Poker Articles

The internet gambling case in Kentucky has sparked international attention. Many have argued that the ramifications of the case will be widespread, affecting websites that are wholly unrelated to online poker. One of the leading organizations on the front lines in Kentucky is the Interactive Gaming Council, or IGC. Its legal counsel is Jeff Ifrah, who sat down with PocketFives.com to discuss how the case managed to advance as far as it has. Although a final forfeiture hearing is scheduled for December 3rd, the IGC and Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) have already filed petitions to the Kentucky Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Thomas Wingate’s lower court ruling to uphold the seizure order.

The arguments against the seizure order include a lack of jurisdiction by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to seize domain names not located within its borers, the improper use of the term “gambling devices” to describe domain names instead of tangible items like slot machines, the lack of due process, and a violation of First Amendment rights in a form similar to censorship. An article about why groups like the IGC disagree with Judge Wingate’s decision not to dismiss the case against the 141 internet gambling domain names could last for thousands of words.

Ifrah explained to PocketFives.com why a case with seemingly so many loopholes was able to pick up a considerable amount of momentum: “You have a very motivated Governor with a motivated cabinet member who has hired counsel that works on contingency. Those are three parties who are all motivated by money. The State hired three firms working on contingency fees to see the case through. Together, that brain trust came up with a theory of how to get domain names into a corner and threaten their existence through a criminal forfeiture statute.” Ifrah noted that the contingency fees in question are 25% of damages.

The efforts of Governor Steve Beshear were upheld by Judge Thomas Wingate, who passed down a positive ruling in the case for the State earlier this month. A final forfeiture hearing is penciled in for December 3rd, when the domain names affected by the actions of the Governor may cease to exist worldwide and instead become property of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Ifrah commented on the Judge’s involvement: “The Judge bought the concept that the Governor should be able to decide what can and cannot come into Kentucky. Once that happened, it was very difficult to reverse the course of events. Once the Judge allowed a secret hearing to take place and accepted every fact that the Commonwealth told him, there wasn’t a lot more to be done. What was remarkable was that we could convince him to schedule a hearing.”

A panel of three Appeals Court judges will now meet on November 18th in order to decide whether to accept the petitions filed by the IGC and iMEGA, among other parties, or to wait for the case to take its course at the lower level. The three Appeals Court judges will be basing their decision on whether the State had jurisdiction as well as whether the sites in question are in “danger” if the forfeiture were to be successful. Arguments made about poker being a game of skill or censorship claims won’t likely come into play. Ifrah explained, “At this stage of the appeal, you can’t argue much more. The only reasons that the Court of Appeals can act are because there is no jurisdiction or that people are going to get hurt. Demonstrating jurisdiction is just a legal question.” Ifrah added that other groups are expected to file amicus briefs that will cover the broader issues involved.

We’ll continue to update you as more news breaks in Kentucky right here on PocketFives.com. In the meantime, check out the Interactive Gaming Council’s website.