Stevo to David Kirwan and David Kirwan to Stevo 27 Sep 2009

rockyrobin wrote:Were Kirwins actually suggesting someone do a hate site against the McCanns. I think a complaint to the Bar is in order.

Tony Bennett wrote:

rockyrobin wrote:Were Kirwins actually suggesting someone do a hate site against the McCanns. I think a complaint to the Bar is in order.

You complain about Barristers to the Bar Council.

You complain about Solicitors to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. David Kirwan is a Solicitor, not a Barrister.

I dont know if 'GAGGEDBYTHEMCCANNS' is still on the web.

If it is, it's not a hate site is it?

Stephanie wrote:Mr. B I have no idea if you have taken that E-mail as a reliable source but I have just shown it to my O/H,

To say he has scoffed at it is an understatement, In every solicitors offices or barristers chambers is one concern ... TO WIN.

Winning= accolade or brownie points to put it in kindergarten format.

No Solicitors firm would even contemplate taking or even wanting to take on a case so fraught with pitfalls,unless that E-mail was written by a junior or a clerk it is completely unbelievable.

I am sorry but this isnt even my opinion it is just tantamount to fraud.

I suggest you go back to it's source and question it more detailed.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Mr. B I have no idea if you have taken that E-mail as a reliable source but I have just shown it to my O/H,

To say he has scoffed at it is an understatement, In every solicitors offices or barristers chambers is one concern ... TO WIN.

Winning= accolade or brownie points to put it in kindergarten format.

No Solicitors firm would even contemplate taking or even wanting to take on a case so fraught with pitfalls,unless that E-mail was written by a junior or a clerk it is completely unbelievable.

I am sorry but this isnt even my opinion it is just tantamount to fraud.

I suggest you go back to it's source and question it more detailed.

You have questioned the authenticity of these e-mails to and from Stevo and David Kirwan.

So have others in another place.

Like all the e-mails I have posted here, I post them verbatim and unedited, unless I specifically say otherwise.

Under no circumstances do I 'doctor' emails or leave inconvenient bits out, unlike others who have inhabited this forum for a time.

Therefore if you or ANYONE sends me an e-mail to my private e-mail address, namely ajsbennett@btinternet.com, asking to see this original e-mail exchange, I will simply click on 'Forward' and will pass you a copy of that original e-mail.

Though I am not a 'tecchie', I am advised that by clicking on 'Properties' or something like that anyone can easily verify the authenticity or otherwise of any e-mail.

My offer is open from now onwards.

P.S. There are other e-mails between Stevo and Kirwans.

badmanners wrote:It's OK Tony, you can cut out the mega-shouting, we can all read you know.

But my original questions still stand -

1) why on earth would Kirwan involve himself with such nonsense (he even confuses the Bindman letter to people like Morais with the McCann case, when it had sod all to do with it, and makes it sound as if Bindman's had turned on the Foundation too - if they did you kept very quiet about it)

That would appear to be question for David Kirwan, not me.

2) why are you posting this up now - are you trying to cause trouble for David Kirwan?

No. This communication was posted further to the enquiries by 'Nits', which I think were reasonable, about why Debbie Butler and I went to Kirwans for advice.

badmanners wrote:And you still maintain that the Hollingsworth article D notice was something, indeed anything, to do with the McCann story in any REAL way?

Only you see, I happen to regard that whole idea as one of the most hilarious bits of tinfoil hattery ever.
And it made my eyes water to see David Kirwan taken in by the same tosh.

Stephanie wrote:Why so vexed?...as for Stevo...well not even you question his reliability now so why are you asking us to?, and if said E-mails are in your possession why not post them on here (as you do with all your other E-mails) rather than shout about them? The E-mail is fake IMO doctored maybe to take yourself in but then again only Kirwans can answer that can't they! And I have no reason to shout or become obtrusive why have you ?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Why so vexed?...as for Stevo...well not even you question his reliability now so why are you asking us to?, and if said E-mails are in your possession why not post them on here (as you do with all your other E-mails) rather than shout about them? The E-mail is fake IMO doctored maybe to take yourself in but then again only Kirwans can answer that can't they! And I have no reason to shout or become obtrusive why have you ?

The large letters were to make it absolutely clear to all and sundry that these two emails were genuine and that I do not under any circumstances 'doctor' e-mails. If I occasionally omit a part, I will say so and give a brief explanation as to why.

The authenticity had been disputed elsewhere. I don't mind fair criticism but I will not accept claims that I doctor e-mails.

In order to further rebut the charge that either I or Stevo doctored these e-mails, here is a further run of e-mails between Stevo and Kirwans dated 23 and 24 September. Bear in mind I was probably on Hadrians Wall or walking round Bambergh Castle at the time so had no idea what was going on until I returned from holiday.

These e-mails are copied and pasted without any alteration whatsoever:

++++++++++

Stevo to David Kirwan 23 Sep

From: TFM - Admin [mailto@truthformadeleine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:49 PM
To: 'david@davidkirwan.co.uk'
Cc: 'DEBORAH BUTLER'
Subject: Getting the website up again

Dear David,

I understand you are now acting on behalf of Debbie Butler and Anthony Bennett.

If there is anything I can do to help please let me know. I have been totally committed to this case since it began and I have the most websites devoted to the case. In less than two years I have had over 10 million hits on the sites.

For now, I direct you to what we have to do with the website (MADELEINEFOUNDTION.ORG). We have been given a choice of 1) remove the material in their complaint or 2) file a counter-notification.

You can see Carter-Ruck’s letter of complaint to the hosting company attached to this message.

Some background on the 3 images in their complaint (they are also attached to the email).

1. (splash.jpg) This is a composite image that I created from scratch by combining an image of Madeleine's face with the bedroom from apartment 5A . The entire image cannot be copyright the McCanns because I created it.

2 & 3 are essentially the exact same image but they appear in two different places. The image is a photo of Tony's book "60-Reasons". On the front cover of his book he has a photo of Madeleine. (intropic1.jpg and booksemicircle.jpg)

The image they are complaining about derives from the same video clip and is contained on a poster which is available for free download without restriction from the official Find Madeleine website here: http://www.findmadeleine.com/support/downloads.html

I worked in computer software for 20 years and the way I am interpreting this is that they are giving a number of images of Madeleine away freely and so to exercise control over copyright of one of those free images seems like they would have very few grounds on which to do so.

If we do solution (1), I would just change the images and they would put the site back up and I guess we'd hear no more from Carter Ruck on the copyright issue. All they need for this is a one liner statement under penalty of perjury that we would remove the images.

I, John Doe, under penalty of perjury, will remove the offending content at [insert full resolving URL] promptly after the reactivation of my services.

/John Doe/

John Doe

(Please accept the above as an electronic signature.)

If we do solution (2), the counter notification, then I need the following statement from you so I can inform them that we wish to challenge their copyright claim. They would put the site back up and if they hear nothing more within 10 days that would be the end of it.

Here is what I need from you or Debbie (this is exactly what they wrote):

A. An electronic signature of the Infringer. (This can be a scanned copy of your physical signature, or as simple as typing your full name.)

B. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

C. A statement under penalty of perjury that the Infringer has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

D. The Infringer's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the Infringer consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district of Arizona, or if the Infringer's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which Go Daddy may be found, and that the Infringer will accept service of process from the Complaining Party or an agent of such Party.

So something like:

I John Doe, under penalty of perjury;

1. Identify the following material as being disputed:

· The image of Madeleine McCann's face superimposed on the bedroom at Apartment 5A in the Ocean Club Resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the URL: http://madeleinefoundation.org/

· An image on a drop down box controlled by cookies and which shows a semicircle of books on the URL: http://madeleinefoundation.org/main/

· A photograph of the Madeleine Foundation's book in a semicircle of books at this URL: http://madeleinefoundation.org/our-book/

2. I have a good faith belief that the material in question does not violate copyright laws and will consent to jurisdiction in any judicial district in which GoDaddy may be found and will accept service of process from the Complaining Party or an agent of such party.

I guess if you can type that and sign it and scan it in, I can email it back to them once I receive it from you.

I can do either solution and will leave it up to you. The main point is to get the website back up and running.

Best regards,

Stevo

++++++++++

DAVID KIRWAN TO STEVO 24 SEP

From: David Kirwan [mailto: dkirwan@kirwanssolicitors.co.uk ]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:23 PM
To: admin@truthformadeleine.com
Cc: Michael Sandys
Subject: RE: Getting the website up again

Michael Sandys my Partner is considering the options this evening. My inclination is option 2. I will leave the decision to him.

DSK

++++++++++

Stevo to David Kirwan later on 24 Sep

From: TFM - Admin [mailto@truthformadeleine.com]
Sent: 24 September 2009 19:56
To: David Kirwan
Cc: Michael Sandys
Subject: RE: Getting the website up again

Dear David & Michael:

To save you time…

During the Obama campaign last year, an artist (Shepard Fairey) took an Obama photograph and “created” a new image based on that image. AP claimed it owned the original copyright and threatened legal action. In a pre-emptive strike, Fairey took it to Federal Court in Manhattan and asked a judge to declare it “fair use”. I am unsure if there has been a ruling on the case as yet. It is a broadly similar type of argument to the one relating to the use of the montage on the Madeleine Foundation homepage.

[Obama images - unable to copy on to here - T.B.]

But I cannot see how the two photographs of Tony Bennett’s book can be a copyright violation because the photo was taken by Tony of his own book and the McCanns do not own those images at all.

However…there may be more mileage in simply changing the images and then claiming that they were changed due to hostility/bullying by Carter Ruck. This would then be even more newsworthy in my opinion.

Research links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/arts/design/10fair.html

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/the-ap-obama-referencing

Stevo

++++++++++

DAVID KIRWAN TO STEVO 24 SEP EVENING

From: "David Kirwan"
Add sender to ContactsTo: admin@truthformadeleine.com
Cc: "Michael Sandys" ,
"DEBORAH BUTLER" ,
ajsbennett@btinternet.com,
nick@masonmedia.co.uk

If technically Stevo can accomplish the option in the final paragraph of his message below then I am attracted to the idea of the resultant publicity which we may gain.

DSK

---ENDS---

Raffle wrote:This case sure has attracted some nutters

badmanners wrote:

Raffle wrote:This case sure has attracted some nutters

And people who think like this:

I am attracted to the idea of the resultant publicity which we may gain.

Who is the 'we' here - the Madeleine Foundation or Kirwan's?

badmanners wrote:

Raffle wrote:This case sure has attracted some nutters

And people who think like this:

I am attracted to the idea of the resultant publicity which we may gain.

Who is the 'we' here - the Madeleine Foundation or Kirwan's?