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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Andrew,

Andrew S. Mansfield wrote:

> 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.

  I answered this question already Andrew.  Read below again
for a review and better comprehension.

>
>
>   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?

  See the bottom of the post I referenced. Also see the PTC
documentation
on the WIPO web site which John indirectly referenced.

>
>
> >
> >   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.

  Already done.

> As I said,
> speech on the issue of serving as a UDRP regulator is
> not regulated by the Bar.

  I agree with this.

>  The state Attorneys General
> are not going to prosecute me for fraud or deceptive
> advertising (you cannot even point out what is
> supposedly misleading).

  I don't want to see you prosecuted for anything.  Never indicated
that I did.  I do believe that you advertisement was misleading as
I already indicated.  I still think so.  My lawyer also thinks so
according to what he told me today.

> The truth is it was a simple
> and accurate email to usenet and my website is simple,
> accurate and up-to-date.

  I haven't reviewed your Web site all that closely.  I have skimmed
it.  I cannot say with any real confidence that your web site is
accurate or up to date.  However I can and have said that your
advertisement to the usenet news list was as posted to the
UDRP Task Force archives from John, is misleading.

>
>
>  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.

  That's good.  I also think you mean Domain Names,
not "domain names"..

>  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?

Not necessarily.  However the code of ethical conduct
for such advertisements should be well understood by
yourself I would think...  ???

>
>
> >  "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.

  I don't agree with you here.  I have now found two other
lawyers that are specialists in this area of law, that also do not
agree with you either...

>
>
> >
> >       [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.

  Your right I did post this information to the DNSO GA
forum.  I did so because I found it interesting and informative
to other stakeholders that are now locked out from active
participation in the DNSO /GNSO Task Force processes
so as to aid in keeping others informed that do have an interest
and a stake.


>
>
> You should know what your talking about before you
> jump into a topic like this.

  I do.  That's why I did.

>  You should also know
> that speaking without knowing what you are talking
> about carries severe financial penalities under the
> law of defamation.

  Oh?  I did not defame you in any way.  I think you know that.
I think you are just trying to pressure or intimidate me by making such
a claim publicly because your own advertisement was publicized
by John Berryhill and I sent it as a reference asking a question
as I indicated in the subject line.  Well Andrew, I guess you don't
know me very well or my actual background.  I DONT intimidate.
I DO NOT cower to the type of pressure you are attempting to bring
with YOUR threat of suing me in your response.  I work with law
enforcement agencies whenever and where ever I think I need to or
should.  I hope you are now better aware of what I am about and
where I stand.

  I have a law degree, I do not practice law.  I
could easily do so if I wished.  But I don't.  I have had good and
bad experiences with lawyers of various types, sorts or political
bents.  I disagree strongly as do almost all of our members with the
ICANN/WIPO UDRP and participated on two of the WIPO
discussion forums prior to it being hoist upon the stakeholders
by the than Interim ICANN BoD.  Many existing IP atty.'s also
disagree with the present form of the UDRP as well.  Kathy Klineman
come to mind.  As does Milton Mueler.

  So if you wish to sue me, be prepared for a counter suit as well
as one hell of a fight!  Understood?  No bluster here, just fact!
I have NEVER been beaten in court yet.  And I think you know,
you got no case here anyway...

  This said...

  I have no problem at all with you seeking to represent Domain Name
holders.  In fact I applaud such.  I don't yet know enough about
your background in legal matters from independent sources.  But I will!
I am very good at doing discovery...


>
>
> Andrew S. Mansfield
> http://www.mendolaw.com
>
> =====
> Andrew S. Mansfield
> mansfield@pobox.com

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


--
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