ENDNOTES
[1]The analysis in this paper is based on a gambling site that is initiated and maintained in a state where such activities have been legalized. It does not apply when the activities in question are prohibited (ie. fixed horse races or sporting events, or fraud.)
[2]United States v. Kelley, 254 F. Supp. 9, 14-15 (SD NY, 1966) affd in part and revd in part, 395 F2d 727 (CA2 NY, 1968), cert den 393 US 963 (1968). See also, Pic-A-State PA, Inc. v. United States, 76 F3d 1294 (3d Cir. 1996).
[3]Kelley, 254 F. Supp. at 15.
[4]Martin v. United States, 389 F2d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 1968), cert denied, 391 US 919 (1968).
[5]United States v. Scavo, 593 F2d 837, 841 (8th Cir. 1979).
[6]See Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 US 1 (1877), and Pic-A-State PA, Inc. v. United States, 76 F3d 1294 (3d Cir. 1996).
[7]Pictures from magazines were "scanned" and converted into computer files called Graphic Interchange Format files or GIF files.
[8]Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed. See United States v. Alpirn, 307 F.Supp. 452, 454 (SD NY, 1969). Since there exist a conflicting construction when applied to the internet, an ambiguity exists.
[9]Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),(footnote number 17).
[10]Pic-A-State PA, Inc. v. United States, 76 F3d 1294 (3d Cir. 1996).
[11]Rewis v. United States, 401 US 808, 812 (1971).
[13]United States v. Donaway, 447 F2d 940 (9th Cir. 1971)
[14]Other authors have come to the opposite conclusion. Nicholas Robbins in his article in the Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law suggests that a gambling web site would be prohibited by either 18 USC §1084 or 28 USC §3702. See 2 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 7, April 8, 1996. 28 USC §3702 (1996) prohibits wagering schemes based on amatuer or professional sports, which would prohibit that particular type of gambling on a web site. However, 28 USC §3704 (1996) provides exceptions for parimutuel animal racing or jai-alai games and for wagering schemes which were authorized by a statute as in effect on October 2, 1991 provided a scheme described actually was conducted in that State at any time during the period beginning September 1, 1989, and ending October 2, 1991, pursuant to the law of that State. Thus, if the site were established in Nevada it would be covered under the §3704 exception.
[15]See Pic-A-State PA, Inc. v. United States, 76 F3d 1294 (3d Cir. 1996). The court distinguished between the Commerce Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause citing Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 US 408 (1946).
[16]International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310 (1945).
[17]New York State Trawlers Assoc. v. Jorling, 16 F.3d 1303,1307 (2d Cir. 1994).
[18]Ocala Kennel Club, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 725 F. Supp. 1205, 1207 (MD FL 1989).
[19]United States v. Dakota, 666 F. Supp. 989, 998 (WD MI 1985).
[20]Martin v. United States, 389 F2d 895 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 391 US 919 (1968).
[21]State v. Bundrant, 546 P.2d 530 (Alaska, 1976)
[22]Florida Attorney General's Office Formal Opinion.
[23]Minnesota Attorney General Memorandum.
[24]International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 319 (1945).
[25]Minnesota Attorney General: Complaint.
[26]Calder v. Jones, 465 US 788, 787 (1984).
On-line casino links:
http://www.intersphere.com/bet
http://www.vegas.com/wagernet/waghome.html
Copyright 1996, Mark W. Rickard