Unless the gov. has some secret power I don't know about, he can't do anything about seizing the domain names, as the companies aren't in the state.

What he can do is order ISP's in the state to be block those sites.

I guess the moral of the the story is to be careful when voting for a "pro-gaming" politician. The better question will be pro-gaming for who? Internet or B&M?

It seems like the more serious challenges have come from the B&M gaming as opposed to FoF.

Also, the governor clearly called this "illegal" gaming. Is there a law in KY that establishes internet poker as illegal, or is this case setting up a court battle over the legality of internet poker?

If we could get an active PPA rep in KY, this never would have happened!!
(just too hard to resist, sorry)

Looks like its time for the PPA to kick in....

KRS 528.010 Definitions for chapter.
(3) (a) "Gambling" means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest, game, gaming scheme, or gaming device which is based upon an element of chance, in accord with an agreement or understanding that someone will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. A contest or game in which eligibility to participate is determined by chance and the ultimate winner is determined by skill shall not be considered to be gambling.

PPA is. I'm been writing the alert and the letter to Gov. Beshear for a bit this evening, to go out tomorrow.

There will be other actions as well, of course.

Thanks for checking the law.

Hey guys, I'm from KY.

Does anyone have any advice on what I should do? Do I need to withdraw from my accounts?

I just found out about this. I will e mail support with pstars and post their response.

BTW havn't other states tried similar actions? What have players there done?

Thanks in advance.

Check out this link, I won't post the whole thing.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Kentucky/

(7) "Player" means a person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct, or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who engages in "bookmaking" as defined in subsection (2) of this section is not a "player." The status of a "player" shall be a defense to any prosecution under this chapter.

So, fellow forum lawyers, both those that went to law school and those that didn't, if it isn't illegal for a player to gamble, and it isn't illegal to receive the bets on the receiving end, where's the violation of law?

This section could have saved me in my case in NY. In my case the judge ruled the absence of any affirmative legislation made it illegal to place a bet in NY. This section specifically states it is NOT ILLEGAL for the player. The sites are not in KY and some of them are liecensed and regulated elsewhere.

Combine my post above with the Supreme Court wine case:

http://www.nysun.com/national/suprem...e-field/13916/

The 5-4 decision found that a New York law requiring out-of-state wineries to set up operations in the Empire State before they can market directly to consumers violates the constitutional protection of the free flow of interstate commerce.

The court rejected arguments by liquor regulators in New York and Michigan, which bars direct sales from out of state, who said imposing such hurdles is necessary to ensure adequate regulation of alcohol, to keep wine out of the hands of minors, and to ensure tax collection.

"It is evident that the object and design of the Michigan and New York statutes is to grant in-state wineries a competitive advantage over wineries located beyond the states' borders," Justice Kennedy wrote. He was joined by Justices Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter.

details on this case?

I'm wondering by what legal authority the court in Kentucky (or any other state) can seize domain names that are registered in other countries. Doesn't ICANN control in this sort of situation?

Seems to me that the federal courts would be the only ones with this sort of authority.

But - I'm not an expert here. Anybody know the law on this? It certainly sounds like a very serious matter, and should be treated as such. Even if it is politically based.

Thanks.

Lee

The whole thing seems comical to me, and yet sad. Their plan is to make all the websites change their web address? WTF kind of a plan is that?!

What a waste of time! Hopefully they won't make them change their cell phone numbers too, they wont be able to make billions on gambling, OR call their girlfriends!

We have an alert going out in the morning. I just finished the first draft of the letter:

Dear Governor Beshear,

As a constituent, voter, poker player, and proud Kentuckian. I am writing to express my outrage over recent actions by the Commonwealth to attempt to seize domain names of online poker sites. Poker is a game of skill that I believe was unfairly and improperly included in this action, and I request the removal of the poker-only sites from this list.

When you said, “(u)nlicensed Internet gambling significantly undermines and threatens horseracing, Kentucky's signature industry and a key tourism industry, by creating unregulated and untaxed competition,” surely you were not referring to poker. Poker is a game of skill in which enthusiasts match wits. It could not be any different from horse racing, and it’s difficult to imagine money flowing from horse racing to the unrelated activity of poker. Additionally, poker is not unregulated – it is fully regulated in its home jurisdiction. Also, it’s not true that online poker is untaxed – poker income is taxed at the state and federal levels. The industry itself is not taxed because Kentucky chooses to not levy a tax. The industry is not regulated by the Commonwealth because Kentucky has chosen not to license and regulate poker sites, either. Were Kentucky to do so, I believe the poker sites would jump at the opportunity, and I fully support legislation to implement this.

When you said, “(u)nlicensed, unregulated, illegal Internet gambling poses a tremendous threat to the citizens of the Commonwealth because of its ease, availability and anonymity,” this certainly cannot pertain to poker. Besides not being illegal in the Commonwealth, there is no such thing as anonymous online poker play. Poker sites carefully track and verify identities and ages of all participants by using verification systems equal to those used by www.youbet.com and www.twinspires.com, two horse race wagering sites with extensive Kentucky operations (and that are not on your list). If the “ease, availability and anonymity” of these sites is acceptable, surely that of poker is acceptable as well. In fact, the casinos you championed in your run for office offered far more ease and anonymity than online poker sites offer, with roughly the same availability.

Poker players from across the Commonwealth strongly opposed former Gov. Fletcher’s attacks on poker prior to last year’s election. In fact, over one thousand poker players wrote to him to let him know of their ire regarding his anti-poker position. Many of us supported you because of your outspoken support for the freedom to participate in activities like poker. I hope we were not mistaken in giving you this support.

Poker is a great American pastime. Presidents such as FDR and Harry Truman, Chief Justices such as William Rehnquist and William Howard Taft, members of Congress, generals, and average Americans have enjoyed poker for more than 150 years. It is an honorable game.

What's most important to me is your support for our rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support our freedoms. I will continue to watch your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over 20,000 fellow Kentucky Poker Players Alliance members (and over one million Poker Players Alliance members nationwide), can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully yours,

To me it looks like the violation is the rake and the actual maintaining and running of the sites:



So according to that statute the player is doing nothing illegal. The sites running the games and receiving rake are the only ones breaking the law ...... and they don't give a **** cause the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction over them.

Very nice and creative case there to apply here. Looks like it could pretty easily be argued to be analogous.

Nice letter.

I dropped Beshear to F- and updated his Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Beshear .