[secretary.com] stolen domain

[Restecpa]

$150 is 7.5 % of $2000 so i wouldnt be too enthusiastic about it. Hope you get it all back..

 

[C0113c70r]

I really hate to sound harsh, but facts are facts... DotComCowboy was defrauded. As far as the $150 you got back - it seems to me that you're being fed crumbs to satisfy you temporarily while the statute of limitations runs out on this fraud and you lose any legal recourse that you might otherwise be entitled to.

I'm a fair man, and I believe in giving people the opportunity to right their wrongs. Chris (and his accomplice) have had more than ample time to make full refund of payment here. I'm surprised that they have not yet been arrested.

--- C0113c70r

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by C0113c70r
Chris (and his accomplice) have had more than ample time to make full refund of payment here. I'm surprised that they have not yet been arrested.

--- C0113c70r

That statement is totally out of order and is completely unsupported by facts - there is no evidence that cjmacd was an accomplice to any fraud. He may have acted without due consideration of the possible consequences of being a "broker" but there is no evidence to support him as being a party to any fraud - indeed as far as information on this Board is concerned, it has yet to be positively proven that a fraud has taken place. The lack of evidence produced so far only indicates that we have 2 victims, Hal and Chris. At least by starting to pay back some of the money Chris is indicating that he takes his responsibilities seriously and intends to make an horourable restitution.
The situation is a sad lesson for all and no more accusations should be thrown about unless positive proof of fraud and intent is produced.

 

[C0113c70r]

Originally posted by Mr Webname


That statement is totally out of order and is completely unsupported by facts - there is no evidence that cjmacd was an accomplice to any fraud. He may have acted without due consideration of the possible consequences of being a "broker" but there is no evidence to support him as being a party to any fraud - indeed as far as information on this Board is concerned, it has yet to be positively proven that a fraud has taken place. The lack of evidence produced so far only indicates that we have 2 victims, Hal and Chris. At least by starting to pay back some of the money Chris is indicating that he takes his responsibilities seriously and intends to make an horourable restitution.
The situation is a sad lesson for all and no more accusations should be thrown about unless positive proof of fraud and intent is produced.

Maybe the use of the word accomplice was incorrect, however my copy of the Webster's Encyclopedia of Dictionaries defines an accomplice as "a companion in improper deeds", and from what I've read in this thread cjmacd acted as such a companion, even if he did so without knowledge of the improper nature of what was being done. As was stated earlier by another poster to this thread, cjmacd's companion (I can't recall his name at the moment) has somehow disappeared with the money. This mysterious disappearance only leads one to believe (even for a brief second) that something is amiss. As for the questionability of a fraud being perpetrated, I wouldn't know what else to call it.

If what I wrote previously was out of line, then apologies are extended, yet I still stand fast in my opinion on this matter.

--- C0113c70r

 

[Mr Webname]

"a companion in improper deeds"

That is exactly the point - there is no evidence produced to date that proves that Chris was a companion in improper deeds.
Whilst he claims to have been a "friend", "associate", "colleague" or whatever, (and you might call that a "companion"), that does not automatically prove that he had knowledge that a fraud had been committed or was in progress.
If what you claim were true then everyone who has ever been married to, friendly with or even worked with someone who commits a crime, would themselves be guilty of crime merely by reason of being a "companion", (ie by association), - clearly preposterous.
For someone to be guilty of a crime in circumstances that have been outlined here would require that person to have full knowledge that the domain was "stolen" and to still go ahead and "broker" the sale. As I said before, there has been no evidence produced on this board to indicate that this was so of Chris.
Of course future evidence could change the whole perception of this case but we should only comment in accordance with the known facts, we should not make assumptions and throw mud.

 

[Domagon]

Originally posted by Restecpa
$150 is 7.5 % of $2000 so i wouldnt be too enthusiastic about it. Hope you get it all back..

I was thinking the exact same thing...he's being taken to the cleaners.

Furthermore, by paying the $150, Chris has basically acknowledged responsibility...and really, I'm not surprised, all this talk about partners, missing money, etc is all a smokescreen.

Chris is who received the money and Chris is the one responsible, in my view, for returning ALL $2000 USD PROMPTLY...not stringing this guy out...scammers do that.

Harsh, you bet...I've seen this exact same thing before numerous times...pay the scammed a few bucks to shut them up and then string the victim out so long they either give up or forget.

Ron

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

In part, it is also a leadership failure by DNF management to allow one DNF member to defraud another DNF member in a domain deal. It does nothing to strengthen the community or give confidence in the trading here. Debating whether or not the deal was actually "done" on the board --is really beside the point.

DNF management could easily say: "Make restitution in full by XX/ XX/ 2003 or you are banned." That would be the right thing to do.

I know 7.5% is a modest amount. At least it's a start. I expect the rest of the money to follow quickly, or in regular payments.

 

[Restecpa]

Yeah.. And to all those who say hes "just a broker". Brokers are responsible for any deal they close and accept money for.. If Id buy something from a broker I would hold HIM responsible for anything that might go wrong and not the owner of actual domain as hes not the one who cost me money (indirectly yes, but not directly). So hes the one who has to repay you for any losses that might occur as a result of his (poor) brokering. Its then on him to deal with the other guy to get his money back, as hes the one whos been dealing with him and not you..

Its risky to be a broker for somebody you dont know but so is everything else. If you cant stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen..

 

[Domagon]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
In part, it is also a leadership failure by DNF management to allow one DNF member to defraud another DNF member in a domain deal. It does nothing to strengthen the community or give confidence in the trading here. Debating whether or not the deal was actually "done" on the board --is really beside the point.

DNF management could easily say: "Make restitution in full by XX/ XX/ 2003 or you are banned." That would be the right thing to do.

I know 7.5% is a modest amount. At least it's a start. I expect the rest of the money to follow quickly, or in regular payments.

Blaming DNForum for the lost money? Interesting. I saw some similar posts in this thread before, but I can't believe you're serious. This thread has degenerated into pure nonsense.

Enjoy your $150 (I doubt you'll ever get the rest) and good luck.

I'm done with this thread.

Ron

 

[izoot]

To all:

Obviously Hal and Chris have talked and come to terms on a solution.

Chris has agreed to take responsibility and pay Hal back the money ... and has started making those payments. That is what Hal wanted, so any more unfounded speculation won't do anything but perpetuate the hostilities ... and what will be accomplished by that?

You guys speculating Chris will "rip" Hal off again don't have a clue of what you speak unless you can tell the future ... in which case you can tell us the hot stock next week.

If you read the posts from numerous people on this board and from the other board, it has been stated that they have dealt with Chris with no problems at all ... I think that we can afford Chris the opportunity to make good on this as he has a "clean prior record" . Which I'm sure, if you were in Chris' place you would want the opportunity to redeem yourself too.

So far nothing has proven that the name was stolen or that Chris had any knowledge of or intent to rip Hal off as NSI won't/hasn't provided documentation.
Without documentation we will never know for sure what happened.

But at this time as long as Hal is satified with his agreement with Chris and Chris maintains whatever payment plan he agreed too the situation is under control ...
you can pass judgment if he screws up.

imo

z

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

izoot wrote:

So far nothing has proven that the name was stolen
++++++++++

Au Contraire.

EVERYTHING has pointed to the domain being stolen, including a blanket statement by eNom and detailed description of the crime by the original registrant.

 

[Mr Webname]

There is a difference between "proven" and "pointed to" - no conclusive evidence has yet been produced here.

Enom statement is merely a statement passing the buck.
Description of the crime by the original registrant is "hearsay" to this board and does not provide evidence of theft.

 

[izoot]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
izoot wrote:

So far nothing has proven that the name was stolen
++++++++++

Au Contraire.

EVERYTHING has pointed to the domain being stolen, including a blanket statement by eNom and detailed description of the crime by the original registrant.

Hal ... Sorry ... I disagree with you.

It might very well be stolen ... it sure sounds like it could be but ...

My point has nothing to do with you getting your money back, I think regardless of anything else said here ... everyone wants to see you repaid the money your out, you do not deserve to lose your cash.

But neither registrar nor past registrant have provided a shred of solid evidence/proof beyond their "word" saying it was stolen.

In the real world, you need more than the word of a politician and registrars that "have" made mistakes in the past to prove something.

Anyhow ... apparently this is on its way to being resolved to your satifaction ... and that is the important thing here ...

_end_of_line_

 

[C0113c70r]

Originally posted by Mr Webname

that does not automatically prove that he had knowledge that a fraud had been committed or was in progress.

You just wrote in a previous post that there was no proof of fraud. Now, you indicate that there was a fraud, but that "he had no knowledge" of the fraud. :huh:

You'd probably make a great attorney (if you're not already one) and have a booming business with arguments like that. We had a young man go to prison in Alabama only a couple years ago for driving a friend to a store where that friend robbed, shot, and killed the merchant. Of course, the young man that drove the car had no idea that his "companion" was going to perform such an unspeakable "improper deed", but he was still found to be as guilty as the other. He was given a lighter sentence than the one that carried out the improper deed - but nonetheless was held to some degree accountable for the actions of his companion.

Well, I did not expect to get into a debate over the wording of a statement of opinion in this thread. I simply intended to voice that opinion, as many other members of DNF are doing herein. With my opinion made known, I will simply withdraw from whatever competition of words we are being drawn into, sit back and watch for other opinions from other members.

And, above all else, I do hope for all involved that this matter comes to a quick and satisfactory resolution.

-- C0113c70r

 

[WebCat]

Originally posted by C0113c70r
We had a young man go to prison in Alabama only a couple years ago for driving a friend to a store where that friend robbed, shot, and killed the merchant. Of course, the young man that drove the car had no idea that his "companion" was going to perform such an unspeakable "improper deed", but he was still found to be as guilty as the other.

This is not justice, but a complete travesty of justice.

So in your world, if you drive a friend to a party, and at that party your friend committs a crime, YOU are responsible? That is nothing short of insanity!

C0113c70r, I only hope and pray you are NEVER held responsible for the actions of another. Perhaps you do not beleive in the concept of personal responsibility? If so, then heaven help you.

WebCat

 

[C0113c70r]

Originally posted by WebCat
This is not justice, but a complete travesty of justice.

...I only hope and pray you are NEVER held responsible for the actions of another. Perhaps you do not beleive in the concept of personal responsibility? If so, then heaven help you.

I agree that this is a travesty of justice, and I too pray that I am never held responsible for the actions of another. Of course, I take considerable caution every day to not place myself into such a position by knowing persons that I associate with and that I act on the behalf of, and by having legal documents drafted to protect myself from liability when I do act on the behalf of others in business matters.

As for the matter of personal responsibility, I do believe in that concept.

If Chris is indeed a victim in this fiasco, I wish him well and and that he is able to recover from the position that his associate placed him into.

-- C0113c70r

 

[cjmacd]

Originally posted by Mr Webname
There is a difference between "proven" and "pointed to" - no conclusive evidence has yet been produced here.

Enom statement is merely a statement passing the buck.
Description of the crime by the original registrant is "hearsay" to this board and does not provide evidence of theft.

That’s correct. There seems to be a lot of uninformed speculation flying around here by some of the newer members.

I think I should post to clear a few things up.

Hal is currently trying to obtain documented proof as to the Domains integrity and ownership.
This is important in order for me to get my money back too.
If not I’d be holding a $2000 problem and almost no way of getting the money back without that documentation.

All this he said she said has done a lot of pointing but now actual proof

Hal has assured me that he is working diligently with eNom and NSI to obtain that proof and I humbly thank him for that.

Hal., Thank you

Unfortunately I realize that that could be a long and stressful process as many of you know NSI isn’t really a fun registrar to deal with.

I paid Hal $150 (what I had) not to shut him up and try to let some statute of limitations run out (that’s just plain ludicrous), but to do the honorable thing, and actually make a move toward full resolution.

I accept my responsibilities to him; I made the mistake of handling cash as well. An expensive lesson, but a lesson none the less.

I’d like to thank everyone’s patients and diligence in assisting with this situation, especially to those who have been following this and other threads. And have made informed contributions.

Thanks guys.

-Cjmacd

 

[jberryhill]

"Of course, the young man that drove the car had no idea that his "companion" was going to perform such an unspeakable "improper deed", "

...which is what the driver said....

"but he was still found to be as guilty as the other. "

...which is what a jury determined after first-hand consideration of the evidence. I doubt the trial was conducted on a bulletin board.

Even in criminal law, accomplice liability requires knowledge or intent. I suppose if the robber had taken the bus, C0113c70r believes the city would go to jail.

 

[izoot]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"Of course, the young man that drove the car had no idea that his "companion" was going to perform such an unspeakable "improper deed", "

...which is what the driver said....

"but he was still found to be as guilty as the other. "

...which is what a jury determined after first-hand consideration of the evidence. I doubt the trial was conducted on a bulletin board.

Even in criminal law, accomplice liability requires knowledge or intent. I suppose if the robber had taken the bus, C0113c70r believes the city would go to jail
.

John there ya go complicating things

If he had taken the bus ... the driver and the other passengers would have been accomplises as well ... ooo ya, don't forget the city planners who created that route, the manufacturer of the bus as well

The cell is gonna get awfully crowded.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by jberryhill

Even in criminal law, accomplice liability requires knowledge or intent. I suppose if the robber had taken the bus, C0113c70r believes the city would go to jail.

Let's be intellectually honest here, and not try to "flame" this anymore. I think all C0113c70r was trying to do was explain why sometimes you are responsible for the outcomes of events you are involved in irregardless if you had intent to deceive or not.


Peace--