The information you are now requesting
has already been supplied -- in the
NOTICE AND DEMAND previously transmitted.

An electronic copy of that message is
not conveniently available to me at
this moment.

You have our permission to contact the
individual subscriber(s) responsible for
the web page(s) in question.

In further reply to your message below,
we refer you to Internet URL:

  http://supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1200.html

If you don't understand plain English,
then get some help -- somewhere else.

Copies of "The Federal Zone" now extant on the
Internet were stolen, and then modified
WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PRIOR PERMISSION.

We are therefore now demanding that ALL copies,
in whole or in part, and ALL links, whether
in web pages or in search indexes, be removed
COMPLETELY AND IMMEDIATELY.

I am sure that Webster's Dictionary has most
of the above words well defined, for your
reading enjoyment.

If you don't understand the legal implications,
then hire someone who can explain it all to you.

There are criminal penalties in the federal
copyright laws, in case you are ignorant of
these laws.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Author (under a pen name)




---David Shires <dshires@net-link.net> wrote:
>
> Do your homework and look at the site.  As far as I can see the site
is not
> violating anything.  Quit sending standard responses back.  If you
wish to
> get this corrected then respond to me otherwise I will turn this
over to my
> lawyer.  He stated that if you have a formal complaint, then send a
> certified letter of your complaint to:
> 
> NetLink Systems, LLC
> Attn: David Shires
> 225 West Walnut
> Kalamazoo, MI 49007
> 
> Otherwise, this email could be from anyone including some kids
playing
> jokes.  So if this is serious, I look forward to receiving a copy of
your
> complaint via certified mail to the address above.
> 
> David Shires
> 
> At 02:37 PM 7/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dear David Shires:
> >
> >I regret to inform you that our budget simply
> >does not authorize us to do your homework for you.
> >We have done our diligent duty to provide violators
> >with proper and lawful notice of the violations.
> >This has already been enormously expensive for us,
> >thus adding to our actual and consequential damages.
> >
> >We do regard these communications as strictly
> >confidential, and are carefully controlling 
> >which candidate law firms are allowed to see
> >certain evidence of the many violations we have
> >now documented.  Our task of screening law firms
> >involves private communications that are
> >protected by "attorney/client privileges."
> >
> >
> >We have updated the following paragraphs with
> >additional information:
> >
> >Please review the electronic NOTICE AND DEMAND
> >which we transmitted to you and/or your company
> >several days ago.  Please also see the InterNIC
> >WHOIS entry for the violating domain at URL:
> >
> >   http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois
> >
> >for names of contacts responsible, in part,
> >for that domain.
> >
> >Please also be informed of the following:
> >
> >If A is pointing to stolen property on B's computer,
> >and B decides to move the stolen property without
> >telling A, then A is still pointing to stolen property,
> >even if the link is rendered invalid by such a move.
> >
> >Moreover, the link to what was once a valid URL
> >provides valuable clues to locating the principal
> >infringer, who continues to violate the author's
> >exclusive copyrights with AOL's file servers,
> >and other file server(s) which remain active.
> >
> >Similar links can be found in the index databases
> >of search engines commonly available on the Internet.
> >We regard such links as further evidence of direct
> >and indirect copyright infringements.  You may 
> >wish to instruct your technical staff to search
> >these index databases with those search engines.
> >
> >If an Internet Service Provider fails to act,
> >after being informed of a copyright violation
> >using their computers, that ISP is liable for
> >contributory copyright infringement, and 
> >possibly also direct copyright infringement.
> >
> >Contributory copyright infringement is explained in the
> >industry standards now documented at the website of
> >Software Publishers Association (http://www.spa.org).
> >
> >Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  If criminal
> >violators feel "threatened" by imminent copyright
> >enforcement, that is a problem of their own making.
> >
> >A lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND, to produce certified 
> >evidence of the author's prior permission to
> >post all or part of "The Federal Zone" on the
> >Internet, is in no ways a "threat" [sic],
> >particularly when that permission was not given.
> >
> >We intend to exhibit all offensive email to the
> >jury to be convened in this copyright matter.
> >
> >If necessary, we will repeat this message.
> >
> >
> >Sincerely yours,
> >
> >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
> >
> >Author of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
> >Code of Internal Revenue" (all editions),
> >under a pen name
> >
> >website:  http://supremelaw.com/library
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---David Shires <dshires@net-link.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Since you insist on not providing me a phone number or will not
call
> >me or
> >> send me anything in the mail, I guess you just need to explain to
me
> >what
> >> you are talking about.  I have a customer whose home page offends
> >you in
> >> some way.  What on that home page is in COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.  IF I
> >> understood that part, then maybe I could do something about it. 
> >Stop the
> >> mumble jumble and explain yourself.  Then I can check with my
lawyer
> >and
> >> see if it involves us or not.  If it does, I will take immediate
> >actions to
> >> stop this.
> >> 
> >> Thank you for you time.
> >> Dave
> >> 
> >> At 11:35 AM 7/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >Dear David Shires:
> >> >
> >> >If A is pointing to stolen property on B's computer,
> >> >and B decides to move the stolen property without
> >> >telling A, then A is still pointing to stolen property,
> >> >even if the link is rendered invalid by such a move.
> >> >
> >> >Moreover, the link to what was once a valid URL
> >> >provides valuable clues to locating the principal
> >> >infringer, who continues to violate the author's
> >> >exclusive copyrights with AOL's file servers,
> >> >and other file server(s).
> >> >
> >> >If an Internet Service Provider fails to act,
> >> >after being informed of a copyright violation
> >> >on their computers, that ISP is liable for
> >> >contributory copyright infringement, and 
> >> >possibly also direct copyright infringement.
> >> >
> >> >Contributory copyright infringement is explained in the
> >> >industry standards now documented at the website of
> >> >Software Publishers Association (http://www.spa.org).
> >> >
> >> >Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  If criminal
> >> >violators feel "threatened" by imminent copyright
> >> >enforcement, that is a problem of their own making.
> >> >
> >> >A lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND, to produce certified 
> >> >evidence of the author's prior permission to
> >> >post all or part of "The Federal Zone" on the
> >> >Internet, is in no ways a "threat" [sic],
> >> >particularly when that permission was not given.
> >> >
> >> >We intend to exhibit all offensive email to the
> >> >jury to be convened in this copyright matter.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Sincerely yours,
> >> >
> >> >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
> >> >
> >> >Author of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
> >> >Code of Internal Revenue" (all editions),
> >> >under a pen name
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >---David Shires <dshires@net-link.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> What is your phone number?  The site you are refering to is not
> >> >owned by
> >> >> me.  And as for your email serving me, it is not legal in a
court
> >of
> >> >law so
> >> >> please file the proper paper work if you really want to serve
me. 
> >> >Again,
> >> >> YOU HAVE THE WRONG COMPANY.  Get it, you are barking up the
wrong
> >> >tree.
> >> >> Now either call me so we can figure out what your talking
about or
> >> >go find
> >> >> the real person.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> 
> >> >> At 09:42 AM 7/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >> >TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
> >> >> >
> 
=== message truncated ===

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com