The United States government took a different view of the matter and charged him with violating the "Wire Wager Act" ("Act").1  The Wire Wager Act prohibits the "use of a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest."2

United States v. Jay Cohen is one of the first cases brought by the United States government under this statute in its effort to stop offshore Internet gambling.  The District Court convicted him on all counts.  Jay Cohen appeals.3  This paper will try to predict the outcome of that appeal in the Second Circuit.  It takes the form of the following mock concurring opinion.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York indicted Jay Cohen with eight counts.  Count one charged a conspiracy to violate the Wire Wager Act.4  Counts two through eight charged substantive violations of the act in connection with Cohen's operation of the World Sports Exchange in Antigua.5  The government bases its substantive violations on evidence gathered by undercover agents placing bets from the state of New York.

 In 1996 Jay Cohen, an American citizen, formed the World Sports Exchange6 ("WSE") with Steven Schillinger7 to engage in bookmaking on American sporting events.8 Although he located his business offshore on the Caribbean island of Antigua, he marketed his bookmaking activities to United States residents.9  Cohen promoted the WSE sportsbook10 in radio, magazine, and newspaper advertisements throughout the United States.11  He invited Americans to bet in one of two ways: by calling WSE's toll-free telephone numbers, or by using computers connected to the Internet to place their bet.12

The WSE became a thriving business.  In one fifteen month period it grossed more than $5.3 million.13  Most of the money came from American clients, who, on Cohen's instructions, wire-transferred funds from the United States to an account controlled by Cohen in Antigua.14  The WSE used these funds to establish "betting accounts" from which bettors could stake their wagers.15  The WSE derives profit not from winning on a particular bet or group of bets, but from commissions on each bet, commonly known as the "vig" or "juice."16  The WSE "vig" was typically ten percent of the amount of the bet.17

Cohen has constantly argued that he acted in a good faith belief that he was engaging in innocent conduct.18 Before launching his business in Antigua he sought advice, information and guidance from professionals.19  Lawyers in California approved his Private Placement20 Memorandum and an internationally respected accounting and consulting firm provided additional input on tax matters.21  Cohen also personally researched the offshore wagering industry and determined that there were other wagering sites already functioning on the Internet without interference from the government.22

Cohen modeled his business after the New York off-track Betting Corporation that operated under an exception to the Wire Wager Act.23  This exception allows the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets24 between one state or foreign country and another state or foreign country in which such betting is legal.25 Cohen believed this exception allowed him to operate the WSE in Antigua.26  Because wagering in Antigua is wholly lawful, he believed he would not run afoul of United States law.27  Furthermore, he believed that, as an employee of a foreign corporation, he was operating outside the jurisdiction of the United States.28

Prior to trial Cohen moved to dismiss the charges.29  He argued his conduct was exempt from prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1084(b) because his business operated entirely in Antigua.30  The wagering took place solely in that jurisdiction.31  The District court denied his motions.

Before trial, the District Court ruled that Cohen could not attempt to defend his actions on the ground that he did not know they violated the statute.32  This was because the District Court held that 18 U.S.C. §1084(a) is a general intent crime not a specific intent crime.33 However, Judge Griesa declined to impose any direct restriction on Cohen's own testimony.34  He warned Cohen that although he may "testify about what he wants to testify about" all testimony would be subject to the court's later instructions to the jury that ignorance of the meaning of the law is not a defense to the crimes charged.35

During the charge conference, Cohen emphasized that subdivision (b) of section 1084 must be read in conjunction with the term "knowingly" in subsection (a).36  Because he believed his conduct was legal, all betting occurring wholly within Antigua, then the exception to subdivision (b) applied, since the placing of a bet was legal in New York.  The District Court recognized the Court of Appeals might "expand that discussion of willfulness" but declined to so charge.37

The jury convicted the Defendant of all counts and, on August 10, 2000, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty-one months, concurrent terms of supervised release amounting to two years, a special assessment of $800 and a fine of $5,000.38  The Defendant is free on bail pending resolution of this appeal.39

 Although I agree with the majority that the District Court opinion should be affirmed on the existing law, I write separately to caution and express my views to Congress that 18 U.S.C. §1084 may become unenforceable and impractical in the new Internet Age.  My opinion will address, first, the scope and purpose of the §1084(b) exemption; second, whether there was a transmission of a bet; third, whether the defendant possessed the required mental state to commit the crime; and fourth, whether §1084 is practical and efficient.

 Section 1084(a) of the Wire Wager Act prohibits the use of a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers.40  There is, however, an exemption for "information assisting in the placing of bets," under section 1084(b).41  This exemption under 1084(b) applies only to the transaction of "information assisting in the placing of bets" and not to the other acts prohibited in §1084(a).42  The Act narrows the exception further by its requirement that the betting be legal in both jurisdictions in which the transmission occurs.43  Furthermore, no exemption applies to the other wire communications proscribed by §1084(a), even if the betting is legal in both jurisdictions.44

 In United States v. Allen Ross the Court stated that "the relationship between §1084(a) and §1084(b) reflects Congress' dual purpose in enacting §1084".45 Congress intended both to "assist the various States...in the enforcement of their laws pertaining to gambling, bookmaking, and like offenses and to suppress organized gambling activities as a matter of national policy."46

 In Ross, the Court read the two subsections and stated that they impose federal criminal liability under §1084(a) for the transmission of "information assisting in the placing of bets" where, but only where, gambling is not legal in both jurisdictions in which the transmission occurs.47  Thus helping to assist State policies of prohibiting the transmission of "bets".48  However, the Court stated further that the statute imposes federal criminal liability regardless of the legal status of gambling in the involved jurisdictions, thus suppressing organized gambling activity nationally.49

  The House of Representatives Report notes that in Nevada it is lawful to make and accept bets on a horse race held in New York-- thereby making the transmission of "information" relating to betting on such races permissible under Section 1084(b).50  On the other hand, the Report also notes that it is unlawful to make and accept bets in New York State on a horse race being run in Nevada.51

The plain language of the statute suggests that the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets can only be exempted if the betting at issue is legal in both jurisdictions in which the transmission occurs.  The House Report suggests that it was Congress' intention to permit Nevada to take bets on sporting events occurring outside the state.  This makes §1084(b) into an information only exemption.  Thus, if a person reports a sports score to Nevada or gives information assisting in the placing of a bet, he is within the exemption.

 Jay Cohen is similarly situated because he is operating the WSE offshore in Antigua in a jurisdiction like Nevada where gambling is legal.  Cohen, believes that the "information only" exemption between two legal jurisdictions under 1084(b) applies to his situation because in New York it is not illegal per se to place a bet.52  Examining the legality of placing a bet from New York will not have to be addressed if the prosecutable offense of transmitting a bet can be proven.

 Cohen argues that an operator accepting a transmission of a bet by the Internet in Antigua involves transmission of "an offer to place a bet" and not an actual "bet".53  Furthermore he argues it is not a communication entitling the recipient to "money or credit as a result of bets or wagers."54  Cohen believes his operation is similar to "account wagering" which is permitted in such states as New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon.55  Account wagering is the practice by which an individual establishes an account with a facility and causes wagers to be made from that account by sending instructions to the facility operator.56  This allows an out-of-state account holder to lawfully instruct the facility via telephone or other electronic means to place a bet from their account.57

 United States v. Ross, the only case to address the issue, rejected this line of reasoning.  Although the Ross court admitted that federal courts have not previously addressed this question in the context of a defendant claiming the §1084(b) exemption, the court looked to two cases were the defendants were prosecuted for the transmissions of bets and not information assisting in the placement of bets.58  These transmissions were based on calls in which the defendants accepted bets "placed" by a caller.59

 In Sagansky v. United States, the defendant argued that the word "transmission" in 1084(a) encompasses the sending but not the receiving of bets.60  The First Circuit rejected this contention and held that 1084(a) imposes criminal penalties on bookmakers who "accept offers of bets or wagers over the telephone."61  Also, in United States v. Tomeo, by the Tenth Circuit rejected same argument.62  There the court stated that Congress intended to reach those transactions in which callers place bets with bookmakers via the telephone because that is what "persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering" do: "bookies take bets, they receive them, they handle them."63

 The Ross court held that it was a "transmission of a bet".64  Because to accept defendant's argument that it was only an "offer to bet" would leave 1084(a)'s prohibition on transmissions of bets inapplicable to a class of transactions the courts have said are a central concern to the statute.65  Also it would be as if Congress had included both "bets" and "information" in 1084(b)'s safe harbor.66  Clearly, this is not the result Congress intended.

The Ross court felt "the more reasonable interpretation of Congress' distinction between "bets" under §1084(a) and "information" potentially exempt under §1084(b) is the distinction between transmissions constituting an individual gambling transaction (those necessary to effect a particular "bet or wager") and transmission of "information" that merely "assists" a potential bettor or bookmaker."67

 The Ross court stated such information would include transmissions reporting the results of sporting events, the odds placed on particular contests by odds-makers, or the identities of persons seeking to place bets.68  These would be examples of "information", similar to §1084(b)'s exemption for "information for use in news reporting of sporting events."
Cohen's transmissions do not fall under the three categories of information defined by the Ross Court.  This court therefore concludes that Cohen's organization, the Word Sports Exchange, received bets in foreign commerce that violates the prohibition in §1084(a).

  Cohen believes that as a matter of law he does not have the requisite mens rea to commit a substantive violation of §1084.69  His belief rests entirely on his assumption that his conduct involved only the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers per se and not to the actual bets themselves.70  Therefore, he believes he does not possess the required mental state to commit the substantive offense.71

 Section 1084 imposes criminal liability upon those who "knowingly use a wire communication facility."72  The Ross court stated that the term "knowingly" merely requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.73  This level of culpable mental state is known as a "general intent" crime.74  Because §1084 requires only general intent, the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated federal law, just that the defendant intended to do the acts in question.75

Cohen admitted that he knew he was using a wire communication facility.76  Therefore, this court has no choice but to conclude he possessed the requisite mens reas.  Although I realize this produces a harsh result to someone who has taken steps to find out the meaning of the law but has erroneously misinterpreted it, this result protects the greater societal interest in the order of the law.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 Analysts have calculated that Internet gambling generated $1 billion in revenue in 1997, of which $600 million came from the United States.77  By 2001, it is estimated that online casinos will have worldwide revenues of some $7.9 billion, of which $3.5 billion will come from American consumers.78  These kinds of figures lead me to the conclusion that gambling should be legalized and heavily regulated because enforcement will be futile.

The fourth part of my opinion will illustrate that gambling will always be legal somewhere, prohibition is difficult if not impossible to enforce and leads to discrimination in enforcement and that heavy regulation of gambling is our best alternative.

Gambling will always have a haven in which to hide and will be legal in some jurisdictions.79 The history of gambling has constantly shown various stages of increased and lax enforcement.80  But one thing it has always shown is at least one holdout jurisdiction with legalized gambling being swamped by gamblers from a prohibited jurisdiction.81  Online gambling and the new Internet paradigm will not prove to be an exception.

Most Internet gambling currently operates offshore in countries that have legalized and licensed Internet gambling.  Australia, New Zealand, Antigua, Costa Rica82, Belize and the Turks and Caicos Islands are just part of an ever expanding list.83  Clearly, as more countries recognize that gambling keeps and creates revenue for their countries, the list of legalized gambling countries will continue to grow.  Soon, this country or some state will recognize this missed opportunity and campaign for gambling legalization once again.

Scott Olson in his paper Betting no End to Internet Gambling stated that "the authority of states to control gambling within their borders has been undermined" by the Internet.84  In an increasingly borderless world, however, Congress has not stopped trying to prevent it.  Recently bills have been introduced that are designed to provide states with the authority to enforce their own gambling laws by making it illegal either to receive or place bets or wagers on the Internet.85

If this approach succeeds and Congress passes legislation that enables states to prohibit Internet gambling, its enforcement will ultimately fail.  Any outright prohibition, a new gambling bill or the government's current use of U.S.C. section 1084, will prove to be difficult and impractical to enforce.

Tom Bell, Director of Telecommunication & Technology Studies at the Cato Institute, lists two key factors that he believes will frustrate attempts to prohibit Internet gambling: First, "Internet technology renders prohibition futile."86  The Internet's inherently open architecture already hobbles law enforcement officials, while relentless technological innovation ensures that they will only fall farther and farther behind.87  Second, "the Internet offers an instant detour around merely domestic prohibitions."88

 In explaining Internet technology, Mr. Bell offers a very accurate analogy.89  He believes that enforcement of a prohibition on online gambling is akin to telling the U.S. Postal Service it must henceforth crack down on all letters conveying information used in illegal gambling.90  Clearly, the U.S. Postal Service already has its hands full delivering the mail.91

 Current technology is unable to assist in law enforcement.  Consider the following hypothetical, which leaves many unanswered questions: Suppose a state or country is able to gain jurisdiction over an Internet gambling business and seeks an injunction to shut down the site.  It the court enjoins the site, can the injunction be honored?  Can the online company actually prevent citizens from the enjoining country from accessing the site? Can the company feasibly comply with the injunction?

Currently in the United States, a company's web page hosted in one state cannot discern into which state the information is being transmitted.92  Clearly, an outright gambling prohibition would lead to problems of enforcement because the web page cannot tell where its information is sent.  The information could be reaching a jurisdiction where gambling is perfectly legal, or it could be reaching a jurisdiction that has an outright prohibition. This situation also creates problems in determining which countries' laws should apply.

A recent French court decision that forbids Yahoo from making Nazi auction items available to French citizens illustrates this particular problem.93  Is it feasible to make Yahoo comply?  Do you think a United States citizen should be held accountable for publishing Nazi paraphernalia on a web site that may be accessible to French citizens?  The French government has expressly banned this kind of paraphernalia, while the United States government believes in the protection of free speech.

Applying this illustration to the gambling context, analysts have said, leads many online bookmakers to happily take bets from U.S. customers knowing full well that the U.S. government can only go after companies run by U.S. citizens.  Many of these companies operate under a British license.94  In those jurisdictions the British law says the transaction takes place where the web servers are located and where the risk management takes place. Under U.S. law, the location of the web servers is irrelevant.  Should the British law or the American law apply? Is there a workable solution?

 In explaining the instant detour around domestic prohibitions, Mr. Bell says citizens are able to escape prosecution because of the difficulty of identifying and locating them.95  Much of this is due to the Internet's anonymous nature.96  Also, privacy concerns should be addressed, but will not be dealt with in this concurring opinion.97

Even Jon Kyl, the Senator who introduced controversial gambling legislation calling for the prohibition of Internet gambling, and the Justice Department, have recognized and admitted that: "we can't do anything about it" and "this would be a very difficult kind of activity to regulate because we don't have jurisdiction over the people abroad who are doing it."98

Another problem with enforcement is that principles of national sovereignty will prevent the U.S. from forcing other countries to enforce a ban on Internet gambling.99  Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution's Bill of Rights will prohibit criminals from prosecution if they remain overseas while operating Internet gambling sites.100  This leads me to conclude, that law enforcement officials in the U.S. will be unlikely to arrest nor sentence anyone who offers Internet gambling services from a safe harbor abroad.101  The only effective way to prosecute Internet gambling is if the business operators turn themselves in, which seems to be an unlikely situation.

Discrimination in enforcement of gambling laws is happening in two ways.  First, there is unequal enforcement in gaming laws. Second, the discrimination applies unevenly to only American citizens who operate a gambling business offshore.

The Internet causes unequal enforcement in our gaming laws.  The advent of the Internet has brought about serious implications that no one could have imagined.  We are grasping at a hodgepodge of different federal statutes and are trying to make sense of laws that Congress did not intend to apply to the Internet.  The Federal Wire Act passed into law in 1961.102  Analysts say, the invention of the ARPANET (predecessor to the Internet) began in August of 1969.103

The Act discriminates in the enforcement of gambling.  The Act prohibits anyone "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" from using "a wire communication facility" to place "bets or wager on any sporting event or contest."104  Thus, the wire act discriminates in enforcement against sports gambling sites and is not effective at stopping most forms of non-sport Internet gambling.105  The plain language of the statute supports this conclusion, as well as the statute's next section that excepts from prosecution the use of wire communication facility to transmit information "for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests."106  Other federal statutes may apply to enforce other non-sport Internet gambling, but until recently, no statutes have been used to bring any causes of action.107  Is Congress' intention to only go after sports gambling, or does it wish to attack the entire gambling industry?

Besides discriminating against only Internet sports gambling sites, the statute further discriminates by applying only to American citizens who operate a gambling business offshore. Being an American citizen is the only real basis for jurisdiction that would justify the United States exercising its jurisdiction over a Internet gambling business that is not physically located in the United States.108  There are four generally recognized bases for the United States to obtain extraterritorial jurisdiction over defendants who have no physical presence within the country:109

1. National jurisdiction exists when the offender is a citizen of the country which seeks jurisdiction.

2. "Passive personal jurisdiction" can exist if the effect of an activity which occurs outside of the country injures a person within the country.

3. "Protective jurisdiction can be exercised when a national interest has been injured.

4. "Universal jurisdiction exists when a perpetrator has been physically restrained and the illegal actions are considered "particularly heinous and harmful to humanity."110

Heavy regulation is our best alternative. Some proponents of a prohibition on Internet gambling erroneously argue that if prohibition will not work, then neither will any scheme of regulation.113  This argument fundamentally misunderstands a basic principle of governance, according to Mr. Bell, that states' regulations can succeed even where prohibitions fail if they offer benefits that exceed burdens.114  Heavy regulations give people confidence in the fairness of the game.  Mr. Bell believes that this is precisely the reason why people do not illegally shoot craps in Las Vegas alleys.115

What type of regulations provides the best solution?

Federal Solution: State solutions are not viable.  One Florida attorney general opined that "any effort to regulate use of the Internet is better suited to federal regulation than to patchwork attention by individual states," due to the wide-reaching nature of the Internet.116  However, federal solutions continue to have problems over jurisdiction and which countries' laws apply.  This may cause a federal solution to be unworkable too.

International Solution: The international community recognized the potential problems that Internet gambling may create by meeting at a symposium in December of 1997.117 The delegates met not to discuss prohibitions against Internet gambling, but instead, how countries can work together to create a regulatory structure which solves the problems surrounding online gambling.118  These international solutions may yet provide us with the best global solutions.119  But do they may come at too high of a cost.120

Self-Regulation: Many online gambling sites already engage in self-regulation.121  Some sites limit the amount you can wager per month, while others include help to chronic gamblers by providing a cyber link to Gambler's Anonymous.122  Also, industry regulation, such as the Interactive Gaming Council, provides its members with a ten-point code of conduct that establishes guidelines for Internet gambling.123

Whatever type of regulation ultimately prevails, all regulations tend to decrease crime along with increasing the benefits and fairness to society.

Antigua has done its part to prevent crime.  It charges operators a fee up to $100,000 per year to obtain an operating license which has the effect of preventing unscrupulous operators from getting started.124  Despite the steep fee, the number of businesses wanting to set-up there has actually increased because of Antigua's stringent regulations.125  Antigua, at last count, has at least twenty-one online gambling sites.126

Throughout the history of gambling, people have always been suspicious of unscrupulous operators.  The advent of the Internet, however, has partially mitigated that risk by making disclosures about scams widespread by using Usenet groups.127  "Thus, a very good public watch group exists on the Internet because, if one person is duped by a gambling operator, word spreads quickly across the Internet about the scam."128  Ebay currently uses a similar mechanism in its screening procedure that rates sellers of merchandise.  This rating system alerts buyers to the level of risk of them not receiving their goods.  Likewise, gambling could be similarly watched by public accountability.

Regulating Internet gambling would produce a net benefit to the United States in three ways.  First, it would provide for a more wholesome environment than real-world casinos.129  Second, it would benefit consumers by increasing competition in gambling services.130  Third, it would generate a new source of revenue creating a new huge cash cow.

 The Internet gambling environment would be an improvement over traditional casino gambling.  Gambling on the Internet from the privacy of your own home would dramatically improve the environment surrounding gambling by allowing gamblers to choose their own environment.  In contrast, a player in a casino is in a foreign surrounding where drinks are always constantly being offered.131  The biggest benefit of online gambling, however, would be to remove the existing pressure casinos put on gamblers to keep gambling.

Legalization of Internet gambling would increase competition that would benefit the consumer in the form of higher payouts. This would force all gaming companies to compete with each other rather than have some gaming interests' protected to the exclusion of others.  This would effectively allow Indian casinos and Las Vegas to compete on a global scale.  Competition benefits consumers directly.  Also, another benefit is to keep gambling revenue in the United States.

Legalization of gambling would create a huge new cash cow for the United States Government.  Since enforcement is inefficient and impractical, legalization would prevent unstoppable cash flows to off-shore gambling companies. Another possible benefit to the United States might be the tremendous goodwill it has built up in the economy and its rule of law.  People invest in U.S. T-bills for a reason.  Having the U.S. government heavily regulate gambling would produce a similar result.

The District Court opinion should be affirmed solely on existing law.  Precedence binds this court.  However, I write this concurrence as a warning that the current state of U.S.C. §1084 creates an unenforceable and impractical solution.

1 18 U.S.C. Section 1084

2 United States v. Kaczowski,114 F. Supp. 2d 143 (1999)

3 Jay Cohen appeals from a judgement by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

4 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

5 Id.

6 http://www.wsex.com

7 Steven Schillinger was indicted but remains in Antigua as a fugitive of the United States Government

8 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

9 Id.

10 An Internet Sportsbook takes bets on most sporting events.  They are pretty much the same as a telephone sportsbook except instead of calling in your bet to a bookie, you fill out an online form. http://www.netbet.org/index.html

11 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

19 Id.

20 A private placement is the sale of securities directly to institutional investors, such as banks, mutual funds, insurance companies, pension funds, and foundations. It does not require SEC registration, provided the securities are bought for investment purposes rather than resale, as specified in the investment letter. http://www.investorwords.com/p4.htm#privateplacement

21 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 United States v. Ross, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351 (1999)

25 18 U.S.C. Section 1084 (b)

26 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

40 18 U.S.C. 1084(a)

41 18 U.S.C. 1084(b)

42 United States v. Ross, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351 (1999)

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 Id.

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

51 Id.

52 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

53 Id.

54 Id.

55 Id.

56 Id.

57 Id.

58 United States v. Ross, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351 (1999)

59 Id.

60 Sagansky v. United States, 358 F.2d 195 (1966)

61 Id.

62 United States v. Tomeo, 459 F.2d 445 (1972)

63 Id.

64 United States v. Ross, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351 (1999)

65 Id.

66 Id.

67 Id.

68 Id.

69 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

70 Id.

71 Brief for Defendant, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

72 18 U.S.C. 1084

73 United States v. Ross, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351 (1999)

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 Brief for the United States of America, Second Circuit, United States v. Jay Cohen (2000)

77 Tom W. Bell, INTERNET GAMBLING Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal, Cato Policy Analysis No. 336,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html (1999)

78 Id.

79 Roger Dunstan, Gambling in California, Part II- History of Gambling in the United States, California Research Bureau, http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/Chapt2.html (1997)

80 Id.

81 Id.

82 Id.

83 Cynthia R. Janower, Gambling on the Internet, Harvard Law School, http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue2/janower.html

84 Scott Olson, Betting No End to Internet Gambling, 4 J. TECH.L. & POL'Y 2 http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4/Olson.html (1999)

85 Id.

86 Tom W. Bell, INTERNET GAMBLING Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal, Cato Policy Analysis No. 336, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html (1999)

87 Id.

88 Id.

89 Id.

90 Id.

91 Id.

92 Scott Olson, Betting No End to Internet Gambling, 4 J. TECH.L. & POL'Y 2 http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4/Olson.html (1999)

93 Doug Isenberg, Struggling with the French Yahoo Nazi-Auction Decision, GigaLaw.com: "Legal Information for Internet Professionals", http://gigalaw.com/articles/2001/isenberg-2001-01b-p1.html

94 Online gambling companies operate under British law in the Channel Islands.

95 Tom W. Bell, INTERNET GAMBLING Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal, Cato Policy Analysis No. 336, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html (1999)

96 Id.

97 Scott Olson, Betting No End to Internet Gambling, 4 J. TECH.L. & POL'Y 2 http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4/Olson.html (1999)

98 Tom W. Bell, INTERNET GAMBLING Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal, Cato Policy Analysis No. 336, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html (1999)

99 Id.

100 Id.

101 Id.

102 Eric J. Sinrod, Cracking down on Internet gambling, http://www.websense.com/company/news/companynews/00/101000.cfm

103 http://livinginternet.com/i/ii_arpanet.htm

104 Scott Olson, Betting No End to Internet Gambling, 4 J. TECH.L. & POL'Y 2 http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4/Olson.html (1999)

105 Id.

106 Id.

107 Id.

108 Id.

109 Id.

110 Id.

111 Id.

112 Id.

113 Tom W. Bell, INTERNET GAMBLING Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal, Cato Policy Analysis No. 336, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html (1999)

114 Id.

115 Id.

116 Scott Olson, Betting No End to Internet Gambling, 4 J. TECH.L. & POL'Y 2 http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4/Olson.html (1999)

117 Id.

118 Id.

119 Id.

120 Id.

121 Id.

122 Id.

123 Id.

124 Id.

125 Id.

126 Id.

127 Id.

128 Id.

129 Tom W. Bell, INTERNET GAMBLING Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal, Cato Policy Analysis No. 336, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html (1999)

130 Id.

131 Jay Cohen interview, 60 Minutes, (2000)