[ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

["Andrew S. Mansfield" <andrew_mansfield@yahoo.com>]

Mr. Williams:

In response to your lengthy but rather unresponse
e-mail, I have only a few questions relating to your
"answers" that follow each question:

1. What did my advertisement not suggest in a "direct
way?"  What is "misleading" about it?  Provide
definite, understandable answers.

  However it
> doesn't
> seem to be that you advertisement suggested that in
> a direct way, hence why I said "I took" your
> advertisement as
> misleading.  I still think it does appear so, BTW...
> 

2. What exactly is misleading according to Dr.
Berryhill that you agree with?

> 
>   It is misleading as I indicated below in agreement
> with John
> Berryhill's post to the UDRP Task force post which I
> provided...
> 

3. Your threats are misplaced.  Please forward the
information to any authority you wish.  As I said,
speech on the issue of serving as a UDRP regulator is
not regulated by the Bar.  The state Attorneys General
are not going to prosecute me for fraud or deceptive
advertising (you cannot even point out what is
supposedly misleading).  The truth is it was a simple
and accurate email to usenet and my website is simple,
accurate and up-to-date.

 forwarding the
> information that John referenced to the proper state
> atty.'s generals office as well as the ABA and/or
> the California Bar Associations ethics committee...
> I shall include this response as well...
> 

4. Almost all UDRP arbitration representatives charge
a flat fee depending on (1) forum and (2) number of
domain nmaes in the complaint.  Run a search on Google
or Overture.com for "domain name attorney," for
example.  By the way, many of us who provide this
service pay for listings there.  Is that somehow
included in your rambling and inaccurate indictment of
what is ethical?

>  "Flat Fee"..."  Which means that I got the
> impression, as it seems
> John did as well, that your advertisement was a bit
> unusual or
> less than accurate as to arbitration
> considerations...  Therefore
> I get the immediate impression that part of your
> advertisement was
> seemingly "Less than Honest"...
> 

5. The footnote below is just plain wrong.  Dr.
Berryhill appears to confuse enforcement of an
"arbitration" award in a US Court as a formal
arbitration with the definition of "arbitration."  Any
binding decision making process in which both sides
make a presentation and a third party renders a
decision based on principles of equity or law is an
arbitration.

> 
>       [1]   I am unaware of administrative
> proceedings under the UDRP
> having been
>       elevated to the legal status of arbitration's,
> and every court to
> consider the
>       issue has expressly rejected applying
> principles of review of
> arbitration
>       awards."
> 

Look, I didn't bring this thread before the GA DNSO.
The first I was made aware of it was being defamed by
Dr. Berryhill on an archived e-mail discussion group
and then copied on defamatory e-mails by you, Mr.
Williams.

You should know what your talking about before you
jump into a topic like this.  You should also know
that speaking without knowing what you are talking
about carries severe financial penalities under the
law of defamation.

Andrew S. Mansfield
http://www.mendolaw.com 

=====
Andrew S. Mansfield
mansfield@pobox.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html