The US District Court in New Jersey has dismissed the constitutional challenge to the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) filed by iMEGA, State Senator Ray Lesniak, and others. The dismissal was based on a lack of standing. The court’s memorandum opinion is here.
Congress, as the court points out, enacted PASPA in 1992 to limit the expansion of sports gambling in the United States by making it unlawful for a government to license or a person to operate a betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based on professional or amateur sports. The grandfathering provision provided an out for those states that conducted a sports wagering scheme prior to PASPA’s passage, and certain sporting activities are beyond PASPA’s reach. The plaintiffs in the iMEGA case claimed that PASPA’s limitations violated myriad provisions of the US Constitution, including the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment (limiting the powers of the federal government), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After returning from their trip to Jacksonville for the Chad Brown NLHE Championship host Christopher Cosenza & Scott Long come on to discuss a horribly played limit hold’em hand. Once they recap the hand they move on to discuss the pro heavy field that was found in the Chad Brown tournament. If you are looking for a show that contains some poker news along with some strategy talk then this might be a good choice for you. Check out the show on the Ante Up site or download it directly from iTunes.
CardRunners – Pro Chat:
Ever wondered how the top players make the transition to adding a new game into their skill base? This weeks Pro Chat guest is Brian Townsend who discusses his thought process when learning and mastering a brand new game. This podcast is a good one to have in your playlist if only to gain an insight into how some of the top players think. You can either listen to the show on the CardRunners site or download it from iTunes.
Perspectives Weekly:
Although this is not technically a podcast it is a part of my weekly, or whenever a new show gets published, must listen to list. This week host J. Todd catches up with Joe Brennan, iMEGA Chairman, to discuss the current intrastate gaming regulations that various states are proposing. Although this is a short show, that at times has other shenanigans that could be removed and replaced with more content I recommend subscribing via YouTube so that you are able to keep up to date with the episodes. You can watch this weeks show on the APCW site or just watch it below.
The latest order in Kentucky v 141 Internet Domain Names has just come down from the Franklin Circuit Court. Remember that this case goes back to 2008 when the Commonwealth of Kentucky tried to seize certain domain names (including www.fulltiltpoker.com and www.pokerstars.com) on an ex parte basis because the domain names were said to be operating in breach of Kentucky law.
In an attempt to kick-start this litigation – which has been bogged down in procedural wranglings and appeals – Kentucky had proposed to divide the in rem defendants into smaller, more manageable groups. Each group would then be addressed by the court using a case management system. The idea was that the owner of the domain name in each group would be given notice and a chance to appear, prove his/her/its ownership of the domain name, and contest the seizure. The first group of domain names was limited to www.playersonly.com, www.sportsbook.com, www.sportsinteraction.com, www.mysportsbook.com, and www.linesmaker.com. The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) had opposed Kentucky’s motion and also sought to intervene in the case.
iMEGA has made a case for what’s called associational standing. Associational standing, very generally, allows an organization or group to intervene in a judicial proceeding on behalf of its members. There are a number of tests that need to be met in order to obtain associational standing. While iMEGA would normally have associational standing, the Franklin Circuit Court has now held that it is unclear whether associational representation can extend to an in rem proceeding in Kentucky; this issue is novel and the court needs to consider it further. Accordingly, the next move is that the Court will keep the case management order sought by Kentucky on hold until the associational standing issue can be determined. This is a clear victory for the defendants in this matter, as Kentucky wanted to simply plough ahead with a case management structure and without vetting the associational standing issue.
The parties have 30 days to submit briefs on this issue, after which Kentucky or iMEGA can bring the matter on for an oral hearing.
Stay tuned for more developments in this fascinating state-level case.
A busy Thursday for those hoping for some “good for poker” news in a pair of ongoing battles in state courts. First, the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that iMEGA and the Internet Gaming Council can not argue for the 141 online gambling domain names that Kentucky has tried to seize since 2008, and that the domain name owners must appear in court. The KY Supreme Court decision can be found here.
Meanwhile, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s ban on online gambling does not violate the dormant commerce clause, deciding against Lee Rousso in his case against the state. That opinion can be read here.
From EGRmagazine.com comes word that lawyers from the state of Kentucky filed a motion add additional US citizens and companies to the list of 141 domains the state has been attempting to seize since September 2008. This is an interesting development since a decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court is expected soon from the October hearing appealing KY’s Court of Appeals decision to prevent the seizure. No names or companies were mentioned in the motion, requesting a hearing on January 20 before Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate, who granted the request for seizure. More details as they become available.
Mark it on your calendars (or just check back here) around October 22. The case of the Governor Beshear and the Commonwealth of Kentucky trying to claim the ability to seize 141 online gaming domains, or “gambling devices” as they were called, to keep them from accessing Kentucky residents will see the halls of the KY Supreme Court next month on an appeal from the Commonwealth.
Many months ago, a group of organizations representing internet freedoms and the rights of online gambling companies won an important appeal in the Kentucky court system, and that victory prohibited the Commonwealth from proceeding with its attempted seizure of those domains. The state promised to appeal to the Supreme Court, and that latest appeal was granted this month. Those fighting the state on the matter include iMEGA (Internet Media Entertainment & Gaming Association), PPA (Poker Players Alliance), ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology, EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Internet Commerce Association, eBay, and Network Solutions. (Can we win on number of appellees alone?)
The Supreme Court has set oral argument in Commonwealth of Kentucky v. IMEGA, et al for 11 a.m. on Thursday October 22, 2009 in the Supreme Court courtroom. The order allots 15 minutes for each side.
“We’ve been waiting for this for a long time, and we’re going to win again,†said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman. “From the beginning, Kentucky law has clearly supported our position, and a win in the State Supreme Court will put the final emphasis on that.â€
More of the court documents that were heavily redacted now have a bit less of a black line through them, to show Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars mentioned in the case of Douglas Rennick and the freezing of nearly $40m in funds from payment processors.
iMEGA has a copy of the documents up on their site.
The 200 companies that are to supposed to be blocked by 11 ISPs to Minnesota residents has now been published by IMEGA, which can be found here on their site . The list of 200 companies is an eclectic list of sites, because it was chosen randomly. While sites like Bodog and Full Tilt Poker are on the list, there are a few notable omissions: Absolute Poker, PokerStars, and Ultimate Bet. The list also contains sites that don’t take US customers (BetFred, Everest Poker, Interops, William Hill, among others).
A three judge Kentucky Court of Appeals panel ruled today in a 2-1 decision that the state’s attempt to seize 141 internet gambling domain names could not take place. More details can be found at Poker News Daily and the full decision on the Poker Players Alliance website. It’s expected for the state of Kentucky to file an appeal, which would move the matter to the Kentucky Supreme Court, in the very near future. More news as it becomes available.
Judge Thomas Wingate previously ordered a December 3rd forfeiture hearing for the 141 gaming-related domain names that Gov. Beshear wanted seized, but the appeals court has stayed that hearing in order to conduct its own hearing on December 12th in Louisville, during which it will consider iMEGA’s petition to overturn Wingate’s original ruling. The courts will hear the iMEGA petition in conjunction with one filed by the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), both contending that the lower court did not have the jurisdiction to order the domain seizures in the first place.
“We’re please that the Court of Appeals has given us the opportunity to challenge these seizures,†said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman. “The commonwealth has tried to take these domains for their own financial gain, violating Kentucky law, exceeding their jurisdiction, and setting a terrible precedent in the process.â€
Arguments are being heard today in the Franklin County Circuit Court in Kentucky regarding the attempted seizure of 141 gaming-related domain names.
At the request of Governor Steve Beshear, the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a civil action on September 18, 2008 to order sites like Full Tilt, PokerStars, and Doyles Room seized if they didn’t willingly forfeit their domain names, and they would be transferred to the Commonwealth. The order claimed, as did Beshear in his press conference, that the internet domains were “used to promote, conduct, and/or advance illegal gambling within the Commonwealth of Kentucky.” After a continuance, the hearing is today.
According to Gambling911, the Commonwealth of Kentucky seized some of those sought-after domain names last night, including UltimateBet.com, DoylesRoom.com, and CakePoker.com. The three sites are still running as usual, but the Commonwealth could reportedly stop them at any time. Holy Massacre of the Constitution! No need for panic yet….
Attorneys defending the sites, and even some simply standing up for the rights of online poker like iMega, are in court right now trying to stop the madness. Since Dan is on a Clonie-stalking cruise in the Bahamas business trip and I am holed up in my L.A. apartment, we were unable to get to Kentucky for the hearing today. But the PPA is there and will provide updates, and Gambling911 is live blogging from the courtroom.
Governor Steve Beshear’s attempt to seize 141 gaming-related domain names is certainly not over in Kentucky. The Franklin County Circuit Court will hold its next hearing on the case on Tuesday, so the PPA is working with other organizations to hold a summit on Monday to put rational heads together and devise a plan to save online poker.
When: Monday, October 6th at 1pm
Where: Capital Plaza Hotel in Frankfort, 405 Wilkinson Blvd
According to the PPA’s press release, the purpose of the summit will be as follows:
While the primary focus of the state’s action is online poker, the ramifications extend much farther into the entire realm of online commerce. This is a matter of the gravest importance, and the Bluegrass Institute is urging anyone with an interest in protecting internet freedom to join the protest against this egregious action.
Does Kentucky have jurisdiction to seize these domain names? What are the national and international ramifications should Kentucky succeed in this seizure order? What threat does this action make to the future of internet freedom and technological innovation? Do domain names fit the Kentucky statutorily definition of a gambling device?
Back from Barcelona and feelin’ feisty, we revisit the stupid stunts of the Governor of Kentucky in a not- so-respectful way. But don’t forget there’s other news, too… including updates on Barney Frank’s PSPA Bill which was passed a few weeks ago. Also, the status of the continuing iMEGA court case. Lastly, a brief musical look back at the CAP Convention… this show is a real “hoot”! LOL!
Been a couple of news items over the last week or so regarding the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. You remember the UIGEA. You don’t? Look over yr shoulder. It’s that big black cloud over there, heading this way . . . .
First, a U.S. District Court Judge threw out the Interactive Gaming Media Entertainment and Gaming Association’s case against the U.S. government. You might remember iMEGA had attempted to have the UIGEA’s implementation postponed until it could be determined whether or not the law was unconstitutional. (They had some other points in there, too.) The case was dismissed, but iMEGA was recognized as having “legal standing†and so will surely continue the fight.
Meanwhile, we learned this week what the American Banking Association had to say about the proposed UIGEA regulations. Recall that back in October, the feds presented their proposed regulations & asked for comments. The comment period ended in mid-December, and now the Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are considering those comments as they prepare to “finalize†the UIGEA.
The abridged version: the ABA thinks the UIGEA is not A-OK. Gives the banks too much to do — more than they can feasibly handle. In fact, the ABA believes the UIGEA will place most banks in what they call a “compliance trap†and thus do more to hurt the American payments system than it will do to stop folks from gambling online. Read Haley Hintze’s PokerNews article & also check out the full text of the ABA’s comments over at Kick Ass Poker.
And for more from those comments to the UIGEA regs — including some of what the “webmaster of the popular blog Pokerati.com†had to say about ’em — check out Jason Kirk’s article over at PokerListings summarizing them all: “Stakeholders sound off on UIGEA regulations.â€Â
