http://www.imega.org/2009/12/22/kent...in-defendants/

UPDATE: Kentucky Lawyers Refuse to Identify New Domain Defendants

Dec. 21, 2009 - Lawyers representing the commonwealth of Kentucky have refused to name any new individuals targeted in their attempt to seize ownership of 141 Internet domain names, all related to online gambling, and then transfer them to the state. Despite numerous requests from attorneys representing the industry’s trade associations, the commonwealth’s attorneys have sternly declined to identify anyone.

In response to one such request, William C. Hurt, Jr, a lawyer from Hurt, Crosbie & May in Lexington, wrote that no one had the right to any information or even to challenge the motion (Click here to view emails).

“I do not believe anyone has standing to file a response or motion to strike,” Hurt wrote, despite a January 2009 ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals that blocked the seizures and decried the lack of due process for the defendants.

In a secret hearing in Franklin Circuit Court in fall of 2008, Hurt and other contingency-fee lawyers for the state convinced Judge Thomas Wingate to sign off on seizure orders for the domain names, despite no notification or representation in court on the behalf of the affected owners. The commonwealth’s lawyers then sought to have the domain owners pay huge cash settlements to regain ownership of their property, as well as promise to block Kentucky residents from accessing their Web sites.

The matter is currently before the Kentucky Supreme Court, which heard arguments from both sides in October. A decision is expected sometime early next year.

Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA, an industry trade association fighting the commonwealth’s efforts, felt that the move to secretly add additional names to the suit was a “hail mary” pass attempt in a losing effort.

“These lawyers lost a very public battle with us in the Court of Appeals, and probably sense the same result from the State Supreme Court, so they’ll do anything to keep this thing alive,” Brennan said. “They were counting on a big payday from our members, in the form of settlements to get their own property back, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Since they don’t get one nickel from the state to pursue this, it’s clear that the drive for big money has taken over, and any sense of fair play or due process has gone out the window.”

Responding to Hurt’s claim that no one had standing to challenge the motion or to request the names of the new individuals added to the suit, Brennan said, “Their strategy all along was to ignore us every step of the way, even after the Court of Appeals recognized our standing and blocked their seizure efforts. They can stick their head in the sand, but we’re not going anywhere, and frankly, neither is their attempt to seize these domain names.”

Link
Emails from Kentucky Lawyers to iMEGA, IGC and Sportsbook.com
Kentucky Asks Court to Add US Defendants to Domain Seizure List

How does attaching a name make any difference in seizing a domain?

Are they hoping the people who have their names sealed will settle for some amount of money and/or quit doing business with Kentucky residents to keep their names from being revealed?

I don't get this. At all.

My guess is that hey just want some other domain names on the list that they can extort in case they get a positive ruling. The original 141 have had the chance to get out from under the thumb in the meantime. For instance, UltimateBet.com has become UB.com; FTP and some others have gotten a court ruling in the UK that their domains can't be touched from KY; etc.

My guess, and it is a guess as I have no "inside information" here, is that the Commonwealth's lawyers smell defeat at the Supreme Court.

The move to add new "defendants" at this time only makes sense (at least to me) if your desire is to keep some sort of case alive in the event the KY SC rules against you. You can then argue that the case against your new "defendants" is different, which, if successful, would continue litigaton (and thus also continue possible attempts to try and extort - oops, excuse me- reach a settlement with the new defendants).

Any other advantage gained in adding these defendants at this time will either become moot per the KY SC ruling or not, depending on the specific ruling. Most lawyers (IMHO, at least as to those not working for a contingency fee) would wait to see the ruling and then act (in accord).

Skallagrim

Presumably the PPA are ready to exploit the negative publicity for our opponents if the case goes the right way?

It must have cost the people of Kentucky a lot in legal fees already for this potentially futile attempt at undemocratic prohibition? There appears to be some potential juicy political PR here.....

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

Correct. A lot of the dynamics of this case are the result of KY's lawyers agreeing to work on a contingency basis. That means KY is paying out nothing, and it also means KY's lawyers get no money unless they somehow get money out of the case. It is well known that their plan was to get the domain names and sell them back to the owners (with the promise they block KY players) for large amounts. That is still their hope.

Skallagrim

lol extortionaments