Online Casino Style: News - iMEGA Fights On

10/15/2010		Online Casino Style - News: iMEGA Fights On
Home History Games News Dictionary		Some additional updates have become available from the state of New Jersey this week as the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association announced their opposition to a fresh motion made by the US Department of Justice that would knock down iMEGA and co’s attempts to overthrow federal laws that prohibit the expansion of sports betting. For now, the court case will continue, as the online gambling advocate continues to work to try to overturn old laws in favor of reality. The case was filed with the US Circuit Court, officially setting iMEGA against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US, in their most recent attempt at legalizing internet gambling by overturning the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The law, which was established in 1991, limits sports betting to only four grandfathered states: Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon. New Jersey wants that changed to give Atlantic City as well as other regional casinos a better chance at competing with the likes of Las Vegas as well as domestic access to offshore internet casinos. With PASPA still intact, New Jersey cannot legally expand their gambling services to include sports betting. State Senator Ray Lesniak and Senate President Stephen Sweeney side with iMEGA on this one, contending that such limitations are unconstitutional, as it should be left up to the states, and not the federal government to determine gambling law. There’s the interesting fact, as well, that the Department of Justice formally opposed PASPA when it was being considered in 1991, the same institution that is now defending the regulation. "We're confident the Court will refuse the government's motion," said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA chairman this week. "We've already settled the question of our standing, which was recognized and confirmed in previous Federal court cases. "The DOJ has quite a knot to untie here. How can it now uphold a law it said was unconstitutional when it was enacted?"

10/15/2010

Online Casino Style - News:
iMEGA Fights On

Some additional updates have become available from the state of New Jersey this week as the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association announced their opposition to a fresh motion made by the US Department of Justice that would knock down iMEGA and co’s attempts to overthrow federal laws that prohibit the expansion of sports betting.

For now, the court case will continue, as the online gambling advocate continues to work to try to overturn old laws in favor of reality. The case was filed with the US Circuit Court, officially setting iMEGA against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US, in their most recent attempt at legalizing internet gambling by overturning the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The law, which was established in 1991, limits sports betting to only four grandfathered states: Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon. New Jersey wants that changed to give Atlantic City as well as other regional casinos a better chance at competing with the likes of Las Vegas as well as domestic access to offshore internet casinos.

With PASPA still intact, New Jersey cannot legally expand their gambling services to include sports betting. State Senator Ray Lesniak and Senate President Stephen Sweeney side with iMEGA on this one, contending that such limitations are unconstitutional, as it should be left up to the states, and not the federal government to determine gambling law. There’s the interesting fact, as well, that the Department of Justice formally opposed PASPA when it was being considered in 1991, the same institution that is now defending the regulation.

"We're confident the Court will refuse the government's motion," said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA chairman this week. "We've already settled the question of our standing, which was recognized and confirmed in previous Federal court cases. "The DOJ has quite a knot to untie here. How can it now uphold a law it said was unconstitutional when it was enacted?"