- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Disappointment and surprise at Kentucky judge’s ruling in domains case
October 20, 2008 (InfoPowa News) — Judge Thomas Wingate‘s generally negative findings in the attempt by the state of Kentucky to seize the international domains of online gambling companies continued to generate adverse comment across a range of media going into the weekend.
The covert nature of the official events leading up to the seizure attracted criticism as the court’s judgement was pored over by interested parties.
The initial application to Judge Wingate to issue a seizure order was made on August 26 by lawyers commissioned by the state, and it was accompanied by a request that the file be sealed until the actual hearing on the seizure motion. Judge Wingate granted the request, effectively empowering the state’s lawyers to move on the seizure before the owners of the domains even knew they were being legally ambushed.
Then, some weeks later on September 18, the state presented evidence to Judge Wingate that computers located in Kentucky were, “through the use of domain names,” able to access gambling websites over the Internet offering online slot machines, roulette and poker. The state’s representatives also introduced testimony from a ‘cybercrimes’ expert that domain names were devices that allow Kentucky residents to engage in illegal gambling … again without the owners being warned that actions possibly detrimental to them were in progress.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the court then ordered seizure of the domain names. The court found probable cause existed to support a finding that the defendant 141 domain names were being used in connection with illegal gambling activity with the Commonwealth.
It was at this point that the court required the service of the seizure order on each domain name registrar and any other person identified in the WHOIS information database as claiming ownership for each of the domain names.
Finally, the defendants had the opportunity to fight the state’s actions when Judge Wingate set a hearing for September 26 to determine whether any party was entitled to the return of their domain names or whether the domain names would be forfeited to the Commonwealth.
That hearing involved a further brief continuance before defendants were offered the opportunity to submit legal briefs on October 7, at the conclusion of which the judge retired to consider his verdict, finally returning it on October 16 after a 24-hour “computer glitch” delay.
Reports that the state had instigated the domain confiscation moves through outsourced lawyers who would be paid on a contingency basis elicted comment from at least one lawyer, who pointed out that the ruling did not go as far as the state had hoped for, in that it did not order punitive fines or damages from the defendants.
Speculation is that the lawyers free-lancing for the state could be in line for massive payments based on a percentage of the “damages” awarded to the state.
“I’ve got a feeling it sent a cold shiver down the spine of plaintiff’s lawyers, who have a contingency contract for getting money in the matter,” said Bill Johnson, a Frankfort attorney who is representing seven of the websites.
However, when asked for comment, Kentucky governor’s office spokesman Jay Blanton would only say ” … it’s too early to speculate on legal fees.”
Referring to the judge’s ruling that rejected attempts to have the case dismissed, spokesmen and blogs were generally critical of Judge Wingate’s findings.
“This decision must not be allowed to stand, because of the threat it poses to the Internet as a whole,” said Joe Brennan Jr., the chairman of iMEGA in a statement.
