Ron Paul.com: Lew Rockwell Wants RonPaul.com

[jj-]

We have it on good authority that Lew Rockwell (and not Ron Paul) is the driving force behind the ongoing legal ambush on RonPaul.com.

The reason is simple: Lew Rockwell wants RonPaul.com for himself.

Lew Rockwell is already in control of Ron Paul’s Twitter account.

Last week’s callous attack on Chris Kyle just two days after his death was only a preview of what RonPaul.com will be turned into in the future if Lew Rockwell gains control of it.

The Ron Paul we knew and loved will be twisted, distorted and misquoted to fit into Lew Rockwell’s anarchopacifist worldview.

Source (http://www.dailypaul.com/274492/ronpaulcom-claims-lew-rockwell-wants-domain-for-himself)

[ronpaulfollower999]

Lew Rockwell is already in control of Ron Paul’s Twitter account.


I figured that. IMO, he is also in control of his FB.

[green73]

Total bs. And what is this crap:



The Ron Paul we knew and loved will be twisted, distorted and misquoted to fit into Lew Rockwell’s anarchopacifist worldview.

That’s exactly what we meant when we said that we don’t want RonPaul.com to fall into the wrong hands.

He said 'enemy hands' before. Not that his bullshit accusations are true, but Lew is the enemy? The guy is really getting desperate.

[green73]

I figured that. IMO, he is also in control of his FB.

You have nothing to back that up with.

[fr33]

I bet their "proof" is that they read somebody here make some baseless accusation.

[sailingaway]

Total bs. And what is this crap:



He said 'enemy hands' before. Not that his bullshit accusations are true, but Lew is the enemy? The guy is really getting desperate.


I don't think Lew is the enemy but I sure don't want him representing the way he speaks as Ron. Their personalities and approaches are completely different.

[ronpaulfollower999]

You have nothing to back that up with.

Just my opinion. But I see the ultimate source is RonPaul.com, which is making me question the info posted in the OP.

[Matt Collins]

Ron and Lew are VERY good friends; Ron trusts Lew. The people at RonPaul.com are already proven to be untrustworthy

[green73]

I bet their "proof" is that they read somebody here make some baseless accusation.

My thoughts exactly.

[sailingaway]

Just my opinion. But I see the ultimate source is RonPaul.com, which is making me question the info posted in the OP.

Yeah, I'm not taking it at face value, but LR can be snarky and use bombastic language in his own way to call attention to things. It is one reason I don't read him regularly. Ron never did that.

Running his website is one thing, although I would rather Ron had a new generation tech person,but I don't want him to be 'the voice' for Ron.

[Lucille]

Lew Rockwell is already in control of Ron Paul’s Twitter account.

Last week’s callous attack on Chris Kyle just two days after his death was only a preview of what RonPaul.com will be turned into in the future if Lew Rockwell gains control of it.


Yeah, I have my doubts about that. I don't believe it was Ron or Lew. It didn't sound like either of them.

It looks like RP.com scrubbed the site of any mention of RP v. RP.com:


Not Found

You tried going to http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/, and it doesn't exist. All is not lost! You can search for what you're looking for.

[fr33]

My thoughts exactly.

This is probably their "good authority":


Seeing Lew being the only celebrity mouthpiece weighing in on this just seems to confirm my hunch that the Lew Rockwell wing is feeling sad that they're not being invited to cash in on the C4L, and he wants to use the Ron Paul site to essentially revive the newsletters for a new generation.

I think, although I will never be able to prove it, and this is of course sheer speculation, it also indicates that Lew is probably accessing Ron Paul's Twitter, and that he probably wrote the Kyle tweet specifically to appeal to the radical libertarians - his personal cash cow.

[green73]

Yeah, I'm not taking it at face value, but LR can be snarky and use bombastic language in his own way to call attention to things. It is one reason I don't read him regularly. Ron never did that.

Running his website is one thing, although I would rather Ron had a new generation tech person,but I don't want him to be 'the voice' for Ron.

I love the way Lew speaks. He is awesome in interviews. And none of it is hyperbole. I wish we had more like him.

Why would you not go to the site because of that? He produces like 5% of the overall content.

[Antischism]

"Callous attack on Chris Kyle"? HAH. Right.

What bullshit.

[kathy88]

Ron and Lew are VERY good friends; Ron trusts Lew. The people at RonPaul.com are already proven to be untrustworthy

Repeating this in every thread does not prove it to be true, Matt.

[Lucille]

I love the way Lew speaks. He is awesome in interviews. And none of it is hyperbole. I wish we had more like him.

All that.

[AGRP]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24551218.jpg

[jj-]

Repeating this in every thread does not prove it to be true, Matt.

No, repeating it doesn't prove it, but capitalizing the key word in "VERY good friends" does prove it.

[green73]

Actually Collins has got me wondering if the "authority" is out of the Benton/Wead camp.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Is Benton still involved with Ron? And I figured Wead is probably too involved selling fruit juice (or what ever it is) to care about RonPaul.com.

[angelatc]

I don't think Lew is the enemy but I sure don't want him representing the way he speaks as Ron. Their personalities and approaches are completely different.


I don't care for Lew Rockwell either. But he is Ron Paul's best friend. If you consider that Ron and Lew successfully did business together in the past, it makes sense that Ron would be open to doing business with him again.

But I do hope that this is based on more than the speculation posted here.

[angelatc]

Is Benton still involved with Ron? And I figured Wead is probably too involved selling fruit juice (or what ever it is) to care about RonPaul.com.




Hahaha! Maybe Wead wants to sell fruit juice on RonPaul.com !

[fr33]

I thought Wead was selling milkshakes.

[itshappening]

Ron Paul is behind RP.com thing, he signed the affidavit himself and it was notarized by his daughter and Ronnie also signed one. It was in the complaint.

So it's definitely the Paul family, whether Lew will be entrusted with it or not I don't know but I do think the Mises Institute who have an online operation would be a good custodian, especially if something happened to Ron who is approaching 80

[green73]

Hahaha! Maybe Wead wants to sell fruit juice on RonPaul.com !

You like crazy speculation. Here's some. Maybe they would love to tie Ron to "radical anarchists" in order to help Rand separate himself.

[angelatc]

All that.


You don't think Lew speaks in hyperbole? I submit, "Hitlerworld. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132340.html)"

Eh, I'm not a Lew fan. But I don't mind the use of hyperbole and sarcasm in writing, a revelation that surprises exactly nobody, I suspect. I do find it distasteful in the media, who should limit themselves to writing facts, but I think opinion writers are supposed create and invoke emotion.

[jj-]

So it's definitely the Paul family, whether Lew will be entrusted with it or not I don't know but I do think the Mises Institute who have an online operation would be a good custodian, especially if something happened to Ron who is approaching 80

Yeah, I was wondering if that's what Lew has in mind.

[supermario21]

I like Lew, but he's the guy I praise and discuss when I talk to other libertarians I know (who actually first mentioned him to me), not the guy I would use to bring people into the movement.

[green73]

You don't think Lew speaks in hyperbole? I submit, "Hitlerworld. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132340.html)"

Eh, I'm not a Lew fan. But I don't mind the use of hyperbole and sarcasm in writing, a revelation that surprises exactly nobody, I suspect. I do find it distasteful in the media, who should limit themselves to writing facts, but I think opinion writers are supposed create and invoke emotion.

That's not hyperbole. He's drawing a parallel.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, I was wondering if that's what Lew has in mind.
:rolleyes: .....I doubt it. Can you relay a message for me? (Though I'm sure Tim Martin has read it, if not from me, then from the countless other people asking) How much money was made from ad revenue and merchandise sales? Is it safe for me to assume Ron Paul realized how much was being made off of his name and decided enough was enough? I have asked a few times already. Other people have as well. This speculation that Lew Rockwell runs Paul's twitter and the specific reference to the Chris Kyle tweet leads me to believe he frequents this site. Hell, that he even reads these threads. Why has he not come forward? It seems to me that he would do himself a favor to get out in front of these facts. (Instead of saying they operated at a loss- which I might add, is bullshit, and hurts his/their reputation in my eyes) This post is also directed at qh4dotcom.

[mac_hine]

Hitlerworld."

Seems accurate to me.


Police wielding submachine guns raced to the home of Ian Driscoll, 43, after he posted a new profile picture on Facebook.

Mr Driscoll's picture showed an Action Man plastic figure and in the background was a toy mortar gun, around six inches tall.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278111/Armed-police-storm-house-fearing-owner-Ian-Driscoll-mortar-posted-picture-6in-tall-Action-Man-weapon-Facebook.html

[jj-]

k, just relayed the message, I forgot what the response was though.

[kcchiefs6465]

k, just relayed the message, I forgot what the response was though.
You can relay.. or simply read.. why I support Ron Paul and not your schemey scam of a site. I very much hope he gets his name for free, and that you must pay out of pocket, (not by selling Ron Paul tshirts) the costs of the arbitration process and lawyer fees. That is all.

ETA: Oh, and so you know, my views (and a few others I'm sure) on this subject were changing. The shady way you guys handle yourselves is reason enough for me to believe Ron Paul is in the right.

[angelatc]

You can relay.. or simply read.. why I support Ron Paul and not your schemey scam of a site. I very much hope he gets his name for free, and that you must pay out of pocket, (not by selling Ron Paul tshirts) the costs of the arbitration process and lawyer fees. That is all.




Did you read the agreement? The fees are paid by the person filing the complaint, unless the person defending the complaint chooses to have a 3 person panel instead of a one person panel. Then, they have to pay the extra costs of that.

[green73]

He pulled it. Also pulled others as well, such as this gem:


We were shocked to discover that Ron Paul did in fact respond to our offer. Somehow we had overlooked the email he sent us on January 16, 2013. We just found it in our inbox.

Here is the response that Ron Paul sent us:

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your kind offer.

I reviewed it in great detail and discussed it with my staff.

As you may be aware I am about to launch an online TV show entitled “Liberty with Ron Paul”.

My staff advised me that RonPaul.com would be the best domain name to use for my show.

Tim, I’m very grateful of what you and your partners have done for the liberty movement. I hope you made good money and were able to realize the libertarian dream I was fortunate enough to turn into reality for myself: making a living while promoting the cause of liberty.

I appreciate the fact that you invested a lot of money and energy to secure RonPaul.com and keep the website up and running for almost 5 years (how fast time flies!), and I’m now asking you for one final sacrifice: to make RonPaul.com available for my new show at no cost.

I’ll be glad to have you as a regular guest on my show and give you space to write a biweekly column titled “From the Grassroots”. I’ll ask my staff to put up a prominent link to your website, which I followed very closely over the years and which I recommend you host at RonPaul.org.

Thanks also for your kind offer of your mailing list. I will put you in touch with my marketing manager. Maybe we could run a test mailing to your list to determine if it fits our purpose and then make you an offer?

Now that you have my personal email address feel free to write me anytime.

If you can, please respond within the next 2 weeks as Lew Rockwell is breathing down my neck and who knows what he will do next.

In Liberty,

Ron

Disclaimer: Unfortunately this entire post is PURE FAN FICTION. We never heard back from Ron Paul. Who knows how things might have turned out if he had responded like above?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Man everyone pins every thing on Lew. The guy is a great asset for our community and has done so many wonderful things and people shit on him all time for things that you should be coming to the defense of! People are so afraid to speak the truth now-a-days in fear of 'repercussions'. I remember the days where Paulites said FUCK YOU, I DONT GIVE A SHIT. Truth to power. Now...you're all ready being assimilated and you don't even notice. Talk about disappointment.

[sailingaway]

I love the way Lew speaks. He is awesome in interviews. And none of it is hyperbole. I wish we had more like him.

Why would you not go to the site because of that? He produces like 5% of the overall content.

I don't avoid his site, but there are places I go pretty much every day and it isn't on my list. I read a bunch of good articles there, over time, though, and mises.org is terrific.

But you can love the way Lew speaks for LEW, I'm not saying he is a terrible person, he's been a great friend for Ron and has a terrific brain. But he also has stylistic flourishes that turn me off. Ron doesn't sling red meat, not left not right, not at all. He doesn't take digs at personalities, (almost never) to charge up partisan fever rather than build bridges to maximize persuasion. He challenges people to defend the ISSUES. I really, really respect that about him. I stopped reading John Tate's emails a long time ago. During the campaign I saw 'Ron needs money' and sent it or put it in the next money bomb, but I disliked the emails over Ron's name, they actually offended me as insulting my intelligence. RON on the other hand speaks, per places that rate this sort of thing, with an 11th grade vocabulary to the public, and in my opinion, frequently higher. He knows you can operate a dictionary if need be. He doesn't dumb it down for the idiots, giving the impression he assumes you are one.

I really really hope to see Ron's tone out there from him. Lew can use his accounts if only Ron uses his initials, that would be fine, as long as we knew it. But when it says it is from Ron, I'd really like it to be.

[MRK]

If the users of RonPaul.com supported Ron Paul, they would be happy to give the domain to him or whoever Ron saw fit. They just seem like they're scared to let go of their source of income and they're too weak to find another one and are crying about a part of their ICANN contract getting enforced.

[green73]

I have it on good authority that "Tim is a lunatic".

[newbitech]

If the users of RonPaul.com supported Ron Paul, they would be happy to give the domain to him or whoever Ron saw fit. They just seem like they're scared to let go of their source of income and they're too weak to find another one and are crying about a part of their ICANN contract getting enforced.

or maybe they don't want to abruptly disrupt the community of Ron Paul supporters that have built up around the site in the last 5 years? It's not the ICANN enforcement they are pissed about. It's the fact that Ron Paul chose a UN agency to arbitrate it when he had other options.

But, I bet if feels good to bash them about it anyways.

[kcchiefs6465]

Did you read the agreement? The fees are paid by the person filing the complaint, unless the person defending the complaint chooses to have a 3 person panel instead of a one person panel. Then, they have to pay the extra costs of that.
No, I've really just been following a few different discussions. Patriotone, newbitech, itshappening, confederate and sewrratt have done a great job explaining some of the process and helping me understand the legal aspect of domain registration etc. (UDRP and WIPO and NAF etc.. it's really not my kind of reading. My 'ADD' starts acting up lol.) Thanks for explaining more as well. Simply from what I know and the responses (in some cases, lack of responses) I've gotten from people obviously affiliated with the site I'll simply state I am on Ron Paul's side. I hope he gets the name (while paying the minimal amount of fees for the WIPO proceeding) and gets a chance to have his web series move forward. My views were changing in that I saw some wrong on both sides, but quite frankly, the way the people there handle themselves really changed all that. They got 'fat' for long enough. Give the man his name. (I really don't believe they were true supporters to begin with, now)

Oh, and I tried my best when Ron Paul first mentioned on Alex Jones to get a money bomb going to buy the site as a present for Ron Paul for all he has done. If they told me $848,000 personally, I'd probably spit in their face. No wonder Ron Paul took the actions he took.

[nayjevin]

I have a friend who has read Lew Rockwell for about 15 years, but is not yet completely sold on Ron Paul. He's a conservative, not an anarchist.

LewRockwell.com has been absurdly effective. Thomas Sowell, Karen Kwiatkowski, Dr. Mercola, etc etc etc.... that site is not an echo chamber of anarchic thought.

RonPaul.com on the other hand, preaches to the choir.

[MRK]

or maybe they don't want to abruptly disrupt the community of Ron Paul supporters that have built up around the site in the last 5 years? It's not the ICANN enforcement they are pissed about. It's the fact that Ron Paul chose a UN agency to arbitrate it when he had other options.

But, I bet if feels good to bash them about it anyways.

I've actually been in this situation before, where I was the admin of a facebook group that supported another group that had its main presence off of facebook. Once the group started using facebook and had redoubled their facebook group efforts, a representative of the group asked me to shut the group down or let him be the sole admin. I refused, stating the reasons X,Y and Z as to why the community and the group were better served with another group. I added a link to the official page right at the top of the alternate group, and and added a couple more links throughtout the page, because I was genuinely interested in the growing of the support of the official group.

So I see where you and the community might be coming from, as I've been there in the place of the current owner of RonPaul.com. The current owner and the community may feel like they would better be able to support the movement by not wanting to give up the domain, and instead leaving it how it was. And maybe they would be correct. I know I felt the same way, or at least, I wanted to take a gamble and see if I could lead the movement better than the official delegates. Fortunately for me in Facebook, my status as admin of the group was virtually bulletproof when it came to someone else wanting control of the group I was the founding admin for. Unfortunately for the current owner of the RonPaul.com, the contract he signed to gain exclusive use of his ICANN domain allowed for arbitration from ICANN, the group that allowed him the license to use that name in the first place.

If he doesn't like it, he can start another protocol of packet sharing and networking, and regain his RonPaul.com domain name in the new protocol. When the writing is on the wall, why act like it's not there? It's there. I see no need to go down like a crybaby, but, I guess I was either not raised to be rewarded when crying or I just grew up at some point into an adult.

[kcchiefs6465]

or maybe they don't want to abruptly disrupt the community of Ron Paul supporters that have built up around the site in the last 5 years? It's not the ICANN enforcement they are pissed about. It's the fact that Ron Paul chose a UN agency to arbitrate it when he had other options.

But, I bet if feels good to bash them about it anyways.
As long as I've been frequenting this site, not one person has ever sourced a ronpaul.com article, blog, post, video, etc. It was always here before there. Even lately, WRT "Lew Rockwell wrote the Chris Kyle tweet etc." They can't even get their misinformational bullshit out first. It's always here first. Thanks for the information on the proceeding/U.N. aspect of WIPO but with all due respect, their ship already set sail for me. Maybe had they handled things different people would mention them in a different light.

[newbitech]

<snip>
Oh, and I tried my best when Ron Paul first mentioned on Alex Jones to get a money bomb going to buy the site as a present for Ron Paul for all he has done. If they told me $848,000 personally, I'd probably spit in their face. No wonder Ron Paul took the actions he took.</snip>

part in red.. I will try and be gentle, but I just want you to know the way that comes across. On the one hand, it sounds from the emotional outpouring that Ron Paul being able to control RonPaul.com is of extraordinary value. On the other hand, you'd spit in the guys face over 850k, the value he placed on it?

I'd just like to ask, if you had to put a dollar amount on Ron Paul being able to run ronpaul.com, would you? And if you would, I am guessing you'd say less than 850k? Isn't that kind of cheap and a low blow if yes and yes?


Also, the first part. I thought the same thing. At any point along the line the grassroots could have rallied and picked up that site. And what really gets me down, is realizing that Ron Paul's campaign in 2012 alone spent 8 MILLION on marketing including internet...

[sailingaway]

or maybe they don't want to abruptly disrupt the community of Ron Paul supporters that have built up around the site in the last 5 years? It's not the ICANN enforcement they are pissed about. It's the fact that Ron Paul chose a UN agency to arbitrate it when he had other options.

But, I bet if feels good to bash them about it anyways.

as of the other day the site was listed on whosis FOR SALE, when Ron came into it the site owner said it was FOR SALE. Apparently he just leased it out to the guy who ran a fan site and apparently on one side or the other that lease wasn't being renewed.


My opinion was based on the original selling price of $848k. And since then I've seen several things that also bother me like the statement in the complaint (page 8) that the owner's only action in regards to the domain was registering it and then leasing it out to a third party for a fee. If that's the case, then I think we should stop referring to him as Saint ronpaul.com. That statement, if true, implies the guy who leased the website did all the work...not the owner.

Maybe we all should be keeping an open mind instead of taking sides until all the evidence is out. LOL...now that I typed that out even I realize is impossible for this crowd.


I now have to find and read page 8 of the complaint.

[newbitech]

As long as I've been frequenting this site, not one person has ever sourced a ronpaul.com article, blog, post, video, etc. It was always here before there. Even lately, WRT "Lew Rockwell wrote the Chris Kyle tweet etc." They can't even get their misinformational bullshit out first. It's always here first. Thanks for the information on the proceeding/U.N. aspect of WIPO but with all due respect, their ship already set sail for me. Maybe had they handled things different people would mention them in a different light.

so what if it wasn't sourced? This is obviously a hard core fan site. The people who post here are a tiny fraction of Ron Paul support. Tiny. You give ONE example of a post you don't like in 5 years.

One out of over 40 THOUSAND pieces of content currently hosted on ronpaul.com.

You my friend, just as Ron Paul's advisers are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

[newbitech]

as of the other day the site was listed on whosis FOR SALE, when Ron came into it the site owner said it was FOR SALE. Apparently he just leased it out to the guy who ran a fan site and apparently on one side or the other that lease wasn't being renewed.

I now have to find and read page 8 of the complaint.

No evidence of the leasing claim. zilcho. That is made up I believe.

As far as listing on whois, that could have been tied to prospect of Ron Paul's party making the purchase inquiry. The guy mentioned the escrow company as well. That's not going to be an issue. At all. They will be able to show that the site wasn't for sale for the last 5 years until Ron Paul initially approached them.

[sailingaway]

No evidence of the leasing claim. zilcho. That is made up I believe.

As far as listing on whois, that could have been tied to prospect of Ron Paul's party making the purchase inquiry. The guy mentioned the escrow company as well. That's not going to be an issue. At all. They will be able to show that the site wasn't for sale for the last 5 years until Ron Paul initially approached them.

The guy who said it cited page 8 of the complaint, so I am going to look that up. That would pretty much explain why the site owner wasn't being treated as a supporter though, wouldn't it? There would be no evidence he ever was one. the tenant was the supporter, in that case.

[kcchiefs6465]

part in red.. I will try and be gentle, but I just want you to know the way that comes across. On the one hand, it sounds from the emotional outpouring that Ron Paul being able to control RonPaul.com is of extraordinary value. On the other hand, you'd spit in the guys face over 850k, the value he placed on it?

I'd just like to ask, if you had to put a dollar amount on Ron Paul being able to run ronpaul.com, would you? And if you would, I am guessing you'd say less than 850k? Isn't that kind of cheap and a low blow if yes and yes?


Also, the first part. I thought the same thing. At any point along the line the grassroots could have rallied and picked up that site. And what really gets me down, is realizing that Ron Paul's campaign in 2012 alone spent 8 MILLION on marketing including internet...
WRT to spitting in their face- Hyperbole. It was almost deleted from my post as I knew how some people may take that. As to the 848,000 dollar offer- The negotiation would not go too much farther when the first offer was so utterly ridiculous. It is an insult to Ron Paul. A true supporter would not try to bilk a great Statesmen out of the most money possible. Truthfully I could see a reasonable price Ron Paul could have bought the domain name for. (It would be somewhere between $50,000 and 100,000- in other words, one year of what they probably make) What's cheap and what's a low blow is to offer the man you supposedly support a domain name he needs for .848 million dollars. That's what cheap. He really acts as if he couldn't have been retained as the webmaster. Couldn't have drew an honest salary instead of bilking new supporters who might not know that it is not Ron Paul the proceeds go to but rather a random (before lately hidden) man.

Oh, and I agree WRT to the campaign management of the money. A lot could have been done that wasn't. That is mainly besides the point. (I do see the point you are making)

[fr33]

The anarchopacifist line showed their true colors. Next they'll be throwing around words like anti-Semitic kook.

[sailingaway]

OK, the complaint is no longer linked through ronpauldotcom they took down that entire post. I will have to find it somewhere else.

[kcchiefs6465]

so what if it wasn't sourced? This is obviously a hard core fan site. The people who post here are a tiny fraction of Ron Paul support. Tiny. You give ONE example of a post you don't like in 5 years.

One out of over 40 THOUSAND pieces of content currently hosted on ronpaul.com.

You my friend, just as Ron Paul's advisers are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Maybe so. Their handling of the situation rubbed me the wrong way. I am on Ron Paul's side of this argument and I hope he wins. Had they have gotten in front of the facts, released a little information regarding the financial aspect of the site, they could have had at least another supporter. Though many posts I've read state about as much. (Not supporting them because of the perceived shadyness)

[cajuncocoa]

Ron and Lew are VERY good friends; Ron trusts Lew. The people at RonPaul.com are already proven to be untrustworthyWe heard you the first 500 times you posted this.

[kcchiefs6465]

OK, the complaint is no longer linked through ronpauldotcom they took down that entire post. I will have to find it somewhere else.
I would imagine sales steeply dropped off.

[cajuncocoa]

I love the way Lew speaks. He is awesome in interviews. And none of it is hyperbole. I wish we had more like him.
Indeed.

[PatriotOne]

No evidence of the leasing claim. zilcho. That is made up I believe.



Just because WE don't have proof of the third party lease doesn't mean their lawyers don't have proof. I doubt they would have made that up out of whole cloth and put it in their complaint if they didn't have a basis for it. That would be pretty silly...lol.

[newbitech]

OK, the complaint is no longer linked through ronpauldotcom they took down that entire post. I will have to find it somewhere else.

fine, I will find it. Maybe Lew Rockwell will post it up....

[jj-]

The anarchopacifist line showed their true colors.

loved that line.

[newbitech]

Just because WE don't have proof of the third party lease doesn't mean their lawyers don't have proof. I doubt they would have made that up out of whole cloth and put it in their complaint if they didn't have a basis for it. That would be pretty silly...lol.

I didn't see it in the complaint, did you? I am sure the arb will ask for it, but I would tend to believe if it they had that evidence, it would be there and they wouldn't wait for the arb to ask for it...but they might have it. I doubt it. They probably just felt that way cause of the anonymous registrar.

[cajuncocoa]

Man everyone pins every thing on Lew. The guy is a great asset for our community and has done so many wonderful things and people shit on him all time for things that you should be coming to the defense of! People are so afraid to speak the truth now-a-days in fear of 'repercussions'. I remember the days where Paulites said FUCK YOU, I DONT GIVE A SHIT. Truth to power. Now...you're all ready being assimilated and you don't even notice. Talk about disappointment.
+rep for truth.

[AGRP]

Ron and Lew are VERY good friends; Ron trusts Lew. The people at RonPaul.com are already proven to be untrustworthy


Toldja the RonPaul.com people were not trustworthy


these people are NOT trustworthy


the people at RonPaul.com are untrustworthy


The RonPaul.com people aren't trustworthy. I was Ron's New Media Manager in 2012 and have credibility to speak on that. That's all I have to say.

Why do you care so much about this?

[jj-]

Lew can say whatever he wants under his own name. It's not OK to say them under Ron Paul's name.

[PatriotOne]

I didn't see it in the complaint, did you? I am sure the arb will ask for it, but I would tend to believe if it they had that evidence, it would be there and they wouldn't wait for the arb to ask for it...but they might have it. I doubt it. They probably just felt that way cause of the anonymous registrar.

Yes. It was on page 8 of the complaint. I looked at that specific passage a couple times and commented on it the last 2 days. Aren't you hanging on my every word :mad:/?

:p

[newbitech]

Maybe so. Their handling of the situation rubbed me the wrong way. I am on Ron Paul's side of this argument and I hope he wins. Had they have gotten in front of the facts, released a little information regarding the financial aspect of the site, they could have had at least another supporter. Though many posts I've read state about as much. (Not supporting them because of the perceived shadyness)

im sorry to hear that. Look, fwiw, i want Ron Paul to have that domain too.

I just didn't like that he went to the UN to do it, when there were other options. I also have never liked how Ron Paul's advisers have tended to treat the grassroots people. The excuse was during the campaign, that RP couldn't interact with grassroots or w/e cause of campaign laws or some such shit. He can interact now. he can tell us what is going on with the domain name from his POV since its such a big issue.

the explanation from Lew Rockwell was not factual at all. So I am not satisfied with that part.

Also FWIW, I too asked for a money bomb to buy the site when I heard RP wanted it. I also posted a letter for the domain owner to disclose financials openly and called for an audit of the site and more than just financials. Of course he doesn't have to comply, but it would be in his best interest i believe.

Now they are gonna clam up. Which indicates to me they have a lawyer. Which is good. Someone trying to turn a quick buck off squatting would have taken the 50k offer (if there ever was one) and ran. Not sit here and fight on principle. So I respect those guys for that as well.

The whole thing is shady, but I think the shadow is coming from the big guy in the fight...

[sailingaway]

OK, the complaint is no longer linked through ronpauldotcom they took down that entire post. I will have to find it somewhere else.

OK, I found this random posting on the internet which purports to be the complaint and in absence of better I will assume it is in fact a true copy of the complaint. Turn to page 9 for the lease part. I will type it out here but it may take a few minutes: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124832322/RONPAUL-COM-Complaint


No Legitimate Noncommercial or Fair Use of <RonPaul[dot]com> or <RonPaul[dot]org>

Respondents clearly are using <RonPaul[dot]com> and <RonPaul[dot]org> commercially. When a respondent profits from a domain name, it is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. [citation omitted] In this case, the Respondents are using <RonPaul[cot]com> for commercial purposes in three ways: (1) Respondents are leasing <RonPaul.com> to a third party for a fee; (2) Respondents [sic] has offered to sell <RonPaul[dot]com> and <RonPaul.org> to Complainant for $848,000 (now $250,000); and (3) Respondents are selling Ron Paul merchandise on the websites, including Ron Paul bumper stickers, t-shirts, posters, mugs, speakers, mousepads, shoes, ties and other "Ron Paul" gear, as well as advertising on the sites....

so it looks like the person who ran the fansite was the tenant. Ron is dealing with the landlord who has the property on the market, so to speak.

[newbitech]

Yes. It was on page 8 of the complaint. I looked at that specific passage a couple times and commented on it the last 2 days. Aren't you hanging on my every word :mad:/?

:p

no, I saw it. It was on the last line of the fair use stuff. It was a one liner. It had no evidence which is what I meant when I asked.

and no, I can't hang on every word, cause I have something else to hold on to that I can't let go:eek:

[newbitech]

OK, I found this random posting on the internet which purports to be the complaint and in absence of better I will assume it is in fact a true copy of the complaint. Turn to page 9 for the lease part. I will type it out here but it may take a few minutes: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124832322/RONPAUL-COM-Complaint


that's the one. look for the annexes too. Oh, and since I am looking at it I will mention. Notice the whois in that complaint. It was anonymous. Shortly after posting, the domain name owner ronpaul.com guy removed the anonymous setting.

That takes some brass balls right there. He didn't have to go public like that and let everyone know who he was. He couldn't stayed in the shadows. He didn't. He manned up and faced his accusers. No shame. Nothing to hide. I appreciate that.

[fr33]

loved that line.

It showed they were never supporters by using terms the opposition uses. Or do you not know what pacifism is?

[sailingaway]

OK, the complaint is no longer linked through ronpauldotcom they took down that entire post. I will have to find it somewhere else.

OK, I found this random posting on the internet which purports to be the complaint and in absence of better I will assume it is in fact a true copy of the complaint. Turn to page 9 for the lease part. I will type it out here but it may take a few minutes: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124832322/RONPAUL-COM-Complaint


No Legitimate Noncommercial or Fair Use of <RonPaul[dot]com> or <RonPaul[dot]org>

Respondents clearly are using <RonPaul[dot]com> and <RonPaul[dot]org> commercially. When a respondent profits from a domain name, it is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. [citation omitted] In this case, the Respondents are using <RonPaul[cot]com> for commercial purposes in three ways: (1) Respondents are leasing <RonPaul.com> to a third party for a fee; (2) Respondents [sic] has offered to sell <RonPaul[dot]com> and <RonPaul.org> to Complainant for $848,000 (now $250,000); and (3) Respondents are selling Ron Paul merchandise on the websites, including Ron Paul bumper stickers, t-shirts, posters, mugs, speakers, mousepads, shoes, ties and other "Ron Paul" gear, as well as advertising on the sites....

so it looks like the person who ran the fansite was the tenant. Ron is dealing with the landlord who has the property on the market, so to speak.

^^repeated for emphasis.

Ron is NOT dealing with the guy who ran the fan site, from this. Ron is dealing with the non-user (except for ads and sales) owner/lessor to the fan site operator, which owner/lessor had the domain name on the market.

[PatriotOne]

no, I saw it. It was on the last line of the fair use stuff. It was a one liner. It had no evidence which is what I meant when I asked.

and no, I can't hang on every word, cause I have something else to hold on to that I can't let go:eek:

Sorry. I misunderstood. I didn't see proof of the claim in the complaint either. Then again I did skimmed through alot of the annexes rather quickly so...... I just can't imagine the claim being made without any basis to it though. Certainly easy enough to disprove by ronpaul.com if not true so I just don't see the point of putting it in there if not true.

Resisting urge to ask you what else you are holding onto to :eek:.

Can you take a look at post 98 here also pls. Just requires one hand :p:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404415-Ron-Paul-tweets-on-RonPaul-com-Issue/page3

[PatriotOne]

^^repeated for emphasis.

Ron is NOT dealing with the guy who ran the fan site, from this. Ron is dealing with the non-user (except for ads and sales) owner/lessor to the fan site operator, which owner/lessor had the domain name on the market.

Also on page 8 of complaint, end of 3rd paragraph: Apart from registering the domain name, Respondant's only action in regard to the domain name was leasing it to a third party for a fee.

[sailingaway]

Also on page 8 of complaint, end of 3rd paragraph: Apart from registering the domain name, Respondant's only action in regard to the domain name was leasing it to a third party for a fee.

well and running ads on it to sell Ron Paul (our Ron Paul) branded stuff.

[newbitech]

well and running ads on it to sell Ron Paul (our Ron Paul) branded stuff.


you know, I hate to sound like I am always contradicting you, but where did you see ads? All indications are, there were running a store. Did they used to have ad banners for pay per click stuff? I don't think the annexes showed any of that either. Were they doing sponsored ads like dailypaul and rpf? or were they purely traffic ads like a google ad banner?

[PatriotOne]

well and running ads on it to sell Ron Paul (our Ron Paul) branded stuff.

Do we know that or could it have been the 3rd party guy running those? Maybe part of his rental fee was based on ad sales/gear. Took a cut. Dunno myself but that's a possibility also.

[sailingaway]

you know, I hate to sound like I am always contradicting you, but where did you see ads? All indications are, there were running a store. Did they used to have ad banners for pay per click stuff? I don't think the annexes showed any of that either. Were they doing sponsored ads like dailypaul and rpf? or were they purely traffic ads like a google ad banner?

I am taking this from the complaint, I didn't go to the site much. A couple of polls over the years, I guess. As someone else already said, we had the news here, or DP did, first, as a rule. But selling stuff there would be ads there. I don't know about google click stuff, I don't remember it that well. But it doesn't matter if this was the only use the domain registrant had, it was pure monetization.

[sailingaway]

Do we know that or could it have been the 3rd party guy running those? Maybe part of his rental fee was based on ad sales/gear. Took a cut. Dunno myself but that's a possibility also.


Only saying what the complaint said. I consider it possible that the site owner was indeed a supporter, and told Ron's people the business set up, now that he wasn't going to be leasing it any more.

[newbitech]

I've actually been in this situation before, where I was the admin of a facebook group that supported another group that had its main presence off of facebook. Once the group started using facebook and had redoubled their facebook group efforts, a representative of the group asked me to shut the group down or let him be the sole admin. I refused, stating the reasons X,Y and Z as to why the community and the group were better served with another group. I added a link to the official page right at the top of the alternate group, and and added a couple more links throughtout the page, because I was genuinely interested in the growing of the support of the official group.

So I see where you and the community might be coming from, as I've been there in the place of the current owner of RonPaul.com. The current owner and the community may feel like they would better be able to support the movement by not wanting to give up the domain, and instead leaving it how it was. And maybe they would be correct. I know I felt the same way, or at least, I wanted to take a gamble and see if I could lead the movement better than the official delegates. Fortunately for me in Facebook, my status as admin of the group was virtually bulletproof when it came to someone else wanting control of the group I was the founding admin for. Unfortunately for the current owner of the RonPaul.com, the contract he signed to gain exclusive use of his ICANN domain allowed for arbitration from ICANN, the group that allowed him the license to use that name in the first place.

If he doesn't like it, he can start another protocol of packet sharing and networking, and regain his RonPaul.com domain name in the new protocol. When the writing is on the wall, why act like it's not there? It's there. I see no need to go down like a crybaby, but, I guess I was either not raised to be rewarded when crying or I just grew up at some point into an adult.


well thanks for understanding at least part of what is going on. I think you misrepresent the ronpaul.com people's attitude in the end tho. I don't think they are pissed about being arbitrated. I think they are pissed that the guy they are supporting for 5 years with their community building efforts appears to have taken an action that they or anyone else probably would have never expected him to take.

Ron Paul didn't have to ask the UN agency WIPO to arbitrate. He could have asked NAF to arbitrate. That was an ICANN option available as part of the UDRP. So that in and of itself would have been enough to piss me off if I was the site owner. I was initially shocked at first thinking that it was satire. Ron Paul? Go to the UN? GTFO! But, it's true, he did.

The only difference I think between how I feel and how you feel, I see where it probably wasn't Ron Paul all by himself doing that. He probably has some advisers somewhere that he trusts that didn't connect the dots. That pisses me off because it's not the first time this has happened with internet stuff / grassroots / Ron Paul / Liberty movement.

And I know if we don't get to the heart of this issue, it won't be the last. Yeah, the writing is on the wall. If Ron Paul wants the domain bad enough, he'll get it at any cost, be it FIAT or his legacy as a man of principle taking a hit.

Perhaps that hit is worth less to him than the domain. But, again, in terms of valuation, the man was advised 50k from some appraisal company or whatever. Domain name only? Pssshhh.. there is so much more to RonPaul.com than the domain name that he will lose if all he wants is the registrar password. And from what I can tell, that is all his advisers are telling him he needs. It's pretty stupid of them if they truly are worth what he is paying them or for as much trust he is putting on them for the so called future of the liberty movement with him as leader.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ron Paul didn't have to ask the UN agency WIPO to arbitrate. He could have asked NAF to arbitrate. That was an ICANN option available as part of the UDRP. So that in and of itself would have been enough to piss me off if I was the site owner. I was initially shocked at first thinking that it was satire. Ron Paul? Go to the UN? GTFO! But, it's true, he did.

What's the difference with respects to the NAF and WIPO? From my [limited] understanding aren't their 'authorities' or arbitration powers basically the same? It is probable that WIPO is what his lawyer recommended. I doubt Ron Paul had any idea what these organizations were and what exactly they did. I like to think that I know a thing or two about the internet and even I would have to defer to lawyers. I would imagine Ron Paul knows even less. (About UDRPs etc.)

[newbitech]

I am taking this from the complaint, I didn't go to the site much. A couple of polls over the years, I guess. As someone else already said, we had the news here, or DP did, first, as a rule. But selling stuff there would be ads there. I don't know about google click stuff, I don't remember it that well. But it doesn't matter if this was the only use the domain registrant had, it was pure monetization.

In laymans terms perhaps. But there is a really big difference between a store, affiliate, sponsored ads, and traffic ads. All monetizing I see is the zazzle store. Which looks to me like a sort of hybrid affiliate/store front for graphic design.

So I don't think he is selling anything that competes with Ron Paul unless Ron Paul has gone into the business of selling memorabilia with creative common designs (revolution logo i believe is creative commons or public domain). So we'll have to see how the arb finds that. IMO, its protected first amendment speech to use Ron Paul's name and image due to Ron Paul being a US Congressman. I am not sure how much they take that in to account, but from the lady gaga ruling, we know that at least WIPO believes fans cannot be fans without mentioning the object of their affections.

So we'll see, I think Ron Paul has an uphill battle to get his domain name back and it looks like he's chosen the steepest route. Who knows maybe he is just using this as an opportunity to educate his fans on the ICANN and other general internet governance. Which I would be ecstatic were that the case! It's the best spin I can put on it TBH.

Clearly people aren't educated in this stuff and take it completely for granted. I hope he also pushes stuff like OpenDns if that is the case. Like I said, there is no reason he can't have Ron.Paul right now.

And I flat guarantee you that if he did that, millions of people will learn how to change their IP settings and discover a whole other world of communication goodness once big brother is not breathing down our necks 24/7.

Won't happen, tho. That't not what this is about. But, I can dreammmmmmm.

[sailingaway]

What's the difference with respects to the NAF and WIPO? From my [limited] understanding aren't their 'authorities' or arbitration powers basically the same? It is probable that WIPO is what his lawyer recommended. I doubt Ron Paul had any idea what these organizations were and what exactly they did. I like to think that I know a thing or two about the internet and even I would have to defer to lawyers. I would imagine Ron Paul knows even less. (About UDRPs etc.)

Apparently it was their belief that because the guy was international not a US citizen and had subjected himself to Wipo that was where it had to go. But it doesn't matter, there was a list, Wipo seems the arbitrator usually used for this if you try to google claims of this sort, and his attorneys might have just said 'this is where you file'. It is just the arbitration service being used here.

[sailingaway]

In laymans terms perhaps. But there is a really big difference between a store, affiliate, sponsored ads, and traffic ads. All monetizing I see is the zazzle store. Which looks to me like a sort of hybrid affiliate/store front for graphic design.

So I don't think he is selling anything that competes with Ron Paul unless Ron Paul has gone into the business of selling memorabilia with creative common designs (revolution logo i believe is creative commons or public domain). So we'll have to see how the arb finds that. IMO, its protected first amendment speech to use Ron Paul's name and image due to Ron Paul being a US Congressman. I am not sure how much they take that in to account, but from the lady gaga ruling, we know that at least WIPO believes fans cannot be fans without mentioning the object of their affections.

So we'll see, I think Ron Paul has an uphill battle to get his domain name back and it looks like he's chosen the steepest route. Who knows maybe he is just using this as an opportunity to educate his fans on the ICANN and other general internet governance. Which I would be ecstatic were that the case! It's the best spin I can put on it TBH.

Clearly people aren't educated in this stuff and take it completely for granted. I hope he also pushes stuff like OpenDns if that is the case. Like I said, there is no reason he can't have Ron.Paul right now.

And I flat guarantee you that if he did that, millions of people will learn how to change their IP settings and discover a whole other world of communication goodness once big brother is not breathing down our necks 24/7.

Won't happen, tho. That't not what this is about. But, I can dreammmmmmm.

But if the site owner being claimed against wasn't the fan site person but only receiving a regular check from that person and income stream from people who bought from links on there, it was pure monetization on THEIR part. The fan site operator wouldn't even be in the action here. He was just a tenant.

[kcchiefs6465]

In laymans terms perhaps. But there is a really big difference between a store, affiliate, sponsored ads, and traffic ads. All monetizing I see is the zazzle store. Which looks to me like a sort of hybrid affiliate/store front for graphic design.

So I don't think he is selling anything that competes with Ron Paul unless Ron Paul has gone into the business of selling memorabilia with creative common designs (revolution logo i believe is creative commons or public domain). So we'll have to see how the arb finds that. IMO, its protected first amendment speech to use Ron Paul's name and image due to Ron Paul being a US Congressman. I am not sure how much they take that in to account, but from the lady gaga ruling, we know that at least WIPO believes fans cannot be fans without mentioning the object of their affections.

So we'll see, I think Ron Paul has an uphill battle to get his domain name back and it looks like he's chosen the steepest route. Who knows maybe he is just using this as an opportunity to educate his fans on the ICANN and other general internet governance. Which I would be ecstatic were that the case! It's the best spin I can put on it TBH.

Clearly people aren't educated in this stuff and take it completely for granted. I hope he also pushes stuff like OpenDns if that is the case. Like I said, there is no reason he can't have Ron.Paul right now.

And I flat guarantee you that if he did that, millions of people will learn how to change their IP settings and discover a whole other world of communication goodness once big brother is not breathing down our necks 24/7.

Won't happen, tho. That't not what this is about. But, I can dreammmmmmm.
Quite frankly I'm learning a lot from your posts/insight. Thanks for taking the time to post this.. as I'm sure you have stated so much in the other 150+ plus pages of discussion. Hell, at least one person was [semi] educated off of this fiasco. Clearly I have a lot more reading to do.

[kcchiefs6465]

Apparently it was their belief that because the guy was international not a US citizen and had subjected himself to Wipo that was where it had to go. But it doesn't matter, there was a list, Wipo seems the arbitrator usually used for this if you try to google claims of this sort, and his attorneys might have just said 'this is where you file'. It is just the arbitration service being used here.
I figured as much. I doubt Ron Paul had even heard of the NAF, ICANN or WIPO before this. I know I hadn't. (And I thought I was generally not computer illiterate) Not a big deal which agency was used or whether they are [semi?] related to the UN. I want Ron Paul to have his name back. The owners of ronpauldotcom have not represented their side well, and quite honestly, pissed me off.

[newbitech]

What's the difference with respects to the NAF and WIPO? From my [limited] understanding aren't their 'authorities' or arbitration powers basically the same? It is probable that WIPO is what his lawyer recommended. I doubt Ron Paul had any idea what these organizations were and what exactly they did. I like to think that I know a thing or two about the internet and even I would have to defer to lawyers. I would imagine Ron Paul knows even less. (About UDRPs etc.)


Well besides one of them being a UN agency and the other a US corporation? The biggest difference is the panels. Without going into much details, the panel members have to be certified through the arb agency. Pretty much like any other arb (think mortgage arb). It is probably likely that Ron Paul's IP lawyers know some of the penelist. It would be interesting to see the connections and I am looking forward to digging in to that when the time comes.

But that's speculation on my part.

By the way, here is that elusive agreement that no one has posted yet that ronpaul.com agreed to with their registrar.

http://www.fabulous.com/informationcenter/index.htm?formcode%5Bobjective%5D=&formcode%5Bevent%5D=&formcode%5Bregistrytime%5D=1297831660&formcode%5Bcertificate%5D=e4ef3ddd0c376aa33cf5c33e 3876beb9&formdata%5Bqid%5D=1516

[sailingaway]

Well besides one of them being a UN agency and the other a US corporation? The biggest difference is the panels. Without going into much details, the panel members have to be certified through the arb agency. Pretty much like any other arb (think mortgage arb). It is probably likely that Ron Paul's IP lawyers know some of the penelist. It would be interesting to see the connections and I am looking forward to digging in to that when the time comes.

But that's speculation on my part.

By the way, here is that elusive agreement that no one has posted yet that ronpaul.com agreed to with their registrar.

http://www.fabulous.com/informationcenter/index.htm?formcode%5Bobjective%5D=&formcode%5Bevent%5D=&formcode%5Bregistrytime%5D=1297831660&formcode%5Bcertificate%5D=e4ef3ddd0c376aa33cf5c33e 3876beb9&formdata%5Bqid%5D=1516

I read the agreement earlier, but I'm not sure I read the affidavits. I would like to see those. Were those wherever this was?

[kcchiefs6465]

Well besides one of them being a UN agency and the other a US corporation? The biggest difference is the panels. Without going into much details, the panel members have to be certified through the arb agency. Pretty much like any other arb (think mortgage arb). It is probably likely that Ron Paul's IP lawyers know some of the penelist. It would be interesting to see the connections and I am looking forward to digging in to that when the time comes.

But that's speculation on my part.

By the way, here is that elusive agreement that no one has posted yet that ronpaul.com agreed to with their registrar.

http://www.fabulous.com/informationcenter/index.htm?formcode%5Bobjective%5D=&formcode%5Bevent%5D=&formcode%5Bregistrytime%5D=1297831660&formcode%5Bcertificate%5D=e4ef3ddd0c376aa33cf5c33e 3876beb9&formdata%5Bqid%5D=1516
Ahh, so are their powers the same? Is one better than the other, or does it simply come down to one is UN affiliated and one is a US corporation? (In either instance, I doubt Ron Paul knows the differences/similarities- he was probably advised on what to do)

BTW, the link is broke.

[kcchiefs6465]

I read the agreement earlier, but I'm not sure I read the affidavits. I would like to see those. Were those wherever this was?
Did the link work for you?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

So much drama over a domain name.

[sailingaway]

Well besides one of them being a UN agency and the other a US corporation? The biggest difference is the panels. Without going into much details, the panel members have to be certified through the arb agency. Pretty much like any other arb (think mortgage arb). It is probably likely that Ron Paul's IP lawyers know some of the penelist. It would be interesting to see the connections and I am looking forward to digging in to that when the time comes.

But that's speculation on my part.

By the way, here is that elusive agreement that no one has posted yet that ronpaul.com agreed to with their registrar.

http://www.fabulous.com/informationcenter/index.htm?formcode%5Bobjective%5D=&formcode%5Bevent%5D=&formcode%5Bregistrytime%5D=1297831660&formcode%5Bcertificate%5D=e4ef3ddd0c376aa33cf5c33e 3876beb9&formdata%5Bqid%5D=1516

still, these are interesting:


3.3. You shall not have any proprietary rights in a Registered Name. Registration and/or renewal of a Registered Name only gives you a personal licence (�Domain Name Licence�) to use the Registered Name for the period during which the registration of the domain name remains current ("Registration Period").


10. Third Party Rights

10.1. You warrant that the registration or renewal of the Registered Name is made in good faith and that, to the best of your knowledge and belief, neither the registration nor renewal of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is or shall be used, either directly or indirectly, infringes the intellectual property rights or other legal rights of any third party. A breach of this warranty shall constitute a material breach of this Registration Agreement.

there is also something about submitting to jurisdiction of courts only where Fabulous is and where the registrant is (Panama?).

[newbitech]

But if the site owner being claimed against wasn't the fan site person but only receiving a regular check from that person and income stream from people who bought from links on there, it was pure monetization on THEIR part. The fan site operator wouldn't even be in the action here. He was just a tenant.

i just read again. they are really stretching on the subleasing thing. Saying that the guy who is doing the merchandising is not a party to the complaint. This complaint has some serious holes in it.

[sailingaway]

i just read again. they are really stretching on the subleasing thing. Saying that the guy who is doing the merchandising is not a party to the complaint. This complaint has some serious holes in it.

I don't read it that way. I read it as they leased the site so the guy the claim is against just got a money stream off of Ron's persona on the site, and did nothing else but take money. The guy who ran the site was, as I take it from the complaint, just a tenant.

[newbitech]

I don't read it that way. I read it as they leased the site so the guy the claim is against just got a money stream off of Ron's persona on the site, and did nothing else but take money. The guy who ran the site was, as I take it from the complaint, just a tenant.

page 10.

second full paragraph.

"Currently, the domain names are being leased to a 3rd party who is in competition with complainant. While this third party is not a party to this complaint, he does use the domain names in a way that directly competes with Complainants merchandise sales."

So 1st off, Ron Paul sells merchandise? Where? do a google search for Ron Paul Gear. See what comes up.

and on that search, found a linkage to daily paul and in that link, what did I find? LOOOOO.....

http://www.zazzle.com/dailypaul

what is this? a zazzle daily paul store? Say it isn't so!

[nayjevin]

I don't read it that way. I read it as they leased the site so the guy the claim is against just got a money stream off of Ron's persona on the site, and did nothing else but take money. The guy who ran the site was, as I take it from the complaint, just a tenant.

If that's true why do those running the site care one way or the other? They keep posting as though they have personal interest in the matter.

On a side note I've been thinking...

How much would it have been worth to give the .com for free, disclose financials, and set up a chip-in where anyone (including Ron Paul) could have contributed to the grievous financial losses claimed in recent posts on the site?

[sailingaway]

page 10.

second full paragraph.

"Currently, the domain names are being leased to a 3rd party who is in competition with complainant. While this third party is not a party to this complaint, he does use the domain names in a way that directly competes with Complainants merchandise sales."

So 1st off, Ron Paul sells merchandise? Where? do a google search for Ron Paul Gear. See what comes up.

and on that search, found a linkage to daily paul and in that link, what did I find? LOOOOO.....

http://www.zazzle.com/dailypaul

what is this? a zazzle daily paul store? Say it isn't so!


Ron's campaign site sold merchandise as does Campaign for Liberty.

[newbitech]

Ron's campaign site sold merchandise as does Campaign for Liberty.


as does/did a whole bunch of other people that have a domain name that get hits with the search ron paul, with ronpaul in the domain name.....

[kcchiefs6465]

If that's true why do those running the site care one way or the other? They keep posting as though they have personal interest in the matter.

On a side note I've been thinking...

How much would it have been worth to give the .com for free, disclose financials, and set up a chip-in where anyone (including Ron Paul) could have contributed to the grievous financial losses claimed in recent posts on the site?
Even if they had made a profit they would have undoubtedly got some contributions. I thought the site should have been given as a gift to Ron Paul. A chip in to raise funds for it would have shown how much we all appreciate what he has stood for. (could have been given as an anniversary present, I do believe his anniversary was around the time it came out that he needed/wanted the domain) I even wanted Ron Paul to retain him as webmaster. (to definitely make sure the site doesn't go unregistered or falls behind) How it got to this point I do not know. (I am not privvy to the information) As it stands I am on Ron Paul's side. The people representing ronpaul.com have really fell off the boat in my eyes.

[sailingaway]

as does/did a whole bunch of other people that have a domain name that get hits with the search ron paul, with ronpaul in the domain name.....

That doesn't matter. The claim is that the domain registrant used Ron's name and trademark for that purpose and it isn't a good faith purpose at least as I read the claim holdings I've seen. The other sites aren't using Ron's trademark as their domain and being challenged under this process.

[newbitech]

That doesn't matter. The claim is that the domain registrant used Ron's name and trademark for that purpose and it isn't a good faith purpose at least as I read the claim holdings I've seen. The other sites aren't using Ron's trademark as their domain and being challenged under this process.

2 things, Ron Paul doesn't have a recognized federal trademark (no date in secondary meaning) at the time of registration, and if he is claiming the mark RonPaul then any site using RonPaul is using his mark. For instance, try to register googlewhatchamaboggle.com and run a site about belly button lint. Bet ya get a claim letter.

Well 3 things, and if he is not challenging to defend his mark in merch sales, then his mark is diluted and this is even evidence of abandonment. One cannot selective claim the mark. If his permission is implicit for use then its implicit for use for everyone. In other words, he is not embarking on a take down of anyone using his mark, he is singling out one person explicitly. This doesn't pass the secondary meaning test which he relies on to establish his mark.

Well 4, besides, all the people bitching about how these guys are sketchy for selling Ron Paul gear, so I guess everyone in that list profiting off Ron Paul is sketchy too eh? Search Ron Paul gear. Make a list and start a new thread condemning everyone on that list. OR turn a blind eye and to heck with your so called principles...

[sailingaway]

If that's true why do those running the site care one way or the other? They keep posting as though they have personal interest in the matter.

On a side note I've been thinking...



Maybe it's not the same guy?

I don't know. the complaint didn't describe the relationship that much.

[sailingaway]

2 things, Ron Paul doesn't have a recognized federal trademark (no date in secondary meaning) at the time of registration, and if he is claiming the mark RonPaul then any site using RonPaul is using his mark. For instance, try to register googlewhatchamaboggle.com and run a site about belly button lint. Bet ya get a claim letter.

Well 3 things, and if he is not challenging to defend his mark in merch sales, then his mark is diluted and this is even evidence of abandonment. One cannot selective claim the mark. If his permission is implicit for use then its implicit for use for everyone. In other words, he is not embarking on a take down of anyone using his mark, he is singling out one person explicitly. This doesn't pass the secondary meaning test which he relies on to establish his mark.

Well 4, besides, all the people bitching about how these guys are sketchy for selling Ron Paul gear, so I guess everyone in that list profiting off Ron Paul is sketchy too eh? Search Ron Paul gear. Make a list and start a new thread condemning everyone on that list. OR turn a blind eye and to heck with your so called principles...

First, Ron did so have a recognized at common law trademark before registration in 2001 -- he wrote books, spoke and published newsletters. Also, my understanding is the guy now operating the site isn't the same one as the one then. But now that I know it was leased, I don't know how that works out.

The rest doesn't matter because he is not claiming for gear in any event, although now he is not a politician there may be different rules in play on that too for all I know. but this claim isn't about restitution for moneys obtained using his trademark, it is to show the site, which name is his trademark, was used against the rules, in bad faith, and that under the contract terms and domain rules, should be transfered to him. PERIOD.

[RickyJ]

2 things, Ron Paul doesn't have a recognized federal trademark (no date in secondary meaning) at the time of registration, and if he is claiming the mark RonPaul then any site using RonPaul is using his mark. For instance, try to register googlewhatchamaboggle.com and run a site about belly button lint. Bet ya get a claim letter.

Well 3 things, and if he is not challenging to defend his mark in merch sales, then his mark is diluted and this is even evidence of abandonment. One cannot selective claim the mark. If his permission is implicit for use then its implicit for use for everyone. In other words, he is not embarking on a take down of anyone using his mark, he is singling out one person explicitly. This doesn't pass the secondary meaning test which he relies on to establish his mark.

Well 4, besides, all the people bitching about how these guys are sketchy for selling Ron Paul gear, so I guess everyone in that list profiting off Ron Paul is sketchy too eh? Search Ron Paul gear. Make a list and start a new thread condemning everyone on that list. OR turn a blind eye and to heck with your so called principles...

It appears lots of people who love Ron Paul are doing exactly that. If Ron Paul loses this then the press will have a field day with it and really hurt his reputation even further. Ron is getting very bad advice. Why can't Ron have people representing him that actually have an IQ over 90? Something is wrong here.

[jj-]

If Ron Paul loses this then the press will have a field day with it and really hurt his reputation even further.

I think winning would damage his reputation even more.

[sailingaway]

It appears lots of people who love Ron Paul are doing exactly that. If Ron Paul loses this then the press will have a field day with it and really hurt his reputation even further. Ron is getting very bad advice. Why can't Ron have people representing him that actually have an IQ over 90? Something is wrong here.

I don't think this violates principles, particularly since the guy selling the site apparently just leased it out and took money from ads on it. if you don't believe in IP maybe you wouldn't see it, but Ron always did, from what I've seen. It is on the market, and the site rules say the guy who owns it wasn't allowed to use it as they did, contractually. At least that is what I get from the complaint.

[newbitech]

First, Ron did so have a recognized at common law trademark before registration in 2001 -- he wrote books, spoke and published newsletters. Also, my understanding is the guy now operating the site isn't the same one as the one then. But now that I know it was leased, I don't know how that works out.

The rest doesn't matter because he is not claiming for gear in any event, although now he is not a politician there may be different rules in play on that too for all I know. but this claim isn't about restitution for moneys obtained using his trademark, it is to show the site, which name is his trademark, was used against the rules, in bad faith, and that under the contract terms and domain rules, should be transfered to him. PERIOD.


you don't just get to claim secondary meaning cause you used a mark. please, go look up secondary meaning.

you don't know it was leased. this a claim with no evidence behind it. just simple observation, the guy running the site posted the filing shows it's not leased..

he is claiming the site is competing with his merch sales which he is using as evidence of bad faith. but he says the guy doing the merch sales is not part of the complaint. the complaint is confounded on so many levels. and there are parts in the complaint that misquote a letter that is attached to the complaint.

also, before you said period. he needs 3 things to prove. 1. Confusion, which I will grant. 2. legitimate interest, very shaky this is obviously been a fan site 3. bad faith, could go either way but preponderance of evidence points to memorabilia sales were encouraged by the complainant to help further the message and enrich his supporters.

[RickyJ]

I think winning would damage his reputation even more.

Not really, because then it will look like he was right in filing a complaint about this to the vast majority of people. But if he loses it will look like he was trying to take something that didn't belong to him for nothing without a good legal reason. The media will spin this either way, but if he loses the spin will hurt him much more.

[sailingaway]

The guy running the site posted filings showing it is or WAS not leased? This is kind of amazing how whenever we bring up something here we get stuff there, but I'd look at that. Without evidence otherwise, I will believe the complaint, though.

I disagree with your conclusions, particularly if it was leased out. If it wasn't, I still think Ron wins on two but then I feel differently about it altogether because then we are back to it being a supporter of Rons. Do you have the link to the 'not leased' info?

[newbitech]

I don't think this violates principles, particularly since the guy selling the site apparently just leased it out and took money from ads on it. if you don't believe in IP maybe you wouldn't see it, but Ron always did, from what I've seen. It is on the market, and the site rules say the guy who owns it wasn't allowed to use it as they did, contractually. At least that is what I get from the complaint.


here you go again running off on a tangent. That is such a false claim. nothing is apparent that the domain name is "just leased". And where are these ads you speak of? Looks like store front affiliate just like the one daily paul has set up. Perhaps he had some banner ads, like daily paul and ron paul forums does?

So it's ok to violate principle if someone else breaks some rules.. I see.

[kcchiefs6465]

It appears lots of people who love Ron Paul are doing exactly that. If Ron Paul loses this then the press will have a field day with it and really hurt his reputation even further. Ron is getting very bad advice. Why can't Ron have people representing him that actually have an IQ over 90? Something is wrong here.
You know, I ask the same of ronpauldotcom. I very much would have liked to have the owner post a thread here IN CAPITAL LETTERS his position and what preceded this UDRP filing. Instead, he has somewhat coherent [assholes] joke, spread rumors, or misrepresent what happened. (and/or flat out ignore supporters' questions) They have built their own bed. I hope they sleep in it. (and I hope they realize why a lot of the grassroots doesn't even care about their position or plight anymore) Good riddance. I can't wait to watch the first episode of Ron Paul TV. (If you ask me, it should be RPTV- don't worry Ron Paul, I don't want $250,000 for it)

[sailingaway]

here you go again running off on a tangent. That is such a false claim. nothing is apparent that the domain name is "just leased". And where are these ads you speak of? Looks like store front affiliate just like the one daily paul has set up. Perhaps he had some banner ads, like daily paul and ron paul forums does?

So it's ok to violate principle if someone else breaks some rules.. I see.

that is what the complaint says, so that is what I am going with. Where do you see it ISN'T true?

And enforcing a right under a contract someone agreed to for when it is and is not proper to use their licensed site name doesn't violate principles.

The discomfort I had, IF the site seller is the supporter who ran it all this time, is the guy doing a positive image thing during the campaigns. I am sure that is why Ron tried to buy it first, instead of just going the claim route. But the complaint says the registrant merely leases out the site and gets ad revenue.

[newbitech]

The guy running the site posted filings showing it is or WAS not leased? This is kind of amazing how whenever we bring up something here we get stuff there, but I'd look at that. Without evidence otherwise, I will believe the complaint, though.

I disagree with your conclusions, particularly if it was leased out. If it wasn't, I still think Ron wins on two but then I feel differently about it altogether because then we are back to it being a supporter of Rons. Do you have the link to the 'not leased' info?

no, Ron Paul's lawyers claim it's leased. Show me the link to "is leased" evidence. I have no idea about any not leased info being posted. I am saying the ronpaul.com website is the website that broke the news about the filing in the first place. the guy who controls the content is the guy who got the arb notice from the registrar.

Since the noticed was sent via the anon service, it's pretty easy to guess that the guy running the site is the guy who registered the site, meaning the site isn't leased thru someone else.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think winning would damage his reputation even more.
I think ronpauldotcom has damaged their reputation beyond repair. (that's before all the facts have came out, mind you) Wait until your supporters see the money that was made and I bet they'll be singing a different tune.

[jj-]

I don't understand why the new site isn't just named mattcollins.com

[sailingaway]

no, Ron Paul's lawyers claim it's leased. Show me the link to "is leased" evidence. I have no idea about any not leased info being posted. I am saying the ronpaul.com website is the website that broke the news about the filing in the first place. the guy who controls the content is the guy who got the arb notice from the registrar.

Since the noticed was sent via the anon service, it's pretty easy to guess that the guy running the site is the guy who registered the site, meaning the site isn't leased thru someone else.

It is in the complaint. I am sure Ron believes it is true. If it isn't true, where is your evidence to show that? The informed and believes to be true under oath IS evidence, for the complaint.

and the site is on the market now, or was until a few days ago. Maybe the lease ENDED and now it reverts to this guy. He'd then have control, but not be the guy who ran it for all this time.

[jj-]

I think ronpauldotcom has damaged their reputation beyond repair. (that's before all the facts have came out, mind you) Wait until your supporters see the money that was made and I bet they'll be singing a different tune.

As if they have a reputation to lose. They don't.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't understand why the new site isn't just named mattcollins.com
Likewise, I was thinking, "notronpaultshirts.com" has a pretty good ring.

[kcchiefs6465]

As if they have a reputation to lose. They don't.
That attitude is why I cannot come to their side. I hope you are directly affiliated enough to understand that they damaged the grassroots support they could have/would have had with their handling of this. I really was open to both sides of the argument and mainly just left it at both sides were partially to blame. I wanted you guys to work through this and was trying to get the domain name as a gift to Ron Paul for what he has done. I emailed your site a couple different times, never got a message back, and then you posted your response directly on the site. Had I known your offer was going to be what it was I would have been pissed at taking the time to even contact you. It's a damn disgrace. (The whole handling of this, though I blame you guys more than I could ever blame Ron Paul for following his legal advisor's advice)

[fr33]

I hope you are directly affiliated enough to understand that they damaged the grassroots support they could have/would have had with their handling of this.

They may have realized it after it was too late; hence the deletion of the complaints. I would rather they continue the behavior and expose themselves even further for what they are.

[newbitech]

It is in the complaint. I am sure Ron believes it is true. If it isn't true, where is your evidence to show that? The informed and believes to be true under oath IS evidence, for the complaint.

and the site is on the market now, or was until a few days ago. Maybe the lease ENDED and now it reverts to this guy. He'd then have control, but not be the guy who ran it for all this time.

ok, no. I do not need to prove that the site is or is not leased. The guy who posted the arb filing originally, you know the ronpaul.com guy. He got the email, and he posted it on his site. Where did he get the email? Are you telling me that the person he leases from sent him the email and said, "here, handle this shit bitch!" and that is why he posted his extremely emotional reply? Cause that is what you are telling me.

No, i didn't make the claim without evidence that it's leased. I don't even acknowledge that claim because not only is it unproven with no evidence, the evidence we do have (see previous paragraph about who got the arb email and who posted the arb filing) suggest its not leased.

[sailingaway]

ok, no. I do not need to prove that the site is or is not leased. The guy who posted the arb filing originally, you know the ronpaul.com guy. He got the email, and he posted it on his site. Where did he get the email? Are you telling me that the person he leases from sent him the email and said, "here, handle this shit bitch!" and that is why he posted his extremely emotional reply? Cause that is what you are telling me.

No, i didn't make the claim without evidence that it's leased. I don't even acknowledge that claim because not only is it unproven with no evidence, the evidence we do have (see previous paragraph about who got the arb email and who posted the arb filing) suggest its not leased.

I think the lease might require the tenant get notice of something like that, don't you? But I also think it may have BEEN leased, and the lease ended, and now the site reverted back to the domain registrant who has put up the more recent posts and trashing of Ron.

[newbitech]

They may have realized it after it was too late; hence the deletion of the complaints. I would rather they continue the behavior and expose themselves even further for what they are.
they probably got a lawyer who told em to pull it. That's why i don't think they were ever planning on selling it until Ron Paul called 5 years and 40THOUSAND pieces of content later, a lot of which is the painstaking task of transcribing speeches. Also kind of deflates the whole, it was leased meme as well.

[RickyJ]

I think ronpauldotcom has damaged their reputation beyond repair. (that's before all the facts have came out, mind you) Wait until your supporters see the money that was made and I bet they'll be singing a different tune.

They have hurt Ron Paul, no doubt about it by coming out publicly about this, and they have said they don't think they can support him any longer, and have also said they do not care about the damage to the site now if this is the "true" Ron Paul. Their actions and posts lately indicate they are ready to end their support of Ron Paul and I suppose they just want to win the case now just to show they were in the right here, and then auction the domain to the highest bidder and be done with it.

[kcchiefs6465]

They may have realized it after it was too late; hence the deletion of the complaints. I would rather they continue the behavior and expose themselves even further for what they are.
Very true. I really wanted this to end differently. They had some reasonable concerns. (links to their site being lost for example) Sewrratt (I believe?) had a very good answer for how to set up a new domain and redirect the links to their new site. I actually wanted to see a collaboration. (when I assumed/believed they were genuine supporters) I thought bringing Ron Paul and his webisodes into the mix would have made that site what it wasn't, in my eyes at least. The whole thing to me is ridiculous. The silence of them on this issue is telling. (while I understand a lawyer may have requested as much) Not to mention they come off like genuine assholes the moment they do reply.

[newbitech]

I think the lease might require the tenant get notice of something like that, don't you? But I also think it may have BEEN leased, and the lease ended, and now the site reverted back to the domain registrant who has put up the more recent posts and trashing of Ron.

look, if it is leased, which i really don't think it is, but if it is. how could they offer to sell or even negotiate? think about it. also. if Ron Paul has some knowledge of a lease, would he not contact the guy who is leasing and warn him that he is about to yank down the most popular site, and no offense kid, but we have to secure this site and we are the only ones who can legally get.

Think.. about.. it..

[sailingaway]

they probably got a lawyer who told em to pull it. That's why i don't think they were ever planning on selling it until Ron Paul called 5 years and 40THOUSAND pieces of content later, a lot of which is the painstaking task of transcribing speeches. Also kind of deflates the whole, it was leased meme as well.


hardly, particularly if the lease ended and this new poisonous stuff was from the registrant rather than the tenant.

[sailingaway]

look, if it is leased, which i really don't think it is, but if it is. how could they offer to sell or even negotiate? think about it. also. if Ron Paul has some knowledge of a lease, would he not contact the guy who is leasing and warn him that he is about to yank down the most popular site, and no offense kid, but we have to secure this site and we are the only ones who can legally get.

Think.. about.. it..

As I said, the lease could have ended or be about to end. The site was for sale. If it was already ended, maybe the guy who ran it is the reason Ron knows it was leased for all we know. It isn't useful to just make up 'suppose' this or that. I'm going with the complaint at this point.

If the facts are different I would suggest the site owner let Ron know that.

[newbitech]

They have hurt Ron Paul, no doubt about it by coming out publicly about this, and they have said they don't think they can support him any longer, and have also said they do not care about the damage to the site now if this is the "true" Ron Paul. Their actions and posts lately indicate they are ready to end their support of Ron Paul and I suppose they just want to win the case now just to show they were in the right here, and then auction the domain to the highest bidder and be done with it.


or vindictively trash the domain and get it blacklisted.... oh... you mean there are ways to wreak long term havoc on the domain and make it near worthless even in the hands of Ron Paul's great internet machine. yeah... damn the consequences.

[RickyJ]

they probably got a lawyer who told em to pull it. That's why i don't think they were ever planning on selling it until Ron Paul called 5 years and 40THOUSAND pieces of content later, a lot of which is the painstaking task of transcribing speeches. Also kind of deflates the whole, it was leased meme as well.

I think their lawyer told them to remove it too. I understand they were upset, but speaking publicly about this was not a good idea for them or Ron Paul.

[newbitech]

As I said, the lease could have ended or be about to end. The site was for sale.

for sale where? anyone have a screen or a link or is this more novice data gathering that I am just supposed to except as fact? no offense. Could have would have should have. but, evidence points to, no proof at best. and more than likely you are wrong about the lease thing.

[kcchiefs6465]

They have hurt Ron Paul, no doubt about it by coming out publicly about this, and they have said they don't think they can support him any longer, and have also said they do not care about the damage to the site now if this is the "true" Ron Paul. Their actions and posts lately indicate they are ready to end their support of Ron Paul and I suppose they just want to win the case now just to show they were in the right here, and then auction the domain to the highest bidder and be done with it.
If that's the case maybe they ought to. Instead of appealing to the rest of us, they keep their identities here secret, (though it's not hard to tell who they are) while disrespecting the few that actually care enough about both sides of argument as to want to make an educated post about how this could be resolved. (I understand it is past that) They lost my support a long time ago. Ron Paul's reputation is damn near impeccable. Let the MSM try their usual bullshit, they've only been doing it for years... I still support Ron Paul as much as I ever did. I support ronpauldotcom less than I ever did. Maybe they ought've thought about that one.

[jj-]

I think their lawyer told them to remove it too. I understand they were upset, but speaking publicly about this was not a good idea for them or Ron Paul.

I think it was good to unmask Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is trying to seize a name eminent domain style, that should be known.

[sailingaway]

or vindictively trash the domain and get it blacklisted.... oh... you mean there are ways to wreak long term havoc on the domain and make it near worthless even in the hands of Ron Paul's great internet machine. yeah... damn the consequences.

wow, are you SURE you aren't the registrant?

[newbitech]

I think their lawyer told them to remove it too. I understand they were upset, but speaking publicly about this was not a good idea for them or Ron Paul.

they probably got this site before they were old enough to vote. tech savvy. they claim to live in their basements, typical RP supporter stereotypes. probably don's socialize much outside their website. It's probably their whole life. I don't doubt one bit the dedication they put in to it.

they probably made some money off it, but I bet they are using commercial wordpress plugins too. and they are on a dedicated IP. So...

[newbitech]

wow, are you SURE you aren't the registrant?

hey, just giving a warning. I don't want them to get it blacklisted before they let it go anymore than I want ron paul to get hold of it and drive it off a cliff.

[sailingaway]

they probably got this site before they were old enough to vote. tech savvy. they claim to live in their basements, typical RP supporter stereotypes. probably don's socialize much outside their website. It's probably their whole life. I don't doubt one bit the dedication they put in to it.

they probably made some money off it, but I bet they are using commercial wordpress plugins too. and they are on a dedicated IP. So...

a basement in Panama?

[newbitech]

there ya go Patriot, theres some meat on that bone.

http://domain-blacklist.e-dns.org/ronpaul.com






Warning! 8 items associated with ronpaul.com are listed in 4 DNS blacklists.





LISTED
121ms
ATLBL ABL (http://www.atlbl.com/en/about.html)



DNS A Record ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)



DNS MX Record (Mail Server) ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)


LISTED
491ms
ATLBL HBL (http://www.atlbl.com/)



DNS A Record ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)



DNS MX Record (Mail Server) ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)


LISTED
150ms
ATLBL RBL (http://www.atlbl.com/en/about.html)



DNS A Record ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)



DNS MX Record (Mail Server) ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)


LISTED
112ms
SpamCannibal (http://www.spamcannibal.org/)



DNS A Record ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)



DNS MX Record (Mail Server) ronpaul.com. resolves to a blacklisted IP 72.9.145.44 (http://whois-ip.e-dns.org/72.9.145.44)

[jj-]

How does one blacklist one's own domain?

[Peace Piper]

They have hurt Ron Paul, no doubt about it by coming out publicly about this, and they have said they don't think they can support him any longer, and have also said they do not care about the damage to the site now if this is the "true" Ron Paul. Their actions and posts lately indicate they are ready to end their support of Ron Paul and I suppose they just want to win the case now just to show they were in the right here, and then auction the domain to the highest bidder and be done with it.

Starting with Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney On Hannity No Less, the Pauls themselves along with the Benton Brigade have done more damage to Ron Pauls legacy than all the negative crap that went on in both campaigns. Actually the negative stuff was actually positive for Ron, because it brought people to his message.

He needs better advisers and quick, like now. I for one will never contribute to a Paul again., I've had it. Played out.

[nayjevin]

they probably got a lawyer who told em to pull it. That's why i don't think they were ever planning on selling it until Ron Paul called 5 years and 40THOUSAND pieces of content later, a lot of which is the painstaking task of transcribing speeches. Also kind of deflates the whole, it was leased meme as well.

I don't get how 'volunteer work' such as this now demands a high price. I dunno about a retroactive 'blood sweat and tears' valuation.

[fr33]

How does one blacklist one's own domain?

Idk how did you do it?

[sailingaway]

How does one blacklist one's own domain?

I don't know but it was from 8 to 10 when I checked it, again very responsive, or else maybe meaning something very different than what is being discussed here. I don't know what blacklisting is or does.

[Matt Collins]

Is Benton still involved with Ron? He is Ron's grandson-in-law, and I think they live across the street from each other. :rolleyes:

[jtstellar]

strategic move for anyone that has a brain.. going head to head against ron paul is a lose lose situation for ronpaul.com, so they need another personality to put all the blame on.. where's your skepticism? a dead broke scammer turning to his last resort to scam off ron paul while claiming to be a supporter is less prone to evils than someone with a bigger name in the movement? i'm not even bringing jack hunter's "ron paul has earned his benefit of doubt" argument, i think that part of the brain is dead for many starving children in this movement.

[angelatc]

they probably got a lawyer who told em to pull it. That's why i don't think they were ever planning on selling it until Ron Paul called 5 years and 40THOUSAND pieces of content later, a lot of which is the painstaking task of transcribing speeches. Also kind of deflates the whole, it was leased meme as well.


Yeah, if they pulled their comments down, that's the best sign of them having a lawyer I can think of.

[angelatc]

I have a friend who has read Lew Rockwell for about 15 years, but is not yet completely sold on Ron Paul. He's a conservative, not an anarchist.

LewRockwell.com has been absurdly effective. Thomas Sowell, Karen Kwiatkowski, Dr. Mercola, etc etc etc.... that site is not an echo chamber of anarchic thought.

RonPaul.com on the other hand, preaches to the choir.


LOLz - different strokes. Thomas Sowell is the only name there that I can even begin to tolerate. And I have to look away when he goes off on his anti-Islam tangents.

[fr33]

LOLz - different strokes. Thomas Sowell is the only name there that I can even begin to tolerate.
Interesting. What about Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/)?

[PatriotOne]

there ya go Patriot, theres some meat on that bone.

http://domain-blacklist.e-dns.org/ronpaul.com

I don't even know what a blacklisted IP means. I'm learning alot from you. I might not agree with you but your giving me a hell of a lesson on the subject :).

[PatriotOne]

Yeah, if they pulled their comments down, that's the best sign of them having a lawyer I can think of.

It doesn't take a lawyer to tell them it was really, really dumb to be posting all that info on the internet for Rons lawyers to see and potentially use against them. If I was on their side, I would have told them to take it down :D.

[CPUd]

How does one blacklist one's own domain?

The ones that say MX have to do with the mail server. One could get his own domain blacklisted by strategically spamming the honeypots that collect data on spammers.

[angelatc]

Interesting. What about Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/)?


I meant on the list that NayJevin provided. I really have no idea who all blogs there.

[angelatc]

It doesn't take a lawyer to tell them it was really, really dumb to be posting all that info on the internet for Rons lawyers to see and potentially use against them. If I was on their side, I would have told them to take it down :D.


Well, the article Sailing posted mentioned they were close to an amicable resolution, so it might also be part of that.

[PatriotOne]

Well, the article Sailing posted mentioned they were close to an amicable resolution, so it might also be part of that.

Gotta admit I'm a bit disappointed with the pending amicable resolution. Was starting to look forward to the thrilla from manilla domain dispute :cool:.

[newbitech]

I don't even know what a blacklisted IP means. I'm learning alot from you. I might not agree with you but your giving me a hell of a lesson on the subject :).

well you are welcome. my objective is to find common ground. I believe information sharing does that.

[angelatc]

Gotta admit I'm a bit disappointed with the pending amicable resolution. Was starting to look forward to the thrilla from manilla domain dispute :cool:.


I know, right? I remember the day the OJ Simpson verdict was handed down. (The murder charge, not the robbery.) The whole country stopped to watch it live on TV.

Seems hardly fair that we're likely to get a letter saying that they got an undisclosed price, and we can all be happy with Ron Paul again.

Can we dispute that?

[PatriotOne]

I know, right? I remember the day the OJ Simpson verdict was handed down. (The murder charge, not the robbery.) The whole country stopped to watch it live on TV.

Seems hardly fair that we're likely to get a letter saying that they got an undisclosed price, and we can all be happy with Ron Paul again.

Can we dispute that?

No dispute here. I want to know the details of the settlement now. I've spent way to much time looking/commenting at/on it to not know. OJ Simpson trial! I recorded and watched every second of that trial. I was totally fascinated with it.

[angelatc]

No dispute here. I want to know the details of the settlement now. I've spent way to much time looking/commenting at/on it to not know. OJ Simpson trial! I recorded and watched every second of that trial. I was totally fascinated with it.


I think we're entitled to it. What kind of a monster would do this to us?

[PatriotOne]

I think we're entitled to it. What kind of a monster would do this to us?

Jesse Benton! Must be him..he hates us.


hehe...couldn't resist.

[angelatc]

Jesse Benton! Must be him..he hates us.


hehe...couldn't resist.


Oh that totally explains it! How could I have missed that?????

[PatriotOne]

Oh that totally explains it! How could I have missed that?????

The devil is very deceptive :cool:.

Seriously...the details will prob be leaked anyways. Any guesses on the settlement amount? I'm going with the amount they had it appraised at $50k.

[angelatc]

The devil is very deceptive :cool:.

Seriously...the details will prob be leaked anyways. Any guesses on the settlement amount? I'm going with the amount they had it appraised at $50k.

No, I think the number will be more like $150,000. They wouldn't have offered it for $250,000 if that's what they wanted to get. I'm a terrible negotiator and even I don't do that.

[PatriotOne]

No, I think the number will be more like $150,000. They wouldn't have offered it for $250,000 if that's what they wanted to get. I'm a terrible negotiator and even I don't do that.

I think the guy will happily take 50k with the possibility of $0 pending through arbitration. Here's hoping we find out who gets bragging rights :D.

[CPUd]

I think we're entitled to it. What kind of a monster would do this to us?


http://i.imgur.com/L9qTvmN.gif

http://i.imgur.com/DqcV1ks.gif

http://i.imgur.com/JOS1ubJ.gif