3 votes

Is Ron Paul really suing www.ronpaul.com!

they seem to claim he is:


i really hope this isn't true.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


So I went and checked all the cases as best as possible in my own capability and this is actually very disturbing as how people are taking this.

If you read the document Ron Paul's attorney has reported, there is no mention of stripping of the content and merchandise of the website in the document posted by its own website. All he want is his name, reputation, identity back. It's almost like asking to have your own passport or credit to your name as the composer of your own song.

The pages have 65 pages in total in the full files. The first 13 pages are the actual complain, the rest is ICANN policies which attached to explain why the complains are valid. However, ronpaul.com also have a respond the complaint that is very interestingly hilarious as well. I'll get to that.

- The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, /ˈaɪkæn/ eye-kan) is a nonprofit private organization headquartered in Los Angeles, California, United States, that was created to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which ICANN now operates.

This means that ICANN is operated right under US not UN. Why does it sound like UN get involve?

- If you read the complaint, the owner of this site (not the representative) used the service from fabulous.com, which it is stationed in Australia. Yes, it's in Australia. ICANN, as a company, can't resolve this matter as a private company so they have to use UN as a medium of communication. UN has not authority over this case whatsoever. Worse, fabulous.com is operated under ICANN agreement. (http://www.fabulous.com/whois/)

- Now, the only way ICANN can resolve this is through WIPO, which is an agency of UN, so that the company can enact their contract service with Tim Martin and Ron Paul. Tim Martin has also signed into this knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally to abide it....unless he didn't read.

WIPO is the agency that every country's and everybody copyrights are collected. All your invention, creations from your own songs, arts, literatures, invention, small to large company names go to. They are nothing like copyrights law in US. Their copyright law allows me (as a composer as well) to have my music credit me. You can still buy from me and copy and share it all over the place to anyone as long as it has my name on it. However, you can't SELL it as if it is yours.

Exp: Mozart's music is Mozart's. You can't sell it without buying the copyright etc, but you can get the music sheet, play it anywhere, teach anyone, copy as many as you won't as long as it has Mozart's name. That's an actual fair copyright. Another way is to buy the copyright from the present owner.

Here comes the most catchy part that you guys might wanna know:

- According to the complaint, the first price he is asking Ron Paul to buy from is all the way to 850K. That's almost a million for a name. Ron Paul then offered 50K. He then reduced the priced down 250K.

- Apparently, Ron Paul decided not to buy the name .com or .org etc. (just the name, he can keep all the content and merchandise according to the complaint) He wanted to resolve this through ICANN contract policies that Tim Martin signed to promise that he must abide it. The punishment that Tim would get if he lost? ZEUCH! This is nothing like Aaron's Swartz getting 35-50 years in jail. If Ron Paul wins, then Tim must give it to Ron Paul otherwise Ron Paul doesn't have to resolve it anymore. ICANN and WIPO can literally take action on Tim by themselves depending on the law of that country. That will become something like Swartz to protect the company's credibility of protecting their own contract.

Here is the last part:

- Ron Paul then decided that if he won't be given the name back, he will just make his own website called ronpaulhomepage.com. It's under construction and it says that it will be given to Ron Paul for free right away when it's done.

Ronpaul.com (Tim Martin) responded exactly like this "To avoid these complications we'd like to offer you an alternative domain name, RonPaul.org, for your new website at no cost whatsoever. Please don't use a monstrosity such as "RonPaulsHomePage.com" as is being speculated on the forums. RonPaul.org is an attractive, high quality alternative, and it won't cost you
anything. (Other than the annual renewal fee; all domains have to be renewed each year and that costs about $10 per year.)"

This part of respond....
"Please don't use a monstrosity such as "RonPaulsHomePage.com" as is being speculated on the forums. "

Why can't the owner of the identity make his own website? >>> monstrosity <http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2013/02/11/ron-paul-se...

Example of why identical name is an invalid reason.

I thought I already wrote this on the comment and now I can't find it either.

Ok, this argument about there are many people sharing the same name right? But don't you think that you have other unique identification as well such as your faces, your work, you voices, your fingerprint, etc.

In that website, it clearly represents Ron Paul without permission using his face all over the web, his podcast, his quote, his video, his debate, his...etc you can go look at it yourself. There is no mention about that this is not the official Ron Paul that owns this page. Let's say there is Ron Paul basketball player and he's this 25 years old kid brown skin with long blond hair and he made a website called ronpaul.com using his identity in his website like his work, his face, his body, his record of basketball performance, etc. This doctor/candidate Ron Paul can't complain to ask for the web name to ICANN. Unless Doctor Ron Paul asked basketball player Ron Paul privately and this brown skin with long blond hair is willing to give/sell, they can do so as well.

Let's say your name is Jim Tanner and you make jimtanner.com. In that website, it has your signature, your works, your creations, your face, your identity, etc that indicates clearly that it's you, a CEO Jim Tanner that's not you don't have a chance to complain against you.

This is to protect somebody imposing or framing you of something on world wide web. Also, strangers can't claim to be you and dispute you from merchandize to identity/reputation theft...etc

Like let's says somebody said something racist and discriminating while having the same name as you, he posted that you said this with your face. You can protect yourself that the owner of this website is not you for example.

Having read the complaint...

...this is my opinion.

1. As a matter of existing law, it sounds like Ron Paul has a very strong case, and I expect he will win the dispute.

2. *IF* you accept the legitimacy of intellectual property (which is debated among libertarians), then Ron Paul is in the right per libertarian principles as well.

3. Ethico-legal considerations aside, I personally have no sympathy for the current owners of the websites, as it seems evident to me that their intention was to make money off of Ron's name and then sell it to him at a high price: not the behavior one would expect of a supporter.

Incidentally, I don't believe in the legitimacy of intellectual property, but I guess that's just a point of disagreement between Dr. Paul and I.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."


This isn't so much "intellectual property" as it is "Trademark", which are often confused and conflated, but actually separate.

They are using HIS name to unduly enrich themselves.

Ron Paul is within his rights.

Read the complaint. Tim Martin is seeking undue enrichment, clearly, from the use of Ron Paul's name. It really is that simple.

I hope this isn't so, but after what happened to Adam Kokesh

and Paulfest organizers, nothing would surprise me.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

according to the complaint- Ron Paul offered $50,000.00

to the owners of the domain name. They want $858,000.00. I think that the action that Dr. Paul is taking is a means of forcing the owners to negotiate a more reasonable price. It's a strategy he may freely excercise, and they may freely rebuff. These guys only paid around $12.00 for the domain name. I like Dr. Paul a good deal, I hope something amicable can be worked out. If not , I hope that Dr. Paul will just open a new page like DrRONPAUL.com or something. I would hate to see him become mean spirited and overtly manipulative, when that seems so contrary to the character he has thus far exhibited.

With all due respect, I will no longer be a voting prostitute for Constitution rejecting harlots.


After the initial $800k+ offer, the domain name owner offered the domain name to Ron Paul for $250,000 (technically to Ronny Paul who was communicating on his dad's behalf). The complaint, however, as far as I can tell, seeks a transfer of the domain name with no compensation to the current owners.

This thing's just a whole big mess.

"This thing's just a whole big mess."

I think that sums up this whole situation quite accurately.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

And you forgot---using the force of government to get what he


Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

That's how property rights

That's how property rights are protected. The force of government has its place; we don't want anarchy! If not the force of government, what is he to do; send his sons to shoot up Mr. Martins offices? Dr. Paul is entirely within his rights.

No, he should not be trying to take what belongs to someone

else. They bought the domain name ronpaul.com so it belongs to them. will ron paul sue someone if they name their child after him?

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

He owns the trademark


“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Was there a

offer for the website at one point?

It looks real, I'm reading the complaint

I don't get why Ron would do this, it just doesn't seem fair to me. Someone else owns the domain name, either make an agreement with the owner to get it, or move on - using government force to obtain a url address does not seem very libertarian.

Sure, there are arguments on the other side too (many are made in the complaint), but it's not his property, it's someone else's, they purchased it and have the right to it.

I agree that asking Ron Paul for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the domain name that his his name is not "cool" at all, but now both sides are in the wrong in my opinion.

I would hate to think if I have a website and someone else comes up with a company or something and trademarks it that they could just seize my domain name.