Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

James and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

James S. Tyre wrote:

> At 08:33 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Bruce Young wrote:
> >Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
> >
> >|  All of this "take the risk, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it"
> >|  bravado (or "let the cards fall where they may") comes at a significant
> >|  *personal* legal and financial risk that is beyond the burden of what
> >|  anyone assumed when they became a panelist.
> >
> >I agree.  Judith shouldn't be asked to risk her career and future, or
> >faulted for being concerned over same.
> >
> >|  What Joanna, Walter and Bruce did was entirely appropriate, given the
> >|  advice of private counsel and the extraordinary circumstances.
>
> What Judith says creates a different discussion.

  It certainly does...

>
>
> Except by reasonable inference from what seems to have happened, I am not
> privy to the specifics of the advice that was given, nor do I know who gave
> it.  However, if anything is clear, it is that the issue is not a simple
> one.

  It is not all that complex of an issue as far as the members or the
panel goes either.  True it is not a simple issue.  But that is a statement
of platitudes that has little of no real meaning in the context of the
actual issue at hand...  As a lawyer of course, you already know this
James.  As one whom is pretty well legally educated and trained
I also know this pretty well also...

>  I have said myself that it is a gray area, neither black nor
> white.  (I think I have given up trying to persuade one list member to
> state actual facts to back up his assertions, which have little support in
> trademark law as I know it.)

  There are not facts regarding this issue yet.  There are unlikely to be
any in the near term if ever.  That is the crux of the issue.  Is it
possible that such facts could come to pass.  Sure that is always
possible.

>
>
> Under those circumstances, did Joanna do the right thing by seeking out
> legal advice?  Yes, she did.

  Agreed.  She did.  As to whether she as the Panel chair should
have acted upon it is another matter entirely.

  My personal legal advisors, as well as our [INEGroup]
legal staff advise me frequently on a number of issues and
situations.  Usually I consider their advice intently before
determining how or if to act upon that advice.  Sometimes
I agree with their advice and do nothing with it.  Other times
I act upon it.  And yet other times still, I act in a different
way than has been suggested.

>
>
> Should she have consulted us before seeking legal advice?  Perhaps, *if* we
> were better organized, but we're not.

  I think this is and should have been Joanna's choice regardless.  What
advice was given in detail should have been shared with us if she
was going to act upon it in her current capacity as Panel chair.

>  It is a fact that it takes forever
> to get things done here, this was a situation that required extremely
> prompt attention.

  This is a matter of conjecture James.  Not a fact.  As you are fond of
it seems, and rightly so, facts are in issues or situation such as this,
necessary or at least prudent when taking prompt action...

>  Does anyone seriously believe that a consensus of the
> membership could have ben obtained in a sufficiently short time frame?

  No.  This is however more of a procedural and systemic problem
that we have been living with for too long...  It can be remedied
and should have been some time ago...

>
>
> Should she have followed the attorney's advice?  Generally, that is why one
> consults an attorney, is it not?

  Not always, no.  One consults an attorney for advice or an opinion.
Following it is still and individuals choice and their judgment.  As the
Chair however the situation becomes more far reaching when acting
on such legal advice.  As in my role as a CEO, I often am faced
with these decisions and choices.  I must not ever act in my own
interests alone, but rather as a good leader, I must put the interests
of our employees before my own if such a issue as this is before me
and the advice I receive from our attorneys is contrary or has
a potential negative effect on our employees.

>
>
> My advice, had I been asked (and I do not suggest that Joanna should have
> asked me, we don't know each other) might have been different from the
> advice she was given, or it might not have, but it doesn't really
> matter.  Reasonable attorneys - yes, make your oxymoronic jokes, I don't
> care ;-) - can differ, but if even reasonable attorneys don't necessarily
> agree, what can one expect of a layperson, other than to follow the advice
> of the attorney with whom she has had the most communication?

  One can expect that can expect said lay person would seek a second
legal opinion, act or not act based on their own judgment as well
as taking into account the legal advice.  As a Panel chair however
the decision is much different.  That chair, if a good leader, should
consider before knee jerking a decision, the interests of the members
in this instance or case, rather than that chair's own personal interests.

>
>
> And what is the point of having a Panel, and a Panel Chair, if they don't
> have some semblance of authority to act in special cases, even though we've
> not yet made all the rules?

  SOME semblance yes.  Autocratic or absolute authority, no...

>
>
> John raised some serious issues, and while I view the issues somewhat
> differently than he does, I support absolutely Joanna's decision to seek
> out, and act on, legal advice she was given.  This is a serious matter,
> Joanna would have been reckless if she had not sought learned guidance.

  Sought yes.  Acted upon as chair, no.  Acted upon as an individual?
Certainly if she thought that the advice was sufficient.  The distinction here
seems to be missed between roles and action between them.

  Some day perhaps, you and I will have the opportunity to argue
this out in a court of law.  As I have already done so in a similar
situation, perhaps you will be at a legal disadvantage.  However
as I am a nice fellow, I will provide my previous arguments
in that case for you in advance, just to make it interesting!  >;)

Regards,

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
>
> "Unflattering though it may be, the truth is that
> lawyers in the American system are officially fungible."
>         --Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 448
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de