-35 votes

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com?

I really need to hear Dr. Pauls side of this and soon....

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com

In 2008, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded RonPaul.com, a Ron Paul fan-site that became one of the leading sources for information about and support for the perennial Libertarian presidential candidate. The creators of the site "put our lives on hold and invested 5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012." His presidential campaign fell short, but the enthusiasm lived on as supporters continued to rally around this free enterprise Messiah.

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul repaid their support by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of Paul's much-reviled United Nations, seeking the expropriation of both RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from his supporters without any compensation.

The editors of RonPaul.com explained the situation,

read here:
http://gawker.com/5983066/ron-paul-calls-on-united-nations-w...




Comment viewing options

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

But how is it morally douchey

But how is it morally douchey when they first started doing to spread Ron Paul's message?

They didn't do it purely for profit in fact there are many here who made things and sold them as Ron Paul merchandise.

Ron Paul Swag

Ron Paul chocolate bars.

Ron Paul didn't ask them to

Ron Paul didn't ask them to do all that. Heck, I can say that I baked him a cake or painted 100 pictures of him and he's so damn inconsiderate as a result for not paying me for it or putting the recipe for the cake in his cookbook, or something silly like that. Perhaps they should feel fortunate for not having to pay royalties for capitalizing on RP's name. They just sound greedy and whiny to me.

Maybe that's how they

Maybe that's how they started, I can't tell what their motives were back then.

But as of right now, their motives are perfectly clear. It's profit. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions betray this.

They claim to be "Ron Paul supporters", but yet they are trying to squeeze $250,000.00 out of him. And they originally wanted $800,000.00.

... For a domain name which cost them $10.

Wait a minute

Suddenly making a profit is a bad thing? Capitalism and free market economics has been Ron's life!

Price gouging is a bad thing.

Price gouging is a bad thing. Stop pretending to be stupid

you actually even believe

you actually even believe there is such a thing as "price gouging"?

L2libertarianism, please.

Read this. Please. For me. As a favor: http://mises.org/document/3490

Yes, this might sound CRAZY

Yes, this might sound CRAZY, but I believe it's possible to set prices unreasonably high :|

Umm, how come Ron Paul didn't try to steal their domain name

before the election? The answer is perfectly clear. It was profit. Ron Paul used grassroots efforts to run his campaign and now that he doesn't need them, he'll use the United Nations that he supposedly abhors to get what he wants. And stop saying "he didn't ask people to do this, yada yada". Oh yes he did! He asked for support over and over for his campaign efforts. He can pay Benton for his "efforts", but can't afford to pay for this domain name??? You'd think he'd be happy to buy this from them, if only to say thanks for all their hard work.

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

1) Because he was using

1) Because he was using RonPaul2012.com

2) He's not using the UN.

3) I never said "he didn't ask people to do this, yada yada".

4) I wouldn't be happy to pay $250,000 for a domain name which cost $10.

5) To say "thank you" for WHAT? They didn't pay him jack squat. They kept all the profit they made off of his name and image to themselves.

if they were like me and all the other ron paul activists,

they gave and gave and gave even when it hurt.

and ron paul sure is making a big deal over something that's only worth ten dollars. why doesn't he just hand over ten dollars and buy a different domain name?

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

"they gave and gave and gave

"they gave and gave and gave even when it hurt"

They couldn't donate, they live in another country. And the business/domain was registered in another country as well.

All they did was siphon money away from the liberty movement and padded their pockets with it.

Oh, in that case, take everything! Take away at least 50% of

what they own since they probably bought it with profits they made off Ron Paul's good name. /sarcasm

It really doesn't matter if I like them or not, they are being robbed of something they own because the buyer doesn't like their asking price. Bad!

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

Really? "because the buyer

Really? "because the buyer doesn't like their asking price", so would you like to be charged almost a million dollars for a $10 domain name?



And what if they own and use it illegally? Are you still on their side?

- Their business is not known as "Ron Paul", only Ron Paul (or others with the same name) are known as Ron Paul.

- They purport to only being a "fan site", but clearly they aren't using it for non-commercial purposes. A quick visit to the site and you'll obviously see they are selling merchandise.

- Attempting to sell ronpaul.com to ron paul for $850,000 represents an 85,000% markup! This is called cybersquatting.

"Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else."

- They purposely created confusion amongst visitors by using the "Ron Paul" trademark, suggesting a relationship between them and Ron Paul. They didn't even bother to add the words "fan site" until August of 2010.

American Sovereignty Restoration Act

H. R. 1146

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 24, 2009

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT.

(a) Repeal- The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) Termination of Participation in United Nations- The President shall terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.

(c) Closure of United States Mission to United Nations- The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT.

(a) Repeal- The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80-357) is repealed.

(b) Withdrawal- The United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act).

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

(a) Termination- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.

(b) Application- The provisions of this section shall apply to all agencies of the United Nations, including independent or voluntary agencies.

SEC. 5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) Termination- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military operation.

(b) Terminations of United States Participation in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations- No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations.

SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

(a) Withdrawal From United States Government Property- The United Nations (including any affiliated agency of the United Nations) shall not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.

(b) Diplomatic Immunity- No officer or employee of the United Nations or any representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United Nations of any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such individual. The privileges, exemptions and immunities provided for in the International Organizations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288, 288a-f), or in any agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party, including the agreement entitled `Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations', signed June 26, 1947 (22 U.S.C. 287), and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, entered into force with respect to the United States on April 29, 1970 (21 UST 1418; TIAS 6900; UNTS 16), shall not apply to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, to the officers and employees of the United Nations, or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, or to the families, suites or servants of such officers or employees.

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ACT.

The joint resolution entitled `A joint resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation therefor' approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79-565, 22 U.S.C. 287m-287t), is repealed.

SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1973.

The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 287 note) is repealed.

SEC. 9. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

The joint resolution entitled `Joint Resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the World Health Organization and authorizing an appropriation therefor,' approved June 14, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 290, 290a-e-1) is repealed.

SEC. 10. REPEAL OF INVOLVEMENT IN UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS.

As of the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any and all participation in any and all conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out.

SEC. 11. REEMPLOYMENT WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AFTER SERVICE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights of employees under subchapter IV of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, relating to reemployment after service with an international organization.

SEC. 12. NOTIFICATION.

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations of the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I'm not sure I fully

I'm not sure I fully understand the conflict here. The campaign is over. There is no longer a Ron Paul candidate. He has retired and so should his site. Surely it's not logical that someone can carry on a site using his name as their own personal pseudonym? Why does Ron Paul have to go through this hassle to disengage a campaign site from the internet?

It's his trademark. Imagine

It's his trademark. Imagine if someone else (or the current owners) starts using it to defame his name.

Remember the racist newsletters?

Do you see this?

Domain Name: BARACKOBAMA.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS-1531.AWSDNS-63.ORG
Name Server: NS-1862.AWSDNS-40.CO.UK
Name Server: NS-692.AWSDNS-22.NET
Name Server: NS-70.AWSDNS-08.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 06-feb-2013
Creation Date: 28-dec-2004
Expiration Date: 28-dec-2015

This means that potentially anyone could sweep in on December 28, 2015 and acquire this domain. Anyone.

Incorrect

The owner of the domain gets first crack at renewal

I am a reseller for godaddy

I meant if the current holder

I meant if the current holder decided not to renew. I should've taken the time to be more accurate.

The point being that if you want to protect your name, you need to act to secure a domain. Keep in mind that since Facebook came along, domain names have lost a little bit of their cachet. Advertisers like Facebook because you can closely monitor exactly who is visiting your Facebook page.

The U.N. moniker is a false flag

WIPO is the leading organization for internet domain dispute resolution. Over 65% of all disputes are resolved by WIPO. This is almost textbook cybersquatting from what I can determine. As a NY Yankee fan, if I somehow was able to register NYYankees.com or Yankees.com and sell Yankee merchandise, even though I am a big fan of the Yankees, they would have the right to dispute the use of the Yankee.com domain name, since I do not own the Trademark for the Yankee name.

Ron Paul claims to own the trademark to his name, which he uses to sell his books. RonPaul.com is selling merchandise with the Ron Paul name, which they do not own. Sorry, but even though they may be big Ron Paul fans, as I am, according to the current cybersquatting case law, they have no right to RonPaul.com. Instead of turning this into a civil action in the courts, which Ron Paul has the right to do, and if he prevails, could be awarded five figure damages, Dr. Paul has chosen to contest the use of the domain under the UDRP, and is seeking arbitration through WIPO. If anything, Ron Paul is taking the high road here.

he has acted improperly

If he wanted to protect his trademark he should have asked for the domain 5 years ago. He knew how it was being used and never tried to get it back as far as I can tell. So, really he is not taking the high road. He only spent what a few weeks negotiating before heading to legal means??? Heck back in January he wasn't even going to ask for it, he was going to use something else.

So, yes Ron Paul caused this situation himself and I think he could have spent more time trying to come up with a reasonable solution rather than running immediately to UN arbitration.

I think Paul is wrong in this

I think Paul is wrong in this situation. The founders of the site, I believe, legitimately believe in the liberty movement and through sharing ideas and their thoughts on Ron Paul have allowed them to provide themselves with extra income if not their entire income.

They spent years, like many here, dedicated to spreading the liberty movement and primarily by telling others about Paul. I think, :( , Paul is acting in "bad faith".

"Taking the high road" would

"Taking the high road" would be negotiating an equitable financial arrangement or simply acquiring "RealRonPaul.com" or another domain name instead.

"Taking the high road would

"Taking the high road would be negotiating an equitable financial arrangement"

... Which was already attempted, they tried to hustle him for $250,000 out of it.



"or simply acquiring "RealRonPaul.com" or another domain name instead."

He has every right to want to own HISNAME.com, that's his trademark.


The current owners are violating ICANN policy and trademark law. THEY should contemplate taking the high road. Especially since they claim to be "Ron Paul supporters", but clearly, are simply profiting off of his name.

You don't have a right to yourdomainname.com

You have a right to your life, your property and your liberty. You don't have a right to other people's property.

Hasn't Ron Paul taught you anything?

Yes, which is why legally

Yes, which is why legally speaking, RonPaul.com is his property. That's his trademark.

Maybe if the owner was ALSO named Ron Paul they'd have a case, but he's not.

Maybe if they were selling merchandise with the face and quotes of ANOTHER man named Ron Paul, they'd have a case, but they're not.

Ron Paul is both morally and legally justified in doing this, it'd be difficult to argue otherwise.

He may be legally justified,

It's not his property. They purchased it more than four years ago on the market. He may be legally justified in trying to confiscate their property instead of paying them what they asked for, but it makes him a...

HYPOCRITE!

Who would've thought Ron Paul would use the U.N. (yes, he appealed to a U.N. Agency) to confiscate somebody's private property? Wow.

The domain registration

The domain registration indicates it has had the same owner for 12+ years.

It does not

I explained this to you already in your original post. They purchased it in May of 2008

Pray tell what this indicates:

Domain Name: RONPAUL.COM
Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.
Whois Server: whois.fabulous.com
Referral URL: http://www.fabulous.com
Name Server: MYNS1.FABULOUS.COM
Name Server: MYNS2.FABULOUS.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 10-feb-2013
Creation Date: 22-nov-2000
Expiration Date: 22-nov-2020