Appeals in Kentucky

12/27/2008		Appeals in Kentucky
Home History Games News Dictionary		The battles in Kentucky continue as the case over domain names is revisited in the appeals court. iMega and IGC versus the State of Kentucky, headed by Governor Beshear has moved to the Appeals court after Judge Thomas Wingate ruled in favor of the seizures, giving the state if Kentucky permission to seize domain names of Internet casinos and online gambling websites despite their ownership, registration and management outside the United States. A decision was not reached following the hearing despite the evident knowledge and interest by the three judges who asked specific, pertinent and often difficult questions to clarify all the gray areas surrounding the issue. The case's hearing, revolving around 141 domain names, took about 50 minutes, the bulk of which was the judges' questions being answered by both plaintiffs and defense. Defensive lawyers objective in the appeals court is to prove that judge Wingate overstepped his limited jurisdiction in the Franklin County Circuit Court in ruling that Kentucky could seize the sites' domain names. The case has highlighted Internet casino news sources for months as well as infuriating Net Neutrality groups. Judge Wingates decision has been suspended until a final ruling can be made by the Appeals court, expected to be made quickly if the probing questions asked by the judges last week is any indicator. Though only law reps from defense and prosecution were heard in court, briefs were provided by and considered from pertinent interest groups such as EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Poker Players Alliance and the ACLU-Kentucky. Judges Michelle Keller, Michael Caperton and Jeff Taylor who heard the case, and it was apparent that reports submitted for review were considered as the inquiries reflected depth and research. The time and date when final ruling will be made has yet to be determined. The majority of the arguments made revolve around jurisdictional issues. William Johnson, a lawyer representing 5 of the 141 sites whose fates lie in limbo, clime Kentucky simply doesn't have the power to seize international website domain names. The law that prosecution refers to was written in 1974, and severely predates online gambling. "If they had wanted to correct this law, they could have done so annually," He said. "That is a matter for the legislature to decide." Another point for the judges to decide is whether or not the World Wide Web and it's necessary domain names qualify as "gambling devices," subject to seizure. The state's lawyers led by Eric Lycan assert that since domain names grant online casino access to US citizens, said names can be considered gambling devices. He maintains that because more than 80% of the sites' income originates from America, the companies are liable for breaking state laws. "They [the online gambling sites] are doing this because they don't think anyone can catch them," Lycan said.

12/27/2008

Appeals in Kentucky

The battles in Kentucky continue as the case over domain names is revisited in the appeals court. iMega and IGC versus the State of Kentucky, headed by Governor Beshear has moved to the Appeals court after Judge Thomas Wingate ruled in favor of the seizures, giving the state if Kentucky permission to seize domain names of Internet casinos and online gambling websites despite their ownership, registration and management outside the United States. A decision was not reached following the hearing despite the evident knowledge and interest by the three judges who asked specific, pertinent and often difficult questions to clarify all the gray areas surrounding the issue.

The case's hearing, revolving around 141 domain names, took about 50 minutes, the bulk of which was the judges' questions being answered by both plaintiffs and defense. Defensive lawyers objective in the appeals court is to prove that judge Wingate overstepped his limited jurisdiction in the Franklin County Circuit Court in ruling that Kentucky could seize the sites' domain names. The case has highlighted Internet casino news sources for months as well as infuriating Net Neutrality groups. Judge Wingates decision has been suspended until a final ruling can be made by the Appeals court, expected to be made quickly if the probing questions asked by the judges last week is any indicator.

Though only law reps from defense and prosecution were heard in court, briefs were provided by and considered from pertinent interest groups such as EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Poker Players Alliance and the ACLU-Kentucky. Judges Michelle Keller, Michael Caperton and Jeff Taylor who heard the case, and it was apparent that reports submitted for review were considered as the inquiries reflected depth and research. The time and date when final ruling will be made has yet to be determined.

The majority of the arguments made revolve around jurisdictional issues. William Johnson, a lawyer representing 5 of the 141 sites whose fates lie in limbo, clime Kentucky simply doesn't have the power to seize international website domain names. The law that prosecution refers to was written in 1974, and severely predates online gambling.

"If they had wanted to correct this law, they could have done so annually," He said. "That is a matter for the legislature to decide."

Another point for the judges to decide is whether or not the World Wide Web and it's necessary domain names qualify as "gambling devices," subject to seizure. The state's lawyers led by Eric Lycan assert that since domain names grant online casino access to US citizens, said names can be considered gambling devices. He maintains that because more than 80% of the sites' income originates from America, the companies are liable for breaking state laws.

"They [the online gambling sites] are doing this because they don't think anyone can catch them," Lycan said.