Chimzcuk Museum
Had a pleasant conversation with David Wonham. He thought my use of certain adjectives to describe his actions with the Chimzcuk money’s, museum and name were disturbing. He said he was advised to take legal action.
Although I told him I deleted them and would keep them off permanently. He thought that was insufficient and I should retract them and explain why I retracted them. I warned him that although I would retract the words as mischaracterizations of what he did, My retraction would have to include an explanation and replacement characterization that I felt he would dislike equally. He insisted I continue and so here it is:
It seems the city did not protect the name Chimzcuk based on legal advice that the name could not be trademarked in the future. It seems now that this legal advice was bad as the name was trademarked by the “Chimczuk Museum inc”.
I do not question David Wonham’s right to do what he did, I do not question the benevolent intent that he maintains he has for doing what he did. I do not question that he did what he did with warning and transparantly. I probably shouldn’t use the words stolen or hijacking to characterize his actions.
However, what is the proper characterization and description of what he did? Who died and made him sole arbiter of how the Chimczuk money gets spent. Mr. Chimczuk died but did not leave David Wonham in charge.
David Wonham says he did this to protect the money. He has appointed himself benevolent dictator over money that belongs to the city of Windsor. Moneys belonging to Windsorites.
Problem is that I didn’t elect David Wonham, last I heard, few even voted for him. What happens if he has a change of heart? What happens if he gets hit by a bus or struck by lightning? Is the money still safe? Maybe so maybe not. Maybe the name gets auctioned off to the highest bidder, maybe it falls into disreputable hands.
David Wonham may have good intentions, I hear that the road to hell is paved with them. He says he’s protected us from the potential of someone with far worse intentions seizing the name. The problem is that he’s not giving the name up. If he gave it to the Greater Windsor Community Foundation, I’d be a bit more trusting. It doesn’t help that he made himself a political figure by running for mayor. Makes you question if anything the mayor he lost to by so much would have any proposal be subject to biase.
But why should the mayor or anyone in the city submit anything to this self appointed/anointed Chimczuk expert?
Personally, I’d object to even having to submit anything to David Wonham. I’d rather see the money sit there and rot before I legitimized him having any say over it. Why such a hard stand? If I died and some strange unelected person tries to anoint themselves arbiter over moneys I gave the public I’d be turning in my grave
What made him worthy of having the right to do this? The exact same skills held by a cybersquatter or in the example he used with me “they guy in russia who sat on starbucks name”
I find his action to take the name defensible, I find his actions to hold on to this name that should belong to the city despicable. I find him an opportunist, rationalizing his actions in the name of “the city did wrong first”, file that one in the two wrongs don’t make a right.
A warning to those who want to donate to the city in their will. Watch your name, watch the wording of your will. I’m sure there’s a David Wonham out there waiting to seize control over your good name as well.
I assume that takes care of covering the retraction and apology for the use of the term stolen or hijacking. I’m open to any other comments that describe better what was done to the name Chimczuk by David Wonham
Post Feedback
Deleted comment
Just got a crazy long email from mr Schnurr that I don’t have time to read, I’m just gonna assume sonething in this comment really set him off and delete it. Hopefully that will suffice and prevent any need to read what he sent. We’ll see.
Deleted
Deleted
To conclude, Its unfortunate that the windsor square article which painstakingly identify’s the process in how David Wonham came by the Chimczuk name
http://www.windsorsquare.ca/2011/08/17/blogger-under-fire-trademark-to-protect-chimzcuk-name/
that lists the facts does not opine on the legitimacy or the points I have made. I think the article would have been easy to write without names. Inability to write comments while posting here about me instead of the subject of the blog posts prevents us from knowing what the public and readers really think.
I’d be curious to see who supports trademarking someone elses family name to gain control over how that persons donation to the public gets spent
“Deleted comments that are not pertaining to post - including my own
all opposing views welcome - Mark Boscariol
Delete away Mark. You’ve proved my point.
Why don’t you just stay away, I stay off your site and I didnt mention you personally until you contacted me, sure i stupidly engaged wrote stupid stuff i regretted, and i deleted pretty darn quick. If I’m having a rough day, I can’t promise to not do it again,
If i mention square its because I think your square partner’s fair game. I despise everything about him. I normally hold no ill will of anyone, but he’s my exception to the rule. A sign of my own weakness. I find it ironic that Our past big blowouts originated by a naive email sincerely advising you to stay away from him out of respect for you and out of a belief that it was in your best interest.
A blog is a personal diary, I don’t understand why you have some expectation of privacy when you know Ive blogged emails before. We just push each others buttons and should stay away. No need to respond, I wish you all the success in the world for your endeavors. I can’t even believe your wasting time with me
I realize that somehow this will offend you even more but you must have better things to do than worry about my blog and my miniscule readership
Why do I waste my time? Because you distort actual facts. And again, I give a RATS behind what you think of other bloggers. I only care about what you state as fact (which typically is not) about me - something you should understand very well, Mr. Boscariol as you go about defending yourself all over the internet - someone’s right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose.
You threw out the challenge, I did a story, you didn’t like the story because I did not come out and support your thesis, which you have since retracted. Yeah, you’re right, I’m wasting my time.
Why do I waste my time? Because you distort actual facts.
I did not distort facts in this case. I did not retract my thesis. This man essentially hijacked moneys that were donated to the city of windsor, exerting control over something he has no moral right to assert control over
“I did a story, you didn’t like the story because I did not come out and support your thesis, which you have since retracted. ”
You did a story that again showed your bias, A bias where if someone hates the mayor, you support them. Thats my interpretation of the facts.
I guess I agree with Mark in principal, although I would have chose my words a bit differently. I’ll give Mr Wonham the benefit of the doubt with respect to his altruistic intentions. However, there is no reason why he cannot donate the rights to the name to the City of Windsor in some fashion.
To the best of my knowledge Mr. Wonham was not left the money or given any sort of control of the estate. He has, by copyrighting the name, usurped some control over it. If Mr. Chimzcuk had wanted Mr. Wonham to have some say in how this project would be developed it would be reasonable to assume that Chimzcuk would have stipulated that in his will. My understanding is that the funds were left to the C of W with an expressed purpose in mind. That being a musuem/library/archive.
We all know that musuems and libraries always require taxpayer subisidy. This is where I have a problem with Mr. Wonham’s actions. If and when this project is built, the people of the City of Windsor will have to take on the expense of ensuring the continued operation of this facility. While I would welcome input from people who knew Mr. Chimzcuk, I do not like the idea of a person that has not sought and received a mandate from the electorate to have anything close to veto power over this project.
If Mr. Wonham’s intent was purely to protect the name from some sort of malicious attempt to steal it, I would like to thank and applaud him. If his intent was to use this as a bargaining chip, or to gain some control over the project I think he is doing a great disservice to his deceased friend.
Fortunately, there is an easy way for Mr. Wonham to clarify his intent. He can sit down with the City’s legal department, and a lawyer of his choosing and discuss the transfer of the trademark or copyright to the people whom this legacy was intended to benefit.
P.S. Don’t take this statement as an endorsement or condemnation of either Chris or Mark. I truly like both of you guys and enjoy your perspectives on Windsor issues.
I told David Wonham personally that when the money tranferred to the city, id thank him as well. But until that day the money is still In Jeopardy.
I asked him why he held it and beyond the “it’s within my rights” I found his
Position indefensible
I just went the Chimzcuk Musuem Inc website to find some information, and left with more questions than answers. Does this group have any legal standing with respect to the estate or the intended purpose of building a museum? From what they report on their site it wouldn’t appear that they do.
I think the city’s position is that the trademark is not valid (not sure) but nonetheless, I inferred that the organization has ruled out any moneys being used at the new aquatic center library without even seeing a proposal
David Wonham did us a favor by protecting the name, its his actions from now forward that are concerning. I also don’t doubt his intent but he knows that people will view it as I do and possibly you as well. Only response I gathered was that he is within his rights and everything is legal and transparant.
Lets hope . I would really like to be proven wrong on this one.