[secretary.com] stolen domain

namedropper · Nov 1, 2003

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
What happen if DotComCowboy made up all the story by transferring the name to his friend and blame that the domain was found stolen?
+++++++++++++++++

..my "friend" --who just happened to be the original registrant of the domain name?

I think you have been reading too many conspiracy theory novels.

Well, as a hypothetical, it is at least possible that the original owner contacted you, wanted it back, and you got some money out of her and cooked the whole theft thing up to get money back from Chris or Chad.

I don't consider it at all likely, considering what we do know about the situation though. And presumably the documentation you say you are getting will show that this isn't at all possible.

I mean, it's likely at least one person is doing some scamming, so it's not too much of a conspiracy theory to entertain the notion that it might be you. Until the proof is provided, nobody (including DNF) can say for sure.

And, again, the facts sound like they are coming out on your side, but I thought I'd play devil's advocate to explain why proof is needed before anything can be done.

izoot · Nov 1, 2003

"""And, again, the facts sound like they are coming out on your side, but I thought I'd play devil's advocate to explain why proof is needed before anything can be done."""

Because at this point ... it has not been proven that the name was stolen. So far all we know is that the name was pulled from Hal's account and no documentation showing proof of theft has been produced to justify the removal of the name.

If it ends up the name is not stolen then it is not up to Chris to resolve the issue. It is up to Hal as the name would have been taken unjustly from him by Enom/NSI/Mary.

If it is determined that the name was stolen, then by all means Chris is obligated to pay Hal back every cent.

But in the meantime Hal is the only person that can obtain that info from the registrars as he was the registrant whose account the name was taken from.

And lastly ... don't you think that it is the right thing to do to determine what the name's status really is and not just walk away from it?

There is money, reputations and a fairly good name at stake here.

If you read the past posts it will expain it to you.

WebCat · Nov 1, 2003

Originally posted by izoot
And lastly ... don't you think that it is the right thing to do to determine what the name's status really is and not just walk away from it?

There is money, reputations and a fairly good name at stake here.

And let's not forget...... a possible Felony conviction, jail time, and lot's of long nights with Big Ralph and Bubba....

I'm no cop, but I believe the FBI takes wire fraud very seriously.

WebCat

PS- Interesting how we have NO reports of ANY recent contact with hanging Chad, or Mary Gallegos! The DN Community holds it's collective breath.....

izoot · Nov 1, 2003

WebCat...Mellow out with the jail time, bubba and the extreme thoughts.

Chris has been vouched for here a number a times by people that have dealt with him and never had problems ... there is nothing showing he wasn't duped as well .... if the name is even stolen.

Not to mention Chris said to contact the authorities to help if thats what is needed.

Why would he say that if he did something illegal intentionally?

WebCat · Nov 1, 2003

Originally posted by izoot
WebCat...Mellow out with the jail time, bubba and the extreme thoughts.

Who was talking about Chris?

I was referring to whoever (allegedly) scammed the domain from the registrar, then fraudulently sold it over a modem, which, I believe amounts to wire fraud. Unless this does turn out to be an error by the registrar, then someone has committed a crime, perhaps several.

Jail time for a felony is definitely a possibility, especially in today's pro law-enforcement climate. From what I hear, prosecutions for identity theft and internet fraud are on the rise.

DaddyHalbucks · Nov 1, 2003

Not to mention Chris said to contact the authorities to help if thats what is needed.

Why would he say that if he did something illegal intentionally?
++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps Chris believes that if he did not actually do the alleged forgery himself --he is free and clear. Perhaps he believes that if he only "brokered" stolen property --he is immune.

I don't know if law enforcement would take that same view. It could be a rude awakening.

Steen · Nov 1, 2003

Originally posted by DotComCowboy

Perhaps Chris believes that if he did not actually do the alleged forgery himself --he is free and clear. Perhaps he believes that if he only "brokered" stolen property --he is immune.

I hope you are speaking in a hypothetical situation, becaues I am sure that isn't the case :wink:

Jack Gordon · Nov 2, 2003

What a sad case. I hope everybody involved can get fair resolution and walk away as friends.

Mr Webname · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Not to mention Chris said to contact the authorities to help if thats what is needed.

Why would he say that if he did something illegal intentionally?
++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps Chris believes that if he did not actually do the alleged forgery himself --he is free and clear. Perhaps he believes that if he only "brokered" stolen property --he is immune.

I don't know if law enforcement would take that same view. It could be a rude awakening.

In UK law at least the following would be the yardstick by which it would be judged:-

"A person handles stolen goods if knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so."

I don't know what the law states in US or Canada but I would expect it to be similar.

jberryhill · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by DotComCowboy

Perhaps Chris believes that if he did not actually do the alleged forgery himself --he is free and clear. Perhaps he believes that if he only "brokered" stolen property --he is immune.

I don't know if law enforcement would take that same view. It could be a rude awakening.

Ummmm.... YOU are the person from whom the allegedly stolen domain name was recovered.

That's one of the reasons why I suggested earlier that you might want to make it clear to enom why a stolen domain name wound up being registered to you.

WebCat · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by Mr Webname
In UK law at least the following would be the yardstick by which it would be judged:-

"A person handles stolen goods if knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so."

I don't know what the law states in US or Canada but I would expect it to be similar.

In the US, I think the law is about the same. But you definitely don't get to keep it!

If you mistakenly buy a stolen car, do $1,000.00 worth of bodywork, then paint it and put in a nice new 5.1 stereo..... it's all bye bye when it's recovered!

Mr Webname · Nov 2, 2003

True, however it was "guilty knowledge" that was being implied in the post - receiving stolen goods without "guilty knowledge" just makes the receiver another victim.
Until "guilty knowledge" is proven it seems to me to be out of order for anyone to be slinging accusations of theft at anyone!
This thread has highlighted a number of possible victims but it has so far failed to provide concrete evidence of who is the guilty party.

DomeBase · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by jberryhill

Ummmm.... YOU are the person from whom the allegedly stolen domain name was recovered.

That's one of the reasons why I suggested earlier that you might want to make it clear to enom why a stolen domain name wound up being registered to you.

This is a very important point.

Suppose that a name is stolen from person A by person B, then sold/transferred to person C, then sold/transferred to person D, then reclaimed/transferred back to person A.

Suppose that one day Person D says that person C's having had/transferred a stolen name is evidence of bad faith and deserving of potential punishment -- regardless of person C's knowledge and intent.

Now suppose that the next day Person D gets a call from Person A who feels the exact same way about Person D? How would person D feel about that?

Treat others as you would like them to treat you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rather than inflammatory stuff, let's focus on :

(1) getting documentation of the theft from Person A;

(2) seeking contact from person B to get their story; and

(3) riembursement of person D's money from the appropriate parties (depending on the results of (1)).

DaddyHalbucks · Nov 2, 2003

I was the one who started this thread to get to the bottom of the matter.

I was the one who relied on representations from another DNF member, such as vouching/ guaranteeing/ indemnification --which so far have been worthless.

And you know what? DNF management hasn't done the right thing either. They haven't enforced fair trading on their boards. They haven't enforced the sellers public and private indemnifications, some of which are documented.

At this point, there is no one, through my actions, who is not whole.

I am the fellow stuck with the $2000 loss.

I am also the fellow who has been stuck with numerous unfair barbs, outrageous accusations, and even broad character assasination.

I am working on getting documentation to prove that the domain was stolen. However, that documentation shouldn't be necessary. The facts that have come out are sufficient to trigger the indemnification that Chris made which induced me to this transaction.

I am being forced to a very very high standard that I don't think many of you would like if you were in my shoes.

Mr Webname · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
And you know what? DNF management hasn't done the right thing either. They haven't enforced fair trading on their boards.

Was the name sold here on DNF?

DaddyHalbucks · Nov 2, 2003

Was the name sold here on DNF?
++++++++

Yes, Chris contacted me through our mutual membership here.

Mr Webname · Nov 2, 2003

But it was not sold on DNF or through DNF - it was sold privately, by private arrangement between people with long-standing knowledge of one another.

izopod · Nov 2, 2003

Recommendation: Mr W., Izoot, WebCat, and yes J. Berryhill--- It's time to let the affected parties work this out under the watchful eye of the "domain community".

Remember we are here to help, not obfuscate the situation by inneundo, hyperbole, and outright imaginative speculation.

DaddyHalbucks · Nov 2, 2003

Ah, so as long as one keeps the name out of the 'for sale' section and conducts business on a particular domain though private messages and IMs, that person is free to rip-off fellow DNF members?

izopod · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Ah, so as long as one keeps the name out of the 'for sale' section and conducts business on a particular domain though private messages and IMs, that person is free to rip-off fellow DNF members?

I think DCC my best advice would be to get that proof, and post it here. Until then, I would refrain from posting. It seems there is a bit of "baiting" going on that you are falling prey to.

I think everyone who is a decent DNFer can understand what it's like to lose 2K. Although some have suggested, you need more proof than what you and Chris have shown, which is fine, I think we need to have a more "positive" approach to all this.

There will be a positive conclusion, if everyone does what they are supposed to. From the community, we should be concerned, a bit more trusting, and yes, forgiving.