Kenzie's Conduct IS Illegal (Score 2)

I took a closer look at the actual complaint in the case itself and the UDRP decision in the Lockheed case. Here is why I think Kenzie's conduct IS going to be found illegal under U.S. laws here: 1. Intentional Cybersquatting: Cybersquatting is illegal under US federal law and is punishable by a fine up to $100,000.00. To prove Kenzie is guilty of cybersquatting, the law firm only needs to prove that Kenzie adopted the confusingly similar domain name intentionally and in bad faith, that is, without a bona fide or non-commercial reason. In the prior UDRP proceeding, which is binding on Kenzie, Kenzie's identical conduct against Lockheed Martin was found to be bad faith cybersquatting. By extension, Kenzie is likely to be found guilty here and is going to have a tough time convincing a judge and jury that the Lockheed panel was wrong as well. 2. Intentional interception of private electronic communications: Seems to me that Kenzie intended to do exactly this, and is just trying to justify it in the name of conducting unauthorized and spurious "research." In the Lockheed UDRP case, he as much as admitted that he intentionally intercepted e-mails intended for Lockheed, but that his only defense was that it was done in the name of bona fide research to benefit Lockheed, even though they didn't know about it until he was confronted with the UDRP. The panel rejected this defense, finding that Kenzie simply wasn't authorized to conduct this "research," but was merely trying to line his own pockets by getting a consulting fee out of it. Seems to me that Kenzie is going to lose this one, too.