Re: Trademark Disputes

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

Frederic,

  FYI!  I am copying this to both the gTLD-MoU list and the Domain
policy list for clearity.

FREDERIC WILF wrote:
> 
>      Okay.  We'll just leave this as an impasse.
> 
>      Based on my conversations with the registrar at SMU Law School, nobody
>      with your name ever attended.  By contrast, if you or someone with
>      your name had attended, and if there was any reason to refuse to
>      provide me with that information, then the registrar would have simply
>      refused to confirm or deny, rather than affirmatively tell me
>      something that you say is not true.

  Both institutions by Policy as I said in my previous post and under 
threat of violatin my rights, under the Constatution of the United
States and the Bill of rights.  Basic US governace documents, which
obviously you are not familier with, are not allowed or incumbent
to necessearl provide.  

  Impasse?  I beg your pardon.  You have failed in your requirnment to
provide "Burdon of proof"  Whisch is a halmark in US law.  You nad
one other made a claim that you cannot substanciate.  That is
unfortunate.
But none the less one of the keystones of what our justice system is all
about here in the US.  You should know that.  I am appauled that you do
not.  Your scandelous attempts as trying to slander myself and others
on the Domain-Policy list and the gTLD-MoU list is nothing short
of a obvious smear campain.  

  I have seen this kind of thing many times befor, and WILL NOT bow
to its practice in ANY FASSION!  I will continue to provide anyone
with the necessary tools to do so for themselvs as well as I have
and you have found out with your inquirerys.    
> 
>      --Fred
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Trademark Disputes
> Author:  jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) at INTERNET
> Date:    9/26/97 12:00 PM
> 
> Frederic,
> 
> FREDERIC WILF wrote:
> >
> > jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) wrote on 9/26/97 9:22 AM:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>"First of all I did indeed respond.  My respons was that under article
> > 14 of the US const. I have the right to privacy.  I can invoke that
> > right reguarding any spicific information I require.  At SMU and UTD,
> > information of the type that your require is NOT given out on a cart
> > blance basis form a phone call for a reason.  That being violation of my
> > or anyone elses privacy amongst others."
> >
> > Wrong!  I did not ask SMU Law School for your *private* information,
> > such as an address or a transcript.  I asked for information that all
> > schools make available, which is whether a student attended, whether a
> > student graduated, and year of graduation.
> 
>   I am afraid you are mistaken.  As a matter of policy and at my
> spicific
> request, any and all information pertaining to me or any student can
> and will be protected and not made avalible unless a spicific need
> that is in reguards to employment and varified by that ex-student,
> befor any information is released.  As I have said on at least three
> occasions both privately and publicly I have indeed recieved calls
> reguarding inquiries of someone requesting this information that I
> not only am no inguaging in an employment situation or any other
> buisness related situation.  Therefore I did not give my permission
> for release of any information on myself or any other of my associations
> with any university related org.  Adn will not do so under any other
> circumstances.
> >
> > >>"I have been contacted several times reguarding inquiries reguarding
> > me from UTD and SMU.  I ask whom those people were.  In almost every
> > case no name was left as to whom was making the inquiry.  In those
> > cases, I do not allow any information reguarding myself to be provided."
> >
> > Not relevant.  When I called SMU, I did leave my name, and the registrar
> > did call me back with the information I requested.  I didn't ask for
> > your address or a copy of your transcript.  Either one of these would
> > likely have required your prior approval.  I asked whether you had
> > attended and whether you graduated.  The registrar responded "no" to
> > both questions.  Note that *any one* can call the registrar and ask
> > these same questions.  Check it out yourself, if you don't believe me.
> 
>   I did just this mourning and was told that as I said, no information
> was or will be provided as per my request.
> >
> > I then asked you again where you attended law school, whether you ever
> > graduated, and whether you were ever a member of the bar of any state or
> > jurisdiction.  I asked because all of this is information that can be
> > verified by any one without breaching your right of privacy.
> 
>   My right to privacy was indeed not breached.  And for the reason I
> have already provided you (See above and in last post on this
> issue).
> >
> > >>"This is my CHOICE!  And I shall exercise it in any fassion that I
> > choose under the law."
> >
> > Normally, this is not an issue.  However, another member of the list
> > called you a fraud in a public message.  Rather than take his word as
> > true, or your word as true, I asked you for information that can be
> > verified.  You then sent me email that you graduated from SMU Law School
> > and had passed the bar in or more states (although you did not specify
> > the states).  I couldn't verify membership in the bar, but I did call
> > Southern Methodist U. Law School, which said they never had a student
> > with your name.
> 
>   I am no longer a member of the Bar presently.  As I do not practice
> law
> on a regular basis other than do some research for legal entities that
> ask me and I have intrest in.
> >
> > I then asked you for more information.  Did you change your name?  Is
> > there any reason why SMU would not have you listed as a one-time
> > student, let alone a graduate?  You never responded.  That, of course,
> > is your right, but it leaves me with a reasonable basis to believe that
> > you are not a lawyer or law school graduate, and never were, and that
> > you have lied to me and other members of the list about it.
> 
>   You can believe what you wish.  That is indeed your privilege, of
> course.
> As I am a very private person, and don't see the need to provide the
> information you requested without a REAL need to know.  Which you do not
> have other than your or anyone eles's curiosity.  That is not sufficient
> in my opinion.  Therefore, I do not feel obliged to provide this
> information on an open list without everyone doing so as well.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>"I am and have been a computer professional for nearly 20 years.  In
> > addition I have degrees in Law, buisness managment, and electronic
> > eng.  So?"
> >
> > FMW:>>"> Are you are "a Ex-lawyer" or a former lawyer or a law school graduate
> 
> > or a
> > > former law student who never graduated?  If so, tell us the details.  Yes, I
> 
> > > will try to verify any details that you do provide."
> >
> > JW:>>"I do not provide any of this type of information on an open circuit,
> > first of all.  Secone I surely would not provide it unless everyone
> > else on this list were to provide there's.  And third, I am not
> > your reasearch assistant."
> >
> > My concern is that your messages on this list show that you do not
> > understand the law (at least not this area of law), yet non-lawyers
> > consider your comments to come from a person who has (or had)
> > appropriate credentials.  I encourage non-lawyers to discuss the
> > law, but I discourage statements of the law, such as the ones you
> > often make, from a person who claims to be a present or former
> > lawyer, when it does not appear that you have that credential.
> 
>   You may believe that I do not have any understanding of the law in
> this
> area.  That is again your privelege.  However I know that I do have some
> experiance in this area.  I have backed my statments with quotes form
> the Lahnam Act and also the 1996 Telecommunications Act in this respect.
> Do a review of those posts.  Also just 4 days ago I also posted a
> case that was from an article in the New Your times directly related
> to Domain names and Trademark law.  If you like I can repost it to
> you for your review again.
> >
> > FMW>>"> If you are not a lawyer or an "ex-lawyer," then do not claim that
> > credential."
> >
> > JW:>>"I do not claim anything reguarding myself that is not a fact."
> >
> > The present evidence is to the contrary.
> 
>   What evidance.  Under the rules of evidance in a US cort room, you
> have only presented a personal opinion, not creditable evidance of any
> kind.
> >
> > If you are not a present or former lawyer, there's certainly no issue so long
> as
> > you don't claim to be what you're not.
> 
>   I havn't, would not, and don't!
> >
> > --Fred
> 

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com