Visitors from all around come to Southern Arizona to visit Tombstone: “The Town Too Tough to Die.”

And pretty soon some of those visitors could include poker players.  Poker could be making a comeback.

“Tombstone was a Las Vegas before there was a Las Vegas,” says Harold Lee with the Arizona Card League. “Tombstone, as far as I can tell, is the home of poker in this country in a way.”

Despite their poker faces, a group of poker lovers are passionate the game should come back to Tombstone.

“We think that not only does poker belong there, but that poker can do a lot to help that community revive itself,” Lee says.

“It’s huge on TV right now. Turn it on and there’s 3 games on,” says poker dealer John Pearson.

The Arizona Card League wants to put on weekend poker excursions in town.

Some of the money will go towards fixing up the old city hall.

It’s another way to draw visitors to town.

“They could sit around, play cards like Doc Holliday and stuff,” says Tombstone resident Stephanie Hamblin.

The city says it can’t find any law on its books saying poker ever became illegal.

“I think it’s the Old West and they need to have stuff like that,” Hamblin says.

You can find more information at www.arizonacardroom.com.

If you go:
Milford Planning Board meeting
When: Tuesday at 6:30 p.m.
Where: Milford Town Hall.

Poker players play for the pleasure of the game, not because they want to be do-gooders, says the president of a company that wants to establish a Texas hold’em poker operation in the former Violette’s IGA at the Granite Town Plaza.

But if the planning board approves a change of use request made by James Rafferty, president of the New Hampshire Charitable Gambling, 35 percent of the profits from the games played in the former supermarket will go to charity.

“The charities in the state, in Nashua, want to get this going,” Rafferty said on Thursday. “It’s a great way to raise money, a whole new group of people, men from the region who want to play a good game of poker.”

Rafferty is hoping for a second nod when he goes before the planning board on Tuesday during a public hearing where changing the designated use for the 12,000-square-foot space in the 20,000-square-foot former supermarket will be discussed.

Violette’s was the last independent grocery in Milford, and has been empty since that store closed in 1995. Various plans have been put forward for the space over the years, including a bar and a bowling alley, but none have gone forward.

Rafferty said 50 employees would work at peak hours, 82 in total, and he plans to set up 25 poker tables with 10 seats at each table.

Traffic and parking issues are expected to be discussed as part of the planning board process. The gaming company president must provide one parking space for every two seats in the establishment and one space for every two employees, according to Planning Board regulations.

Not everyone in town supports the change in use.

Chuck Worcester of Hometown Insurance, a business located on the Oval, has filed a statement with the planning department opposing the request.

He said he believes the change would have an “adverse impact to the community,” according to the statement.

Worcester was speaking as president of the Heritage Commission, a town group concerned with historic preservation.

The application to the town’s planning board follows requests by Rafferty to set up charitable gaming in Nashua and Brookline.

In two applications to the city of Nashua, the company sought approval to set up charitable gaming in the former St. Stanislaus Hall on Pine Hill Road and in the former ArcLight store on West Pearl Street.

The city zoning board quashed the request with 2-2 vote. Rafferty said he withdrew his application after the tie vote.

Rafferty, who runs the company backed by eight investors, plans to open his first charitable gaming operation in Brookline later this year, following a vote last week by that town’s planning board to allow Big Bear Lodge to lease space to Rafferty’s New Hampshire Charitable Gambling.

The board also approved a request to extend the Big Bear Lodge hours to 11 a.m.-1 a.m.

Currently, bingo games are held at the lodge on Sunday afternoons to raise money for local charities.

Gambling that dedicates a percentage to charity has been legal in the state for about a decade. Last year, the law was changed to allow charities to hire a professional company to run the games, under the watch of the New Hampshire Pari-Mutuel Commission.

The Telegraph (09/17/07)

A majority of voters want the chance to decide whether casinos should be allowed in the state, according to a new poll.

The Lexington Herald-Leader/Action News 36 Election Poll found that 82 percent of Kentuckians want to vote on the issue.

“Kentuckians want this resolved and they want their voice heard,” said Patrick Neely, executive director of the pro-casino Kentucky Equine Education Project.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher has tried to paint this fall’s gubernatorial election as a “referendum” on casinos, but the message isn’t working, said Del Ali, the pollster who conducted the phone survey of 600 likely voters.

Issues such as job creation, health care and education are affecting the votes of about as many people, the survey found.

“Casino gambling is not the issue driving the gubernatorial election,” Ali said.

After saying for years that he wouldn’t block state lawmakers from putting the issue on the ballot, Fletcher changed his position this summer and said he will fight against allowing voters to consider a constitutional amendment on the subject.

“As Kentuckians are becoming more educated on the issue and the experiences of other states, they’re recognizing that the state should not welcome a predatory peddler of an addictive product,” said John-Mark Hack, chairman of the Say No to Casinos Campaign.

Only 11 percent of respondents said they opposed a vote on casinos. Seven percent said they were not sure.

The poll was conducted Sept. 10-13 by Olney, Md.-based Research 2000 and has a margin of error of four percentage points.

The Herald-Leader/Action News 36 poll found that 48 percent of likely voters oppose casinos, compared with 42 percent who support them. Ten percent were not sure.

Fletcher has argued that casinos will increase crime, bankruptcy, suicide and divorce in Kentucky. His Democratic opponent, Steve Beshear, contends that allowing a limited number of casinos would create hundreds of millions of new tax dollars for education and health care.

An unlikely trade dispute between the U.S. and Antigua over online gaming has turned into a David-and-Goliath battle, proving small nations can wield large digital sticks.

Antigua is better known for sandy beaches than international trade disputes. But next month this tiny Caribbean resort destination could compel the United States to legalize an industry that the Bush administration has been trying to eradicate since the beginning of the president’s first term. Antigua—with a population of just 70,000 and a GDP of under $1 billion—could force the United States to embrace online gambling.

The ruling, which the WTO is expected to begin enforcing next month, could oblige America to overhaul its prohibitive stance on online casinos, not just in relation to Antigua but to a host of others—including the EU, Japan and Australia. That would double the size of the $15 billion-a-year online gaming industry almost overnight, says the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, a pro-gaming consultancy. And since the WTO might allow nations that have been hurt by U.S. gaming laws to flout American intellectual-property law in response, the dispute is already spreading to Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond.

The story dates back to 2003, when Antigua sued the United States at the WTO over America’s prohibition of online casinos, which is the island’s second largest industry, after tourism. The United States allows a number of domestic betting companies, like the horse-racing Web site YouBet.com, to offer online gambling to Americans (these are thrown into the odd basket of legal gaming operations that include Native American-run casinos and riverboat gambling). But foreign firms are prohibited from offering exactly the same type of service to U.S. citizens.

The American government requires foreign sites to block U.S. users by checking the Internet protocol addresses of their computers, a requirement that has been honored mainly in the breach, given that Americans represent some 60 percent of world online-gaming revenue. Last October, President George W. Bush upped the ante by signing a new bill preventing banks and credit-card companies from processing payments by American users of overseas sites. The result: top companies like Gibraltar-based PartyGaming (once worth $8.4 billion) saw the value of their stock sliced in half, and their revenues plunge by 70 percent. The U.S. government has arrested a number of foreign online-gaming execs, charging them with gambling-related offenses. In March, the London-based Web site Sportingbet.com was forced to pay the state of Louisiana $400,000 to settle charges levied against its chairman, Peter Dicks.

But that same month, the WTO decided that the U.S. approach was an illegal form of trade protectionism. The ruling may be enforced as early as next month. “I was laughed at when I first brought the case,” says Mark Mendel, the long-haired, 51-year-old Texas lawyer who represented Antigua. “They totally underestimated me.”

More important, the United States underestimated the remarkable power that even tiny countries wield in today’s digitized global economy. Usually, when trade laws are broken, the WTO allows export sanctions to be imposed on the violating nation. But since Antigua hardly has the muscle to bring any meaningful sanctions against the United States, trade experts expect that the WTO will likely take another approach and allow Antigua to flout intellectual-property law.

If America doesn’t fold on gaming, next year Antiguans could well be selling billions of dollars of legally pirated copies of everything from Microsoft software to Disney movies without paying the copyright owners a penny. “Intellectual property is the perfect sanction item,” says Nao Matsukata, a former senior trade official for the United States. “It gives small countries like Antigua absolute leverage.” The WTO has allowed the use of IP as a stick once before, in the famous EU-Ecuador banana squabble (the threat of it was enough to make the EU cut a deal). But experts expect it will become common policy in the future, and see online gaming as a test case for its effectiveness.

It’s no surprise that lobbyists from Silicon Valley and Hollywood are now storming Capitol Hill, pushing for a deal. Last month the Motion Picture Association of America urged the U.S. trade representative to negotiate with Antigua in order to prevent bootlegging. But the Bush administration is staunchly refusing to bend on virtual gaming. The (surprisingly weak) legal line is that America never intended to include gambling under its WTO obligations, which were signed in the mid-1990s. “It is ludicrous [to assert that] our negotiators would have intentionally turned 40 years of criminal law against this type of gambling on its head,” says U.S. Deputy Trade Representative John Veroneau.

No dice, says the WTO. “The United States has a legal commitment; they can’t just say ‘oops’ and be done with it. What kind of precedent would that set?” asks one WTO insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be quoted discussing an ongoing case.

Ultimately, this leaves the United States with a very weak hand to play. It could continue to deny that the WTO has legislation over its internal gambling laws. But that would undermine the overall credibility of the organization by showing it to be unable to enforce its rulings—and America needs a strong WTO to mediate prickly conflicts with, say, China, over things like Internet censorship and the mass manufacturing of fake designer goods.

Eight other WTO members, including the European Union, Australia and Japan, are now lining up to claim compensation from the United States over online gaming. “The EU is almost licking its chops,” says Antigua’s lawyer Mendel. “In total, this could come to $100 billion in sanctions. ” Giant American bricks-and-mortar casinos like Harrah’s and MGM are making plans to move into the online sector as soon as the U.S. trade stance becomes clear.

They could get a sign as early as this week. Sept. 22 is the first WTO deadline for America to cut a deal with Antigua and the other nations. But one WTO insider predicts that the only announcement on that day will be that the deadline has been extended. “This won’t happen fast; America is going to dig its heels in,” says Sallie James, trade-policy analyst at Washington’s Cato Institute. “But if I had to bet, I would say that by this time next year America will have changed its laws.” And in this case, that means all bets will be on.

Alaska’s strict gaming laws put him on a fine line.

Texas Hold ‘em poker may be the parlor game of the decade, but will viewers tune in to watch local players go head to head on the flop, the turn and the river?

Lazy Mountain Television producer Bob Elyard thinks so. Elyard plans to air the first “Alaska Poker Showcase” show on local access Channel 303 at the end of the month.

He said he envisions a weekly 10-table setup in which the winners from each table face off in a televised battle for a chance to win a ticket to the big time: a trip to the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas.

“This is something I’ve been wanting to do all my life in broadcasting,” Elyard said. “To set out and do something beyond the norm is exciting.”

There’s no doubt the show would liven up Lazy Mountain TV’s current lineup of round-the-clock weather updates and televised meetings of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly. But could it be a hit?

Alaska has hosted game show auditions, been a backdrop for a few game show segments and is home to numerous game show contestants. But the state has limited experience with its own game shows.

Back in the days of RATNET, the Rural Alaska Television Network that beamed television shows into 248 Bush villages before shutting down in 1995, there was a local game show called “Ask an Alaskan.” Taped in Bethel, the Alaska fact show aired in the early 1990s. It was described as a cross between “Jeopardy” and “Wheel of Fortune,” and included a Yupik version.

Elyard’s concept is more along the lines of “World Poker Tour” than “Jeopardy.”

Like other televised poker games, Elyard said, the show would have commentary on why which player did what, breakdowns of odds for different moves and that kind of thing. He’s working with some local Texas Hold ‘em experts who will do the commentary, he said.

Elyard said the games won’t be televised live. They’ll be filmed, commentary will be cut in and then they’ll be broadcast on LMTV a few times a week.

Strategically located cameras will show viewers the cards each player is holding, he said. He and his producer, whose name he said he isn’t yet ready to announce, are buying cameras and are in the process of choosing a Valley venue, he said.

Elyard said he might make the show available to other stations. But for now he plans to air it only on Channel 303 on Matanuska Telephone Association’s digital TV lineup. Non-MTA subscribers can catch it online later this year, when Elyard gets the Internet simulcast up and running, he said.

Alaska Poker Association president Wayne McGregor said he hasn’t heard of Elyard’s plan and isn’t involved with the television show. But he’s for anything that’s good for poker, he said.

McGregor’s group began five years ago with fewer than 100 members. Now his membership is close to 800 and shows little sign of slowing down, he said. He’s working to make poker an official charity fundraising event in Alaska, like pull-tabs currently are, he said.

“We have politicians who see the word ‘poker’ related to gambling and see it as political suicide,” McGregor said. “I’ve spent the last five years trying to get away from the stigma of it being a ’smoky, backroom hustler’ type of thing. Look at the demographics. I have everything from college students to 80-year-old grandmothers playing with me. It’s universally popular.”

But Alaska gaming laws are strict and Elyard, like the Alaska Poker Association, may have to walk a fine line to not run afoul of state gambling laws.

The Poker Association has members and $25 yearly dues but anyone can participate in its games, McGregor said. Records of points won and lost are only kept for members, he said. The members with the highest points in each region come to Anchorage for an end-of-season tournament. The key, he said, is that the games are free.

“Anyone can play in our free venues,” McGregor said. “If it’s not free to play, it’s illegal.”

“Free means free,” said Alaska Alcohol Beverage Control Board director Doug Griffin. That means no cover charge, no drink minimum, no food purchase required, he said.

Griffin said three key elements make up illegal gambling. There’s consideration, which could be money paid upfront to play or a bet wagered. Then there’s the payoff, or the prizes players try to get. Finally, there’s the element of chance, which Griffin said is present in any kind of card game. A game can contain two of those things, but not all three.

Pool tournaments and dart games are legal because they’re considered a game of skill, not a game of chance, Griffin said. But with cards, particularly Texas Hold ‘em, part of the allure is the idea that a good player can get a bad hand or a rookie can be dealt good cards and beat a veteran.

“It is the great equalizer,” McGregor said. “At any time, anyone can beat anyone at Texas Hold ‘em. There’s no other sport that does that.”

Griffin’s agency watches closely for gambling where alcohol is served. Griffin said he likes elements of the poker trend, particularly that it encourages people in bars to be social and that it provides entertainment “besides seeing how much alcohol they can consume.” But the game has to be aboveboard or it’ll get shut down. It’s a fairness issue, he said.

Elyard said he thinks he’s got the legal details in hand. Contestants won’t play for money, but for prizes distributed based on points, he said. He’s basing the game off what he’s seen happening around the state.

“I know there have been poker games at various hotels around the state,” he said. “My idea was, well, if they’re having these games, why can’t we just get together and videotape one of them?”

Charitable gambling planned for Milford

Texas hold ‘em poker continues to gain popularity across the nation
through televised championship games and on the Internet, and now the
games might be coming to Milford and Brookline.

The
plan for New Hampshire Charitable Gambling (NHCG) to covert 12 out of
the 20 thousand square feet of the former Violette’s IGA grocery store
at Granite Town Plaza in Milford will go before the Milford Planning
Board on Tuesday, Sept. 18.

The proposed River Card Room would
have 25 poker tables and employ 82 people, and Jim Rafferty, president
of New Hampshire Charitable Gambling, says he can raise nearly $350,000
for charities in the first year alone.

And last week, the
Brookline Planning Board allowed Paul Andres, owner of Brookline’s Big
Bear Lodge, to expand operating hours from 11 a.m.-1 a.m., a change
that would allow Andres to lease the top floor to NHCG for the poker
games, according to a site plan application.

Charitable gambling
has been legal in New Hampshire for nearly a decade and in 2006, laws
changed so that charities can hire a professional firm to run the
games, with the New Hampshire Pari-Mutuel Commission overseeing the
process.

State law mandates that gambling organizations place a
$20,000 bond in case they are unable to meet the fundraising
requirements.

Gambling has been a hot topic in Milford since
last winter when Douglas Bianchi, a former Milford selectman and VFW
quartermaster, and VFW steward Arthur Gagnon were arrested for
allegedly operating five video poker machines at the Milford VFW that
illegally paid out winnings.

Bianchi says he doesn’t mind a
company offering gambling, but is troubled that the state allows it and
not video poker machines that pay out winnings.

“It just shows more hypocrisy,” he said.

The
Legislature is hypocritical, he said, because it says gambling will
hurt New Hampshire’s quality of life, but allows the sale of $30
scratch tickets.

Bianchi said the money from his video poker
games went to the town’s Labor Day parade and other causes, and he
doesn’t think that much money from the poker games at the IGA will
actually go to charity.

Rafferty said that is not the case.

“The
pari-mutuel (commission) is the agency responsible for overseeing the
operation to make sure it’s done right. It’s a shame what happened
earlier this year but we plan on working with local charities because
they need funding,” he said.

In June, neighbors of St.
Stanislaus Hall in Nashua quashed his plan to establish gaming in the
residential neighborhood, but Rafferty is confident that it will be
accepted in Milford.

“It’s going to be really good for Milford,” he said.

The old IGA building is owned by Herb and Cheryl Hardman of Milford.

According
to Sarah Marchant, Milford town planner, the Planning Board requires a
change of use because it will need to examine traffic and parking
issues, but she does not think this will be a problem at Granite Town
Plaza.

In contrast to poker games like stud or draw where each
player holds a separate individual hand, hold ‘em is a community card
game where each player may use any combination of the five community
cards and their own two hole cards to make a poker hand.

During
the 2007 World Series of Poker aired on ESPN a man won nearly $8
million, but don’t expect to win millions in Milford. The maximum bet
that can be placed during tournaments would be $250, according to an
NHCG preliminary presentation sent to Marchant.

Rafferty said a very skilled player could win up to $800 over several hours.

Cabinet reporter Daymond Steer contributed to this article.

Internet Gambling Deserves a New Chance

The U.S. should heed the wrath of the World Trade Organization by making betting games legal on the Web. Pro or con?

Click here to join the debate!

Pro: It’s Prohibition All Over Again
by Martin Owens, Gaming-Issues Attorney

The passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in October has led Antigua, which had previously sued America in 2003 before the World Trade Organization over the issue of Internet gambling, to seek relief before the world body once more. Chief among Antigua’s claims was that U.S. laws against Internet gambling constituted a trade barrier in violation of trade obligations.

American intransigence on the issue prompted the WTO to clear Antigua to collect $7 billion, and the fallout from this dispute could ultimately cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars, as claims from major trading partners pour in, most notably from the European Union, Japan, India, and Canada. The U.S.’s actions are blatantly unfair, considering that the U.S. ranks as the single biggest instigator of WTO claims against unfair trading practices.

The U.S. stands virtually alone in its uncompromising stance against Internet gambling, a position that is writ large by UIGEA and its actions at the WTO. The attempts to ban Internet gambling are misguided and unproductive, and will do nothing to protect responsible adults.

Far from being deterred by the Internet gambling ban, U.S. consumers are easily doing an end run around it, because their enthusiasm for online gambling has not waned. Regulation, not prohibition, is in the best interest of consumers. A ban does little except steer individuals to unscrupulous online gambling outfits that operate in the shadows of the industry and may well take advantage of the most vulnerable players.

The U.S. Justice Dept. has gone out of its way to undermine legitimate and licensed Internet gaming operators worldwide. Officers and board members of Internet gambling companies vetted and approved for trading on London markets—and underwritten by some of the globe’s most respected financial institutions—have been taken into custody while on U.S. soil. And U.S. authorities have arrested online-payment company executives on specious charges of money laundering.

It remains too early to tell how much this untenable war against Internet gaming will cost the U.S. in trade flows, innovation, and moral authority. But it is perfectly clear that it is time for America to stop pretending that the rule of law is a one-way street.

Con: This Vice Deserves No Encouragement
by Guy C. Clark, National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

The U.S. government’s obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO.

Gambling addiction rises predictably with proximity of games and speed of play. Nothing is more proximate than a personal computer, and nothing works faster. Plus, the Internet adds the deadly element of anonymity. The neighbors won’t spot you at the virtual casino. Solid citizens with no previous criminal record commit outrageous crimes when addicted to gambling.

The rate of divorce, spousal and child abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, bankruptcy, and suicide rises disproportionately high with gambling addiction. The WTO ruling claims foreign interests should have access to all American homes, because some states allow people to bet on horse races via the Internet. That makes as much sense as allowing foreign heroin and cocaine producers to offer drugs over the Internet simply because some pharmacies sell codeine cough syrup. Considering the implications for the U.S., this is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff.

This is not a “conservative moral issue.” Disdain for Internet gambling crosses all party lines and interests. Opposition comes from everywhere from the NFL to the Mormon Church. From Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Americans oppose gambling because it functions as a drain on the economy and the society.

Offshore opportunists claim that the U.S. can’t control Internet gambling, so it should regulate and tax it. If it can’t be controlled, then how could it be responsibly regulated or taxed? States already have a difficult enough time regulating gambling at casinos and racetracks. Internet gambling would prove much more difficult to monitor than brick-and-mortar casinos. Gaming proponents claim legalization will decrease illegal gambling, though no jurisdiction has ever proved that. To the contrary, the mob loves legalized gambling. It trains customers.

And Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) can quit comparing this to Prohibition. Even with the UIEGA, he can still fleece his fellow Congressmen face to face. We just don’t want him and his offshore card sharks trolling for suckers in our living rooms.

Click here to add your voice to the debate!

Congressman says support growing, measure may live

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on Tuesday acknowledged his bill to overturn an Internet gambling ban has stalled, but he said pressure from foreign countries could revive the legislation.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, conducted a hearing on the bill in June but no further action is planned this year.

“It’s not dead. It’s not very active,” Frank said. “It depends on whether or not there’s support. I don’t think there’s support for it yet. It’s growing.”

Frank said it is up to gamblers to push efforts to overturn the ban, but then quickly corrected himself.

“I take it back. If the EU (European Union) gets into this WTO (World Trade Organization) thing, that’s a lot more pressure,” he said.

Frank was referring to a ruling in March by a WTO judicial panel that the United States is violating international trade law by prohibiting Americans from gambling on Web sites based in the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda.

The U.S. Trade Representative responded in May by exempting U.S. gambling from international trade regulations.

“There an interesting hypocrisy here about the WTO obligations. They are sacred for a lot of things, but apparently not for gambling,” Frank said.

So far, Frank’s bill — which would require the U.S. Department of Treasury to regulate online gambling Web sites — has 36 co-sponsors.

There are 64 co-sponsors for a bill by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., which calls for a one-year study of the Internet gambling industry by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

But Berkley’s bill has not been scheduled for a hearing, and she said she does not expect one this year.

Berkley said she is waiting on Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to introduce his own version of a bill to study Internet gambling.

In 2002, Conyers introduced the first Internet gambling study bill and tried again the next year, but neither measure advanced.

“He can replace mine with his,” Berkley said.

Although Congress is running out of time this year, Berkley said she is confident there will be action on Internet gambling legislation in 2008.

tIf the House passes an Internet gambling study bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would be open to moving the legislation through the Senate, Berkley said.

“I know Senator Reid is favorably inclined to let the study bill pass the Senate even though he is not as enthusiastic about Internet gaming as I am,” Berkley said.

In addition to the bills by Frank and Berkley on Internet gambling, there are two other pending measures.

• Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., has proposed exempting poker and other “skill games” from an Internet gambling ban. Wexler’s bill has 13 co-sponsors.

• Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has proposed taxing Internet gambling companies if they are licensed and regulated in the United States. McDermott’s bill has one co-sponsor.

Mark Mendel, the attorney who is representing Antigua and Barbuda in its dispute with the United States, said there should be a ruling in November on the amount of damages the United States must pay.

“I feel confident that what we will get will be a massive number — one of the two or three largest WTO rewards ever,” said Mendel in a phone interview from Ireland.

The amount could range from more than $1 billion to $3.4 billion, Mendel said.

“One of the frustrating things about our case is that everyone seemed to pretend the United States doesn’t have to comply (with WTO guidelines),” Mendel said.

Instead of damages, Mendel has said Antigua and Barbuda would prefer an agreement with the United States which would allow Americans to use the island’s gambling Web sites.

Mendel said he would welcome legislation calling for a study of the $13 billion Internet gambling industry. He said Antigua and Barbuda could serve as a pilot project for the study.

“If a true test is given, we feel strongly that we could prove Internet gambling in Antigua and Barbuda is a safe and respectable business,” Mendel said.

Association legal team demonstrates our case for standing and potential harm to our members through bad law

Today, in accordance with the deadline set by Judge Mary L. Cooper, iMEGA’s legal team filed its brief with the US District Court in New Jersey (Trenton division), in response to a US Dept. of Justice motion to dismiss our complaint against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

The defendants (US DoJ, Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve) contend that iMEGA does not have requisite standing to bring a complaint versus UIGEA, and, given that the rules and regulations for the new law have not yet been created, that the law is “unripe” for this kind of challenge.

In the response brief, iMEGA’s attorneys provided ample precedent for both our standing as a trade association acting on the behalf of our members, and for the potential jeopardy of prosecution the new law puts some of our members in. They contend that it is not necessary to wait for one of our members to be prosecuted before the law may be scrutinized by the courts.

The brief also highlights the heretofore unexamined jeopardy that affiliate marketers who live and operate in the US may be in due to UIGEA.

Next up: the defendants have until Sept. 21 to respond to iMEGA’s request of the Court for a temporary restraining order, preventing UIGEA from being enforced before our complaint can be properly heard by Judge Cooper.

iMEGA (09/11/07)