Joe Levi

It's a story of David versus Goliath, in the most literal sense.

It began with a man named Uzi Nissan who moved to the United States of America in 1976.

Back then, Nissan Motors made a little line of cars under the Datsun name brand. My mom owned and drove a little, yellow "honey bee" when I was a kid.

In 1980, Uzi Nissan started a vehicle repair business that serviced foreign cars, including the Datsun; he called it "Nissan Foreign Car."

In December 1987, Uzi Nissan started an import/export business known as "Nissan International." Nissan Motor was not well known as Nissan, but primarily as Datsun. 

On May 14, 1991, "Nissan Computer Corp." was incorporated in the state of North Carolina. Uzi Nissan was then, and still is now, the company President.  He used "Nissan" as part of his trade name in connection with the sale of computer hardware, computer maintenance, networking, computer training and other consulting services related to computers.

On June 4, 1994, Uzi Nissan registered the domain name "nissan.com" and created a web site to promote computer related products and services on the Internet. (On March 17, 1996 he registered "nissan.net" and began offering ISP and other internet services.)

In July of 1995, he obtained a service mark registration for Nissan and his logo from the State of North Carolina.

In 1999, Nissan Motors decided they wanted to take away Uzi Nissan's domain name and use it for their cars (which were no longer "Datsun's," and had been switched to "Nissan's"). The court battle ensued.

Any other person would have caved under the pressure and financial burden to fight a Goliath like Nissan Motors. Uzi didn't relent, and didn't give up. It was his name, he wasn't using it in an infringing or diluting manner. It shouldn't have mattered... Except that Nissan didn't register the domain name that they wanted before someone else did, and rather than kick themselves and live with it, they decided to try and "steal it" (though the court process) from the rightful owner: Uzi Nissan.

So far, Uzi Nissan is winning the war... he's lost a few battles along the way, and it's probably cost him a fortune to litigate. But we all (domain and website owners everywhere) owe him a debt of gratitude for his work. He's fighting the war for us -- and hopefully setting a precedence that what we have registered legally rightfully belongs to us, and the shortsightedness of anyone (especially big companies) cannot just come in and take it away.

Uzi sums it up best on his site:

We cannot allow this type of corporate terrorism to affect our freedom, where "the the law of the land" becomes solely based on the "law of the jungle" thus affecting every citizen of our great nation.

Public awareness of this unacceptable corporate behavior is crucial to eradicating it and we are asking you to take a stand and make a difference on this issue.

(Permission for use of the "No Nissan Car for Me" graphic granted by Uzi Nissan.)

If you liked this post, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed.

Senator Jones,

First let me commend Utah's Legislature for placing sessions online, and more importantly in a podcast that I can subscribe to and listen to on my way to and from work. This speaks highly of our Legislature and opens the political process to the younger generation, and I thank you and the rest of the Legislature for it.

I have been listening to the Senate Floor Debates of 02/05/2008 and took particular interest in your comments on SB 67.

You stated: "If I own a business and I own the building and I own the parking then the rights of the gun owner would outweigh my rights as a property owner, correct?"

Senator Madsen addressed this in his response, but did not (in my opinion) address the root of argument, that being a Right of one person shouldn't infringe the Right of another, especially when it comes to the ability to defend oneself from injury or death.

You continued: "I feel like this strips so much power and authority away from the property owner. I just don't understand the purpose of this bill." (1) Isn't the property owner stripping the right of their employee/customer to be able to defend themself?

Let me try and explain my interpretation of the purpose of this bill. Based on my impression of your argument, you feel the property owner should be able to prohibit an employee or customer from bringing a weapon for the purpose of self-defense on their property. This seems fine on the surface, but upon closer inspection, this means an employee or customer must leave their means of self-defense at home and leaves them without that protection while traveling to and from work/their place of business. The property owner has effectively disarmed their employee/customer while on public property as well (which is a clear violation of State Law). (2) Should the private property owner's rights extend past their property in this manner?

Furthermore, you concluded that "The rights of the gun owner should not trump the rights of the property owner."

A recent tragedy illustrates my points:

Trolley Square has a policy prohibiting firearms on their property. It was one individual brought a concealed firearm on their property that was instrumental in ending a killing spree. He was an off-duty police officer that willfully violated the property owner's rights and posted notification by bringing his firearm onto their property.

Why weren't charges filed against him? Why wasn't he disciplined for violating private property rights? Because he's a cop and it's his job to protect us? Is that the responsibility of police officers?

(3) Are we going to hold law enforcement agencies responsible and liable for protection of the individual?

(4) Doesn't my "job" of husband and father require that I protect myself and my family should need arise? (Hopefully that need never does arise.)

Since courts have held that the police aren't responsible or liable for the protection of the individual, if a property owner removes my right and obligation to defend myself and my family, (5) are you advocating that you're going to hold the private property owner responsible and liable?

If so:

• (6) Would you be willing to introduce and support a bill that would require any private property owner having a policy prohibiting a means (or device) for self-defense (including, but not limited to firearms) be liable for any injury or death sustained where the employee/customer (or their surviving family) felt that absent said policy the employee/customer would have been able to defend themself (both while in transit to/from and while on said property)? (6a) If not, please explain why the property owner should not carry liability for their actions/policy.
• (7) Would you be willing to introduce and support a provision to such a bill requiring a private property owner to post a bond to cover any damages caused to any individual while in transit to/from and while on said property?
• (8) Would you be willing author and support an modification to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that would change the wording thereof to be "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (except by private property owners)."? (8a) If not, upon which legal grounds do you base your contention that a property owner can infringe on the people's right to keep their arms?
• (9) We already require government agencies to provide secure storage facilities for their employees/"customers" for areas where firearms (and other self-defense weapons) are prohibited, why shouldn't private property owners be required to provide identical facilities when they make the same prohibitions?

I await your numbered responses to the several questions above.

With respect,

Joe Levi

If you liked this post, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed.

The final episode of Jericho aired yesterday and brought the second season's theme to a tidy end. If you missed it you can watch the full episode online at CBS.com. Spoilers follow, you've been warned.

From the beginning I've loved Jericho.

In the first season, a nuclear attack is made against the country (something that's sadly becoming more of a reality) and the little town of Jericho, KS is spared, but caught up in the middle of everything. They avoid the imediate blasts and the aftermath of fallout and radiation, but find themselves caught up with having to provide not only for themselves but for the influx of refugees that are left homeless and wounded by the attack.

The town pulls together and makes ends meet, but illustrates the potential for internal strife, the complications of free-trade in a communal emergency, the tensions with the neighboring towns (New Breen in particular), and eventually leads into what will become a full-blown battle. Season one ends with the series being cancelled.

Due mainly to a grass roots, online campaign, CBS sees that online numbers really do matter, and when they factor online viewership into the equation, the ratings for the show jumped almost an entire point (which is miraculous, but telling of where media distrubution is heading). You could watch Jerich the same day it aired online at CBS.com, though the XBOS Live Marketplace, and rumor has it through Netflix on demand and iTunes as well (Zune Marketplace where where you?). That's an awefully large chunk of viewers not to include in ratings.

The campaign was successful and fans were given another season (albeit only 7 episodes split in two groups).

Season two stared with the Cheyenne government's military (under a new President-elect, flying a new flag, amd going by the moniker "The Allied States of America") cluster bombing the boarder skirmish between Jericho and New Breen. Then the occupation began -- under the guise of a reconstruction. Season two changed from a small town pulling together and addressing simple needs such as power (generated via wind turbines), food planted and grown on family farms, and salt from the town's mine traded with trading posts for other staples to something entirely different: how a town deals with an assumed reconstruction turned occupation by a corrupt government using private security forces to handle everything from reconstruction projects to trading in old for new currency.

I won't go in to details about how the season and the series ultimately end, but it involved a piece of evidence that will prove the conspiracy and tip the power away from the new Cheyenne government and the Allied States of America, the statement by the mayor of Jericho at the Constitutional Convention that a government prefers a citizenry that can't shoot back after the Second Amendment was written out of the New Constitution (before lunch!), and the Embassy of the Independant Republic of Texas stepping in to expose the evidence to anyone that will listen.

Season two ends with two Cheyenne fighters being shot down with the Texas Air National Guard, and the assumption that America is poised for a second Civil War. Even the occupation of Jericho by Cheyenne's Military is convinced they're on the wrong side and tear the Allied flag from their uniforms.

It's really a must-see, and to the best of my knowledge you can still watch every episode streamed from CBS.com (not in high-definition, and not in true full-screen, but good enough to beat buying the episodes on XBOX Live Marketplace).

Let me know what you think... and how you're preparing your family just in case something like that actually happens...

If you liked this post, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed.

I recently sent the following letter to Senators Orrin Hatch (R, UT) and Robert Bennett (R, UT). Replies follow.

Dear Senator:

I urge you to OPPOSE the nomination of Michael J. Sullivan for the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Under his leadership, the ATF has gone berserk. Sure, the problems at ATF didn't originate with him, but Sullivan has certainly done nothing to put out the fire.

In July, a House committee report on HR 3093 rebuked the ATF for pursuing license revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on "violations that consist largely of [minor] record keeping errors of various types" that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime.

Red's Trading Post in Idaho is one of the many gun dealers that have been frequently harassed by the ATF. Even though one ATF agent told the manager that Red's was "one of the best small gun shops" he'd ever seen, the ATF has continued its assault on this gun shop (which has been in business for decades) for minor clerical mistakes and failing to put up a poster.

According to WorldNetDaily, one judge who is familiar with the Red's Trading Post case found "the ATF speaks of violations found during the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems." The judge also noted the ATF was exaggerating the situation by "double counting" some violations.

Finally, the fact that Ted Kennedy wants to work with Sullivan on gun control is reason enough to find another candidate to head up the ATF. Kennedy said, "We'll miss him in Massachusetts, but he’ll be a strong leader at ATF, and I look forward to working with him on key issues on gun control."

Because of these concerns, I would ask that you please oppose the Sullivan nomination, and instead work with Gun Owners of America and the NRA to find a nominee who will protect the rights of innocent gun owners.

Senator Robert Bennett (R, UT) did not reply.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT) replied that he thinks the "most important criteria is the nominee's qualifications for the specific post [and in] general [he does] not believe that nominees for any position should be held up for purely political reasons."

In other words, someone's blatant disregard for one of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America is a "political reason" and shouldn't sway his or her nomination and/or appointment to any position within the Executive Branch.

Shame on you, Senator Hatch, for not upholding the oath that you swore to "protect and defend the Constitution" by doing everything in your power to block this nomination.

And shame on you, Senator Bennett, for not caring enough to reply.

If you liked this post, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed.

Last night my wife and P~ and I went to the Syracuse Planning Commission Meeting where (amongst other things) modification to Title X (that's "Title Ten" or "Title 10" to all you non-Romans out there), which outlines land usage in the city. What we were interested in was the clarification of whether or not chickens (hens, specifically) are allowed as "household pets." According to our Ordinance Secretary, so long as you don't have a rooster, and you obtain the "fowl" from a "State Licensed Pet Store" you're okay to have up to two hens -- but the wording is very confusing.

So, last night our Planning Commission Chairman introduced a modification to the Title that would allow up to 5 hens and/or rabbits and would do away with the "State Licensed Pet Store" requirement. The number of birds was debated a little amongst the commissioners, but none seemed opposed to the idea.

So, next the modified Title X (which isn't available online anywhere at the time of this writing) will be brought up for public comment on 3/4/2008. I would like "hens" or "chickens" replaced with "Egg Bearing Small Fowl" (which could include chickens and ducks, and exclude roosters), and I'd like the number to stay at 5 birds (which would give you 4 laying hens and one "dominant hen"; always subtract 1 from the number of hens if no rooster is present to give you the number of laying hens). 4 laying hens would provide a little less than two dozen eggs per week (depending on variety and conditions, of course), which should be enough eggs to supply a suburban family.

I'll be leaving the state on business the night of the 4th, so I'll most likely miss this meeting, but I'll prepare a document to be read on my behalf.

If you liked this post, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed.