Synchronicity Spirit OF PN and News of the SNU same day

Well great news about the Spirit of PN but on teh same day we hear of the Spiritualist National Union latest attempt to "legitimise" their claim to own the Masthead and Archives of Psychic News by registering Psychic News as a Trade Mark.

Thanks to Public Eye for bringing that news to us on the forum and see Roy Stemman's Paranormal Review
http://www.paranormalreview.com/articles/20101104

I recived a Special delivery in the mail this morning, on SNU letter headed paper, threating me with High Court action, regarding a company that I have set up.

The letter, is in opposition to the registration of Trade Marks, 2557851 & 2559182, A form used by Inetellectual Property,
by the proprieter of an earlyer Trade Mark. (That being a regiserd trademark, registerd with intellectual property, before the date of the mark that they are opposing.) As there is no registerd trade mark before the date in which I filed my registration, I wonder why they have payed £400 to file this TM7 form.
This form states that: An opposition lanched without giving the applicant, international registration holder or the registered proprietor a reasonable opportunity to withdraw the application, international designation or amendment, may result in the opponent being ineligible for an award of costs.
They (that is if they had an earlyer registerd trade make) could have just filed a TM7a.
again on the form that they filled in: Filing a form TM7a, notice of opposition, may qualify as giving notice subject to the applicant being provided with reasonable opportunity to withdraw the application.

Psychic News Ltd
The letter also reads Quote:In respect of your registration of Psychic News Ltd, we have formally instructed solicitors to commence a letter before action to you leading potentially to a Passing off action in the High Court.

As I have been studding Intelectual property for some time now, my understanding is that is The goodwill of a company, goodwill can only be established if a company is trading at that time using that name for the product that you are trading under, and trying to pass them of as that companys products. I am also protected by law, from theats of action on passing off law,
This law was brought in to protect people like me who would have to stop trading, because of people raising action.

As my company is a company name registerd with Company's House, it was registerd because I am a Psychic and will shortly be running a few News papers, one a local news paper and another a mind body and spirit news paper and long trerm a newspaper for people who have brian disfuntion, ie Dislexia, Disgraphia, Autism, Disbraxia and other simular funtions that are constianly discriminanated agains. As I have no intentions of using the company logo as a name of any of these news papers, These papers have been in the planing stages for several years now and I have proof to back that up.

I also have no intentions of stopping or even of interfearing in any other party planning to use that name on a Spiritual indipendant newspaper. I would object to the name being used by a group that is Not Spiritual as is something that could happen if it fell into the wrong hands, People will only see what they want to see, and asume that if you are not with their group then that makes you wrong. I have already made it clear that I would like another Spiritual news paper out there, and will give it my support. As I would use the paper to Advertise event and charity's that I am involved in

Psychic news Ltd was set up to create jobs and life oppertunity to people who would have a problem holding down a job, because of disabillity, Although the papers will cover Spiritualims in some aspects, when news worthy. the main reason for the papers will be to raise awarness of the life that people have because of mental disabillitys, it will also cover, closed mindedness,
and how people react in human nature, Psycoligy, healthy eating ,exersize.

I urge people to look into the work that I have done in the past, then maybe they will (if they want to)see where I am comming from.

I note that when reading section 5 of this TM7 forms filed by the SNU, that Quote:
The newspaper has always reflected all aspects of Spiritualism in its history without restrictions on the Editors position. With the Union's continued registration and operation of the name, freedom the editarial control would continue.
The applicant's director, Sandra McFadden ahs in the past been associated with Spiritual Workers Association whose activities may not reflect Spiritualism in general as a religion.as it has done since 1932.
Un quote:

As I can not coment on Spiritual Workers association now, because I have not been involved since 2008, ( the same year that Mr Hewitt, the person filing this oposition was also envolved. this I can back up) But that it was a group campaining the brittish goverment about the changes in the law, (UCPD 2007, which came into force in 2008) as my memory serves me I was the one time in my life that Spiritualists from all backgrounds,came together to fight a common cause, our right to our Religion.
I can also state a fact that I also gave financal support to a Spiritual Newspaper in the past, and can reasure everyone, that I never tryed, in any shape or form to infuence the Editorial of that newspaper, nor would I ever try in the future. I believe in letting people who know their job to do it with our predjudse.

I do not expect any responce to this post, and I fully understand from the botton of my heart that people do not want envolved, but I wish all the people the how lost their jobs best wishes in the future, and will try to make sure my papers never conflict with any paper that I am sure you will eventualy put out in the future.

I know every Spiritual Group thinks that they are the only one doing it right. I know my way is only right for the people who need my group, I will not judge any person or group, because I will be judged in the hearafter where I will get the chance to put my point forward, then and only then, will the people that I have tryed to help see the real me, untill that day I will except judgment, because I see the need in people to do it, and I am used to it.
Pease Love and Light to everyone involved

publiceye:

the same year that Mr Hewitt, the person filing this oposition was also envolved.

Are you referring to former solicitor Graham Hewitt?

You might check with the Law Society why he was 'struck off' and/or why he no longer appears on their list of practising solicitors.

Hi publiceye,

Thanks for informing us, the SNU have a long tradition of using legal action as far as I understand, I am not surprised that they would challenge you on this one.

However, your very action has highlighted a major point. It would appear that the very name Psychic News had never been given any status of copyright protection as a trade mark. This would not stop the publisher from seeking protection for the title while it was being published. However, once publication ceased, as it had when you took your actions, I would question whether they could maintain that right.

Of course we also have to establish whether the SNU own that title , if the masthead and archives belong to Psychic Press (1995) then the SNU have no legal rights in this case although Psychic Press may, but then as an insolvent company they are in no position to take action.

Interesting little issue you have there.

Z that is an interesting point is not Graham Hewitt the Assistant General Secretary of the SNU

Thanks for that, I have a list as long as my arm of things that I have to run by agents on monday morning, that being one of them.
The main issue that I want to raise is with the charitys commisioner, as to why they would sanction legal action, by the SNU, on this, when they have clearlly have no registered trade mark that can oppose this one, and they have made no contact to see if I ever intended to use this name for a newspaper.
In UK law a chairity has to have the charity comisiner's aproval before taking legal action against anyone, as this opposition is a legal document and it looks like the SNU have paid £400, not to mention the cost of Court action. as they have refered to the High Court and not County Court, A Court fee just for issuing the claim in the high court is at present £1'530, and all of this is not to mention how long this will go on. the time that my buisness will not be running, the cost of solicitors.
I have all the paper work I need to prove that, the SNU do not own any goodwill in psychic news, as the paper was clearly run by Psychic press 1995, not the SNU. or a faketisus(sorry in the spelling) company mentioned on the paperwork that I recived called Psychic News 1995 Limited.
quote: in TM7 section 3 (6) It is know worldwide that the company Psychic News 1995 is in process of liquidation. Unquote.
I think it is safe to asume that the SNU plan to bring the paper back out, why else would they pay for all this legal action.

Thanks publiceye, you appear well on the ball with this one. I love teh non existent Psychic News (1995).

Its was also fun in the first post to see that they wrote

I note that when reading section 5 of this TM7 forms filed by the SNU, that Quote:
The newspaper has always reflected all aspects of Spiritualism in its history without restrictions on the Editors position. With the Union's continued registration and operation of the name, freedom the editarial control would continue.

Apart from teh rude and unsustainable claim that you would not allow editorial freedom, I notice they ara coyly suggesting they will return it to publication but they misworded this to show thet their original no restrictions on teh Editors position becomes "With the Union's continued registration and operation of the name, freedom the editarial control would continue". This confirms the y intend to try to start again but that, in a freudian slip there would now be editorial control.

Sadly they are only claiming to own the masthead, they will have to prove this and your registration occured after they closed Psychic News breaking any claim to intellectual property that was not registered as a Trade Mark. At least they are two very sound arguments which will also pull high court attention to the liquidation issue.

Hmm I did not realise that they needed Charities Commission approval, I am sure that the Commission would love to look at everything the NEC are doing right now. I guess you have an opportunity to let them become aware of it.

Gosh just as PP (1995) is being liquidated the NEC open a second front about the ownership of the Masthead and related intellectual property. The next few months could be fun, in a sadly twisted way, I just wish Fleet Street would pick up on all of this.

The shame is they should just have passed the whole shooting match to the JV Trust and nothing would have been happening. All of the staff, creditors and subscribers of PN would have been happy and the SNU would have had their outstanding debt paid too.

Am I missing something here

There was no registration of trademark so the masthead only had an existing use right as intellectual property. There was in effect no asset to put into the SNU the masthead only had a value while in use by PP with no copyright ownershp in existence.

In that case placing PP into liquidation meant the name was freely up for grabs by the first comer.

publiceye:

Are you connected to Sandra McFadden and the Butterfly Fellowship?

Yes I am Sandra McFadden and I own the Trade Mark Butterfly Fellowship, I also lost £14'000 in July of 2008, when I set up a mind body and spirit festival, that was supost to premote Spiritualism, and offerd any Spiritual group to particapate, I sill have all the hate campain paper work, and the emails that prove that it was nothing more than a hate campain that cost me my life savings, and the witness who witnesed your phone call when you asked if you could come, I owe all these people a big thanks as it is thanks to them that I took up studding Law, and I still have one year before I raise the action, but I am sure it will all come out in this.
I have recived emails this morning about the Butterfly fellowship a group that I have run for the last six year, I postoffice trade marked it to prevent Passing off, I found earlyer this year that people looking for my website were mistaken it for another group by the same name. I contaced the man who run the other group to tell him that I had post trade marked it and that I had trade marked it, I thought after the conversation that we had agread to call his group, the name of his town which I cant remenber the name but I know that it began with a H . I asked him to sent it to me in the post and I would forward him the paperwork to add it to the trade mark, this would be the problem solved and no one loses, but he did not forward the letter or give me a chance to add it, (a requiremet of Intellectual Property). As I am protecting my rights and any come back I tried to call the number as, other people told me they were looking to find me and found that site. The lady who answered the phone would not discuse this with me and she hung up on me. I have also sent an email to John Conroy, last wednesday, to which he has not repyed.
I have editoral and other paper work infact everthing to do with my group from the last six years, as I work in other courtys as a medium, and the butterfly is what I am know by then that is why people look for me in search under butterfly fellowship Uk. as it is also a requierment to let intelectual property know if you let anyone use your trade mark, and this group will not get in touch with me, that I have no alternitive but to take the apropriat action. This is another incident of people who think that they are to inportant to get in touch, this could all be solved in filling in a form, but who am I to jude.
I will take legal action of all the people how slander me now, because I have worked hard to make more money, and people can only kick you when you are down. I take it as a backhanded compliment from all the hate campainers, as I dont worry about other mediums or what they are doing, so if people have to set up hate campains about me, then I am doing somthing that they want me out of the way.
Inslidently while I was at downing street with the spiritualist petition to protect All mediums, this hate campain group called a secret meeting, unfortuanly one person let me know, but it was the same people who, were involved with the rest. They dug and dug for about a year, untill someone sent them an email saying, do you not think that if you have been diging for this long and you havent found anything, that maybe there is no dirt to dig. It seams to have stopped their, but I have now doupt it will fire up again now, but I am ready with court action now and that is a promise.

Yes I am Sandra McFadden and I own the Trade Mark Butterfly Fellowship, I also lost £14'000 in July of 2008, when I set up a mind body and spirit festival, that was supost to premote Spiritualism, and offerd any Spiritual group to particapate, I sill have all the hate campain paper work, and the emails that prove that it was nothing more than a hate campain that cost me my life savings, and the witness who witnesed your phone call when you asked if you could come, I owe all these people a big thanks as it is thanks to them that I took up studding Law, and I still have one year before I raise the action, but I am sure it will all come out in this.

Thanks for replying but I haven't a clue who you are referring to.

There is an email circulating on the internet signed HD who claims the Butterfly Fellowship trademark.

If anyone has this email can they forward it to me, as I have to take action now, this won't stop untill it is delt with in Court, I only wish I would have done it long ago.
If anyone want to check who owens it, go on to Intelectual property, I have owned the group since it was set up six years ago,
There are many local news reports about it and it was advertised in local paper at that time, I will get this from the paper monday.
The member of the group have tried to get on to this site, to confirm this, and to tell about the work that I do but they are having problems doing this.
also the people envolved in the newspapers are taken action about the letter that I have, because this will prevent them from getting the local paper out, and will cost money loss and prevent the youngsers from this progect.
I have had a word with a friend who knows an agentcey who can track down the emails that I have been sent, but I have to wait till tomorow.
I have been told this is legal because it is malisious emails and it will be involved in Court action.
my email is sandramcfaddenuk@yahoo.co.uk I will delete any name of the person who forwards it before I print it, or if you know how send it bilind.

If anyone has this email can they forward it to me, as I have to take action now, this won't stop untill it is delt with in Court, I only wish I would have done it long ago.

This is the email circulating on the internet:

All
Is it not opportunistic that this registration by an individual has come about after the aborted First crditors meeting?
Is it not true that the individual registering the Trade marks is also challenging Minister Eric Hatton's organisation set up for his late wife Heather's memory " Butterfly Fellowship" by saying that she has a similar organisation ( registered later) and insisting that they remove their name.
Why did she not have the common sense to ask the SNU to have permission to use the names and not do it behind everyone's back .
This appears to be greed rather than spirituality in action.
HD

Hi Z

Very interesting and very misleading

Taken from the other thread in the welcome forum, Sandra's company Psychic News Ltds registerd a Psychic News trademark Before the aborted liquidation not as claimed in that email from HD after it

TM Number Mark Text Type Date Status Classes
2557851
Psychic News WO 06.09.2010 Examined 16

IT WAS THE SNU WHO ABORTED THE LIQUIDATION AND THEN TRIED TO REGISTER A TRADEMARK IN OCTOBER

The Trade mark that SNU registed for was 0978812001 on 06 October 2010. As New application The other two were from Psychic News LTD, not Psychic Press (1995) LTD or SNU.

So the SNU has claimed ownership of the trademark but never had it protected. Therefore it must have been the intellectual property of the newspaper publisher PP(1995) because its only protecetion was established usage, which of course the SNU removed by closing the paper.

Hmm given HD is passing erroneous information on the internet and has the wrong person registering an October trademark post teh aborted liquidation it probably needs this correction spreading out.

As to the other issue being raised it would be for a different thread and I have no idea about it . However, there appears to be a distinct attempt to discredit Sandra and what she has done with Psychic News Ltd, about which she has been very open on this forum.

Reality is if there is a problem it seems to me to be one which the NEC has brought about by the way it has been acting and by their poor decision making over this entire affair.

Would HD like to put his name to his acusations, being that he likes to brodcast emails, without getting the facts first, as I am the person that he is making this acusations about I think it would be offlee nice if he would own up to it. I am Sandra, and I don't bite.
Let,s stop all this acting like children, get facts before junping in and mybe, some of the peple can get there newspaper out, and we in scotland can get our newspapers out, As I have said on many ocasions I will not stop any indipendent publication useing any of my names as long as it does not affect me, as I have no intentions of calling my papers by these names and I will not have a Spiritualist newspaper, then the name is probably more open to use, than it ever has been in the past.
I know that the SNU do not have a leg to stand on, and I also know that, by what they have done and the acusations that they have sent, They have put themselfs in big trouble, because I am not going to be bullied by them. I would rather lose everything that I have, than give in to people who think that they can control people.
As for Greed, I may be wrong but when I went to scool that ment, take for yourself, as this has only cost me money, and it will cost a great deal more when it gose to court, I also thought that being that they think that I want the newspaper that has gone under, is there some profit that I am missing.
I have found out some starteling facts this morning and I will post them on this sight when I get them in writing, which I should do in the next few days, so look out for this.

zerdini wrote:publiceye:

the same year that Mr Hewitt, the person filing this oposition was also envolved.

Are you referring to former solicitor Graham Hewitt?

You might check with the Law Society why he was 'struck off' and/or why he no longer appears on their list of practising solicitors.

For purposes of clarification the following might be of help:
No.8539/2002

IN THE MATTER OF GRAHAM JOHN HEWITT, solicitor

-AND -

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS' ACT 1974

___________________________________________________________________

Mr J.C. Chesterton (in the chair)
Miss T. Cullen
Lady Maxwell-Hyslop

Date of Hearing: 25th June 2002

___________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal
Constituted under the Solicitors' Act 1974

___________________________________________________________________

The tribunal ORDER that the Respondent, GRAHAM JOHN HEWITT of 235 Broadway,
Yaxley, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE7 3NT solicitor, be suspended from practice as a
solicitor for an indefinite period to commence on the 25th June 2002 and they further order
that he do pay the the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed
in the sum of £1926.13p

DATED AND FILED WITH THE LAW SOCIETY
This 25th day of June 2002

On behalf of the Tribunal

Chairman

This order was filed with the Chief Executive of The Law Society this day of 26/6/02
pursuant to Section 48 (5) of the Solicitors Act 1974

Chief Executive

From the Findings of the Tribunal:

In the event of that suspension being terminated by the Tribunal at some future date, the Tribunal recommended to the Law Society that the Respondent's Practising Certificate be subject to conditions allowing him only to work in approved employment.

For what exactly Z was Mr Hewitt held in breach and as a result had his practising certificate suspended indefinitely (one presumes subject to his right to appeal or to a subsequent request for reinstatement).

Yes this is interesting, of course it does not stop him exercising his legal skills but it appears his contact with publiceye may have been a little bombastic and even possibly threatening given this history.

Lis wrote:For what exactly Z was Mr Hewitt held in breach and as a result had his practising certificate suspended indefinitely (one presumes subject to his right to appeal or to a subsequent request for reinstatement).

It's quite lengthy, Lis, but I will try and give a summary of it in due course.

Lis Wrote:

For what exactly Z was Mr Hewitt held in breach and as a result had his practising certificate suspended indefinitely (one presumes subject to his right to appeal or to a subsequent request for reinstatement).

Without specifically naming the people involved the four main allegations against the respondent were that he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in each of the following particulars namely:-

(i) That he failed to keep accounts properly written up contrary to Rule 11 Solicitors’ Account Rules 1991 and Rules 32 Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998;

(ii) That he withdrew monies from client account other than as permitted by Rule 7 of the Solicitors’ Account Rules 1991 and Rule 22 of the Solicitors’ Account Rules 1998;

(iii) That he retained monies on account of costs without delivering to the client a bill or other written intimation thereof contrary to Rule 7 (4) Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1991 and Rule 19 (2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998;

(iv) That he permitted the same client ledger to be used for more than one client contrary to Rule 11 (1) (b) (i) Solicitors’ Account Rules 1991 and Rule 32 (2) (b) of the Solicitors’ Account Rules 1998.

The application was heard at the Court Room, 3rd Floor, Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7NS on 25th June 2002 when Stephen John Battersby solicitor and partner the firm of Jameson & Hill of 72/74 Fore Street, Hertford, Herts SG14 1BY appeared as the Applicant and the Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

The evidence before the Tribunal included the admission of the Respondent to allegations (i) to (iv) with mitigation.

The submissions of the Respondent, Graham John Hewitt:

27. The Submissions of the Respondent were contained in his statement in reply to the Rule 4 statement.

28. In the statement the Respondent gave the Tribunal details of his current personal situation including information regarding his psychiatric ill health.

29. The Respondent said that he was prepared to accept that the allegations set out were such that his name should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

30. The Respondent admitted allegations (i) to (iv) subject to mitigation set out in his statement but denied allegations (v) and (vi).

41. The respondent made the following further submissions in his statement.

“I am making this statement to the allegations. I readily accepted at the intervention that the errors were such and my health was such that I felt that I could no longer act as a solicitor since the pressures of practice were such that I was unable to keep control of the administration and day to day solicitor advocacy work.

“I therefore requested that my name be removed from the Roll of Solicitors forthwith and will accept a Ruling of the Tribunal that my name be formally struck off. It will not be my intention to seek any form of restoration.

“I would therefore ask the Tribunal to take this statement in mitigation to read alongside it the psychiatric report.

“As a result of my financial situation, I would invite the Tribunal to make no order as to costs, any imposition of costs will result in my IVA* being cancelled and a formal bankruptcy order being made which I feel does not fit the justice of this case.”

The Findings of the Tribunal

The Tribunal found allegations (i) to (iv) to have been substantiated indeed they were not contested.

The Tribunal noted that there had been one previous appearance by the Respondent before the Tribunal on 23rd November 2000 when the following allegations had been found proven against the Respondent namely that he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in each of the following particulars:-

(i) That he had failed to keep accounts properly written up for the purposes of Rule 11 of the Solicitors’ Account Rules 1991;

(ii) That contrary to Rule 8 of the Solicitors’ Account Rules 1991, he drew money out of client account other than permitted by Rule 7 of the said Rules;

(iii) That he failed to disclose material information to his clients;

(iv) (withdrawn)

(v) That he did employ as a clerk a person in respect of whom an Order had been made under Section 43 (2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 without the permission of the Law Society.

*What is an IVA?
An IVA is a Government created scheme to help those with unaffordable unsecured debts. It is designed for people who have little prospect of repaying their debts in full - but want to avoid bankruptcy and repay as best as they can.

How an IVA Works

An IVA is a legally binding agreement between you and the companies to which you own money - your creditors. We will review you financial situation and decide with you what you can realistically afford to pay back each month. Should an IVA be the most appropriate course of action we will recommend a formal proposal to your creditors.

If the proposal is approved by 75% of the creditors by value of debt, your debts are frozen and no more interest or changes can be levied against you. Provided you maintain payments, your unpaid debt will be written off at the end of the IVA, which typically lasts 60 months.

IVA's & Homeowners

Under an IVA, your mortgage and any other secured payments are prioritised, which means they are budgeted for before IVA contributions are taken. Therefore your home is protected, unlike in bankruptcy.
If you have significant equity in your property, you are likely to be asked to make a contribution from that towards the end of the IVA by way of re-mortgage. This is subject to affordability- so you're never asked to pay more than you can realistically afford.
We receive more questions about home ownership and IVA's than anything else, so please call us for advice of how this may impact your decision to do an IVA. IVAs are also available to non-homeowners.

Key Information about IVA's

Unsecured debts only. An IVA should only be considered in extreme circumstances as failure to adhere could result in bankruptcy.

This whole thing is really turning into a melodrama/soap opera with an ever expanding cast of characters

If only Stieg Larsson was still alive, he could write a book about this whole sorry affair and call it "The Man with the SNU Tattoo who played with fire and stubbed his toe kicking the Hornet's Nest"

Now I would be among the first to say that as Spiritualists we should not judge a man for doing wrong, though one must acknowledge that wrongdoing. Perhaps in employing this person the SNU saw its action as an act of Spiritual charity, and a means of offering a helping hand to one who was down and out. If so, no doubt many would see that as admirable.

Despite supprting such a view I do still question why a person who has acted inappropriately in the past should become the Assistant General Secretary of a charity such as the SNU - this is after all a position of some authority, responsibility and power. In 2002 this person claimed his health was such that he felt he was unable to keep control of the administration and day to day work required of a solicitor, due to psychiatric issues.

While one might suggest that the duties of the assistant general secretary of the SNU may not be as demanding as that required in solicitor advocacy work, I feel sure it is a role that does bring with it significant demands and pressure, especially when the SNU is faced, as it is at present with the complex issues arising from their actions in closing Psychic News and putting PP (1995) Ltd into liquidation.

Is this the person the SNU intends to have represent them on the committee of inspection in the liquidation process?

If so, one must hope that this person has, in the intervening years, found a resolution to his previous health issues and have his mind focused fully on the difficult issues at hand in regard to the liquidation and especially the dispute regarding the assets and which company rightly owns them.

If, as I would also hope, this person is a committed Spiritualist, not just working for the SNU, we can only hope that with his legal background and experience he will act with the best interests of Spiritualism in mind, while complying with any legal implications that arise out of what has occurred.

Wes wrote:This whole thing is really turning into a melodrama/soap opera with an ever expanding cast of characters

If only Stieg Larsson was still alive, he could write a book about this whole sorry affair and call it "The Man with the SNU Tattoo who played with fire and stubbed his toe kicking the Hornet's Nest"

An excellent trilogy, Wes, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

What, I wonder, is the gentleman's record and history within Spiritualism itself, particularly in his local area? Courses taken, Certificates gained, Service. abilities, etc,?

hiorta wrote:What, I wonder, is the gentleman's record and history within Spiritualism itself, particularly in his local area? Courses taken, Certificates gained, Service. abilities, etc,?

Interesting points, hiorta.