Original Link: http://www.imega.org/2009/12/17/kent...-seizure-list/

Kentucky Asks Court to Add US Defendants to Domain Seizure List

Dec. 16, 2009 - Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky have asked the Franklin County Circuit court to add names of US citizens and companies to a lawsuit that seeks the forfeiture of 141 Internet domain names. Kentucky’s effort to seize those Web site names, all related to Internet gambling, had been blocked by a January 2009 decision from the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in favor of iMEGA and other groups, including the Interactive Gaming Council and Sportsbook.com, representing the domain owners.

Though the new motion was made public by Kentucky’s lawyers, none of the names of the US citizens or companies to be added to the seizure effort were revealed, despite requests by iMEGA’s attorneys.

A decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court is pending, after the state’s lawyers challenged the Appeals Court verdict. Oral arguments from lawyers representing both sides of the dispute were heard by the Court in October of this year .

“In the course of the litigation and the Commonwealth’s continuing investigation, the Commonwealth has learned the identity of certain entities and individuals involved in internet gambling operations, some of whom are U.S. citizens,” read the motion from Kentucky’s lawyers. “The Commonwealth asks for leave to amend its Complaint to add causes of action against these individuals and entities in personam.”

“It’s odd that Kentucky’s lawyers would try something like this at such a late date, since we’re expecting a decision on this matter from the State Supreme Court any day now,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “It seems like a ‘Hail Mary pass’ to me.”

“We’re unaware of any ‘investigations’ by the state attorney-general or law enforcement in Kentucky. The attorney-general himself asked to be dismissed from this suit last year. And there are no indictments or convictions that would enable Kentucky’s lawyers to add the names of individual US citizens to their seizure action,” Brennan said. “If anything, this last-minute gambit highlights our argument that Kentucky and the lower court provided no due process to the domain owners, since they seem bent on continuing down that path even now.”

The motion called for a hearing on Jan. 20th, 2010, in Franklin Circuit Court, before Judge Thomas Wingate. In Sept. 2008, Judge Wingate issued the original seizure orders for the 141 domain names during a secret court hearing with Kentucky’s lawyers, one which the owners of the domain names were not informed of or given the opportunity to be represented by their own counsel.

Links
Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names - Motion to Add Defendant Names

Joe@iMEGA

How much tax or government funds has been expended since they began this ridiculous initiative?

Don't they have to identify the defendants they want named and provide the court with a proposed amended complaint? How can a state seize internet domain names? Isn't Kentucky acting as if they are a country?

I think the lawyers working on behalf of Kentucky are a private firm that took the case on contingency.

****ing handout to the state lotto and horsetrack. They pretend it is for the common good but they just want people to spend their money in more -EV forms of gambling.

AIPF at random has better returns than the state lotto.

Edit: I'm sadly a kentuckian

You forgot to mention bingo halls. Old people everywhere running a muck."OMG , I knew i shoulda barreled on that last coverall"

US citizens have a right to due process.

This is a clear case of the "state" attempting to make an end run around due process. If this Judge approves this action I predict he will be reversed post haste just as before.

Judge Donk goes all-in on 9 3o!

Lack of due process in the original action taken by Kentucky's lawyers was part of our successful argument in the KY Court of Appeals, and KY's lawyers were questioned hard about this by the panel in the KY Supreme Court, which expressed serious concerns about the lack of due process.

If you'd like to watch that hearing, and see Jon Fleischaker (iMEGA's attorney) basically take KY's lawyers behind the shed on the due process issue, you can watch on the PPA Web site:

http://theppa.org/special/kentucky-poker/

Fleischaker, starting at 41:35 of the video, really goes after the KY lawyers in a manner I think we, after a year of being under attack, can really appreciate.

Joe@iMEGA

Supreme court hearings are awesome, anyway, at about the 67m mark i believe I think it was brought up that around 13k from kentucky play online poker, that's nothing compared to the 4.2 million in the state and that's nothing compared to the 1.9million homes in kentucky (according to 08 census records).

Also, I haven't followed this case or much of the legislative stuff regarding online poker but it seems to me now is the perfect time for this to be happening, with the economic problems in most of the states it should open the eyes of the politicians to the economic revenue that could be generated by leglizing and regulating online poker.

It looks as thought the state tried to set-up a track by which criminal penalties could be imposed without a criminal trial and thereby make forfeiture without appeal a real possibility.

Fleishaker called them out on that point. I wish the state's lawyers would have been in view of the camera so I could see them squirming in their seats while that was playing out!

I understand it is speculation - but would these be the names of the people that registered the domain names or people they think own the sites?

Also - if KY wins, will ICANN intervene or can the registrars just flip off the court since the domain names are all registered with non-US registrars.

I have heard of situations where people have won ICANN disputes but they never could get control of the domain names. If the registrar doesn't turn over the domain name, what happens exactly?

Thanks!

We don't know who the Commonwealth's attorneys had in mind. First, because they continue to assert that we have no standing, they denied our request for information, stating they had no duty or obligation to do so. Second, it seems they never, to our knowledge, amended the complaint to add more names.

So, from this POV, it seems it was a bluff.

As for speculation as to what would happen if KY wins, we can't say, because 1.) it's highly unlikely, and 2.) it would depend on how the Court's decision read.

I do not imagine registrars continuing to freeze the domains should KY lose. It would be a bad legal, and more fatally, bad business decision. I doubt this will be the last "domain property dispute/seizure" case ever to be heard by US - or international - courts.

Joe@iMEGA