Washington Ceasefire trying to shut down pro-gun web site

[George Washington]

The Executive Director of "Washington Ceasefire" is unhappy that I published her criminal records at http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/46/50/

So, she sent her lawyers to try to confiscate my domain name. Here are the documents I received from her law firm and ICANN:

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/d..._131559alr.doc

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/d...SEFIRE.COM.pdf

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/d...structions.doc

I have discovered that the very same law firm previously threatened Rich Lucibella over his ownership of WashingtonCeasefire.com before I registered it:

http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/demand1.htm
http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/demand2.htm
http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/complaint.htm

Does anyone know the outcome of what happened, and why the WashingtonCeasefire.com domain was abandoned before I picked it up?

[Armorer-at-Law]

Contact Rich and ask him.

So, do you have a plan and a budget? If you don't respond to the UDRP complaint, you will lose the domain name.

Remember, in order for them to win, they have to prove:

1. They own a trademark with which your domain name is confusingly similar;

2. You do not have any legitimate rights in the domain name; and

3. Your registration and use of the domain name was in bad faith.

The second two can be very hard for them to prove, especially when it involves First Amendment protected political speech.

[pax]

Here's the history: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ad.php?t=52900

Do send a PM to Rich Lucibella about this. He'll be fascinated, I'm sure.

pax

[Manedwolf]

They seem to have lost a lot of their regional domain names.

Their pitiful effort in New Hampshire hasn't been updated since 2004, either. Hopefully the people responsible for it fled to Massachusetts.

[denfoote]

Have your lawyer counter sue for enough money such that they will be off the internet for the next 10000 years!!
Say $7B!!!

[FirstFreedom]

Did you AGREE to arbritration? Regardless, if you haven't already, get an Intellectual Property (IP) lawyer mucho pronto. Good luck. Kinda funny about exposing her decadence there...

[Armorer-at-Law]

Have your lawyer counter sue for enough money such that they will be off the internet for the next 10000 years!!
Say $7B!!!

Not an option. This is a proceeding solely to determine ownership of a domain name.

Did you AGREE to arbritration? Regardless, if you haven't already, get an Intellectual Property (IP) lawyer mucho pronto.

When you register a domain name, you agree to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) arbitration process. The only remedy is to transfer or not transfer the URL. The rules are narrow and strict. Some respondants successfully represent themselves pro se, but hiring an IP lawyer with UDRP experience is highly advised if holding on to the domain name is of value to you. Expect to spend $5,000. It could be less, but usually isn't.

[Trip20]

George Washington,

If you don't mind, and provided doing so will not be detrimental to your victory, keep us up to date as things progress.

Good luck.

[4V50 Gary]

Rich will definitely be interested. BTW, even big ole Apple lost it when somebody else grabbed an I.(fill-in-the-blank) trademark before they did. Apple paid $$$ to get the name.

[George Washington]

Response filed

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/70/34/

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/d...9-response.pdf

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/d...9-exhibits.pdf

If you can't find the documents, it may mean that I lost the case and no longer own the domain name. So, download them and same them while you can, if this type of stuff interests you.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by Respondent

In order for the Respondent to divert traffic from Complainant’s own web site, Complainant would have to have a history of attracting noticeable traffic. A one year traffic comparison by the Alexa reporting service between <washingtonceasefire.org> and <washingtonceasefire.com> shows that traffic to Respondent’s traffic spiked shortly after the web site was launched in January 2007. Alexa shows that in the year prior to Respondent’s web site being launched, Complainant never had ANY detectable traffic. Thus, Respondent could not divert traffic from Complainant, even if desired, because any such traffic is negligible.

That's darn near funny. Even if your intent was to divert traffic, you would be unable to do so due to there being no traffic to speak of.

And I particularly love this tidbit:

Originally Posted by Respondent

Complainant is not a commercial enterprise and its sole purpose, both through its website and otherwise, is to advocate bigotry and to lobby for the passing of laws that would curtail or eliminate civil rights of others expressly protected by the US Constitution -- civil rights that allow others to protect themselves from violent criminals.

[30 cal slut]

need bux?

[Armorer-at-Law]

Looks good, George.

[txgho1911]

We could call her. Invite her out for a drink or 5. But not in King County. This thread could be titled "slips and pudles" but I will not explain that.
This domain use and ensuing conflict and the legalese responce and all exhibits just floors me.

[Marko Kloos]

While I dislike people bullying other people via legal threats, I'd be interested to read how you think an ad hominem attack will help the cause of RKBA. It neither detracts from her argument, nor add to yours.

[Mike Irwin]

"I'd be interested to read how you think an ad hominem attack..."

Huh?

[Trip20]

Double Huh?

[Mortech]

Could you please point out what part of his response could be defined as a 'ad hominem attack' ?

[pax]

I'll take a stab at it, and guess that Marko was referring to the OP's website itself -- which does indeed contain a rather large ad hominem attack against the woman who is the Executive Director of WA Ceasefire.

The fact is that whether or not this woman has been convicted of drunk driving really has very little to do with her anti-gun, anti-common-people stance. Her drinking problem (assuming that she really has one) might be a personal stumbling block or a private tragedy, but really has very little to do with her firearms politics.

So her drunk driving convictions just have no bearing at all on the gun issue in any way, and the record is (presumably) posted solely for the purpose of making her look like a lush or a scofflaw. But even if she were a lush or a scofflaw, that wouldn't necessarily mean she is wrong on the gun issue. Nor would her being a fine, upstanding citizen mean she is correct on the gun issue. It has no bearing whatsoever.

And that's what an ad hominem really is, of course: an attempt to discredit an opponent by attacking the opponent herself, rather than by attacking what the opponent actually says.

Incidentally, I agree with Marko. I'm all for free speech, but have my doubts that ad hominem attacks (aka "the politics of personal destruction") against our opponents really do any good for the RKBA cause.

pax

[Marko Kloos]

pax is dead on, as usual.

[Mike Irwin]

"The fact is that whether or not this woman has been convicted of drunk driving really has very little to do with her anti-gun, anti-common-people stance."

I'll take a stab at that...

I very much disagree with that statement. Posting the woman's police record as it involves operation of a motor vehicle goes both towards the character of the person and it also helps show a pattern of willful disregard for the law and for the safety of others.

In as much as the anti-gun movement tries to continually frame the anti-gun argument as a matter of public safety, I believe that it is directly on point to call out this individual's blatant disregard for... public safety.

If she had been simply nabbed for being drunk and walking down the street, I would tend to agree with you.

But she wasn't. She was operating a potentially deadly weapon and people should know that when they judge her advocacy for banning another type of deadly weapon.


A good example of this is one of the button links on the website... "Asking Saves Kids."

Was this woman thinking about kids when she got behind the wheel of her vehicle?

This, from the Gun Facts section of the site, also gives a very curious juxtapositional take on the matter...

"Firearms are second to motor vehicles as the leading cause of death from injury in the U.S. (Public Health Data Watch, August 2000, Public Health—Seattle & King County)"

[Brent]

I would much rather be a victim of an ad hominem attack, than be run over by a drunk-driver who wanted to disarm me.

[Trip20]

I'll have to disagree as well. The Respondent articulates exactly why the Executive Director's arrest history is relevant in section 5, c), iv) of the response:

Originally Posted by Respondent

Respondent is a resident of the State of Washington and has a vested interest in exposing the unsavory background of Natalie Reber, the Executive Director of “Washington Ceasefire”, “Ceasefire Foundation of Washington”, Washington Ceasefire Corporation”, “Washington Ceasefire Group”, “The Ceasefire Action Committee”, et al.

The Executive Director has been a defendant in multiple criminal and civil actions, which include charges of drunken driving, and driving with a suspended license. The Executive Director has simultaneously conducted a public relations campaign to convince the Washington legislature that lawful gun owners (including the Respondent) are a dangerous threat to society. Respondent has an interest in using <washingtonceasefire.com> to educate the public regarding the gross hypocrisy of the Executive Director by publishing public records concerning her criminal background.

[pax]

Mike,

You make some pretty good points.

My only argument with what you said is simply that the website didn't make that case. All the website really said was that this person has been convicted of criminal activity (drunk driving).

If the website had laid out the case for the relevance of her criminal conviction as compellingly as you do, I might not have had such an issue with it.

pax

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by pax

All the website really said was that this person has been convicted of criminal activity (drunk driving).

The website contains quotes of Natalie Reber pushing for a close to the “gunshow loophole” under the guise of public safety. Natalie’s words are then contrasted by her criminal activity (drunk driving) showing quite convincingly that she is a threat to public safety, thus exposing the hypocrisy.

While I agree the website may not connect the dots as plainly as a forum posting, my interpretation of the page is that it’s purpose is to contrast the words of Natalie Reber with the conflicting behavior of Natalie Reber to make the reader identify the farce.

Oleg Volk often does this with his posters; contrast two ideas/images to make the viewer see the absurdity.