• The original lawsuit filed by McNeil in January 1998:
  McNeil v. Stanley Canada Inc. (MAC Tools)

• The judge, Master Funduk, stayed the lawsuit and ordered McNeil and Stanley into arbitration in April 1998.

• When Stanley ignored the court's ruling, McNeil took it upon himself in March 1999 to write to the judge who resided over his case and who had ordered arbitration. At this point McNeil was without an attorney, but unwilling to back down:
  Dear Master Funduk...

• In April 1999, after hearing nothing from Stanley's lawyers or the judge, McNeil tried for the umpteenth time to settle his case, promising to bring the case to "the court of public opinion":
  Written notice given to MAC Tools well in advance, stating Mr. McNeil's intentions of going public with his concerns unless his case was arbitrated.

• McNeil made good on his promise, aquiring www.mactools.ab.ca, and launching the new site on Sept 1, 1999. Two weeks prior to the launch date, McNeil promised to post his proof:

  Proof of Phil McNeil's allegations:

  
  This list is incomplete as many of the documents proving McNeil was fleeced are being entered into evidence before the courts, and therefore they can not be posted until after they are made public in front of a judge and jury. A plethora of lawsuits is a classic gambit to stifle the inevitable public revealing of devestating documents.
  • Expense projections given to Mr. McNeil prior to joining MAC in November 1993
  • Expense projections given to Mr. McNeil by fax prior to joining MAC in November 1993
  • Actual expenses from Mr. McNeil for his first two years as a MAC distributor.
  • Copy of a document outlining Western Canadian concerns and suggestions dated august, 1996
  • Letter sent to Canadian distributors by an anonymous distributor, or possibly a former District Business Manager (DBM) from Victoria, B.C. July 1997
  • An action report sent to Mr. McNeil by MAC outlining the very things he contends he had to deal with. Dated July 29 1997
  • Response sent to MAC dealers by (former) National Sales Manager, Steve Eyre. August 1997
  • Proof that Mr. McNeil was expected to sell inferior product at an inflated price. (If he could get the product) April 1998

• On the day of the mactools.ab.ca launch, Stanley's lawyers offered to forget any debts allegedly owed by McNeil if he turned over his site and documents, but threatened him with a legal assault if he didn't bow to their demands:
  A blatant attempt to strong-arm Mr McNeil into silence by Stanley's Canadian legal team dated Sept 1^st, 1999

• McNeil was overjoyed that the slumbering giant was finally waking up and paying attention, but was at a loss to explain how the threat of arbitration by Stanley (the whole reason for the website in the first place) could deter him from publically telling the truth.

• After hearing nothing else about the promised (threatened) arbitration, McNeil sent a letter to Stanley's lawyers, once more offering to negotiate a settlement, and warning them that if they still failed to arbitrate or settle his claim, he would purchase Stanley-specific domains and would direct the addresses to his site, www.mactools.ab.ca/ This was at the end of September 1999.

• McNeil continued to exercise his right to free speech, protected by the legal definition of slander/defamation:
  Can Stanley win a defamation lawsuit against us?
  Another definition of Defamation

• This didn't stop Stanley from exercising their right to tie up the courts with a frivolous and malicious $15,000,000 lawsuit:
  The Stanley Works v. Phil McNeil (part 1) October 1999
  The Stanley Works v. Phil McNeil (part 2) October 1999
  The Stanley Works v. Phil McNeil (part 3) October 1999

• McNeil's statement of defense decried this sort of bullying:
  McNeil's statement of defense (part 1) November 1999
  McNeil's statement of defense (part 2) November 1999

• After Stanley continually refused to deal in good faith, McNeil made good on his promise and purchased multiple Stanley-specific domains on January 24, 2000 (Four months after warning them of his intentions) and redirected them to www.mactools.ab.ca.

• During the course of negotiations, McNeil informed Stanley that he had purchased the Stanley-specific domains as he had promised.

• Stanley sued for the trademarks that they failed to protect (Contrary to the Lanham act) and instead of filing one claim for all of the names, chose instead to abuse the resolution process by filing multiple complaints:
  Stanley's first ICANN complaint

• McNeil attempted to defend himself against "cybersquatting" charges levelled by Stanley:
  McNeil files brief to ICANN

• McNeil (or O'neil or else Neil, One of them anyway)lost, and two of the domains were ordered transferred to Stanley unless a court proceeding was initiated within ten days.

• Stanley had another go at McNeil through ICANN:
  Stanley decides to bring a little more pressure to bear on McNeil

• McNeil filed a federal lawsuit in California against Stanley for his domain names in April 2000, well within the ten-day filing period required by ICANN.

• Through the rules of ICANN, both of the domain disputes were stayed pending legal resolution. This means that the two domains in the original lawsuit were to be left as McNeil's property, and there would be no ICANN ruling on the four domains from the second lawsuit until a court decides what is to happen. ICANN informed McNeil that the proceedings were stayed:
  The actual letter McNeil recieved from ICANN

• In the middle of June 2000, ICANN, Stanley, and registrars.com circumvented the law and stole McNeil's domain names, transferring title to Stanley without due process, and contrary to ICANN's rules.

• Stanley filed a motion to dismiss in the federal lawsuit that McNeil launched against Stanley.

• McNeil responded to their motion:
  McNeil answers stanley's motion to dismiss in landmark federal case

  More to come, rest assured!

  ---

  Stanley's involvement with the courts is legendary, with some surprising twists:

• The Stanley Works/MAC Tools legal timeline

• MAC v. Griffin (Countersuit: Idaho "little FTC Act") Brr>
  • Judge Carey's post-trial opinions

• Allen v. MAC (Mississippi)

• Talton v. MAC (Fraud) (N. Carolina)

• Arrow Fasteners v Stanley

• Eva Soboluesky v The Stanley Works

• Roton Barrier v Stanley Works

• Stanley and the Federal Trade Commission

• Of course, Stanley's litigation is legendary is their home state as well. Click here and type in "Stanley Works" and check out the 40 or so ouststanding cases in Connecticut alone!

To: Stanley Sucks home...