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
iii
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
The Secret Agreement
and False 7
Claims by Norman's Lawyer:
The Second Half of the 'Fraud
upon the Court'
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
Judge Martin's Failure
to Sua 10
Sponte Apply Moseley to the
Case: Inequitable Application of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent
Between Hilfiger v. Goody's and BellSouth v. Norman
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
E. SBC Demand letter
taking 'southernbelle.net', from Rita Irani, signed by E. Faye Williams,
July 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
J. Exhibit M from BIPCO
August 2002 Complaint with 'Everyone.Net' mentioned
[Partial Copy of Exhibit M Only with 'Everyone.Net' mentioned ]
K. June 23, 2003 Proposed
Settlement Agreement from BIPCO, with extreme secrecy from Lisa Furjanic
to Patrick Cork
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]
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
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]
P. C. A. Cigarrera Bigott
Sucesores v. Ultimate Search, WIPO, Dec. 3, 2002 ( bigot.com decision)
1 page only
Q. Letter to Judge Martin
from Norman, November 5, 2003 on pornography issues with BellSouth
and Norman's lawyer's ineffectual counsel
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
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
Return
to Table of Contents
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.
Return
to Table of Contents
viii
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).
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
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.
Return
to Table of Contents
1
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 Beverly 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.
Return
to Table of Contents
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).
Return
to Table of Contents
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 Furjanic, 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
Furjanic, 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 Beverly 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.
Return
to Table of Contents
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.
Return
to Table of Contents
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 Beverly 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'.
Return
to Table of Contents
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'.
Return
to Table of Contents
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)
Return
to Table of Contents
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.
Return
to Table of Contents
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
Return
to Table of Contents
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)
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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]
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
Appendix K
June 23, 2003 Proposed Settlement Agreement from BIPCO, with extreme
secrecy from Lisa Furjanic 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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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.]
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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
Return
to Appendices
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