PRESS RELEASE

Friday, July 6, 2007, marks the opening day of the Main Event at the World Series of Poker, the world’s richest and most prestigious competitive event.Many of the competitors in the WSOP will be from Washington and most of the Washington entrants will have qualified on the internet, thereby committing a felony under this state’s internet poker ban (or, more broadly, as discussed in the Complaint, internet gambling ban) in order to win a chance at poker immortality.Accordingly, Lee Rousso, a Renton lawyer, has chosen this day to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Washington’s internet gambling law.The primary basis for this challenge is that Washington’s law violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which reserves to Congress the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.Most state attempts to regulate the internet run afoul of the Commerce Clause, and Washington’s law, which was passed to protect the state’s brick-and-mortar casinos from otherwise legal out-of-state competition, should be no exception.

SENATE BILL 6613

The challenged law was enacted during the 2006 legislative session as part of Senate Bill 6613, sponsored by State Senator Margarita Prentice (D-11).Specifically, SB 6613 amended Revised Code of Washington 9.46.240, Transmission of Gambling Information, which had previously been a minor section of the Gambling Act of 1973, to cover the transmission of gambling information over the internet and, presumably, the act of playing poker on the internet.The 2006 amendments also upgraded violations of RCW 9.46.210 from gross misdemeanors to felonies, thereby subjecting violators to substantially stiffer criminal penalties and also to the property forfeiture provisions of the statute, RCW 9.46.231.

While the 2006 amendments cast a broad net that includes fantasy sports and most office pools, it is widely believed that the primary target of the legislation was internet poker, which is wildly popular both in Washington and around the world.While exact figures are hard to come by, the number of internet poker players in this state may exceed 400,000. Senator Prentice, who obviously is not opposed to gambling in general, takes substantial campaign contributions from brick-and-mortar casinos in this state, the intended and presumed beneficiaries of SB 6613.

Washington’s internet poker ban is by far the harshest law of its type in the United States.A very partial listing of the law’s flaws and excesses would include:

·Player A drives to local brick-and-mortar casino to play poker for a few hours.While playing, he consumes a large quantity of alcohol.Player A then drives home over the state’s roadways in a drunken stupor.Player B stays home and plays poker on the internet while drinking herbal tea.According to the legislature, Player B is the greater menace to society, indeed a much greater menace to society.

·Player wins penny playing poker on internet, uses penny as part of down payment on million dollar home.By statute, state can confiscate home.

·The statute eliminates any distinction between liability for players and liability for operators.As a result, there is no lesser included offense available for plea negotiations; the only options are a felony conviction or no conviction at all.

·The statute completely ignores the privacy rights of the citizens; acts performed in the privacy of one’s own home should enjoy a strong presumption of legality absent a showing of actual harm to the individual, his neighbors, or society as a whole.

THE LAWSUIT

A court of law is not the proper forum for challenging the wisdom and judgment of our elected officials.Instead, the lawsuit only alleges that the state has exceeded its constitutional authority in criminalizing internet poker and other widely accepted forms of gambling that utilize the internet, e.g., fantasy sports, “March Madness” bracket contests and office pools.

1.Washington’s Internet Gambling Ban (”IGB”) violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution due to the fact that it is a protectionist measure designed to protect in-state business interests from legitimate out-of-state competition.This is particularly true with respect to internet poker.

2.The IGB violates the Commerce Clause due to the fact that the federal government occupies the field of interstate gambling regulation and the IGB is in conflict with the federal scheme.

3.The IGB violates the Commerce Clause due to the fact that it places a burden on interstate commerce that is not offset by any compelling state interest.

4.The IGB violates the Commerce Clause due to the fact that it places a burden on international commerce that is not offset by any compelling state interest.

5.The IGB violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Washington residents exclusively to punishment for interactions with residents of the other states.

6.The IGB violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Constitution by treating internet usage as a separate crime.

7.The IGB violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution as the “knowingly” requirement of RCW 9.46.240 renders the law impermissibly vague.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW

One of the more disheartening aspects of the enactment of SB 6613 has been the willingness of our elected and appointed officials to make misleading public statements regarding the current state of federal law on internet gambling.For example, Senator Prentice has asserted that SB 6613 was enacted to “harmonize” state and federal law.Nothing could be further from the truth.Likewise, the Washington State Gambling Commission has stated that “Internet gambling is now, and has always been, a violation of both state and federal law.” (see attached document) This statement is also categorically false.

The only federal law clearly applicable to internet gambling is the Wire Act (the text of which is attached), which has been modified by the Interstate Horserace Betting Act and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (”UIGEA”) (2006). Note: the UIGEA does not make it a federal crime to play internet poker or operate an internet poker website.

The Wire Act:

·Applies only to sports betting.

·Applies only to those “in the business,” never to mere players.

·Imposes maximum prison terms of two years.

Washington’s IGB:

·Applies to all forms of gambling.

·Applies equally to players and website operators.

·Imposes prison terms of up to five years.

Accordingly, any suggestion that enactment of SB 6613 was required or justified by federal law is completely unfounded.Indeed, this lawsuit attempts to prove that exactly the opposite is true: enactment of SB 6613 is barred by federal law.

ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF

Lee Rousso, WSBA No. 33340, is a principal of the Renton law firm Hadley Green Rousso Voget PLLC.He is also the Washington state representative of the Poker Players Alliance (”PPA”)(pokerplayersalliance.org), a national lobbying organization devoted to obtaining full legal recognition and protection for poker, the Great American Game.The PPA has over 500,000 members in the United States, including over 9,000 members in Washington.The PPA’s Board of Directors includes two WSOP champions, Chris “Jesus” Ferguson (2000) and Greg “Fossilman” Raymer (2004), as well as retired U.S. Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY).

Prior to becoming an attorney, the plaintiff worked for 17 years in the horse racing industry as a professional handicapper, primarily in Southern California.He played in the 2005 WSOP after qualifying on the internet at pokerstars.com.

Copy of Complaint (PDF)

Author Contact Info: Lee Rousso

Tags: Lee-Rousso, pressrelease2007

This entry was posted on Friday, July 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Press Releases, State, WA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can from your own site.