[SupremeLaw] "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue"
Hello
Elizabeth Denecke,
People are missing the point -- COMPLETELY -- or
they are just playing dumb, in the vain hopes that this case will just go
away.
IT'S NOT GOING AWAY. On the contrary, I am ready to file
it in federal court, just as soon as we tidy up our website copy of
all the electronic evidence (minor glitches in Microsoft Internet
software).
If one of U of Oregon's professors had been damaged to the
same extent I have been damaged, you folks would have been ALL OVER the
guilty parties.
When we first discovered the violations and
demanded that suspects exhibit their authorization (if any) to host a
stolen and modified version of the book on the Internet, they all failed to
produce any authorization(s) (because I have never given any such
authorization). Now, I am demanding that they disclose the identity(s)
of the responsible party(s). Their answers now: "Oh, we
removed that a long time ago." See:
I
am afraid they are ALL in for a very serious shock.
The addition of 18
U.S.C. 2319 to the list of RICO predicate acts, now allows me to go
back 10 YEARS, claiming TRIPLE DAMAGES for each and every
violation:
Moreover,
these were modified derivatives that were passed around the Internet, thus
authorizing MORE TRIPLE DAMAGES, for violating the Lanham Act.
IT DOES
NOT MATTER ONE IOTA THAT THE VIOLATION HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I HAVE A
RIGHT TO KNOW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE URL, WHILE IT WAS PRESENT ON THE
INTERNET.
I hope I don't have to repeat this simple point too many
times, because I am getting quite sick and tired of being mistreated -- by
university people. One of THE WORST violations was at my alma mater,
U.C. Irvine!!!
Failure to produce the identity(s) of the responsible
party(s) is hindering prosecution, a vicarious RICO liability. A
university may have THE BEST copyright "policy" in the world, but if their
practice is at odds with their policy, then it is their conduct we will
prosecute, NOT THEIR POLICY.
As the Congress said, when they amended
the RICO statutes, "If we do not vigorously protect intellectual property,
we destroy the incentive to create." See House Congressional
Record, June 4, 1996, pages H5776-5781.
BINGO!!
If some
ISP's were to have their way, their "policy" would thrust the entire nation
500 YEARS backwards in time, making the Dark Ages look like a
picnic.
I will be happy to mail a hard copy of this legislative
history to you, if you will please send me your U.S. mailing
address.
Thank you.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Author and
Damaged Party
(more below)
---
elizabeth.denecke@doj.state.or.us wrote: > Mr. Mitchell: > >
You have provided me with citations to your > websites. I have asked
for > citations to the University of Oregon's website > where
alleged infringement of > your copyrighted materials is
occurring.
WRONG QUESTION. See above!
Please >
forward me a citation that > begins <something>.uoregon.edu and
which directs me > to the location on the > UO's website where the
allegedly infringing > materials are located, in > conformance with
the notice requirement of the > Digital Millennium Copyright >
Act.
Our DMCA Notice has already been mailed to the Designated
Agent at the University of Oregon. You are NOT the Designated
Agent.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. > >
Elizabeth Denecke, AAG >
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to: SupremeLaw-unsubscribe@egroups.com
