Mr. Michael Hartmann has never responded to both Complainants A & B emails below.
5 emails copied below:
==============================================
Email 1
From: <michaeljhartmann@judiciary.gov.hk>
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Subject: Complaints against ADNDRC on Case no. HK-080####
To: [Complainant A]
15 March 2010
[Complainant A]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Complaints against ADNDRC on Case no. HK-080####
I refer to the above-captioned case and the complaints you made against the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (Hong Kong Office) ("ADNDRC") during the case proceedings. A Special Investigation Council has been formed and asked to consider whether there has been an efficient dealing with the complaints and, if not, whether the system can be improved.
I am writing on behalf of the Special Investigation Council.
Please be informed that our investigation has been completed subject only to matters you wish to bring to our attention.
Please also note that, in order to proceed further with your complaints, we need to know:
(1) the identity/identities, i.e. name(s), gender(s), nationality/nationalities of the person(s) in charge of your company, [Complainant A]; and
(2) your physical address and telephone number to allow us to get in touch with you.
You may write to us and provide us with the proof of the above-mentioned information, i.e. a copy of your identification card, either by post or email. Please be assured that your information will be kept confidential.
Your prompt reply is appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Hartmann
Chairman
ADNDRC Special Investigation Council
c.c. ADNDRC (Hong Kong Office)
==============================================
Email 2
From: [Complainant A]
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:11 AM
Subject: HK Arbitration Scandal - investigating complainants or investigating ADNDRC HK & the panelists?
To:
david.kreider@vodafone.com,
zhaoy@hku.hk, ADNDRC_HK <hkiac@adndrc.org>
Dear recipients,
Below is the FIRST EVER email we received from the 'Investigation Committee" appointed by ADNDRC HK ever since the Committee was setup by early Oct 2009, despite we and some other parties have repeatedly intended to contact the Committee and has voluntarily provided information, but each time, the ADNDRC HK administrator (Ricky Wong, being one of the party being complained of and be one of the should-be subjects of the investigation) spoke on behalf of the Committee and turned us down.
We, and no other cases respondents, no complainants of ADNDRC HK, we know of have ever been contacted by the Committee in the past 6 months in their course of "investigation". The email below however suggests that the investigation has been "COMPLETED", only subject to something seemingly not important to them - "matters we wish to bring to their attention"!! However, the investigation was supposed to be setup because of such complaints from us and others, but we have never been contacted despite our repeated trials!
It also appears that we are not the only complainants of ADNDRC HK, however, to the best of our knowledge, other complainants of ADNDRC HK we know of are not receiving similar email below. It looks very weird and skeptical.
Besides, we and other parties we know of, are not complaining on our own cases, but the noted misconducts and dishonesty of the administrators of ADNDRC HK and certain spotted panelists, based on our own cases and the study of extensive cases handled by ADNDRC HK, however, the email below appears to distort the focus to a particular case, which is not the substance of the various complaints.
The request for personal identities, contacts, addresses ... and proof of them in email below, are not necessary in conducting such investigation, not even the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption agents are requesting this in entertaining/ receiving a complainant. The email below appears that the investigation is on the complainants of ADNDRC HK (i.e we and other complainants), instead of on the conducts of ADNDRC HK and certain panelists??
We have never seen an open, creditable, impartial and independent investigation be conducted in such an increditable and unprofessional manner.
As suggested previously by many, it's likely to be a rubber stamp distorting the focus of the complaints. The complaints are not on particular cases, certain cases have been cited just for illustrating that the observations and complaints are not unfounded. And how the 'investigation' would be conducted, has been expected by us and many other complainants of ADNDRC HK, and it appears to be the case - it's not a real investigation!
Keep protecting the minority wrongdoers but sacrificing the majority innocents amongst the panelists is stupid and irrational. People and public are not forgetful, many info, records and complaints are already circulating in the internet world or stored published in websites or stored in individual's harddisks, and everyone doing simple research and studies of ADNDRC HK cases will produce the same results!! Mass media are awaiting the "investigation" results, public are expecting some real actions be taken!!
[Complainant A]
==============================================
Email 3
From: [Complainant B]
Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:51 AM
Subject: Hong Kong arbitration scandal (OPEN LETTER to CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEE setup to investigate ADNDRC HK's wrongdoings and misconducts)
To:
michaeljhartmann@judiciary.gov.hk
Cc: [Complainant A]
Dear Hon Justice Michael Hartmann,
We refer to [Complainant A]'s email bcc to us per his email sent at Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:11 AM with Subject "HK Arbitration Scandal - investigating complainants or investigating ADNDRC HK & the panelists?". It is noted in [Complainant A]'s email that the Committee chaired by your goodself finally and first time contacted one of the known complainants ([Complainant A]) of ADNDRC HK and certain of its panelists in your email sent to [Complainant A]'s co at Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM with Subject "Complaints against ADNDRC on Case no. HK-080####"
Please be advised that we are also one of the complainants against ADNDRC HK and its panelists and have been trying to contact the Committee previously without success. We are not sure whether the Committee has received the various submissions by us to the Committee through ADNDRC HK. If it did not, please find certain of our submissions in various emails below and we are formally submitting them again to the Committee herewith for your further action. Hence, please read through all submissions in emails below (to be followed by additional information / materials if appropriate).
We were respondents to 2 domain name dispute cases handled by ADNDRC HK, have also studied extensively cases handled by ADNDRC HK, have contacted various cases respondents, and are sharing similar view with [Complainant A], i.e. there are obvious misconducts and wrongdoings by ADNDRC HK (in particular the 2 administrators Ricky Wong and Denis Cai), and by certain panelists (in particular David Kreider and Zhao Yun). We also do not see why the Committee is taking the complaint as one filed by [Complainant A] on the case proceedings in his case HK-080####. Even the announcement by ADNDRC HK on 5th October, 2009 says that "Allegations made against certain individual ADNDRC PanelistS will be investigated by the ADNDRC Council directly." How could [Complainant A]'s case alone involve more than 1 PanelistS? And we are also complaining as cases respondents and also as ADNDRC HK cases observers, researchers and respondents coordinators, so you have to explain to the public if you are just including in your investigation one case (HK-080####) and just consider whether there has been an efficient dealing with the complaints and, whether the system can be improved. You are deliberately avoiding the issues complained of and have to face public queries.
We are also another complainant against ADNDRC HK and certain of its panelists, so we please extend your scope of investigation to include our submissions as well. Should you need clarification or anything, please let us know.
We have also included a copy of a very relevant document (filename : HK arbitration scandals.pdf) downloaded from a hyperlinked resource circulated around by emails. Such document includes statistics and findings very solidly pointing towards the possible misconducts and wrongdoings by ADNDRC HK and certain of its panelists. Items 5 to 8 should be the more relevant part and in particular Item 7. Please also review this another official submission by us for your investigation purposes if you have not received this previously.
Hence, we believe it should not be good and smart timing to “complete” the investigation at this stage in rush with purposes known to the various complainants. The Committee obviously needs time to digest our submissions (see ALL emails below as initial submission), how can the Committee complete the investigation without contacting the various complainants and without studying their submissions? The substance of the investigation is on the issues being complained of, not on the identities of the complainants, insisting such identities proof will just confirm you a puppet of the ADNDRC HK as your intention is known. If an unidentified person calls the police to report there is a bomb, can people accept the police not taking action because the caller has not provided its identity proof to the police? Eyes of public is sharp and will not be fooled by this small trick! Investigate whatever are being complained of is the primary reason for setting up the Committee, we trust.
We understand your goodself is one of the Justices of Appeal of the Court of Appeal of the High Court and is using Hong Kong Judiciary Dept's email in the correspondence. As a Justice of Appeal, one supposedly should be very respectable, creditable, independent and impartial with highest integrity. It's your personal choice of whether you and the Committee will do a thorough, independent investigation with highest integrity on the various complaints against ADNDRC HK and its panelists (we reiterate that it's not on particular case and we cannot see why it is just on the proceedings of [Complainant A]'s case HK-080####). The evidences are obvious and solid, the statistics speak for themselves without bias, the proof of repeated manipulation and ignorance of procedures by the administrators may even involve serious criminal activities with conspiracy among ADNDRC HK, its panelists and cases complainants' lawyers.
ADNDRC HK is no doubt trying to cover the wrongdoings and misconducts of certain parties with all efforts, but it is not likely to succeed. The more effort and more people are involved in covering them, the more people will be innocently scarified for few people not worth to protect, and the more serious and long lasting damages it will bring to the arbitration circle especially that of Hong Kong. If there are noted criminal activities, the covering of the wrongdoers may even be illegal especially the ones intending to protect them are very legally knowledgeable. So it’s their choices.
Many are waiting for a serious and creditable investigation be done and announced. You, as the chairman and figurehead of this investigation, are reminded that your name, integrity, reputation and probably career and future are attached to the investigation and the upcoming report, but of course, you and the other Committee members have the final choice in the manner of handling the investigation and reports. On the complainants’ side, on the other hand, we and other complainants also have our freedom in producing and publishing this email submission, our findings and comments on your upcoming investigation report, to the public, mass media, internet world or the authorities etc.
Glad that we can finally contact you directly and submit you this initial information and materials directly. Next, is your decision, and we and others will see.
Yours faithfully,
[Complainant B]
==============================================
Email 4
From: [Complainant A]
Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:22 AM
Subject: Hong Kong arbitration scandal (OPEN LETTER to CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEE setup to investigate ADNDRC HK's wrongdoings and misconducts)
To:
michaeljhartmann@judiciary.gov.hk
Cc: [Complainant B]
Dear Mr. Harmann,
Noted from below that another complainant ([Complainant B]) against ADNDRC HK and its panelists have been in touch with you. We and [Complainant B] have been communicating closely and we are endorsing their submission with attached file, so we are bringing together these to the Investigation Committee's action.
Also we are submitting a hyperlink to a site where you can find plenty of the complaints and observations about ADNDRC HK and its panelists, so you cannot avoid the complaints by treating it a particular case' proceeding issues. Please read them through, there are a lot of astonishing findings and evidence of misconducts by ADNDRC HK and its panelists that will shock anyone, and we and the public expect you would deal with the case as if you are really a respectable judge.
http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2153...evidences.html (ADNDRC HK and some of its panelists - bad, unethical & illegal conducts evidences)
We are assuming you and the other Committee members were not aware of these resources as ADNDRC HK is likely to cover them before passing the case to you, but now, there should not be any reason for the Committee to ignore them.
Google it, this is public and do not attempt to make jokes with the investigation in protecting the minority wrongdoers.
http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=z...=&oq=&gs_rfai= (the forum is on the 1st page of Google search so you can estimate the traffic and views, it's already very public).
http://finance.asiadcp.com/html/zhen...014/56623.html
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_...yId=1093276826
http://dnattorney.com/labels/adndrc.html
....
Dont' pretend the Committee does not see these, they have been on the internet for 6 months and will be there permanently, and your investigation report and our comment and further actions will be followed by public, circulated and uploaded.
[Complainant A]
==============================================
Email 5
From: [Complainant A]
Date: Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Hong Kong arbitration scandal (OPEN LETTER to CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEE setup to investigate ADNDRC HK's wrongdoings and misconducts)
To:
michaeljhartmann@judiciary.gov.hk
Cc: [Complainant B]
Dear MR. Hartmann,
We refer to your email to us (Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM subject : Complaints against ADNDRC on Case no. HK-080####), and [Complainant B] and our emails to you recently sent after receiving your such email (see below).
If the Committee is setup to investigate ADNDRC HK and its panelists because of external complaints and enquiries by Mass Media, we cannot understand why the Committee did not have to contact the complainants directly before you alleged that you have almost complete the "investigation". The motive is also suspicious regarding your request of proof of address, contact, identity ... before you would attend to a complainant's DIRECT submission, or respond to the complainants' DIRECT correspondence to you.
ADNDRC HK and its panelists are the subjects to be investigated, any information / materials / submission passed by them to the Committee cannot be regarded as unbiased, uncensored, unmodified and complete, the logic behind is super simple and is of just primary school kid's IQ level. All these just expose further that ADNDRC HK and the investigation Committee are conspired to cover up the issues being complained of.
Please advise / confirm the Committee's position on its attending to complainants and status of investigation, that whether the Committee has almost completed the 'investigation' without contacting the key complainants and/or without receiving / considering DIRECT submissions from such complainants. And any comment you have on our and [Complainant B]'s direct submission and emails to you recently sent after your Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM email to us?
If the Committee still remains silent to our recent emails and direct submission, we have our ways to make you speak up and respond, just like ADNDRC HK finally could not escape but setup the Committee for "investigation". Although you are not a judge in handling the investigation, we believe your background and the email (HK Judiciary Dept) you're using should make people and public perceiving you are highly independent, objective, logical, scientific, reasonable and fair in handling the Investigation, but we can prove to people, public and mass media easily that their perception is totally wrong illusion if the investigation is not conducted as perceived (i.e. there can be fundamental and serious wrong perception on the integrity of someone with your similar background).
As reiterated many times, we do not understand the logic and motives of protecting the minority wrongdoers at the expenses of others' goodwill, integrity, reputation ... What is the motive to be a judge? Money? Or upholding justice and find out and report the truth?
Kindly respond befor it's too late.
[Complainant A]
Re: ADNDRC HK and some of its panelists - bad, unethical & illegal conducts evidences
Linear Mode
