Aiding and Betting

The Justice Department is escalating its campaign against online wagering by seizing money from U.S. companies that do business with gambling sites. The government already has scared media companies away from carrying ads for online gambling, which it says could amount to "aiding and abetting" illegal activity. The success of the government's intimidation tactics led to a lawsuit by Tropical Paradise, a gambling operation based in Costa Rica, which in April demanded that Discovery Communications return $3.2 million it had received for TV spots that never ran. Discovery explained that the money had been taken by the government.

Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, told The New York Times such seizures show "a crusader's zeal against offshore gambling." He added: "It's an extraordinary exercise of American hubris to say that we have a right to seize the money….We're using this vehicle to extend our laws into another nation in a very aggressive way."

You may recall that when a World Trade Organization panel expressed sympathy for other countries' complaints about the U.S. treatment of online gambling, members of Congress were outraged. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) called it "appalling," saying, "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S." The reverse, of course, is perfectly fine.

Comments

[kmw]

For those who don’t want to register:

LINK HERE

[link here]

Ok, HTML tags didn’t work, so try clicking on the name below.

[john]

This has seriously affected my attempts to develop an online gambling habbit.

[Rick Barton]

But in early April, United States marshals seized $3.2 million from Discovery Communications, the television and media company…

Tyranny! And the Internet gambling folks were only clients of Discovery Communications. It’s bad enough if he feds, without due process, can seize the property of people who are alleged to have committed crimes, but if they can grab the property of anyone who just does business with alleged criminals, then we are witnessing an even more wide spread and serious demolition of liberty in our republic at the hands of the federal government.

From Amendment V of our Constitution:

“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

In June 2003, the Justice Department sent letters to trade groups representing major broadcasters and publishers, telling them their members could be violating the law

What happened to the “rule of law”? This is threat and intimidation! And sadly, it seems to be working:

So far, executives at media companies have not voiced public challenges to the government campaign. An executive for one media company, who asked that his firm not be identified so as not to attract further attention from the Department of Justice…

Remember how happy we were when Clinton lost because Reno wouldn’t be able to do this kind of thing anymore? Well, its gotten much worse under Ashcroft.

What are Republicans who love liberty and revere our Constitution supposed to do? Pretend that this outrage against freedom isn’t happening?

If the Justice Department can get away with this, then the individual liberty of each of us is in jeopardy.

“First they came for the drug dealers, and I didn’t say anything, then they came for the Internet gamblers, and I didn’t say anything, then they came for…”

Or, we could fight back:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[Phil]

Rick,

You forgot to blame this on Israel.

Phil

[Ruthless]

How did this squeezure shit get started in the first place? I know it goes waaay back.

Here in Sinincincinnati, there is a similar example of zelousness. Some lawyers I often encounter when I walk downtown during the lunch period, recently lost one of the First Amendment/vice cases they have become semi-famous for.

They were up against vice-cops posing as horny, female teenagers in cyberspace so as to entrap reputable geezers such as yours truly.

My lawyer friends made the case, which seems rock solid to me, and consistent with the Constitution, namely: if it’s not really a teenager in the “chat room,” then there has been no crime. I’m not a lawyer, but are “corpus delecti” the operative words?

Who but a hellfire and brimstone Baptist preacher really wants their tax dollars working exactly this hard for them? (… and even he is just looking for the chance to run off with the organist)

[cj]

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.

There is an activity that is illegal in the US. US companies derive dollars from this illegal activity. The US gov’t confiscates the US companies’ profits from those illegal activities.

Is that about right, Jacob?

Third-party (extra-national) entities have assets involved in this activity. Can we stipulate that they should be held responsible for knowing the laws of the country of companies with whom they do business? Or is that, perhaps, more personal/corporate responsibility than you can countenance?

One can certainly argue that the stated activities should not be deemed illegal — and could work to change the law(s) making such activities illegal.

But to claim that enforcing those laws is a bastardization of US policy is intellectually dishonest. Quotes regarding “a crusader’s zeal” are simply loaded terms. One could certainly claim the same regarding Sullum’s stated public opinions.

Much better to channel your energies — and those of your readers — into effecting *real* change. Granted, repeatedly beating your head against a brick wall can be gratifying (and profitable) for some — but you have to admit, it doesn’t exactly produce meaningful change. If that *is* your goal.

[Ruthless]

cj,

Just a wild-assed guess, but you don’t live near Nevada, eh?

[Warren]

get a fucking clue cj. Law enforcement involves charges, trials and convictions. This is blatant theft, expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. Worse still, this scam is being perpetrated on the innocent foreign company, NOT the guilty US company.

[MALAK]

And, unless I misread the article, the government’s statement was that this activity MAY be illegal. I’m no shyster, but where’s the due process. Come north of the 49th boys, and bring your wallets . . .

[Phil]

Just to be clear, the “Phil” above is not me. Looks like we’re running into a Gary/Eric Level Problem here. Maybe I’ll change to my full name, or PhilD.

[matt]

But of course the feds aren’t going after states that run lotteries or various other forms of gambling. I’m sure it’s all in the spirit of federalism. Right?

[MALAK]

matt, this is about the U.S. government trying to impose their will on a foreign entity, not otherwise regulated by American jurisprudence. Happens all the time . . . or were you away that day?

[matt]

Good point MALAK….goes to show why I shouldn’t be reading stuff online this late.

[MALAK]

Late? I still have to “work” another 4 hours.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I think the Justice Department is trying to shut down online gambling only to protect Bill Bennett from himself.

[Walter Wallis]

But if you want to blow $2000 over the internet for Superbowl tickets where the odds against you getting anything back are infinite, go ahead.

Sheeeeeeeesh!