Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] PROPOSAL -- Name change for proposed TC

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

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>