[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] PROPOSAL -- Name change for proposed TC
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Craig A. Eddy <tyche@cox.net> wrote a load of balogna: According to the contact information on this web site, <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CraigAEddy>, you are same Craig Eddy whose website that is. I see that your biography page is on an Ubuntu site and that you claim to be member of the Arizona Ubuntu team. Are you speaking on behalf of the Unbuntu Foundation in opposing the proposal that the TC publicly align itself by a name change with the interop market requirements established by E.U. governments? I am very interested to learn whether the Ubuntu Foundation has authorized you to speak on its behalf in this formation meeting. I suspect Mr. Shuttleworth would me interested in learning what you have said, if so. Regardless, your work history given there does not list any experience with the law, yet your post is all too obviously written by a lawyer. So I have a fairly reasonable basis for inferring that you did not write your email yourself but that it was drafted for you by a lawyer. You obviously did not pay your lawyer enough legal fees to bring him or her up to speed on the facts, OASIS Policy, and the applicable law Your post is a study in legal irrelevancy and error. As to the request that I provide evidence on one point, I am under no obligation to do so and your lawyer is just fishing. However, I note that the relevant issue is not what I can prove at this meeting, but what can be proved later in court. I have extended the courtesy of discussing such issues at some length in other posts and had your lawyer bothered to read my other posts on this list, he or she would have realized that I am prepared to prove the truth of my assertions as a defense to a libel action or affirmatively as grounds for litigation over the violation of my rights. A prudent person with legal training and a sense of ethics does not allege the commission of a serious crime outside the walls of a courtroom where a lawyer is privileged to do so. Such accusations outside the courtroom are subject to legal challenge as defamation, with the truth of the assertion the relevant affirmative defense. I would have not made such an accusation had I lacked what I regard as more than sufficient proof of truth to defend a lawsuit for defamation.. I will not bother with responding to the the remainder of your post Your lawyer did not do his or her homework, even so much as reading the E.U. documents I linked. The alternative is that your lawyer is engaging in willful deceit. Your choice. Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux) -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]