Jenifer deWolf Paine - Proskauer Rose Attorney Jenifer deWolf Paine SEEMS to have Hired a Reputation Company to HIDE the Story of Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose v. Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

Jenifer deWolf Paine Proskauer Rose Attorney.  Jenifer deWolf Paine was hired by Proskauer Rose LLP and probably Jenifer deWolf Paine was paid big bucks to defend Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs in order to attempt to steal my Intellectual Property.

Even though Jenifer deWolf Paine can easily read the iViewit Technology Story and Jenifer deWolf Paine can see through this reading, watching videos, court documents, billing statements, contracts, USPTO files and more that Proskauer Rose Was involved in the stealing, cover up, conspiracy surrounding the iViewit Technology getting into the wrong hands and the Iviewit Inventors of this technology that we all use that is worth at least 13 Trillion Dollars Today.

Now it seems that Jenifer deWolf Paine, along with many other Proskauer Rose Attorneys have hired Reputation Defender to change the search results and attempt to move down the documents that Jenifer deWolf Paine should have read on the iViewit Technology scandal before she accused me of simply parroting one of the inventors.

Jenifer deWolf Paine should know that blogs, by nature kind of do that anyway, yet Jenifer deWolf Paine felt the need to slam me in the Jenifer deWolf Paine WIPO complaint seemingly defending the honor of Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs - Jenifer deWolf Paine seems to have forgot about Christopher Wheeler and Kenneth Rubenstein who were allegedly there in the first stages of Proskauer Rose involved in the "HELPING" the iViewit Inventors to get their Patent on this amazing Video Technology that over a decade later they don't have rights to.

Jenifer deWolf Paine files a WIPO case against me for telling this story, yet it seems that Jenifer deWolf Paine did not listen to the perjured deposition of Kenneth Rubenstein. Nor does it seem that Jenifer deWolf Paine read the billing discrepancies, nor the documents of evidence in this case.  It SEEMS to me, IN MY OPINION that Jenifer deWolf Paine was simply after the money that Proskauer Rose was paying her to come after me.  Thing Jenifer deWolf Paine does not seem to know that I was and am speaking the truth, nor does Jenifer deWolf Paine seem to care that I am on the right side of the moral compass on this.

If Jenifer deWolf Paine read up on the Christine Anderson whistelblower case about the whitewashing in the court system for protected attorneys, or if Jenifer deWolf Paine read the lawsuits against Cuomo and other New York Agencies or if Jenifer deWolf Paine read the State Bar Complaints Jenifer deWolf Paine would know that I was not simply "parroting" as Jenifer deWolf Paine called it, but that I was defending the rights of inventors, of citizens inventing something amazing and instead of getting paid, patents and cudos, they got their car bombed and lives ruined.

Does Jenifer deWolf Paine know any of this or was Jenifer deWolf Paine simply answering to the man, with no moral or legal conscience?

Jenifer deWolf Paine seems to think that the iViewit Technology case against Proskauer Rose was over and seemingly Jenifer deWolf Paine thinks long ago.  So is Jenifer deWolf Paine a conspirator in this Federal RICO Case, this case that is documented in several courts across the US and in the Europe Patent Office?  Why did Jenifer deWolf Paine simply take the side of Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs ?  Oh yeah Jenifer deWolf Paine did this because Proskauer Rose Paid Jenifer deWolf Paine to represent them in this silly little WIPO case.

Gues Jenifer deWolf Paine thought it would be easy to shut me up, take my VALUABLE intellectual property and Jenifer deWolf Paine surely must have ALLEGEDLY .. in my Opinion thought that iViewit Inventors rights, quality of life, was not as important as Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs .

Money is not all there is to life Jenifer deWolf Paine.  The Truth about Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs is something that I believe Jenifer deWolf Paine should research. Once Jenifer deWolf Paine has a firm grasp on the real case with Proskauer Rose and iViewit from the beginning, then Jenifer deWolf Paine can have a say that may have some level of intelligence and knowledge in it.  IN MY OPINION of COURSE.

Links to Proskauer Rose's Alleged Involvement in the Stealing, Diverting of a 13 Trillion Dollar Video Technology invented by the iViewit Company.

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read http://www.deniedpatent.com/

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read the Proskauer Rose Crime Family Chart
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read the liability list
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Appendix%20A/index.htm#proskauer

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this on Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao, and Steven Krane of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2009%2007%20Cahill%20Cover%20Letter%20Transfer%202nd%20Dept%20false.pdf

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2009%2002%20New%20York%20Bar%20Response%20Joao%20and%20Rubenstein.pdf

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this SEC Complaint
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this on Christine Anderson?
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/press/press3.pdf
Proskauer Rose Attorneys Involved and Legally Related to the Christine Anderson Case does Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP know this?  Does Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP Care or does Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP want to be part of the conspiracy, the problem instead of JUSTICE?

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP watched the Testimony of Christine Anderson ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlK73p4Ueo


Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this agreement with Proskauer Rose
https://docs.google.com/a/industrywhistleblower.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kdXN0cnl3aGlzdGxlYmxvd2VyLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6M2EwYzRkNjRiMzljMWE2ZA


Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this on Proskauer Rose Billing
https://docs.google.com/a/industrywhistleblower.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kdXN0cnl3aGlzdGxlYmxvd2VyLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6NTkzYWFlMzU3OGQ0ZmYwYg

http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-billing.html

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://www.investigativejournalist.net/2011/02/open-letter-to-time-warner-warner-bros.html

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
https://docs.google.com/a/industrywhistleblower.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kdXN0cnl3aGlzdGxlYmxvd2VyLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6Njc1ZDRmNDQ1MzYwMGNh

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/proskauer-rose-llp-billing.html

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=proskauer-rose

Has Jenifer deWolf Paine heard this Kenneth Rubenstein Allegedly Perjured Deposition ?
http://www.youtube.com/user/eliotbernstein#grid/user/3BFA906636FA9889


Millions a Year it Will Cost Proskauer Rose in my Opinion, to suppress the iViewit Story in the Search Engines and STILL you will NEVER beat me in SEARCH nor Hide this STORY.  Jenifer deWolf Paine must know the truth and still Jenifer deWolf Paine SEEMS to do nothing to bring justice to the iViewit Inventors.  Jenifer deWolf Paine spent her summer harassing me in my OPINION of the WIPO Case.

Got a Tip on Jenifer deWolf Paine ? email your Jenifer deWolf Paine to me Crystal L. Cox - Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Richard G. Lyon Concurs with WIPO Panel but Richard G. Lyon feels he must SLAM Investigative Blogger's Rights and Motives at the Same Time. Richard G. Lyon. Proskauer Rose - Crystal Cox WIPO Dispute

"

OPINION CONCURRING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN THE DECISION

Though I agree that the Complaint must be denied, I adhere to my oft-stated views that a criticism site even if entirely noncommercial does not confer upon a domain name holder a right or legitimate interest if the domain name consists solely of the complainant’s (and the target of the criticism) mark.

Those interested in the details of my reasoning may read, among other cases, Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627 (majority opinion), and Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175.

Here the Domain Name and mark at issue do not match exactly, but the only difference exacerbates the likelihood of confusion on the part of Internet users by adding a description of Complainant and the services Complainant provides. On the reasoning of the cases cited above, Respondent should not be permitted to appropriate Complainant’s soapbox for her criticism of Complainant.

Resolution of that issue, however, is unnecessary in this proceeding, for in my view the Complaint must be denied on the other ground stated by the Panel.

Complainant and others are battling Respondent and others over a slew of domain names and assorted issues of tort law. The Response in this case lists some (perhaps all?) of the other individuals engaged in these other proceedings.

The Policy itself and Policy precedent do not permit consolidation of these other proceedings under the limited mandate of the Policy; even if consolidation were possible that would do nothing about the charges of defamation (and other torts) and countercharges of harassment (and other torts).

Decisions in this or any of the other Policy proceedings are subject to subsequent challenge in court, where the panels’ findings are not binding. Given the parties’ history, that may well happen here.

Like the Panel, I think it better that all matters be addressed in a forum that has the jurisdiction and competence to do so than that the Policy be stretched, in a case that is not clearly cyber squatting, merely to give one party or the other an edge in the litigation that will inevitably follow. In these circumstances I stand with the panel in Rudy Rojas v. Gary Davis, WIPO Case No. D2004-1081: “a plague o’ both your houses.”

Richard G. Lyon
Panelist (concurring)

Date: June 30, 2011"

Source of Proskauer Rose Law Firm WIPO Dispute with Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0675

“a plague o’ both your houses.” - Richard G. Lyon Say...

Hey Richard G. Lyon YOU don't get to Plague o' My House.  I am not griping, not lying and not even making this stuff UP... I am "Reporting" the TRUE story of a One of the Worlds Largest Law Firms involved in a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft 

"Though I agree " Says Richard G. Lyon - WIPO Panel, Still Richard G. Lyon must give me a thrashing and assume my "agenda" and throw in the Two Cents of Richard G. Lyon, to, I suppose make sure Proskauer Rose Stays on Richard G. Lyon's good Side ~ Thing is Richard G. Lyon is talking out his ass pretty much as this is not a Free Speech Issue, this is FACT, this is REAL News about the Criminal Activity of a Major Law Firm Seemingly Protected by the Highest Courts. 

Richard G. Lyon needs to read all the documents, billing, reports, legal documents, and listen to perjured depositions and then Richard G. Lyon - WIPO Panelist may want to rethink all this Trash Talk that makes Richard G. Lyon look clueless and makes Richard G. Lyon look in "Conspiracy" with Proskauer Rose Law Firm to Conceal the Truth in a 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit. 

The "trademark" issue is Gibberish, Bullshit, Illusions and a Scam on the Public at Large as the Registrars Such as Godaddy make really big money selling Trademarks that you the Public end up Losing.  Folks Like Proskauer Rose, Realtor, and other Trademarks most often win and before that they Bully Domainers, Domain Name Owners into releasing their domain names out of fear of Lawsuits - such as the National Association of Realtors did to Me, I lost thousands of Dollars in Domain names because I let them go to NAR, though I had built a brand on them and was a Broker Owner, Member of NAR ~ 

See you the "Public" are not "allowed" to own Trademarked Names, you can't use them to Make Money See.. so Intellectual Property Idiots such as NAR, bully you into letting go of your Domain Names, meanwhile companies lease names with "Realtor" in the Name and other people re-sell Realtor domain names, and yet I as a "Realtor" was not allowed to use the Name.

It is Smoke and mirrors see, as the Registrar such as Godaddy SHOULD have a Copyright Filter and YOU, we .. I should not be able to Purchase a Trademark Name.. but we can and they make money from it.. then we lose the name and they sell it on auction.. meanwhile Idiots like NAR are satisfied as long as you Joe PUBLIC are not using the name for Commercial Use, so you Park the Name at the Registrar where they the DOMAIN Name Registrar, makes millions from those names monthly with adds on the name from Google and Yahoo and other sources, so NAR lets the Registrar make the money but not the Smart, Web Savvy Domainer who had the brains to market and brand the Domain Name in the First Place and they call this FAIR, Impartial .. See WIPO is kind of full of Shit.. 

If the Registrar can sell the name, then why is the end user punished and then the Registrar gets to make money from adds.. There is a breakdown in the system and the Rich Get Richer and WIPO is NOT Neutral nor does WIPO have to prove to you that there is no Conflict of Interest when they decided the FATE of your Intellectual Property.

As in my case, I never was "allowed" to know why Dawn Osborne of the UK, reclused herself from the WIPO Panel on my case and why did Dawn Osborne do this so late in the complaint process?  It was because I pressured them for a Conflict of Interest Disclosure which WIPO says of course the panel is not conflicted, yet hmmmm Proskauer Rose had a Conflict of Interest with Dawn Osborne that was NOT disclosed and I have a right to know what it is YET am denied this right.. 

SO We have Richard G. Lyon who does "agree" with the Panel, yet NOT.. See the Truth is the WIPO Panel Fears me Exposing the Truth, Fears Lawsuits, and so they just denied the Complaint Based on gibberish that makes no sense, based ON Supposed U.S. Constitutional Rights and Free Speech when the real issue here is conspiracy to hide the TRUTH about a 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit and the seeming Fact that the WIPO panel may have been in on this Conspiracy until I exposed this possibility and they bailed. 

~~~

The Pompous Ass Richard G. Lyon says that my site are a  target of the criticism - well this post is a Target of Criticism and i am critisizing Richard G. Lyon, as the blogs were and are Media exposing a story that exists and are not Targets to Criticize, this is UNFAIR To Say, do you Say this about the New York Times when they "Target" guys like Philip Falcone, or other large media when they write about stories TRUE or NOT .. is this a "target of the criticism " ?

Just because I am not as big as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal does not mean that my stories are rants, gripes or targets of criticism ?  These are true stories and ya some of my opinion as an Investigative Blogger VERY educated on the Story. 

Richard G. Lyon has no right to say the things he has and Richard G. Lyon is Flat OUT Wrong - Do your Homework, READ, Learn, Think and Make up your Own mind on the iViewit Stolen Technology Case of which should have nothing to do with this supposed "Trademark" issue - YET in fact has everything to do with it.. 

a bit of a Rant on this Issue.. Oh and 1+1=2 no matter your opinion on How I Look..

Part 1



Part 2

Robert Badgley, Richard G. Lyon and Debra J. Stanek - WIPO Panel - Crystal L. Cox Blogger Domain Dispute Decision - Proskauer Rose Sucks - Proskauer Rose Law Firm

"WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Proskauer Rose LLP v. (Ms.) Turner

Case No. D2011-0675

1. The Parties

Complainant is Proskauer Rose LLP of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Jenifer deWolf Paine, United States of America.

Respondent is (Ms.) Turner of Eureka, Montana, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2011. On April 18, 2011, the Center transmitted by e-mail to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name.

On April 18, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 27, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 17, 2011.

Respondent did not submit a timely response.
Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 18, 2011. Respondent submitted a Response with the Center on May 20, 2011.

Complainant sought leave to file a supplemental submission to address certain alleged inaccuracies and legal assertions contained in the Response, but the Panel in its discretion chose not to entertain a supplemental submission since its decision ultimately rested on the Complaint (and annexes thereto) itself.

The Center appointed Robert Badgley, Richard G. Lyon and Debra J. Stanek as panelists in this matter on June 22, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is one of the largest law firms in the United States, and has 12 offices globally. Complainant was known for decades as Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, before changing its name to Proskauer Rose in 1997.

In 2000, Complainant branded itself principally as Proskauer. Complainant has nearly 700 lawyers and is undoubtedly one of the best known law firms in the United States.

Complainant also holds registered trademarks in the name PROSKAUER.

The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2010. Complainant alleges that while Respondent is the registrant of the Domain Name, the website to which the Domain Name resolves is operated by Crystal Cox. This is not disputed. (Indeed, in an omnibus Response filed in this proceeding and in several companion cases involving domain names including the names of several Proskauer lawyers, the Respondent is listed not as (Ms.) Turner but as Crystal Cox.) For purposes of this proceeding, the Panel regards Respondent and Crystal Cox as interchangeable.

The website to which the Domain Name resolves contains commentary highly critical of the Complainant law firm, as well as several Proskauer lawyers and other individuals.

Respondent describes herself as an “Investigative Blogger,” and it is alleged in the Complaint that Respondent is “parroting Eliot Bernstein, who has been engaged in a bizarre and defamatory campaign against Proskauer Rose and its attorneys for many years – despite losing at every turn.”

By way of background, the Complaint states that in 2007 Bernstein and another plaintiff sued numerous defendants in federal court alleging that the defendants had stolen technology. These defendants are also alleged to have contributed to the Enron bankruptcy and the presidency of George W. Bush.

The Proskauer law firm was among the defendants named in the Bernstein suit. The suit was dismissed in 2008, and the appeal was dismissed in 2010.

According to the Complaint, Respondent also maintains a website at “www.CrystalCox.com” at which further criticism of the Proskauer firm is levied.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s main factual contentions are set forth in the Factual Background section above. Complainant argues that it has satisfied all three elements required for relief under the Policy, and seeks a transfer of the Domain Name from Respondent. Complainant’s specific arguments under the Policy will be taken up in the sections below as appropriate.

B. Respondent

Respondent makes many contentions more germane to her ongoing dispute with the Complainant firm and others than to the issues before the Panel. Respondent does, however, dispute that she lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and she disputes that she has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant holds rights in the mark PROSKAUER through registration and use. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PROSKAUER mark, since the Domain Name incorporates the mark and adds the descriptive term “law firm.” The addition of this descriptive term does not diminish the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name. If anything, the term “law firm” reinforces the confusing similarity, since Complainant is a law firm.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy, pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) quoted above.

The Panel majority reaches this conclusion without having to accept or reject any of the assertions made by Respondent at her website.

There is a divergence of opinion among panelists under the Policy who have addressed the question whether a domain name may be legitimately used by a respondent solely as a “gripe site” to levy criticism of a complainant mark owner and/or its products or services. (This is a different, and more difficult, question than the context where the use of a pejorative term in the domain name announces that the visitor to the website is likely to encounter criticism of the complainant.)

A majority of this Panel maintains that the use of the Domain Name here as a genuine “gripe site” vests Respondent with a legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c)(iii). In one of the early decisions in this context, Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0190, the panel observed:

Although free speech is not listed as one of the Policy’s examples of a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, the list [in paragraph 4(c)] is not exclusive, and the Panel concludes that the exercise of free speech for criticism and commentary also demonstrates a right or legitimate interest in the domain name under Paragraph 4(c)(iii).

The Internet is above all a framework for global communication, and the right to free speech should be one of the foundations of Internet law.

See also Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley, WIPO Case No. D2004-0014 (denying complaint where “Respondent’s website appears to be a classic criticism site” and there was no evidence of intent to derive commercial gain or tarnish complainant’s mark).

In the instant case, Respondent has denied ever making any money from her use of the Domain Name, and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary.

The Domain Name appears to be used solely in sincere pursuit of Respondent’s free speech rights.

Whether the content of the website is actionable under the law for reasons unrelated to the Domain Name itself is not for this Panel to consider.

The Panel unanimously believes that this is not a clear case of cyber squatting which the Policy was designed to address.

Rather, this looks like a protracted and contentious dispute among numerous parties, several of whom are not before the Panel in this proceeding, that has spilled into the arena of Internet domain names.

All parties are free to pursue their respective positions and interests in other fora better suited to consider evidence and grant appropriate relief.

As set forth in his concurring opinion, the Panel member who disagrees with the majority’s reasoning on the legitimacy of criticism sites joins the Panel in finding this dispute better suited for the national courts and in the circumstances of this case not appropriate for resolution under the Policy.

The Panel unanimously finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has not been satisfied by Complainant under the facts in this record.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Because the Panel majority has rejected the Complaint under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), there is no discussion here of alleged bad faith registration or use of the Domain Name.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Robert A. Badgley
Presiding Panelist

Richard G. Lyon
Panelist (Concurring)

Debra J. Stanek
Panelist

Date: June 30, 2011

OPINION CONCURRING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN THE DECISION

Though I agree that the Complaint must be denied, I adhere to my oft-stated views that a criticism site even if entirely noncommercial does not confer upon a domain name holder a right or legitimate interest if the domain name consists solely of the complainant’s (and the target of the criticism) mark.

Those interested in the details of my reasoning may read, among other cases, Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627 (majority opinion), and Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175.

Here the Domain Name and mark at issue do not match exactly, but the only difference exacerbates the likelihood of confusion on the part of Internet users by adding a description of Complainant and the services Complainant provides. On the reasoning of the cases cited above, Respondent should not be permitted to appropriate Complainant’s soapbox for her criticism of Complainant.

Resolution of that issue, however, is unnecessary in this proceeding, for in my view the Complaint must be denied on the other ground stated by the Panel.

Complainant and others are battling Respondent and others over a slew of domain names and assorted issues of tort law.

The Response in this case lists some (perhaps all?) of the other individuals engaged in these other proceedings. The Policy itself and Policy precedent do not permit consolidation of these other proceedings under the limited mandate of the Policy; even if consolidation were possible that would do nothing about the charges of defamation (and other torts) and countercharges of harassment (and other torts).

Decisions in this or any of the other Policy proceedings are subject to subsequent challenge in court, where the panels’ findings are not binding. Given the parties’ history, that may well happen here.

Like the Panel, I think it better that all matters be addressed in a forum that has the jurisdiction and competence to do so than that the Policy be stretched, in a case that is not clearly cyber squatting, merely to give one party or the other an edge in the litigation that will inevitably follow. In these circumstances I stand with the panel in Rudy Rojas v. Gary Davis, WIPO Case No. D2004-1081: “a plague o’ both your houses.”

Richard G. Lyon
Panelist (concurring)

Date: June 30, 2011  "


Source of WIPO Proskauer Rose Post
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0675


Note to Post: Ms. Turner has nothing to Do with my Posts or my Issues with Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Ms. Turner was Simply on my Godaddy Account with me and Never Posted anything to do With Proskauer Rose.

Also Note To Post: I Ask is a "oft-stated views" Statement from Richard G. Lyon really appropriate or is Richard G. Lyon acting in conspiracy with Proskauer Rose Law Firm to Harass, Defame, and Conspire against me to hide the Truth about a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft?

This "oft-stated views" Statement by Richard G. Lyon is uncalled for and is further WIPO defamation against me as my site exposes the FACTS on the iViewit Case of which Richard G. Lyon is obviously not familiar with and has no right in his "oft-stated views" in a supposed "Impartial" Panel Review and Decision.

Richard G. Lyon accuses investigative blogger Crystal L. Cox, me..  of my sites being a target of Critisizm when in FACT the blogs are sites to promote inventors rights and to protect further victims of Proskauer Rose Law Firm and Other Attorneys such as Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in massive whitewashing and scandals in the State of New York and Florida where the Wall of Corruption is impossible for most to climb, I give them a voice .. for FREE.

Proskauer Rose is involved in Corruption and wants me to Go Away, I believe Proskauer Rose was involved in an attempted murder of the iViewit inventors, I also believe that the Proskauer Rose Attorneys Steven Krane and Stephen Kaye did not die of natural causes, in My Opinion they simply new to much about the theft of a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology and were dealt with... Like that Movie the "Firm" which is Said to be based on the Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, which is working with Proskaer Rose on the "Healthcare" Fiasco. And Greenberg Traurig was also involved in the iViewit Technology theft and with Proskauer Rose, Greenberg Traurig is named in an SEC Complaint and Federal RICO Lawsuit.

My Sites are the Real, True Story with links to proof and Richard G. Lyon has no right to state that they are critical sites, gripe sites and not legitimate media - as I am MEDIA, defined as Media and protected Under Shield Laws, Ant-Slapp Laws and I am singled out in Selective Prosecution just because I am better at Internet Marketing then the other blogs, news, and media that "gripe" - tell the Proskauer Rose story that is news according to them...

I find the stories online and I post them as most blogger do and link to my source and oftentimes give my Opinion yet Proskauer Rose Accuses me of "parroting" and single out my blogs because they expose one of the Biggest Law Firms in the World.

Just my "oft-stated view"  here but I say supposed Impartial WIPO Panelist Richard G. Lyon is Full of Shit to say the least.. and Soapbox is not what I have.. i have REAL NEWS, real facts, Real story.. and Proskauer Rose pays sites like SuperLawyers.com and Lawdragon and others like them.. - Proskauer Pays for Good Reviews and kicks the ass of Bloggers who expose the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose Attorneys..

Proskauer Rose also used WIPO to whine about their Case with Eliot Bernstein as if that had ANYTHING to do with the Stealing of My Intellectual Property....

Proskauer Rose and I will be meeting in a Court of Law Soon, and as this Major Law Firm will continue to fight to hide the Truth about a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology theft that ruined the quality of life of the inventors and has caused Massive Shareholder Fraud to Shareholders of Intel Corp, Warner Bros., AOL, IBM, Enron, Blockbuster, SONY, Lockheed Martin, Ernst and Young and many more tech companies and financial companies.

You Can See from this "WIPO Decision" that they suggest another Venue, perhaps a federal court and well I agree, a Court somewhere in all the land that Proskauer Rose Does not Control or have some Cronie on the State Bar, or as a Judge or some other pay offs and favors to get an unfair decision in Proskauer Rose's Favor... Do your Homework Folks, read the Cases, talk to the Victims, don't blame the MEDIA.. which is me, just because I am not one of those big chain media sources does not mean i am not the REAL NEWS... i am in the top of the search engines for everything to do with this story, and I get tips and information weekly, i have posted document.. find the Truth for yourself and don't listen to the Gibberish of Richard G. Lyon as he sides with the Billionaire Law Firm Proskauer Rose over the Inventors Lives that they have ruined..

There are links below for more on the Proof of Proskauer Rose involved in the Iviewit Technolgy Theft here are Research Links for You - not really "Gripe Sites" but more like the Real News about the IViewit Scandal that Proskauer Rose is trying to hide.

Proskauer Rose will now fight me in court and I ask you the Public to read the case your self... as I am Standing up for the Rights of the Inventors at the Cost of my own Time, Money and Quality of Life and have never taken a dime from anyone involved... I simply See Victims in Mass over the iViewit Technology Theft and I made a move to use my POWERFUL internet marketing skills to promote the rights of the IViewit Inventors.

Links on the Iviewit Story


http://www.deniedpatent.com/


http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf


http://www.alexisdevane.com/


http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose

http://www.iviewit.tv/


http://www.perjureddeposition.com/

Proskauer Rose Sucks

Is WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization acting unEthically to Protect the High Finance Crimes of Proskauer Rose Law Firm? Dawn Osborne Recusal ?

World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO - in my Alleged OPINION, is helping Proskauer Rose, a Major international law firm,  to cover up a decade old technology theft worth 13 Trillion Dollars, while at the same time to get Millons of Dollars worth of search engine placement in one corrupt, conflicted WIPO Decision.    

The World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO is supposed to settle domain name disputes Fairly and Neutrally, but really it looks like World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO is an easy way to not have to bribe a judge, manipulate a State Bar, or even go thru the Legal System in any way.  Instead WIPO enables those with influence and money, such as Proskauer Rose Law Firm to simply stop the leak of information on what their lawyers are really up to.  

WIPO seems to be a way to avoid the law, and previous cases that protect the domain name owner and to simply remove, among others,  3 amazingly strong domain names from the Search Engines that are in the top 10 search for "Proskauer Rose".

Looks to me like Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using WIPO to get out of a 13 Trillion Dollar Liability, a Federal RICO Lawsuit, an International Patent Scandal, a DOJ Complaint, an FBI Investigation, and an Indictment..  while at the same time handing over to Proskauer Rose Law Firm Million of Dollars worth of my work, top search engine placement forever for free and violating my constitutional rights. 

It seems to me that Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using an international arbritration system in order to shut me up, because Proskauer Rose Law Firm does not want more hulabaloo in the Amercian Courts where the proof is overwhelming on corruption among Proskauer Rose Law Firm (iViewit, Standford, Enron, Madoff, Varsity Brands and tons More).  So Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using WIPO to cover up my Investigative Media Blogs, though I can prove by my web stat counter that Proskauer Rose Law Firm new about these blogs for over 2 years.

Why now is Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Proskauer Rose Attorney engaging Jenifer deWolf Paine to use WIPO, in order to cover up the truth about Proskauer Rose?

Is it because of the break in a 10 year case where the top officials in the Government of New York - the NYAG are being exposed for what really happened and now Proskauer Rose has no more Favors to Call in, so Proskauer Rose is using WIPO, based in Switzerland to Steal the Intellectual Property of a Montana Blogger, Blogging on Proskauer Rose Corruption in the UK, New York, Florida, California and More. 

Link to NYAG Exposed

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=588

So Does WIPO Aid and Abet Criminal Activity in the Name of Neutrality and help major corporations to stomp on the rights of those who don't have billions to fight back?

World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO claims that it came to the attention of World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO that the Panelist chosen by Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Dawn Osburne of  Palmer Biggs Legal international House had a conflict and has "chosen" to recluse herself.

Proskauer Rose chose Dawn Osburne,  Palmer Biggs Legal international House to hand them my Intellectual Property worth Millions upon Millions and to them Worth Trillions as taking these particular domain names with the help of someone the "Inside" at World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO would quiet down the story of how Proskauer Rose Law Firm manipulated the New York Supreme Court, Federal and State Judges, Cops, Investigators, Attorneys, SEC Investigators, DOJ investigators, the USPTO and more in a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft Case.  Proskauer Rose wanted their connections, and favortism from  Palmer Biggs Legal international House, Dawn Osburne to ensure a WIN for Proskauer Rose to simply take my domain names, no muss .. no fuss.. no rights for me.. just a major law firm trying to control information on the Internet by CHOOSING a supposed  "fair and neutral" panelist to decide the fate of my Intellectual Property, Domain Name to "Get Rid Of" the evidence of Proskauer Rose's whitewashing and high finance crimes. 

Proskauer Rose knew that Dawn Osburne had a Conflict of Interest, that is Why Proskauer Rose Chose Dawn Osburne.  IS this not illegal?  My livlihood, my years of work, my asset ... and Proskauer Rose Law Firm conspires to STEAL IT.. and this is Ok?  Does WIPO care that Proskauer Rose did this "Obvious" act of contempt? Oh yeah WIPO is not a court of law, oh well Proskauer Rose Still has connections to control them.  Proskauer Rose should LOSE automatically for trying to "rig" the outcome of my case.Proskauer Rose did not want clients to read the TRUTH, so they can't stop the TRUTH pretty much, but they can take my names with the help of WIPO Corruption, and a little help from a "Conflicted" Panelist.  This way, as Proskauer Rose knows, most people don't search past the first page in Google, so if this Crystal Cox Blogger has 3 Domain Names on the first page of the search engines, well they if we get WIPO, and their inside panelist 

Palmer Biggs Legal international House, Dawn Osburne Proskauer Rose Lawyers Really Are.

Proskauer Rose is not looking for a judgement against me, or a court to stop me from talking about them.  Proskauer Rose is not manipulating a court to make me stop blogging about the "Alleged" corruption at Proskauer Rose Law Firm.  Proskauer Rose, by now knows that I am Brilliant, and Very Good at this Internet Search thing..so Proskauer Rose Attorneys surely know there are thousands of domain names I could buy and continue my supposed "Parroting" of Eliot Bernstein.  So it is not about copyright, trademark or competition... it is about covering up the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose's Corruption, whitewashing and crimes.  And at the same time the added perk of Search Engine placement worth millions for FREE. 

Proskauer Rose has defamed me, Proskauer Rose has flat out lied about me, Proskauer Rose has given legal brief documents to a Domain Arbritration Association that talk about the Iviewit Technology theft and seems to beg for someone, anyone to believe for some reason that Proskauer Rose Attorneys are innocent when there is proof on top of proof that Proskauer Rose is guilty.  And the Iviewit Scandal is not the only one I write on.  Proskauer Rose, Jenifer Dewolf Paine has degraded me, slammed me, defamed me, lied about me and flapped her mouth quite enough and well with the wall of corruption so high and Proskauer Rose control the courts, I have no doubt that WIPO will simply turn my domain names over to Proskauer Rose Law Firm, however KNOW This, I will still beat you in the Search Engine, I will Still expose the Corruption at Proskauer Rose and the TRUTH will remain the Truth no matter how many people you get to aid and abet your white collar, whitewashing criminal activity, these folks such as Dawn Osburne will simply be added to the ever growing Proskauer Rose Crime Chart.

So just how is Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House Attorney in a Conflict of Interest with the Prokauer Rose Law Firm?  It is my Personal Property, my Years of Work, my TIME, my Money at stake and I request from WIPO a statement from Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House as to exactly how Dawn Osborn, is conflicted, and WIPO denies me this right.  I have a right to Prove that Proskauer Rose engaged in Criminal Activities, I am in a $450 Milion Dollar Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose and these domain names are my asset as well as prove in major federal investigation. 

Seems that World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO (Caitlin Tubergen, Case Worker) Claims that it came to their attention there was a conflict, while at the same time seeming to say that Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House  chose to remove herself from the Panel, what is the real story and why have I no right to know?

It seems pretty "Obvious" to me that World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO (Caitlin Tubergen, Case Worker), Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House, and Proskauer Rose are doing some back end, sideways and secret deals behind closed doors to take my domain names and in one double dealing, corrupt conflicted sweep the Stealing of My Domain Names, My Intellectual property would discredit the SEC Investigative Reports, Remove evidence from the Internet where my domain names are listed in Federal Court Cases, silence the Truth about Proskauer Rose in top search engine placement and get Proskauer Rose Intellectual Property worth millions that I build over years. 

So just how is Proskauer Rose Connected to  Dawn Osborn, Palmer Biggs Legal international House? I will be posting tons on that soon.  Got a Tip?  Crystal@CrystalCox.com 

Here are Some eMails from Caitlin Tubergen, Case Worker at WIPO in my Domain Name Proskauer Rose Mafia, Intellectual Property Stealing Case. 

****

From: Domain.Disputes@wipo.int 

Subject: (CT) D2011-0679 Panelist Recusal
To: crystal@crystalcox.com, jpaine@proskauer.com
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 5:53 AM

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
June 14, 2011

Re: Case No. D2011-0679

Dear Parties, 

Please be advised that due to a recently identified conflict, it has been necessary for the previously appointed Co-Panelist (Dawn Osborne) to recuse herself from the case. 

Accordingly, the Center is now seeking to appoint an alternate Co-Panelist (in accordance with Party preference) to hear the matter on a priority basis, and will revert to the Parties in this regard as soon as possible. 

Apologies for any inconvenience caused by delay in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Caitlin Tubergen 
Case Manager   "

Ok so how was this Conflict Identified? 

what Was the Conflict? why have I no right to know?Recently Identified My Ass, Dawn Osborne is no longer willing to Be named in my Lawsuit, and Dawn Osborne did not realize I would DEMAND a Conflict of Interest.  Dawn Osborne has secrets and was going to favor Proskauer Rose, til she saw how hot all this was getting and did not want to affect her financial status, way of life or professional career. 

I, Crystal L. Cox, AGAIN request a Detailed, in Writing Signed statement as to what Conflict of Interest that Dawn Osborne has with Proskauer Rose that  Dawn Osborne has to recuse herself from the case.  I am already defamed by this, it already hurts my media and what i do for a living, if Proskauer Rose was pulling in a "favor" to shut me up, I have a right to know.

Caitlin Tubergen, Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center seems to think that I do not have a right to this information regarding my asset, my quality of life, my business, my asset and legal case. 

The Recusal reason is major in my legal action in this issue, for if Proskauer Rose Picked Dawn Osborne, than obviously Proskauer Rose was trying to pull in a favor to steal my domain names.  I have no sure way to know that Dawn Osborne is not influencing others on the panel.  I have Firmly requested that the NEW panelists sign a Conflict of Interest Form, so far Caitlin Tubergen, Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center refuses me this right saying that it is not Standard of Practice.  This asset is MY PROPERTY, just like a building, real estate, gold .. my life's work, my money, my time and its NOT standard of practice for a WIPO panelist member to swear in writing and sign to the fact that they are in no way favoring the complainant, have not had dealings with them, have no personal or business relationship in ANY way... are YOU Kidding.. well that basically says that WIPO can do what they want, favor who they want and Answers to NO ONE and in the name of Fair and Neutral Decision.. that is Simply Bullshit !!

Do I seem to "Aggressive" .. well if you had a property worth Millions and a Corrupt Law Firm was pulling in favors to steal it and you had no rights it seemed, the least you would do is tell your story for all to see what is really going on behind the scenes.  

I will in NO WAY take this passively, even when and if WIPO gives you my Domain Names I will still Stomp your Ass in the Search Engines, and I will Still get iViewit heard as well as many others that Proskauer Rose Attorneys have made victims of.  You will not Silence me thru ANY action, not Even Death will Silence what I have built to EXPOSE YOU. 

I am telling the Truth, I am on the Right side of the Moral Compass, I am standing up for Inventors Rights and For Victims Rights... I am an investigative blogger and very good at it, and I will not back down to you Proskauer Rose. NO Way, No How.. So Call Eliot Bernstein, Fix This... and Do the Right Thing .. By Law.. 

****

If Proskauer Rose did PICK Dawn Osborne to favor Proskauer Rose Law Firm, then this also should be noted, proved and used in SEC Complaints, a Federal RICO Lawsuit and other Legal Action against Proskauer Rose that includes these domain names in Federal Complaints, Legal Briefs and other Documents of Evidence.

IF Dawn Osborne, or any other panelist, or anyone at WIPO including Caitlin Tubergen is proven in conspiracy with Proskauer Rose,then they are indeed Liable, and may also face criminal charges.  Obviously you can understand my need for in writing signed proof from Dawn Osborne as to why she recused her self and this far into the procedure.  Much suspicion has arising.  And yet WIPO, Caitlin Tubergen seems to think its none of my business why Dawn Osborne is no longer in charge of my fate. Oh and Surely the New Guy Robert A. Badgley is neutral. I mean if WIPO Case Manger, Caitlin Tubergen says that Robert A. Badgley is going to be fair and neutral well then surely Robert A. Badgley is right?

I Intend to turn over every stone on Robert A. Badgley, and if there is a Proskauer Rose Connection I will find it, prove it and EXPOSE IT !!

WIPO Case Manger, Caitlin Tubergen says I did not pick a Preference of panelist in this case. Thing is I don't know any of these folks, why would I.  And if  WIPO Case Manger, Caitlin Tubergen is telling the TRUTH and the panelist are fair and not biased, then why would I have to?

I would assume that I would be treated fair and neutral, however given the way this is playing out and how long it took Dawn Osborne to admit her conflict and Dawn Osborne only admitted conflict due to my online writings, and my constant asking, otherwise Dawn Osborne would have just favored Proskauer Rose and aided and abetted Proskauer Rose Law Firm to Steal my Intellectual Property. WIPO would never have asked a question on any of it. 

This decision, the panelists, the back story, every detail will play out for years.  So I hope that all are really neutral, as Proskauer Rose is bullying me and I will stand up for my rights even if WIPO discriminates against me and takes my Intellectual Property even in light of the TaubmanSucks.com case and the Mike Morgan Vs. Goldman Sachs case, WIPO is still helping Proskauer Rose to come for my PROPERTY.  This story will NEVER go away.  Fact is Fact.  Truth is TRUTH. 

If Proskauer Rose takes these names, WIPO has set a precedence that attempts to overturn the intellectual property laws.  This will be exposed.  Also if WIPO take my domain names this will directly impact my Financial Status, and WIPO panelists and key players will be named in legal action, period.  

I have demanded that the remaining panelists sign an affirmation that they, nor family members have EVER had ANY dealings with anyone at or related to Proskauer Rose in any way, if Not WIPO and the Panelists will be Liable.  I am denied this right by WIPO.

More Emails from WIPO

--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Disputes, Domain  wrote:From: Disputes, Domain 

Subject: RE: (CT) D2011-0679 Panelist Recusal
To: "Crystal L. Cox" 
Cc: "jpaine@proskauer.com" 
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 8:04 AM

Dear Ms. Cox,

Further to your attached email, to clarify, Ms. Osborne has recused herself due to a self-identified potential conflict of interest in that it appears that her firm has previously acted for or in connection with the Complainant.  The recusal and appointment of an alternate panelist is to protect perceptions of the Panel’s independence overall.  

Obviously the recusal of Ms. Osborne has no impact on the presiding Panel (Robert A. Badgley) or the Panel nominated to serve, in the absence of any preference expressed by you, as the Respondent’s co-panel (Debra J. Stanek).

It is not WIPO Center practice to require signed statements from recusing panelists as to their stated reasons regarding panel recusal.

We trust the above has answered your questions and allays any concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Caitlin Tubergen 
Case Manager "

Oh Gee Well that certainly "clears it up" .. clarify's the whole deal.. whew.. THANKS... 

So Dawn Osborne recused HERSELF? so does WIPO do any due diligence on these guys, or is it a free for all, who ever wants somebody's domain name can just call one of the 1500 WIPO panelist and pull some strings and WIPO does no research on it, and in this jeapordized millions in my asses, my livelihood and my quality of life and this is Legal? Fair? Neutral? Ethical?  I Don't Think So. 

Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center says, in Regard to the Dawn Osborne Recusal on my case ..  that Dawn " Osborne has no impact on the presiding Panel (Robert A. Badgley) " - SO does "Dawn Osborne" or anyone at or related to Proskauer Rose Law Firm 

Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center,  Also States to Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox that..  and I Quote "It is not WIPO Center practice to require signed statements from recusing panelists as to their stated reasons regarding panel recusal. "  Well it damn well better be, people will sue you all ... Domain Names are worth more then real estate in many cases.  Your Decisions affect peoples lives, wallets, quality of life and financial portfolio.  These people have a right to the TRUTH. 

So this is why Proskauer Rose Law Firm did not sue me to take my domain names, or get me into any court of law. See the Corrupt Elite Attorney Fraternity at Proskauer Rose led in this case by  Jenifer deWolf Paine on behalf of Matthew Triggs, Joseph Leccese, Gregg M. Mashberg, Kenneth Rubenstein and the Proskauer Rose Law Firm has simply used WIPO in order for this not to get messy and to darn expensive and to ensure a swift win, and not years of a court battle.  This way Proskauer Rose .. Matthew Triggs, Joseph Leccese, Gregg M. Mashberg, Kenneth Rubenstein and the Proskauer Rose Law Firm can get those names out of search quickly so the investigators don't see and the clients don't see.

An ASSET of this value and it is not Standard of Practice for WIPO to ask for a conflict of interest agreement or a signed statement as to why the panelist is recusing themselves, no Wonder the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm took this route, it is much easier then doing the right thing, obeying the law, and having any kind of ethics when STEALING a domain name and silencing a blogger. 

Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ends my Intellectual Property Rights Violated email with "We trust the above has answered your questions and allays any concerns you may have."

SO who is the WE that Caitlin Tubergen - Case Manager - WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is talking about?  And no that certainly does NOT answer my question nor anywhere near address my Concern.

A major multi-billion dollar international law firm does not like the FACT that I have 3 domain names in the top 10 for Internet Searches for their name and they are just going to take them, whatever favors they need to call in to do it and WIPO does not even raise an eyebrow.  

Also Not the the Reclusal was after this post and others calling them out

http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/2011/06/jenifer-dewolf-of-proskauer-rose-wants.html

Keep in mind Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO Saying "Obviously the recusal of Ms. Osborne has no impact on the presiding Panel (Robert A. Badgley)" so that when I prove this flat out wrong, Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO will be Liable.  Oh and don't worry about denying me the "reasons for reclusal" I will find out and I will post it. 

Todays Email from Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO

"Dear Ms. Cox,

The Center acknowledges receipt of your below email, and kindly reminds the parties that all case-related communications should be copied to the other party in accordance with the UDRP Rules.

As previously communicated, you may note that the Center is currently in the process, in light of Ms. Osbourne's previously-advised recusal on the basis stated, of inviting an alternate Co-Panelist for Complainant's nominee in accordance with paragraph 6 of the UDRP Rules.

As a pre-requisite for appointment, such Panelist would need to submit the necessary Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, a copy of which is publically available on the Center's website.

We will advise both Parties of the relevant appointment shortly.

Sincerely,

Caitlin Tubergen

Case Manager

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center "

Note to Caitlin Tubergen, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center : Please note if you want the lying Bitch Jenifer DeWolf Paine to have a copy of my Rights Violating case that Proskauer Rose, Jenifer DeWolf Paine initiated on behalf of Matthew Triggs, Joseph Leccese, Gregg M. Mashberg, Kenneth Rubenstein and the Proskauer Rose Law Firm then you can forward it to her.  I have no Obligation to add the email in as a Copy to WIPO, the Fair and Neutral Arbitration Association. Nor to I "Obviously" expect to be treated Fair and Neutral, as the Proof is Piling up that there is NO fair and neutral at WIPO.  

******

Dawn Osborne Prokauer Rose Connections, more coming soon..

Here are a Few Research Links on Dawn Osborne for now

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/profiles/osborne-dawn.pdf

http://www.fastiis.org/resources/guidance/legal/legalMediationPanel/Dawn%20Osborne.pdf

http://www.clt.co.uk/brochures/cf40709.pdf

Much More Coming Soon ( Gotta wonder though if she is so great at Intellectual Property Laws and Domain Names.. why don't she own 

http://www.DawnOsborne.com/  and if its wrong to own the name of another why not just take it from the person who does.. Proskauer Rose thinks that Josephe Leccesse and Gregg Mashberg have that right as if they are the only ones in the world with that name.. so why not Dawn Osborne? 

Research Links on Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.stolentechnology.com/2010/12/criminal-complaint-against-nyag-andrew.html

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.proskauerfraud.com/

http://www.proskauersucks.com