discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

[Slanted]

Hi domainers,

Please take a moment to help defend domain owner rights. The grandmother who owns HeidiPowell.com needs our help. You don't need to spend a penny. Just stand up and say, "This is unacceptable." It will take public pressure outside NamePros. But there are a lot of us; so hopefully we can join forces and spread the word.

Scroll down. There are a few specific things we can do to help. It's urgent.

Some of you know the story already. A grandmother has owned HeidiPowell.com for many years, but a minor TV celebrity has decided that she is the only Heidi Powell in the world who matters. And this arrogant celeb has dragged the original Mrs. Powell through a UDRP and even into bankruptcy court, attempting to take not just her domain but her own NAME from her by force. Truly, it's one of the most reprehensible cases I've ever come across. If we don't defend her, nobody will defend us when we ourselves are targeted.

Background:

Mrs. Powell has been Heidi Powell since her marriage in 1979. Back in 2005, 12 years ago, her husband presented her with the domain HeidiPowell.com as an anniversary gift. It's a developed website where she offers web design services. But it's more than just a site whose name can be changed. To this day, Heidi uses HeidiPowell.com for her email address, which is tied to all her online accounts. So if she loses this domain, it's akin to identity theft.

Then along comes another Heidi Powell – a celebrity fitness trainer who had a short-lived TV show on ABC. ("Celebrity", so they say. I'd never heard of her.) She became Heidi Powell after a 2010 marriage – long after HeidiPowell.com was registered by the rightful owners, Mr. and Mrs. Powell.

Greed and megalomania – it's the usual tale of a spoiled narcissistic brat who feels entitled to confiscate whatever she wants, no matter the damage to us "little people". First came the UDRP. Fortunately, David Weslow – a well respected attorney – stepped forward to defend Heidi pro bono (i.e. free of charge). I think there's a very good chance justice will prevail in the UDRP case, thanks to his efforts.

But Mrs. Powell and her husband are still suffering, and her domain remains in jeopardy. You see, this fitness trainer "star", this usurper, this would-be thief and her lawyers have found another way to attack the rightful Heidi Powell – even while the UDRP case is still in progress. Years ago, Mrs. Powell and her husband experienced some misfortunes and had to file for bankruptcy. Life can be like that. Now, this covetous celeb is arguing that the domain HeidiPowell.com ought to have been declared as a valuable asset during their bankruptcy case years ago. It's absurd, of course. The market value of HeidiPowell.com is negligible except for 1 greedy celebrity who came along later on. I personally prepared a 5-10 page document for David Weslow, citing verifiable data that proves this.

However, the celeb and her lawyers are bribing the trustee with a 5-figure sum to drag Mr. and Mrs. Powell back into bankruptcy court! And legal representation in this bankruptcy case is not provided by David Weslow; he's only handling the UDRP. Far from being free, this additional legal burden will cost Mr. and Mrs. Powell thousands – not to mention stress, time, and damage to their credit and reputation. Obviously, the celeb's strategy is to bleed this humble couple until they give up from exhaustion.

Press Coverage:

From time to time, we hear about domainers requesting financial help. Personally, I'm always very skeptical about those claims because it's easy to exploit people's sympathies. Heidi Powell is not a domainer. What she primarily needs our help with is public pressure. Giving that kind of help is 100% free.

Heidi's case has been written about extensively:

(1) USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...andmother-heidi-powell-over-website/90916602/

(2) The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/narcissist_heidi_powell_wants_her_dotcom/

(3) DomainNameWire.com

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/09/13/reverse-domain-name-hijacking-alleged-heidipowell-com-lawsuit/

and

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/19/heidi-powell-lawsuit/

(4) At NamesCon, David Weslow of Wiley Rein was given the first ever "Lonnie Borck Memorial Award" in recognition of his "exceptional efforts in championing the rights of domain name registrants". Those of us who are members of the ICA – the Internet Commerce Association, which advocates tirelessly for domain owner rights – voted for Mr. Weslow specifically because of this Heidi Powell case.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2016/dailyposts/20161219.htm

I was hoping that Heidi's case would get some publicity at NamesCon when David Weslow received the award. However, I understand he wasn't able to attend due to illness.

TAKE ACTION!

Alright, guys. This is where we can make a difference. Get angry! Imagine it's your grandma being dragged into bankruptcy court! Imagine it's your domain being taken away unjustly! Imagine it's costing you thousands and thousands to defend yourself against an arrogant narcissist with deep pockets!

What we can do:

(1) Visit HeidiPowell.com. There's a button on grandma's site, allowing you to tweet directly at this thieving celebrity. Tell her what you think of her. Please no threats. Please no profanity. Remember, we want domain owner rights to be respected and honored. Making threats or using profanity would only give people an excuse to dismiss us. Be professional. But be angry!

(2) Visit the celeb's website:

http://heidipowell.net/contact-me/

Tell her what you think. Again, be polite but firm.

(3) Grandma has a GoFundMe campaign:

https://www.gofundme.com/grandma-bullied-sued-for-her-name

Please leave a comment showing your support. I'm not asking anybody to contribute money. But if you can spare something small – even $1 – it might help show that Mrs. Powell is not alone ... that even total strangers are willing to back an underdog against a bully. If you don't want to donate, that's completely fine. Just leave a comment there. This thieving celeb needs to understand that her reputation is going to suffer if she persists in persecuting Mrs. Powell ... that she will be punching a cactus.

(4) Let's put pressure on ABC, since they created this monster. Maybe if they encounter some bad publicity themselves, they will in turn put pressure on the celebrity usurper to cease and desist:

https://twitter.com/ABCNetwork

Tell ABC what you think. Tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting Heidi Powell bully a grandmother and steal her property. Be sure to reference Heidi Powell specifically; otherwise ABC won't have a clue what we're talking about.

(5) We all have domainer acquaintances. Please send 3 people a link to this NamePros thread. There's strength in numbers.

(6) Once you've helped out, brag about it! Let other domainers here know that you give a damn. Post a reply in this thread so we can keep it visible. Positive peer pressure, folks! Let's show the world that domainers aren't parasitic cybersquatters. We stand up for property rights.

 

[jberryhill]

Bottom line, This is not a case for domainers to rally around. If it was the normal UDRP then ok.

Ummm... it's a lot worse than the "normal UDRP".

The fitness trainer started this fight by suing the grandmother in the first place.

Once she found out the grandmother could fight back, she tried to run away. Then, she proposed a "settlement" in which she would relinquish her claim to the domain name, while concocting a scheme to get at it by dredging up a years-old bankruptcy proceeding.

To be clear - the fitness trainer Heidi Powell is an obnoxious, narcissistic, anorexic, self-obsessed asshole of a bully, and like all bullies richly deserves a thorough beat down, and not the opportunity to escape unharmed.

 

[HotKey]

These bravados think they get domain rights just because of who they are? Give me break.

Grama's got my vote.

 

[jberryhill]

She and her husband have gone through bankruptcy. So she has presumably lost a large part of what she owned – lost, perhaps, a large part of the life she and her husband had built or even her identity, her sense of herself.

Well, sure, but I'd guess their creditors have a different view of that matter as well.

Fitness trainer's lawyers bribe those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case. How? By dangling a 5-figure bribe / reward / bounty ... contingent on confiscating the domain HeidiPowell.com. Court changes its behavior and begins investigating whether the domain – which they had previously ignored because it really has no significant market value – should be confiscated. Illegal? No. Bribe? Yes. This example is logically identical to the 1 above.

The duty of a bankruptcy trustee to secure and dispose of assets in bankruptcy on behalf of the creditors is not any of those things.

Not every legal dispute boils down to a moral outrage. The Powells availed themselves of the bankruptcy laws in order to avoid paying their obligations to their creditors. That's a perfectly normal thing for a lot of people and organizations, for a lot of reasons.

Whether an asset has emotional value, market value, or whatever, isn't relevant to the fact that if you are going to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws to stiff your creditors - which is fine - then you are also obligated to inventory your assets.

And here we come to one of my pet peeves - the irrational insistence by some domainers that domain names should be "property" instead of personal service contract rights. Quite a few states, Virginia being a prominent example, do not consider domain names to be attachable property in bankruptcy. I don't know whether that's the case in Washington, and the trustee in his withdrawal motion, noted that the status of a domain name as property is unclear. If one is in the "domain names are property" camp, then one would have to agree they should be inventoried as assets in bankruptcy.

But a difference of legal opinion on whether or not the domain name should have been listed as property in the bankruptcy proceeding, does not reduce to any sort of moral question. It's merely a difference of opinion.

So, let's take a simple example of this in action:

A sweet grandmother has all of her savings invested in Peterson National Bank. My neighbor takes out loans from the Peterson National Bank in the amount of $100,000, defaults, and then goes into bankruptcy. He inventories his assets, excludes his car, and his assets are liquidated to the tune of $50,000.

Who got screwed there? My neighbor? No, he had the benefit of borrowing $100,000, paying back $50,000, and thus shorting the Peterson National Bank, and by extension the sweet granny who had her money there.

But, hey, stuff happens, and that's why bankruptcy laws are there (for those who can afford it, and as long as we are talking about casino owners and not, say, student loans which can't be discharged in bankruptcy).

So a few years goes by and I'd like to buy my neighbors car. We can't reach an agreement, but I find out he excluded it from his bankruptcy inventory. So, I go back to the trustee, say he excluded it, and seek to buy the car from the trustee on behalf of the bankrupt estate.

There is utterly no moral defect in my doing that. None. I can't even see how you can characterize that as some kind of underhanded behavior in the least. It was my neighbor who didn't include it in the inventory when he was screwing the Peterson National Bank and all the grannies who save their money there.

So, who is the "bad guy" in that scenario? Yes, bankruptcy trustees get paid. Of course they do. Ever since the 13th Amendment, that's just a fact of life. Your local McDonald's induces their employees to show up every day by paying them money. You seem to want to define that as "bribery".

Now, sure, one can argue about whether the car was of de minimus value, or whether it was subject to exclusion, there are QUITE A FEW domainers who have sought to buy assets from court-appointed trustees. If you want to start flinging turds about the practice of buying assets from court-appointed trustees, I can assure you that you are including a pretty good chunk of the industry there. In fact, that's pretty much the whole argument going on in the Associated Recovery cases in Texas and Virginia, where the claimed successor to Jeff Baron's assets is accusing everyone who bought domain names from the trustee - including a prominent member of the ICA represented by David Weslow - of conversion for having bought names from a court-appointed trustee.

So is it a "bribe" in this case, but not in the other case where Weslow represents the buyers from the court trustee? Because that's, generally stated, what Associated Recovery is claiming in those suits.

You are casting an awfully wide net. That's all I'm saying. I don't know if you've looked into the Associated Recovery cases, but it's almost a Who's Who of the domain industry.

Now, yes, the 2010 market value of "HeidiPowell.com" was pretty much nil, but if my expert in that proceeding was sounding off elsewhere with loaded language suggesting that the expert opinion was driven by some animus instead of objective professional considerations, I'd be kind of disappointed that my expert was undermining my case.

 

[Slanted]

@DU,

Although you repeat an allegation by the fitness instructor's attorneys that " 'the grandmother' asked for $50K", it's worth noting that Grandma Powell strenuously denies that:

https://www.namepros.com/conversations/questions-being-asked.2717134/#message-3629757

Quote: "Her attorney has lied multiple times. We have NEVER asked them for a dime." You can read her sworn statement to the court, which repudiates the notion of that $50k offer to sell.

Quote: "While it is true that [the fitness instructor's team] repeatedly has harassed me over the past four years, the domain has never been for sale. The statement that a demand was made for $50,000 is an outright lie. That is an outrageous false statement."

The document I'm quoting from, which you can all read yourselves, catalogues in great detail Grandma Powell's experiences fending off unwanted attempts to buy or confiscate her name. Really, it verges on harassment and intimidation tactics. And I say that as a professional buyer's broker myself . People like the fitness trainer are normally my clients, whereas domain owners like Grandma are not. So I would be sympathetic to the fitness trainer if she had pursued the domain in a more ethical manner.

Let me make a few points:

(1) Why believe the fitness trainer and her attorneys when they say the grandma demanded $50k? After all, the grandma has signed her name – a name she apparently values highly – swearing that allegation is untrue. In contrast, the attorneys have abused the system with 2 lawsuits. And the fitness trainer or her associates had previously approached Grandma Powell and her husband using a variety of intermediaries and (allegedly) false pretenses. While I can't vouch for anybody's truthfulness, I do think it's fair to say the fitness trainer's team is unscrupulous and untrustworthy, given their pattern of bending the rules, searching for shortcuts, etc. It's very easy for them to claim there was a $50k offer, since they hounded Mr. and Mrs. Powell via phone. They could invent any story they want. At least 1 person is lying because the 2 sides contradict one another. But I see no reason to trust the fitness trainer's team. None.

(2) Even if Grandma Powell or her husband HAD asked for $50k, this shouldn't matter at all. It's her name, her property. You domainers ought to believe that, as domain owners, you have a right to set a price for what you own.

(3) I see some people in this thread who are expressing suspicions about Grandma Powell simply because she has chosen to hold onto her domain rather than sell it for a high price. Please reflect for a moment, guys, that in this forum we're all domainers – i.e. we're all trying to sell domains for a profit. So our natural bias is to assume that other domain owners ALSO want to sell. If anybody turns down a high offer, then that person must be angling for even more money, right? That's a prejudice domainers share.

But it doesn't always apply to non-domainers. As a buyer's broker, I'm constantly running into domain owners who are stubborn or emotionally attached to property they've owned for years. Sometimes they use it. Sometimes they keep it as a dream for a project they mean to build. Sometimes they're not sure why they keep it; but, like a lot of collectors, they get some pleasure merely from having it. When I run into domain owners who aren't big businesses and aren't domainers, they sometimes refuse very large amounts of money – way more than the market can justify, in fact. Sometimes they refuse to sell altogether, even knowing that a better offer will NEVER come along. Yes, it's mystifying to domainers. Yes, it's infuriating to would-be buyers. But people have a right to keep what they own.

There are pictures of tiny houses smack dab in the middle of big city developments. They look oddly out of place. But the owners have lived there for years and simply wants to stay on living in their home. Cash offers don't sway them. Putting down roots matters to people. Holding on matters to people. Standing up to pressure makes people hold on even tighter.

Take a look for yourself:

https://twistedsifter.files.wordpre...-move-sell-nail-house-china-1.jpg?w=800&h=515

Put yourselves in the grandmother's shoes. She and her husband have gone through bankruptcy. So she has presumably lost a large part of what she owned – lost, perhaps, a large part of the life she and her husband had built or even her identity, her sense of herself. One thing she did keep, though, was the domain name her husband had given her as an anniversary present, as a symbol of the couple's enduring through time. Through that difficult period, she kept her own name. When people show up trying to deprive her of THAT, maybe it matters – at a gut level – to say it's not for sale.

Initially maybe the offer amount is low. And maybe a higher offer, if delivered in a better way, could have moved you to sell. But if the approach is hostile and coercive, if it escalates to not 1 but 2 lawsuits, you might dig in your heels and refuse to give in – no matter the amount.

 

[Slanted]

For instance:

@ABCNetwork Please STOP @RealHeidiPowell from stealing http://HeidiPowell.com from grandma @HeidiPowell

 

[bombgeek]

Hey guys...

James Garrison here... I own jamesgarrison.com (took me years to get) and I participate in the domain industry. Why does that matter here? Well I was also on season one of the show Heidi and Chris Powell are supposedly famous for, Extreme Makeover Weight Loss.

I will say this, if you google me and my experience on the show. You can see what kind of people the Powells actually are. That aside, we are all domainers, and we need to help those in need because before you know it... Its our domains that are going to be taken. At first they came for her, I did not speak up....

These Powells are probably some of the worst individuals I have ever met in my entire life. I don't know grandma powell, but I do know she paid her registration fee just like us. Thats all that matters to me.

 

[Slanted]

No forum thread ever gets by without hostility from somebody. It's 1 reason why people leave the forums, sadly.

"You are using what now appears to be a blatantly false accusation"

Nonsense.

"A bribe is a criminal offense any way you look at it"

Also nonsense. Were I to offer you $10 to delete your post, I would be bribing you. Yet that's 100% legal.

"you could be tarnishing the reputation of some random attorney, notary or local official."

Nope. I explicitly stated that I'm not assessing their actions – only the actions of the celeb fitness trainer and her attroneys. See above.

"Most of the people will leave this thread thinking there is a corrupt trustee somewhere handling this case."

Not if they read what's actually written. See above.

"[It] might be a dereliction of duty to ignore a source of income that could pay the creditors"

Yes, of course. The trustee may be acting innocently and fairly. The trustee is no concern of mine, though you seem obsessed with that angle. Let me remind you what actually matters here. A greedy celeb has offered a substantial monetary reward – which from her vantage point DEFINITELY IS a bribe – in exchange for dragging Grandma Powell into bankruptcy court and depriving Mrs. Powell of her own property and name. That's unjust. If the trustee is an honorable cog in the wheel just doing his/her job, so be it. Who cares?

"In your opening post, you wrote that the website is a developed one."

Yes, because it is.

"You did not mention that it was parked for years, and was only developed after fitness trainer Powell rejected grandmother Powell's price of $50,000."

Heidi Powell (the grandmother) tells me point blank via email: "It’s a lie. We did not ask for, nor ever attempt to sell the domain". She adds: "It’s in the USAToday story as a quote from her attorney. It didn’t happen."

Many domains are parked while they are actively used for email. That, I'm told, was the case here. If you're as concerned about facts as you claim to be, then you will have noticed HeidiPowell.com was forwarding to Mrs. Powell's Facebook page back in 2011:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110207182410/http://heidipowell.com/

Even corporations redirect domains to social media – sometimes after buying the domain for $x,xxx. That's a legitimate form of usage. So is email. So is parking, as every domainer knows. Even doing NOTHING with a domain name is the owner's right.

"Now, it has become an attack page on fitness trainer Powell."

Retaliation in self-defense is appropriate. The fitness trainer has filed a UDRP (which is clearly a case of RDNH) and dragged the grandmother into bankruptcy court. Should she NOT criticize those actions?

"[T]here is a lot of misinformation in this thread, and I cannot in good conscience be a party to that."

Although you seem hell bent on misconstruing the information, your misunderstandings are not my misinformation.

"As such, I am withdrawing my negligible support for this and will deleting my tweet shortly."

You may do whatever you please. Continue domaining with my blessing. Argue with me, if you like picking fights. Defend some distant trustee from nonexistent attacks, if it makes you feel better than defending Mrs. Powell from real persecution. An odd moral stance, but ok.

 

[jberryhill]

The fitness trainer has filed a UDRP (which is clearly a case of RDNH)

Just for accuracy... the fitness trainer has not filed a UDRP. The fitness trainer filed a lawsuit in Arizona. The grandmother filed an answer and counterclaims for RDNH in that lawsuit. The fitness trainer then attempted to withdraw the lawsuit against the grandmother, but the grandmother won't drop the counterclaims and is seeking $100k. (more on that in the post below)

The bankruptcy proceeding is in Washington. The fitness trainer did not offer to pay the bankruptcy trustee for the name. The fitness trainer has claimed that the domain name was neither listed nor expressly excluded from the assets in bankruptcy. It is the trustee's legal duty to secure all assets on behalf of the creditors. It was a cheap stunt, but "bribery" has a specific meaning, and you know that words have meanings, Joseph, since you are otherwise a careful writer. Your use of the word suggests some kind of impropriety on the part of the bankruptcy trustee, who hasn't done anything wrong.

HOWEVER, on December 30, the bankruptcy trustee withdrew the motion to sell the domain name for $10,000 subject to the claimed bankruptcy exemption, and has agreed to sell the non-exempt portion of the domain name back to the grandmother for $2047. It is worth quoting from the trustee's December 30 motion on this point:

"It is unclear whether the domain name is an asset of the bankruptcy estate. It is unclear whether Debtors property claimed the exemption in the domain name. Under the circumstances, given that it's possible the estate might end up with no funds at all, and given that the estate would not receive more than $2047.00 if the exemption was allowed by the Court and the sale to the other Heidi Powell was allowed by the Court, Trustee has chosen to sell the non-exempt portion of the domain name back to Debtors."

 

[jberryhill]

I should point out that the fitness trainer's attempt to withdraw the lawsuit was apparently based on their scheme to re-open the bankruptcy and buy it as an asset which wasn't listed in the bankruptcy estate. That tactic is the subject of the cross motions for sanctions in the Arizona case.

 

[Slanted]

Bottom line, This is not a case for domainers to rally around. If it was the normal UDRP then ok.

You may do as you please. But domainers have already rallied in support of the original Heidi Powell.

Articles have been written at DNW and outside the industry, condemning this attempt to steal her domain.

David Weslow, an experienced domain attorney, evidently sees Mrs. Powell as someone worth defending. Otherwise, why would he spend his time on her case pro bono?

The ICA, which includes most of the industry's top UDRP lawyers, voted to create a new award in honor of Lonnie Borck and to bestow it on David Weslow in a ceremony at NamesCon primarily because of this case.

I can understand how you might feel – that with a simple UDRP, we're on familiar territory. But I don't see why Grandma Powell is any less persecuted by 2 simultaneous lawsuits aimed at taking her domain than by 1 UDRP aimed at taking her domain.

Either way, the fitness instructor has NO RIGHT to confiscate a domain that Heidi Powell has owned for 12 years already and which matches her personal name exactly.

We often say – don't we? – that domain owners ought to ask for a finding of RDNH and seek damages after thieves come after our property. So if Grandma Powell, on the advice of her lawyer, is filing a counterclaim, asking for recompense, why hold that against her? She has incurred costs defending herself. And there ought to be a penalty for this kind of abuse.

 

[jberryhill]

Okay, so, I took a look-see a the recent flurry of filings in Washington, and here is the state of play:

The fitness trainer had originally offered $10k to the bankruptcy trustee. As I noted above, it is the responsibility of the trustee to collect what he can on behalf of the creditors. The creditors, in this instance, are US taxpayers, since the underlying debt was to the US Dept. of Education.

After an initial round of filings in the re-opened case, the trustee was inclined to sell it back to Granny Powell for the same $10k, subject to an exemption of $7k or thereabouts, and also noting that the status of domain names as property in bankruptcy is unclear.

So... the fitness trainer has upped her offer to $20k, and provided the trustee with a brief to the effect that domain names should be considered property in bankruptcy in the State of Washington.

There are some problems with that brief, which I may go into when I have more time, but I'd like to point out what matters here.

For years, there has been this cult-like insistence that it would be somehow "good" for domainers if domain names were considered to be "property" instead of incidents to service contracts with registrars. One of the reasons for this insistence goes back to the Kremen v. Cohen case, in which a highjacked domain name was recovered on a conversion claim (the civil form of theft). The reason it was important in that case was because the uncreative lawyers who filed it, framed it AS a conversion claim, instead of any of a number of other legal claims that might have been used to recover the domain name. But because the domain name at issue was sex.com, domainers latched onto "domain names should be property" as an almost magic incantation that would universally benefit them.

Also, for years, I've pointed out that this insistence was going to bite someone in the ass someday, and now it has. Because if you want domain names to be property, then they are subject to assignment in divorce, various liens, bankruptcy, and property tax. If you are "buying" them from registrars, then you are also rooting for the payment of sales tax. Why domainers want those things, I have no idea. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way. But what I do not like, in any event, are shallow arguments - even if I agree with the conclusion.

Now, the "is it property" question seems to have been admitted thus far. Rather than take the clear position that it was not property subject to bankruptcy, the debtor's counsel filed a brief to the effect that "yes, it's property, but wasn't worth much" as discussed above. Well, regardless of what anyone thought it was worth, the trustee has an offer to sell it for $20,000.

So what this appears headed toward is a bidding war between whatever the fitness trainer is willing to offer, and whatever Grandma Powell is able to raise by donations.

But I want to be really clear about one point here - if you are in the "domain names should be property camp" then you are rooting for the fitness trainer's position to prevail in this thing.

All that said, the thread title here refers to a "thief". Thieves generally don't offer to pay for things.

 

[jberryhill]

Distribution this story widely online (#3 and #4) might give this celeb a reason to stop.

In point of fact, the celebrity can't "stop" the case. She moved to dismiss the case back in September:

09/15/2016 15 MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary Dismissal by Heidi Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Speth, Maria) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016 16 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 15 MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary Dismissal filed by Heidi Powell, Kent Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weslow, David) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

The voluntary dismissal was opposed by the grandmother, on account of the grandmother's counterclaims for RDNH. Quoting from the grandmother's opposition to dismissal of the case back in September:

"Defendants Kent Powell and Heidi Powell, by counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), hereby object to Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal solely to the extent that: (i) the requested dismissal should be with prejudice; (ii) the Defendants’ counterclaim should remain pending for independent adjudication; and (iii) the Court should condition its dismissal on the payment of reasonable fees and costs to defend against Plaintiff’s claims under the Lanham Act’s “exceptional” case standard."

So the celebrity, literally, cannot "stop this" even if she wanted to, since the grandmother has pending monetary claims against the celebrity.

 

[jberryhill]

By the way, I became a grandfather a few months ago, so anyone who disagrees with me is hereby on notice of my automatic credibility pass attaching to everything and anything I say. You shall henceforth refer to me as Grandfather Berryhill.

And, again, I firmly believe that the grandmother has the stronger hand at the table in this dispute, and I refuse to play the game of "you don't agree with every word or characterization made in my argument, so therefore you disagree with my conclusion."

 

[168]

There is no way they can prove value "at that time" today.
Contacting TMZ and other sites like it might help too.
Press release blitz!
I'm in.
Thanks for the update.
Cheers

 

[Julio]

John Colascione at StrategicRevenue.com wrote about it.

https://www.strategicrevenue.com/sometimes-you-just-cannot-have-the-com-name-you-want-now-move-on/

 

[Slanted]

@ison,

Quit the hysterics. Defending a grandmother's right to own her own name is difficult enough without you yipping and biting at my ankles.

You misled us, and have displayed absolutely no concern about the effect it could have on the trustee.

How have I misled you? I've been crystal clear. If you're confused, instead of preaching and shouting, try asking a question.

The trustee is paid a commission. When? Once Grandma Powell is stripped of her property and name. Once the domain name is confiscated and given to the celebrity fitness trainer. Where does this money come from? From this covetous celebrity or her lawyers. Obviously, they are dangling this money as a BRIBE – i.e. as a financial inducement to get the trustee to do something that otherwise would not happen.

Is it legal? I'm sure it is. Is it ethical for the trustee? I don't pretend to know; and I really don't care. Is it ethical for the TV celebrity? Absolutely not. Talking about the trustee is nothing but a pedantic distraction, which only "ison" gives a fig about. We're talking about the instigator, the celebrity fitness instructor and her team, who want to steal HeidiPowell.com from its rightful owner.

Forget your phantom trustee and concentrate on the rights of a domain owner to keep her own first and last name, which she has owned as a .COM for 12 years! If you question THAT as a domainer, then how dare you own ANY domain yourself?

If this 5-figure sum (including a commission) were not being dangled in front of the trustee, the domain name HeidiPowell.com would have negligible market value and be of no interest to the courts. The trustee would not be concerned with the domain at all and Mr. and Mrs. Powell would not face thousands of dollars in ongoing legal expenses.

If I offer a reward to some bounty hunter who can drag you into court, deplete your financial resources, take away your property, and hand it over to me, then – even if you think the bounty hunter is a great guy – what I am doing is an act of bribery. Not in a criminal sense. But in the everyday meaning of the word, absolutely.

You also misled the board about the history of the domain.

You're hallucinating. Please share.

When you do this, you lose the moral high ground.

What ever will I do without your approval? Woe is me!

You could've resolved this by deleting the offending sentence

Resolved what? The only problem I'm aware of is your moaning.

You should probably inform Grandmother Powell the situation here.

I've been speaking directly with her and David Weslow, the attorney who is generously representing her pro bono in the UDRP case. He informed me that the trustee will be paid a commission if the domain is yanked away from Grandma Powell. That commission ultimately is paid by the celebrity who wants to steal the domain.

Being an attorney, David Weslow would – I'm sure – not use the word "bribe". However, not being an attorney and not representing Grandma Powell, I am free to use English as it has always been used outside the courts. You seem to be stuck on the criminal sense of the word. That's your blunder, not mine. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is quite clear in refuting you. Just look at the example they give:

Bribe =
something that serves to induce or influence
"offered the kid a bribe to finish his homework"

OMG, how libelous! Throw that parent and its offspring in jail!

 

[Gaptooth]

I stopped by to thank you all personally for your tremendous support. Thank you so much for standing beside us. It means more than I can ever say. If you ever need me to support your community, call and I will be there. Good news, the Arizona court has dismissed the case. Unfortunately we are still having to fight to keep my name in the bankruptcy court. There is a video update of what has transpired, as of Thursday, on my website https://www.heidipowell.com/ Blessing to all of you ~ Heidi

 

[TopShelf Domains]

You can exempt a certain dollar value of property within a bankruptcy. It's not like you need to sell everything you own after you declare bankruptcy.

"Exemptions allow you to keep a certain amount of your property so that you can make a fresh start after the bankruptcy. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, if you can exempt an asset, the bankruptcy trustee cannot sell it to pay your creditors." - nolo.com

And basically her domain name had zero value at the time of her bankruptcy because any domain appraisal would give a zero dollar to her domain name.. it's not a liquid asset.

 

[clasione]

Even better than sharing it; created more to share!!

 

[Silentptnr]

Next thing you know, she'll probably try to steal HP.com from Hewlett Packard. Her initials right? ...Nuts.

 

[jberryhill]

I think I'm going to gag.

Yup. "I am whatever people need me to be" if there's a dollar in your pocket. She's a fine example of vacuous self-obsession. Then again, that kind of thing seems to be popular these days. There was a time when people who constantly boasted about themselves were considered people to avoid.

 

[RJ]

Tweeted and shared the link. Good luck!

 

[ison]

Perhaps if the trustee had the domain up for sale you'd be right but in this case TOH (the other Heidi) called the trustee, telling him if he would open the case and take the domain away she would pay him $10,000. Some would consider this a bribe.

1
bribe
play
noun \ˈbrīb\
Definition of bribe for English Language Learners

• : something valuable (such as money) that is given in order to get someone to do something

The money is not for the trustee. The money is for the creditors. It's a trustee's responsibility to distribute any money recovered to the creditors. It's not a bribe. It is, however, an unfair accusation which could ruin someone's reputation.

And btw, thank you for posting a definition of the word bribe. I thought it was a type of cheese.

 

[Shimmy]

What are supplemental ways that we can help Mrs. HeidiPowell.com?

Could always complain to her sponsors. Looks like Proform is a main one.