Re: comments on Jim's and Jeff's addenda to the gTLD MOU

[CirqueFan@aol.com]

Jeff Williams (if that is his real name) wrote:

>Maybe in Canada.  Bu it the US it is also a privately held and
>employee
>owned company.  I have never heard of the Canadian entity until now
>myself.  As I have said Check the 10k filings with the US gov through
>the Freedom of informations filing or ACT.  Just about everyting
>you need is there.

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my previous posting. "North America"
obviously needs to be defined for the geographically challenged. It includes
the UNITED STATES. IEG a Montreal based company has exclusive rights to this
name in NORTH AMERICA that means it is the ONLY Information Engineering Group
in the United States. 

Also as has been previously stated on this list a 10K is not only not
necessary for a privately held company but it is a open public record so it
is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. A search of the Edgar
database, which is the SEC database of all information filings including 10K,
10Q, 8K, 8Q, S-1, S-3, S-11, etc, shows no hits for Information Engineering
Group (IEG) as in NONE!!!

>I find this kinda of stuff rather disgusting myself.  However It seems
>to be a persistant practice of Derrell Greenwood and Ivan Pope in 
>particular, and to a lesser extent Rick Wesson.  Not just on me,
>bue it you go back through the Archives of the IAHC-Discuss list
>and this list you will find many examples or this practice.

While I am not personally affliated with any of the names mentioned above. I
do credit them with being honest in their postings as to who and what they
are.  I would find it an honor to be in a discussion with these men.

As to me being a fraud observe the fact that I have not bolstered any of my
statements by coming up with credentials. My argument speaks for itself. 

The truth will set you free Mr. Williams.

Sincerely,

Audrey

>> Attorneys have tried to track down Mr. William's claims to be a lawyer in
the
>> past. When cornered he abandons the claim that he has ever practiced law;
SMU
>> Law School, where he claims to have gotten his degree, state they have
never
>> heard of him. They have no record of him ever attending their institution
>> even as an auditor, much less a matriculated student.

>This info is also on file.  Without my spicific permission for
>access to my credentials at SMU and UTD, you cannot access this 
>information.  I have recieved several calls reguarding someone,
>(Not named) requesting information.  But this was several months
>ago.

Herein lies the largest "red herring" of all. An Attorney, or anyone with a
law degree for that matter, would know that a law school is bound by
professional canons to aid in the supression of the unauthorized practice of
law. Therefore, law schools answer these questions as a matter of
professional responsibility. A lawyer who does not cooperate in a
verification of his credentials is subject to disbarment in all 50 states.
(that is NORTH AMERICA by the way) However, Mr. Williams cannot be disbarred
because in order to acheive disbarment a person would have had to be a lawyer
in the first place. Which Mr. Williams is not. 

The shame in this whole matter is that if Mr. Williams is not even a good
liar. No matter how bad the truth is, it would be better than the tissue of
lies which he has spun.