the
DOJ were to bring a lawsuit against the state.
