CurtisNeeley

Sorry about that but, I was not comparing this crime to the abuse by a priest. I was comparing the passage of time when a recovered memory is involved.
Perhaps I could have said that better?

I have already been in court regarding my incompetence.
I am now my own guardian.

labrocca

NameMedia cybersquatted my domain. I will sue!

Everything on that page is using the namepros redirect. You should rebuild it.

And with every post imho you are sounding more and more like a loon. I am sorry you had such a terrible accident and maybe that's why you're having these difficulties expressing.

If you think you're going to gain a lot of sympathy here I think you're in for a surprise.

__________________
Proxy Filter SEO Tag Cloud Debate Forums Free Online Sudoku My vBum Blog

oliviaheart

This thread is making you look worse and worse.
And I thought there were things litigants couldn't discuss publicly until after court?

I agree with just one recurring statement,
Suing for 10 million dollars will be seen as an extortion attempt and greatly damage your case.


Congratulations on the strides you've managed in the face of adversity,
And best of luck.

L2

Curtis,

This thread and your issues have captured my attention for some reason. I know quite a few competent folks that appear brain damaged, and now I know a brain damaged guy that appears competent. You can post, write and interact here just like the rest of us. That's a pretty good start (better than some).

Which brings me to my point.

We're all dealt a set of cards the day we were born. People like Michael Jackson seemed to have a pair of aces the day he was born, but he misplayed'm and now he's dead. Game over.

You, me and a shitload of others didn't get pocket aces like he did, we got a 3 and an 8. Sucks.

But I've seen the best hand lose, and I've seen the worst hand win. It's not the cards you're dealt, it's how you play the game.

You've heard from quite a few smart, distinguished and competent folks that you're chasing a shadow that doesn't appear to be anyway possible you can catch. Whether you think you can, remember you can or not - it's a shadow.

Take what memory you're regaining, take what facilities you still have and take whatever resources you have available and move them to a project you actually have a fair chance at succeeding at. Maybe a blog, maybe some domaining, maybe relearning your photography or software. Hell, I don't know what it is, I just know it ain't putting whatever you have left in the tank into chasing NameMedia.

We all have obstacles in life we have to overcome. Some worse than others. Lord knows I've been left for dead a half dozen times. I've been hit broadside at over 70 MPH and my dually flipped 2 1/2 times (end over end) ejecting me and my third wife (17 years and counting) on the last 1/2, only to have the friggin' thing land on top of us, swell.

I headed butted a dude that was 6'7" and I really showed him only to find I carry a titanium plate at C5, C6, and C7 now because the blow to his chin knocked him out, but broke my neck.

Graves disease? Not a problem buddy - a 'roided out 280 lbs. down to 195 only to have that cured with a hypothyroid and now 290 with a belly (I'm workin' on it).

I won't even start to discuss the lower back, shoulder, hand surgeries, divorces, money and the rest - all from different events, all in the past.

IF I held the anger (like you are) from all that crap, I'd be a miserable, broken man so I don't. I played what I could the best I could and I've moved on. Moved on to live another day, fight another battle and all along I've tried to learn from my mistakes and other than this post and in a couple other mentions, I use my past to help me refocus and get excited about the future. That doesn't mean I don't get angry, or forget that I got ***ed out of a million here or there in business. It just means I channel it into something constructive, and I use that emotion to play the cards I have in front of me.

You stated at the bottom of the link you provided: "I am suing as a poor, legless, brain injured, and paralyzed, pauper! I asked to proceed without paying. I was provisionally approved! I forgot to sign the thing. Oops! Brain injuries are a bother. YOU ARE MY COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!"

Well, that sounded like the drunk bum that was begging for "help" standing on the street corner today. I pulled up next to him on my Hog and told him I'll help ya'! He walked up to get a buck, but I told him to get a ****ing job and get off my tax bill.

You got to move on Curtis. I just read quite a bit of your story and it occurred to me somewhere during the read that you need to move forward and get past the wife, get past the wreck, get past the domains (you don't even want), way past the anger and start playing the cards you were dealt.

Remember, excuses are like ***holes, everybody has one and they all stink.

Turn the ship around, channel that emotion and play your cards.

I'm pullin' for ya' man, good luck in your endeavors.

L2

__________________
My Blog Post on Whypark | FBD | BT | GT | T101 | FAD | HDT | TS | VCC | FDD | TF | TT | MB | GGT
Sale: TelepresenceCenter.com | TelepresencePro.com | TelepresenceMeetings.com | TelepresencePros.com

labrocca

Being a Vegas resident I gotta comment. If you get a lot of three's and eight's then it's not about how you play it's about the game you play. Switch to Blackjack and you can double down all day long with that hand.

hehe...but overall good post about moving on.

__________________
Proxy Filter SEO Tag Cloud Debate Forums Free Online Sudoku My vBum Blog

L2

That's the point I was trying to make!

What I may see as a crap hand in Poker, you know is a hand with potential in Blackjack.

Curtis can blog about his struggles and provide others some light in the tunnel of a handicap. Even if he made $10 blogging - that's $10 more than what he's focusing on that will never make him a penny. What he sees as an obvious crap hand, I see as his opportunity.

L2

__________________
My Blog Post on Whypark | FBD | BT | GT | T101 | FAD | HDT | TS | VCC | FDD | TF | TT | MB | GGT
Sale: TelepresenceCenter.com | TelepresencePro.com | TelepresenceMeetings.com | TelepresencePros.com

CurtisNeeley

I see it as an opportunity as well. I do not see a crap hand. With my TBI, I have no memories of things to miss doing. -{like walking etc.}

www.CurtisNeeley.com has a BLOG.
www.Groupf16.org A small group, but so was the one with Ansel.
My nude art photos and book are now at www.figurenude.com
I do nude art but those I love do not approve of nude art.
You may also see my art at Wikipedia. {Figure Study, Nude Photography, Art Nude}
My Wikipedia User Page.

All the photographs were done after my retirement on all the sites except for seven photos

Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act

================================================== ======
* the trademark owner’s mark is distinctive or famous;
It was distinct enough that to this day any search for eartheye will return a link to my photography. Seven years after it was bought from the cybersquatters called NameMedia. A jury can decide how distinctive and famous they feel they are.
* the domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark; and
It was bought to be put in a"warehouse" of names for sale. It was never used for products or services.
* the domain name and the trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks).
**IDENTICAL**
================================================== =====
I will file a motion for summary judgment leaving only the damages to be tried by the JURY.

I will watch this thread and post new information as the court rules or as I file.

SleepSpot.com is still just for sale. It does not simply say "this domain for sale" anymore after they lost so many tribunal decisions based on this alone.
It will not be hard to see in the network solution WHOIS search that it is still for sale.
They run advertisements on it now to money-ize it.
It has been for sale since the day they bought it!
See it when it was being used in bona- fide commerce.
2001

Domain servers in listed order NOW!:

NS.BUYDOMAINS.COM
THIS-DOMAIN-FOR-SALE.COM

************************************************** ********************
************************************************** ********************
"Jurors you can see projected here a website that shows the Plaintiff using these trademarks to sell. In one he was selling art prints and commercial photography. On the other trademark the Plaintiff was selling hotel and Bed and Breakfast "Spots to Sleep" or software use that allowed the properties to do the same. Now if you will note in these projections of sites that the Defendants had using these trademarks were simply attempts to sell the trademarks to the Plaintiff or another party for a profit. Now you see here in their IPO filing that they regularly do this. They have made it the normal business practice. See in this projection of one trademark currently that is still simply for sale.

I contend that NameMedia's normal business practice is to cybersquat. They make selling domains out to be selling property. They call their cybersquatted marks "real estate" and, since they are "squatted" on them, you must pay the ransom they demand.

Sure they already sold one on Plaintiffs common law trademarked domains to a new business that recently filed a trademark on the domain. The Plaintiff did not remember his marks until contacted by the Defendant due to a brain injury. The Plaintiff's injury was so severe that he is unable to understand or operate the SleepSpot software. He has chosen a new name for his nude photographs that is more descriptive of them and more obvious.

The Defendants will -of course, say they did not realize a prior use of the trademarks. It is hard for the reasonable person to believe that claim when the trademarks were purchased at an auction when they expired. They expired while the Plaintiff was an incompetent. A company that recently filed a 172.5 million dollar IPO and then retracted it was so careless that they would proceed to buy a trademark without searching for its prior use? I find that hard to believe.

You will see here as I project an exhibit of the dialog between the Defendant's legal council and the Plaintiff proves that they were very aware that Plaintiff felt that he owned the trademark and also offered a domain for it. The Defendants were also aware of the Plaintiffs disability. Knowing this data, Defendants proceeded to sell the Plaintiffs trademark to a start-up in Florida for a huge profit."

Domains and trademarks are not real property. They are protected as intellectual property and the Defendant tries to treat them as real property. The Plaintiff says that this should not be thought of as the next "land grab" where by squatting on a domain and putting up a few signposts you can make it yours. Especially if you are a big powerful squatter that is well versed in squatting. Modifying your mass of squatted property enough to rebut any rational you encounter adversely during another complaint.

You will see on this exhibit that the Defendant lost a domain in a dispute because a parked domain with only a for-sale notice was found to be sufficient evidence of bad faith. Here you will note this is all that was on the Defendant's pages as you see them from the Internet Archive for years. You will note also that one trademark that was once only a for sale sign is no longer mentioning being for sale on the site. Wow, the Defendant has a staff of signpost detail workers that scrub their parked pages of for sale postings. *Poof*

You will then see in this projection that the Defendants name servers listed as of July 28, 2009 were NS.BUYDOMAINS.COM and THIS-DOMAIN-FOR-SALE.COM! How dumb must the Defendant think the rational juror will be. The tribunals that felt a for sale page was demonstration enough of bad-faith were then dumb enough to ignore these strategically hidden for-sale notices repeatedly? I ask you to punish the Defendants severely and order the Defendants to pay a large portion of their income to the Plaintiff. The actions by the Defendants were malicious and the damages were intentional.

The Defendant tries to compare domains to real estate, and has profited greatly by doing this. The Plaintiff says that in this case a much more fitting real-world comparison would be to compare the domains to pets. Eartheye.com filled a place in the Plaintiffs mind as a good hunting dog he used to hunt clients. When Plaintiff became incapacitated and stopped feeding the hunting dog the Defendant caged him and fed him. The Defendants did not take the dog hunting for anything. The Defendants simply capitalized on the dog’s reputation. They advertised him directly to the Plaintiff and to the Internet universe generally.

It created emotional distress for the Plaintiff to watch his long-time hunting-dog sit chained in a cage. While seeing his old friend fret in the cage, Plaintiff received repeated offers to purchase the dog back. When the Plaintiff could not afford to pay the ransom, the Plaintiff watched the smug kidnappers sell the dog to other hunters.

I ask you to PUNISH the Defendants for ransoming the Plaintiffs pets and then selling one to others and keeping the other penned and for sale as we see today.

These actions were intentionally done to inflict emotional distress to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asks you to award 10 million dollars to punish the Defendants. This is a big number, but will be a tiny fraction of the Defendants annual profit. Do this as a demonstration that being huge is no excuse to treat the common person so."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

cartoonz

Curtis, you need to take your single mindedness to task at something that could actually work.

You have no case. Domains are not trademarks.

But obviously it may take a judge to tell you this... so be prepared for him/her to make the summary judgment - against you. Also be prepared to settle any claims that NameMedia may likely make against you for your careless, and possibly libelous comments as well.

We've tried to warn you, but you won't listen.

Why aren't you suing your ex wife for not paying the renewal bill for the domains when they came in? That's about the only legitimate complaint you can make... and even that seems ridiculous.

bmugford

Curtis, I suggest you contact an attorney with experience in this type of law such as - John Berryhill

You need an objective view on this lawsuit and it's actual merits. You refuse to listen to what anyone on this forum is telling you, and many of the people here have experience in domain law.

Brad

__________________
DataCube.com - Buy and Sell Premium Domains

jberryhill

Then you need to find some new friends. There is absolutely nothing wrong about nudity. If God wanted us to wear clothes, we'd have been born with them on. Your figure photography is pretty good.

I agree with the comments here to the effect that you would be much better served by pursuing things that are creative and productive.

__________________
I rarely read PM's on the umpteen forums to which I subscribe. Send email instead.

CurtisNeeley

Quote:

Originally Posted by jberryhill Then you need to find some new friends. There is absolutely nothing wrong about nudity. If God wanted us to wear clothes, we'd have been born with them on. Your figure photography is pretty good. I agree with the comments here to the effect that you would be much better served by pursuing things that are creative and productive.

Thank you so much sir for your comment about my photography. I have absolutely no friends, by choice, who disapprove of my photography of the nude.

There are very many whom I love that do not approve of my portrayal of the figure. I did not choose to love them. It is the only fundamental disagreement I have with them. I was born naked and still value the love of the family I was born loving although we disagree on this.

Talking about God's take on clothing?

God intends for us to wear clothes. He made the first clothes to cover our bodies to protect our weak minds from our sinful nature we acquired by choosing to sin. He did not have us grow coats of fur. Would you not think that God would remove the need for clothes instead of killing animals to make clothes? He did not choose to cover us with fur because God did not want to remove the ability for choice that He had given originally. Although our minds had expanded and we knew good and evil, the choice to love and obey had to remain.

God created us and everything around us. He created all+! The fossils and other evidence that would lead to the theory of evolution were created by him. Why? For EXACTLY the same reason he gave us the option to remove our clothes instead of our growing fur. So that we COULD choose to believe or choose not to believe. We were created so we had the opportunity to CHOOSE to love God.

God made clothes so we could choose to think of sex and lust or choose to appreciate his masterpiece without the eroticism when our minds should be thinking of other things. Sex, eroticism and even lust are not evil at all times. There is a time and a place for even these.

God enjoyed looking at the first woman naked himself!. She enjoyed the idea of God naked. Eve loved God and she now felt lust for him as well as for Adam. Adam felt lust for Eve. Adam loved God but felt the first jealousy ever. They were the first to feel naked and exposed.

Eve knew that she was the most attractive female in the world. She realized her erotic power. We have the same opportunity that they had. We are born naked but as we age we realize the need for clothing. As we age we become aware of thesexual potential. We can choose to be naked and appeal to the animalistic and sinful tendencies of others or remove that potential lure to others. We can appreciate a nude human figure without the accompanying lust just as God appreciated Eve's beauty. We can do this, but it is a challenge.

I am one of the best photographers of the figurenude. I am by no stretch of even my most grandiose and egocentric imagination - the BEST. I have done the best book of figurenude photography in the history of the art of photography. I also did the worst. It is the first book of only figurenude photography that has ever been done. It is the only book of figurenude photography in existence that I have heard of. The only one of anything is always both the best and the worst.

I consider all seventeen of the other photographers at www.figurenude.com to posses skills that very often exceed mine in presenting the figurenude. Many others also have done books. One has several covers of Vogue, GQ, Vanity Fair and Newsweek magazines. I hope to see another book of figurenudes by one of them.

Getting back to my hopeful lawsuit against NameMedia for cybersquatting and intentional infliction of emotional distress...
Eartheye.com was a website that had a volume of UNIQUE visitors that caused it to become an expense. At one time it was costly due to unwanted bandwidth. It was at times a costly "vanity" publication of mine. As cheap as bandwidth is, it is easy to see why its residual traffic after the expiry auction made it valuable.

Ignoring all the IPs that requested only an image or ignore all image file requests, my CurtisNeeley.com site got 171 unique IPs in the previous 24 hours. 6 of those visitors followed a link from the NamePros domain as a referrer. Two visitors from the first page of the thread and one from each of the second two. One clicked on a bio in a posted link and another either came from my profile page here or a track-back link. The redirecting of internal post links makes the exact location of the click difficult to identify.

If I allow all request to be counted there are 253 UNIQUE IPs.. 59 UNIQUE IPs came from a referrer with BLOG in the URL. Filtering out all the image files from those 59 visitors leaves only 4 visitors and one of those was from here clicking a redirected URL from my lawsuit link to my notoriously unspeltd pdf . It is on a BLOG. My blog.

figurenude.com only received 49 UNIQUE IPs in that same amount of time. It will reject any request for only an image file from another referrer. Not even Google's image engine any longer! The host for my personal site is not quite that robust. Figurenude.com will not allow image hot-linking to prevent theft of services in the BLOG happy world we live in. That would lead to exactly the same hosting expense issue eartheye.com one had.

I am brain damaged as I have mentioned and demonstrated elsewhere in this thread.
Almost the entire domain name business operates on a principle that is counter to the idea of truth in domain names. While not fooling visitors into viewing sexual material the entire "parking" and "monetizing" ideas are misleading. Time to start a "A Real Truth in Domain Name" special interest group. If the entire use of a domain name is to create advertising revenue then it will not be allowed when I am done.

I can't believe that "PARKING" is still legal. It will not be when I am done. See, here I go being odd again. An amendment to the truth in domain names bill will be all that is required. I will start focusing some of my energy on talking to politicians.
A "landing page" is a deceptive page.

bmugford

Curtis, I don't think adding super size font is doing much for your case.

Now you are on a crusade to get $10M in damages and change laws? You are just wasting your time at this point.

John Berryhill is probably the most respected domain lawyer. You should really listen to him.

Brad

__________________
DataCube.com - Buy and Sell Premium Domains

cartoonz

Yes, you keep making that painfully obvious.

Curtis, seriously... focus your energy on something constructive. This isn't worth your time and/or energy as it will most assuredly not get you anywhere.

copper

Curtis,

By looking at your site and previous sites, you ARE talented, but...

jberryhill is THE MOST knowledgeable, respectable and successful domain lawyer.
You should reread his post and listen to him. He knows what he's talking about.

Humm...
I have nothing to say about this part

__________________
Domain Names for Sale
Skincare Video | Dog Workshop | Hybrid Today

Jawed

Quite entertaining.

CurtisNeeley

Thank you sir.
I believe that what is accepted today by even the successful is agreement on rules that do not follow the letter of the law as it is written.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1125
This is an action to recover for intentional emotional damages that NameMedia ALREADY caused me and profited by. I am asking for punitive damages because the actions were and are still intentional.
I was contacted by their sales and their attorney BEFORE they sold one of the cybersquatted domains. The other is still currently for sale.

I feel I was robbed of common law trademarked domains and was distressed intentionally.
This is not about recovering the domains. It is about demanding the cybersquatters be punished. This may amount to absolutely nothing. I refuse to let a single person stop my quest for justice. No tribunal, judge, or law clerk regardless of who has accepted their rulings in the past. A jury of my peers is demanded and a constitutional provision I will require. This is a demand for justice. Not for demand for a domain!

I believe I will eventually get relief from a JURY. I am getting relief HERE and HERE already.

__________________
NameMedia cybersquatted two of my domains! {1,2}

cartoonz

Sure, a jury would possibly sympathize with you for being brain damaged but they also have to follow the law... and under law, you have no case. Because you have no case, you'll never see a jury.

The judge will tell you that right off, too. And that will be the end of it, you'll not be wasting the court's time after that and you won't get your precious jury to try to invent new laws because they feel sorry for you. It just won't happen.

sdsinc

Indeed

I think that the purpose of this thread is to get attention... it's full of hot air.
Curtis, everything you post only gives more ammo to Enom. Seriously, everything you write can be used against you.
Enom are not stupid, they can use google and find this thread.

Also, I don't see how one can claim common law 'trademark' rights just based on a casual website. If you had an active corporation that enjoys some notoriety then maybe things would be different.

Your lawsuit sounds like a conspiracy theory novel. Tens of thousands of domains expire every day, for many reasons. Enom did pick your domains because they perceived they had potential, not because of your personal situation (that they didn't know about in the first place...).

If your purpose is to pressure Enom with your lawsuit, be careful as it could backfire. I personally think that you wouldn't even prevail in a WIPO.

Good luck to you.

DanB

I'm sorry for you and the accident, but this lawsuit is such a waste of time. There is absolutely no TM infrigement. It is VERY difficult to prove emotional damages, and quantify ($$$) them. If the domains were not renewed it is your fault only - most registrars offer auto-renewal option.
Better spend your energy on something else IMHO.
Good luck.

athletec64

"These actions were intentionally done to inflict emotional distress to the Plaintiff."

I doubt this case will even get a jury lol...you make it sound like as if BuyDomains knew who you were, did it on purpose just to piss you off. They are a company out to make money, and there's nothing more to that. You have no trademark just because you owned the domain.


"I can't believe that "PARKING" is still legal. It will not be when I am done"


And you're going to get rid of parking? Good luck. I suggest you tone down your ridiculous confidence though.

cartoonz

eNumb has nothing to do with this, this is NameMedia, BuyDomains

...although all your observations are accurate, just the wrong company.



way past the fine line between confidence and arrogance I'm afraid.

===============================

Word Mark EARTHEYES
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 040. US 106. G & S: slides and/or prints, mounted and/or unmounted. FIRST USE: 19881108. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19890210
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74096270
Filing Date September 12, 1990
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Nollmeyer, Brenda DBA Eartheyes INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 4 Franklin Valley Circle Reisterstown MARYLAND 21136
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date September 10, 1991
--------------------------------

Curtis, using your logic this woman should be suing you for the rest of your limbs!
SHE even filed and had a Registered TM.

guys, I know this TM is dead. She failed to respond to something from the USPTO office. I know she'd not have a claim either.
That is my point.

CurtisNeeley

Thank you for the attention.

It was not a "casual site" and laws are not only to protect corporations are they?
See an example of my COMMERCIAL photography. I once used eartheye.com to gain work doing commercial photography. I have done work with the biggest corporation in the world at one time. There is only one active link to this example on my site now. I can see how you might have missed it. The above is at a Google search result for Curtis Neeley Commercial Photography You see it at the domain I once offered for eartheye.com or OzarkPhotos.net

Yes, but they were aware of my prior COMMERCIAL use before ever selling them as can be seen HERE. They were also aware of a LARGE amount of traffic to the domain they had just squatted.

OH my ! Really - - Think they might Google Curtis Neeley NameMedia?

What was I THINKING? I must be almost an incompetent.
OH DEAR. All that ammo.....
I appreciate the good luck wishes. I look to be needing it.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

EARTHEYESHe was using the wrong company name and you were using the wrong domain name.
EARTHEYES is a little off eartheye.com
While I enjoy all the attention around Eartheye. Eartheye was recently filed this month as a TM by Earth Eye LLC.
Why are we ignoring
SleepSpot?

__________________
NameMedia cybersquatted two of my domains! {1,2}

cartoonz

Curtis, lose the patronizing tone.

You're not "almost" incompetent, you are certifiably incompetent if you keep this up.

and the bolded "Thank you for the attention." just screams INTERNET TROLL, which really seems to be your focus at this point.

the extra "s" on the eartheyes TM makes no difference in reality. The fact that TM was directly related to the goods/services that YOU, and you alone have declared a sovereign right to the term for (even though you refuse to file or challenge other filings) makes YOU the infringer under your own ridiculous logic.

CurtisNeeley

OK I will just shut up and watch this for a learning process.

Have fun. I will post once to let you all know when I am thrown out on my ear.

I applied for leave to proceed without filing fees.

Although I was already conditionally allowed to proceed, the judge will now just throw this out and not waste the Court's time. Maybe NameMedia will sue me?

Internet Troll -? Maybe it is all I am.

__________________
NameMedia cybersquatted two of my domains! {1,2}

athletec64

"EARTHEYES is a little off eartheye.com"

Plural vs non plural lol...They have more of a case than you do...at least they had a registered TM