Strange Developments in Kentucky Domain Name Seizure Case

December 21, 2009 | News Category: Gaming Law

0 Comments

In a strange and unusual move, the lawyers for the state of Kentucky have added a new twist to the Kentucky domain name seizure case in which the state has attempted to seize 141 Internet casino domain names. Lawyers for the state of Kentucky have claimed that due to their ongoing investigations, they have uncovered additional names of those they consider to be culprits of the same issues as the 141 defendants.

Although the arguments in front of the Kentucky Supreme Court have been complete for some time, the lawyers for the state of Kentucky have decided that they wish to add additional names of various companies and United States citizens to the original list of 141 domain names, in order to add them, at this late stage of the trial, to the original charge list.

iMEGA (Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association), who have lawyers representing the online casinos, noted that the state attorney general, the top law enforcement official in Kentucky, has requested that he be taken off this case. iMEGA’s chairman, Joe Brennan, finds it interesting that the state of Kentucky has found further information from their "continuing investigation" since the attorney general has asked to be dismissed from the suit. This begs the question as to exactly which "continuing investigation" the lawyers are referring to.

Another strange issue around the supposed additional culprits that the state of Kentucky has uncovered, is that even though they wish prosecute these new defendants with the original list of 141 domain name owners, they have refused to release details, including the names of those on their new list. Not only have they refused to release this list to the media, but they have also refused to give it to the opposition’s attorneys.

On the iMEGA website, Brennan stated, "There are no indictments or convictions that would enable Kentucky’s lawyers to add the names of individual US citizens to their seizure action." He continued to note: "If anything, this last-minute gambit highlights our argument that Kentucky and the lower court provided no due process to the domain owners."

Even if the court rules in favor of the state of Kentucky’s position, there are still issues of due process that would need to be cleared up. A number of questions regarding due process have come up, as well as questions regarding the interference with the Commerce Clause. A lower court has already ruled that Kentucky, when choosing to seize the domain names, has misused the law about seizing gambling devices.