- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Wasn't the 12th the day that the "final say" was due? Can't find anything out there...
Kentucky - Any News?
- Thread starter Simmo!
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Location
- In the Beautiful South !!
i cant find anything about it also simmo...............laurie
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Location
- Left Hungary
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Location
- Palm Bay Florida
Court of appeals hears gambling Web site case
The Associated Press December 12, 2008, 2:14PM ET
By BRETT BARROUQUERE
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."
The Associated Press December 12, 2008, 2:14PM ET
By BRETT BARROUQUERE
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
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."
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Location
- America
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.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Becasue gambling is illegal in places like China, I wish China (or whoever) would seize the Kentucky Derby and horse race gambling domains.... heheheheheh
Another good report here:
"In oral arguments Friday, lawyers representing six domain names, two online gambling trade groups and The Poker Players Alliance said the cabinets 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 Wingates order affectively allows."
and
"Two of the three judges expressed skepticism about the governments 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."
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
"In oral arguments Friday, lawyers representing six domain names, two online gambling trade groups and The Poker Players Alliance said the cabinets 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 Wingates order affectively allows."
and
"Two of the three judges expressed skepticism about the governments 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."
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
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.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Location
- A Vault!
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
My guess is that this case has served its purpose which is to make sure everyone knows Kentucky doesn't want it's $$ diverted from it's own gambling industry to out of State gambling operators. And it's been pretty effective, probably a lesson in scaremongering learned from the while UIGEA thing. Clearly it's at the expense of the rights of Kentucky residents, but most of them probably haven't realised, or don't really care, and those that do are largely powerless.
You're right - but better yet a positive ruling accompanied by an award for legal costs - that should enhance Gov. Beshear's reputation and suitability for his post with the Kentucky taxpayers!
The legal expenses incurred by the owners of these domains and outfits like iMEGA and IGC must be huge.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Location
- online
This is a huge day for our industry! he declared
It looks like this whole mess ends well for the industry.
just found the below here:
Online Gambling Big Win: Kentucky Appeals Court Ruling
Submitted by C Costigan on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 16:23.
The online gambling industry has won a Kentucky Court of Appeals decision. That court has ruled that the commonwealth cannot seize over 140 domain names of Internet gambling firms.
The decision was handed down Tuesday afternoon.
The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association was ecstatic by the ruling.
This is a huge day for our industry! he declared.
It is also a huge day for iMEGA, which filed the appeal on behalf of the industry.
The decision comes on the same day that President Barack Obama officially entered into the White House. The online gambling sector, reeled by the past administration,
It looks like this whole mess ends well for the industry.
just found the below here:
Online Gambling Big Win: Kentucky Appeals Court Ruling
Submitted by C Costigan on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 16:23.
The online gambling industry has won a Kentucky Court of Appeals decision. That court has ruled that the commonwealth cannot seize over 140 domain names of Internet gambling firms.
The decision was handed down Tuesday afternoon.
The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association was ecstatic by the ruling.
This is a huge day for our industry! he declared.
It is also a huge day for iMEGA, which filed the appeal on behalf of the industry.
The decision comes on the same day that President Barack Obama officially entered into the White House. The online gambling sector, reeled by the past administration,
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Why won't he just let this die? He's not going to win....they plan on taking it to the state supreme court.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Beshear doesn't seem to understand that to properly censor the internet and what 'his' citizens can access, he must block THEIR access from within his kingdom. *smirk* Someone send the gov. a link to all the news from China about them blocking websites and help the poor guy out a bit.
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
LOL...
Governor Steve Beshear has to give those people that own the land based casinos in Kentucky fair value for all the money they have 'given' him to make sure they don't have any competition from the Net.
It would be VERY interesting to see who is paying for those hired lawyers Beshear brought to court and what their financial interest in Ky land based casinos are...
Also the state of Kentucky is 38th out of 51 in school funding.
You would think the people of Kentucky would be far better served if their Governor spent his time trying to improve their Educational Systems and increasing the schools systems funding instead of pandering to a rich casino owners financial wants.
Governor Steve Beshear has to give those people that own the land based casinos in Kentucky fair value for all the money they have 'given' him to make sure they don't have any competition from the Net.
It would be VERY interesting to see who is paying for those hired lawyers Beshear brought to court and what their financial interest in Ky land based casinos are...
Also the state of Kentucky is 38th out of 51 in school funding.
You would think the people of Kentucky would be far better served if their Governor spent his time trying to improve their Educational Systems and increasing the schools systems funding instead of pandering to a rich casino owners financial wants.
Update
Update.
iMEGA has filed its brief with the Kentucky Supreme Court in good time for the June 1st deadline...and introduced an intrigueing new element - a video recording of the original 'secret' hearing in which Judge Wingate gave Kentucky state officials the go ahead to seize the domains:
May 27, 2009 - Lawyers for the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) submitted their brief to the Kentucky State Supreme Court, opposing an attempt by Gov. Steven Beshear (D) to seize the rights to 141 Internet domain names.
In addition, iMEGAs attorneys have asked the court to review a video tape of the secret proceeding Gov. Beshears attorneys used to get property seizure orders for the domain names, without notifying the property owners or giving them the opportunity to be represented.
iMEGA and a coalition of other groups had already prevailed over Gov. Beshear in a 2-to-1 majority decision from the commonwealths Court of Appeals back in January 2009. The appeals court blocked a lower courts seizure orders. Gov. Beshear wanted the domain names, all related to gambling, to force online gaming firms to block Kentucky residents from using their sites, and to protect the commonwealths in-state gambling operations from competiton.
Were very confident the State Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion as the Court of Appeals, said Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA. Its too bad Gov. Beshear wants to keep fighting, but since hes not paying for his attorneys, I guess he doesnt care how long this takes or how much he ties up Kentuckys court with this doomed campaign. Gov. Beshear is represented by two law firms that have taken the legal fight on under a contigency contract, one that gives them up to one-third of any financial windfall that may result from the governors suit.
The effort to block Kentuckys actions received support from a broad coalition of technology and Internet rights groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), the Internet Commerce Association (ICA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Club for Growth, eBay, Network Solutions, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC).
Update.
iMEGA has filed its brief with the Kentucky Supreme Court in good time for the June 1st deadline...and introduced an intrigueing new element - a video recording of the original 'secret' hearing in which Judge Wingate gave Kentucky state officials the go ahead to seize the domains:
May 27, 2009 - Lawyers for the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) submitted their brief to the Kentucky State Supreme Court, opposing an attempt by Gov. Steven Beshear (D) to seize the rights to 141 Internet domain names.
In addition, iMEGAs attorneys have asked the court to review a video tape of the secret proceeding Gov. Beshears attorneys used to get property seizure orders for the domain names, without notifying the property owners or giving them the opportunity to be represented.
iMEGA and a coalition of other groups had already prevailed over Gov. Beshear in a 2-to-1 majority decision from the commonwealths Court of Appeals back in January 2009. The appeals court blocked a lower courts seizure orders. Gov. Beshear wanted the domain names, all related to gambling, to force online gaming firms to block Kentucky residents from using their sites, and to protect the commonwealths in-state gambling operations from competiton.
Were very confident the State Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion as the Court of Appeals, said Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA. Its too bad Gov. Beshear wants to keep fighting, but since hes not paying for his attorneys, I guess he doesnt care how long this takes or how much he ties up Kentuckys court with this doomed campaign. Gov. Beshear is represented by two law firms that have taken the legal fight on under a contigency contract, one that gives them up to one-third of any financial windfall that may result from the governors suit.
The effort to block Kentuckys actions received support from a broad coalition of technology and Internet rights groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), the Internet Commerce Association (ICA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Club for Growth, eBay, Network Solutions, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC).
AussieDave
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2005
- Location
- Australia
Hi all,
Thanks for the ongoing updates jetset
These type of events really get under my skin. I shudder to think of the money that goes into fighting these cases in court, not to mention the insane amount of cash to appeal a ruling in the High Court.
Tax payers money that could & should be spent IMHO on far greater causes that would benefit the community on a whole.
my 2cents worth!
Cheers
T
Thanks for the ongoing updates jetset
These type of events really get under my skin. I shudder to think of the money that goes into fighting these cases in court, not to mention the insane amount of cash to appeal a ruling in the High Court.
Tax payers money that could & should be spent IMHO on far greater causes that would benefit the community on a whole.
my 2cents worth!
Cheers
T
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
Gov. Steve Beshear's proposal to allow video gambling in the state
This shit is right out of.....
Believe it or Not
Actually I think it is more like look how big Beshear's balls are...
This shit is right out of.....
Believe it or Not
Actually I think it is more like look how big Beshear's balls are...
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Isn't this the good ole boy Gov. Steve Beshear that was going to protect the citizens of Kentucky from the "Evils" of Gambling by seizing gambling domains... Is it just me or does the hypocrisy smell real bad in Kentucky?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
Ohh Sooo True...
You know, if I didn't know anything about this business and I read a fact based book about what has happened in this business sense the Jack Abramoff thing till now. I wouldn't believe it... Who could believe that such a tale of injustice, greed, corruption and really bad government was actually true...
