Written by :
Published on :
Pat O'Brien, Greenburg-Trauig attorney for i-gaming, had this to say about today's ruling by Judge Wingate, that i-gaming operators must block Kentucky traffic to avoid forfeiture of their domain names: (from igamingnews.com):
"If you have no interest in blocking the state, then that's not a victory," Mr. O'Brien, who is representing seven of the domain names, told IGamingNews via e-mail this afternoon. "But, if you're willing to block the state, that means the whole thing will go away if you do that."
Commented one industry analyst: "That is the dumbest, short-sighted analysis of what just happened of anything I've heard. Does Pat understand that if you agree to block Kentucky today, it will be Georgia tomorrow, Texas the day after that, then Florida, etc. etc. etc. (Then again, aren't most of IGC's members out of the US market? What do they care?).
The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association has already vowed to "fight like hell" and will be filing an appeal in both the state and federal courts.
Gambling911.com readers expressed outrage over Thursday's decision whereby 141 online gambling domain names stand the likelihood of being taken over by the Kentucky commonwealth.
"Greetings Comrads, What part of this decision was so adversely impacted by a 'computer glitch' that it couldn't be read yesterday? Delays cost money. In this case, more for the defense. That computer glitch probably cost the casino operators a nice chunk of change. Returning for court in November will cost more. The court is probably counting on the fact that most domain owners will not present themselves due to fear of prosecution and imprisonment (What are the odds that the DoJ is involved in a 'purely advisory' capacity?) Appeals will take more time, money and resources, which the state is also probably counting on to hinder or eliminate future actions. Do the site owners see and recognize the bigger picture and the implications for America as a whole (strictly rhetorical, of course they do).
"The question here is are the sites willing to pony up the money and resources it's going to take to combat this. This is the judge that signed off on the domain seizures to begin with. What available information led iMEGA to assume that he would be fair and unbiased? The honorable Thomas Wingate has been presiding as a judge since 1999 and assigned to circuit in 2006. That's about all the Google info available on young Judge Wingate, so it's no stretch to say this is his claim to '15 minutes of fame'. Promises of consideration for future appointments could play a huge part in his decisions. This is politics after all.
"It's ironic that the defense of our rights as Americans hinges on whether these 'bottom feeding scum suckers' will pick up the gauntlet and fight for the rights of all Americans who don't have the resources or concern to do so for themselves. Talk about a scary situation. My personal take on the situation is site owners will roll over or make deals to protect their own and the justice department will add another notch in the belt of lost rights of Americans. Communism (call it what you ever politically correct name you want) wins the battle and the war."
----
Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com Publisher
