IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Dr. Reuben Norman, Jr. PETITIONER
v.
Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corporation, RESPONDENTS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
DR. REUBEN NORMAN
Pro Se
229-244-3170
[Text of United State Supreme Court
Writ of Certiorari
Hand Delivered to Court on December 2, 2005 by R L Norman, Jr.
Most of Appendices Included]
need App c text
Questions Presented
1. Did an appeals court err in not requiring
a federal judge to equitably apply sua sponte United States Supreme Court precedent?
2. Did an appeals court err in not requiring
a federal judge to exercise her legal duty
to prevent the use of state law to supercede
United States Supreme Court precedent?
3. Did an appeals court err in not reversing
the dismissal of a federal case based upon the use of false documents and/or
perjury by a plaintiff's lawyer, for the purpose of
preventing the application of a United States Supreme Court precedent?
4. Did an appeals court err in not reversing the dismissal of a federal case based upon the use of false documents and/or perjury by a plaintiff's lawyer, for the purpose of hiding ongoing violations of federal law?
iv
Table of Contents
Section Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES vi
OPINIONS BELOW viii
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT viii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT viii
CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY ix
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Introduction: Illegal Pornography
and 'Fraud upon the Court' 3
History of Case 4
Truth in Domain Names Act of 5
April 2003: From BIPCO and
Kilpatrick Stockton to Ultimate Search and the Origins of a
Secret Agreement
v
Decline in Secrecy in Federal Court 8
Settlements Since 2000: From Firestone Tires to Roman
Catholic Church
The Decline of BIPCO's Legal 8
Position in 2003: Kremen,
Fox News Corporation and
Moseley Precedents
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE 11
PETITION
CONCLUSION 15
Appendices
A. En banc appeal Petition Denial Opinion, 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, July
6, 2005
B. BIPCO v. Norman Dismissal Order, Northern District Court of Georgia, January 26, 2004
C. Text Chart: 'Context for a Fraud Upon the Court', September 9, 2005
D. BIPCO Demand letter on 'southernbelle.net', Jacqueline Gregorski to E. Faye Williams, June 2002
F 'southernbelle.net', Whois, Ultimate Search, March
31, 2003; IP 213.130.63.233
G Kilpatrick Stockton 'Legal Alert' on Moseley v. Victoria's Secret, Late March
2003
H. April 3, 2003 BIPCO Motion to Compel, (3 pages only)
I. April 30, 2003 Truth in Domain Names Act, Amber Alert Legislation
M. Trace Map of Kilpatrick Stockton to Level3 IP address,
circa 2003
[Partial Appendix M Only]
N. Jacqueline Gregorski, BIPCO lawyer, as user of Bellessouth.Com email at Everyone.Net
vi
Cases Pages
Baltimore Sun Co. v. Mayor and City Council of 8 Baltimore, (Maryland court
of Appeals,
July 24, 2000)
Fox News Network, LLC v. Penguin Group (USA), 8, 10
Inc., and Alan S. Franken, no. 03 Civ. 6162 (RLC)(DC)
Hazel-Atlas v. Hartford Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. 13, 14
322 U.S. 238 (1944).
Kremen v. Cohen, 2000 WL 1811403 and 2000 WL 9, 10 1843239 (N.D. Calif., 2000)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 135 (1803) 14, 15
Thomas v. Phillips, 240 Ga. App. 600 602(1) 2, 11 (524 SE2nd 298) (1999)
Tommy Hilfiger Licensing Inc. v. Goody's Family 2, 7 Clothing, Inc. 2003 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 8788 10,11
(N.D. Ga may 9, 2003)
Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, July 18, 8
2000 (7th Circuit Appeals Court, No. 99-3084)
Victor Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, No. 01-1015, 1, 2
U. S. Supreme Court, March 4, 2003 5, 6 7, 9 10, 11
12, 13
15
Arbitration
C. A. Cigarrera Bigott Sucesores v. Ultimate 3
Search, case no. D2002-0866,WIPO
Arbitration and Mediation Center, Dec. 3, 2002
vii
Statutes
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) False representation of 3
goods interstate commerce
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(c) dilution forbidden 1, 4
Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) 4, 10
18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 Conspiracy 6
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 Racketeer Influenced and 6, 13
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 14
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b) Truth in Domain Names Act 3, 5
of 2003 (TIDNA) False or misleading 6, 8
domain names on the Internet 13,16
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314 Transportation of Stolen Goods 4
Rules
Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a)(2)
Constitution
14th Amendment, Section 1 10
Articles
Dixon, Terence, 'Summary of Cases on Federal 11
Dilution Issues after Moseley', Dechert.Com,
April, 2004.
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. A) that is the subject of this case is not reported. The ruling of the district court is not reported (Pet. App. B).
The Northern District Court of Georgia dismissed this case on January 26,
2004. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an en banc appeal on July 6,
2005. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on October 3, 2005. This
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1254 (1).
Petitioner seeks the reversal of Northern District Court of Georgia's January 26, 2004 decision accepting a claimed agreement between Norman and BIPCO, which violated Norman's due process rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1; Norman's right to equitable application of U.S. Supreme Court precedents; allowed the state law of Georgia to supercede federal law and which allowed a 'fraud upon the court' to be occur and to be hidden. Petitioner was prevented from raising these claims in district court, but did raise them in the appeals court.
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Norman had no parent corporation
Return to Table of Contents
ix
CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein the reside.
No State shall make or enforce any Law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) False representation of goods interstate commerce
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container
for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device or any combination
thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description
of fact or false or misleading representation of fact, which-
(a) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person,
or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services,
or commercial activities by another person, or…
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(c) dilution forbidden, Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)
(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles
of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction
against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or
x
trade name, if such begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution
of the distinctive quality of the mark…
18 U.S.C. Sec. 371Conspiracy
The three elements of a conspiracy offense under 18 U.S.C. sec. 371 are
1. That two or more persons conspired, or agreed, to commit the crimes described
in the indictment;
2. that the defendants knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy; and
3. that a member of the conspiracy did one of the overt acts for the purpose
of
advancing or helping the conspiracy.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
Although generally applied to organized criminal activities such as loan sharking,
illegal substance distribution, violent crime in racketeering and gambling,
this law is sufficiently broad to include illegal activities relating to any
enterprise in interstate commerce or foreign commerce. However, acts of wire
fraud or mail fraud do not constitute RICO level activity, unless other crimes
are involved.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b) Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003 (TIDNA)
(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive
a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both.
xi
(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years or both.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314 Transportation of Stolen Goods
Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers in interstate or foreign commerce
any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5000 or
more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud; or
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud,
or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises, transports or causes to be transported, or induces
any person or persons to travel in, or to be transported in interstate or foreign
commerce in the execution or concealment of a scheme or artifice to defraud
that person or those persons of money or property having a value of $5000 or
more;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In November 2001, BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation (BIPCO) sent Dr. Reuben Norman a letter demanding that he give BIPCO the domain name of 'bellessouth.com'. The letter claimed various forms of trademark infringement, as well as trademark dilution based in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA), but mentioned no proof of either form of damage. In August 2002, BIPCO filed a complaint against Norman, along with a series of exhibits, of which Exhibit M mentioned the provider for Norman's free email site, Everyone.Net. BIPCO's original legal actions seemed to rely upon the 'likelihood' of dilution standard. BIPCO tried a series of legal maneuvers, often threatening a long court trial and other forms of legal coercion.
In April and May 2003 BIPCO refused to accept the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court March 4, 2003 Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. decision, regarding the necessity of actual proof in FTDA claims. Since BIPCO had presented no proof of damages, the dilution claims were basically moot after Moseley. One of three things should have then occurred:
1. BIPCO could have removed the dilution claims from the complaint and continued with other claims.
2
2. Judge Beverley Martin could have dismissed the dilution claims sua sponte, as permitted in Georgia law (Thomas v. Phillips) . Judge Martin was legally aware of Moseley and ruled on May 9, 2003 in Hilfiger v. Goody's that dilution required proof.
3. Norman's lawyer, Patrick Cork, could have asked for summary judgment on the dilution claim.
Instead, after Moseley, several unusual events occurred as part of a campaign to divert the Court's attention:
1. March 31, 2003 the domain name southernbelle.net' was suddenly owned by
Hong Kong pornographer Ultimate Search. 'Southernbelle.net' had been legally
taken by BIPCO and SBC Communications in July 2002. (Ultimate Search presently
owned by Marchex.Com of Seattle, Washington.)
2. April 3, 2003, BIPCO's lawyers filed a motion claiming lack of honesty by
Norman over the company Everyone.Net, and asking for 60 additional days of discovery
on Everyone.Net. This claim was prima facia false by Exhibit M and marked the
first part of the 'fraud upon the court'.
3. June 23, 2003, BIPCO and Norman's lawyer completed a very secretive Proposed Settlement Agreement, but waited over another month to inform him of the existence of the agreement. This
3
'agreement' was the second part of the 'fraud upon the court', to cover all traces of BIPCO's actions.
Norman timely appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but was rejected. He then applied for an en banc rehearing, but was rejected.
Introduction: Illegal Pornography and 'Fraud upon the Court'
On the surface, this case appears as only a simple issue of Dr. Reuben Norman failing to fulfill a legally binding agreement. In truth, it is about the actual or apparent ties between BIPCO and its counsel, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP; and Ultimate Search, a vast illegal, pornography syndicate from Hong Kong. It was to cover-up these apparent or actual ties between BIPCO and Kilpatrick Stockton; and Ultimate Search, which apparently led BIPCO's lawyers to commit perjury and/or submit false documents to the Court in the April 3, 2003 BIPCO Motion to Compel.
In 2002, Ultimate Search was a self-admitted Web pornographer, having used pornography as part of a successful defense in keeping the domain name of 'bigot.com', in a WIPO arbitration, (Cigarrera Bigott Sucesores v Ult Search, Dec. 3, 2002). During at least part of 2003, Ultimate Search was found using '3littlepig.com' to link to 'midnightpu--y.com', (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b) TIDNA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) false representation..). On March 31, 2003 a domain name recently taken by BIPCO
4
and SBC Communications 'southernbelle.net', using this same legal process as
used against Norman, was suddenly
obtained by Ultimate Search, (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314 Transportation of Stolen Goods).
History of Case
As part of an ongoing attempt by the Regional Bell Operating Companies to intellectually police the use of 'bell' and 'belle' domain names, BIPCO lawyer, Jacqueline Gregorski, sent a letter on November 9, 2001, demanding that Dr. Reuben Norman cease to use the domain name of 'bellessouth.com', as part of a free Web email system. Nine months later, in August 2002, Kilpatrick Stockton lawyers Stephen Schaetzel and Lisa Furganic, filed a complaint generally claiming trademark infringement and dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA), but presenting no proof of damages of either. Apparently, BIPCO had relied upon a 'likelihood' of dilution standard. However, on March 4, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that 'actual proof' of dilution was required in FTDA claims. At this point Norman's lawyer, Patrick Cork, should have filed a request for summary judgment on the FTDA dilution claim, but failed to do so, one of a series of such legal failures by Cork.
On April 3, 2003, BIPCO filed a motion to compel, claiming that Dr. Norman
had failed to disclose data on Everyone.Net, the physical location of his email
site 'bellessouth.com'. This claim by BIPCO of not knowing of Everyone.Net was
falsified prima facia by Exhibit M of the August 2002 complaint. Exhibit M had
numerous examples of 'Everyone.Net' written all over it. Exhibit M was handed
5
to Norman in an April 2003 deposition by Lisa Furganic, BIPCO co-counsel. As
well, evidence from Everyone.Net,
showed that BIPCO lawyer, Jacqueline Gregorski, had registered twice as an email
user at 'bellessouth.com', most likely in November 2001.
Any claims that BIPCO did not know of Everyone.Net were plainly false, yet as a result of the April 3, 2003 BIPCO motion, Judge Beverley Martin granted BIPCO additional time for discovery regarding Everyone.Net. No proof of any discovery from Everyone.Net was ever presented by BIPCO. The April 3, 2003 Motion to Compel appears to have been a deliberate lie, designed by BIPCO's lawyers to prevent the application of Moseley to Norman's case on the dilution claim and to stall for time, as a basketball coach may sometimes do to break the momentum of an opponent.
Truth in Domain Names Act of April 2003:
From BIPCO and Kilpatrick Stockton to Ultimate Search And the Origins of a Secret
Agreement
On April 30, 2003 the Truth in Domain Names Act (TIDNA) was passed to minimize the use of child-like domain names linking with pornography. TIDNA did three things to the present case:
1. Put Ultimate Search into the position of violating
TIDNA with linking '3littlepig.com' to 'midnightpu--y.com', among other adult
sites.
6
2. Potentially put BIPCO and SBC into a RICO
conspiracy situation with Ultimate Search, since BIPCO and SBC had taken 'southernbelle.net'
in
July 2002 and on March 31, 2003, Ultimate Search had ownership of 'southernbelle.net'.
3. Potentially put BIPCO's attorneys Kilpatrick Stockton into a RICO conspiracy
relationship with Ultimate Search, since Kilpatrick Stockton was using Level3.Net
as its email provider at the some time that Level3 and Verio.Net were providing
bandwidth for Ultimate Search and '3littlepig.com'.
By early May 2003, both BIPCO and Kilpatrick Stockton appeared to be in a dangerous RICO conspiracy situation with regards to TIDNA and Ultimate Search, while BIPCO's civil case with Norman had been severely damaged by Moseley. While Norman did not fully understand the possible use of TIDNA to pull Ultimate Search into court until October 2003, it was clear that a summary judgment motion from Norman's lawyer would have probably eliminated the dilution part of BIPCO's case. Both BIPCO's internal lawyers and Kilpatrick Stockton's lawyers, each had reasons to want to hide all facts of this case after March 2003, thus was born the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the second half of the 'fraud upon the court', the cover-up.
The proscription against 'fraud upon the court' is probably well known to the Court, thus much of this brief will be spent describing in some detail how 'fraud upon the court' occurred in this case. What has been most interesting,
7
has been the abject inability of any federal institution in Georgia to apply federal law to BIPCO.
The Secret Agreement and False Claims by Norman's Lawyer: The Second Half of the 'Fraud upon the Court'
During May and June 2003, seemingly with the assistance of Norman's lawyer, an extremely harsh 'Proposed Settlement Agreement' (agreement) was created by BIPCO and sent to Norman's lawyer on June 23, 2003. The terms included an extreme demand for secrecy, which made little sense at the time. Norman's lawyer Cork apparently did not show the agreement to Norman until late July 2003. Norman immediately wrote Cork a memo, showing that the agreement seemed illegal in the secrecy clause alone. Cork's apparently ineffectual counsel had turned into a seeming alliance with BIPCO, in an attempt to force Norman to accept the illegal terms of the agreement. On September 22, 2003, Cork left voice mail with BIPCO and falsely claimed that Norman had been willing to accept the agreement. BIPCO then filed this false data with Judge Beverley Martin. On Jan 26, 2004, Judge Martin ruled in favor of BIPCO, citing Cork's false phone data as proof of Norman's acceptance of the agreement.
Thus with a false claim from BIPCO's lawyers regarding discovery with Everyone.Net
on April 3, 2003 and a false voice mail from Norman's lawyer on September 22,
2003, Judge Martin issued a January 26, 2004 ruling, upholding the claimed agreement.
Her actions basically nullified the U.S. Supreme Court Moseley decision in Norman's
case with BIPCO, while simultaneously accepting Moseley in the Hilfiger v. Goody's
case, thus
8
creating a 'split' within a single court. Her acceptance of fraudulent data
from both BIPCO's lawyers and Norman's own lawyer, despite numerous attempts
by Norman to
reach her, call into question Judge Martin's competence as a federal judge.
As well, her actions on January 26, 2004 permitted Ultimate Search to continue
to violate the TIDNA another five months with '3littlepig.com'.
Decline in Secrecy in Federal Court Settlements Since 2000: From Firestone Tires to Roman Catholic Church
The 7th Circuit Court has ruled that court records are presumptively open for the public, even if they are part of a confidential settlement agreement. Court proceedings are "public rather than private property". ( Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, July 18, 2000 ,No. 99-3084). Later in 2000, Maryland's highest court unsealed a confidential settlement agreement between the family of a man shot and killed by a Baltimore policeman and the City of Baltimore (Baltimore Sun Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, July 24, 2000). In the absence of a showing of compelling need, the unsigned confidential agreement of June 23, 2003 claimed by BIPCO, was probably not legal. Given it's possible role in the hiding of either actual or apparent relationships between BIPCO and Kilpatrick Stockton, and Ultimate Search's illegal porn in 2003; the claimed agreement was little more than part of a cover-up of a 'fraud upon the court'.
The Decline of BIPCO's Legal Position in 2003:
Sex.Com, Fox News and Victoria's Secret Precedents
9
The suit BIPCO brought against Norman possibly was questionably legal in August
2002. Any sense of legitimacy of the suit began to dissipate with the Moseley
U.S. Supreme Court decision of March 2003. The Court
noted in its decision that since dilution had not been intended to protect consumers
in the marketplace, a higher standard of proof of damages had to be shown than
in traditional "trademark infringement" cases. Subsequently, Norman
created a simple statistical algorithm which could easily be used to test dilution,
which he forwarded to the Court. Norman's use of the algorithm proved a lack
of overlap between BIPCO's trademark and Norman's domain name 'bellessouth.com'.
This algorithm could have been used by the court to dispel the dilution argument
of BIPCO, but was not.
The BIPCO case truly became frivolous, with Kremen v. Cohen. The "Sex.com" decision of July 25, 2003, declared domain names to be items having tangible value. Further damage to BIPCO's litigation occurred with The Fox News Corporation v. Al Franken decision of August 2003 in which Justice Danny Chin of a New York Federal District reaffirmed the long-standing view that generic marks could not receive trademark protection. Franken had written a satiric book in which the term "Fair and Balanced" had been used in reference to Fox News Corporation news coverage. Fox News previously had filed for trademark status for the term "Fair and Balanced", and such trademark status was therein denied. So far Norman's domain name had been declared protected from any trademark infringement or dilution claims and had been declared an entity having tangible value. These
10
cases largely destroyed BIPCO's case, yet a federal judge permitted BIPCO to continue. Fox News Network, LLC v. Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Alan S. Franken, no. 03 Civ. 6162 (RLC)(DC), Kremen v. Cohen, 2000 WL 1811403 and 2000 WL 1843239 (N.D. Calif., 2000)
Judge Martin's Failure to Sua Sponte Apply Moseley to the Case: Inequitable Application of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Between Hilfiger. v. Goody's and BellSouth v. Norman
On May 9, 2003, Judge Martin, in part, ruled that 'actual proof' standard of dilution was required in the Hilfiger v. Goody's case. At this point N. D. Court of Georgia was in concert with the actual proof requirement of the FTDA, yet BIPCO's FTDA dilution claim against Norman was not sua sponte dismissed during this same period of time, by Judge Martin. While it is true that Norman's lawyer, Cork, had seemingly been providing ineffectual counsel, Judge Martin was aware of the 'actual proof' standard, and had a legal duty to apply it to similar cases within her jurisdiction. Her failure to do so, was a violation of Norman's due process rights, protected by the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
Judge Martin was plainly aware that Cork was not performing well as Norman's counsel and she later admonished Cork in this area. And Cork's unwillingness to apply for summary judgment on the dilution claim after Moseley in March 2003, demonstrates ineffectual counsel.
As well, her acceptance of the claimed agreement between BIPCO and Norman,
Judge Martin appears to
11
have allowed the use of Georgia state law to supercede the supremacy requirements of the application of federal law, Moseley, to this case.
Reasons for Granting the Petition
Rule 10 (c) of the U.S. Supreme Court says that the U.S. Supreme Court may review on writ of certiorari an opinion of a United States court of appeals which has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the relevant decisions of this Court.
When a United States Supreme Court precedent may be defeated in court, either because of patently false claims by a lawyer, or by the unwillingness of a federal judge to equitably apply those precedents within a single courtroom; the relevance of the U.S. Supreme Court is called into question. In the instant case, both events have occurred and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was unable or unwilling to correct these defects.
After Moseley in March 2003, the dilution claims were moot and should have
been removed from the docket. BIPCO had a legal duty not to continue to press
claims which had no legal foundation. Judge Martin had a legal duty to equitably
enforce the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, sua sponte if necessary, (
Thomas v. Phillips, 240 Ga. App. 600 602(1) (524 SE2nd 298) (1999). Judge Martin
had no trouble applying dilution correctly in the Hilfiger v. Goody's case on
May 9, 2003. Finally, Norman's lawyer had a legal duty to file a summary judgment
motion on the dilution claim. Terence Dixon wrote an April 2004 article on the
large number of
12
successful post-Moseley summary judgements. And in fact, BIPCO's lawyers were
legally aware of Moseley, before filing the April 3, 2003 motion, with Kilpatrick
Stockton
having posted a 'legal alert' on the implications of Moseley, on or about March
24, 2003.
Dilution was probably the most important BIPCO claim and they were not willing to let it go. BIPCO wanted a legal victory here, so instead of following the Moseley decision, BIPCO and apparently Norman's lawyer, concocted a highly secretive agreement, falsely claiming to the court that Norman had accepted the agreement. Judge Martin utterly failed to see the actual events as they were unfolding and she was totally unwilling to meet with Norman. Judge Martin was not even willing to read documents showing a likely relationship between Ultimate Search and BIPCO and Kilpatrick Stockton, which Norman hand-delivered to her court chambers the very week in which she dismissed the case. On January 26, 2004, Judge Martin accepted BIPCO's and Norman's lawyer's false claims and she dismissed the case as settled.
When lawyers commit felonious acts, to prevent one claimant from presenting
his/her case, this is a very special form of judicial crime, 'fraud upon the
court'. When lawyers conspire to prevent the application of U.S. Supreme Court
precedent while engaging in 'normal' 'fraud upon the court', a new form of judicial
crime has occurred.
This case is a text book example of massive 'fraud upon the court', where almost
all the legal staff involved either lied in their documents or their legal conversations.
BIPCO claimed on April 3, 2003 that Norman had failed to
13
disclose Everyone.Net, when BIPCO's own complaint Exhibit M proved that BIPCO
lawyers were aware of it and where one BIPCO lawyer had actually used Everyone.Net's
email. Norman's lawyer used voice mail to falsely claim that Norman had accepted
the agreement. In the case of the judge, she simply failed her legal duty to
equitably apply sua sponte the Moseley precedent, which she had used in similar
cases, within the same time frame.
The actions by BIPCO's lawyers amounted to a 'fraud upon the court', with perhaps greater ramifications than the original 1944 such case, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238. In Hazel-Atlas, only money was involved. This present 'fraud upon the court', denied equitable application of a U.S. Supreme Court precedent in N. D. Court of Georgia, Moseley v. Victoria's Secret. BIPCO's actions amounted to a RICO-level denial:
1. of the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret federal law and
2. of other federal agencies to enforce the law
against linking child-like domain names
with adult Web sites, in violation of the
Truth in Domain Names Act of April 2003
(TIDNA).
The implication of a United States Supreme Court precedent not being equitably
applied, goes to the very heart of the problems faced by the writers of the
U.S. Constitution. After the American Revolution, the country was very poorly
governed by the Articles of Confederation, with Congress having only a rudimentary
ability to tax. The question as to how long a democratic state on the North
14
American Continent could survive, swung in the balance when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787.
Later, after the Constitution was adopted, the issue of the power of the United States Supreme Court was decided in Marbury v. Madison, where Justice Marshall established the principal of judicial review. Congress may pass laws, but the Supreme Court may decide upon their constitutionality. As well, federal law normally supercedes state law.
In the most famous case of 'fraud upon the court', only money was at issue. Hazel-Atlas was financially defrauded by the illegal court conduct of the lawyers for Hartford-Empire. The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether it wishes its precedents to extend throughout the land, or whether it wishes to see its authority gradually narrowed, perhaps to that of the unfortunate ruler of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai; whose influence barely extends beyond the suburbs of Kabul. If a federal judge may sit for months while a directly relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent gathers dust and if plaintiff's lawyers may then commit perjury and/or submit false documents in that same court to derail that U.S. Supreme Court precedent, then the continued survival of constitutional law is in doubt. Where modern forms of constitutional law fail, other more traditional forms of law often rise.
15
CONCLUSION
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department
to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the courts
must decide on the operation of each…This is the very essence of judicial
duty."
Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall (1755- 1835), Chief Justice, United States
Supreme Court
"Companies operate only with the permission of the public. It is in this
sense that ethics and compliance is not only a moral issue, but it is also a
bottom line issue. To this end, every employee, at every level of our company
is expected to behave ethically and responsibly, and to comply with all laws
and regulations that govern our work."
F. Duane Ackerman, President and CEO, BellSouth
BellSouth.Net Web Site Statement on Corporate Responsibility, 2004
Between Judge Martin's failure to apply Moseley equitably within her court, Norman's lawyer's seeming ongoing legal incompetence or worse and BIPCO's false claims surrounding Everyone.Net in their April 3, 2003 Motion, the entire judicial system in this case collapsed around May 2003.
Probably the bitterest fruit of this poisonous tree is that with the illegal
suppression of the evidence surrounding Ultimate Search and BIPCO, other such
16
systems have arisen. One such system includes: '12yearoldf--k.com' and has some innocent professionals connected, including lawyers. Had Ultimate Search had to face legal sanctions around the TIDNA in 2003 or 2004, such domains might have long since been removed from non-adult search engine optimization systems. In February 2005, Ultimate Search was sold to Marchex.Com of Seattle for $164 million.
As time passes, the evidence fades which Norman tried to present in Judge Martin's court and to Kilpatrick Stockton's lawyers, showing ties between Ultimate Search's 2003 TIDNA pornography violations with '3littlepig.com', BIPCO and Kilpatrick Stockton. This massive 'fraud upon the court' remains to be rectified. The precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court need to be equitably applied within the 11th Circuit.
Petitioner respectfully submits that this Writ should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
DR. REUBEN NORMAN
Pro Se
314 East Park Avenue
Valdosta, Georgia 31602
229-244-3170
Appendix A
En banc appeal Petition Denial Opinion, 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, July 6,
2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(FILED/U. S. COURT OF APPEALS /ELEVENTH CIRCUIT/JUL 06 2005/
THOMAS K. KAHN/CLERK
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 04-10858-JJ
__________________________
BELLSOUTH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
RUEBEN NORMAN, DR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ON PETITION(S) FOR REHEARING AND PETITION(S) FOR REHEARING EN
BANC
Before: BIRCH, HULL, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
The Petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no Judge in regular active service
on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc
(Rule 35, Federal Rules od Appellate .
Procedure), the Petition(s) for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
/s/ William H. Pryor, Jr.
______________________________
ORD-42 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
(2/05)
AppendixB
BIPCO v. Norman Dismissal Order, Northern District Court of Georgia, January
26, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/2004 Page 1 of 7
(FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE/U.S.D.C. Atlanta/dgh?/JAN 26 2004
/LUTHER D. THOMAS, Clerk5)/By: /s/A. M. Carver?/Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
:
BELLSOUTH INTELLECTUAL :
PROPERTY CORP., :
:
Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. : NO. 1:02-CV-2231-BBM
:
DR. REUBEN NORMAN, :
:
Defendant. :
O R D E R
This action, alleging trademark infringement, is before the court on BellSouth
Intellectual Property Corp.'s Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt of Joint
Consent Order [Doc. No.23-1] and Motion for Extension of Time to File a Trial
Brief [Doc. No.24- 1]. Also before the court is defendant Norman's Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. No.28-1].
1. Factual and Procedural Background
On August 12, 2002, the plaintiff, BellSouth Intellectual Property Corp. {"BellSouth"},
filed their instant action against Dr. Reuben Norman {"Dr. Norman"}.
In its complaint, BellSouth alleges that Dr. Norman infringed BellSouth's trademarks,
BELLSOUTH and SOUTHERN BELL by offering e-mail services and domain names through
"bellessouth.com" and "bellessouthern.com"
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/04 Page 2 of 7
On May 14, 2003, BellSouth alleges that it was contacted by Mr. Patrick Cork
("Mr. Cork"), Dr. Norman's attorney, to discuss a settlement. A proposed
settlement agreement was drafted by BellSouth's counsel and sent to Mr. Cork
as early as June 25, 2003. Thereafter, negotiations between BellSouth's counsel
and Mr. Cork regarding a possible settlement continued via e-mail and telephone.
On September 17, 2003, BellSouth filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
Just a few days later, on September 22, 2003, Mr. Cork left a voice-mail for
BellSouth's counsel acknowledging that a settlement had been agreed to by himself
and Dr. Norman.
In keeping with this, on September 24, 2003, the parties filed a Joint Consent
Order seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement. In an Order dated October
2, 2003, the court entered the Joint Consent Order enforcing the settlement
agreement. The Order relieved the parties from filing their pre-trial order
by the scheduled date. The Order further instructed the parties that if they
had "not completed their settlement obligations under the agreement by
October 24, 2003, the Joint Pretrial Order shall become due 10 thereafter, on
November 5, 2003."
Thereafter, on November 3, 2003, BellSouth moved this court to hold Dr. Norman
in contempt for violation of the Joint Consent Order. That motion is presently
before the court as well as a motion to extend the time to file a pretrial order
and Dr./ Norman's
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/04 Page 3 of 7
Motion to Dismiss. As a preliminary matter, the court will determine whether
there is a settlement agreement to enforce. If so, the court will determine
whether Dr. Norman should be held in contempt for violating that court Order.
II. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
"Georgia law governs both the structure of the settlement agreement and
the attorney's authority to enter into that agreement on behalf of his client."
Ford v. Citizens & Southern Nat'l Bank, 928 F.2d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 1991)(citing
Blum v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co., 709 F.2d 1463, 1467 [11th Cir. 1983] [construction
of agreement]); Glazer v. I. C. Bradford * Co., 616 F.2d 167, 168 (5th Cir.
1980)(attorney's authority). "This is true even though the underlying cause
of action is federal." United Commer. Ins. Serv. v. Paymaster Corp., 962
F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). In Georgia, an attorney of record is the client's
agent in persuing a cause of action. Indeed, a client may be bound by his attorney's
agreement to settle a lawsuit, even if the attorney does not have express authority
to settle the case. See Ford, 928 F.2d at 1120.
In the instant case, the court finds a settlement was
reached by the parties. Neither Dr. Norman nor his counsel has come forward
to challenge the existence of a settlement agreement. BellSouth has provided
the court with substantial evidence of an agreement. There are e-mails and conversations,
evidence of which has been
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/05 Page 4 of 7
provided to the court, that demonstrate Mr. Cork's acknowledgement that this
action had been settled1. Additionally, Mr. Cork signed the Joint Consent Order
enforcing the settlement agreement. Dr. Norman does allege that Mr. Cork was
"not consulting" with him during the settlement process. Dr. Norman
further contends when he became aware of the "details of
[Mr. Cork's] negotiations with Kilpatrick Stockton," he "protested
to Mr. Cork in writing." However, this is not sufficient to invalidate
a settlement agreement already made. Dr. Norman is bound by the actions of his
counsel. Accordingly, Dr. Norman is also bound by this settlement agreement.
__________________________
1 In a voice-mail left by Mr. Cork for BellSouth's counsel on September 22,
22003, he stated:
[W]e [he and his client] have no opposition to your
motion to enforce the settlement and we don't
expect to file any pretrial motions or pretrial
orders, or to respond to the motion to enforce the
settlement. In fact, we would prefer just to have
the court enforce the settlement at this point.
When we negotiated that, I explained all the terms
of the settlement to Mr. Norman and he was
agreeable to it. It was only after he got a copy
of it and had too much time to think about it and
then he kinda knew he had us between a rock and a
hard place, and that's when he became obstinate and
uncooperative. But it took him several weeks to
even mention that [he] wasn't agreeable to that.
Anyway, if you want to prepare an order enforcing
the settlement, a consent order, we would sign off
on it. Thank you.
Additionally, an earlier e-mail exchange suggests that a settlement was being
pursued: Counsel for BellSouth e-mailed Mr. Cork to say "Just checking
on the status of our settlement agreement." In response, Mr. Cork replied:
"Thanks for the reminder - I have been out of the office in mediations,
pretrials, etc. - I will follow up in an effort to get this done this week."
In its earlier Order, the court noted that this e- mail alone was not sufficient
to demonstrate that a settlement had been reached. However, the subsequent communications
between the parties demonstrate that a settlement was reached.
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/04 Page 5 of 7
The rule in this Circuit requires an evidentiary hearing prior to the enforcement
of the settlement if the material facts if the material facts of the settlement
are in dispute. Murchison v. Grand Cypress Hotel Corp. 13 F.3d 1483, 1486 (11th
Cir. 1994). However, the material facts of this settlement are not in dispute.
Dr. Norman acknowledges the existence of a settlement agreement, and the terms
are in writing and not in
question. The agreement requires Dr. Norman to transfer the domain names "bellessouth.com"
and "bellessouthern.com" to BellSouth. In exchange for this transfer,
BellSouth is required to pay Dr. Norman $200.00. Further, Dr. Norman must
destroy all tangible material (such as stationery,
business cards, forms, fliers, coupons, etc.) on
which any designation contai8ning any variation of
the terms "bell" and "south" appears (included but
not limited to the domains) on any website owned
and/or operated by Norman.
Dr. Norman must also "provide [BellSouth] with a list of all domain names
owned by him or by any corporation of which he is an officer."
Because there was a settlement agreed upon, and the terms of that settlement
are unambiguous, this court hereby ORDERS that the settlement agreed to by the
parties in this case SHALL BE ENFORCED, and DIRECTS the parties to execute the
terms of Settlement Agreement within twenty days of the entry of this Order.
The court now turns to BellSouth's Motion to Hold the Defendant in Contempt.
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/04 Page 6 of 7
III. MOTION to HOLD the DEFENDANT in CONTEMPT
Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, a charge of civil contempt must be substantiated
by "clear and convincing" evidence. McGregor v. Chierico, 206 F.3d
1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 2000). "The clear and convincing evidence must establish
that: (1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was
clear and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply
with the order." Riccard v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002).
Having found that the settlement agreement was "valid and lawful,"
the court will proceed to the second element, which requires that the order
be "clear and unambiguous." The court finds that the October 4, 2003,
Joint Consent Order was not "clear and unambiguous." The Order failed
to set out a date by
which Dr. Norman was required to comply with the settlement agreement. Additionally,
the Order could be read to allow filing of the pretrial order as an alternative
to following through with the settlement agreement. BellSouth did not read the
Order in this manner, given that it filed its motion for contempt before the
deadline for the filing of the pretrial order had expired. Because the standards
for a finding of civil contempt in this Circuit have not been met, the court
will not hold Dr. Norman in contempt at this time. However, the court considers
Dr. Norman forewarned that future non-compliance will result in sanctions for
contempt.
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 30 Filed 01/26/04 Page 7 of 7
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasoning above, the court hereby DENIES BellSouth's Motion to
Hold Defendant in Contempt of Joint Consent Order [Doc. No. 23-1]. However,
as the court observed the parties do have a valid settlement agreement. Therefore,
Dr. Norman is directed to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement within twenty days of the entry of this Order. BellSouth's remaining
Motion to Extend Time to File a Trial Brief [Doc. No. 24-1] is hereby GRANTED.
Lastly, Dr. Norman's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 28-1] is DENIED. This case
having been settled as between the parties, this action is hereby DISMISSED.
However, the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of January, 2004.
/s/Beverly B. Martin
_______________________________
BEVERLY B. MARTIN
United States District Judge
Appendix C
Text Chart: 'Context for a Fraud Upon the Court', September 9, 2005
[see LR 4 page text
TimeLine Chart need
[RN copy text from LR file here in 4 parts]
Appendix D
BIPCO Demand letter on 'southernbelle.net', Jacqueline Gregorski to E. Faye
Williams, June 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BELLSOUTH ________________________________________________
BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation
Jacqueline A. Gregorski
Vice President Patent and Trademark Procurement
824 Market Street - Suite 210
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
902 854-1686
Fax 302 654-2110
June 11, 2002
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. E. Faye Williams
Southern Belle Communications
11 Summit Place
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
Re: SOUTHERN BELLE
COMMUNICATIONS and
<southernbelle.net> Domain Name
Infringement of BELLSOUTH Trademarks
Dear Ms. Williams:
I am Vice President Patent and Trademark Procurement of BellSouth Intellectual
Property Corporation (BIPCO). BIPCO is the owner of certain U. S. marks which
are licensed to BellSouth Corporation and its subsidiaries, including but not
limited to BellSouth Communications, Inc. and BellSouth Advertising & Publishing
Corporation. These entities provide a wide range of telecommunications, Internet,
and print and on-line classified directory advertising goods and service to
the public.
It has come to our attention that you have registered the fictitious name SOUTHERN BELLE COMMUNICATION with the State of Texas. You have also registered the domain name <southernbelle.net> and are using both the trade name and domain name in advertising to promote your telecommunications and web page design services.
As you may be aware, all of AT&T's rights to BELL and the BELL Symbol mark were assigned to BellSouth Corporation, Ameritech Information Technologies Corp., Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis Group, Southwestern Bell and U. S. West Inc., as well as Cincinnati Bell and Southern New England Telephone Company at divestiture. BellSouth's rights have been assigned to BIPCO in the U.S. BIPCO is the owner of a family of "Bell Marks" including, but not limited to Registration No. 1,569,327 for the mark Bell Symbol, Registration No. 1,565,562 for the mark BELL, Registration Nos. 1,459,196, 1,565,559 and 2,341,098 for the mark BELLSOUTH, Registration No. 1,459,194 for the mark SOUTH CENTRAL BELL and Registration No. 1,459,998 for the mark SOUTHERN BELL. BellSouth and its subsidiaries are currently licensed to use these marks in connection with telecommunications equipment and services, Internet access, web page design and web hosting, on-line and printed directory publishing and related advertising services, and other communications goods and services. Copies of these federal registrations are attached for your reference.
The use of SOUTHERN BELL, BEL, or BELLE (regardless of the spelling) within
a corporate name, fictitious name, trademark, service mark or domain name in
connection with goods or services similar to those provided by BellSouth and
its affiliates unlawfully trades on the goodwill associated with BIPCO's Bell
Marks and dilutes the significance and distinctive quality of these famous trademarks,
which has been built up through extensive use of SOUTHERN BELL, BELL and the
Bell Symbol logo over the last century and of BELLSOUTH since 1984. The use
of SOUTHERN BELL, BEL, or BELLE in conjunction with the sale of telecom services
and webpage design services infringes the Bell Marks under trademark law because
it creates the likelihood that the public will be deceived into believing there
is some connection or affiliation with BellSouth. Not only does this constitute
trademark infringement under U. S. and foreign law, it also constitutes unfair
competition and causes dilution of BIPCO's ownership rights in these famous
marks under federal and state law.
We look forward to receiving your written assurances within ten (10) days of
receipt of this letter that you will (1) change your fictitious name filing
with the Secretary of State or any government agency with which you may have
filed for registration to one which does not infringe our rights, namely to
something which does not contain BELL, or something confusingly similar to BELL,
such as BELLE or BEL, (2) discontinue all use of SOUTHERN BELL, BEL, or BELLE
as part of any name or mark in advertising, (3) agree to transfer all domain
name that contain the word BELL, BEL or BELLE or anything confusingly similar,
including the <southernbelle.net> domain name to BIPCO or its designee,
(4) destroy all tangible material (such as stationary, business cards, forms,
fliers, coupons, etc.) on which such name and marks appears, and (4) refrain
from infringing BIPCO's trademark rights in the future.
If we do not receive the foregoing, we will not hesitate to take such steps
as are necessary to protect BIPCO's rights in its marks without further notice
to you.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/Jacqueline Gregorski
Jacqueline Gregorski
Enclosures
cc: Michael Bishop, Esq.
#119854 09/06/02 Fri 13:56 [TX/RX NO 9095] ?004
#449913 09/06/02 FRI 13:56 [TX/RX NO 9095] ?003
Appendix E
SBC Demand letter taking 'southernbelle.net', from Rita Irani, signed by E.
Faye Williams, July 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------
09/06/2002 01:00 9722999476 SOUTHERN BELLE PAGE 02
H A Y N E S AND B O O N E, LLP
July 12, 2002
Ms. E. Faye Williams
17 Summit Place
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104-6403
Re: SBC's Demand Letter of May 23, 2002
concerning Bell Trademark
our Reference No. 28787.15(829)
Dear Ms. Williams:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation today (July 12) in which you informed
me that you had terminated your attorney and you will be changing the name of
your company to something that does not include the term BELL and that you expect
to have the name change completed no later than September 12, 2002. I understand
that by no later than September 12, 2002, you will no longer have any stationery,
business cards, advertising or promotional materials with the former name and
and all such materials will bear the new name that does not include any word
that begins with "B". I also understand that you promise not to use
the term BELL or anything confusingly similar to BELL (e.g., BELLE or BEL) as
a company name or trade name at any time in the future and you also promise
not to use "SBC" as a trade name or mark at any time in the future.
Please sign and date this letter to confirm your agreement to take the above
actions and to confirm your above promises and return the signed and dated copy
to us for our files. As we discussed, you may wish to send a copy of this signed
letter agreement in response to the letter you received from Bell South.
I look forward to receiving from you a copy of the letter evidencing the fact
that you have terminated Mr. Timmons as your attorney representing you in this
matter.
Before we can close our file on this matter, we need from you samples of your
new business cards and stationery and an opportunity to review your new Internet
website. Accordingly, when you have your new stationery and website in place,
please send us the url for the website and samples of your promotional materials.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rita M. Irani
Rita M. Irani
Direct Phone Number: 713/547-2416
Direct Fax Number: 713/236-5596
IraniR@haynesboone.com
Agreed this __25__ day of ___July___, 2002
/s/ E. Faye Williams
__________________________
E. Faye Williams
dba Southern Belle
Attorneys
1000 Louisiana Street Suite 4300
Houston, Texas 77002-5012
H-350926-1 DOC
Telephone [713] 5476-2000 Fax [713] 547-2600
http://www.haynesboone.com
AUSTIN DALLAS FORT WORTH HOUSTON RICHARDSON SAN ANTONIO WASHINGTON, D.C. MEXICO
CITY
09/06/02 FRI 13:56 [TX/RX NO 9095] ?002
Appendix F
'southernbelle.net', Whois, Ultimate Search, March 31, 2003; IP 213.130.63.233
-----------------------------------------------
SOUTHERNBELLE.NET
Server Type: Apache (Spry.com also uses Apache)
Website Status: Parked
Parked at: UltSearch.com
IP Address: 213.130.63.232 (ARIN & RIPE IP search
IP Location: United Kingdom-Ultimate Search Inc
Record Type: Domain Name
Monitor: Monitor this Domain
Wildcard sarch: 'southernbelle' or 'southern belle'
In all domains
Other TLDs: .com .net .org .info .biz .us
X X X X X X
Name Server: NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM
ICANN Registar: NameSecure.Com
Created: 31-March-2003
Expires: 31-March-2004
Status: ACTIVE
Registrant:
Ultimate Search
GPO 7862
Central, HK HK
Na
Registrar: NameSecure.com
Domain: SOUTHERNBELLE.NET
Created on 03-31-2003
Expires on 03-31-2004
Administrative contact:
Ultimate Search
Phone: +01.5225379677
E-mail: dns@ultsearch.com
Technical Contact:
Ultimate Search
Phone: +01.5225379677
E-mail: dns@ultsearch.com
Name Servers:
NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM 213.130.63.232
NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM 212.100.230.160
F
http://whois.sc/southernbelle.net 8/25/03
Appendix G
Kilpatrick Stockton 'Legal Alert' on Moseley v. Victoria's Secret, Late March
2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Traditions of Innovation
Publications - Legal Alerts
Printer Friendly Version
Supreme Court Holds That The Federal Trademark Dilution Act Requires Proof
of Actual Injury
Intellectual Property Legal Alert, March 2003
The Supreme Court unanimously held today that the Federal Trademark Dilution
Act ("FTDA") unambiguously requires proof of actual injury, as opposed
to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective "likelihood of dilution"
standard. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., Case No. 01-1015 (Mar. 24, 2003).
Background
The FTDA provides that the "owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." 15 U.S.C. §1125(c). The Act defines the term dilution as, "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception." 15 U.S.C. §1127.
The Courts of Appeals have split on the proper standard of injury to be applied in dilution cases. In Ringling Brothers-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Division of Travel Dev., 170 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit adopted a stringent standard that the plaintiff must suffer "actual, present injury" by reason of the dilution. The Fifth Circuit followed, Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir. 2000). In contrast, the Second and Seventh Circuits adopted a "likelihood of injury" standard, more in line with the "likelihood of confusion" standard that applies to cases of trademark infringement. Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brand, Inc., 191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 1999); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000).
In the present case, V Secret Catalogue is the owner of the trademark VICTORIA'S SECRET for women's lingerie and other clothing and accessories. V Secret alleged trademark infringement and dilution against defendants Victor and Cathy Moseley whose store, "Victor's Little Secret," sold lingerie and adult novelties. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the infringement claim, holding that V Secret had not established sufficient evidence of likelihood of confusion to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court granted summary judgment in favor of V Secret on the dilution claim, finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support its claim that the defendants' use of the name
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publications/legal_alerts_detail.aspx?ID=1202
9/7/2005
Appendix H
April 3, 2003 BIPCO Motion to Compel, (3 pages only)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 13 Filed 04/03/2003 Page 1 of 68
ORIGINAL FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S.D.C. Atlanta
das
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APR-3 2003
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
LUTHER D. THOMAS, CLERK
By: /s/Chleucker
Deputy Clerk
BELLSOUTH INTELLECTUAL )
PROPERTY CORP., )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
) 1:02-cv-2231-BBM
)
v. )
)
DR. REUBEN NORMAN, )
)
Defendant. )
)
PLAINTIFF BIPCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
PERIOD
Plaintiff BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation ("BIPCO" or
"Plaintiff") moves this court to compel Defendant to respond completely
to BIPCO's Interrogatories and to respond to BIPCO's Requests for Production.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Counsel for BIPCO has repeatedly attempted to resolve
with Counsel for Defendant the issues raised by this motion, but to no avail.
More specifically, Defendant has failed to respond fully to several of BIPCO's
Interrogatories and has given unfounded objections to others. Further, Defendant
has served no written response to BIPCO's Request for Production of Documents.
Defendant's responses to those requests are now months overdue.
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 13 Filed 04/03/2003 Page 2 of 68
Defendant finally produced a few documents on Thursday, March 27, 2003, just
three working days before deposition of the Defendant. However, those documents
were wholly inadequate in that they were virtually irrelevant to the requests
made in BIPCO's Interrogatories and requests for Document Production. Many Interrogatory
responses are still outstanding, and all of BIPCO's Requests for Document Production
have been ignored.
Further, BIPCO learned on April 2, 2003 (the day before discovery was set to
close) at the deposition of the Defendant that matters relating to his email
service at bellesouth.com were handled by a third party, "everyone.net."
This was not previously revealed to BIPCO in Defendant's discovery responses.
Therefore, BIPCO requests that this court extend the discovery period one month
for BIPCO only, so that BIPCO may seek necessary discovery from everyone.net.
Thus, and for the reasons stated more fully in the accompanying memorandum,
BIPCO respectfully requests this court to compel Defendant to respond fully
to BIPCO's Interrogatories and to Requests for Production. BIPCO
Case 1:02-cv-02231-BBM Document 13 Filed 04/03/2003 Page 3 of 58
further asks the court to extend the discovery period by two (2) months to
allow BIPCO to conduct discovery regarding "everyone.net."
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Stephen M. Schaetzel
________________________________
Stephen M. Schaetzel
Georgia Bar No. 628653
Lisa E. Furjanic
Georgia Bar No. 280,855
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
(404) 815-6500 (telephone)
(404) 541-3379 (SMS telecopy)
(404) 541-3209 (LEF telecopy)
sschaetzel@kilpatrickstockton.com
OF COUNSEL:
Michael Bishop, Esq.
BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation
824 Market Street, Suite 510
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 654-1686 (telephone)
(302) 654-2110 (facsimile)
michael.bishop@bellsouth.com
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Appendix I
April 30, 2003 Truth in Domain Names Act, Amber Alert Legislation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2252B Prev | Next
§ 2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as "sex" or "porn", is not misleading.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the term "material that is harmful to minors" means any communication, consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that, taken as a whole and with reference to its context-
(1) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of minors;
(2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), the term "sex" means acts
of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physcial [1] contact with a person's
genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state
of sexual stimulation or arousal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] So in original. Probably should be "physical".
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html
9/5/2005
Appendix J
Exhibit M from BIPCO August 2002 Complaint with 'Everyone.Net' mentioned
[Partial Copy of Exhibit M Only with
'Everyone.Net' mentioned ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bellessouth.com powered by Everyone.net
[emphasis by R L Norman Jr.]
Document 12 Filed 03/21/2003 Page 64 of 69 Page 1 of 2
Join BellesSouth.com Now!
User Name ____@BellesSouth.com Login Information
Password must be at least 6 Select your user name
characters long for your account
Password: _______ Example: john@
BellesSouth.Com
Re-enter Password: _______
Password Question: _______ We use the password
question and answer to verify your
Password Answer: _______ identity
______________________________________________
First Name: ______ Contact Information
Last Name: ______ Your privacy is important
Street Address ______ to us. We are committed
to keeping your
City: ______ information safe and
State: Choose one ____ secure. Please read our
Province/Territory: ___ Privacy Policy to learn more.
(If Outside of U.S.)
Zip or Postal Code: ___
Country: Choose one___
________________________________________________
Old Email Address ___ Have A New Email Address?
Optional: Entering your old
email address registers you
with the Return path. See
right-->
Birthday: Month Day Year Enter your old (or alternate)
email address to register with
Gender: Male Female Return Path, a FREE service Household Income: that helps
your personal and
Choose One___ online contacts find you at
Occupation: Choose One__ your current email address.
Industry: Choose One__
Have you made an online purchase within the past year?
Yes No
________________________________________________
Can we contact you occasionally Everyone.Benefits!tm
about your service and special
offers? We offer our
Yes No Everyone.Benefits!
members free offers,
My Interests: news, promotions and
http://bellessouth.mail.everyone.net/email/scripts/joinuser.
pl?EV1=10291616703444278 8/12/02 J4
Bellessouth.com powered by Everyone.net
Document 12 Filed 03/21/2003 Page 65 of 69 Page 2 of 2
[emphasis by R L Norman Jr.]
__Automotive __Books & Magazines Chances to __College __Computer Hardware
win great
__Consumer __Finance & Investing prizes!Let
Electronics us
__Free Stuff __Games know your
__Loans & Credit __Music & MP3 interests
Cards and sign up __ Recreation & __Shopping today!
Sports
__Small Business __Software
__Travel & Leisure __Women & Family
_______________________________________________
By submitting this form, you indicate that you agree to the
End User Agreement and the Privacy Policy.
Continue
Everyone.Benefits! is a FREE service that provides you with exciting special
offers, discounts, news, promotions, information, and other valuable offers.
From time to time, BellesSouth.Com and Everyone.net may also occasionally contact
you about service. By selecting "Yes" to "Contact me occasionally
about my service and special offers" or selecting any of the interest categories,
you will automatically be subscribed as an Everyone.Benefits! member.
http://bellessouth.mail.everyone.net/email/scripts/joinuser.
pl?EV1=10291616703444278 8/12/02 J5
Appendix K
June 23, 2003 Proposed Settlement Agreement from BIPCO, with extreme secrecy
from Lisa Furganic to Patrick Cork
---------------------------------------------------------------------
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Suite 2800 1100 Peachtree St
Atlanta GA 30309-4530
[404] 815-6500 f 404 815 6555
www.KilpatrickStockton.com
direct dial 404 815 6164
direct fax 404 541 6555
June 25, 2003
LFurjanic@KilpatrickStockton.com
VIA FED EX
Patrick C. Cork, Esq.
Cork & Cork
700 N. Patterson Street
Valdosta, GA 31601
Re: BIPCO v. Norman; Proposed Settlement
Agreement
Our File: 51090/274055
Dear Patrick:
Enclosed is a proposed settlement agreement incorporating the terms we have
discussed. Please review this agreement and, if the terms are acceptable, have
your client sign the agreement and return it to us as soon as possible.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
s/sLisa Furjanic
Lisa Furjanic
Enclosure
cc: Michael Bishop, Esq.
Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq.
ATLLIB01 1542435.1
ATLANTA AUGUSTA CHARLOTTE LONDON RALEIGH STOCKHOLM WASHINGTON WINSTON-SALEM
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This is a settlement agreement (Agreement") between BellSouth Intellectual
Property Corporation ("BIPCO") and Dr. Reuben Norman ("Norman")made
effective this ______ day of ________________, 2003 ("Effective Date").
In this agreement, BIPCO and Norman are collectively referred to as the "Parties".
WHEREAS, BIPCO is the owner of the famous BELLSOUTH trademark, as well as a
family of other marks incorporating the term "BELL";
WHEREAS, Norman has registered the domain names <bellessouth.com> and
<bellessouthern.com> ("Domains") and has used the domain name
<bellessouth.com> in connection with email
services (the "Services");
WHEREAS, Norman registered the Domains and used the <bellesssouth.com>
domain name without the permission or authorization of BIPCO, in connection
with the sale and offer for sale of the Services;
WHEREAS, BIPCO contends that the Domains incorporate or otherwise infringe the
trademarks owned by BIPCO;
WHEREAS, BIPCO instituted Civil Action No. 1:02-cv-2231 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Norman, alleging
trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition
(the "Civil Action"); and
WHEREAS, The Parties desire to resolve the dispute between them;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the undertakings and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows:
1. Immediately upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, Norman shall discontinue
the use of: (1) any designation containing any variation of the term "BELL"
or "BellSouth"; (2) any term confusingly similar to "Bell"
or "BellSouth"; and (3) any term similar in sight, sound, or commercial
impression to "Bell" (e.g., "belle', "bel", etc.) in
combination with any variation of the term "South" (including but
not limited to the Domains) as part of any name, mark, or domain name;
2. Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, Norman shall
effect a full transfer of the Domains. Such transfers shall be executed in the
form required by the registrar for the transfer of the Domains, and Norman agrees
to provide such other and further assignments, instruments and documents necessary
to effect transfer of ownership of the Domains to BIPCO.
ATLLIB01 1523547.1
3. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Norman
shall destroy all tangible material (such as stationery, business cards, forms,
fliers, coupons, etc.) on which any designation containing any variation of
the terms "bell" and "south" appears (including but not
limited to the Domains), and delete all references to a designation containing
any variation of the terms "bell" and "south" (including
but not limited to the Domains) on any website owned and/or operated by Norman.
4. Norman covenants that he will not, either himself or in connection with any
other person or entity; (a) register any domain names which incorporate any
trademark, service mark, or trade name, or any colorable imitation thereof owned
by BIPCO; or (b) register any domain names which contain any variation of the
term "Bell," the term "BellSouth" or any other name containing
the terms "Bell" and "South"; and; (c) otherwise infringe
on any of BIPCO's marks.
5. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Norman
shall provide BIPCO with a list of all domain names owned by him or any corporation
of which he is an officer. If any of these domain names are potentially infringing
on any of BIPCO's marks, BIPCO shall retain the right to pursue legal remedies
regarding these previously unknown domain names.
6. Within fifteen (15) days after BIPCO has received proof that the above conditions
have been satisfied, the Parties jointly will file a Consent Order and Permanent
Injunction with the court reflecting fulfillment of such conditions and dismissing
the Civil Action. Upon execution of the Consent Order and Permanent Injunction,
BIPCO will present Norman with a check in the amount of $200.00.
7. Norman acknowledges and agrees that if Norman breaches any provision of this
Agreement or otherwise infringes the intellectual property rights of BIPCO,
BIPCO will suffer irreparable injury which will be difficult to quantify with
exact precision. Therefore, the Parties agree that should Norman breach any
provision of this Agreement or otherwise infringe the intellectual property
rights of BIPCO, Norman will pay to BIPCO liquidated damages in the amount of
$20,000.00 to compensate BIPCO for the damages BIPCO would suffer in such circumstances.
8. The terms and obligations of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit
of the Parties, their respective past and present officers, directors, partners,
agents, employees, attorneys, heirs, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
representatives, predecessors and successors. All references in this agreement
to the Parties or any one of them include their respective past and present
officers, directors, partners, agents, employees, attorneys, heirs, assigns,
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, representatives, predecessors and successors.
9. Norman will keep the fact and terms of this agreement strictly confidential.
ATLLIB01 1523547.1
10. The validity, performance, construction, interpretation, enforcement, and
effect of this Agreement shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with
the substantive laws of the State of Georgia. The Agreement is a fully negotiated
document and shall be deemed to have been jointly drafted by the Parties, and
therefore shall not be more strictly construed against any party as the draftsman.
11. This agreement contains the entire understanding and complete agreement
of the Parties with respect to the circumstances, matters, events and transactions
arising out of or relating to the registration and use of the Domains and all
understandings or agreements reached between the Parties are merged into this
Agreement. However, nothing in this Agreement shall discharge Norman of his
duty to pay costs to BIPCO as ordered by the Court.
12. No amendment or modification of this Agreement is valid or binding upon
the Parties unless made in writing and executed by the Parties.
13. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will
be deemed an original, but all together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this agreement by their duly authorized
representatives on the date first above written.
DR. REUBEN NORMAN
_____________________________ ______________________ Date:________________________
Name:_________________
BELLSOUTH INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY CORPORATION
Title:________________
Date:_________________
ATLLIB01 1523547.1
Appendix L
'3littlepig.com' whois to Ultimate Search, adult pornography Web links to 'pen-sdance.com'
other adult sites, October 12, 2003
[partial Appendix L Only]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3littlepig.com: best sites for PORN page 1 of 2
[R L Norman Emphasis]
3littlepig.com Sun, 12 Oct 2003
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
More Categories
.Adult
.Viagra
.Impotence
.Personals
.Phone Sex
.Escorts
.Condoms
.Aphrodisiacs
.Adult Toys
.Adult Webmasters
.Adult DVDs
.Babe
.Gay
.Adult Hosting
.Fetish
.Lingerie
.Porn
.Free Porn
.Hardcore
.Bondage
.Live Sex
__________ _____
: : : :
:porn : :Go :
__________ _____
http://www.3littlepig.com/ 10/12/2003
Sponsored links for PORN
1. How To Cheat Adult Websites By Getting In
Free!
Lesson # : Don't Pay for Porn When You Can
Get It For Free. Our onli teaches you a quick,
easy way to gain free access to Top Adult Paysite minutes.
www.free-adult-passes.net
2. 89.com
Adult Sex Directory- 100% Free XXX
www.89.com
3. FREE PORN - Requires Only a VALID Email
Address!
Submit your email address & reply to the
confirmation for free instant thousands of
hardcore pictures, videos, live sex shows,
personals & m card, downloads, or hidden
charges of any kind, and your membership n
www.penisdance.com
4. The Best Porn - $1.95 Trial
Great Porn Movies, 100,000 hardcore videos,
80,000 pictures, live sex unique adult
services. The net's highest rated adult
member's club site.
findwhat.adultcinema.org
5. IFRIENDS: PORN ($1 Lifetime W/c.card)
Looking for live XXX home-based webcams
featuring "Porn"? Surf iFrie
dollar! It's like Cu-SeeMe on Steroids A
...NetMeeting, with Attitude. Se live
videochats. Not just chat ... VideoChat.
Only @ iFriends.
apps.webpower.com
6. Simply Hot, Fantastic Sex, Erotica & Porn
Extreme Blowjobs, Shaft Licking, Ball
Sucking, Facials, Tit Fucking, Hu
Sex Mad Latina's, Orgies, & Great Fucking In
Every Way. Live Chat & \
Membership No Credit Card Completely Anonymous
www.sexglamour.com
7. Must Enter Your Valid Email To Access!
Welcome to the only "True XXX" sex site online
today that you can ac with your valid
email address! No Softcore Sex Here!
*PROMISE* No C Needed!
www.free-sex-page.com
8. Action-DVD
ActionDVD.com: over 10,000 of adult DVDs
at the lowest prices, over
http://whois.sc/whois.sc-history/?domain=3littlepig.com
&vol=2&date=2003-10-23&email=rlnorman…
9/10/2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
XML Powered
Whois Source sponsored in part by Domain Sponsor.com
Whois Source | Mark Alert | Internet Statistics | Domain News | Whois Directory
| Webmaster Information | XML API Partners | Registry Partners | Newsletter
| About us
Reverse IP - Bulk Check - Preferences - Remote Search - Shopping Cart - Logout
Domain: 3littlepig.com
Cache Date: 2003-10-23
Registrar: Melbourne IT, LTD.D/B/A
INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
Domain Name…….3littlepig.com
Creation Date……..2002-11-21
Registration Date…2002-11-21
Expiry Date……….2003-11-21
Organisation Name…..Ultimate Search
Organisation Address.. GPO Box 7862
Organisation Address..
Organisation Address.. Central
Organisation Address.. NA
Organisation Address.. HK
Organisation Address.. HONG KONG
Admin Name…………..DNS Support
Admin Address……… GPO Box 7862
Whois Source: Reverse IP Lookup Page 1 of 4
[R L Norman Emphasis]
XML Powered Thanks for keeping us banner free
Whois Source | Internet Statistics | Domain News | Whois Directory | Webmaster
Information | XML API Partners | Registry Partners | Newsletter | About us
Bulk Check -Advanced Search- Preferences - Remote Search - Member Area-Logout
Reverser IP Lookup
Member Area>Reverse IP Lookup
User:rlnorman@beaussouth.com
_____________________________________________
6709 domains found on 213.130.63.232
search is limited to first 100 results.
WebSite
www.0-free-porn.com
www.0-teen-sex-pics.com
www.000111onlinecasino.com
www.000333casino.com
www.000777casinoonline.com
www.000adultfantasy.com
www.007girls.net
www.00casino.com
www.0800casinos.com
www.0casino.com
www.0censura.com
www.0costsex.com
www.0nlinebabes.com
www.0nlineporn.com
www.0nlineporno.com
www.0nlineteens.com
www.0nlinexxx.com
www.l-adult-cartoons-and-hentai-sex-pics.com
www.l-adult-sex-sites.com
www.l-asian-sex-and-nude-babes.com
www.l-blackjack-gambling-online.com
www.l-free-erotic-sex-stories.com
www.l-great-online-casino.com
www.l-internet-casino-online.com
www.3dteens.com
www.3littlepig.com
[R L Norman Emphasis]
Enter the IP address (or hosthame) of a webserver:
IP Address: 213.130.63.232
IP Search
Need IP Privacy? Delisting service available.
Service of Nameintelligence
Name Intelligence>> Whois Source
Copyright c 1999-2003 Name Intelligen
All rights re
3littlepig.com RN
L3 L4
http://whois.sc/members/reverse-ip.html?
Lookup=213.130.63.232 10/08/2003
Appendix M
Trace Map of Kilpatrick Stockton to Level3 IP address, circa 2003
[Partial Appendix M Only]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visualware Visual Route Server Dulles Virgini
eMailTrace
click to trac
VisualProfile This VisualRoute server provides a
New Enterprise graphical traceroute from this server
Edition now to any other network device you
includes last choose, useful for pinpointing net-
mile delivery work connectivity problems and
reporting. The identifying IP addresses. To trace
last mile, or back to your computer, just press the
actual end-user button with your IP addresses below.
response time, is To trace to any other network device,
the area where enter the host name or URL below
most Internet and press Enter. For popup WHOIS
service delivery information, download your own 15-
problems occur day evaluation copy today! New v7
and traditionally update now available.
has been the hardest
area to measure
reliably and
effectively. The
DesktopProfile
feature provides a
simple and
unobtrusive means
to report Web
response time from
the end-user
perspective.
VisualRoute
New Version 7
Troubleshoot
Internet
connectivity
problems and
identify the
geographic
location of web/ip
addresses.
Enter Host/URL: kilpatrickstockton.com Start Trace Stop
Show
Report for kilpatrickstockton.com [63.209.216.34]
Analysis 'kilpatrickstockton.com' was found in 12 hops
(TTL=117)
Hop % IP Address Location Grap Network
10 63.210.88.166 Level 3
Communications,
Inc. LEVEL4-CIDR
11 63.210.88.18 Level 3
Communications,
Inc. LEVEL4-CIDR
10 63.209.216.34 Level 3
Communications,
Inc. LEVEL4-CIDR
[original Map in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
closed docket and not on their Web site- U S Supreme Court now has a printed
copy of the actual Trace Map
R L Norman Jr.]
Appendix N
Jacqueline Gregorski, BIPCO lawyer, as user of Bellessouth.Com email at Everyone.Net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Control center Page 1 of 1
________________________________
Everyone.Net RN
The Complete Email Solution
HOME MANAGE SERVICES MANAGE USERS
REPORTS ACCOUNT SUMMARY SUPPORT
User Management
<HELP>
C746813
Control Center Home > Manage Users > List User Accounts
Manage Users
List User Accounts
Reserve Login Name
Retrieve Demographics
Create Users
Send Mail
Create/Modify Aliases
Expire User Passwords
List User Accounts
List by:
Login, Last, First Delete
Login:
Last, First:
Account Type:
jackie
Gregorski, Jackie
Regular
[Suspend user]
Login:
Last, First:
Account Type:
jackie423
Gregorski, Jackie
Regular
[Suspend user]
Login:
Last, First:
Account Type:
rlnorman
norman, r
Regular
[Suspend user]
Login:
Last, First:
Account Type:
test1
smith, J
Regular
[Suspend user]
Displaying all of 4 delete
Click here to search again.
| Manage Services | Manage Users | Reports | Account Summary | Support | Logout
|
© Everyone.net. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
http://controlcenter.everyone.net/amc/usermgt/listusers.
pl?action=listall N 8/22/2005
Appendix O
O. Web information on use of '12yearoldf--k.com, linking to patent lawyer
[Partial Appendix O Only
Web Page from LitmanLaw.Com Not Included Here]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12yearoldfuck.com All about 12yearoldfuck.com
Page 1 of 2
12yearoldfuck.com RN Search
Home Autos Computers Credit Debt Download
Education Employment Gambling Games Gifts
Internet Insurance Loans Real Estate Telecom T
CATEGORIES RELATED SEARCH
Finance patent attorneys
Health tax lawyers
Software patent lawyer
Shopping types of lawyers
Mortgage Louisiana lawyers
Electronics pro bono lawyers
Dating immigration lawyers
Business law offices
Books family law lawyers
Music criminal defense lawyers
Movies personal injury lawyers
Poker elder law
patent office gov
patent paralegal jobs
los angeles lawyers Baltimore lawyers
injury lawyers
trademark attorney
rose patent
trademark lawyer
Results for Patent Lawyers
Sponsored Listings:
Patent Lawyers Search information on Patent Lawyers
Zimply.com
Lawyer Search Find a Lawyer from Major Law Firms.
Listed by State For Easy Viewing! LawyerMatch.com
Free Patent Information Request a Free info package on how we can help you
with your patent
www.inventionhome.com
Patent law Jobs Search and Post Intellectual Property Jobs from Top Employers. www.IPLawBulletinJobs.Com
Patent Lawyers Full Service Agency for Inventors. Free
Consultation. Fully Protected. www.inventsai.com
Need a Patent? Quality, Low Cost Patent Services.
Registered U.S. Patent Attorney Highqualitypatents.com
Find a Lawyer Attorney Finder LLC The Legal Directory
of the Internet www.attyfind.com
Patent Lawyer: Free Info Litman Law. US & Global Protection. Near Patent
Office. 1-800-4-Patent
www.litmanlaw.com
Patent Applications U.S. and International Free
consultation 1-800-429-6682 www.premierpatents.com
Patent Free Patent info Find What you're looking for!
www.plexxa.com
Popular Categories
Travel Financial Business Health and
Planning and Finance Beauty
Car Rental Debt Affiliate Skin Care
Program Products
Hotels Credit Cards Student Loans Exercise
Equipment
Airline Loans Stocks Hair
Vacations Replacement
Cruises Low Cost How to Health Care
Insurance Make Money
Work from Home for Sale Weight Loss
Home
Patent Lawyers O
Health Sports Computers Professional
http://www.12yearoldfuck.com/contents/complete20.php?k=patent+lawyers&left_category=0&left_cat… 8/25/2005
Appendix P
P. C. A. Cigarrera Bigott Sucesores v. Ultimate Search, WIPO, Dec. 3, 2002 (
bigot.com decision) 1 page only
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2002-0866
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
C. A. Cigarrera Bigott Sucesores v. Ultimate Search
Case No. D2002-0866
1. The Parties
Complainant is Compañía Anónima Cigarrera Bigott Sucesores, C/O Rafael Silva/Alvaro López, Caracas, Venezuela. The Complainant is represented by Ricardo Antequera Hernández of Antequera, Parilli, Rodriguez & Asociados of Caracas, Venezuela.
Respondent is Ultimate Search of Central Hong Kong, SAR of China. The Respondent is represented by John B. Berryhill, Esq., of Dann, Dorfman, Herrell & Skillman, PC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is <bigot.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) of Dulles, Virginia, United States of America.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 16, 2002, by e-mail and on September 20, 2002, in hardcopy. In response to a September 23, 2002, notification by the Center that the Complaint was deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 26, 2002, by e-mail and in hardcopy on October 1, 2002, correcting the Respondent's address, the remedy requested and inaccurate references to the disputed domain name. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). On September 18, 2002, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the registrar NSI a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September 20, 2002, NSI replied that the disputed domain name registration is subject to the Policy.
In accordance with the Rules, Paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and this proceeding commenced on October 2, 2002. In accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was set for October 22, 2002. The Response was filed with the Center on that date.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0866.html 9/26/2005
Appendix Q
Q. Letter to Judge Martin from Norman, November 5, 2003 on pornography issues
with BellSouth and Norman's lawyer's ineffectual counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 5, 2003
Re: Civil Action No. 1:02-cv2231 BBM
Bell South Intellectual Property Corporation v Norman
October 2, 2003 Joint Consent Order and Obstruction of Justice
Notes on Possible Amber Alert Violations by
Ultimate Search viz:
3littlepig.com
100animalsex.com
zoodollars.com
Beverly Martin
Judge, United States District Court
2388 Richard B. Russell Federal Building
and United States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Ga 30303-3309
Dear Judge Martin:
November 3, 2003 was the first day in which the October 2 Joint Consent Order was made known to me by Patrick Cork.. On October 8, 2003 and October 10, 2003; I Fedexed letters to The Court, regarding the use of domain names for violations of Amber Alert. Has this Court received these letters?
Under the present circumstances, for The Court to compel me to accept Patrick Cork as my attorney any longer represents a gross violation of my most basic civil rights. I demand that he be dismissed immediately.
This entire legal process being utilized by Patrick cork, and Kilpatrick Stockton for BellSouth seems only to be a way of covering up a connection with Ultimate Search of Hong Kong by both plaintiff's lawyer and client. Ultimate Search has a vast number of adult domain names, which 'redirect' towards various adult pages. Ultimate Search also seems to be using child-like domain names for attracting minors to adult sites, in strict violation of the Amber Alert legislation. . The ongoing actions by BellSouth to cover up its connection with Ultimate Search through the domain name of 'southernbelle.net', represents obstruction of justice. As well Kilpatrick Stockton seems determined to hide its previous relationship with Level3.Net. Level3.net has a relationship with 'zoodollars.com'. For The Court to permit this process to continue, could be for The Court to be seen as suborning violations of Amber Alert..
At this time, The Court should seriously consider which of the federal authorities should be presented the Web evidence from defendant's October and November 2003 letters. My recommendation would be the Federal Bureau of Investigation, although state and local authorities could be interested in the possible obscenity issues, related to the presentation of adult and animal contact images. Kilpatrick Stockton seems to have moved away from Level3.Net as a major part of their email system, replacing Level3.Net with Epoch.Net, yet Level3 seems to have remained in the adult business, not simply providing bandwidth for the transmission of adult images, but seemingly providing part of the Web hosting facilities for 'zoodollars.com'. If this Court is either unable or unwilling to present this evidence to the appropriate criminal justice authorities and simply allows BellSouth to wallow in legal technicality after legal technicality; then this Court could well be seen as itself part of the ongoing conspiracy to suborn pornography in violation of the Amber Alert legislation
My ongoing research into the relationship between BellSouth, Kilpatrick Stockton
and Ultimate Search has produced new evidence showing a very large number of
adult-level domain names. It is unlikely that Bellsouth is really concerned
with The Court's time in all of this, but in trying to cover up a most egregious
relationship. I will continue to write this material up and submit it to this
Court.
Regards,
Reuben L Norman, Jr., Ph.D.
Enc: Amber Alert from Yahoo
Dns for 3littlepig.com to Ultimate Search
Web page results for 3littlepig.com
Dns for southernbelle to Ultimate Search
Dns for Zoodollars.com to Level3.Net
Level3.Net and Kilpatrick Stockton
Return to Appendices