[secretary.com] stolen domain

[DaddyHalbucks]

Hal I am not your enemy here, I’m doing the best with what I have to fix this entire thing for you, your personal crusade to persecute based on assumptions.
++++++++++++

I make no assumptions.

You took my money, and you broke numerous promises, privately and publically.

Indemnify me as you promised!

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by izopod
Whatever we need to do to make this thread "sticky", let's make it happen.

No need to apply any messageboard glue, this one is sticky all by itself.

But a good rule of thumb: If it sounds fishy (like getting ownership of a one word dot com name before money exchanges hands) don't get involved. If they act like someone selling Rolex watches out of a trenchcoat, chances are they are crooks. :bandit:

As far as the guy who got the money as the middleman... If you took the money, you owe the money. Then if you are legit you go after the person who ripped you off. That's the normal chain of how compensation works in these cases. If the seller lied to you, then, yeah, sucks, but you are still the responsible party.

If there was a check written out to the other person and you simply handed to to them, that's another story. But if you acted as escrow or a reseller and the money went to you then you have the responsibility. If you care about your reputation at all, you'd be making whatever arrangements it takes to get money to the buyer who got ripped off instead of just giving someone else's phone number.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by namedropper


No need to apply any messageboard glue, this one is sticky all by itself.

Are you sure you are not some 75 year old grandmother "holed" up in Northern Wisconsin pretending to be Dan Norder??

:laugh:

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

I would really appreciate it if the DNF management would give Chris a firm deadline --such as 48 hours-- to make restitution or be banned from trading here anymore.

 

[WebCat]

DotComCowboy,

Are you interested in knowing whether or not the domain was stolen?

 

[Mr Webname]

I don't in any way underestimate the seriousness of this situation but I cannot agree that DNF should step in and render a "judicial decision" on this matter.
Currently no evidence has been produced to prove that the domain had been stolen and chris is alleging that he is trying to gain a resolution.
DNF is not a party to any "contract" of sale in this matter and indeed it does appear that no formal "contract" was ever signed and agreed between the buyer and seller. Why should DNF assume the contents of a "contract" and take sides accordingly?
This matter could be subject to criminal or civil proceedings and it is not for DNF to presume upon the outcome of such proceedings IMO.

 

[WebCat]

Well said MrWebname. Everything hinges on whether the domain was or was not stolen.

Both partie's (DCC and cjmacd) legal positions seem to change RADICALLY based on that one fact.

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
I would really appreciate it if the DNF management would give Chris a firm deadline --such as 48 hours-- to make restitution or be banned from trading here anymore.

DNF management will not get involved. . .

-Bob

 

[Spider]

Hasn't it already been said and proven the domain was registered in 1995. If it had dropped it would have a newer registry date.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

DNF management will not get involved. . .
+++++++++++

And hence, fails a key leadership test.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Bob,

Based on your above comment, and for the record, it would appear that buyers are not protected on DNF.

All members should pay close attention to this!

DNF will not enforce honest dealing on the board.

If you buy on DNF, you are AT RISK!

BEWARE!

 

[WebCat]

There is a logical order in which an investigation like this must proceed.

It would seem backward to shoot the prisioner, then put him on trial.

If I were either of the parties invloved, I would prceeed cautiously. My attorney would already have certified letters drafted to: eNom, NSI, the Oregon lady, the enigmatic and suspiciously missing "Chad", WIPO, ICANN, the fraud enforcement agency with jurisdiction, and the other party involved.

We are talking about a possible felony, two good people's reputations, $2,000.00, and perhaps most troubling- what seem to be an INCREDIBLE breach of protocol in the return of the domain to the Oregon lady!

This is high stakes poker, the outcome of which affects us all.

 

[ReignDomain]

Originally posted by Bob



DNF management will not get involved. . .

-Bob

Interesting.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Bob,

Based on your above comment, and for the record, it would appear that buyers are not protected on DNF.

All members should pay close attention to this!

DNF will not enforce honest dealing on the board.

If you buy on DNF, you are AT RISK!

BEWARE!

For the record we are always at risk, however when you have a tight-knit community that risk "should" be lowered.

I think we as a community really need to voice our opinion here. This could have been any one of us.

There are a lot of lessons here in this thread, first and foremost when you broker a deal, you actually "put" your reputation on the line. If the deal goes bad, make damn sure you have "procedures" in place to get the money back--possibly even setting up an escrow yourself if the person is making payments.

The other is $7K gentlemen deals are out the door here. Now some of you who are very "risk-adverse" might not have done what DCC did, but there are some people I wouldn't have batted an eye at doing a gentlemen's agreement like this (URLT, Duke, StocDoctor, Beshopula). DCC obviously felt comfortable with Chris's "senior member" status.

Lastly, I think this is a "huge" opportunity missed by DNF not to even give a statement here. Saying, "We won't get involved" won't cut it. Lot's of us spend (too much) time here already not to at least be given a "these types of Transactions---IF proven fraudulent will not be tolerated on DNF".... Not sure what more you could do other than that, but certainly even DCC deserves better than a one-liner.

 

[Spider]

For reasons like this I would never do a paypal deal for this much money. Atleast as of right now you are only out $2k instead of $8k.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by ReignDomain



Interesting.

{Edited possible incorrect information} ... another DNF member was offering this name for sale prior to this sale taking place. He hasn't posted since 26/10/2003 so I guess that's why we havn't heard anything from him since this thread started.

 

[Spider]

Dnforum is a message board not the police. They can only do so much but they can't give someone 48 hours to do anything.

 

[Spider]

This sale did take place here, in the broker area of the exclusive forum.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by ReignDomain



Interesting.

I agree RD. Even I am taken back here. I've been DNF's biggest supporter, but right now I am not very happy. A simple statement that this type of activity will not be tolerated on DNF would have gone a long way.

 

[ReignDomain]

Originally posted by Mr Webname


This sale was not conducted at DNF and has no direct association with DNF, other than the fact that another DNF member was offering this name for sale prior to this sale taking place. He hasn't posted since 26/10/2003 so I guess that's why we havn't heard anything from him since this thread started.

This sale was not conducted at DNF, but it has association with DNF because both parties of this sale are DNF members.