Dear Ms. Ballard:
1. Recently, I (and others) received two e-mails from
you:
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:26:59 +0200
Subject: WIPO Case No. D2005-0068/ Acknowledgment of Receipt
and
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:20:52 +0200
Subject: WIPO Case No. D2005-0068/ Notification of Appointment of Panel
In both cases, Co-respondent Minnesota Mensa was not
on the list of
addressees.
Previously, Nicholas Smith sent us an e-mail:
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:39:38 +0100
Subject: WIPO Case No. D2005-0068/<minnesotamensa.org> / Notification of
Complaint
In this case, a valid e-mail address for Co-respondent
Minnesota Mensa
was not among the list of addresses.
Prior to that, Jason Aquilino sent us an e-mail:
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:09:48 -0500
Subject: RE: WIPO Case No. D2005-0068/ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Not only was Co-respondent Minnesota Mensa not on the
list of
addressees, but this e-mail said:
"The first amended complaint in Case No. D2005-0068 is
attached.
A hard copy has been mailed to WIPO, Respondent, and GoDaddy, with
additional exhibits for the amended section. These exhibits will also
be sent by a second email."
In reading this, one can readily infer that Jason
Aquilino failed to
mail a hard copy to Co-respondent Minnesota Mensa (although the addition
of Minnesota Mensa as Co-respondent was the reason for amending the
complaint).
His referenced subsequent e-mail with the "exhibits"
(Date: Fri, 4 Mar
2005 10:11:37 -0500; same subject line) also failed to include Minnesota
Mensa on the list of addressees.
Finally, Nicholas Smith sent another e-mail:
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:59:16 +0100
Subject: RE: WIPO Case No. D2005-0068/ Transfer of domain name
which said, in part,
"4) Please send the amendment by e-mail and by fax to
+41 22 740 3700.
Respondent and registrar should both be copied. Once the Center receives
this amendment, the Notification of Complaint will be sent to
Respondent(s)"
Switching to the above terminology, to date, I have
not been notified
that the Notification of Complaint was in fact sent to Respondent
Minnesota Mensa.
I believe that when WIPO announced its determination that Minnesota
Mensa was to be named as a second Respondent in this matter, that WIPO
(and all other parties) became obligated to properly notify both
Respondents and to serve any hard copy on both Respondents.
Sending me duplicate e-mails (to
alheigl@millcityrecords.com and
webmaster@minnesotamensa.org) does NOT constitute notice to both
Respondents. Mailing any hard copy to me and not separately to
Minnesota Mensa itself does NOT constitute service on both Respondents.
Minnesota Mensa is a separate entity. I am NOT an
officer of Minnesota
Mensa.
To repeat information I sent to all parties
(Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:32:29 -0600
Subject: Re: WIPO Case No. D2005-0068/ Transfer of domain name):
"The full contact information for Co-respondent
Minnesota Mensa is as
follows:
Leigh Ann (DeDe) Tredinnick
Local Secretary
Minnesota Mensa
Baldwin, WI 54002
USA
Telephone: 715-265-4022
Ms. Tredinnick's e-mail address is dedet@baldwin-telecom.net;
however,
to facilitate communication being seen as directed to Minnesota Mensa
itself, the address locsec@minnesotamensa.org is aliased to her personal
address."
I request that this case be suspended until it is clearly established
that all hard copy and relevant e-mails mailed and/or sent since
Nicholas Smith's e-mail of Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:59:16 +0100 have in fact
been sent to Minnesota Mensa as well.
(About eight years ago, I was representing myself
(successfully) in
seeking custody of my daughter. I know from experience and observation
that judges take a very dim view of cases where all parties have not
been properly notified and/or served.)
-------------------------------
2. In an earlier e-mail, Jason Aquilino accused me of
making
"defamatory accusations" including that he was not "an authorized agent
of American Mensa" (actually, I believe I had only speculated that,
based on the quality of his work that we've seen, I wondered whether he
would qualify for *membership* in Mensa).
As it turns out, Jason Aquilino may be "an authorized
agent of American
Mensa" for other matters, but he is not now, nor has he ever been,
legitimately authorized with respect to this case, WIPO Case No.
D2005-0068, since bringing this case at this time is a violation of one
of Mensa's own By-Laws. (With the lack of attention to detail that
we've frequently observed, he neglected to check on this.)
Therefore, my initial request to WIPO, and the Panel,
is that this case
be summarily dismissed for lack of a Complainant.
If we are lucky, Jason Aquilino's next e-mail will
also request
dismissal of this case. That would be an intelligent move on his part,
so I don't expect it.
Otherwise, while I won't actually suggest that his
future e-mails be
ignored (they may provide unintended amusement), I will suggest that
they will be of no significance, as he cannot legitimately represent
American Mensa in this case (WIPO Case No. D2005-0068).
Sincerely,
Al Heigl
Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa
--
Alan Heigl
Mill City Records
P.O. Box 177
Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
507-663-6090