Ron Paul Calls on United Nations to Confiscate

Update: The dispute was peacefully resolved on May 22, 2013. WIPO ruled that shall remain with its current owners. The fight for liberty continues.

  • Patrick Henry

    This is what you get for believing in this huckster in a cheap suit. There is a reason he never one, one is his hatred for true freedom and a legal hatred for anyone who is more successful. hopefully this teaches you what the man he raised will do!

    • You disgrace the name Patrick Henry.

  • Hahahahaha

    I thought you people believed in a free market? In what crazy liberal commie society could we possibly own something that is not rightfully ours? This man has paid for and maintained this site and now Ronnie the crybaby wants to take everyones marbles and run home.

    Ron Paul is looking for a handout at the expense of the owner of this site…and worse yet, he is abusing the international government to extort the rightful owner of this site of what is rightfully his.


    • Joe

      In a free market, one entity can’t just absorb another entity simply because of a name. If I’m a Star Wars fan, and I make a Star Wars fan site, spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours maintaining that website and collect a good number of emails from users who trust my site enough to reveal their email address, Disney doesn’t have the right to come along and claim ownership of the website because it has “Star Wars” in the domain name and bases its existence off of Star Wars material. Ron Paul should pay them fair market value for the website, and it was generous of them to offer for free. They’re not selling Ron Paul his own name. They put a lot of time, money, and work into this website and deserve to be compensated for the capital they invested. The fact that Ron Paul’s success fed the success of this website is an irrelevant externality. It would be like milk sales going up because cookie sales went up and the cookie company claims that the milk company owes them money because they owe their success to the cookie companies successful marketing.

      Regardless of what the precedent is, for a politician who speaks out against unjust laws like eminent domain that go against free market ideas to use laws to extort something he wants from someone else is disgusting. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul because of this. You can call the site owners greedy all you want, but wouldn’t a true libertarian argue that it’s their right to be greedy? They own the site. They have the right to be as greedy as they’d like.

      • Luke


        You’re point is ONLY valid in regards to domain names. Print the Star Wars logo on a t-shirt and see what happens. Domains live by their own rules.

        As a libertarian, I do believe the site owner should win the legal battle, no question. But that has nothing to do with what is right, and what is wrong.

        Lastly, milk has intrinsic value. has zero intrinsic value. Its worth is not just “fed” by Dr Paul, it is exclusively driven by Dr Paul.

        I do not like the approach of any of this. Dr Paul does appear to be a bit overly aggressive in this case. But, its probably because he took it as a slap in the face when one of his “supporters” who has spent years profiting off of his name comes up with a $800K and/or $250K figure for a $10 registration. Ron Paul is not rich enough to produce that sort of cash.

        But, there are points to be made on both sides. I think if both parties could just start over we’d get a different outcome.


  • fazsha

    Ron Paul’s going to be dead in a few years, and it’s sad that the last thing we’ll remember is that his so called supporters refused to let him use the name without payment so that he could continue his contributions to liberty.

    I’ve spent hundreds of hours myself on Ron Paul, but never expected payment from him. I owe him, not the other way around.

  • With all of the grief Ron Paul has undergone concerning those stupid newsletters he didn’t even write I’d think it should be obvious why he wants the site under his control. If you’re in it for the liberty movement sell it at cost and revel in the fact that you have helped the freedom movement tremendously, if you’re in it for yourselves sell it for profit and take money away from the movement. End of story.

    • Patrick Henry

      Ron paul preaches free market BS but when it applies to him somehow its different?

  • Danielle Bavecker

    ronpauldotcom: “Pay us for our grass-roots volunteer efforts!”

    Ron Paul: “Save me, United Nations! Your one-world government is my wallet’s only hope!”

  • You Should Give it To Him

    You should give it to ron paul just to show everyone what a hypocrit ron paul is.

    By giving away you will be confirming that Ron Paul is a terrible politician and a hypocrit.

    In fact the fact they did this suggests you just wasted 4 years of your time on this endevor.

    Ron Paul betrayed you.

  • Winelush

    Their email list is only 170,000 wow, Dr Paul not as popular as he thinks.

  • Winelush

    Wait a cotton picking minute. Ron Paul has preached eradicating the UN for years, citing rampant anti-Americanism now he wants to use the UN to get his website????? Hypocrite. I hope the delusional fans keep the site. And i hope the UN tells him to stuff it. He’s got millions in his PAC, pay them. For reference:

  • Napolean

    To all the people complaining that $250k is too much to ask for the domain, have you considered how many millions of dollars the people working on this domain brought in to Ron Paul’s campaign from money bomb promotions?

    If we want to make this a private property debate. Domain names are not birth rights. You are not entitled to a domain name just because your parents happened to choose that name for you. If this were the case, the domain would have never been for sale in the first place.

    The people behind this domain put in a lot of work on behalf of Ron Paul, and asked for nothing in return. Now they are being bullied into just handing over everything, disrupting hundreds (if not thousands) of links directed toward urls on this domain, for zero compensation. Just because Ron Paul didn’t have the foresight to buy the domain himself? If he wanted this domain so bad, he should have secured the domain BEFORE somebody else put all the work into building it. How convenient it would be if anyone could just take something after someone else improved it.

    What if this domain was owned by someone else who happened to have the legal name “Ron Paul”, would politician Ron Paul be bullying this guy to give up his domain because politician Ron Paul is more important than him? Would you support politician Ron Paul’s use of virtual imminent domain? If not, then why are you supporting it just because the person who currently owns the domain is not legally named Ron Paul?

    • Edward

      The current owners bought it on Ebay back in 2008 from a man whose name was also Ron Paul…they didn’t cybersquat and initially register the domain themselves…I remember going to the Ebay auction back in 2008 and seeing go for over 25K…a friend of mine told me this
      “If Ron Paul could hire competent people, he would already own the damned thing. They are supporters who bought it at an auction, while his staff, as usual, ignored all the pleas from the grassroots to buy the damned thing for Ron.
      No sympathy for him at all in this. The people that bought it kept the domain from falling into neocon hands, they spent their time and their money using the site to do nothing but support Ron and his message, and this is the thanks they get. No wonder libertarianism turns off so many people.
      If Ron had any sense, he’d hire them to run the site. That’s the win/win solution. But selling it to him would mean it will be run badly. If you doubt that for one second, check out his recent Facebook and Twitter posts. I suspect this is just another effort by those close to him to cash in on his name, now that the campaign well has run dry.
      The story is this: another guy named Ron Paul owned it. He wasn’t a fan and wouldn’t sell it until the 2008 campaign was winding down. Then, he put it on eBay because they couldn’t get on touch with Ron through the campaign.
      I was one of the people calling and emailing the campaign. I had Benton’s cell phone number – I personally left him messages. I called the office several times, I emailed the eBay listing to every Ron Paul contact I could find. The people that bought it did him a favor.

  • Ken J

    People who signed up on this site are most certain to have also joined Campaign for Liberty and made donations to Ron Paul’s campaigns in ’08 and ’12. Email addresses to people he already has aren’t worth anything to Dr. Paul.

    If this site wants to contend that the 170,000 addresses it has are a unique and UNTAPPED resource for Dr. Paul then maybe it would be worth a high price. I find this doubtful.

    Maybe you should openly send out an email poll and ask your list if they are already members of CFL or other official Ron Paul efforts. Then adjust your offer based on those who are only on this website plus a reasonable $5000 for the domain name.

    • Edward

      You forgot that it cost the owners $25K to acquire the domain on Ebay

  • Patrick Becker

    If you did all of this for Ron Paul’s cause then you should have no reason to want money directly from him as payment for your actions. If you are truly a person who supports a man like him then you should be open to the idea of handing over the domain of both websites. I believe the way you are handling it thus far is irresponsible and disrespectful .

  • Ricky G.

    An excerpt from the letter written by to Ron Paul

    “If you do insist on obtaining (it is the best Ron Paul related domain name), we could relocate our grassroots site elsewhere and SELL YOU THE DOMAIN NAME at its current market price of $250,000. That would include a copy of our 170,000 strong email list; these supporters proactively signed up for our email updates, they expect and welcome frequent communications, and they are completely “untapped” in terms of donations. This means that you (and/or Campaign for Liberty) could easily make back the purchase price in a matter of days. Only you can put this list to its best possible use, which is why we’d INCLUDE IT AS A FREE BONUS WITH RONPAUL.COM.

    There is no argument to the contrary that this site intends to sell the domain name and was using the mailing list simply to sweeten the deal. The fact that you justify the price with claims that the supporters on the list are “untapped” only solidifies the argument that you are only merely seeking financial gains from the domain names because you, not being Ron Paul, could not have legally solicited your members for donations with any success. As the courts would say “If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose”.

  • Rich Davis

    A perfect example of how ignorant some people can be, and all because of a tweet. This is a man who has kept his integrity throughout the years, and stood up for our constitution, against the odds. This is a man with great courage, and understanding of how are system is suppose to work, so we can remain a free people. Free from the tyrants who have taken over our congress. These are the one’s we should be talking about. The one’s who lack integrity, and who have just selfishness, and greed. We let words on paper, or a screen sway our beliefs in the blink of an eye. I do not know much about domain names, but i do know that it is his name, and he should have the right to it. You people should know more than others how important it is for us to have men like Ron Paul in our corner, and to compromise this in any way could be crucial in our fight for true freedom. We are being herded toward a cliff, and People like Ron Paul are needed to stop us from going over the edge.

  • Terry Hulsey

    Obviously the site has real money value. This value was created not by Mr. Paul’s name — it was created by the current owners of the site.
    This issue has nothing to do with cybersquatting, which requires bad faith use of the name, although I’m quite sure the anti-intellectual property anarchists will try to give Ron Paul this license to steal.
    It is perfectly reasonable to offer to sell something of value, created by honest effort, to a free marketplace. Let Mr. Paul take some of the money he is no longer squandering on Jesse Benton and buy this at a fair market price.
    Terry Hulsey

    • Ricky G.

      That argument might hold up had this site been utilized for some other purpose, but you are delusional if you believe its value derives from the sites creator in this case. Just take a gander to the right side of the comments section, find me one piece of original work the website has over there. No one on this site truly believes that this domain name is valuable because of the current owners own creativity or “honest” work. The site misrepresents everything on it as their own by blatantly copying the logo designs, slogans, and original publications that were the product of Ron Paul’s own creativity and “Honest” effort.

    • Rich Davis

      Just because there have been unconstitutional laws put in place to give people the right to steal someone’s name does’nt mean it is right.

  • John Lilly

    What a bunch of whiners. The election is over. Your “investment” didn’t pan out. Now, give the man his name back. Domain names only cost $15. – are you expecting a bailout from Dr. Paul on your bad investment?

  • robin

    My advise is to wait and find out the facts before you jump to conclusions and this is why this discussion is very dangerous. Didn’t people learn anything during this campaign about the disinfo out there? What was the purpose of this site=to make money or to spread the word of liberty? I suspect there’s much more to this story than is being communicated here and people are jumping on the bandwagon without knowing all the details/facts.

  • Steeleye

    @Butt Hoe: The $250,000 was to give him their mailing list. If you think that that’s an unreasonable price for a good mailing list … i have to question your understanding and/or commitment to capitalist/libertarian principles

    • Ricky G.

      @Steeleye: No it wasn’t, the mailing list was offered to Ron Paul, per the e-mail posted by this sites owner, as “a free bonus” had he agreed to purchase both for the $250,000 asking price…. I have to question your understanding and/or commitment to reading and the english language before opening your highly opinionated mouth. If thats the amount of effort you put into studying capitalist/libertarian principles, I wouldn’t trust your opinion on the matter any more than I would Obama’s.

    • Ken J

      Did anyone consider that Ron Paul probably has MOST ALL of the 170,000 email addresses already?

      The value to him would ONLY be in having the addresses which reach people he doesn’t have in his current list.

      People who signed up on this site are most certain to have also joined Campaign for Liberty and made donations to Ron Paul’s campaigns in ’08 and ’12.

      If this site wants to contend that the 170,000 addresses it has are unique and UNTAPPED resource for Dr. Paul then maybe it would be worth a high price. I find this dubious.

      Maybe you should openly send out an email poll and ask your list if they are already members of CFL or other official Ron Paul efforts. Then adjust your offer based on those who are only on this website + something reasonable for the domain name ($10,000).

  • nick

    I find it suspicious that this information is only posted on this site. If they ARE sheisters, it’ll come out. It WOULD make sense for them to trash Paul’s name if they are what it seems. A bunch of stuff pushers. You notice the way they say they have “distributed” Ron Paul swag, instead of selling it at a markup? They have every right to it, that’s the market, but if I were Paul, I’d call for a boycott of the site, and I’d explain the reasons to my supporters.

  • I guess I don’t get why so many people, including the owners of, would believe for a second that Ron Paul, the man himself, is directly advising his lawyers to use government (via the U.N., even) to forcefully obtain ownership and control over the domain name. Were you people (so-called “fans”) born yesterday? Dr. Paul, a true patriot, has been an icon of consistency for over 30 years – something that’s acknowledged by, not only his followers but, most of his enemies, of all people. What makes a person believe, for even a second, that Ron Paul (a bastion of Internet freedom) would possibly direct anyone, including his lawyers, to take such action?! Just because these “representatives” (the lawyers) have chosen to pursue such a course doesn’t mean Ron Paul (really) has much to do with HOW they are attempting to obtain the domain. Do you really think Ron Paul would go against a philosophy he’s been espousing for so long, bringing himself under national scrutiny, just to obtain a domain name? Good grief! To think that having ownership and control over a domain name will make a world of difference in the fight for liberty is a true joke indeed… especially since the domain in question ( is (questionably, now) owned by (supposed) fans of the man himself.

    Really? I mean, REALLY? Lawyers are still independent agents, too, remember. They can and do make their own choices, often for their own selfish interests. Let’s give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt here, and simply assume that he is continuing to stay true to the philosophy of liberty we all love so much. Let’s assume that, however, those representing him don’t quite understand (and, therefore, are not quite as devoted) to the message of liberty as he and all of us are. Did we decide to hate Ron Paul because of the questionable actions of Jesse Benton (for he too, at one time, was an official representative of the good doctor)?

    I guess I’m just amazed that our hero would be demonized so quickly over such a stupid thing as believing he’s DIRECTLY behind an attempt to seize a domain name via government force. To the supporters that have chosen to defect over this: GROW UP, then think for a minute before you react to the headline.

    PS : Even though I’m a HUGE fan of Ron Paul, and have been for the past 5 years, this is like the 4th time I’ve ever even been to this site. Everyone is different, and just because “” exists doesn’t mean they’re patronized by every Ron Paul supporter that exists. For what it’s worth.

    • Edward

      Did you see the complaint/legal document?

      His signature is there…so yes, he is directly behind the attempt to seize the domain name.

      • Just because his signature is on the page doesn’t make him directly behind it. It is always a legal formality to obtain all the appropriate signatures. Most of these are done with a “OK, everyone sign and we can move forward.” That doesn’t mean that everyone that signs it is directly behind the actions planned. I signed for my student loans, I signed for all kinds of things because it was a legal requirement, but it doesn’t mean I agreed to half of the ridiculous shit I was bound to in the end.

    • Ricky G.

      Ok, I have been a supporter of Ron Paul like many hear for quite a while now, and its killing me seeing these types of responses. READ THE DOCUMENTS!

      Page 32/52 Annexes to the complaint. located at the link a few scrolls above here.

      There is no question whether it was Dr. Paul or not, the man signed it for christ sake.

      The real problem is the actions of both sides in this argument and who you believe deserves the right to the domain name. Its a tough topic to be discussed on a board like this one where a great many will outright call for Ron Paul’s head when they hear we went to the UN. This is utter non-sense and people making this argument need to go reflect on why they support Ron Paul in the first place. The fact is when it comes to internet domain names there is only one place granted authority to pass judgement regarding it’s fair use and ownership status. It just so happens that a UN agency was made to be that controlling entity. So in regards to that whole debacle, Paul has no other option to pursue recovery of any perceived damages or to retrieve the rights to property he believes to be his.

      The real issue at stake here, and I’m on the fence like most people, is whether or not you believe in the theory of Intellectual Property Rights as they apply to one’s name. In this case it’s proven that Dr. Paul owns the trademark to his name thus giving him legal protection against unauthorized use and distribution of it, a fact that serves as precedent to have his name returned to him by WIPO.

      I, like many here, have struggled over this trying to figure out just where I stand on such an abstract legal concept that has economic implications associated with it. On the websites side, the argument goes that it is just a domain name and that because they got to it first and are the registered owners of the domain name, they retain the right to sell, trade, transfer or maintain the ownership rights at their discretion. In Ron Paul’s camp they argue that because the website name is the same as Dr. Paul’s trademark, except for the .com suffix,it should be removed from this hosts control and grant ownership to the ORIGINAL owner, Dr. Paul.

      Years ago I would have quickly sided with the website and rejected Paul’s actions just like many on here have. After all, its just his name right? Well in my opinion no, its much more than just his name, and thats why I believe Paul is in the right on this one. Had this site merely purchased the domain name in an attempt to snatch it and sell it to the highest bidder (cyber-squatters) or was using it for a purpose unrelated to Ron Paul, I would have accepted that and been ok with whatever they offered Paul in response to a purchase request. The domain name owners instead, used the name as a means of promoting not only Ron Paul’s name, but his likeness, ideas, policies, and every other aspect of his life for personal economic gains. They did so in a way that has deceived many unknowing visitors who truly believed they were on Ron Paul’s personal webpage, and led them to donate and or buy products with the thought it would be going to him and his cause.

      We can argue over semantics and create all this commotion about how he “abandoned the cause” but at the end of the day, he’s in the right on this one and is utilizing the ONLY means possible of correcting his perceived injustice, something which i’d bet every self-proclaimed libertarian is guilty of at some point in their lives.

  • GreedySlum



    • Napolean

      Give it back? They never took it from him.

      Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is more important than the person who bought the domain, and built the site around it?

      That the person who bought and built this site, has less rights to property than someone like Ron Paul just because of who Ron Paul is?

      I’ll never contribute or work for another campaign again. What’s the point? It’s not enough that you send them money and put in hours (and months) of work, now they get to decide its wasn’t enough, and they want more.

      Forget about building a web site, a politician will just relax while you do all the work, and take it from you when they decide its ripe enough.