What? He's not asking for your money; he's going to tell you how to give it to the state.

You have to be kidding me. This guy gets more repulsive every year. His measures haven't saved me a dime, but they totally screwed up the music and art programs when I was in Jr. high. All I have to say is "What a dick".

Sizemore isn't asking you to send him your money, he's asking you to write to him so he can tell you how to send all the money he saved you back to the government.

The funny part of this letter really is that he seems to believe that he alone is responsible for property tax cuts - as if Don MacIntire never did Measure 5, and in complete denial of the fact that his own Measure 47 was never implemented and had to be replaced by the legislatively-written Measure 50. What an ego.

Sizemore is also mistaken in that "his" measures have actually saved us money. Measure 5, et al, may have saved money for him and his supporters, but I would venture to say that those measures have actually cost money for most Oregonians, either directly or indirectly.

Apparently, I am considered a "tax-user" and not a "tax-payer" even though I pay a higher percentage of my taxes than he does, don't own a car or a home, put myself through college and work for a living.

How selfish does this asshole get? I am so freaking sick and tired of selfish anti-government people and their hype. Then, these exact same people turn around and say how Christian they are! Give to the poor? No way! Not Bill! Take away from the poor. They deserve their lot in life! They are stupid. Frankly, I have a higher education than Bill.

What a dork!

Bill Sizemore's philosophy:

Equal Rights should be based on the ability to earn WEALTH. Nothing else should be a measure of one's humanity.

I knew Bill Sizemore before he was "Bill Sizemore" his stepson and my son were buddies. He was an egotistical a** then, just like now. Arrogant to the hilt. He had his toy company, he'd hire disabled workers through the state and as soon as the state was done subsidizing their pay, he'd fire them. Bill was always such a "good Christian" - hypocrite.

Our buddy Bill is now a resident of Klamath Falls. Registered to vote down there last week. Any idea why he would abandon his beloved Beavercreek?

Hey Bill- a sign of integrity?

PAY YOUR BILLS!!!!

No wonder he didn't want his insurance based on his credit scores........

Anybody who votes for this used car salesman deserves what they get. What a deadbeat, first you don't pay money you owe, and now you don't want to pay your taxes.

I have a bridge in China this guy can buy - on the cheap!!

I thought you might find this amusing. It cerainly shows Bill is full of himself. To make a long story short, this happened in early 2004 and the domain dispute arbitration system is fixed. When the Complainant pays the $1,500 per domain dispute fee and the Respondent doesn't match it, a study at the time found that the Complainant wins over 87% of the time. When each pays the fee, decisions go 50-50. The cases are usually decided by retired judges or attorneys.

I've only copied the revelent parts of each brief.

[4.] DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(S)

[a.] The following domain name(s) is/are the subject of this Complaint: ICANN Rule 3(b)(vi).

Billsizemore.com Billsizemore.org

<hr/>

Bill's complaint

[c.] Trademark/Service Mark Information: ICANN Rule 3(b)(viii).

Bill Sizemore is my personal name; the name under which I have been registered to vote for more than 20 years; and the name that appeared on the ballot in the primary and general election, when I was the Republican candidate for governor of Oregon in 1998. Bill Sizemore was part of my business name, Bill Sizemore, Carpet Broker, from 1981-1985; the name of my radio program, The Bill Sizemore Show, which is temporarily on hold, but has aired daily for the past four years in Portland, Oregon. Bill Sizemore is part of the name of my ongoing business, Bill Sizemore Consulting.

I also have registered the mark Bill Sizemore with Oregon’s business registration instrument, the Secretary’s of State Corporate Division.

The name Bill Sizemore has appeared on hats, T-shirts, and bumper stickers. I have also used my name on dozens of billboards appearing all over the greater Portland area, and on thousands of yard signs. I intend to do all of the above again to promote my radio show, when I have negotiated a new contract with another station, and when I attempt another run at public office.

[5.] FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix). NAF Supp. Rule 4(a).

[a.] The websites currently using my name, both billsizemore.com and billsizemore.org, represent themselves as an information site on Bill Sizemore, but are in fact one anti Bill Sizemore site designed to tear down my name and diminish the value of my name and mark. The sponsor uses my name exactly as it is widely known to the public and associated with me, to besmirch me and the various political organizations I started for the purpose of political action. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

[b.] The Respondent is using the domain name on behalf of labor unions, my arch enemies in Oregon politics, to disperse negative propaganda about me and my political committees. They may have a right to distribute their opinions about me, but do not have the right to register my name as a domain by which they may spread their hate and prevent me from access to the billsizemore.com and billsizemore.org domains. The site currently using my name contains a disclosure that says that unions are not paying for the site, but almost everything on the site echoes union propaganda I have seen in the past.

The site is not offering to sell goods. It is just one big hit piece on Bill Sizemore. The site has no interest in the name, Bill Sizemore, other than to tarnish or diminish it. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

[c.] To the best of my knowledge, the Respondent has not attempted to register the name Bill Sizemore in any way, except as an internet domain, and in fact could have no legal basis for doing so. They have made no attempt to sell the name to me. The name was registered in bad faith, so that when people look up the well-known name Bill Sizemore on the internet, they will find an anti Bill Sizemore website that will diminish and tarnish the name of their arch enemy, and registered so that I could not register the domain name myself.

My business is politics, public relations and talk radio. My name is my stock and trade. I also place on the ballot measures that labor unions oppose. This site is designed to tarnish my name and make it difficult or impossible for me to be politically effective and continue in business. This website is designed to drive me out of business.

Nothing on the website tells visitors that the site is sponsored by Bill Sizemore’s enemies or that it is representing only the negative side of every dispute in which I have been involved. The site is designed to look like an official website providing information about Bill Sizemore, Oregon Taxpayers United and the Oregon Taxpayers Union.

[6.] REMEDY SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the domain-name registrations be transferred to Complainant. ICANN Rule 3(b)(x); ICANN Policy ¶ 4(i).

<hr/>

My response. I also provided a few dozen pages of supporting documentation.

[3.] RESPONSE TO FACTUAL AND LEGAL ALLEGATIONS MADE IN COMPLAINT

The Complainant has failed to satisfy requirements under the ICANN Policy. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

I believe the Complainant has no enforceable rights under the UDRP to his trademark attempt for the domains in question. I have found no evidence that the name "Bill Sizemore" has a "mark" with the Oregon Secretary of State's Corporation Division. The Complainant has not provided, or I did not receive as part of this process such evidence. Nor has any evidence of his operations in association with this exact name been provided. The Complainant describes former businesses whose marks are no longer enforceable.

Bill Sizemore is a fairly common name to which the Complainant cannot hope to have exclusive rights. A search of "Bill Sizemore" in Yahoo! People Search alone brought 182 results. This is likely a small percentage of the persons with this name. At the same time Bill Sizemore is not a household name (such as Martha Stewart or Michael Jordan). He is in fact a political figure.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Mr. Sizemore states in his opening that he will be making another run at public office. Throughout the Complaint, Mr. Sizemore agrees, through his statements, that the Web sites in question are informational in nature and that he is a political figure. 5[c] As such, the site provides substantive information about a politician, and therefore constitutes fair use or noncommercial use. There is also no likelihood of confusion by visitors that this Web site is managed or run by Bill Sizemore.

Mr. Sizemore states, “The site is not offering to sell goods. It is just one big hit piece on Bill Sizemore. The site has no interest in the name, Bill Sizemore, other than to tarnish or diminish it.” He is therefore admitting that I have no commercial interest. My interest is solely to provide factual information about a public figure and therefore I have a right to the domain. Mr. Sizemore’s statement rules out use of the condition specified in ICANN Policy ¶4(b)(iv).

The relevant date of registration of billsizemore.org is November 22, 2000. Site content has existed for 37 months and the Complainant must have known that the domain name was owned for much of that time as it has been linked for a couple years from the Web site of Oregon's largest newspaper, The Oregonian, as a source for information. Why has the Complainant done nothing until now? If this is his mark, he has not been aggressive in defending it.

I have owned the domain billsizemore.com since August 5, 2002. It transfers visitors to the .org site. I believe the .com had been owned earlier by a third party and simply became available after non-renewal. Mr. Sizemore had an opportunity to buy it but did not. I believe, sometime in November 2003, Mr. Sizemore put content at a site located at billsizemore.net. It's apparent that he now wants these sites for a new business enterprise since the Courts have all but closed down his current operation finding that he partook in racketeering.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

No evidence has been provided this Court that my registration was done in bad faith or is being used in bad faith. The Web site provides news about the Complainant, a controversial politician and public figure found guilty in a court of law for racketeering and other violations of law. Since my aim is to provide information about a political figure, Bill Sizemore, there is no more appropriate domain name to use. I therefore have a legitimate interest in the domain names.

My Web site has not been used for commercial gain and no money has been received in conjunction with it. The Complainant states, “They have not made any attempt to sell the name to me.” 5[c] His statement rules out use of the condition specified in ICANN Policy ¶4(b)(ii).

The domain does provide political-related information linking or duplicating articles by prominent and well respected media. These articles include such titles as as "State seeks to close Sizemore operation", "Sizemore camp fights dissolution", "State allowed to join suit against Sizemore's group", and "Judge halts Sizemore funding." My Web site provides a single, easily accessible location for news and information. It is a public service. The information provided in political in nature and the Complainant admits this. 5[b], 5[c]. There is absolutely no truth to Mr. Sizemore's accusation that I'm using the domain on behalf of labor unions, and anyway it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. 5[b]

My motive is to provide information about a politician. It is not to prevent Mr. Sizemore from having a domain name. He recently put content at billsizemore.net. If this was my aim, I would have registered bill-sizemore.org and william-sizemore.org, and so on. I put content on one site. The fact that I placed forwarding from an additional domain should serve as an indication that my aim is to provide information about a political figure. Politics is not a business. I am not a business or political competitor, and Mr. Sizemore does not even have a commercial issue since his radio show is off the air and his carpet business is out of business.

The Complainant states, “My business is politics…” 5(c) In his comment section below 4(c) he states that he’s is a former candidate for elective office. My Web sites are political in nature.

Mark Warner 2001 v. Mike Larson (FA0009000095746) also involved a public figure and political candidate. Complainant claimed that the Respondent registered two domain names in bad faith to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. The Court found no evidence that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The Court stated, “And, that pattern of conduct is an essential element, See UDRP 4(b)(ii).”

The Court also stated, “There is also no evidence that Respondent is or ever will attempt to attract internet users to its web site for commercial gain. See Maureen A. Healy v. Andreas Kuhlen, D2000-0698 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding no bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name "dvdnews.com" in order to create a "web of DVD sites" or a DVD community despite the fact that Complainant had registered mark for DVD NEWS). While the use of a candidate’s name or campaign as a domain name will attract internet users, the attraction is arguably for political, not commercial gain.”

I have never bought a domain in order to sell it for profit. In fact, I have never sold a domain that I have bought. I do, as a Web site designer, purchase domains regularly for clients. I also build and maintain numerous sites for free for 501(c)(3) organizations and political action organizations. On these, I’ve usually retained ownership of the domain although I would give them to the organizations if asked. None have. The domains relating to the Complainant are a personal effort by me to inform the public.

Site content has existed for 37 months. Complainant must have known that the domain name was owned for much of that time as it has been linked for a couple years from the Web site of Oregon's largest newspaper, The Oregonian, as a source for information. Inclusion into a political section shows my site is political in nature. Although since removed from links elsewhere at their site, the link to my site from http://www.oregonlive.com/special/politics/sizemore.ssf is evidence that Oregon's dominant media company viewed the Web site as a source for credible and newsworthy information. As it has existed for 37 months and found a following, loss of the domain will cause irreparable harm to me.

Because my Web site simply shares published news accounts of the Complainant and the organization he at least currently leads, and that factual information is simply viewed as damaging by the Complainant, no irreparable harm has occurred. There is also no negative impact on the public interest, at least from Mr. Sizemore's standpoint.

The requirement of paragraph 4a(ii) has not been met. It states that the domain name be registered and used in bad faith can be satisfied only if the Complainant proves that the registration was undertaken in bad faith and that the circumstances of the case are such as that Respondent is continuing to act in bad faith. In fact, it is the Complainant who is acting in bad faith by bringing this action.

I am fully aware of research that appears to indicate a bias in favor of Complainants. I am though hopeful that a fair and impartial decision can be made in this matter on the facts. I only ask that you follow the numerous ICANN decisions that have recognized the rights of registrants over those sought to be asserted by bullies who try to prohibit Free Speech.

In conclusion, I am making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain or to mislead visitors. Obviously, there's no commercial gain in my intent. My interests are to serve as a public service, not-for-profit, watchdog group. I am not selling anything. As the governing principle of domain-name registration has always been first-come, first-served, I hope that this is honored in this decision. As my Web site shares published news, in many cases no longer available at the originating source, it does not tarnish the trademark or service mark the Complainant falsely believes he possesses.

<hr/>