To add, the Commonwealth is suing Full Tilt and other sites for the amount of money lost by Kentucky residents from March 25, 2005 thru September 30, 2009.

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/kentuc...esidents-9555/

Lol at the commonwealth calling Full Tilt`s service to kentucky residents "tortuous." Instead of refunding losses from Full Tilt to the citizens of KY, why don't we instead issue a refund of the amount of taxpayer money has been wasted on this ridiculous effort. Absolutely insane.

At least in theory it isn't costing the state anything. From what has been reported the outside firm representing the state are doing this on a contingency basis.

For a while, I questioned the legal acumen of the Commonwealth's counsel. They always seemed out of their depth.

Now I think it's simply a lack of reading comprehension. It's clear from reading their response that they didn't understand the state supreme court's decision. The court cited CFIT v. VeriSign for associational standing. In that case, CFIT had one domain come forward (Pool.com) and identify themselves as a member, which the court accepted as proof of standing. WE didn't cite that - the KY SUPREME COURT did. But I guess KY's counsel didn't read or understand that part.

I could go on and on, but frankly, they bore me. I get angry when they compare iMEGA to an "Narcotics Trafficking Association" or a "Child Pornography Association". Actually, I get very, very angry. I'm a father of two kids. You can imagine how I would feel to have the attorneys for the Governor and Secretary of Justice and Safety link my name to illegal drugs and child pornography. We've stuck to arguments based on the law on our side, but they continue with the ad hominem attacks. Given the near total immunity they're granted to say such things, I guess there is not much I can do. I wonder if any of them would say any of that to my face.

I could call them a bunch of ambulance-chasers, but it's beneath my dignity. And I don't have to. Their website says it for me:

http://www.foote-meyers.com/


Joe@iMEGA

+1...I can't understand these personal attacks...What is their problem against gambling...Does Kentucky not have horse racing, parimutuals, and slots...This selective discrimination ruins our country very much so. I am glad you have fought for poker players and their interests for so many years. Please do not be deterred and continue the fight...On a side note, any word from any new revelations in New Jersey?

Michael of NJ

The attorneys for Kentucky must know they are going to lose and are grasping at straws. I say this because they are even questioning the notary seals.

And why did Kentucky feel the need to go to Illinois for representation? Doesn't Kentucky have quality ambulance chasers, too? Seems like this is something that should be investigated. If the attorneys approached Kentucky rather than Kentucky approached the attorneys, isn't that some kind of ethical violation?

The lawyers almost certainly approached the former governor of Kentucky with this idea. There are other feasible interpretations, but this is the most likely given the facts we know. Don't see how this is an ethical violation (at least them approaching the state). That's business as usual for things like class actions suits isn't it? It does tend to prove the ambulance chaser label though.

I agree about grasping at straws. That was my first thought as well for some of the same reasons you mention.

We're in the "retail" stage of the process. The NJ Legislature is not in session again until the end of the month, so we're meeting with individual lawmakers to discuss the i-gaming bill.

This brings up a point I hear all the time: "Why are you working for a state-level solution in NJ when a Federal solution in Washington DC would be better?" The second half of the question is correct: a Federal solution in DC would be better, given the trans-national nature of the Internet, pooling liquidity, etc.

However, we've done our own internal "vote-counting" on this, and have gamed out the scenario on the Hill, and we've come to two conclusions:

1. While we strongly support the Frank, McDerrmott, Menendez and Wyden/Gregg bills, putting our limited financial resources behind the effort on the Hill would have a negligible affect. PPA, IGC, UC Group and Harrah's have good teams and big dollars deployed on this, and they're making as much progress as can be made on the issue. Which leads to the second point...

2. It is our belief that, despite the fantastic efforts being made by PPA, et al, in DC, that the dynamics within the Democratic caucus on the Hill make it unlikely that the House and Senate bills will come to a floor vote before the 2010 mid-term elections, without something to change the calculus. We've made a decision to double-down on New Jersey, because we believe that is the place where we can most likely get an i-gaming bill passed this year; that if we get one in NJ, then CA and FL have additional pressure to get something done; and that if states begin to take their own path, the Federal government, rather than missing the boat, will have an incentive to move the House and Senate legislation along.

Let me be clear about the above: iMEGA in no way is being critical or non-supportive of the PPA, et al in their efforts to advance this issue on the Hill. I'm a dues-paying PPA member and a poker player. Personally, I think John Pappas has the toughest job in the industry, and ought to be given a public-service medal for the job he's doing. Getting the UIGEA extension was nothing short of a miracle.

iMEGA is simply making a cold calculation that, given our meager resources, we have to pick soft targets that can have a magnified affect, and we've decided that getting NJ to pass an i-gaming bill can have such an affect.

So, the short answer to the above question is yes, I would prefer a Federal solution, because I live 30 minutes from downtown Washington DC, and it would be much easier to go there to handle this than head four hours North of here, to Trenton, NJ, to deal with this issue. But that is the choice we've made.

Joe@iMEGA

If soliciting business in this manner is not unethical, it should be. It would be one thing for an injured party to answer an ad. It is another thing for this to have gone down the way it seems to have been. And the politicians who agreed to such a thing are just as unethical, imo.

If the domain name holders win, can iMEGA ask for their attorney fees to be paid?

Chairman Brennan,

I couldn't agree with you more...If you check my postings on this site, I have received some flack for my support of intrastate gaming. Your conclusions about the state of online poker both intrastate and interstate mirror mine to a tee. I like how you phrased it "Double-Down in NJ"...IMEGA is clearly putting great efforts in NJ and I strongly believe something will result from it.

While I support Barney Frank and all that he is doing, IMO intrastate gambling will be much more of a pressure to act than the inefficiencies of the UIGEA should they go into effect. I have always believed this. Look at the article you commented on today regarding sports hedging...These types of things are not going anywhere especially when the technology is behind it and revenues are out there to be made.

The truth is that gambling and gambling online is becoming part of our culture more and more everyday. U have Massachussets looking for casinos and casinos are currently in over probably almost 40 states...30 years ago it was only in Nevada and NJ. It is both sad and scairy to think that those who cry out that we are moving towards a chinese communist gov't celebrate some of the censorship that we are experiencing today w/ online gambling. I know you will do well in NJ. I will keep watching and listening. It is always good to see that you check this site from time to time and respond to our many questions while also enlightening us on things we may not have thought of. Keep up the good work. Much appreciated.

Michael of NJ

Since this is JoeB's forum, I don't feel like taking up much space. So three quick points:

1) The current relationship between the PPA and iMEGA is one of close allies. Our interests and emphasis are not always exactly the same. but they are always complimentary. When both organizations were just getting their footing there was some tension over tactics, though never opposition or disrespect. And even that is way past now. IMHO the PPA and iMEGA compliment each other very effectively at the moment.
2) I also have to commend JoeB on his restraint with respect to the KY contingency lawyers. It is clear to me that those lawyers will sink to any level to try and salvage a fee from their effort, and that obviously includes personal insult. However, the smart move (in terms of influencing the Court) is almost always to take the high ground in such situations.
3) The motion opposing iMEGA's standing at this point is, I agree, absolutely ludicrous.

Skallagrim

What is interesting about the filing is the entire second half of the document.
Kentucky is seeking ownership information on all of the "unknown" defendants from the 141 Domain name case.
Question:
Given the fact that the Commonwealth is using antiquated and rarely enforced statutes to prosecute these 141 Domains with little chance of ever being compensated could it be that the real "Client" here is the Grand Jury in Manhattan?

As conspiracy theories go this is an interesting one. It depends on what you mean as client.

It's extremely unlikely IMO that the US Attorney in NY explicitly hired the law firm in IL to find a willing state and do this. By hire I mean has a contract and are paying them. I suspect this would run afoul of some legal and ethical issues. Also, law firms like this are typically go for the big case with a monster upside potential. This case has that, but that would mean they had two clients (US Attorney and state of KY) who's interests might not be compatible. That conflict makes this scenario unlikely.

Somewhat more possible (although still improbable IMO) is someone at the US Attorney's office dreamed up this approach, laid it out for the law firm, and convinced them to solicit states on their own.

The most likely is someone at the law firm in IL came up with this and approached KY on their own. However I'm sure both parties are well aware of what is happening in other cases and paying attention for information that might help their cause. Both of them obviously got information from the Clonie Gowen case and other recent lawsuits filed against Full Tilt about FTP's ownership.

I'm not sure that the legal profession enforces much ethics, except stealing from a client, or in rare cases, like the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

Not an attorney here.
But Kentucky does allow the winner in civil cases to ask for legal and attorney fees.
Personally being a Kentuckian I would love to see these carpetbaggers counter-sued into bankruptcy for malicious litigation since they are bouncing all over the country marketing this kind of legal attack.

So my state could be next? Yikes!

Any word on when a ruling will be handed down?