DoJ lawyers oppose iMEGA attempt to supplement its legal argument

It appears from the latest development in the case that iMEGA is pursuing against the US government and its Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act that the Department of Justice is reluctant to expose the practical shortcomings of the Act.

True to the prior warnings of financial, political and legal experts, the financial institutions charged with enforcing the notoriously imprecise law have started blocking financial transactions for gambling that are actually exempt from the legislation, leading to problems with at least two state lotteries.

This week iMEGA disclosed on its website that it wished to bring these shortcomings to the attention of the court as relevant to its case against the UIGEA, and accordingly filed a motion to do this. Instead of supporting the addition to the court record of clearly relevant material, the Department of Justice has sought to suppress the information by opposing iMEGA's motion.

Nicholas Bagley, lead attorney for the US DoJ, wrote: “This material was not before the district court…and is not germane to iMEGA’s facial constitutional challenge to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Because this is not an “exceptional cas[e]” that would warrant supplementing the district court record…the government opposes the motion to supplement.”

Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman retorts: “The [UIGEA] regulations didn’t exist two years ago when this was brought to the district court. The regulations did not go into effect until January 19, 2009, more than two years after they were due, and two years after we filed in district court. Should the government get credit for dragging its feet on this?”

“Now you see the negative effect this law was destined to have,” Brennan said. “It has led to over-blocking, even of transactions, like state lotteries and horse racing, that have been given specific exemptions by this law. I know that the DoJ doesn’t like to lose, but to suggest that this is not ‘germane’ to the case - how the law actually works in the real world - is simply ridiculous."

The full details of the argument are available here:

Live activity feed

  • Avatar
    "I had 5 spins on Fairytale Legends today"
  • Index
    "check rewards for 5 free spins on new slot fairytale legends   GLA :)"
  • Koi
    "Check mails or accounts   They added 17 Free Spins for NetEnt latest Fairytale Slot."
  • Avatar
    "Sms 10 spins on Fortune Teller (play&go)"
  • Photo
    "I do not understand if they told me in supporting the truth when I now communicate with them, you need between the bonuses, the chips need to make deposits was 1500 rubles (I did not know I had this time the amount is less than 1,500 rubles total deposits my between the chip 585 rubles). That is why they were the first to say, to write about it immediately and everything would be clear and clear and would not have had much time to wait and negotiate and I no longer have to make deposits of up to 1,500 rubles, I'm out of this situation, yet it not afraid to dare make deposits in LimoPlay and make deposits in other casinos. The second reason they could not even if I personally write a letter explaining that so and so to you, I'm not supposed bonus to tie that small sum made deposits between the chip, the more I turn to them not once but several of help and explanations. Third, I do not understand why they gave me and you to show that they have given me the chip, on October 19, if I did not receive not 19, not October 20 and until now I have not received. Fourth me support, they explain, they say one thing while you write something else. To me, they say that I did not give the chip a little as I did need to make deposits and deposits at least 1,500 rubles to get another chip, and at the same time, you write that they gave me the chip and I have played him and kak if I were still $ 0.19, and the chip is active until 26 October. Here are those questions I would like to get answers very interesting to see and hear their opinion about it all, there is not in their actions, reports any logic do not you think? Or is poor awareness or simply banal error occurred and confused me with another person, player. Thank you bye."
  • Winaday
    "LAURIEK wrote: Hi Blue and Jack!    It's been a rough year financially for me but I FINALLY managed to accumulate enough for a cashback bonus!  YIPEE!!!   ... Thanks's good to be back! LAURIEK Howdy Laurie, So good to have you back!"
Swipe left or right to see more

lcb activities in the last 24 hours

  • 43
    new members
  • 586
    members online
  • 16302
    guests online
  • 123
    new posts
  • 9173
    free games played
Join the club

Highest Community Rated Online Casinos

Swipe left or right to see more

Latest forum posts

Join today and start earning rewards

You will immediately get full access to our online casino forum/chat plus receive our newsletter with news & exclusive bonuses every month.
S logo

Report to moderator

Use this function to inform the moderators and administrator of an abusive or wrongly posted message.

Please note that your email address will be revealed to the moderators if you use this

Select Language
Search Results