Internet casino gambling continues to stir controversy in the U.S. as Tennessee Democrat Representative Steve Cohen has made the harsh accusation that a top Bush Administration adviser applied “considerable political pressure” on a former lobbying client.
According to a publication from Poltico, Cohen has called for an investigation on William Wichterman, the adviser in question, to determine whether he disclosed his “potential conflict of interest” in influencing the Bush administration to enforce more regulations with the UIGEA. In March of this year, Wichterman was a registered lobbyist with Covington and Burling, representing the NFL.
The NFL makes no secret of their die hard opposition to internet gambling. As a lobbyist with Covington and Burling, Wichterman worked on internet gambling laws, the main focus for the NFL in legislation.
There has been an effort to release new UIGEA regulations before November 17th, the deadline to pass legislation that can’t be amended or reconsidered by the Obama administration. Wichterman, as well as other backers such as Republican Senator John Kyl, have put pressure on the current administration to enact the regulations before this date.
While the drafted regulations have been submitted, the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve must sign on off them in a 60-day review process. Because of this, the language of the new law is subject to review under the upcoming administration.
Cohen’s letter to the White House pushing for the investigation reads that Wichterman “…has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through finalization.” Furthermore, Cohen suggests that Witchterman “…has been among the most vocal advocates for the proposed rule and the underlying law” while serving as a lobbyist with Covington & Burling and representing the National Football League.
Cohen has also inquired of White House Counsel Fred Fielding if Witcherman had made a note of his conflict of interest in the issue. “If so,” Cohen continues, “was he nonetheless allowed by the White House to work on this issue?”
He asks Fielding if “there is a defined period during which employees who served as lawyers or lobbyists in the private sector must recuse themselves from matters affecting their former clients,” essentially suggesting the Bush administration’s policy on aides working in issue areas they covered as paid lobbyists is unjust.
Opponents to the new language in the UIGEA, such as House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, have continued to argue that the law is too vague and that, according to Politico it “places onerous requirements on these financial institutions – at a time when many a struggling to rebound from the slumping economy. While administration officials testified before this Financial Services panel earlier this year that this was the case, the OMB is not swayed, and has made no attempt to clarify what constitutes “illegal internet gambling.”
“The way to get a better reg[ulation] is to get a better law,” said Andy Barbour, overseer of Internet issures for the Financial Services Roundtable. “We’re interesting in pursuing that cause, as is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.”
The Democrat from Tennessee has also inquired as to whether Wichterman intends to return to the lobbying firm. He calls for a catalogue of contact between the White House Office of Public Liaison with Treasury, OMB and the Federal Reserve.
The White House has failed to comment on the Cohen letter.White House spokesperson Tony Fratto said on Thursday that his office “does not comment on administrative rules that remain under consideration.”
The Kentucky Court of Appeals granted a stay of the forfeiture order against 141 internet gambling websites until appellate judges hear oral arguments and rule on the matter. The decision follows an appeal made by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGG) under the argument that the forfeiture is unconstitutional.
A forfeiture hearing was scheduled for December 3rd for those domain owners who failed reasonably establish “to the satisfaction of the Kentucky’s Justice and Safety Cabinet or this Court that such geographical blocks [to Kentucky residents] are operational.”
“We’re glad that the Appeals Court recognized the need to prevent the immediate forfeiture of those domain names,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan, Jr. “The Commonwealth’s attorneys have tried from the very beginning to push this seizure action through at a breakneck pace, so that by the time any of the domain owners realized what was happening, they would have lost their rights to their domains.
The hearing for iMEGA’s petition is scheduled for December 12th. iMEGA will present its case in front of the same three-judge appellate panel that granted the continuance. The panel will assess the ruling and make a decision as to whether the lower court lacked to jurisdiction to order to domain confiscation and whether Secretary Brown lacked the authority to initiate the seizure to begin with.
Should the panel find that these groups were lacking jurisdiction, then the ruling will be overturned. However if appellate Court finds otherwise, there will then be a decision made as to whether the lower court wrongly applied Kentucky’s “gambling devices” law in ordering the seizures and whether these actions violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A final hearing will take place in which the appellate panel has agreed to combine the petitions of iMEGA and the IGC against to forfeiture. IGC has made the argument that the domain names are not subject to Kentucky law as they are not located in Kentucky.
The Poker Players Alliance filed an additional amicus brief, focusing on the issue that has not uet been addressed by the courts: that poker is more a game of skill than it is a game of chance, and should therefore be omitted for the UIGEA altogether. The PPA has made claims that the trial court judge was responsible for making a decision on the issue, but failed to do so. They feel that had this issue been addressed, the judge would have ruled in favor of poker.
This particular hearing has received a great deal of attention and support, not only from internet casino and gaming advocates, but also net neutrality, free speech and civil liberties groups. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU) have all joined in filing an amicus brief on the grounds that the domain seizures violate the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who gave no comment on during the original hearing, has requested that his name be removed from the domain case in an attempt to distance himself from the ruling. The seizure action was initiated by Secretary of Justice and Public Safety J. Michael Brown rather than the Attorney General.
In its brief, iMEGA noted that Attorney General Conway must appear on behalf of Kentucky in all cases in the Court of Appeals in which the Commonwealth is involved.
“Now, we hope to have a fair hearing regarding our petition, because we’re confident that Kentucky law is on our side, and that the lower court erred in ordering these seizures,” Brennan continued.
“The bottom line is that this move by Kentucky cannot be allowed to stand, because if it did, it would hand an ‘ultimate weapon’ to governments here and abroad to stifle Internet content that does not meet their approval.”
A unique report on the recent UIGEA regulations by the Kansas City Star has implied that the latest publications this week may have in actuality opened doors for the internet casino gambling industry. The article, entitled “Oops. Did Congress Accidently Legalize Cyber Gambling?” takes an interesting perspective on U.S. gaming law.
The article makes note of the new federal regulations backing the two year-old Enforcement Act, and how they may facilitate U.S. citizens in accessing internet casinos. One point of interest is the new rule which maintains the “carve-outs” for intrastate online gambling that is authorized by specific states or tribes, and internet gaming is regulated under federal interstate horse racing gambling and state lottery laws. Individual gamers have additionally been excluded from the Act, as the government holds regulation over commercial gambling companies that operate online casinos and virtual bookmakers.
“It therefore appears that individual states and tribes operating gambling interests are quite free under these new rules to let the cyber dice roll – and state raking in a new and lucrative category of tax dollars,” the newspaper article reads.
“Nevada, New Jersey and a handful of other states have been held back so far only by threats of prosecution from the Justice Department – which may now be handcuffed itself.
“Legal intrastate gambling may prove to be the game changer that rapidly paves the way to legal interstate and ultimately internation gambling by Americans on the web,” the article continues.
With land casinos in the states suffering from an ever-declining industry, and facing the current economic crisis, some argue that the internet casino gaming industry worth nearly $8 billion yearly to the U.S. could stimulate the economy. If sufficient pressure were applied to these sovereign states and tribes, under UIGEA regulations, it may be quite possible for the internet gaming market to become available to U.S. citizens.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union, all organizations dedicated to internet freedom, or net neutrality, are advocating for the appeal of the Kentucky ruling. These groups have urged the Kentucky Court of Appeals to dismiss the authorization to seize 141 internet gambling domains, should the website owners fail to block Kentucky residents.
The net neutrality activists have filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals, stating that the ruling violates the First Amendment, the Commerce Claus and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, which prohibit state courts from interfering with internet domains registered and operated outside of Kentucky. A spokesperson argued that the seizure and lower court’s jurisdiction over international domain names challenges free speech across the internet.
“The court’s theory – that a state court can order the seizure of internet domain names regardless of where the site was registered – is not only wrong but dangerous,” opined Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “If the mere ability to access a website gives every court on the planet the authority to seize a domain name if a site’s content is in some way inconsistent with local law, the laws of the world’s most repressive regimes will effectively control cyberspace.”
In his ruling, Judge Wingate maintained that the domains would be confiscated if owners refused to implement “geographical blocks” to ban Kentucky residents from accessing the online casinos. According to Zimmerman, no such filters exist which are effective, and the least expensive of software to enforce the ban would cost thousands of dollars. Aside from which, the enforcement of such a ruling would “unconstitutionally burden First Amendment rights.”
“If the Kentucky order is upheld, no speech that conflicts with any law, anywhere in the world, would be safe from censorship,” added John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Just as Kentucky is trying to take down sites located around the world, any government seeking to stifle free expression could try to interfere with lawful speech hosted in the United States.”
“A key free speech principle that has emerged from Internet litigation is this: Governments may not prohibit all access to websites as a remedy for unlawful behavior,” said David Friedman, ACLU of Kentucky General Counsel.
The amicus brief filed explains that, “Any order purporting to transfer domain name registrants to the Commonwealth of Kentucky raises serious First Amendment concerns because it would necessarily impede access to material that is legal not only in Kentucky but throughout the country and the world. Moreover, it would chill speech of all types, not simply the speech directly at issue in this case.
“As conceived by Judge Wingate, domain names would be subject to seizure – and therefore can be disabled so that they will no longer correctly correlate to their respective intended sites’ IP address – if the site enables behavior that is arguably illegal in Kentucky but may be legal elsewhere. Conversely, the court noted that for any of the domain names at issue ‘which are providing information only, the Seizure Order must be appropriately rescinded’ (but even then the court placed the burden on the domain name owners to prove these facts at a forfeiture hearing.) Such a ruling turns First Amendment protections on their head. Third-parties who may wish to access such (legal) information, including amici and their constituents, would be prohibited from doing so if the court’s Order is not rescinded.”
According to a number of media website reports, the American Gaming Association (AGA) may reconsider its policy on internet casino gambling. With the responsibility of the oversight of all forms of gambling, the AGA’s gaming policies are very prevalent to the industry. Having originally opposed online casinos, the trade association has shown signs of wavering its original stance on the issue.
Following the growing interest in internet casino gambling, AGA President Frank Fahrenkopf has suggested that the organization is supporting a decision to conduct extensive research into the industry’s pros and cons made by Nevada Representative Shelley Berkley. The AGA voted to form a study group to do just that last month.
Reports state that a top level meeting will be held to discuss AGA’s standing policy on internet gambling and consider the practical uses and negative impacts, should it be legalized. Although little has been said about who will attend the meeting, or what specifics the discussion will encompass, the industry is aware that the organization will be influenced by legislative attempts by Barney Frank, Robert Wexler, Shelley Berkely, Jim McDermott, and several others. It has been said that the meeting will cover topics like state or federal legislation and regulation over the industry.
“I think a majority would probably be supportive of some internet gambling architecture, whether or not they would support a federal solution,” said Fahrenkopf.
The overall consensus is for a state regulation to be implemented rather than federal, for reasons that State legislators have more hands-on experience with the issue, and the concern of federal US departments (like the Treasury) holding too much jurisdiction. It has not been specified whether the majority of AGA chairmen support the issue, but reports say that “some AGA members are keener than others to expand their businesses into the Internet milieu, and the current dire economic climate with declining land casino revenues may influence opinions.”
The estimated tax revenue that internet casino gambling will generate per year ranges from $8.7 to $42.8 billion in the first ten years of its legalization, a factoid that would surely persuade some to vote in its favor.
The argument remains, however, that the U.S. government has a moral responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers of internet gambling. Guy C. Clark of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling reports, “The U.S. government’s obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO.
“Gambling addiction rises predictably with proximity of games and speed of play. Nothing is more proximate than a personal computer, and nothing works faster. Plus, the internet adds the deadly element of anonymity. The neighbors won’t spot you at the virtual casino. Solid citizens with no previous criminal record commit outrageous crimes when addicted to gambling.”
This argument, coming mostly from the Republican platform, in many ways contradicts the party’s idea of one taking personal responsibility for themselves, rather than relying on the government to bail them out.
According to Martin Owens, Gaming-Issues Attorney, “The U.S. stands virtually alone in its uncompromising stance against internet gambling, a position that is writ large by the UIGEA and its actions at the WTO. The attempts to ban internet gambling are misguided, unproductive, and will do nothing to protect responsible adults.”
The legal system, as well as the internet gaming community, has delivered a resounding negative response to Judge Thomas Wingate’s decision in Kentucky’s attempt to seize online casino gambling domains. The ruling has received a slew of criticisms, according to an array of media reports.
The original attempt to legally confiscate over 141 internet domains was launched in August of this year, with several commissioned state lawyers. After an accompanying hearing, Judge Wingate ruled in favor of Kentucky, allowing the state to seize a handful of domains without the informing the owners. In September, the litigation continued, in which state lawyers argued that computers located in Kentucky were, “through the use of domain names,” enabling citizens to access internet gambling sites offering slots, roulette and poker. “Cybercrimes” experts testified that the domains were gambling devices, again without informing the owners. The order was given to seize some 141 domain names in connection without criminal gambling activity.
A counter argument was then presented, in which the final ruling was made to force internet casino domain owners to block Kentucky users within 30 days to avoid having their domains seized and fined. Some outsourced lawyers felt that not enough had been done in the case, in that it did not issue fines or punitive damages to the defendants.
Speculation is circulating that the complaints follow lawyers who are stand to pay for 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,” says Bill Johnson, a Frankfort attorney representing seven of the domain owners.
Kentucky governor’s office spokesperson Jay Blanton disagrees, however, having said, “…it’s too early to speculate on legal fees.”
The most criticism comes from internet casino gambling advocates – some who feel that it may come down to the defending argument being presented before the Supreme Court. iMEGA, one of the leading organizations in the defending arguments to have the case dismissed was more than just disappointed.
Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of iMEGA released a statement saying, “The decision must not be allowed to stand, because of the threat it poses to the internet as a whole.
“Judge Wingate has ignored the clear laws of his own state in coming to a decision that essentially green-lights any jurisdiction – in the US and abroad – to ignore our rights and abuse their power to do awat with competition or speech or content with which they oppose, regardless of the law. This is a dark day for internet freedom.
“What Judge Wingate has done is to create the ‘ultimate weapon’ to be used by the powerful and influential to attack content they oppose. This will enable to government to eliminate competition from differing ideas, beliefs and commerce. This decision today is where it starts, but where will it start?”
Ruch Muny, Kentucky state director for the Poker Players Alliance added his two cents to the argument, maintaining the organizations stance that poker should be omitted from the dispute altogether as it is a game of skill rather than one of chance. “In essence, Governor Beshear and Judge Wingate are denying law-abiding citizens this form of [online gambling] recreation simply because it is enjoyed on the internet. This is internet censorship by judicial fiat, plain and simple,” said Muny.
To which his colleague, PPA executive director John Pappas added, “I am certain that many of the defendants in this case intend to quickly appeal this matter. We are confident that the Kentucky Appellate Court will review the facts and overturn today’s order. At the same time, the PPA will continue its efforts to protect the rights of Kentucky citizens to play poker online.”
The discussion has extended further than those involved in the legal dispute. The public has had much to say about the ruling. Some feel as though the litigation was in response to the declining value of land casinos, which the Kentucky Governor has lobbied for a great deal this past year. Others feel that the greatest fault in Judge Wingate’s decision was the failure to address how Kentucky’s jurisdiction can reach to internet domains located outside of the state and even the country.
A blogger on ZDnet.com voiced his opinion: “I can’t see where a state court could have jurisdiction over domain names and sites not residing in its state. It is nearly impossible for them to block everyone in the state. It is more reasonable for the state’s ISP’s to block access. But even this goes in the face of the sanctity of the Internet. If it is illegal then the user should be held responsible. When a user logs on he/she should have to check a box indicating that they are not from Kentucky. This would put the responsibility where it belongs. This is a very scary precedence. This judge sounds like he is simply on a power trip.”
Web Host Industry posts, “This case should be thrown out of court for the role reason of being unconstitutional. What’s next? Are states in the Bible belt going to seize control and subsequently block adult websites, because they don’t want their residents viewing porn? If Judge Wingate allows Kentucky to take control of these domain names, we’re going to be no better than China is and how they already censor the Internet.”
The defendants who feel that the ruling was unjust will be given the opportunity to file an appeal, and Wingate has informed some that if these domains are able to accurately illustrate that their purpose is solely advertising, that they will have more clout than others. Whether or not the dispute will be taken to the Supreme Court has not yet been specified, although the speculation has been made.
A decision has finally been made by Kentucky judge Thomas Wingate, in the court proceedings in which the state intended to seize 141 internet casino gambling domains. Gaming website operators have been given 30 days to block access to Kentucky residents.
Should the gaming websites such as Full Tilt Poker, PokerStars, Bodog and Golden Palace comply with the state ruling and have “reasonably established to the satisfaction of the Kentucky’s Justice and Safety Cabinet or this Court that such geographical blocks are operational, [they] shall be relieved from the effects of the Seizure order and from any further proceedings in the instant civil forfeiture action.”
Should the websites fail to comply, however, operators will be given the opportunity to present their case before Wingate on November 17th. The Judge suggested that he would be willing to consider relieving a website of seizure should operators succeed to presenting the websites as advertisements.
“The counsel for Goldenpalace.com represented during the October 7 hearing that the operation of Goldenpalace.com is limited to maintaining a website and providing advertisement for third-party gambling websites,” Wingate stated during his verdict. “The court agrees that the maintenance of a website of Internet advertisement alone, without more, is not enough to constitute presence for the purposes of state court jurisdictional analysis. This, the Court recognizes that as to any of the Defendants 141 Domain Names that identifies websites which are providing information only, the Seizure Order must be appropriately rescinded and will be rescinded in due course.”
The verification process has yet to be clearly defined. “We’re still going through the ruling,” said Jennifer Brislin, communications director for the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet that filed the lawsuit. “I all these sites block access [to Kentucky residents], they’ll be free from forfeiture. Otherwise, there will be a forfeiture hearing.”
“I don’t know what the procedure for verification will be yet,” she added. “It will be more involved than a ‘Hey we blocked you’ notification.”
For the duration of the court proceedings, Wingate focused on whether Kentucky had jurisdiction over internet domain names, and whether said domains were considered illegal gambling devices. Joe Kelly, a Buffalo State business law professor stated that “a state court will almost always try to find jurisdiction.”
Following the rulings, online casinos and their domain owners have four possible actions to take: Comply with Wingate’s ruling, appeal Wingate’s ruling, present their case at the forfeiture hearing, or file against Kentucky in federal court on interstate commerce issues.
“This really should be brought up in a federal court,” Kelly opined. “They stand a much better chance arguing this in a federal court than I think in a state court.”
The Poker Players Alliance was less than ecstatic with the final ruling, as the organization shares the view that poker should be excluded from the hearings altogether under the basis that it is a game of skill.
“Clearly we believe the judge in this case got it wrong,” said John Pappas, PPA Executive Director. “First of all, we strongly disagree with Judge Wingate’s ruling that poker is not a game of skill. As demonstrated in the amicus brief we filed, skill plays an essential role in being a successful poker player. Additionally, we believe that by confirming Governor Beshear’s actions, the court has set a dangerous precedent for censorship of the internet. Today’s ruling is a big step backward for both personal rights and internet freedom.”
There have been more developments in the argument between Argentinean online casino Formoapuesta.com.ar and licensing authority Loteria Nacional, following the website’s forced closure. The news is not favorable, however, as evidence would suggest the site’s closure may be due to a potential anti-gaming legislation in the BA provincial assembly. What’s more, reports show that the province of Sante Fe is also considering a ban on internet casino gambling.
Under current provincial law, individual provinces have to legal jurisdiction to issue gambling licenses; however Federal legislation states that any internet gambling and sportsbetting is the responsibility of the National Lottery monopoly. Changes of legislation in Sante Fe and Buenos Aires could have an impact on other gaming establishments, including Vcapuestas.com.ar and ar.888.com, that cater to Argentinean users. Bwin left the market earlier this year.
While nothing is written in stone, Clr. Luis Alberto Mauri introduced a proposal to ban internet gambling in the Sante Fe province. Its enforcement would be in the hands of internet service providers, whose responsibility it would be to block Sante Fe citizens from accessing internet gambling websites, as defined by legislation. Many feel this proposal is in response to an attempt to ban internet gaming in Italy, which eventually resulted in more strict regulations.
Mauri commented, “We understand that gambling is a part of social behavior and [is] increasingly popular online, but the fact that citizens in our province have access to this method of gambling does not mean that the State should refrain from exercising control over it.”
The Washington Post has been following the controversial domain seizure case in Kentucky all of this week, providing an in-depth report of the proceedings. Staff writer Brian Krebs has kept the online casino community with all of the need-to-know info.
Spokesperson for the Kentucky Justice Department Jennifer Brislin told the Post that the regional government, seeking to extend its jurisdiction to the physical locations of “digital property,” wants recompense for the damage that online casinos have caused. That is to say, because the U.S. does not allow internet casino gambling to be regulated, some $170 million in gaming revenue was not taxed by the state. The protectionist argument is that the unlawful online casino gambling profits should have been spent on legal horse racing bets.
A handful of website domains have already been seized without notification or endorsement from state legislators, and the ruling of Judge Thomas Wingate to allow this has left a bad taste in the community’s mouths – some going so far as to say that the state is holding these domains for ransom.
The state wishes to deliver a more devastating blow to the online gambling industry in forcing domain holders to effectively ban Kentucky residents, after paying a hefty fine to the state. According to Brislin, “We think it creates a tremendous disadvantage for our legitimate, licensed and taxed gaming interests, and there are some damages that are due to the commonwealth as a result.”
It seems Brislin has not done her research, however, because most internet casino earnings are reported to the IRS and taxed by the U.S. government. Krebs shows both sides of the story, reporting the expert opinion of domain specialist and attorney Bret Fausett, who believes that Kentucky has no legal right to seize websites located and operated outside of the state.
“This is a little bit like if the Home Shopping TV network was accused of fraud, and Kentucky decided to seize the show’s cameras and set even though HSN’s real location is nowhere near the state, he opined.
Christine Jones of registrar GoDaddy.com, explains their stance on the issue, after 20 of their domains were confiscated.
“We issued a registrar certificate to the state that says the court has jurisdiction over the issue, but it doesn’t have control over the domains, other than the ability to exercise judgement so that when there is a final adjudication on the merits of the case or a settlement by the parties, we will honor that outcome.”
John Levine, author of “The Internet for Dummies,” told his opinion to the Washington Post as well. “The state’s legal arguments fail on so many levels that it’s truly bizarre that the court didn’t reject this case in the first place,” he said, noting that the UIGEA prohibits only the financial transactions of online casino gambling, and not the activity itself. In fact, Washington is the only U.S. state that specifically bans gambling online.
A decision to either dismiss the case or allow it to proceed to a forfeiture hearing will be made in seven days.
Las Vegas attorney Anthony Cabot, specializing in internet casino gambling, told the public the likelihood that either US presidential candidate will have on the industry , with Barack Obama more apt to allow internet gambling than John McCain.
Cabot of course referred to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, saying that the election could have an effect on its repeal or continuation. According to the Las Vegas Business Press, Cabot’s expert opinion is that a vote for McCain is a vote for the UIGEA.
“If McCain is elected, the Internet gaming ban would never be repealed,” he said. “I think if Senator Obama was elected, it would be more likely to be repealed.” Cabot mentioned that many Democratic representatives like Barney Frank oppose the ban.
He mostly cited the vagueness of the UIGEA as the reason for the problems that the new administration is going to face in continuing to enforce the ban. “It’s very hard for a bank to identify what is a legal or illegal transaction,” he said.
Cabot is notorious for his extensive knowledge in the field of internet casino gambling, sweepstakes and contests. He had worked for Lionel Sawyer and Collins’ gaming law firm as chairman before moving to Las Vegas-based practice, Lewis and Roca.
Cabot has received praise from such industry experts as former Nevada Governor and attorney Bob Faiss for having worked with the state’s most prestigious law firm. His move from Arizona to Las Vegas to practice gaming law prompted him to work further in the internet casino community. Cabot is one of the co-founders of the Internation Masters of Gaming Law Foundation.
During his 27 year long career, Cabot has had a hand in legislation that has allowed foreign ownership of Las Vegas casinos.
