<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Retraction from the list
- To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, joe Babtista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ga] Retraction from the list
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 06:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
This is a formal retraction of all matters written in this previous post by
John Palmer. This is an open list and we do not have any editing rights. This
is not a republication but a retraction.
Mr. Palmer,
I suppose you have a normal side to you. I am sure I could find something to
like about you. But I personally know Jeff. I personally knew his mother who
just recently passed away. I have spoken with his sister and his brother on
matters of family and finance. We all enjoy the troll and fake person games
but you make yourself the fool with this post. I have papers on file with at
least one US gov. Agency where I represent the citizen named Jeff Williams,
most is confidentlal but I know as a fact that Mr. Williams pays more than his
share of taxes.
We must always remember that virtual is the world from which our reference for
the Internet comes from, and not the other way around. The biggest problem with
Mr. Palmer's post here is that it totally destroys his credibility, in matters
of right and wrong and reality.
Mr. Palmer -- Defamation includes both Slander(spoken) and Libel(written) false
statements about another that tend to damage their reputation. When a persons
livilihood or profession is attacked in the defamation then it is what is
called per se. In most cases the libel is not really so because of a good faith
belief in the truth of the matter stated and it can be argued. In this case you
have no such defense. I suggest you shut up.
--- On Fri, 5/7/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Jeffrey A Williams and Joe Baptista are one and the same (was Re: [ga]
RE: Removal from GA list)
To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Matthew Pemble"
<matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, roberto@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 9:29 PM
#yiv387904344 {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;COLOR:black;FONT-FAMILY:arial,
sans-serif;BACKGROUND-COLOR:#ffffff;}
#yiv387904344 P {
MARGIN:0px;}
Joe, you know there is a rule against posting under a different name while you
are under suspension on the GA list.
Joe, I know that "Jeffrey" is just you posting under a different name. I spent
most of the day online researching "Jeffrey Williams"
and am convinced of that now, after my research.
You have been using him as your straight man for quite a number of years now -
how impressive that you've been able
to keep up this real complicated act for all of these years - kudos to you.
Now your gig is up.
To the ICANN moderators: Jeffrey A. Williams is in all likelyhood Joe Baptista
posting under a different name.
Take whatever actions you willl regarding this matter.
Cheers,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey A. Williams
To: Matthew Pemble ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA ; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx ;
ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx ; roberto@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list
Matthew and all,
Good points all! Further given that ICANN's GNSO approved the rules by which
the GA is loosely
administered by, I for one could not find a single rule that Dr. Joe violated,
and at a minimum
Mr. Palmers discourse was similar in discourse manner, as if that really is
relevant or
matters.
Frank was/is probably stepping in to mediate as his position provides for.
As to why and/or
whom requested such I do not know and believe in the interest of transparency
should
be revealed specifically.
Finnaly I feel abused in this process as well as my rights to publically
reading Dr. Joes
remarks has been abruptly denied me by person(s) unknown and for reasons that
are
not in keeping with the GA rules. Therefore again I kindly but strongly
request that
Dr. Joe be reinstated forthwith and that he be publically appologized to for
such a
improper suspension.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Pemble
Sent: May 7, 2010 2:18 AM
To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA"
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list
Folks,
I would just like to point out, in the interests of fairness, that, after some
13 hours (some 6 or so of which were working hours in California) and 4 on-list
responses from the ICANN ombudsman, I have not received any public or private
response to my email regarding Joe's suspension apparently due to my email.
ICANN host this list therefore, under the law as it applies to me, they do have
the right (in fact it is trivial to argue, the responsibility) to censor
inappropriate content. I appreciate this is different for those of you with
First Amendment rights under the US Constitution :), if you assume that ICANN
is a government agent (and First Amendment case law would suggest that it
counts as one for that purpose.) However, with that comes the responsibility
to explain your public actions.
I am increasingly puzzled - especially by Frank's interventions. Would ICANN
please either suspend me (and explain what rule or norm I breached) and
reinstate Joe, or correct the explicit statement that Joe was suspended because
of my email.
If I do receive a private email from ICANN explaining or correcting their
position, I will send an email to the list stating that such has been received.
Matthew
--
Matthew Pemble
Technical Director, Idrach Ltd
Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders and growing,
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|