Kentucky - Any News?

[Simmo!]

Wasn't the 12th the day that the "final say" was due? Can't find anything out there...

[GGW Laurie]

Wasn't the 12th the day that the "final say" was due? Can't find anything out there...

i cant find anything about it also simmo...............laurie

[silcnlayc]

Quick Ruling Expected in Kentucky Internet Gaming Case
By Dan Cypra for POKER NEWS DAILY | Posted on December 12, 2008

Friday marked the resumption of the case involving the seizure and possible forfeiture of 141 internet gambling domain names by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It pits the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet in the state against some of the most popular online poker, online casino, and online Bingo websites.

This time around, the proceedings took place in Kentucky’s largest city, Louisville, which plays host to the Kentucky Derby. The “Run for the Roses,” as it’s commonly referred to, plays out every May at the Churchill Downs racetrack. The Kentucky Court of Appeals held center court on Friday after Judges Michael Caperton, Michelle Keller, and Jeff Taylor approved petitions by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and Interactive Gaming Council (IGC). The two groups sought intervention by the Court of Appeals to act, arguing that the Commonwealth lacked jurisdiction to seize domain names and that allowing the case to play out would result in irreparable harm to the domain names involved.

Jennifer Brislin, Communications Director for the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, told Poker News Daily that she was pleased with Friday’s hearing: “There is illegal activity occurring and that came across crystal clear. It’s now up to the Court of Appeals to determine whether these illegal sites will continue to thumb their noses at the Commonwealth.” In the case, Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown has been the front man for the State, not its Attorney General. Brislin stated that she expected the higher court to rule as soon as possible in the high-profile rift.

Four attorneys took to the floor during the 50 minute appeals hearing. Online poker was brought up specifically, according to Associated Press writer Brett Barrouquere, who was present at the hearing. Barrouquere stated that the defendants argued that not every domain name in jeopardy belonged to an internet gambling site. That included mentions of online poker rooms involved. In the case, the domain names of Full Tilt Poker, Bodog, PokerStars, Cake Poker, Ultimate Bet, and Absolute Poker (among others) are at risk. The latter three sites have stopped taking Kentucky customers in order to adhere to a ruling by Judge Thomas Wingate at the Circuit Court level. However, if online poker is not “gambling,” then the sites may be exempt from the case.

Barrouquere told Poker News Daily that each party was grilled during the Court of Appeals hearing: “The three judge panel was well-prepared. There were a lot of interesting questions from the judges. Judge Keller focused on why the State didn’t treat illegal gambling the same way as it treated illegal drugs. Why not just go after the gambler as opposed to the website?” The State’s response: “The legislature specifically exempted the player from the legislation,” according to the Associated Press article.
Barrouquere revealed that tough, pointed questions were the theme of the day, with the judges involved having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the lower court decision prior to taking the floor on Friday. Like iMEGA’s Chairman Joe Brennan and Brislin, Barrouquere expects an expedient resolution to the case. He explains, “They will rule fairly quickly. I don’t expect it to drag out. A lower judge has already agreed to let the suit go forward. If the State is correct and this is illegal gambling, then it’s still going on right now. If the State is incorrect, then it’s in everyone’s best interest for these sites to be able to operate without this cloud hanging over their heads.”

Judge Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s seizure of the domain names on October 16th. Central to the case’s future are the answers to the several questions. First, does the State have jurisdiction to seize domain names, which are located in cyberspace, by using the “gambling devices” statute? iMEGA attorney Jon Fleischaker told Poker News Daily, “What you have in Kentucky law is that the forfeiture of gambling devices is in the criminal code. Forfeiture comes after a finding of violation of the penal code. You can’t have a violation of the penal code without a criminal statute. What the Commonwealth is trying to do is treat this as a civil proceeding.” The Commonwealth asserted that the URLs were “gambling devices,” similar to any of the objects such as slot machines and roulette wheels that would be found in an underground casino.

In addition, do the actions by Governor Steve Beshear and Brown violate the U.S. Constitution? The Commerce Clause (which states that the Federal Government is charged with regulating commerce with foreign nations) may have been trampled on. In addition, due process and free speech rights may have been overlooked.

We’ll keep you posted on further developments right here on Poker News Daily.

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/quick-...ming-case-817/

[BingoT]

Court of appeals hears gambling Web site case
The Associated Press December 12, 2008, 2:14PM ET
By BRETT BARROUQUERE
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D951BHVG0.htm

Or I just found this one.


Saturday, Dec. 13, 2008
Email Print Appeals court hears argument on Kentucky case

By Shari Geller

Attorneys on both sides of the Kentucky domain name dispute appeared before a three-judge panel in Louisville, Ky., this morning for the hearing on the appeal filed by iMEGA and the Interactive Gaming Council to overturn the forfeiture ordered by lower court judge Thomas Wingate last October.


The appeals court panel had earlier stayed the forfeiture hearing, previously scheduled for Dec. 3, to give them time to consider the issues raised in the briefs filed by the parties as well as in the amicus briefs filed by the Poker Players Alliance and a number of free speech organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Kentucky.

The appellate panel, comprised of Judges Michelle Keller, Michael Caperton and Jeff Taylor, heard oral arguments today during a 50-minute hearing, and then took the matter under submission.

With the holidays coming up, their opinion will likely not be released until after the first of the year.

At stake is not only the future of online gambling in Kentucky, but the larger issue of the right of any state to seize an Internet domain name of a registrar located outside of the state for an alleged violation of local law. This issue is at the heart of the free speech organization's opposition to the forfeiture order.

As stated by EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman, "The court's theory - that a state court can order the seizure of Internet domain names regardless of where the site was registered - is not only wrong but dangerous."

According to Jon L. Fleischaker, the attorney representing iMEGA, there were three major issues discussed today. First was whether the lower court properly used the Kentucky seizure and forfeiture statute against the domain names - which is part of the Kentucky criminal code - in a civil proceeding.

Fleischaker argued that in order for Kentucky to use the statute in question, there first has to be a criminal complaint filed and then a conviction or a guilty plea. In other words, only after there is a finding of a violation of the criminal code could the seizure statute be used.

In the lower court, there had been no finding that the Web sites whose domain names were seized had violated any Kentucky criminal code.

As Fleischaker stated after the hearing, "It is not sufficient for the state or a lower court judge to decide on their own that there is a criminal violation - they have to go through a criminal proceeding first."

Fleischaker indicated that the appeals court panel seemed receptive to this issue and asked the attorneys to address how the state could obtain a criminal seizure and forfeiture order without first obtaining a criminal charge and conviction.

The panel also appeared to be receptive to the second argument raised by iMEGA's attorney which focused on the applicability of the statute to domain names themselves. Fleischaker argued that the statute limited seizure to "gambling devices" - defined in the statute as a mechanical device such as a roulette wheel or a slot machine - and that a domain name is not a gambling device under this definition.

The judges questioned the attorney for the state whether the sequence of letters and numbers that make up a domain name could be considered a "gambling device." According to Fleischaker, the state responded that a domain name is a gambling device because it is the way to get to the online gambling site.

The judges also delved into whether the lower court's seizure and forfeiture order should be reversed because the state lacked jurisdiction over the domain names since the registrants of those names were not located in Kentucky.

Attorney William Johnson, representing some of the affected Web sites, argued that the sites were located off shore and that Kentucky cannot seizure property that is not within its boundaries.

Attorney Eric Lycan, representing Kentucky, argued that Kentucky was within its right to take action against the online gambling sites which he described, according to a report from the Associated Press, as a "massive, global, offshore criminal enterprise" which violate the law of Kentucky.

Lycan argued that it was irrelevant where the registrants were located as their sites were accessible within the state.

One unexpected issue raised by the appellate panel was the fact that Kentucky gambling law is aimed at the purveyors, but not the players. Judge Michelle Keller asked Lycan why it is against the law in Kentucky to "promote" gambling, but it is not illegal to gamble. With other illegal activities, she indicated, the law applies equally to all involved.

"It's illegal to sell the drugs and it is also illegal to use the drug," Keller said. "I don't see much of a difference here."

Lycan responded that the decision to criminalize the gambling operators, and not the players, was made by the legislature. "The legislature specifically exempted the player from the legislation," Lycan said, according to an AP reporter at the hearing.

Attorneys for the free speech organizations who had filed amicus briefs - EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU-Kentucky -- had applied to the court for leave to appear at today's hearing, but their motion was denied.

Also arguing at the hearing was attorney John Tate, representing the Interactive Gaming Council.

Attorney Fleischaker told PokerListings he was pleased with how today went "because the court was fully aware of the issues and gave us a good hearing."

[Westland Bowl]

.......The judges questioned the attorney for the state whether the sequence of letters and numbers that make up a domain name could be considered a "gambling device." According to Fleischaker, the state responded that a domain name is a gambling device because it is the way to get to the online gambling site.......

By this logic, roads, sidewalks and doors leading to a specific gambling casino in Monte Carol are "gambling devices" too because Kentuckians use them to access the casino. This obviously is moot because Monte Carlo is located way outside of Kentucky and the laws of Kentucky are not applicable there. If this Monte Carlo casino also have their own online casino, Kentuckians can "walk" to the online casino through the Internet from their Kentucky home. A Kentuckian visiting any online casino under his/her own free will is protected by Kentucky's own legislation and is not considered to have done anything illegal.

Should Ford stop production of cars because a Kentucky citizen committed reckless driving? So where is the logic that online casinos have their domain names seized if they don't be Net Nanny to Kentuckians who are not doing anything illegal in the first place? Current events notwithstanding, if cars were not being made anymore due to Kentucky enforcement acts, millions of other non-Kentucky citizens are negatively affected and their own rights violated by Kentucky.

Giving Kentucky government the right to seize domain names (why stop only with online casinos?) not registered in their own state impacts millions of people beyond Kentucky borders and sets a bad precedent be seized upon by thousands of other jurisdictions and rogue governments.

Kentucky is risking bad international public image and boycott of all things Kentucky, including ironically the Kentucky Derby.

[Mousey]

Becasue gambling is illegal in places like China, I wish China (or whoever) would seize the Kentucky Derby and horse race gambling domains.... heheheheheh

[jetset]

Another good report here:

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/625576.html

"In oral arguments Friday, lawyers representing six domain names, two online gambling trade groups and The Poker Players Alliance said the cabinet’s move is littered with legal and constitutional flaws.

They focused on four arguments:

* Wingate does not have jurisdiction to allow the state to seize domains registered in other countries where gambling is legal.

* Domain names are not gambling devices.

* Domain names can only be seized after a criminal conviction. The state has not attempted to criminally prosecute the Web site operators.

* Kentucky is prohibited by the commerce clause of the U.S Constitution from regulating interstate and international commerce, which the trade groups argue Wingate’s order affectively allows."

and

"Two of the three judges expressed skepticism about the government’s case.

"Judge Jeff Taylor asked how the government could seize the domain names when the Web site operators have not been prosecuted.

"Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown “taught a law school class 27 years ago and he taught that there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” Taylor said."

No wonder the Kentucky AG distanced himself from this can of worms, pushed through by a questionable governor and his contingency fee Chicago lawyers.

And from iMEGA:


"Private attorneys, representing the commonwealth on a contingency fee-basis, repeatedly insisted that Internet gambling was against the law, though there are no laws in Kentucky making it illegal for residents to gamble online.

"Erik Lycan, lead attorney for the commonwealth, raised a few eyebrows during questioning by Judge Michelle M. Keller, when asked about the commonwealth's assertion that domain names constituted "gambling devices". Judge Keller asked if, given that logic, the state had a right to seize the buses that transported people across the bridge to Indiana to gamble in that state's legal casinos. Lycan responded yes, the state had that right."

[Mousey]

"Erik Lycan, lead attorney for the commonwealth, raised a few eyebrows during questioning by Judge Michelle M. Keller, when asked about the commonwealth's assertion that domain names constituted "gambling devices". Judge Keller asked if, given that logic, the state had a right to seize the buses that transported people across the bridge to Indiana to gamble in that state's legal casinos. Lycan responded yes, the state had that right."

Gotta love that.... Why not confiscate and freeze all Kentucky citizens monies, with their wallets being regulated by the state. Set up border guards. That way they make sure no one gambles out of state. Confiscate all computers in the state. Shut off all internet connections.

Hell... Lycan and Beshear are ready to set up a police state within a democracy. Now THAT is frightening.

[RobWin]

Gotta love that.... Why not confiscate and freeze all Kentucky citizens monies, with their wallets being regulated by the state. Set up border guards. That way they make sure no one gambles out of state. Confiscate all computers in the state. Shut off all internet connections.

Hell... Lycan and Beshear are ready to set up a police state within a democracy. Now THAT is frightening.

Hmmmm....where have I heard that phrase before

[lots0]

This domain name seizure was never about stopping gambling or "protecting" the public from gambling... It was all about protecting the land based casinos inside Kentucky from competition from the www.

Thats why it is not "illegal" for individuals to gamble in Kentucky...

Americas state governors... Boy can we be proud of them(not)... so many of them sure seem to be the real bottom feeding political scum of the earth.

If the appellate court is fair, I expect to see this travesty of a law suit thrown out and the governor and his pet mercenary lawyers get a reprimand from the court.