Russia’s election interference should alarm every American: What you need to know — Quartz

With anti-establishment politics shaking governments across the west, US and European intelligence chiefs are newly raising the alarm about Russian cyber attacks and information warfare, saying they pose a threat to their democracies. In the US, the warnings have been met with a mix of outrage and outright dubiousness. While a bipartisan group of senators…

via Russia’s election interference should alarm every American: What you need to know — Quartz

Gov. Chris Christie Being Vetted as Potential Vice-Presidential Pick for Trump Poses Grave Dangers to State-Authorized Medical & Regulated Marijuana.

Voters in four states and Washington, D.C. have approved measures legalizing marijuana for individuals over 21, and four states — Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington — approved taking marijuana production and sales off the criminal market and regulating and taxing them. Additionally, 25 States have now legalized marijuana for medical use within those States.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is now being vetted as a possible vice presidential pick for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to two ranking Republican officials as reported earlier today by Yahoo News and The Guardian.   Additionally, many in the Beltway contend that Gov. Christie would be on the short list for appointment of US Attorney General in a potential Trump Presidential Administration.

During the Republican Presidential Debates, Gov. Chris Christie unequivocally and unambiguously stated that he would use the Federal governments authority via the USDOJ or otherwise to shut down all licensed and/or regulated use of marijuana in any State regardless of lawful medicinal or other legal use within such a State — i.e., Christie vowed not to follow the current DOJ policy concerning marijuana as most recently has been set forth in its 2013 Memo.

 
Protecting the Principle of Federalism in Marijuana Policies: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) reintroduced H.R. 1940, the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act with strong bipartisan support. This legislation would modify the federal Controlled Substances Act to protect anyone acting in compliance with state marijuana laws from federal prosecution and resolve the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, ensuring states can determine their own policies. Others have introduced similar legislation.

It remains imperative that all US States who have already authorized and/or decriminalized marijuana be vigilant in monitoring Federal officials and those who aspire to be.  Similarly, States such as California which are now contemplating legal marijuana on the ballot this year, should be fully aware of Federal policy and particularly those who will be in a position to apply it.

 
Accordingly, should Trump select Christie as his VP (potentially becoming only a heartbeat away from the Presidency), or alternatively, appoint him as his AG in any Trump administration should Trump become POTUS, the result for State regulated, authorized, and legal marijuana could be disastrous specifically to State-authorized marijauna and generally to concepts of federalism as to other fundamental State’s rights.
En garde.

Are the Feds Going to Regulate Daily Fantasy Sports on a Nationwide Basis…?

“States have traditionally handled regulation of gambling, supported by federal law in situations where an interstate of foreign element might otherwise frustrate the enforcement of state law,” posited the CRS report. “With respect to federal law, DFS may implicate at least four gambling-related statutes.”

See, espn Chalk Talk report by Ryan Rodenberg

By Mistake or By Design: Why Does DraftKings Technology Not Block Proxies To Keep DFS Users From Restricted US States?

Saturday, November 14th 2015Ian J. Imrich, Esq.

Experts in geolocation — the technique of determining a computer’s location — say that blocking proxies is one of the first, and most straightforward, steps that websites take to keep users from restricted areas off the sites.

DraftKings clearly states the importance of complying with the laws of certain US jurisdictions. But as reported by the New York Times (whose investigative journalists probed the matter), some question the sincerity of the site operator’s terms of use.

By stating in the “terms of service” that users in some regions are not allowed, while at the same time doing little to enforce the rule, online gambling companies around the world often try to have it both ways, said Feda Mecan, a senior official at Playing Legal, a site based in Germany that is devoted to legal gambling in the United States. “I think they are playing that card, to be honest,” Mr. Mecan said.

Then, according to a poker web forum the NYT has reported, a DraftKings employee appeared to provide public advice on how to circumvent geographic restrictions in the United States.

“It seems absurd that a daily fantasy sports operator with financial means would not implement the best possible technology,” Professor Marc Edelman of Baruch College said.

Whether by mistake or perhaps by design, the failure to timely, properly, and regularly employ readily available Geo-Blocking technology to comply with jurisdictional rules in certain States throughout the nation could prove disastrous in the ongoing investigations and pending legal proceedings against of one of the top two daily fantasy sports companies currently operating within the US.

Why is UK-Based Daily Fantasy Sports Site FanDuel Only Now Applying For A License in the UK …?

Los Angeles, CA — November 6, 2015

Endemic gaming blogs are now reporting and FanDuel itself has confirmed that it is now applying for a gambling license in the UK vis-a-vis fantasy sports gaming.  See, e.g., http://www.legalsportsreport.com/5900/fanduel-uk-gambling-license/?utm_content=buffer93674&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Why Now?  (Especially given the fact that FanDuel is — and has been for some time — a UK-based gaming company that has not ever previously offered its DFS services to customers / markets beyond the US and Canada) Because the US market has become increasingly cloudy on the legal and regulatory front – as simple as that.

While the US market for DFS has not and will not likely be entirely shut down, it is now abundantly clear that it’s going to be a potpourri of State-by-State regulations and with uncertainty as to ring-fenced intra-state gaming activity versus inter-state customer pooling and resulting liquidity via State to State compact, and all with the possibility of Federal Intervention lurking ominously in the background — currently during an election year in the US.
Of course, FanDuel could have made this move years ago.  The same could be said for its chief competitor Draft Kings.  But, as is the case in many an eCommerce industry (or brick and mortar for that matter), the threat of regulatory activity and possibility of legal enforcement often hastens the moves of companies who have yet to diversify, divest, and divulge.
Strategic business maneuvering is more art than science.   Here the creativity, while somewhat tardy, is still artistic.
–IJI

NCLGS RE-ASSERTS NEED FOR STATE OVERSIGHT IN JURISDICTIONS WITH GAMING, OPPOSES THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S WIRE ACT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Susan Nolan
NCLGS National Office
518-687-0615

NCLGS RE-ASSERTS NEED FOR STATE OVERSIGHT IN JURISDICTIONS WITH GAMING,
OPPOSES THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S WIRE ACT

Troy, New York, March 26, 2015—Reiterating its long-standing belief that states are the most appropriate regulators of Internet and other forms of gaming, NCLGS yesterday wrote U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committee leadership to urge against any legislation that includes The Restoration of America’s Wire Act.

NCLGS President Rep. Helene Keeley (DE) asserted in the letter that:

Any legislation proposing to amend the Wire Act to prohibit transmission of wagering information for all types of gambling activities, including Internet gambling, would effectively preempt the states’ historical ability to properly regulate gaming. It is NCLGS’ strong conviction as legislators who chair and are members of the legislative committees that work diligently to develop sound public gaming policy, that states are the most appropriate entity to decide upon, and oversee, what kind of gaming should exist and what should not within their borders.

Rep. Keeley noted that Congress is already on record as favoring of state authority. The Interstate Horse Racing Act, Rep. Keeley asserted, says that “the States should have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders,” not only terrestrially, but via “electronic media.”

Rep. Keeley said in the letter that technological advances in gaming—Internet or otherwise—present “multiple social and economic policy issues to be considered.” She said that NCLGS recently finalized its Policy Framework for Regulation of Internet Gambling to safeguard states that want Internet gaming—and those that do not. Nine (9) states, she said, have passed bills to expand, legalize, or prohibit Internet gaming, and others are considering measures.

NCLGS addressed its March 24 letter to Senators Chuck Grassley (IA) and Patrick Leahy (VT), Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; and to Representatives Bob Goodlatte (VA) and John Conyers (MI), Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the House Committee on the Judiciary. NCLGS also sent the letter to all House and Senate Judiciary Committee members and to House and Senate leadership.

NCLGS has opposed Restoration of America’s Wire Act provisions in the past. In April 2014, the organization urged Judiciary Committee leadership to defeat H.R. 4301/S. 2159.

NCLGS is the only non-partisan organization of state lawmakers that meets on a regular basis to discuss issues in regard to gaming. NCLGS does not support or oppose gaming, but supports effective regulation and believes that decisions related to gaming should be made by the citizens of the individual states and their elected officials. More information is available at http://www.nclgs.org.

# # #

Where Does iGaming Take Place? And when Indian Tribes are involved, is it off-reservation, on-reservations, or – as the State of CA contends – both.

In a response brief filed earlier this week, the State of California argues that peer-to-peer online bingo gaming activity takes place on both tribal lands (vis-a-vis computer servers) AND that is takes place off-reservation by virtue of the fact that bingo players in California are not physically present on tribal lands when they play remotely from PC’s, iPhones, and otherwise from outside sovereign tribal terra firma.

In this first of its kind iGaming litigation, the Iipay tribe had cogently argued in its motion to dismiss this case that if the allegedly illegal iGaming bingo was taking place “off-reservation” as the State of CA repeatedly contended, then the State lacks subject matter jurisdiction to bring the case in the first place.  Citing precedent on this score, and believing it had painted the State of California into a corner by virtue of the State’s arguments made previously in the case about “off-reservation” activity, the Iipay nation vigorously claimed that the State could not pursue the instant litigation — i.e., when the State had argued so persuasively to the trial court during the provisional relief stage seeking a TRO (which the USDC trial judge granted) that the bingo gaming activity takes place off of the tribal lands, then the State has no power to bring this lawsuit.  Period.  End of story.  So, said the Iipay, you must now dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction in accord with the prior TRO ruling.

Now, however, the State has responded; not so fast.  We didn’t say the gaming activity only occurs off of tribal lands.  CA  has filed this motion to dismiss response contending that the improper tribal gaming activity at issue here takes place BOTH upon the tribal lands of the Iipay nation AND off-reservation.  As a result of that purported duality as to the locale of the gaming, CA maintains that is has proper subject matter jurisdiction and has noted in passing that the trial court has already determined (during the TRO proceedings) that the bingo gaming activity at issue here is Class III (not Class II) and therefore is a subject of the State – Tribal gaming compact.

On July 27th 2015, the Iipay Tribe filed its Reply brief in response to the State’s Opposition papers.  In them, the Tribe again argues that unless and until the State stipulates to the fact that the disputed “gaming activity” is conducted solely and exclusively on the Tribe’s Indian lands, the Court cannot proceed to adjudicate the State’s claims because the State’s action is barred by the doctrine of tribal immunity. The Reply contends that the SCOTUS legal rationale expressed in the Bay Mills decision does not permit any other result.

Additionally, as regards the Class II versus Class III gaming category issue, the Tribe contends that Trial Court cannot begin to conduct a classification analysis to determine if the disputed gaming activity is legally deemed class II gaming or class III gaming under IGRA until it is stipulated that the gaming activity in question is “conducted entirely on Indian lands” so as to fall within the purview of IGRA. The State tries to concede this point, says the Tribe, but in the end it simply cannot bring itself to do so because it wants to have its cake and eat it too – meaning that Tribal Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

The hearing on this Motion to Dismiss is set for March 5, 2015.   Given the trial court’s prior ruling during the TRO phase, it would be difficult to see the Judge not agreeing with the State again.  That said, both sides (as do all concerned and interested observers) fully expect this matter to be taken up on appeal either way.

See the State of CA Opposition response to the Motion to Dismiss filing here — http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/state-of-californias-opposition-to-defe-27045/

See, the Defendant’s Reply papers filed in response to the State Opposition filing here — http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/defendants-reply-to-state-of-california-35812/

–IJI