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.

 

[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.

 

[Gaptooth]

Take a look for yourself:

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

I have an entirely new vision of myself.

 

[HotKey]

I noticed that MrsHeidiPowell.com is available. I tweeted to her that she should take that. It's available for hand reg.

Or even HeidiPowell.Fit which is actually a perfect fit (no pun intented) for her brand.

 

[Gaptooth]

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.

I don't know how on earth you could know exactly how we feel but you hit the nail precisely on the head. Thank you for this.

 

[Silentptnr]

I don't know how on earth you could know exactly how we feel but you hit the nail precisely on the head. Thank you for this.

Are you one of the Powells?

 

[Gaptooth]

Take a look for yourself:

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

I think I'd prefer to be the new Edith Macefield

https://assets3.roadtrippers.com/up...mage-7780236a-ffff-4670-b077-943500a3815e.jpg

 

[Silentptnr]

I think I'd prefer to be the new Edith Macefield

https://assets3.roadtrippers.com/up...mage-7780236a-ffff-4670-b077-943500a3815e.jpg

That's awesome

 

[Gaptooth]

Are you one of the Powells?

The original

 

[Silentptnr]

The original

I made the connection between your username and your video. Nice username.

 

[Silentptnr]

The original

It's all going to work out. The name is rightfully yours. Stick to your guns. TOH will back off soon. She will soon disgust herself with her actions. The only way she will have it is with your blessings. And that is your decision as the owner, and yours alone. That's how this will end.

 

[Slanted]

I think I'd prefer to be the new Edith Macefield

https://assets3.roadtrippers.com/up...mage-7780236a-ffff-4670-b077-943500a3815e.jpg

That was the picture I was looking for, actually, but I found the other 1 first.

 

[Silentptnr]

There are alot of people, including yours truly, that would love to have their first and last name .com. I own hundreds of domain names yet that one eludes me. I know that there are people out there with the same name and equal interest. Just the way it is.

If I owned my name and someone wanted it, I would probably never sell for less than more than they could afford.

You just can't take someone's rightful, lawfully owned property....period.

Actually, I would probably offer to sell it. One chance, only one. And only to another person named HP.
5 million dollars. Sounds crazy, oh well. Companies have paid much more for names that have little importance to the general public.

 

[Silentptnr]

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

 

[DU]

@Slanted

That's a nice story and I do appreciate the time you took to post it but a few of points:

1) I don't believe that anyone thinks that Fitness Trainer HeidiPowell had a true claim to the name based on a cybersquatting claim
2) It doesn't require the saccharine treatment or enduring love story for a grandma to make that true
3) It doesn't require the language of bribes and to assume that your reason to not trust the fitness trainer's team as fact in their filing

Simple facts are enough and that prevents an implied prejudice with the one-sided portrayal. In this case I believe that Fitness Instructor Heidi probably got some genuinely awful advice, bad,terrible advice,disaster.... and Jaburg Wilk is unlikely to win IP Legal Team Of The Year.

But the question still remains....

What's the point of this thread at this point?

There's only one legal item open that I can ascertain..... David E. Weslow, said Powell refuses to dismiss the case without prejudice, asserting that Kent and Heidi Powell deserve judgment on their counterclaims for her attempt to take the domain name, which they have held for more than 10 years.

The legal system is working and doing exactly what it is supposed to do so it seems [unfortunately,the one case has a cost burden for Grandma Powell z].

I may be wrong but the case could have been dismissed (albeit without prejudice) and over for everyone by now. Grandma could be giving her grandkids Werthers Originals™ and knitting next Christmas' gifts. But there are attorney's fees, a nice payday, and a chance for the ICA to make a big bang (someone else's word not mine). I do agree with the RDNH and it's justified, valid, etc. but none of the "urgent" thread request alter that path.

So everyone can Tweet and it won't change anything in the proceedings. The Grandma is holding the nuts.... (either a poker metaphor or other ) and things will run their course. It's being handled pro-bono (though even I could see the fees from an RDNH coming) so ... yeah....keep the tweets coming... I have NO IDEA what ABC has to do with anything.... but for some reason @Jaburg_Wilk got nothing.

Hey @Jabug_Wilk You guys like totally suck (allegedly) for @HeidiPowell or is that @RealHeidPowell..

But the new real question is - why am I here at this point?

 

[Silentptnr]

When someone brings suit there are two choices. Not respond and lose, or fight....and that's expensive. The one thing that an innocent defendant can do however, is seek damages.

In my opinion, this case has enormous ramifications and sets precedent. Once concluded it should send a strong message to those who think they can bully and/or circumvent property rights. The just result would be for the domain owner to receive damages and court costs. This kind of assault should receive a strong response and send a clear message.

You know that feeling you get when you are driving along, licensed and insured, under the speed limit when suddenly you hear a police siren and see lights and they are on you. Scary for anyone. I feel tremendous sympathy for the defendant in this case. It's outrageous.

I don't believe the plaintiff got bad advice, I believe she knew exactly what her lawyers were doing. They probably felt invincible and thought they had all the answers....They probably thought the worst that could happen is she not be successful in stealing the name. Well surprise, property rights still matter.

People know when they are trying to steal something. They can rationalize all they want, but they know. The plaintiff ought to make extraordinary efforts to apologize for everything about this case and certainly pay all costs plus some for the headache. She's a flash in the pan as they say. Good will is vastly more important.

 

[Gaptooth]

I may be wrong but the case could have been dismissed (albeit without prejudice) and over for everyone by now. Grandma could be giving her grandkids Werthers Originals™ and knitting next Christmas' gifts. But there are attorney's fees, a nice payday, and a chance for the ICA to make a big bang (someone else's word not mine). I do agree with the RDNH and it's justified, valid, etc. but none of the "urgent" thread request alter that path.

"Without Prejudice" means that the party can not come back and sue you again after the case is dropped. Without having "without prejudice" in the legal terms a party is wide open. This is how you protect yourself from being sued again, for the same reason, by the same party, after a case has been dropped. Has zero to do with knitting.

 

[carob]

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.

it's about the magical power of words and naming. Strong stuff.

 

[DU]

"Without Prejudice" means that the party can not come back and sue you again after the case is dropped. Without having "without prejudice" in the legal terms a party is wide open. This is how you protect yourself from being sued again, for the same reason, by the same party, after a case has been dropped. Has zero to do with knitting.

al·be·it
ôlˈbēit,alˈbēit/
conjunction

1. although.
   
   
   al·though
   ôlˈT͟Hō/
   conjunction
   1. in spite of the fact that; even though.

 

[Slanted]

I'm sure I could spin this to make Grandma Heidi Powell look like a money-grabbing domain squatter if I really had the inclination

And it seems as though you're trying to do so – or, at least, to inject as much doubt as possible into the case. Why?

It seems more that the Fitness trainer is being dragged through the court system at this point.

You see what I mean?

There are also statements made in the legal findings that contradict the wonderful "motherhood and apple-pie" provided back-story: "the grandmother" asked for $50K

Again, strenuously denied as FALSE – indeed, as an outright lie – by the grandmother. And irrelevant in any case, since domain owners have the right to name a price. That's the premise of this whole forum! Why disseminate a claim by the fitness trainer's attorneys when their allegation is possibly untrue and has no bearing on the case whatsoever except to paint the grandmother as greedy and dishonest? Moreoever, why introduce that unsubstantiated charge without ALSO bringing up the fact that the grandmother has denied that allegation in a sworn statement. For the sake of fairness and balance, I should think that the allegation either ought NOT to be brought up or else both sides ought to be presented. Yet you introduced ONLY the claim made by the fitness trainer.

It really seems that you're working very hard to undermine things. Not sure why, unless it's an ingrained tendency to be contrarian. Normally I'm the guy pushing back with skepticism; so I get that. But I think you do agree that the grandmother is right to keep her domain and the fitness instructor is wrong to attempt to steal it; so I wonder why you're at pains to muddy the waters and obscure that basic underlying issue.

it's not just a domain it's a love story....

Scoffing at the grandmother and the way she recounts her story is partly what I'm referring to.

It doesn't require the saccharine treatment or enduring love story for a grandma to make that true [i.e. that the fitness trainer's claim to the domain is illegitimate]

What you call a "saccharine treatment" is perhaps an honest, heartfelt plea by the grandmother for some public support. Those of us who sympathize with her predicament aren't necessarily blubbering babies.

It's being handled pro-bono

Only the 1 lawsuit. The other lawsuit is costing Heidi Powell and her husband a substantial amount of money. That's my understanding, at any rate.

I have NO IDEA what ABC has to do with anything

Come on, you're smarter than this. ABC isn't responsible for the fitness trainer's actions. But ABC aired her TV show, which made her a celebrity. Given that, ABC presumably has some stake in the fitness instructor's "Heidi Powell" brand. It's standard practice when protesting against any sort of injustice to look for leverage. By raising awareness at ABC and applying pressure to a company that's positioned to influence the fitness instructor, we might indirectly convince the fitness instructor to withdraw her backing for the bankruptcy suit and seek some sort of settlement.

It doesn't require the language of bribes

Lord, this is fatiguing! How many times must this "bribe" thing be explained? Yes, bribery can have a criminal meaning. But in everyday speech it also has a broader, looser meaning. And, as I've explained over and over, that perfectly ordinary sense of the word "bribe" is how I've employed the word. Everybody here is familiar with that word usage. But for some reason, once 1 guy misunderstood what I'd written, it keeps coming up; and no matter what I say, people continue to deliberately or carelessly misread what I've said.

This is really simple:

Kid doesn't want to do his homework. Parent bribes kid with trip to Disney Land if kid gets straight "A"s. Kid changes behavior and studies. Illegal? No. Bribe? Yes. This example is literally what the dictionary uses to illustrate the word "bribe".

Bankruptcy court is done with Grandma Powell. 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.

If you disagree with my use of the word "bribe", then I challenge you find a better verb. Please substitute your preferred euphemism in the following sentence: "Fitness trainer's lawyers bribe those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case."

Really, guys, my word usage is immaterial to the case. I'm not even involved.

But the new real question is - why am I here at this point?

If you can't see a reason to be here, then you have no reason to be here.

 

[carob]

How many times must this "bribe" thing be explained?

0, words mean different things in different contexts - in law it can be an identifiable crime, in conversation it can be a jokey word for an "incentive" or reward.

I'm offering a bribe in another thread to anyone willing to not talk about bribes anymore - and talk about how to keep from losing domains instead. https://www.namepros.com/threads/twitter-handle-giveaway.996849/#post-5975165

 

[Slanted]

What are the odds my comment makes it through?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/chris-heidi-powell-share-workouts-home-44461737

Even if blocked, a moderator may see it.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

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.

Wow
You are amazing
How can we support ?
I will share your post

 

[briguy]

Tweeted
https://mobile.twitter.com/bri_guy/status/827518716611026944

Will also appear on other social sites thst are connected to my Twitter

Any "hashtags" being used?

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Shared Fb Linkedin and Twitter
( tomorrow again )

We need more attention

Maybe a fund ?

 

[DU]

And it seems as though you're trying to do so – or, at least, to inject as much doubt as possible into the case. Why?

Just looking for what the facts are behind the story without the domainer bias.

Again, strenuously denied as FALSE – indeed, as an outright lie – by the grandmother.

I don't believe I rehashed this but as you did.... an asking price is part of the consideration of merit in these cases. Rightly or wrongly.

There is a difference between "no, I'll never sell because it's worth $8 and reminds me of an enduring love" and "yes, I'll sell, if the money's right and I know you got it". I could call asking $50,000 extortion but the word choice would be brought into question wouldn't it
But it's not mine or yours to judge which team is lying to the courts.

I didn't bring it up to add merit or discredit Grandma.. didn't you say the following:

For the sake of fairness and balance, I should think that the allegation either ought NOT to be brought up or else both sides ought to be presented

You think your first post was fair and balanced? Perhaps you expected a completely sympathetic forum. I'm pretty sure that EVERY point the plaintiff made was strenuously denied (hence the counterclaim you omitted to mention except thru links) so let's not discuss anything other than the enduring love story.

Scoffing at the grandmother and the way she recounts her story is partly what I'm referring to.

I'm not scoffing at the "grandmother". Frankly, I'm mocking the delivery method and back-story.

What you call a "saccharine treatment" is perhaps an honest, heartfelt plea by the grandmother for some public support. Those of us who sympathize with her predicament aren't necessarily blubbering babies.

And it could be a pathetic line of saintly bullshit to garner sympathy. I'm not a Powell so I don't know.

You want my opinion?

This is a rightful RDNH case and the courts/legal counsel will resolve this without a tweet fest and emails wasting some admins time at ABC. The motives are not cleaning the slate for the original defendant Powell at this point but doing what the American legal system loves to do... deter frivolous claims through penalty. It can't be to encourage Fitness trainer Heidi Powell to drop the lawsuit that she can't drop or drop one that's been closed.

Whether that penalty system works in the long in place is debatable but at the same time this is a great case for the ICA, is it not? A seemingly slam dunk case that involves a celebrity and a grandmother. It's almost perfect.

Could they have dismissed the case with prejudice without adjudication on penalty? I don't know. Could they have asked less severe claim of damages (to cover their expenses incurred on the other suit? I don't know - but that isn't what her legal counsel chose to do they went for the full damages and fees.

Yes, I'm a cynical person.
No, I don't think this is your agenda.
But domainers always feel that they're on the short end of a big stick and they love this RDNH stuff and Rick's Wall of Who GAF.

The funny thing to me is the awkward line between "Hey this name's worthless!" and "Hey this name's priceless!" and "This name may have allegedly been worth $50,000" and at least "a $10,000 bribe". In the end Heidi keeps her name and I hope she lives happily ever after. In the end Heidi uses the .net and it doesn't really matter because she's a media brand anyway and will be #1 in Google/Bing ...

Come on, you're smarter than this. ABC isn't responsible for the fitness trainer's actions. But ABC aired her TV show, which made her a celebrity.

Hot Damn! Let's tell the liberal left to Tweet their anti-Trump tweets to NBC!
Actually, I thought the show was canceled

Given that, ABC presumably has some stake in the fitness instructor's "Heidi Powell" brand. It's standard practice when protesting against any sort of injustice to look for leverage. By raising awareness at ABC and applying pressure to a company that's positioned to influence the fitness instructor, we might indirectly convince the fitness instructor to withdraw her backing for the bankruptcy suit and seek some sort of settlement.

"It's my understanding the trustee has withdrawn the motion to sell the domain name."

Would it not be better to attack the legal firm? Why not? Would it be tortious interference? You already accused them of bribery... (the safe form)

Lord, this is fatiguing! How many times must this "bribe" thing be explained? Yes, bribery can have a criminal meaning. But in everyday speech it also has a broader, looser meaning. And, as I've explained over and over, that perfectly ordinary sense of the word "bribe" is how I've employed the word. Everybody here is familiar with that word usage. But for some reason, once 1 guy misunderstood what I'd written, it keeps coming up; and no matter what I say, people continue to deliberately or carelessly misread what I've said.

Yeah, well Granny is a "cybersquatter". Not a real legal one, of course, just one in you know, regular every day parlance. Domainers are so sensitive about words.

Kid doesn't want to do his homework. Parent bribes kid with trip to Disney Land if kid gets straight "A"s. Kid changes behavior and studies. Illegal? No. Bribe? Yes. This example is literally what the dictionary uses to illustrate the word "bribe".

It's a bribe in regular usage. A child psychologist or parent might prefer incentive or reward in this case but point taken. Bribe can be a fairly harmless word but still with a very negative connotation.

Bankruptcy court is done with Grandma Powell. 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.

Totally different as one is in the context of homework and one is in the context of a legal action. I'm sure your friend Wenslow would approve of putting the word "bribe" immediately following their "lawyers".

isn't a word requiring tongs for handling except in the narrow context of Law

Is that not the very context in which you are using it?
The police man turned to Chris and said give me your gun.... Bentley said "Chris, Let Him Have it"
You see the use of context there? That sentence resulted in Derick Bentley being hanged. Context matters - even in little online forums.

If you disagree with my use of the word "bribe", then I challenge you find a better verb. Please substitute your preferred euphemism in the following sentence: "Fitness trainer's lawyers bribe those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case."

"Fitness trainer's lawyers requested those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case to establish legal ownership of name."

Even "Hey, I'm an evil beeyotch and I think you missed this asset and it has value. I'd be willing to give you at least $10K for it which is good for your creditors. AmIright, amiright? I'll have my guys call your guys, mmkay"

So I WILL go away at this point because as you can see we're clearly just happy have domainers go tilting at windmills.

"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!"

I did miss this nugget earlier:

I appreciate your chiming in, John, to correct me where I'm wrong regarding the legal issues and history of this case. This isn't a matter I have researched carefully beyond preparing a detailed report on the market value of the domain name HeidiPowell.com itself, which was meant for inclusion in David Weslow's filing and submitted after an open invitation to ICA members.

And maybe one driver is that Heidi is totes jelly of her husbands awesome domain.. which is clearly not in use if anyone wants to let another Chris Powell know it's available: