Canada & the European Union Should Get Involved in the Antigua Case...By Hartley Henderson

[Rogthedodger]

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have issued arrest warrants for senior management of DirecTV and DISH Network. In 1995, the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) granted exclusive rights to Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice for direct to home satellite service in Canada. All American dishes and satellite service were declared illegal in the country, yet many Canadians had the satellite dishes they purchased prior to the CRTC's ruling and continued to receive satellite service from DirecTV and DISH network throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s to watch the "illegal" signals. Eventually both DirecTV and DISH were able to scramble the signals so that Canadians couldn't access the service from the U.S. based companies, but in the eyes of Canadian authorities the satellite companies were negligent for not stopping the signals to Canadians in the first place, even prior to the CRTC officially declaring the dishes illegal. The fact that the whole U.S. based satellite industry was a grey area in Canadian law that had not been tested and the fact that DirecTV and DISH network were operating in the United States in accordance with American law was not relevant. The RCMP believe that Canada's laws are all that is relevant on the world stage, and hence if any management from the aforementioned companies steps foot on Canadian soil they will be arrested immediately. Furthermore, Canada is in talks with the U.S. department of justice to extradite DISH and DirecTV management to Canada for prosecution.

The above story is only partially true. In 1995 the CRTC did grant exclusive rights to Bell and Star Choice for satellite service and Canadians were using the "illegal satellites" with service provided by the U.S. satellite carriers. However that's where the truth of the previous paragraph ends. Canada has no intention of arresting any Americans in regards to this. Furthermore, even if Canada asked for extradition or tried to arrest the Americans for doing something which was perfectly legal in the United States and was a grey area in Canadian law, the American government would likely demand the charges be dropped and also expect an apology for the wrongful prosecution. Yet, what was described above is precisely what the U.S. department of justice is currently doing with regards to online gambling. Let's rewind to 1997.

The internet was in its infancy, online gambling had just started to evolve and there were absolutely no laws in place regarding internet wagering in the United States. Of his own initiative, Jon Kyl tried to equate the internet with the telephone and introduced his Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill. The main argument was that the internet and the telephone were one in the same and any betting laws pertaining to the telephone (i.e. the wire act) also pertained to the internet. Courts ruled that they weren't the same and further ruled that the wire act was for sports betting only so it could not apply to other forms of wagering such as poker and casinos.

One thing beyond dispute is that the offshore companies were legal in the jurisdictions they were operating from. Antigua, the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Gibraltar, The Isle of Man, Australia etc. all issued gambling licenses which allowed the companies set up there and to take bets worldwide, including from American citizens. There was no grey in the countries which authorized the sportsbooks, casinos and eventually poker sites to set up there, the grey area was and still is with the United States. Despite the court's ruling, the United States Department of Justice decided the courts were wrong and it was correct in its interpretation of the wire act and issued arrest warrants for individuals located offshore. Included in those warrants was one for World Sports Exchange founder Jay Cohen. Jay, to his credit, tried to prove the department of justice wrong and voluntarily returned to the United States to face the courts and exonerate himself and others who he believed were operating legally offshore. In 2000 Jay was found guilty in a U.S. court for violating the Wire Act, but all who saw the trial were in agreement that the proceedings were a farce and that justice was never really served. The presiding judge ordered the jury to find Jay guilty, although many jurors were convinced he would have been found innocent if not for the judge's order. In fact, Jay himself stated that jurors came to him after the case and said they wanted to find him innocent but the judge's command to the jury made that impossible. Still, as unjust as that was, Jay and several others who the government ordered arrest warrants for were American citizens operating offshore. Clearly U.S. law was not meant to apply to non American citizens operating legally from the country where they are located.

The first American law actually passed involving internet gambling was the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 passed in October. Let me repeat that: of 2006!! The act made it illegal for U.S. financial institutions to process transactions for online gaming companies. As a consequence of that law being enacted, all public companies offering internet wagering closed off their operations to American bettors and many other private companies exited also because they that it would be difficult to deal with U.S. banks. Yet despite thae fact that the UIGEA wasn't passed until October, the U.S. department of justice arrested David Carruthers and Peter Dicks upon touching down in the United States prior to the law being enacted. And furthermore, they were arrested for something unrelated to the UIGEA, which is still the only law in the United States which applies to internet wagering. The UIGEA only relates to funding internet wagering. Furthermore, these were NON American managers of public companies that were operating legally according to the British law where their operations were set up and incorporated. Similarly, the arrests of Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre, Canadian citizens and former managers of NETeller, were in relation to funding offshore accounts, but the warrants related to activities that happened years prior to the UIGEA being passed into law. When the UIGEA did actually get passed, both men were long gone from the company. Think of the ramifications of that! Can you imagine the outcry from the public and media if a law abiding U.S. citizen was arrested for doing something which just became illegal, but was not illegal at the time he or she did it? It's unconscionable. Imagine how much worse it would be if that arrest was for a citizen of another country. Yet that is precisely what has happened. So as one can see, what the American government is currently doing is almost as sinister and ridiculous as the spoof written above of the Canadian authorities trying to arrest the DISH and DirecTV managers.

That brings us to the headline of this article. While the United States has been on this crusade against internet gambling operations worldwide, no other countries have stepped in to fight for their citizens or their economic rights except for Antigua. The small country of Antigua and Barbuda, realizing that its laws and economy aren't ruled by the U.S.A., went to the WTO and fought for the right to sell its services in accordance with WTO rules and Antiguan law. The WTO sided with Antigua and demanded the U.S.A. open its markets to Antiguan internet gambling companies, but the United States has steadfastly refused to abide by the WTO ruling. To that point, the European Union (EU), Canada, Mexico and Chinese Taipei all stated they were interested in the case as third party participants but have done nothing to date. For the good of their own economic interests, and to prove that the WTO is not a paper tiger, those countries and particularly the European Union and Canada should step in and side with Antigua. Almost all WTO meetings of late have proven pointless and one sided.
In areas of cotton, agriculture, lumber and global warming, among other issues, the United States has seemed unwilling to budge and have demanded the WTO accept their views in all those areas. In fact, delegates from many third world countries walked out of a WTO meeting at Cancun in 2003 because the United States and EU refused to accept WTO resolutions which would have given the developing countries more rights. In all fairness, the demands of the third world countries at that meeting may have been unrealistic (expecting the developed countries to stop offering subsidies to farmers as one example), but it still doesn't change the fact that the U.S. was absolutely unwilling to discuss any alternatives. After all, isn't negotiation about give and take? The EU even confirmed America's unwillingness to negotiate at the WTO last year when Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, blamed the United States for the failure of the WTO meeting in Doha stating that "Washington was unwilling to accept or... acknowledge flexibility being shown by others".

And as far as softwood lumber goes, many WTO rulings in favour of Canada and against the U.S.A. were ignored by Uncle Sam and eventually Canada settled for a lesser settlement than what the WTO ordered, figuring that the U.S.A. would delay and dither forever and that something now was better than nothing later. But it has also been widely accepted that WTO decisions usually side with the United States, and since the WTO's inception in 1995, the U.S.A. has been the biggest beneficiary as a result of WTO rulings. Is this what the WTO was designed for, to be a yes man for America? Hardly, the WTO was set up so that larger countries couldn't pick on smaller ones as a result of size and power which is precisely what is happening. Canada and the European Union have every reason to be involved in this case to ensure a dangerous precedent isn't set,`34 whereby the United States is the only country that matters in WTO rulings. Consequently, they should stand side by side with Antigua to demand that the United States stop acting as rulers of the world and start accepting WTO decisions that go against them.

The European Union, and especially Britain, should be ashamed that they have allowed the American justice department to arrest European citizens for providing a service that is legal in Europe. If Carruthers or Dicks had set up a physical bookmaking operation in the United States then America would have every right to arrest them just as they arrest illegal bookmakers on American soil now. But what Dicks and Carruthers did was not illegal where they operated. Is Britain basically stating that their own laws are impotent on the world stage? If so, why would anyone ever set up an international corporation located in Britain if the country isn't willing to fight for their own laws? As well, what does it say for the AIM (British stock market)? BetonSports and NETeller were allowed to incorporate and sell shares in Britain and the breadth of their operations were well laid out in their prospectuses. If Britain doesn't have enough guts to defend their stock market regulators for allowing these companies to operate in the first place, then why should anyone ever invest in British stocks again? After all, a precedent would be set essentially stating that at the first sign of trouble for British public companies, the government of the U.K. will run and hide.

As for Canada, politicians have scored major points by standing up to the United States. To many individuals in Canada, the United States is seen as a bully who does what it wants and essentially gives the finger to anyone who tries to stand up to them. This happened with softwood lumber, it happened with the mad cow scare when America closed its border to Canadian beef and refused to open it when the beef was proven safe, and it happened after 9-11 when America accused Canada of letting the World Trade Center bombers into the United States and then refused to apologize to the country when that was proven to be false, and in fact continued to perpetuate this lie. Furthermore, Canada allows the small town of Kahnawake to offer sports betting services to the United States, but the United States has never even addressed anyone from the Mohawk Nation when issuing arrest warrants. It appears the U.S. doesn't want to upset the Indian reserve since they have their own native problems, and the last thing they want is a civil war with the first nations. After all, the UIGEA gave an exemption to the natives to offer internet wagering, but the U.S. government has no problem arresting British citizens upon entering the U.S. Talk about a double standard.

Thus we are at a point where other nations either have to stand up to the United States or declare George Bush president of the world and let the United States determine morals and economic policy for every other nation on earth. True, Antigua has a small population and internet gambling may not be of paramount importance to all these other countries, but this is the first time a smaller country has been willing to take the type of stand they have against the United States for what they believe are their rights under the WTO. And the WTO and appellate body have made it clear that the U.S. is in the wrong. This is David vs. Goliath and as was the case in the bible, David is on the side of right here. The United States is arguing that remote gambling is immoral, but they offer remote gambling everywhere in their own country. Since when is protectionism about morality? If the European community, Canada and all nations in the WTO for that matter, truly believe in the principles and purpose of the World Trade Organization then they should come to the defense of Antigua. Doing so will send the message that the WTO is not a one way street in favor of the world superpowers, it will also send a more important message that when you deal in a global economy disputes have to be settled by international courts. And if the decisions don't go a country's way, sometimes they just have to admit that maybe they were wrong.

For the sake of economic fairness, for the sake of their own citizens who were wrongly prosecuted and persecuted by the United States and for the sake of avoiding a precedent setting case declaring the United States as having the sole power to dictate ethics and morality to the rest of the world, the European Union should get off the fence and take the side of Antigua in the WTO case involving internet gambling.

02-06-07
Hartley Henderson
Majorwager.com
henderson@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-421.html

[Highwayman]

"The presiding judge ordered the jury to find Jay guilty."

Jury Tampering; a judge cannot “order” any verdict upon a jury. A jury has the final vote, always a choice.

§129. Jury tampering
A. Jury tampering is any verbal or written communication or attempted communication, whether direct or indirect, made to any juror in a civil or criminal cause, including both grand and petit jurors, for the purpose of influencing the juror in respect to his verdict or indictment in any cause pending or about to be brought before him, otherwise than in the regular course of proceedings upon the trial or other determination of such cause. To constitute the offense of jury tampering, the influencing or attempt to influence the juror must be either:
(1) For a corrupt or fraudulent purpose, or
(2) By violence or force, by threats whether direct or indirect.
B.(1) Whoever commits the crime of jury tampering in a civil case shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.
(2) Whoever commits the crime of jury tampering in a criminal case shall be punished as follows:
(a) If the offense charged in the trial for which the jury has been impaneled is punishable by death or life imprisonment, the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than ninety-nine years.
(b) In all other cases the offender shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, to the same extent and in the same manner as for the offense charged in the trial for which the jury has been impaneled.
Amended by Acts 1968, No. 60, §1; Acts 1981, No. 866, §1; Acts 1995, No. 823, §1; Acts 2002, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 128, §5.




.

[Hartley]

You're right Highwayman the judge didn't order the jury to find Cohen guilty, he just told the jury that Cohen's defense was irrelevant. Maybe instead of "ordered the jury" I should have wrote "strongly suggested to the jury not to consider Cohen's defense in their deliberating"
___

On appeal, Cohen asks this Court to consider the following six issues: (1) whether the Government was required to prove a "corrupt motive" in connection with the conspiracy in this case; (2) whether the district court properly instructed the jury to disregard the safe-harbor provision contained in § 1084(b); (3) whether Cohen "knowingly" violated § 1084; (4) whether the rule of lenity requires a reversal of Cohen's convictions; (5) whether the district court constructively amended Cohen's indictment in giving its jury instructions; and (6) whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Cohen's request to depose a foreign witness. We will address those issues in that order.

[buddyboy]

not trying to be a dick here, just trying to make a good write up better:

Correction:
Pretty sure Costa Rica doesn’t issue gambling licenses. The companies are set up as data processing companies and are required to keep all gambling related funds out of Costa Rica. According to Costa Rican law, a bet takes place wherever the funds are located. The only funds these companies are allowed to keep in Costa Rica are for the day to day expenses of running a company.


Correction:
The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act makes it illegal for a person engaged in a gambling business from knowingly accepting, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful gambling, a monetary instrument.

U.S. financial institutions are immune.

[buddyboy]

The charges against John Lefebvre really have nothing to do with the UIGEA or really Neteller, and more to due with why he owned JSL Systems, a US-based payment company which allegedly received customer funds in the US for Neteller and then transferred them to accounts held by a Neteller company in Canada.

It's almost like they made it too easy for the US to come after them.

[buddyboy]

The US Patriot Act of 2001 was originally enacted to combat terrorism, and prohibits the transmission of funds that are known to have been derived from a criminal offence or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity. The Patriot Act was recently applied in a civil claim against a US based online payment services company (PAYPAL) which was providing payments on behalf of offshore online gambling operators. The Patriot Act purports to have extraterritorial jurisdiction, but this has yet to be tested.

With regard to specific products supplied by the NETeller Group, the distribution of a NETeller card in the US, which enables Members to withdraw funds accredited to their accounts by Merchants, may constitute an infringement of the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act (18U.S.C. § 1953) which makes it an offence to supply any ‘‘device’’ for wagering. This Act has been interpreted widely in previously successful prosecutions.

It is the Directors’ understanding that there has been only a small number of cases/prosecutions in relation to online gambling and that most of these have been where there have been assets or relevant individuals located in the US. The Group does not maintain offices, nor are any of its assets located, in the US. The Group has contractual arrangements with two US companies (which are related to two of the Directors as described in paragraph 7.6 of Part VI of this document) and which both clear monies through the ACH system on the Group’s behalf. There can be no assurance that the US will not threaten or try to prosecute the NETeller Group under federal law at some stage under existing or future regulation. NETeller continues to monitor the position carefully.

[buddyboy]

A significant number of Members and some Merchants reside in the United States and certain legislative initiatives at the federal level could have a negative impact on the Company’s risk profile and ability to provide services to US Merchants or Members in relation to Internet betting or gambling. A summary of certain of these legislative initiatives is set out in paragraph 5 of Part I of this document. Whilst the Group does not have a presence in the US, it does have contractual relationships with two US companies (which
are related to two of the Directors as described in paragraph 7.6 of Part VI of this document). This is potentially a risk for the Group because the money held by those US companies would comprise primarily of wagering money and may therefore be vulnerable to freezing orders by state and federal prosecutors and could result in the Group being enjoined to such proceedings.

[Minnow]

And as far as softwood lumber goes, many WTO rulings in favour of Canada and against the U.S.A. were ignored by Uncle Sam and eventually Canada settled for a lesser settlement than what the WTO ordered, figuring that the U.S.A. would delay and dither forever and that something now was better than nothing later. But it has also been widely accepted that WTO decisions usually side with the United States, and since the WTO's inception in 1995, the U.S.A. has been the biggest beneficiary as a result of WTO rulings. Is this what the WTO was designed for, to be a yes man for America? Hardly, the WTO was set up so that larger countries couldn't pick on smaller ones as a result of size and power which is precisely what is happening. Canada and the European Union have every reason to be involved in this case to ensure a dangerous precedent isn't set,`34 whereby the United States is the only country that matters in WTO rulings. Consequently, they should stand side by side with Antigua to demand that the United States stop acting as rulers of the world and start accepting WTO decisions that go against them.

This is the part of the article that jumps out at me, since it is the easiest for me to understand. How likely is it to happen, that another country or entity will stand up against these inequities?

[Rogthedodger]

There are so many things that are blantantly wrong about your posts buddyboy. I don't have the time to address even 1/2 of your misinformation, so I'll just pass altogether, except to say that you need to cite your sources with respect to the stuff you ripped off from somewhere else.

Either post the source of the stuff that came from elsewhere, or I'll just remove it altogether and you can start fresh.

[buddyboy]

7.6.1 John Lefebvre is the legal and beneficial owner of all of the shares in JSL Systems Corp. (‘‘JSL US’’). JSL US has an informal agency arrangement with the Company pursuant to which:

7.6.1.1 JSL US receives and holds on trust on behalf of the Group revenues, proceeds and benefits of the Group’s business in the US and pays and discharges on behalf of the Group all costs and expenses as requested by the Company, including the transfer of any funds to the Group;

7.6.1.2 the Company reimburses to JSL US all of JSL US’s expenses and costs in connection with the provision of services pursuant to this arrangement; and

7.6.1.3 the Company pays to JSL US a fee of US$1.00 per year.

7.6.2 John Lefebvre is the legal and beneficial owner of all of the shares in FCash Inc.. FCash Inc. has an informal agency arrangement with the Company on identical terms to those between the Company and JSL US.

7.6.3 John Lefebvre and Stephen Lawrence are beneficially interested in JSL Systems Corp. (‘‘JSL Canada’’). JSL Canada has an informal agency arrangement with the Company pursuant to which:

7.6.3.1 JSL Canada receives funds from JSL US which are held on trust on behalf of the Group and transfers those funds to companies in the Group at the request of the Company;

7.6.3.2 the Company reimburses to JSL Canada all of JSL Canada’s expenses and costs in connection with the provision of services pursuant to this arrangement; and

7.6.3.3 the Company pays to JSL Canada a fee of US$1.00 per year.

7.6.4 John Lefevbre and Stephen Lawrence are beneficial shareholders of NETeller Inc, which is a party to certain contracts set out in paragraph 12 below. In addition the Company has entered into an agency agreement with NETeller Inc. dated 5 April 2004 pursuant to which:

7.6.4.1 NETeller Inc receives funds and holds on trust on behalf of the Group revenues, proceeds and benefits from Members and Merchants and pays and discharges on behalf of the Group all costs and expenses as requested by the Company, including the transfer of any funds to the Group; and

7.6.4.2 the Company pays to NETeller Inc. a fee of US$1.00 per year.

[buddyboy]

neteller is my source, this is all from their prospectus

[buddyboy]

http://investors.neteller.com/netell...Prospectus.pdf

not sure what is incorrect with any of this information, please point out what is incorrect, I'm sure there are no mistakes

[Highwayman]

This is the part of the article that jumps out at me, since it is the easiest for me to understand. How likely is it to happen, that another country or entity will stand up against these inequities?

There are currently 150 member states (Countries) comprising the WTO...based upon the following comments, would realistically believe that it is unlikely anything will actually change with regard to Countries "voluntarily" offering support to Antigua's claim to service accessibility to US gaming markets let alone any change in America’s current anti-gaming “protectionist” position of their own market.



McCreevy has reportedly indicated he would pursue the legislative issue with his US counterparts when he visits America in March, but he has also made it clear that a WTO battle is not at the top of the EU’s agenda.

Mendel said he considered it unlikely that the EU would bring its own case in the short term, since its member states have not been able to come to terms with the issue of online gaming

“What I do think they can do is add support to our case and help encourage us to get the right results, so I think they can be very helpful. They may be able to provide us with some support at the governmental level that could be beneficial to us,” Mendel said.

At the same time, the attorney said that Antigua & Barbuda has to be cautious that its concerns and its fight were not overshadowed by the interests of wealthier nations.

“We always have to be considerate of bigger countries following on our heels and wiping out the value that we’ve put in to this,” he told the Antigua Sun. He said a real risk is that the US decides to continue its restrictive focus and succeeds in wiping out the Antiguan industry, then turns around and allows all of the Las Vegas companies to offer the same services Antigua-based operators offer now.

Meanwhile, Antigua & Barbuda’s gaming officials have continued to be tight-lipped on the results of the WTO’s recently completed review of US legislation in the trade dispute between Antigua & Barbuda and the US.

While Mendel and Director of Gaming Kaye McDonald have said they would not breach a confidentiality restriction imposed by the WTO, Gretchen Hamel, a spokesperson for the office of the US Trade Representative has confirmed that the WTO panel did not agree that the United States had taken the necessary steps to comply with the earlier WTO ruling in Antigua & Barbuda’s favour.


ANTIGUA SUN NEWSPAPER: Antigua seeks EU support on gaming issue

.

[Rogthedodger]

No doubt your copy and paste is accurate. That doesn't make NETeller's interpretation of the situation correct.

And your first post was not from the NETeller prospectus, it was your opinion that offered "corrections". And you're wrong on both of the points you tried to make.

Thanks for citing your source though.

[Rogthedodger]

Highwayman, please post the source of your post.

[buddyboy]

the WTO has ruled against the US on farm subsidies since the Clinton days... I doubt any trade agreement Bush comes up with ending/limiting this practice will be approved by this dem. controled congress. and the WTO is threatening far worse sanctions over the farm subsidies issue in relation to the gambling issue. It'll be 3 to 5 years before anything will happen via the WTO pertaining to this gambling issue.

As far as my comment on costa rican licensing, I'll stand by that one... I'll hunt down the source for that info.

and the comment on what the law pertains to... well that is just a cut and paste job... open for interpetation by any judge,lawyer or scholar.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Hartley

You're right Highwayman the judge didn't order the jury to find Cohen guilty, he just told the jury that Cohen's defense was irrelevant. Maybe instead of "ordered the jury" I should have wrote "strongly suggested to the jury not to consider Cohen's defense in their deliberating"
___

On appeal, Cohen asks this Court to consider the following six issues: (1) whether the Government was required to prove a "corrupt motive" in connection with the conspiracy in this case; (2) whether the district court properly instructed the jury to disregard the safe-harbor provision contained in § 1084(b); (3) whether Cohen "knowingly" violated § 1084; (4) whether the rule of lenity requires a reversal of Cohen's convictions; (5) whether the district court constructively amended Cohen's indictment in giving its jury instructions; and (6) whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Cohen's request to depose a foreign witness. We will address those issues in that order.

Regardless of what the Judge said or the Jury heard or interpreted him to say, the important issue here is that it was NOT the Judge’s decision that rendered the verdict, it was the collective agreement of all members of the Jury…which is contrary to what this writing attempted to inference.

Often without realization Juries have the ultimate power in deciding what laws can/will be enforced, while the importance of the Jury selection process cannot be understated.




.

[Juice]

Go Hartly Go.

[Hartley]

Often without realization Juries have the ultimate power in deciding what laws can/will be enforced, while the importance of the Jury selection process cannot be understated.

Unfortunately not all juries know what their powers are which is why a judge's instruction can be so damaging. I still recall that Saskatchewan case where the judge told the jury that acquittal isn't an option for that father who killed the daughter's drug dealing boyfriend and the jury didn't question why not. As it turned out they could have indeed found him not guilty.