|
Antigua lead counsel in WTO case Mark Mendel sits
down with G911
Mendel says BetonSports management did absolutely
everything wrong
Gambling911.com
recently had the pleasure to sit down with Mark
Mendel, lead counsel for Antigua on the Antigua vs.
the United State WTO case. Mark is an esteemed
lawyer with the firm of Mendel-Blumenfeld, LLP -
with offices in El Paso, TX, Albuquerque, NM, and
Cork, Ireland. Mark offered some interesting
insight on the recent BetOnSports indictments and he
shared his thoughts on the United States' current
legislative position on internet gambling.
Kira Wissman of
Gambling911.com reporting....
Gambling911.com:
The recent indictment of BetOnSports.com no doubt
has the WTO very upset. What is being done to
thwart this most recent attack by the U.S.?
Mark: I
doubt the WTO is upset, but what it does do is
strengthen our argument that the US laws are
protectionist, as the DOJ once again goes after an
offshore operator rather than the horseracing sites
such as YouBet.com and others that the DOJ claims
are illegal.
Gambling911.com:
WWTS operates out of Antigua and was also recently
named in an indictment with its former name World
Wide Tele Sports and they have since elimined phone wagering from their menu
as a result. This no doubt hurts their business.
Have you been in contact with them about the
indictment and will this affect Antigua's appeal?
Mark: Yes,
I have been in contact with them. Another excellent
example of US discrimination - going after an
Antiguan operator rather than their own domestic,
sanctioned remote betting.
Gambling911.com:
You mention the entrenchment of the
remote betting operators in the U.S. It seems that
these operators, along with the Indian gaming
reserves and the giants in Las Vegas and Atlantic
City are actively lobbying against the legalization
of online betting. They have a pretty solid
monopoly and the legalization would change how they
need to attract customers. It is also interesting
that the U.S. representatives drafting and sponsoring
the bills in Congress are all from states with
Indian interests. Are the above statements
generally accepted as true, and if so, how can the
general American public go about fighting such
strong opponents?
Mark: It
is interesting that in the current environment,
there is little to no participation by the American
public. There really is no upswelling against
on-line gaming, nor is there a loud enough force in
favor of it either. It seems to amount to public
grandstanding by politicians with no public
connect. I think that is why domestic remote gaming
interests have had little problem getting their
exemptions carved into legislation…nobody really
cares! Because nobody cares that much, I think that
this may be one of the rare circumstances where
public citizen input to legislators might make a
real difference. If Senator X only hears from the
normal opponents to online gaming (vested interests,
"religious" right, etc.) and then gets a number of
communications from persons opposed to the erosion
of rights and economic protectionism, then it just
may turn some heads.
America clearly has domestic remote gaming, but it
is limited somewhat in scope currently. I think
what the domestic industry wants is to keep it that
way, or, if things are to change and gaming is to be
opened up, that it be opened up in a way that allows
the current industry leaders in other kinds of
gaming (i.e. Las Vegas, Atlantic City) to come into
the industry in a dominant way, dwarfing
international competition.
Gambling911.com:
If Antigua and the WTO are ultimately victorious
in the appeal process, what are the penalties that
will be imposed against the U.S.?
The
BetWWTS.com
office
in St.
John,
Antigua |
|
Mark: Our
first preference is for the U.S. to ultimately come
to the table with Antigua and seek a fair,
negotiated solution to our dispute. We think that
we can show these services can be provided safely
and fairly from Antigua to U.S. consumers. It is
frustrating, as we have given the Americans endless
opportunities to work out a negotiated solution.
For whatever reason, they have chosen not to do so
yet. But, we expect that ultimately they will have
to.
Gambling911.com:
Is there any concern that if the U.S. did decide to
regulate the online gambling industry that these
companies would pack up and return to the U.S. -
leaving a lot of people unemployed?
Mark: Not
really. There are some well-established Antiguan
companies that feel they can compete on a level
playing field. If they cannot, then so be it. We
are not looking for favoritism, just fair ability to
compete.
Gambling911.com:
A final decision was rendered in the WTO Antigua vs.
the U.S. case in 2005. What was the final result of
the case? The original case was very prominent in
the press, but the final results were never widely
publicized.
Mark: Yes,
I am a bit mystified by the lack of understanding
about the case in the American media. The reality
is that the U.S. lost a very important case in the
WTO that will ultimately force the U.S. into either
compliance or rejecting the entire WTO process. We
believe the will ultimately comply, but it is going
to require persistence on our part to force the U.S.
to come to grips with the case.
Gambling911.com:
The resolution involved several concessions on
both sides. Please briefly explain what each side
gained/lost.
Mark:
Well, the final result in the case gave the
Americans the ability to say they won the case, as
the final ruling is very complicated. However, most
legal experts have rolled around to our perspective
on the decision, and that is that the final ruling
gave the U.S. two options - grant Antiguan operators
market access or ban all domestic remote gambling.
We have "bet" that the U.S. remote gaming interests
are too entrenched for the Americans to do the
latter, and so far events (such as the Goodlatte
bill, which is almost unbelievably protectionist,
and the prosecution of WWTS and BetOnSports) have
proven us correct in this regard.
Gambling911.com:
Will Antigua be involved in any future action
against the U.S?
Mark: We
are right now starting a formal process whereby the
WTO will be assessing the status of the U.S.
"compliance" with the WTO rulings. We fully expect
they will be found woefully non-compliant, and that
will give further impetus to our efforts to get the
U.S. to stop being hypocritical and comply with the
ruling.
We then discussed what the general public can do to
get involved in the process. Both Mark and
Gambling911 agree that our fundamental right to
privacy is at risk here, and that the U.S. has no
business legislating morality. American citizens
need to stand up and be hear - write your
congressman, write your newspapers, make phone
calls.
As a final note, we discussed last week's events in
the BOS sports case. The decision by BOS management
to cease taking wagers from U.S. citizens has left
many scratching their heads.
Mark believes that the management of BetonSports did
absolutely everything wrong. They sacked Carruthers
and left him out to dry simply for doing what he was
hired for and paid to do. They have effectively
destroyed their company and put customer funds at
risk. They should have never shut down and ceded to
the American jurisdictional claims. He cannot
imagine the situation being handled any worse.
Mark goes on to assert that regulated Antiguan
providers of all gaming services should continue
business as usual and not change anything they do.
The same is true for any offshore operators offering
non-sportsbook services. Further, not accepting
telephone bets is a meaningless gesture.
When asked about the portion of the indictment that
accuses BOS of not properly remitting the wagering
excise tax, he states that is simply a tactic. He
doesn't see how the US can assert taxing
jurisdiction over a foreign entity with no American
presence.
Gambling 911 then asked Mark to summarize his opinion
on the current state of affairs in the industry.
His response: "I think the whole offshore gaming
world has been very poorly served by the deer in the
headlights panic of the remaining BOS executives.
They have literally taken a company with over US
$100 million in market capital and thrown it all
away--not to mention the looming consumer disaster.
Contrast their reaction with that of companies such
as WSEX (World Sports Exchange) and WWTS back in 1998. They kept the doors
open, carried on as usual and no punter lost a cent
as a result.
"It is ironic that the US thinks they are doing
consumers a favour by collapsing an otherwise
healthy and reliable service provider. The US
argument against offshore gaming is (ostensibly)
rooted in the need to protect American
consumers from the dark world of offshore
gaming . . . "
Mark did note; however, that almost all editorial
opinion on the issue is contrary to Congress and the
DOJ. The general consensus seems to be to support
rational, regulated remote wagering. He goes on to
say that Antigua has always advocated regulation and
responsibility and believes it is just as able to
regulate as are many state governments. Antigua
submitted massive amounts of evidence to the WTO of
te abject failure of many state regulatory schemes
and the general blasé attitude in the U.S. towards
these failures. Nonetheless, we have even offered
the U.S. a role in the oversight of our regulatory
scheme to demonstrate its efficacy. The offer was
of course, rejected.
Related Articles:
Online Gambling Industry
(Blog)
Kira Wissman on Assignment
----
Kira Wissman,
www.gambling911.com
Originally published August 14, 2006 8:26 pm EDT
|
