The FINAL opinion on RonPaul.com?

[jj-]

ii) other sites aren't trying to pimp their domain to Ron for nearly a million dollars

Where do you draw the line? What's the point at which the price is high enough to be bad faith? 800,000? 849,999? How is that number calculated?

 

[jj-]

Trademarks don't have to be registered under ICANN claim cases. There are common law trademarks. Hillary's was, etc. Clearly, we don't know how they will rule, but all the discussion in the world, here, won't change that.

Oh my god, you must be a genius. Also, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[sailingaway]

Where do you draw the line? What's the point at which the price is high enough to be bad faith? 800,000? 849,999? How is that number calculated?

the point is the rules of the domain say how you can use it, to begin with. I don't know for sure Ron will win, but the question will be if it was used in violation of those rules.

Ron just tried to buy it first because he thought it was equitable under the circumstances, but if you break the rules of a license, you don't really 'have it' for that.

 

[jj-]

the point is the rules of the domain say how you can use it, to begin with. I don't know for sure Ron will win, but the question will be if it was used in violation of those rules.

Ron just tried to buy it first because he thought it was equitable under the circumstances, but if you break the rules of a license, you don't really 'have it' for that.

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know the price at which it becomes bad faith, and how it's calculated.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know the price at which it becomes bad faith, and how it's calculated.

Exactly, I want to know that too...in a free market you can ask for any price that you want.

Don't forget that the RonPaul.com folks deny making an 848K offer....sure, there's an email asking for 848K in the complaint but no proof the email address on it belongs to the owner of RonPaul.com.

 

[itshappening]

Where do you draw the line? What's the point at which the price is high enough to be bad faith? 800,000? 849,999? How is that number calculated?

In the complaint Ron's attorney said they had it valued at $50k, so he's asking way more than fair value according to independent appraiser. The judges will decide if it's fair or not but according to my experience with domains he's asking an extortionate amount

 

[fr33]

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know the price at which it becomes bad faith, and how it's calculated.

When one claims to be a Ron Paul supporter but their name is not found to have given a donation to the campaign, bad faith starts to arise from such a domain owner.

 

[qh4dotcom]

When one claims to be a Ron Paul supporter but their name is not found to have given a donation to the campaign, bad faith starts to arise from such a domain owner.

You forgot that international Ron Paul supporters could not legally donate to his campaign

 

[newbitech]

bad faith has nothing to do with how much money they asked for when approached by the campaign. Bad faith has nothing to do with how they responded to the pressure of the grassroots after Ron Paul made it known that he wanted the site on Alex Jones.

The site was certainly NOT registered in bad faith, since it was obvious Ron Paul was not willing to part with any amount of money to acquire the domain from the other Ron Paul who did in fact have the name trademarked. If Dr. Ron Paul was not willing to separate himself from his money to acquire this domain at a time when donation were pouring in, then the motive for the people to BUY the domain for $25k was not to later sell the domain at a profit.

People forget that it was pretty obvious at the time that Ron Paul and LOTS of the grassroots were actively dismissing the importance of this domain. To somehow insinuate that the people bought this domain in order to sell it back to Ron Paul is to deny the circumstances at the time the domain was transferred. They didn't purchase the domain in bad faith with the intentions of selling it back later. They certainly didn't run the domain in bad faith for 5 years while in control of the domain.

Yes they ran a store selling campaign gear that helped spread Ron Paul's message, just like many others with Ron Paul themed sites did and still do. As supporters of Ron Paul, if we make the claim that selling Ron Paul gear is evidence of bad faith, then the entire premise of this "movement" needs to be questioned. Especially in light of the evidence that Ron Paul bought some of this gear and encouraged others to make profit off of selling the message of liberty with his name attached.

The only claim that Ron Paul can legitimately make is that the site uses his name, which is the trademark claim. He has several hurdles to overcome in that claim as well. The fair use and bad faith claims must be framed in such a way to make what otherwise would have been considered die hard supporters look like scapegoats for the failure of his campaign and his advisers to secure something as simple as a domain name bearing the man's name.

 

[newbitech]

and where is any evidence that these people did not donate to the campaign? First how many college kids with no job and no money donated their time rather than lunch money? Oh must not be supporters, Lew Rockwell couldn't find their name on the money list (really, its come to that?). Second, how many people donated with a fake name? I did a couple times for the fun of it (remember the ticker?) Third, anyone else drop $25,000 and redirect search traffic to Ron Paul for 3 months from the #1 related Ron Paul search term "Ron Paul"? Didn't think so. That action alone was worth more than what Ron Paul's alleged "independent appraisal" of the domain is worth. And speaking of that appraisal, where is any evidence that is was a non bias third party appraisal? There is none.

Honestly, it disgusts me the amount of filling in the blanks that has gone on by people trying to support Ron Paul's claim at all cost. You must know that the panel will make no such assumptions and bridge no such gaps in their review of the claims! Yet, here you are trying so hard to paint these people as CRIMINALS even! Stop faking the facts! Please! If there is a piece of information left out of Ron Paul's claim it's because either they don't have the information or because they are unwilling to supply it because it will hurt their claim!

The Lew Rockwell side bar in this case should also be dismissed as well as the claims from his attorneys due to the fact that they are asking you to completely ignore the other options that Ron Paul had in this claim! Starting off a claim by asking for (and receiving I might add) ignorance is not going to endear me to taking up the cause of that claim!

Fortunately, I am not like many Ron Paul supporters who see 5 years worth of RonPaul.com and pick out 1 or 2 articles or actions and decide that the people are EVIL! No I see Ron Paul's body of work, and while this issue that he has brought has been disgusting to me in more than a couple of ways, I am not gonna turn my back on the man! It will take more than a couple of mistakes for me to judge Ron Paul like that given the totality of the evidence.

 

[CPUd]

and where is any evidence that these people did not donate to the campaign? First how many college kids with no job and no money donated their time rather than lunch money? Oh must not be supporters, Lew Rockwell couldn't find their name on the money list (really, its come to that?). Second, how many people donated with a fake name? I did a couple times for the fun of it (remember the ticker?) Third, anyone else drop $25,000 and redirect search traffic to Ron Paul for 3 months from the #1 related Ron Paul search term "Ron Paul"? Didn't think so. That action alone was worth more than what Ron Paul's alleged "independent appraisal" of the domain is worth. And speaking of that appraisal, where is any evidence that is was a non bias third party appraisal? There is none.

Honestly, it disgusts me the amount of filling in the blanks that has gone on by people trying to support Ron Paul's claim at all cost. You must know that the panel will make no such assumptions and bridge no such gaps in their review of the claims! Yet, here you are trying so hard to paint these people as CRIMINALS even! Stop faking the facts! Please! If there is a piece of information left out of Ron Paul's claim it's because either they don't have the information or because they are unwilling to supply it because it will hurt their claim!

The Lew Rockwell side bar in this case should also be dismissed as well as the claims from his attorneys due to the fact that they are asking you to completely ignore the other options that Ron Paul had in this claim! Starting off a claim by asking for (and receiving I might add) ignorance is not going to endear me to taking up the cause of that claim!

Fortunately, I am not like many Ron Paul supporters who see 5 years worth of RonPaul.com and pick out 1 or 2 articles or actions and decide that the people are EVIL! No I see Ron Paul's body of work, and while this issue that he has brought has been disgusting to me in more than a couple of ways, I am not gonna turn my back on the man! It will take more than a couple of mistakes for me to judge Ron Paul like that given the totality of the evidence.

 

[sailingaway]

and where is any evidence that these people did not donate to the campaign? First how many college kids with no job and no money donated their time rather than lunch money? Oh must not be supporters, Lew Rockwell couldn't find their name on the money list (really, its come to that?). Second, how many people donated with a fake name? I did a couple times for the fun of it (remember the ticker?) Third, anyone else drop $25,000 and redirect search traffic to Ron Paul for 3 months from the #1 related Ron Paul search term "Ron Paul"? Didn't think so. That action alone was worth more than what Ron Paul's alleged "independent appraisal" of the domain is worth. And speaking of that appraisal, where is any evidence that is was a non bias third party appraisal? There is none.

Honestly, it disgusts me the amount of filling in the blanks that has gone on by people trying to support Ron Paul's claim at all cost. You must know that the panel will make no such assumptions and bridge no such gaps in their review of the claims! Yet, here you are trying so hard to paint these people as CRIMINALS even! Stop faking the facts! Please! If there is a piece of information left out of Ron Paul's claim it's because either they don't have the information or because they are unwilling to supply it because it will hurt their claim!

The Lew Rockwell side bar in this case should also be dismissed as well as the claims from his attorneys due to the fact that they are asking you to completely ignore the other options that Ron Paul had in this claim! Starting off a claim by asking for (and receiving I might add) ignorance is not going to endear me to taking up the cause of that claim!

Fortunately, I am not like many Ron Paul supporters who see 5 years worth of RonPaul.com and pick out 1 or 2 articles or actions and decide that the people are EVIL! No I see Ron Paul's body of work, and while this issue that he has brought has been disgusting to me in more than a couple of ways, I am not gonna turn my back on the man! It will take more than a couple of mistakes for me to judge Ron Paul like that given the totality of the evidence.

It COST them money if you donated with a fake name. The staff had to go through and send back obviously fake stuff.

The panel will decide if the registrant with the license to use the name violated that license by breaking the rules of the domain and has to forfeit it. It will happen or not. But for that one domain in panama to take credit for ALL internet support and donations by others is silly.

IF they are true supporters I have more sympathy for them. Ron obviously tried to treat them in how he thought was 'doing the right thing' because he tried to pay for it, after appraising it to what HE thought, right or wrong, was the value.

If it is the wrong value, the registrant would do better to show why it is more valuable with cooperative transfer, maybe. Or maybe Ron will lose and the domain will say the guy didn't violate its rules.

I don't have to say these guys are criminal, only that the domain registration license they got was subject to certain rules, and we will find out if they think the registrant stayed within those rules, or did not.

I still think a real supporter would have made a deal with Ron so Ron could use his own name to do business. Isn't that supposed to be what we all want? I expect Ron would have given him a link on his own page, to whatever his new site was, and they both would have benefited.

But I am filling in the blanks as you say, since I don't know the facts. But neither do you.

 

[newbitech]

So many of my principles are completely disregarded in this whole process. I reject the legitimacy of the process hands down. So regardless of the decision by the panel on their illegitimate licensing schemes, I still believe the people controlling RonPaul.com did nothing wrong. They may lose the domain, but they absolutely do not deserve the treatment they have received from Ron Paul's lawyers (lying in the claim), nor his close associates(lying and spinning the UN issues), nor his army of loyal to a fault supporters(do I even need to detail the pitiful treatment?).

No I do not know all the facts, but neither have I fabricated a hateful response directed at anyone based on missing information that I have conveniently filled in in hopes that others would simply ignore it!

Not saying you are doing that, but it is definitely the theme of the pro-Ron Paul response in this matter. And it deserves to be called out for what it is. It's hateful, it's deceitful, and its shameful. It is certainly unbecoming of anyone carrying the banner of freedom and liberty. However, I must admit, the rebel colonist were very effective in their propaganda tactics and I have no doubt that this modern revolution will need to be 100's more effective in propaganda to achieve the desired results.

Of course where the colonist rebels have no doubt out shined this modern revolution is in deciding what battles were important to fight, and with that knowing and understanding that friends and allies are NOT THE ENEMY!

 

[sailingaway]

No, YOU are the one spinning the UN issue. Ron used an arbitration procedure set out in the agreement between the domain owner and the registrant. They also set out others. Ron did not choose the list, nor is he using any 'powers of the UN' in this as is implied by you and the domain registrant, FALSELY. If the UN ended tomorrow, which I think would be a grand idea, this arbitration group would survive and remain simply because it makes money based on user fees because those who want decisions in its areas of expertise use it, and mention it as an approved arbitrator in their private agreements.

I didn't see any lies by Ron's attorneys either, although as is customary with complaints filed 'on information and belief' some information sometimes turns out to be wrong, particularly when the person you are claiming against is hiding their identity behind multiple privacy layers.

 

[newbitech]

No, YOU are the one spinning the UN issue. Ron used an arbitration procedure set out in the agreement between the domain owner and the registrant. They also set out others. Ron did not choose the list, nor is he using any 'powers of the UN' in this as is implied by you and the domain registrant, FALSELY. If the UN ended tomorrow, which I think would be a grand idea, this arbitration group would survive and remain simply because it makes money based on user fees because those who want decisions in its areas of expertise use it, and mention it as an approved arbitrator in their private agreements.

I didn't see any lies by Ron's attorneys either, although as is customary with complaints filed 'on information and belief' some information sometimes turns out to be wrong, particularly when the person you are claiming against is hiding their identity behind multiple privacy layers.

What exactly have I spun? Ron Paul went to the UN when he had other options. ICANN itself is an example of global fascism, hell it's on the cutting edge. If Ron Paul was able to snap his finger and have his ideal manifest. WIPO and ICANN would both be gone. But the NAF(private arbitration firm), domain registration, and the internet would not. This is just the reality of Ron Paul's long stated positions. That he seemingly contradicted those positions is not my damn fault. The fact is tho, he did just that. It's only spin when you try to minimize the apparent contradiction by lying about it (See Rockwell and RP's lawyers statements), or flat denying it in the face of facts.

What in the HELL are these "the powers of the UN"? You see, this is some crap you made up just now! You claim I implied this falsely, but you are the one who made up that phrase! NOT ME!

I am not implying that Ron Paul is sending in the Blue Helmets to seize this domain if that is what you mean. I am stating point blank that Ron Paul has put his matter in the hands of a globalist governing body to decide the fate. WIPO is just as illegitimate as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, and the host of other UN chartered groups of people!

Ron Paul doesn't get a pass for going to the UN by me because I refuse to remain ignorant about what the UN is and what it's powers are. Just because he didn't send an ambassador to the Security counsel doesn't pardon him! As if! Only people with blinders on believe that the UN's only power is granting economic sanctions, sending in peace keepers (blue hats), and approving US military occupation of the undeveloped world.

 

[newbitech]

my house is a well known den of thieves. But, by all means come and interact and do business with me since I do operate legitimately from time to time.

 

[sailingaway]

What exactly have I spun? Ron Paul went to the UN when he had other options. ICANN itself is an example of global fascism, hell it's on the cutting edge. If Ron Paul was able to snap his finger and have his ideal manifest. WIPO and ICANN would both be gone. But the NAF(private arbitration firm), domain registration, and the internet would not. This is just the reality of Ron Paul's long stated positions. That he seemingly contradicted those positions is not my damn fault. The fact is tho, he did just that. It's only spin when you try to minimize the apparent contradiction by lying about it (See Rockwell and RP's lawyers statements), or flat denying it in the face of facts.

What in the HELL are these "the powers of the UN"? You see, this is some crap you made up just now! You claim I implied this falsely, but you are the one who made up that phrase! NOT ME!

I am not implying that Ron Paul is sending in the Blue Helmets to seize this domain if that is what you mean. I am stating point blank that Ron Paul has put his matter in the hands of a globalist governing body to decide the fate. WIPO is just as illegitimate as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, and the host of other UN chartered groups of people!

Ron Paul doesn't get a pass for going to the UN by me because I refuse to remain ignorant about what the UN is and what it's powers are. Just because he didn't send an ambassador to the Security counsel doesn't pardon him! As if! Only people with blinders on believe that the UN's only power is granting economic sanctions, sending in peace keepers (blue hats), and approving US military occupation of the undeveloped world.

If you had explained what it did, as I did, it would not be a headline or controversial. The difference is the spin.

 

[angelatc]

When one claims to be a Ron Paul supporter but their name is not found to have given a donation to the campaign, bad faith starts to arise from such a domain owner.

Nonsense. I didn't give him a flipping dime this time around.

 

[angelatc]

If you had explained what it did, as I did, it would not be a headline or controversial. The difference is the spin.

The difference is that you're the one spinning it though.

 

[angelatc]

and where is any evidence that these people did not donate to the campaign? First how many college kids with no job and no money donated their time rather than lunch money? Oh must not be supporters, Lew Rockwell couldn't find their name on the money list (really, its come to that?)..

Oddly enough, I can't find Lew Rockwell's name on the donor list either, using Open Secrets.