Letter from Charles Carreon to Paul Alan Levy, 6/23/12

[admin]

From: Charles Carreon, Esq.
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:33 AM
To: Paul Alan Levy
Subject: Re: Third Send: Carreon v. Inman et aI., Case No. C-12-03112-DMR / Service of Process

Paul,

I copied you with the letter so you'll know I'm proposing a settlement to Inman that would remove the link your client is
giving him, thus ensaring Inman in claims of profiting from the revenue derived from a cybersquatted domain. If Inman
declines the settlement and doesn't ask your client to remove the link, he ratifies her conduct, and is therefore vicariously
liable under the ACPA, Copyright and MNL claims.

As far as when and where I will sue your client, be certain that it will occur if your client does not cede the domain, and
advise her of ten things:

1. That there is essentially no statute of limitations on this claim, and the prima facie laches defense would not kick in
for at least three years.

2. That venue in this action can be validly laid in at least three places, maybe four, if she doesn't live in Arizona,
Florida, or California.

3. That I am capable of employing counsel to handle my claim against her, who will incur attorneys fees and seek
recovery of the same. I filed pro se against Inman simply for the sake of convenience and the need for speed, and
not from a lack of resources.

4. That the law in this area cannot be predicted with certainty, will evolve substantially over the next three years,
during which I will be using digital forensics to establish actual trademark damages in addition to seeking the
maximum cybersquatting penalty of $100,000.

5. That a judgment that recites that the domain was obtained by fraud upon the registrar, in the form of a
misrepresentation that she did not know of my trademark on the name, might well be non-dischargeable in
bankruptcy.

6. That a judgment can be renewed indefinitely until collected, and that California judgments accrue 10% interest,
which can compound once every ten years by capitalizing the accumulated interest.

7. That you cannot guarantee that Public Citizen will provide her with free legal services on June 1, 2015, when I
may very well send the process server 'round to her door.

8. That I have the known capacity to litigate appeals for years (check my Westlaw profile, and of course, the drawn
out history of Penguin v. American Buddha, now in its third year, having passed through the Second Circuit and
the NYCA, and still hung up in personal jurisdiction in the SDNY).

9. That the litigation, being of first impression in virtually every Circuit, grounded in a federal question, involving a
registered trademark, and dispositive of many open issues in the field of Internet commerce and speech, might very
well continue for a decade.

10. That Public Citizen might well be unable and/or unwilling to provide her with representation until the resolution of
such an extended course of litigation.

Finally, as a longtime member of Public Citizen and major contributor to Ralph Nader's last presidential bid, I am utterly
disgusted to see the organization he founded leaping to the defense of someone who is in league with a person who
has harnessed the lowest impulses of puerile, vituperative Internet youth to generate a Charitable Fund that has been used
to bribe two major charities into tacitly endorsing a campaign that is utterly devoid of charitable purpose, and is a mere
cover for a hate campaign.

Apparently Public Citizen is now a proponent of charitable fraud and misrepresentation, and feels that misogynistic hate
speech trumps a lawyer's right to keep control of his trademarked image in the field of legal services, where a lawyer's
name is everything.

The membership news I regularly receive from Public Citizen about mislabeled drugs and health care fraud is apparently
a mere cloak for some absurd agenda being dictated by pointy-headed Internet mavens with no concern for the public
good and a vested interest in legitimizing Netwar and digital lynching.

Please forward this email to the Director and the Board of Public Citizen, and to Ralph Nader and let them know what
you are up to, because you are up to your eyeballs in foolishness.

Charles