Federal court throws out conviction against NYC underground poker room operator because "poker isn't gambling"

This could be big for the future of legalized online poker, or it could be meaningless.

Basically, here's what happened:

In 2011, a guy (Lawrence DiCristina) was busted in New York for running an underground poker room.

He was charged with a federal crime -- violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) of 1955.

DiCristina was convicted. He appealed the verdict and claimed that poker isn't gambling, so therefore he couldn't have been running an illegal gambling business.

The PPA got involved and helped this guy out, since they have been jerking off to the whole "poker isn't gambling" tactic of getting online poker legalized for years.

Today, a federal judge threw out the conviction (agreeing that poker isn't gambling), and John Pappas of the PPA instantly got a huge erection.

The judge wrote:

Quote:

---

Neither the text of the IGBA nor its legislative history demonstrate that Congress designed the statute to cover all state gambling offenses. Nor does the definition of "gambling" include games, such as poker, which are predominated by skill. The rule of lenity compels a narrow reading of the IGBA, and dismissal of defendant's conviction.

The indictment is dismissed. The jury verdict is set aside.

---

You can find a really lengthy document about the situation here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103482098/...ion-08-21-2012

The most important parts of the document are the "Introduction" and "Conclusion" sections, respectively at the beginning and end.

This might be a landmark case for online poker, or it could be a meaningless decision by one judge that will be ignored or contradicted later.

Naturally, the PPA is all excited that their years of banging their heads against the wall with this "poker isn't gambling" nonsense is finally paying off.

I'll talk about this on radio tonight.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein is no lightweight. Some would argue that he is a batshit crazy activitist judge who is heavily pro plaintiff (in civil cases) and heavily pro defendant (in criminal cases), but others would call him one of the most brilliant legal minds of our time.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but the fact that he seems to base his decision (at least in part) on the "Rule of Lenity", which self-appointed 2+2 legal scholars derided and attacked as a frivolous, disingenuous argument with zero chance of success, is particularly LOLworthy in and of itself.

As I mentioned on radio, I think this will likely be meaningless for online poker.

One judge's opinion doesn't mean much, and this case is about a brick-and-mortar room, NOT online poker.

The judge's main point (with the "Rule of Lenity", which means you have to rule the defendant innocent if the law he broke isn't specific enough to the situation) is that the IGBA law doesn't mention poker as a gambling game, and therefore the guy couldn't have been offering an illegal gambling game.

So the dude got his case dismissed on a technicality by a judge obsessed with the Rule of Lenity.

Interesting stuff, but the IGBA has nothing to do with online poker, and this case will likely go down as meaningless in the grand scheme of things with online poker.