NJ i-Gaming Bill Passes Senate Gaming Committee Vote
June 4, 2010 - The New Jersey Senate’s Wagering & Tourism Committee voted 3-to-1 to approve the Intra-State Internet Gambling Bill out of committee, setting the stage for a vote by the full Senate. Under the terms of the bill, casino operators in Atlantic City would be able to apply for a license to offer Internet-based versions of all the games currently permitted in their land-based operations. Poker, blackjack, baccarat and other games would be available online only to New Jersey residents that are 21 years of age or older.
“Though we’re not across the finish line yet, the committee vote is significant progress,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “We’ve gotten to this point by making this debate about more than taxes from gaming revenue, which is a bit one-note. Instead, we’ve made a significant case for job creation, capital investment, and the opportunity for New Jersey to become the national and global hub for this industry. And those numbers make this a compelling option for New Jersey legislators to consider.”
iMEGA commissioned an economic development study by Econsult, a Philadelphia-based firm, to provide a conservative baseline projection of the economic benefits for an in-state only system, as well as a baseline should New Jersey establish itself as the hub for the industry nationally and internationally.
With the creation of an intra-state Internet gambling system, Econsult estimated that New Jersey could see the creation of up to 1,900 job, $250 million in annual gross gaming revenue and up to $55 million in annual state gaming taxes. Projecting outward, Econsult estimated that conservatively, New Jersey stands to realize the creation of up to 57,000 jobs, $7 billion in annual gross gaming revenue and up to $472 in annual state gaming taxes should it establish itself as the dominant hub for the industry.
“This industry has to offer more than just an opportunity for the state and operators to take revenue out of the population,” said Brennan. “It can have a more direct, positive affect than just increased tax revenues for the state to utilize for services. Being an engine for real job creation and attracting investment, and the opportunity to be the global hub for a high-tech industry is a much more meaningful opportunity for legislators to consider.”
Link
Download: iMEGA/Econsult i-Gaming Economic Development Study for NJ
Back to KY Supreme Court: iMEGA Motion Granted in Domains Case
March 28, 2010 - The chief judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals has approved iMEGA’s request to have its petition to send iMEGA, et al v. Commonwealth immediately back to the state’s Supreme Court. The order, signed early Friday, allows the Supreme Court to now make a decision on the merits regarding the fate of the 141 domain names the Commonwealth has tried to seize from their owners.
The Supreme Court had issued an intermediate decision, saying that none of iMEGA’s “numerous [and] compelling” arguments in defense of the domain owners could be considered until the association satisfied the Court’s standing requirements. iMEGA last week submitted affidavits from both the association and Yatahay Limited, owner of the TruePoker.com domain name, to establish that one or more of the affected domains’ owners were members of iMEGA.
In the intermediate decision, the Court had also indicated that iMEGA and the other appellees, including Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) and Sportsbook.com, could ask the lower court to immediately move the suit back to the Supreme Court. iMEGA’s attorneys submitted such a request at the same time it provided the affidavits.
“Reading the Supreme Court’s decision, it was clear they wanted this suit back as soon as possible, and we’re happy we were able to comply,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “We’re confident the Court will make a ruling soon, and that we’ll finally wrap this up.”
Links
iMEGA, et al v. Commonwealth of Kentucky: Order Recommending Transfer (PDF format)
iMEGA Member Comes Forward, Gives KY Supreme Court Chance to Decide Domain Case
March 22, 2010 - Attorneys for iMEGA filed a motion with the Kentucky Court of Appeals to stay an attempt by the Commonwealth to seize the rights to 141 Internet domain names. The motion comes in the wake of a decision by the state’s Supreme Court last week, which found that iMEGA and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) lacked standing to contest Kentucky’s actions until they came forward and provided the court with proof that they did in fact represented the domains’ owners.
The Supreme Court asked that iMEGA and IGC to file affidavits, asserting that one or more of their members were the owners of an affected domain name, so the Court could then make a ruling on the merits, which many experts believe favor iMEGA and its members.
iMEGA’s attorneys filed two affidavits to satisfy the Supreme Court’s request. The first affidavit was on the behalf of Yatahay Limited, the company that owns the rights to the domain name “TruePoker.com”. Yatahay Limited declared their membership in iMEGA, making it the first company to come forward and identify itself as an affected party.
The second affidavit was on the behalf of Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman, confirming TruePoker.com’s domain rights holder as a member of the trade association.
The declarations satisfy the standing requirements outlined in the state Supreme Court’s decision. In its intermediate ruling, The Court stated that iMEGA’s arguments against the seizure of the 141 domains were strong, but that the association must first meet the standing requirements before their arguments could even be considered.
“The owners of the “TruePoker.com” domain have taken a big step on the behalf of the industry and players,” iMEGA’s Brennan said. “We’ve overcome the technicalities that gave the Commonwealth their short-lived victory. The Court can now make a decision based on Kentucky law. Based on the language of the decision last week, we know the Court wants to do just that. We know that the law favors us, and frankly, so does the Commonwealth’s attorneys.”
iMEGA’s attorneys also made a motion to have the matter immediately transferred back to the Kentucky Supreme Court, as was recommended by the Court in their decision last week. The Court also said that additional briefings or arguments were not needed for it to make a ruling on the merits, another sign, along with the recognition of the strength of iMEGA’s arguments, that has led experts to say the Court is likely to rule in favor of iMEGA and the rest of the affected parties.
“The Commonwealth’s attorneys knew they were lucky to get this one into overtime,” Brennan said. “It’s time to put them away.”
Links
iMEGA v. Wingate & Commonwealth of Kentucky (PDF format)
Motion for Intermediate Relief - iMEGA v. Wingate & Commonwealth of Kentucky (PDF format)
Motion to Transfer: iMEGA v. Wingate & Commonwealth of Kentucky (PDF format)
KY Supreme Court Questions Standing, Rules for State
March 18, 2010 - The Kentucky supreme court today issued a ruling that it will not lift the freeze by registrars of 141 Internet gambling domain names unless an owner of the names comes forward.
While not a final ruling by the Court, the decision is being viewed as a temporary setback by the affected parties. “In the written decision, the Court clearly indicates they agree with our arguments, and are inviting us to refile, so that the technicality of the standing issue can be resolved,” said Joe Brennan, iMEGA chairman. “It’s unfortunate, but I can’t imagine that Kentucky’s lawyers will celebrate a ruling that says ‘bring us an owner, so we can rule in your favor’”.
iMEGA and the other affected parties, Interactive Gaming Council and Sportsbook.com, have up to 20 days to file a motion for reconsideration. In the ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that no additional briefs or oral arguments were necessary for them to consider the case, and that a petition could be made to the Appeals Court to move the case immediately back to the state Supreme Court.
“All along, it seemed the Court wanted to go our way, and this decision today indicates that is still the case,” Brennan said. “The Court is telling us that all that is necessary is for one domain owner to come forward, and we likely win.”
Brennan indicated that iMEGA would immediately set to work with the other parties to resolve the Court’s issue, and would quickly file a motion to satisfy the court.
“We obviously would have preferred a complete, clean victory today, but reading the decision, it seems this is a technicality that is only delaying the inevitable,” Brennan said.
Link
KY Supreme Court: Decision in Commonwealth v. iMEGA, et al
Kentucky v. iMEGA: No Decision Yet From Kentucky Supreme Court
Jan. 21, 2010 - Though the Kentucky Supreme Court today released a number of opinions for cases on its docket, the anticipated decision in Commonwealth of Kentucky v. iMEGA, et al, was not among them. The next possible date for a decision in the matter will not come until late-March 2010.
In January 2009, iMEGA, who was also joined by the Interactive Gaming Council and Sportsbook.com, won a decision from the Kentucky Court of Appeals that blocked Kentucky from seizing the rights to 141 Internet domain names related to online gambling. Kentucky’s lawyers appealed that decision to the state’s Supreme Court, and both sides argued the case before the Court in October 2009.
Links
Webcast - Kentucky v. iMEGA, et al: KY Supreme Court (courtesy of thePPA.org)
KY Supreme Court order - Commonwealth of Kentucky v. iMEGA, et al
iMEGA Kentucky Supreme Court Brief (PDF format)
iMEGA v. Judge Thomas D. Wingate - KY Court of Appeals decision (PDF format)
iMEGA v. Judge Thomas D. Wingate - KY notice of appeal
New Jersey Introduces In-State Internet Gambling Legislation
Jan. 15, 2010 - A newly proposed law would allow Internet gambling by New Jersey residents, to be offered on Web sites through the state’s casinos in Atlantic City. The bill was introduced into the New Jersey senate by Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), who also introduced a separate bill which calls for New Jersey residents to vote on a constitutional amendment that would permit state-regulated sports wagering in Atlantic City casinos, and to state residents via an intra-state Internet gambling system.
New Jersey currently offers wagering on horse races to state residents through the 4NJbets.com Web site. The state would expand the law to permit Internet versions of games currently allowed in Atlantic City casinos, such as Poker, Blackjack and Baccarat. The intra-state Internet gambling system would be regulated by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, which would establish a Division of Internet Wagering to oversee operations and licensing.
“We’re happy that New Jersey has taken this issue into their own hands,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “New Jersey is recognized as having the toughest gaming regulators in the US, but as a leading gaming state with a long track record of doing things the right way, Internet gambling will have a great home here and the opportunity to begin normalizing the industry.”
Though iMEGA supports efforts in Washington DC, especially by Rep. Barney Frank (D) in the House and Sen. Robert Menendez (D) in the Senate, to create a Federal path to regulation, the association worked with New Jersey legislators on the bill to ensure continued progress toward regulated Internet gambling in the US.
“The efforts to resolve the Internet gambling issue have stalled in Washington DC,” Brennan said. “If states assert their right to regulate gambling within their borders and take a serious look at permitting Internet gambling, one side effect may be a breaking of the deadlock in the US Congress.”
Links
NJ Senate S3167 - Intra-State Internet Gambling Bill
Bio: NJ Senator Raymond J. Lesniak
Kentucky Lawyers Refuse to Identify New Domain Defendants
Dec. 21, 2009 - Lawyers representing the commonwealth of Kentucky have refused to name any new individuals targeted in their attempt to seize ownership of 141 Internet domain names, all related to online gambling, and then transfer them to the state. Despite numerous requests from attorneys representing the industry’s trade associations, the commonwealth’s attorneys have sternly declined to identify anyone.
In response to one such request, William C. Hurt, Jr, a lawyer from Hurt, Crosbie & May in Lexington, wrote that no one had the right to any information or even to challenge the motion (Click here to view emails).
“I do not believe anyone has standing to file a response or motion to strike,” Hurt wrote, despite a January 2009 ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals that blocked the seizures and decried the lack of due process for the defendants.
In a secret hearing in Franklin Circuit Court in fall of 2008, Hurt and other contingency-fee lawyers for the state convinced Judge Thomas Wingate to sign off on seizure orders for the domain names, despite no notification or representation in court on the behalf of the affected owners. The commonwealth’s lawyers then sought to have the domain owners pay huge cash settlements to regain ownership of their property, as well as promise to block Kentucky residents from accessing their Web sites.
The matter is currently before the Kentucky Supreme Court, which heard arguments from both sides in October. A decision is expected sometime early next year.
Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA, an industry trade association fighting the commonwealth’s efforts, felt that the move to secretly add additional names to the suit was a “hail mary” pass attempt in a losing effort.
“These lawyers lost a very public battle with us in the Court of Appeals, and probably sense the same result from the State Supreme Court, so they’ll do anything to keep this thing alive,” Brennan said. “They were counting on a big payday from our members, in the form of settlements to get their own property back, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Since they don’t get one nickel from the state to pursue this, it’s clear that the drive for big money has taken over, and any sense of fair play or due process has gone out the window.”
Responding to Hurt’s claim that no one had standing to challenge the motion or to request the names of the new individuals added to the suit, Brennan said, “Their strategy all along was to ignore us every step of the way, even after the Court of Appeals recognized our standing and blocked their seizure efforts. They can stick their head in the sand, but we’re not going anywhere, and frankly, neither is their attempt to seize these domain names.”
Link
Emails from Kentucky Lawyers to iMEGA, IGC and Sportsbook.com
Kentucky Asks Court to Add US Defendants to Domain Seizure List
Kentucky Asks Court to Add US Defendants to Domain Seizure List
Dec. 16, 2009 - Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky have asked the Franklin County Circuit court to add names of US citizens and companies to a lawsuit that seeks the forfeiture of 141 Internet domain names. Kentucky’s effort to seize those Web site names, all related to Internet gambling, had been blocked by a January 2009 decision from the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in favor of iMEGA and other groups, including the Interactive Gaming Council and Sportsbook.com, representing the domain owners.
Though the new motion was made public by Kentucky’s lawyers, none of the names of the US citizens or companies to be added to the seizure effort were revealed, despite requests by iMEGA’s attorneys.
A decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court is pending, after the state’s lawyers challenged the Appeals Court verdict. Oral arguments from lawyers representing both sides of the dispute were heard by the Court in October of this year .
“In the course of the litigation and the Commonwealth’s continuing investigation, the Commonwealth has learned the identity of certain entities and individuals involved in internet gambling operations, some of whom are U.S. citizens,” read the motion from Kentucky’s lawyers. “The Commonwealth asks for leave to amend its Complaint to add causes of action against these individuals and entities in personam.”
“It’s odd that Kentucky’s lawyers would try something like this at such a late date, since we’re expecting a decision on this matter from the State Supreme Court any day now,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “It seems like a ‘Hail Mary pass’ to me.”
“We’re unaware of any ‘investigations’ by the state attorney-general or law enforcement in Kentucky. The attorney-general himself asked to be dismissed from this suit last year. And there are no indictments or convictions that would enable Kentucky’s lawyers to add the names of individual US citizens to their seizure action,” Brennan said. “If anything, this last-minute gambit highlights our argument that Kentucky and the lower court provided no due process to the domain owners, since they seem bent on continuing down that path even now.”
The motion called for a hearing on Jan. 20th, 2010, in Franklin Circuit Court, before Judge Thomas Wingate. In Sept. 2008, Judge Wingate issued the original seizure orders for the 141 domain names during a secret court hearing with Kentucky’s lawyers, one which the owners of the domain names were not informed of or given the opportunity to be represented by their own counsel.
Links
Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names - Motion to Add Defendant Names
Fed Judge: NJ Governor can Join iMEGA Challenge to Sports Betting Law
Nov. 2, 2009 - Over the objections of the US Department of Justice, a Federal judge has ruled that New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is permitted to join a legal challenge to a Federal law prohibiting state-regulated sports betting.
US Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni ordered that Gov. Gorzine’s motion to intervene in iMEGA, et al v. Holder was granted, and that his attorneys must file their complaint no later than Nov. 12th. The lawsuit asks the court to overturn the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1991, which prohibits the expansion of state-regulated sports betting to all but four protected states - Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon. The plaintiffs have argued the law is unconstitutional because it favors certain states by allowing them to reap tax revenue from legal sports betting, while barring every other state from doing so.
“It’s nice to clear this hurdle and move closer to a court considering the merits of our challenge,” said Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA, lead plaintiff in the suit. “It’s ridiculous the DOJ opposed the motion. We expect they’ll now ask the court to have all of the plaintiffs thrown out for lack of standing. It’s a waste of time and effort, but it seems they’ll do anything to prevent the court from examining this law.”
“The irony is that the DOJ actually opposed this law (PASPA) when it was enacted, on the very same grounds we’ve listed in our suit,” Brennan said.
Links
US District Court of NJ: Order - iMEGA et al, v. Holder (PDF format)
US DOJ - Brief in Opposition to Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s Motion to Intervene (PDF format)
iMEGA, et al v. Holder - Federal PASPA Challenge (PDF format)
iMEGA Attacks Seizures in Kentucky Supreme Court Appearance
Oct. 22, 2009 - Jon L. Fleischaker, attorney for iMEGA, attacked as “intellectually dishonest” the efforts by Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) to block state residents’ use of Internet gambling Web sites, during arguments before the Kentucky Supreme Court on Thursday. “They made up a process that is totally lacking in due process,” Fleischaker said.
Fleischaker, along with attorneys representing Sportsbook.com and the Interactive Gaming Council, asked the Supreme Court to uphold a decision earlier this year by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, blocking the seizure of 141 domain names belonging to online gambling sites. Private attorneys representing Gov. Beshear had obtained a court order for the seizures, in an effort to block Kentucky residents from playing poker and other games on the Internet.
In a 2-to-1 decision, the Appeals Court in January rejected the governor’s claim that Kentucky players and the Internet gambling sites had violated state law. The decision also held that a lower court had erred when it applied the state’s “gambling devices” statute to justify the seizure of the Internet domain names.
“[I]t stretches credulity to conclude that a series of numbers, or Internet address, can be said to constitute a “machine or any mechanical or other device…designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling,” Judge Michelle M. Keller wrote in her majority opinion.
The Supreme Court seemed to agree with Fleischaker about the lack of due process in the seizure attempt. “I’m really, really concerned about the nature of this proceeding,” Justice Will T. Scott said during questioning of Gov. Beshear’s attorney, Eric Lycan.
A decision is not expected before the end of the year.
Links
Supreme Court hears online gambling case - Louisville Courier-Journal
State Supreme court hears online gambling case - Lexington Herald-Leader
KY Supreme Court hears online gambling question - Associated Press
