Raf
-
Posts
16,684 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
149
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Raf
-
-
quote:
Originally posted by johniam:Raf: During Reagan's funeral days it was brought up that he believed that God put him in the presidency for a purpose. This HAD to affect decisions he made as President. Does this mean to you that his presidency was now flawed?
Just how do we separate a person from their governing values?
You can't, any more than you can prevent a judge from praying before he makes a decision. But if he makes a decision based solely on Biblical principles, regardless of the law involved (or against the law involved), he'd be overturned: and rightly so.
There are some "separations" that are not reasonable. Telling a man he can't pray before making a decision is unreasonable. Telling a government not to tell me who God is, whether I can have another, whether I can take His name in vain, and what day to worship him is NOT unreasonable.
-
quote:
Originally posted by johniam:Garth: All I said was that having the 10 commandments in a building doesn't endorse religion.
Not true. The first commandment names God. The second forbids the worship of graven images. The third forbids the taking of Yahweh's name in vain. The fourth establishes the holiness of the Sabbath. None of these commandments is remotely secular; posting them is an explicit acknowledgement of the God of Judaism (and, according to their creeds, Christianity and Islam). Government does not have the right to post these. We do. Is it in your living room yet?
-
I see what you're saying, but I really think Pat threw them for a loop by surrendering the domain name. I think they would have liked nothing more than to bankrupt him, but once he surrendered the name, they had little choice but to accept. The were in a bind after that.
My contention remains that this whole process cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI.
Pat's victories are actually not victories at all: they're non-losses.
1. He doesn't have to pay TWI's legal fees.
2. He doesn't have to account for and repay any money that came in as a result of his use of the domain name (not that there WAS any, but it's the principle of the thing).
3. Pat doesn't have to pay the "treble damages" sought by TWI, an amount impossible to figure out without going through trial/discovery/etc.
It's in items 1 and 3 that he saved his web sites. As he said, those were his only assets. So once he gave up the domain name (how many of you see this coming?) he was able to save his assets.
Pat's losses:
1. The cost of securing and maintaining the domain name over five years.
2. The domain name, and any right to reclaim it.
3. The Way of Christ as a name, and any right to reclaim it.
4. His own legal fees.
The actual legal fight was over 2, with 3 as a backdrop. The threat, if TWI was victorious, is that it would have cost Pat so much that he would have no choice but to shut his sites down. Although TWI never sought that specifically, Pat is correct in that it's reasonable to assume they salivated over the prospect.
I guess I was distinguishing between TWI's motives and its actual legal position, and Pat was not. Someone told Pat that TWI was after the Web sites, but for some reason Pat never saw (until time to settle) that the best way to keep those sites was to close the door he'd opened with this trademark infringement stuff. On all the trademark and domain issues, Pat lost. Yeah, it could have been a HAYULL of a lot worse.
Bottom line: he ended up doing exactly what Long Gone and I advised from the beginning.
-
I spoke up during the game, but haven't said anything since...
"Hell Freezes Over" pretty much captured it. Who would have thought after the Saturday night spanking that Boston would have anything left?
Congrats to a team that earned it. And good luck in the series. I'll be pulling for you: it's time to reverse the curse. I would hate to see you beat my Yankees only to lose the friggin Series.
-
The debate is over by fiat then. Pat is right because confidential informant man told him so. Paw, Eagle, get ready for your lawsuits. We're next!
Pat, seriously: do I think TWI wanted to see your web sites shut down? Yeah, they'd love to see us all shut down. The difference between us and you is that you gave them an opening they could fly Ambassador One through. Settling the case closed that opening. They've got nothing on you now. You disarmed their only weapon, which is PRECISELY what Long Gone and I have been trying to tell you since TWI filed suit. These are things you KNOW I told you from the beginning.
quote:
Originally posted April 10, 2004Pat doesn't need to listen to our amateur legal theories. That is very true. But he also doesn't need to go online and announce his legal theories to the whole world, especially knowing that his courtroom adversaries are observing every word. This isn't a game. This isn't just a thread. This is a lawsuit that in some way threatens this man's livelihood. And for what? A domain name? Give up that issue and what has TWI got on him? NOTHING. Why do you think TWI has not gone after Paw? Because they CAN'T!
Originally posted April 13, 2004
But as long as Pat sees that position as "bending over" or caving in to a bully, then he will never be rid of this unnecessary legal entanglement, which is diverting his time and attention from the REAL cult-fighting that supposedly got TWI angry with him in the first place.
Originally posted April 13, 2004
Pat says TWI is picking on him for criticizing them. Well, I've been criticizing LCM, PFAL and Wierwille for years. Where's my lawsuit? Where's Paw's lawsuit? There's no lawsuit because what we do so clearly falls under free speech. Pat can continue to criticize TWI all he wants without fear of reprisal, once he drops this albatross of a domain name that actually HAS hindered him EXACTLY the way TWI wants it to, because it has diverted him from pursuing the reasonable goal of exposing that no-good outfit for the freedom-hating cult that it is.
Originally posted April 14, 2004
My contention is that Pat has no MORAL claim to the domain name. Give it up and watch the lawsuit evaporate, because there will be nothing to fight over except for Pat's first amendment right to criticize a contemptible, controlling organization.
-
Doesn't matter. At some point in the process PR Computer Services owned the server lease. Once it did, it became liable.
Check.
-
Duh is right, Pat. DUH! PR Computer Services owned the server lease... DUH! PR Computer Services was thus just as guilty of the trademark infringement as you were as an individual.
Pat, I refuse to continue this battle of wits with you until and unless you arm yourself.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:"You either couldn't afford to go forward (no shame there: just say so) or you didn't have the confidence in your case that you profess. If you believed in your case and had the will to see it through to trial, you'd have done it: you would not have surrendered the domain name no matter how they asked."
Raf, the same could be said of TWI going to trial. They could have gained more by going to trial as well (despite Pat's current financial situation - they could have royally screwed him over if they had an absolute win on their hands)and the fact they didn't, tells me they too faced the very real possibility of losing.
That's wishful thinking Abi. PAT HAD NO MONEY. They would have gained nothing, and it would have cost them more, if TWI had continued to pursue the case after they already got what they were looking for. Screwing Pat over financially was obviously NOT on their agenda.
quote:
Conversely, it is often very foolish to represent oneself - especially in a federal court which has much stricter rules than district or circuit. So it may very simply be no one was spanked and both parties were wise to settle in the way they did. TWI got their domain name and trademark and Pat did not lose his shirt.
I believe both parties were wise to settle the way they did: TWI was wise because to pursue a lawsuit after you've achieved your main objective is folly. Pat was wise because he, belatedly, recognized that twi should have the domain name in question and the legal problems went away the day "the day" that he surrendered the name.
-
Pat, are you REALLY that wrong about your own case (edited w/apologies)? Can you be?
quote:
So why did TWI spend so much time building a case against the "infringing" websites ex-cultworld and the path of christ? Thewayinternational.com was not a website, but a re-direct page.
Where did thewayinternational.com redirect people? Come on, I know you know the answer. DING DING DING!!! thewayinternational.com redirected them to your other web sites! SO (he said, turning to the jury of his greasespot peers), the other sites contained information critical of TWI, and you cybersquatted on thewayinternational.com to direct people to your sites.
To make the case for trademark infringement, TWI had to prove that you were wrongly using their mark to bring people someplace other than TWI. The other place you were bringing them was your other web sites. The content of the other web sites is relevant to prove you were using their mark to damage them.
They had no [legal] problem with your sites existing, but when you used twi.com to get people to your sites, you crossed the line, and they sued. At no point in any of the documentation that you posted did TWI ask, request, demand, suggest, imply, or even HOPE that you shut down the other web sites. Their only request was that you not wrongly use their trademarks to do it. That this is true is evident in that TWI will not ever sue you for twisucks.com, at least not as a trademark infringement.
Pat, you don't even understand your own CASE.
-
"Injunctive relief" does not mean "shut down the websites." That's fiction. Nothing in the lawsuit requests or demands that your sites be shut down.
AGAIN: The question of whether to go to federal court or the arbitration board has already been answered. Your refusal to acknowledge that answer does not negate that the answer has been offered and not refuted.
quote:
I firmly believed in my case and its merits, and was willing to go to trial if need be to prove the merits of my case. TWI knew I meant business and was not afraid or intimidated by them or their lawyers, and that shocked them I am sure. After all, I am a "cop-out" and supposed greasespot versus the mighty prevailing household...
I'm glad you believed in your case and its merits. That and a $95 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, double half caf. It's meaningless. Whether your case had merit or not would have been decided at a trial, but it never got that far. Be real, Pat, if you really wanted to take this to trial, you'd have done so. Who are you kidding? You settled because "they asked politely"? Please. That's not the reason and we all know it. You either couldn't afford to go forward (no shame there: just say so) or you didn't have the confidence in your case that you profess. If you believed in your case and had the will to see it through to trial, you'd have done it: you would not have surrendered the domain name no matter how they asked.
quote:
In a very similar case, taubman v. webfeats, the taubman company demanded at the end as part of the penalties/punitive damages that the man's infringing websites be taken down for the infringement.
1. Neither Taubman nor Webfeats was TWI. The question was whether TWI sought to take down your web sites. Taubman v. Webfeats is irrelevant to that question. What one plaintiff seeks is not the same as what another plaintiff seeks. What did TWI seek? Cite the paragraph already.
2. More importantly, in Taubman v. Webfeats, the plaintiff sought, in your words, "that the man's infringing websites be taken down." Ex-cultworld was not the infringing website. thewayinternational.com was.
Look, Pat, you want to call what happened a victory for you? Fine, go ahead. You want to Pat yourself on the back for making TWI spend money? Feel free. That's your choice. But when push comes to shove, you won nothing on this; you wasted your time and took your energy away from a more worthy fight.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Radar O'Reilly:LG,
Okay...I understand your point. WHY are you still ragging on Pat??????
ror
As someone who's been ragging on Pat, even though the question wasn't addressed to me, I'll provide my answer.
1. Pat addressed me directly in the first post. I was practically invited to respond.
2. Pat is presenting this as a draw. This was no draw. If you're happy TWI spent money, I guess that's fine. It doesn't tickle me that they spent money that went to lawyers, but if it tickles you, that's your prerogative (thank you to those of you who answered my question on the subject). However, the fact that TWI paid its lawyers is hardly evidence that they were "spanked," which was Pat's allegation in the first place.
3. Pat continues to insist that this was not about the domain name, even though the lawsuit was settled as soon as the domain name was surrendered.
4. Pat did not get one legal victory out of this whole thing: the closest to a legal victory was that he did not have to pay TWI's legal bills (standard in most settlements). He couldn't pay those bills if he wanted to (and neither could I: I'm broke).
5. Long Gone and I have repeatedly been accused of "armchair lawyering," but people who cited laws and precedents in Pat's favor were faced with no such accusation. That's selective and wrong.
6. I believe this entire legal action was a distraction that cost Pat time and money, veering him away from the important and valuable work that he does on his web sites. Excultworld seeks to provide an important service (whether you agree with everything on there or not, the intentions are entirely noble). Money and time that Pat poured into this action could have been spent on improving the web site and reaching more people with the truth about TWI and other cults. I realize, fully, that this is Pat's decision to make, but if he didn't want feedback, he shouldn't have posted it on numerous threads on a message board. And if all he wanted was positive feedback, then he shouldn't have posted it on a board where people are known to speak their minds.
I've been told privately that I appear to be gloating in an egotistical manner. I can't fully disagree with that, and to the extent that it is true, I apologize to everyone, most specifically to Pat. I don't want to gloat. In my opinion both of these lawsuits were solid victories for TWI, costing them a relative pittance. This cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI, so forgive me if I don't congratulate him for it. That's my honest opinion. If it's better that I shut up about it, fine. Just don't put the subject on a message board that invites comment (and if you DO put it on a message board, don't call me out on the opening post).
I would like to know, if someone wouldn't mind digging it out for me, where TWI ever requested (in its injunctions) that excultworld or any of Pat's other sites be shut down. I'll look for it too, but as it's a claim Pat has made on several occasions, I imagine it must be in TWI's requests somewhere.
-
This is the damndest thing I've ever seen. Bosox are absolutely on fire: Hat's off to you!
If they win (it's 8-1 in the 7th, 2 on, 1 out) I'll be pulling for Boston in the series.
Disappointed? Yeah, of course, but the Yanks will be back.
-
I guess I don't understand why anyone is so happy that TWI had to spend money. While it's a lot of money to you and to me (especially to me), it's not a lot of money to them. Their investment accounts probably burp that money out every now and then. I take no glee in the fact that this cost them anything. Now, if they had to pay Pat $50,000, or pay his legal fees, I could see being pleased. But the only people to see this money are TWI's lawyers. This makes us happy? Now that is something I don't get.
-
CW: They needed to get Pat's part of this in writing; a settlement does this far more effectively than dropping the case.
Abi: Does that work with trademark infringement cases? I honestly don't know: do all trademark infringement cases go to fed court first? I'm under the impression that this is not the case.
-
quote:
Originally posted by CoolWaters:OK...we've got to quit adding to our posts after they've been posted! LOL!
:)-->I think I need to get off this subject entirely. I haven't said anything new in about nine posts. Was it you or someone else who asked me if my face was blue yet?
-
If they wanted more than the domain name, then the case would still be going on.
The idea that this is about something other than the domain name is fiction, as proven by the fact that once TWI GOT the domain name, the case was dropped. There was nothing else to argue over. I can't explain their choice of venue, but there's one inescapable fact: once TWI got the domain name, the case was dropped. It's all they were after, no matter how many times anyone screams otherwise.
-
I don't think TWI was being nice to Pat. I think they knew he couldn't afford to pay and, as such, they would be the ones stuck with the bill. And for what? To get the domain name that Pat already gave up? Once he gave up the domain name, paying TWI's lawyers was the only remaining issue. The longer TWI dragged it out, the more it would cost TWI. Nothing nice there at all. Just cold and practical, imo.
quote:
If twi's attorneys were so sure they'd get what they wanted, why even take it to Federal Court at all?
We're talking about the settlement: they knew they'd get what they wanted because they asked for it (politely) and Pat (rightly) gave it to them. Had they not taken this to court, they would have had to buy the domain name from Pat, which (as Long Gone pointed out) would have legitimized Pat's claim to the domain name. TWI did exactly what a good lawyer would have told them to do: take this to court.
I admit I'm stumped on their choice of venue (not being a lawyer, I can't answer why they went to Fed court instead of an arbitration board or whatever). But I don't think they're choice of venue invalidates their claim in the slightest.
-
quote:
Originally posted by CoolWaters:I have a question...
Why did twi settle?
I'm getting the idea that twi settled out of the goodness of its cold heart.
TWI settled for two reasons:
1. Pat gave up the domain name, so they got what they wanted.
2. Pat wouldn't be able to pay the legal fees even if they prevailed on that matter, so it would be a total waste of their time to get a judgment against him. It would cost them more to get the judgment than to agree to pay their own fees.
I'm guessing on both points, but it's the only reason that makes sense to me. (And lest it appear that I'm making an issue of Pat's finances, which I am not, let me add that I would not have been able to carry this as far, financially, as Pat did).
-
quote:
Originally posted by pjroberge:quote:
Actually, I had consulted with several trademark attorneys over the years who had the same opinion.
It has not been established by anyone anywhere except you.
Long Gone stole my thunder on both these points, but I'll reiterate. The fact that you consulted with attorneys does not ESTABLISH that the trademarks are too generic. It's their considered legal opinion, and it has not been tested. You said it has been established (I paraphrase), but nothing of the sort has been established. The only thing that has been established is that TWI will enforce its trademark.
quote:
quote:
TWI can only enforce their trademarks by making it too costly to pursue justice.
There's also no question that TWIM could have pursued their case but chose not to.
TWIM most likely saw the tremendous waste of their time and resources which TWI was more than happy to spend, and decided that the battle was not worth the cost.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but as LG said, they can also prevail by being on the right side of the law and the facts. Nothing you have said or done has established that they were wrong on either front, no matter how often or how loudly you insist that it's so.
quote:
On trademark issues, TWI has lost in a few trademark cases I will be posting in the next weeks.
Cool. Bring it on.
quote:
Again, if TWI's trademark "The Way" was so defensable, TWI would not have needed to register 4 new trademarks for "The Way International". Their trademark for "The Way" should have been sufficient without needing the new trademarks.
Your refusal and/or failure to read our previous responses to this ridiculous point do not oblige me to repeat them. And for Pat's sake, the word is "defensible."
-
There's no question that the evidentiary hearing was not held.
There's also no question that TWIM could have pursued their case but chose not to. One can easily speculate the reason they did so is they did not think they were going to be successful. This runs absolutely contrary to your repeated and incorrect insistence that "The Way" is too generic a trademark to enforce. You may be right; you may be wrong. But you are absolutely wrong to insist, as you have, that this has been established. It has not been established by anyone anywhere except you.
-
As you can probably tell from our photos, I won the hair pulling contest with Pat.
;)-->A high five coming from me would be disingenuous. It would not be sincere, and I don't want to insult Pat by offering one. I'll just reword what I've said before:
Few people have done more damage to TWI in the field of exposing them than Pat. I applaud that, as loudly as I can. I contributed some small, tangential content to his site because I believe his site is an important resource for people who have left TWI. I have no problem with Pat's site and I hope he continues to give TWI hell in that arena. I have always felt this legal effort was a distraction from a greater mission, and I hope, now that it's over, Pat can devote his full energy to doing what he's done extremely well in the past: expose that petty little cult for what it is. (Yes, I know he's already responded to it, but it's worth repeating anyway).
-
I applaud the fact that Pat got as far as he did. I am pleased that he was not forced to pay TWI's legal fees (not that he could have anyway, but it's the principle of the thing). I wish he had gotten more: TWI should have paid him the cost of securing and maintaining the domain name for five years.
Where I object is when people call this a "draw," when it was not; when Pat claims this was not about the domain name, when it was; when I'm accused of taking TWI's slant, when I did not.
Warning a brother not to get too deep into a fight he can't win is NOT taking TWI's side.
For all the criticism we "armchair lawyers" have gotten on this site, we called the outcome of this from the get-go, even with our limited understanding of the law (and I wasn't even basing my own thoughts on the law, but that's irrelevant).
As for PA, he decided not to make his settlement the subject of discussion (I forget if there was a legal order forbidding discussion or not). Pat decided to make his case, his strategy, and his settlement the subject of discussion.
quote:
According to the paperwork we were given by the clerk of the district court when we filed in Fed Court, above 90% of pro se cases are thrown out as soon as a motion for summary judgement is filed because this is the stage where that many pro se litigants become hopelessly lost.
What percentage of those cases are brought by the pro se litigant? This was not a case brought by a pro se litigant, it was defended by one. Of course it wasn't going to get thrown out: because TWI had a case against Pat. And I will restate my observation that none of the people on this site who have complained about "armchair lawyering" in this case raised ANY objections when the armchair lawyers said things that were supportive of Pat. Your opposition to armchair lawyering seemed awfully selective.
Pat, I know we've butted heads hard on this, but I hope you take my criticisms as constructive. I desperately did not want to see you get hurt, although I predicted you would. On that, you exceeded my expectations, for which I am grateful. I know you didn't see it this way, but I don't think it would have been kind on my part to keep quiet about your course of action when I thought it was a major mistake on your part. I think your web sites do significant damage to TWI by telling the truth about their operations, and I thought this lawsuit and your position on it were diverting your attention away from a much more valuable endeavor. As stated earlier, I hope you return to that endeavor with full vigor. You lost a battle on their turf, but there's a greater battle, one in which TWI's secrets must be exposed to the light of truth. That's your turf. Go get 'em.
-
Well, we now know for certain: the central computer at Living Epistles Society was the ultimate Thread Killer.
-
I didn't know the rule on the A-Rod play, but once I knew it I agreed with the umps.
Congrats, Sox. You've already made history. Good luck tonight. Not that I'm rooting for you, mind you, but dang, these have been some great games. You earned game 7.
Return of the Ten Commandments Debate
in Open
Posted
I would not be opposed to their display in such circumstances, as I have stated earlier in other threads. If the motivation is to show that the American legal system has historic roots, then I concur: there are things in the Magna Carta that don't apply to the American legal system. There are other legal foundations of our system, and the 10 commandments definitely fall into that category.
In the Roy Moore case, this was not what was happening. Roy Moore put that monument up as an act of personal worship to God. Removing it, he said, was disobedience to God. This was a clear crossing of the line. Other incidents are far, far less clear.