However, the forfeiture hearing has been stayed, pending a ruling from the Court of Appeals.

In oral arguments Friday, lawyers representing six domain names, two online gambling trade groups and The Poker Players Alliance said the Commonwealth’s action is legal and constitutional flawed.

They focused on four arguments:

■ Wingate does not have jurisdiction to allow the state to seize domains registered in other countries where gambling is legal.

■ Domain names are not gambling devices.

■ Domain names can only be seized after a criminal conviction. The state has not attempted to criminally prosecute the Web site operators.

■ Kentucky is prohibited by the commerce clause of the U.S Constitution from regulating interstate and international commerce, which the trade groups argue Wingate’s order affectively allows.

“We have Kentucky exercising worldwide jurisdiction,” said Frankfort lawyer William E. Johnson, who represents five domain names.

Friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the online gambling interests were filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky; Network Solutions LLC; and The Poker Players Alliance.

The owners of gambling sites did not appear in court Friday and have not directly participated in the lawsuit. Instead, proxy owners of six domain names and two trade groups have sought to represent their interests.

The cabinet has argued that the proxy owners and trade groups don’t have standing to challenge the seizure since they’re not revealing their client’s identities, and hence can’t prove they own the gambling sites.

Trade groups and the ACLU of Kentucky, said that the Commonwealth is attempting to coerce the gambling sites into self-incrimination, prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, or risk losing their domain names.

Louisville lawyer Jon L. Fleischaker, who represents the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), argued that domain names are no more than billboards. He noted that the Horseshoe Casino in Southern Indiana can advertise in Kentucky, even though gambling is illegal here, because of the First Amendment.

Seizing a domain name is no different than the state seizing a casino billboard, Fleischaker said.

“That is classic prior restraint,” he said.

The state wants gambling sites to block Kentucky Internet users from viewing the sites. But such technology is prohibitively expensive and faulty, gambling trade groups argued in briefs.

Furthermore, Kentucky is constitutionally prohibited from imposing such a requirement for Web sites located in other states and other countries, where the Web sites may be perfectly legal, the lawyers argued.

In briefs, the lawyers likened it to China attempting to seize a domain name registered in the United States because the Web site promotes religion.

“If we can do it to them, they can do it to us,” said lawyer John L. Tate, who represents vicsbingo.com and the Interactive Gaming Council, a trade group.

Another key issue is whether domain names are gambling devices.

Johnson said domain names do not meet the legal definition of a gambling device because domain names are not electronic devices that are manufactured. He noted that Kentucky’s gaming statutes were written in 1974, long before the Internet was commercially available.

Two of the three judges expressed skepticism about the government’s case.

Judge Jeff Taylor asked how the government could seize the domain names when the Web site operators have not been prosecuted.

Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown “taught a law school class 27 years ago and he taught that there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” Taylor said.

It would shock me if this action is not throw out by the Court of Appeals.

It is clearly unconstitutional on many grounds and domain names are simply not gambling devices.

The Court will not publish its ruling until after the new year.