Heavyweight Twitter Debate Happening Today (1.Viewing)

  • Topic Starter Topic Starter Esdiel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies: Replies 23
  • Views Views: Views 3,998
Esdiel

Esdiel

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Topics
134
Posts
1,193
Likes
1,006
Some heavyweights in the domain community are having somewhat of a heated debate on Twitter today.

If you dig in the comments you'll see they get into a number of things:

https://twitter.com/Berryhillj/status/1347924872928833536

Here's a glimpse:

Screen-Shot-2021-01-09-at-2-39-17-PM.png
 
Actually, FreeSpeech.com was launched in early 2019, not recently. [back when I was banned from ICANN working group's for calling out a lawyer who was on the losing side of a UDRP]

Today's debate was ultimately about censorship and free speech, i.e. the whole debate brought on by Twitter's decision to permanently ban Donald Trump.

As for Berryhill's initial tweet, I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about in regards to some alleged lawsuit against Rick Schwartz's associates. That was bizarre! Even Rick (who I emailed today) had no idea what Berryhill is talking about, and when pressed, Berryhill couldn't identify such a lawsuit.
 
In order to put the issue to rest, I challenged Berryhill to produce the evidence of the lawsuit tonight, with me being a plaintifff against one of Rick Schwartz's associates:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeKirikos/status/1348051183022333952

If he can produce it, I'll donate $100,000 *each* to EFF and to ICA.

Of course, that lawsuit doesn't actually exist, so my money is safe. But, now the burden has shifted to Berryhill to provide evidence of that lawsuit or back off from his statement.
 
Indeed, he must be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome or something! O:)

If anyone actually *believes* I sued one of Rick's associates, then ask Berryhill to produce the evidence (court records are public), and both ICA and EFF will be $100,000 richer! What happens if Berryhill *can't* produce that evidence? A lawyer shown to be making recklessly false statements of that nature? I leave it to you to decide how you would treat such a lawyer.

If I was an ICA member, I'd be begging Berryhill to produce the evidence, so that the ICA can get $100,000. Why is Berryhill denying them that money, if what Berryhill is saying is true??!!??
 
I'm guessing Berryhill is going to be walking back on that statement - and I hope he outright retracts it, apologizes and then explains himself. I wonder what it was though that convinced him to say it in the first place, it really is weird. I don't follow what's going on with ICANN, so I don't have any insight into that, but as far as I knew, both George and John have always had stellar reputations within the domain industry unless something has changed over the last decade that I haven't heard about. Apparently either John confused George with someone else (which I would find doubtful), or someone he represents made the false claim and then Berryhill repeated it with out verifying the information first.
 
While folks are entitled to their own opinions, they're not entitled to their own facts.

Berryhill was on Twitter today, but ignored the situation, instead focusing on his bike ride. Hmmmmm.
 
GeorgeK said:
While folks are entitled to their own opinions, they're not entitled to their own facts.

Berryhill was on Twitter today, but ignored the situation, instead focusing on his bike ride. Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

The whole situation is quite strange, especially coming from Berryhill.

At first I thought he was just trolling both you and Rick in a friendly/teasing way, but then things got surprisingly ugly. I was somewhat shocked because I always thought highly of both him and yourself.

Berryhill should really explain himself to you, whether it's privately or publicly... but maybe he can't since what he's referring to is protected by solicitor-client privilege? I don't know... but it crossed my mind. If it is privileged information, he probably shouldn't be alluding to it either.
 
Esdiel said:
Berryhill should really explain himself to you, whether it's privately or publicly... but maybe he can't since what he's referring to is protected by solicitor-client privilege? I don't know... just a wild guess, but it crossed my mind. If it is privileged information, he probably shouldn't be alluding to it either.
Click to expand...

Solicitor-client privilege isn't a factor. Court cases are public information. I've posted many of them in the past, e.g.

Verizon v. iREIT: http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/
FMA v. Lufthansa: http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa/
Microsoft v. Instaclick: http://www.loffs.org/microsoft-v-instaclick/

as have most other domain industry news sites over the years. If such a case filed by me against one of Rick Schwartz's associates actually existed, as Berryhill asserts, then he can tell the world (a) which court was the case filed in, (b) which date (c) name(s) of the defendant(s), (d) case number. He can even provide a copy of the statement of claim.

Put yourself in my shoes --- imagine he was making a false statement about you? It's time for him to put up, or shut up.

BTW, I made a poll on Twitter, and so far (still a couple of days left), 24 people have voted:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeKirikos/status/1348285636453740544

and of those 24, 66.7% think that Berryhill should have to donate the full $100,000 EACH to EFF and the ICA, should he fail to produce the proof of the alleged lawsuit filed by me against one of Rick's associates. Feel free to participate in the poll, if you've not already done so.
 
GeorgeK said:
Just to follow up, Rick Schwartz himself publicly confirmed that I never sued him
Click to expand...

That puts you half way home, all John has to do is to say he made a mistake and you are in the clear.
 
:o
MapleDots said:
John Berryhill has responded to me via email and asked me to post a statement for him...

I am preparing his email for posting.... hang tight everyone.
Click to expand...
 
[h]Not to be reproduced on other forums unless authorized by John Berryhill[/h]


Picture0008.png




John Berryhill said:
Some years ago, George Kirikos sued a number of people for defamation.
I recall having first heard of it on Rick's now long-defunct board, and
I had gotten the impression, due to the general opinion of George among
the members of that board, that his suit involved members of that board.

Apparently, I was mistaken about George's defamation suit. He has a
page memorializing it, and includes links to the similarly-worded
heartfelt apologies of a number of people who, it was alleged, said bad
things about George on IRC.

In the course of a discussion of the internet and speech issues, I made
reference to that suit which George pursued. However, I had conflated
where I recall having heard of it with who the targets of his suit
were. To be honest, I don't spend a lot of my time keeping track of
significant events in George's life. I don't know his age, what he
looks like, the name of his spouse and or children, if any, and so on.
I certainly didn't keep track of who he sued for saying bad things about
him.

However, for my convenience, this page: http://kirikos.com/legal/
should certainly be consulted by anyone having an interest in various
and important legal matters in which George has been involved, including
99-CV182688CM, George Kirikos (Plaintiff) v. Craig Nicks, Stacey Levin,
Eduardo Catucci, Christopher Morrison, Spring Rhey Munsel, Jared
Proudfoot, Paul Everingham and Steve Goegoes (Defendants).

In the extremely unlikely event I ever have anything to say to George in
an informal discussion online or otherwise, I will of course be sure to
conduct comprehensive research.

--------------


John Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq.
204 East Chester Pike
First Floor, Suite 3
Ridley Park, PA 19078
+1.610.565.5601 voice/fax
john@johnberryhill.com
Click to expand...



[notify]GeorgeK[/notify]


John Berryhill asked me to post this on his behalf
 
I'm not sure what to make of that. It was an acknowledgement of John "conflating" separate incidents and parties in his statements, but stopped well short of apologizing for anything.

My guess is that George's dogged ability to uncover hidden facts has at some point annoyed John over the years. Then during a more recent conversation regarding the internet and free speech, John felt the need to take a shot at George based on his conflated memories.

I've known who both of these guys are for more than 15 years, so over that many years, my memory isn't perfect either. I could have certainly conflated some facts over time as well. However, the more telling thing is the fact that John must have some ire for George, otherwise I doubt he would go out of his way to make that shot in the first place. And since John's response lacked any sort of apology, he obviously didn't like getting called out for his inaccurate statement either.

Interesting...
 
(the automatic notification emails don't seem to be going out, as I didn't get a notice of new posts --- just happened to check in now to see the new posts, otherwise I'd have responded earlier)

Exactly, rlm.....it's his typical lawyer speak, hoping this goes away, and not a sincere attempt to set things right. But, folks can judge for themselves, and feel free to contact me directly (my phone number is in my signature) if they had any questions/concerns, etc.

Berryhill definitely has "ire" -- we had a falling out long ago (more than 10 years ago), which I'll leave at that.
 
GeorgeK said:
the automatic notification emails don't seem to be going out, as I didn't get a notice of new posts
Click to expand...

Top right of Post #1 there is a subscribe link

I also tagged you which would have sent an email

Mine are coming in, here is another tag [notify]GeorgeK[/notify] (did you get that email)

Also check your spam
 
I already show up as "subscribed". The email notice I got had a subject of "Mentioned in.....". So, could be some issue when posts don't mention me. [and I have "Stay subscribed to this topic" checked above the "Submit" button, too]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free for everyone.

Sponsor
CanSpace
CIRA
FullHost
WHC
Donors (6)

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.

Members who recently read this topic: 2

Back
Top Bottom