Appeals court hears online gambling case

Appeals court hears online gambling case
Brandon Ortiz
bortiz@herald-leader.com
LOUISVILLE — Lawyers representing online gambling interests told the Kentucky Court of Appeals on Friday that Gov. Steve Beshear’s effort to seize domain names is blatantly unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel is weighing Beshear’s unprecedented move to seize the domain names of 141 gambling Web sites.

Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate allowed the Cabinet for Justice and Public Safety to seize the domain names last month. The seizure, at this point, is meaningless because the state cannot control the content of the Web sites until a judge orders the domain names forfeited to the state.

A forfeiture hearing has been stayed pending a ruling from the Court of Apeals.

In oral arguments Friday, lawyers representing six domain names, two online gambling trade groups and The Poker Players Alliance said the cabinet’s move is littered with legal and constitutional flaws.

They focused on four arguments:

■ Wingate does not have jurisdiction to allow the state to seize domains registered in other countries where gambling is legal.

■ Domain names are not gambling devices.

■ Domain names can only be seized after a criminal conviction. The state has not attempted to criminally prosecute the Web site operators.

■ Kentucky is prohibited by the commerce clause of the U.S Constitution from regulating interstate and international commerce, which the trade groups argue Wingate’s order affectively allows.

“We have Kentucky exercising worldwide jurisdiction,” said Frankfort lawyer William E. Johnson, who represents five domain names. Friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the online gambling interests were filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky; Network Solutions LLC; and The Poker Players Alliance.

The owners of gambling sites did not appear in court Friday and have not directly participated in the lawsuit. Instead, proxy owners of six domain names and two trade groups have sought to represent their interests.

The cabinet has argued that the proxy owners and trade groups don’t have standing to challenge the seizure since they’re not revealing their client’s identities, and hence can’t prove they own the gambling sites. The cabinet’s lawyers called it a “heads-I-win, tails-you-can’t-find-me” legal strategy.

Trade groups and the ACLU of Kentucky retorted that government is attempting to coerce the gambling sites into self-incrimination — which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment — or risk losing their domain names.

The domain name owners note that it was the state that chose to sue them rather than the gambling businesses that operate the Web sites, likely because they’re overseas and can’t be located.

A private lawyer representing the state, Erik Lycan, said the gambling sites are engaging “in a massive offshore criminal conspiracy” that’s masquerading “as a legitimate business.”

“They can’t bring that masquerade into Kentucky,” Lycan said.

Beshear campaigned last year on a promise to open casinos in Kentucky, but says some of the most popular gambling sites in the world are bad for the state.

The governor has said the sites create ways for children to gamble; undermine horse racing by creating untaxed competition; make it easier to launder money; and lack consumer protections to ensure people actually receive their winnings.

While Wingate’s ruling would allow the state to commandeer domain names, Internet users in Kentucky could still access the Web sites by typing their IP addresses — unique numbers assigned to every computer or Web server connected to the Internet —into their browsers, lawyers notes.

Louisville lawyer Jon L. Fleischaker, who represents the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, a trade group, argued that domain names are no more than billboards. He noted that the Horseshoe Casino in Southern Indiana can advertise in Kentucky, even though gambling is illegal here, because of the First Amendment.

Seizing a domain name is no different than the state seizing a casino billboard, Fleischaker said.

“That is classic prior restraint,” he said.

The state wants gambling sites to block Kentucky Internet users from viewing the sites. But such technology is prohibitively expensive and faulty, gambling trade groups argued in briefs.

Furthermore, Kentucky is constitutionally prohibited from imposing such a requirement for Web sites located in other states and other countries, where the Web sites may be perfectly legal, the lawyers argued.

In briefs, the lawyers likened it to China attempting to seize a domain name registered in the United States because the Web site promotes religion.

“If we can do it to them, they can do it to us,” said lawyer John L. Tate, who represents vicsbingo.com and the Interactive Gaming Council, a trade group.

Another key issue is whether domain names are gambling devices.

Johnson said domain names do not meet the legal definition of a gambling device because domain names are not electronic devices that are manufactured. He noted that Kentucky’s gaming statutes were written in 1974, long before the Internet was commercially available.

Two of the three judges expressed skepticism about the government’s case.

Judge Jeff Taylor asked how the government could seize the domain names when the Web site operators have not been prosecuted.

Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown “taught a law school class 27 years ago and he taught that there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” Taylor said.

Men argue 'Hold 'em' is game of skill

Men argue 'Hold 'em' is game of skill
5 players busted more than 2 years ago aim to show luck not main factor in poker game

By Schuyler Kropf (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, December 15, 2008



MOUNT PLEASANT — It's an argument as old as gambling itself: Is "Texas Hold 'em" poker primarily a game of chance or skill?

Five players busted by Mount Pleasant police more than two years ago have secured a court order allowing them, in essence, to argue the game hinges on talented human play — not the luck of the cards.


Wade Spees
The Post and Courier

Defendants and supporters in the gambling case crowd a hallway outside the municipal courtroom in Mount Pleasant in 2006. Five of the players are now trying to show that it was skill, not chance, they were relying on.
The distinction is key. If a town municipal judge agrees that "Hold 'em" relies sufficiently on wits, it could be a major boost in the players' quest to legalize a card game many people play privately around their kitchen tables.

But if he determines the game is dominated by chance, the players could be slapped with fines and convictions, setting the stage for long-term appeals.

"To my knowledge, the issue of whether skill or chance is the dominant factor in the game of poker has never been litigated with the presentation of evidence in the U.S.," said Greenville lawyer Jeff Phillips, an avid poker enthusiast and attorney for the five players.

The two-page document, signed last month, features an order from Municipal Court Judge J. Lawrence Duffy Jr. allowing the prosecution and the defense to present whatever evidence they wish in the long-running duel. They can offer testimony, call witnesses and provide other relevant evidence over whether "Texas Hold 'em" should be considered a game of chance under the state's definition of gaming and gambling.

Is 'Texas Hold 'em' poker a game of chance or skill?
It's just chance

There's skill involved



See the results without voting.
The order covers only "Texas Hold 'em." No other form of cards is included, such as Black Jack, Stud, Omaha or other casual poker table games. It also allows Duffy to decide what weight "if any" to give to anything that's presented.

Phillips' argument is that the game of "Hold 'em" is more than dealing and simple card play.

"While there is no disputing that the element of chance is present in poker — as in everything else in life — there are numerous skills a poker player must rely upon in playing the game of poker that will determine whether that player is successful or not," he said.

Mount Pleasant town prosecutor Ira Grossman declined to comment, citing the ongoing legal issues surrounding the case. A court date hasn't been set, but it likely will be this winter.

Previous story
Poker players' legal saga to go on, published 08/23/08
The five defendants are the last of about two-dozen people cited during an April 2006 police raid on a private home on Glencoe Street. Authorities discovered that an organized "Texas Hold 'em" tournament was going on inside where the host was pocketing some of the table cash. Players at the house had learned of the game through an Internet invitation and paid a $20 "buy in."

Authorities have justified the raid on several fronts, saying illegal gambling was taking place, that the street was routinely clogged by local and out-of-area vehicles and that a quantity of drugs was seized.

Most of those cited already have pleaded guilty to their ticketed offenses and paid small fines. The five players remaining are the hold-outs in a case that has dragged on for months, arguably much longer than most others filed in Mount Pleasant's municipal court.

During a court hearing in August, Phillips said the charges should be tossed out because South Carolina's 200-year-old anti-card, anti-dice laws are too antiquated and vague for anyone to make sense of today. For example, the law mentions aged games, including roly-poley, rouge et noir and draughts.

He also argued the home that hosted the game wasn't an illegal casino or a public house of gaming, as is mentioned in the state's anti-gambling laws.

Reach Schuyler Kropf at 937-5551, or skropf@postandcourier.com.

Poker bust! Morons or Patriots?

Billings Gazzette

Billings Gazzette
"Tom Oberweiser, district supervisor for the state Gambling Investigations Bureau, said his officers raided a warehouse at 3 a.m. Nov. 9 and seized poker tables and cash. "

I spoke with Tom by phone and although he could not speak about specifics of this case due to legal reasons, we did cover the important topics that are relevant. I first asked how law enforcement found out about the Poker game ? Oberweiser said that they had multiple tips, and suggested that they came from legal card room operators.

Oberweiser told me that they(the Law) were basically protecting Legal gambling. As far as state and local laws go here in Montana home poker games are fine and may actually enjoy some freedoms that liscensed card rooms dont have such as pot limits of $300 (id like to see that change). Where these poker enthusiast/entrepenures went wrong is that they were basically running a public business. I get the feeling that there may have been a rake and some form of dealer compensation. The game operator(s) allegedly recruited players from legal card rooms to play, and included after hours operation. after hours operation of a card room is legal in two cities in Montana, and both happen to be the college towns of Bozeman and Missoula.

There was no sting so to speak...no targeting of poker...by religous fanatics or poker haters...law officials were most likely tipped off by legal card room operators. Fellow poker players dropped the dime, WHY? aside from the obvious, after talking with a few local card room operators it is clear. "They stepped on toes" one anonymous source told me.

A card room liscense is about $150 for 1 table in Montana, it is how some people make a living. It is not a monumental undertaking or big burden to comply with the laws and have a legal game. I doubt if they will get jail time but I do hope they learn their lesson. This is clearly not a case of big brother squashing evil gaming or connected mafia poker/gambling eliminating the competition. This is probably some enthusiastic entrepenurial poker players getting ahead of themselves, and being careless.

The biggest problem that poker faces is legitamacy. We must embrace transparency and some kind of regulatory influence. sometimes we may disagree with the type of regulation...that is why we are members of PPA, we get involved. Our system may be flawed but we can make a difference. Thumbing your nose at people who follow the rules and run good games and the federal, state and local Law is sheer stupitity....and bad for Poker over all.

I am waiting on some calls that hopefully give me some more information....I will post anything I get here. please comment...Id like to know what you think!

Mike

State Director Montana

Old News...to remember...and act on!!

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R. 4411, Leach-Goodlatte) was passed by the House, the Senate and signed by the President on October 13, 2006.


If you believe in our right to play online poker
Write or call these do gooders
and express your self...please

Key Congressmen

Be sure to contact Senator Frist and tell him he is a moron for placing Internet Gambling (H.R. 4411) on the Senate's autumn agenda and bringing it to the floor for a vote.
Call: (202) 224-3344
Fax: (202) 228-1264
E-mail: Click here.



Be sure to thank the following Congressmen for leading the sheep heads and not giving up on this Internet gambling legislation that takes away our freedom!

Sen. Kyl (202) 224-4521

Rep. Leach (202) 225-6576

Rep. Goodlatte (202) 225-5431

UIGEA introducer in pocket of horse racing industry

Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, an originator of the unpopular UIGEA, said J.Todd of Perspectives Weekly in his webcast last week, has received $37,000 in donations from the National Thoroughbred Horseracing Association since 2003.

Horseracing is exempt from UIGEA regulations, and Goodlatte, the, according to Todd, “dweeby, hypocritical moralist,” believes that gambling is immoral unless it involves 4-legged creatures.

read more here

Poker support

read more here

GOP Platform....anti poker...!!!

"Internet Gambling: Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet."
-GOP/Republican Platform 2008
The referenced "law" is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 or Article VIII of the Safe Port Act. See the article below for House Financial Services Committee contact information.



Democrats need to realize that millions lose so that a few can win - and the house will always win! Too many people are homeless because gambling addiction has stolen their lives and destroyed their families.

Barney Frank made a very individualistic comment about UIGEA: "If an adult in this country

read the rest here...see how religious zealots work to ban poker