Posted on

AG Strange reacts to US Attorney’s gambling questions

Alabama’s laws put on to allow for electronic bingo; federal laws do.


That was basically the reaction, in the form of a letter that was launched to the media that Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange supplied to U.S. Attorney George Beck, who asked for explanation on the stateos laws last week. Beck s request came from, he said, from problems his office got from Tuskegee Mayor Johnny Ford.

In addition to detailing the state’s position on the online games, Strange likewise informed Beck that Ford submitted a not successful suit against Stranger’s office and made similar claims of unfairness. That match was dismissed and Ford’s lawyer approved for submitting an unimportant claim, Strange stated.

The Eleventh Circuit confirmed (that ruling), Strange composed. Two of the three judges were designated by President Obama and the third by President Carter. The Court concluded that Defendant Strange has actually treated comparable facilities equally.

Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge William Shashy ruled last year that Strange had actually not treated Victory Land relatively, but had singled the center out for careful prosecution by enabling other facilities to continue to be open.

Many of the arguments provided in the case before Shashy existed by Beck, who positioned a series of concerns to Strange. Odd tackled addressing those concerns in his letter. Beck’s office has actually not reacted to a request for talk about Stranger’s letter.

To Beck’s request that Strange compare electronic bingo devices and slot machines, Strange responded that the term doesn’t appear in the Alabama code then provided Alabama’s broad definition of a gambling device.

According to the code, a gambling device, in addition to being any device, machine, stuff or equipment that is normally used or usable in the playing phases of any gambling activity, is operationally defined as: a device that, as a result of the insertion of a coin or other object, operated, either totally instantly or which the help of some physical act by the play, in such manner that, relying on aspects of opportunity, it might eject something of value.

Lawyers for Victory Land said in court files several years ago that the state’s meaning of a gambling device is so broad that if used strictly, it would make soda vending devices illegal.

Odd likewise stated there many court decisions that specify electronic bingo machines as unlawful gambling devices under Alabama law. He kept in mind 2 state court decisions a Jefferson County Circuit Court judgment in 2012 and a Houston County Circuit Court ruling in 2013, and the state’s Supreme Court affirmed the Houston County decision.

Unusual likewise points out a 2009 U.S. District Court decision that called electronic bingo machines unlawful gambling gadgets under Alabama law. The argument in that case Department of Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars v. Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning centered on whether Alabama’s various constitutional modifications legislating bingo in specific counties, and the fine print of the state statutes concerning prohibited gaming gadgets, made electronic bingo devices by default.

The court did not address any practical differences between the electronic bingo devices and traditional slot machines, but said they didn’t fall within the exceptions in the law.

Odd dealt with Beck’s many concerns about Alabama’s complicated relationship in between its video gaming laws and the federal laws governing video games used tribal lands, and Beck’s questions about numerous Memorandums of Understanding that Strange signed with electronic bingo game suppliers.

In the interest of fairness to all included, I have actually asked the National Indian Gaming Commission and the federal courts to clarify the status of Indian gambling, Strange wrote. The NIGC’s position is that Indian tribes may provide so-called electronic bingo under federal law even though such gambling is illegal under state law. And, as you keep in mind in your letter, the federal courts have actually held that tribal gaming is outside the state s jurisdiction.

As for the MOUs, which exempted Alabama’s three tribal casinos, which are operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Strange stated those contracts are not with the tribe and are for that reason not considered compacts.

Those MO’s needed the slot-machine companies to remove their devices from Alabama’s jurisdiction or suffer civil and criminal charges, strange composed. They have absolutely nothing to do with a tribal-state compact. A tribal-state compact is a contract between a tribe and a state, but the Poarch Band of Creek Indians is not a celebration to any of those MOU’s.