- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m hearing that there is a 80% chance of the NJ 3rd District Court. Will impose a Temporary Stay on the UIGEA, while it is being heard in the US Circuit Court. The First hearing is on Sept 5th. The stay will probably be ruled on then or soon afterwards I would think.
yeah, ive been hoping for this also
Also, i dont know much about the law system etc
But say they do get it temp banned and as the case starts on spet 4th/5th….. How long does a case like this last ?I know its prob an impossible question to answer, but is there a timelimit for it to be finished, once its started ? like 3 months from start date or somethiing.
or is it just finished whenever its finished and could take many months or even years ?
.
.Also, give your opinion on how long you think it could last ?
No telling Darko,
In a case like this it may never be resolved. A Temporary Stay may turn into a long term Stay cause the cause is never officially heard. On Sept 5. is just a hearing on the TRO. If IMEGA is successful in getting this, then im sure they will be looking to add the actual full Constitutional Case on the Calender (Sometime).
Can’t find any source to confirm 80%. The sources we have actually tell us the chances of a TRO are about 10% at the very best. We don’t trust either number as fact right now because our sources are actually all over the place with their opinions on this case. Casino Gambling Web, and I’m sure other news sites, will report on the possible future outcome of this case as soon as we get a substantially consensused analysis that is backed up by logic and reason, as opposed to false optimism/ or negativity.
@john1124 132192 wrote:
I’m hearing that there is a 80% chance of the NJ 3rd District Court. Will impose a Temporary Stay on the UIGEA, while it is being heard in the US Circuit Court. The First hearing is on Sept 5th. The stay will probably be ruled on then or soon afterwards I would think.
I have heard this also, from one source, but for me it takes two independent sources until I say something.
So, as far as I am concerned, it’s still just a rumor.
Nice one though
@john1124 132192 wrote:
I’m hearing that there is a 80% chance of the NJ 3rd District Court. Will impose a Temporary Stay on the UIGEA, while it is being heard in the US Circuit Court. The First hearing is on Sept 5th. The stay will probably be ruled on then or soon afterwards I would think.
I’m not sure what good that really does? The US banking methods are all but dried up and ultimately that is what matters.
Cheers,
SlotplayerThe sources we have actually tell us the chances of a TRO are about 10% at the very best. [/CODE]
Thats cause your reading those guys at American Idol 911. I read that article as well.
I would be 70-80% of getting the TRO about right. Remember the courts in Consitutionality cases normally will use the “Status Quo” or “Pre-Legislation” while Adjudication process is ongoing. For example, California’s Proposition 227 in 1998. This was to have an “English Only” in California Classrooms. The Proposition passed handedly and the State quickly mandated and started implementing the Legislation. La Raza immediatly challenged the Ruling as Un-Constitutional and the US 4th District immediatly put a Stay on PRop 227 from being implimented while the court heard the arguments. The Stay lasted for 3 years until 2001 when the Court agreed with LaRaza and Shot down the Prop as Un-Constitutional and strike it from the books. So a 70-80% is not out of the question on this sort of case.
The Irony of the case above is Arizona just passed the same law last year, and there has been no challenges yet.
Now if you saying around 50% to have the law(UGIEA) actually Shot down as Un-Constitutional. I would Agree there. It is a 50/50 proposition I would say.[CODE]The sources we have actually tell us the chances of a TRO are about 10% at the very best. [/CODE]
Thats cause your reading those guys at American Idol 911. I read that article as well.
I would be 70-80% of getting the TRO about right. Remember the courts in Consitutionality cases normally will use the “Status Quo” or “Pre-Legislation” while Adjudication process is ongoing. For example, California’s Proposition 227 in 1998. This was to have an “English Only” in California Classrooms. The Proposition passed handedly and the State quickly mandated and started implementing the Legislation. La Raza immediatly challenged the Ruling as Un-Constitutional and the US 4th District immediatly put a Stay on PRop 227 from being implimented while the court heard the arguments. The Stay lasted for 3 years until 2001 when the Court agreed with LaRaza and Shot down the Prop as Un-Constitutional and strike it from the books. So a 70-80% is not out of the question on this sort of case.
The Irony of the case above is Arizona just passed the same law last year, and there has been no challenges yet.
Now if you saying around 50% to have the law(UGIEA) actually Shot down as Un-Constitutional. I would Agree there. It is a 50/50 proposition I would say.
Actually my source is just Washington gossip, never read that.
I’m not sure what good that really does? The US banking methods are all but dried up and ultimately that is what matters
The banks are spending all kinds of money to enforce this. They are not going to do that unless they have to.
@john1124 132227 wrote:
Thats cause your reading those guys at American Idol 911. I read that article as well.
Wow, our news organization at Casino Gambling Web would be in very poor shape if that was the source of our information. Our sources are actual lawyers in New Jersey, New York, and other states familiar with how suits are run in the New Jersey court system, as well as how suits are run in general in many states including at a federal level. Our sources have thoroughly read and analyzed the case at hand and have come to drastically different conclusions amongst each other, which is why we have not written an article speculating as to those ‘opinions’.
