Huge Nightmare - Camroulette.com - BRING BACK THE THREAD!

[jberryhill]

she might be blind but she definitely has some juicy curves

Yeah, and a sword.

She's a bit on the kinky side.

[Acro]

Exactly that was my assessment since the beginning. Also, don't forget that there plenty of people with the ability to utilize - per agreement or per association - the services of an attorney.

so.... basically whoever is suing this guy for backing out of the 1st contract took a BIG gamble, by assuming that the person was actually someone else of the same name with deeper pockets, suing for damages hoping, perhaps, to have it settled out of court? since, as JB states, they would have opted to go for the NEW owner with a lawsuit if they wanted to actually contest domain ownership? So he has basically already spent more on lawyer fees just to initiate this then he would be likely to be reimbursed in any lawsuit if it went to court? the plot thickens faster than cement......

[Infoproliferati]

At its core, this domain name was never "worth" $150K to either the seller, the proposed buyer, or the actual buyer. The seller made off with a couple hundred dollars by breaching the contract. That's the measure here. The rest is opportunistic and speculative nonsense.

Well said. Assuming there really was a breach of contract, I hope the plaintiff isn't dumb enough to sue for that amount. Like Stevo inquired, if this is a ploy to draw the original registrant's attention to the breach, then it is one hell of a megaphone tactic.

[jberryhill]

So he has basically already spent more on lawyer fees just to initiate this then he would be likely to be reimbursed in any lawsuit if it went to court?

Yes, and the lawyer who filed it could face sanctions for alleging that he is an entirely different Craig Snyder.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

(b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General.

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

So, let's take a look at what this lawyer alleged:

3. Defendant claims, on the website located at www.TheCraigSnyder.com, that he is "[a] veteran of the Boston book and magazine publishing industry," and that...

This isn't couched in terms of information and belief. It is an express statement of fact. And, by now, it is a statement of fact which the Plaintiff's attorney knows to be false, and should have known to be false by due investigation of the two Craig Snyders.

Clearly, the pre-filing due inquiry here was incompetent.

I don't care how "reputable" the law firm is, you don't get to make stuff up and plead it as fact, even if you are too damned stupid to check your facts.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

Such are the things upon which reputations fall.

[fab]

One can state a tenuous theory. Just because the odds are 1000 to 1 against it, doesn't mean it is somehow unethical.

Oh really, if the lawyer didn't inform his client it's definitely unethical and probably more than that. Moreover, since he is basing his case on a mistaken identity as you've mentioned, I sure hope he returns the fees he's charged! Would you invest $50K, with a 1:1000 possibility of tripling your money or losing it all?

---------- Post added at 02:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

3. Defendant claims, on the website located at www.TheCraigSnyder.com, that he is "[a] veteran of the Boston book and magazine publishing industry," and that...

This isn't couched in terms of information and belief. It is an express statement of fact. And, by now, it is a statement of fact which the Plaintiff's attorney knows to be false, and should have known to be false by due investigation of the two Craig Snyders.

Clearly, the pre-filing due inquiry here was incompetent.

I don't care how "reputable" the law firm is, you don't get to make stuff up and plead it as fact, even if you are too damned stupid to check your facts.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

Such are the things upon which reputations fall.

Yes, definitely needs some explaining.

[jberryhill]

Would you invest $50K, with a 1:1000 possibility of tripling your money or losing it all?

50K?

It took a couple of hours to draft that complaint and it costs $350 to file it.

The question is not whether, under those circumstances, you can win anything in court. MOST civil cases don't get anywhere near a decision, but I understand that people tend to have a cartoon fantasy of how litigation actually works.

The assumption in a lot of civil litigation is that the litigation itself is so expensive, once the artillery gets rolling some months down the line, that one can extract the nuisance value from the other side.

The real proposition in these circumstances is this:

I file a lawsuit against you with a 1000:1 shot at actually winning on the merits. You are still going to have to show up and spend $XK to file an answer and at least a preliminary motion to dismiss on some grounds. If it is going to cost you $20K just to get the thing dismissed on, say, personal jurisdiction, and I offer that you pay me $10K to get out, then you tell me what you are going to do?

The problem here is that the plaintiff doesn't seem to realize he sued a turnip (as in "you can't get blood from a").

However, this complaint has clear sanction bait in it, so there is the possibility of wasting some more time on the plaintiff's end for the obvious false allegations to be fixed in an amended complaint.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

Oh really, if the lawyer didn't inform his client it's definitely unethical and probably more than that.

What he informed his client is anybody's guess. I've had people come to me with slim chances who wanted to fight anyway. Most of the time, I talk them out of it.

It's kind of funny when they want to argue with me. I had a situation a while back where I told someone that I didn't think they had a snowball's chance in a hot place, and they called me back a while later and said, "Well, I talked to [Lawyer X] and he told me that I had a really good chance."

My answer: Hire that guy immediately.

But where there is a debatable chance of success, and a determined and fully informed client, they certainly have the right to hire willing counsel of their choice to take the case. Some lawyers figure "If I don't take the case, then some other guy will." I guess I just lack that kind of ambition, or something. But I have certainly lost cases where the result came as no great surprise. The question is simply the dividing line between "some scintilla of merit" versus "sheer frivolity".

As I discussed above, there are contract situation where one can tease out a claim for consequential damages. But the foreseeability here is about nil, and the notion that the seller screwed someone out of 150K for a profit of a couple hundred dollars strikes me as really being more funny than it is anything else.

Still others take the position that this is some sort of moral question. To an extent, it is. But the law doesn't really deal in morals. Breaching a contract may be, in the context of one's broader business situation, a sound business decision to take some lumps in exchange for an economic benefit.

For example, you and I may have a contract with liquidated damages set at $10K. I find an opportunity in which breaching that contract will net me a gain of $50K. So, I breach the contract, pay you your agreed damages of $10K and net the $40K. That's normal. We agreed upfront that the price of breach was a fixed amount, and I complied with the contract by paying that amount.

In the context of domain deals, it would make my day a LOT more convenient if people followed through on the penny-ante stuff and not call me up with long rants which, if I spent the time needed to read them, would cost more than any conceivable measure of damages. I'm happy to chat with new folks but when people start ranting on about "I don't care about the money, it's the principle of the thing," then it usually reduces to a question of what dollar figure they are willing to put on that principle. It's surprising how many people think they are in the moral-promotion business, as opposed to some other sort of employment. It's an expensive business to be in.

Now, as some folks have figured out, once in a LOOOOOONG while, a situation comes along where the entertainment value alone makes an engagement worthwhile. But those are rare birds.

[fab]

50K?

That was the amount the defendant quoted as the plaintiff's lawyer's retainer fees.

It took a couple of hours to draft that complaint and it costs $350 to file it.

The question is not whether, under those circumstances, you can win anything in court. MOST civil cases don't get anywhere near a decision, but I understand that people tend to have a cartoon fantasy of how litigation actually works.

The assumption in a lot of civil litigation is that the litigation itself is so expensive, once the artillery gets rolling some months down the line, that one can extract the nuisance value from the other side.

The real proposition in these circumstances is this:

I file a lawsuit against you with a 1000:1 shot at actually winning on the merits. You are still going to have to show up and spend $XK to file an answer and at least a preliminary motion to dismiss on some grounds. If it is going to cost you $20K just to get the thing dismissed on, say, personal jurisdiction, and I offer that you pay me $10K to get out, then you tell me what you are going to do?

More reason to despise the legal system.

[biggedon]

That's like going to the police because someone cut your heroin.

lol


but the cops will be in full force if the heroin is too strong


last year or year before in chicago, there were several heroin overdoes reported in the same area within days

the police found out that dealers were mixing scag with Fentanyl

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20178

[jberryhill]

but the cops will be in full force if the heroin is too strong

That is one of the gravest risks of heroin addiction. Two factors work against junkies. First, as their tolerance develops, they get very good at estimating their dose. Second, street heroin tends to be cut multiple times. So, if a shipment of unusual purity hits the street, junkies drop like flies.

It's just a matter of time. Get into a program and get clean.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

That was the amount the defendant quoted as the plaintiff's lawyer's retainer fees.

"Retainer" and "amount spent thus far" are two different things. Once you get onto the pony of representing someone in court, you can't just quit without the court's permission, whether you are getting paid or not. So, typically, before any litigation engagement, an attorney will request a suitably large amount to keep the case going for a while, and will request periodic replenishment when it starts to run low.

More reason to despise the legal system.

...because street brawling is more effective? If you are looking for some sort of perfect moral justice, then you're just going to have to bank on the Hereafter. One popular religion proposes that we are all born guilty, so anything else is a bonus. Civil lawsuits don't determine who is right and who is wrong, they merely determine who gets how much. And that is why I always advise against the common error of thinking that it has something to do with Justice within the framework of some eternal plane. The first proposition is that your claim had better reduce to a stated dollar figure, and sometimes ownership of some thing. Nobody ever sprang to life from the grave as a consequence of a wrongful death lawsuit. (What sucked to be Lazarus is that he had to die twice, since his resurrection was only temporary.)

I'm not really a cynical person, but a lot of litigants are really in the wrong place. They believe the spectacle and pageant of a lawsuit is some kind of substitute for finding cosmic affirmation as a consequence of some person in a funny outfit saying, "That guy owes you big bucks." In England, you can even still get a dude wearing a dress and a wig! But in your real life, how many times have you said to yourself, "I need to resolve a moral problem. I guess I'll go ask a hammer-wielding transvestite for the answer." (Okay, you don't have to answer that if you don't want to.)

A long while ago, I was contacted by a disabled person living on supplemental social security with no assets to his name. He was being sued for several million dollars by an overheated plaintiff. I had to tell him, "The good news is that you aren't going to lose several million dollars, no matter what happens!"

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

But if you despise the legal system and don't like government interference, then there's always the libertarian paradise of Somalia. Make as many rules as you have ammunition to support.

[David G]

My question is when will the original deleted thread get restored? In effect we wasted time posting in the thread only to have it deleted. The OPs first post was very telling of the facts and now we have to base things on trying to recall what he said or did not say, and guessing. The OP himself posted many times in that thread he wanted the facts made public so kind of odd he suddenly asked it be deleted and even odder some Mod here deleted the thread entirely after first closing it. A few members tried hard to get him to not post about it for some strange reason so maybe OP later changed his mind and persuaded a Mod to delete it I am guessing.

[jberryhill]

My question is when will the original deleted thread get restored?

When you run your own forum, then you get to call the shots. That's the way it works. So the answer would appear to be "if and when the forum owner wants to".

[locos]

@OP --- I don't post often, but I've spent my (un)fair share of legal fees to domain attorneys. The bulk of which I should file under JB's heading of "I don't care about the money, there's morals at stake here". Now I'm a bit older, poorer, and hopefully wiser. So, I'll keep this post short, but don't mistake the shortness for disregard or nonchalant advise. Far from it. In answer to your original post, talk on the phone with:

John Berryhill

Don't sweat it. You're young, you are surely to learn from this, and (having been in Person A's shoes) you're only out your "unjust enrichment" which would be the difference between what you sold it to Person B for and what you agreed to sell it to Person A for. I think if you asked some of the members here to pass a hat around, you'll get a couple hours of JB's time covered. But imho, to have to see the domain get resold for 100x what you sold it for and then to be sued for breach has got to be one tough life lesson that anyone can empathize with. I'm one of those guys that'll sue you for moral grounds with little regard for the monetary costs, but generally I reserve that for (older) folks who should know full well that what they are doing is immoral. In your case, I'll drop something in your hat if it comes my way.



Before I get flamed, let me say that I don't endorse what you did, but from what I've seen, it doesn't look like you knew what you were doing. Accepting any offer when you've received two in two days certainly indicates that you didn't have any experiene in domaining.

[David G]

When you run your own forum, then you get to call the shots. That's the way it works. So the answer would appear to be "if and when the forum owner wants to".

FYI, even before I posted that John, Adam said he was going to restore it.

[TheLegendaryJP]

No one knows the guy who is suing username here?

[Wot]

If it had been stocks and not a domain that is in question would there not be some sort of insider trading going on here. The guy instigating the litigation knew something was happening with the domain and made a low ball bid which initially was accepted and the rejected for a larger deal-wrong!

But to try and sue for that amount! Personally -despite the original owner being greedy and stupid I hope the court throws it out. Whatever happens I'll bet that it will be adverse publicity for the the "rich guy" suing the little man.

Not condoning the actions of the original seller but the over reaction from the "rich guy"- I think it will come across as throwing his weight around.

Just my 2 sense.

[jberryhill]

If it had been stocks and not a domain that is in question would there not be some sort of insider trading going on here.

The amusing part is that the entire premise of the situation is "who is entitled to ripoff ChatRoulette?"

I have a very good notion who is going to get the last laugh in the long run here.

[biggedon]

The amusing part is that the entire premise of the situation is "who is entitled to ripoff ChatRoulette?"

I have a very good notion who is going to get the last laugh in the long run here.

hmmm

i'm get the feeling you expect some time in the future, that chatroulette may file claims against all other copy-cat roulette sites?

[jberryhill]

Biggedon, the ante was just upped:

Word Mark CAM ROULETTE
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing a website featuring adult entertainment. FIRST USE: 20100411. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100411
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 85021319
Filing Date April 22, 2010
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Red Mountain Entertainment CORPORATION CALIFORNIA #248 1336 Moorpark Rd Thousand Oaks CALIFORNIA 91360
Attorney of Record Anna M. Vradenburgh
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

[biggedon]

Biggedon, the ante was just upped:

Word Mark CAM ROULETTE
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing a website featuring adult entertainment. FIRST USE: 20100411. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100411
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 85021319
Filing Date April 22, 2010
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Red Mountain Entertainment CORPORATION CALIFORNIA #248 1336 Moorpark Rd Thousand Oaks CALIFORNIA 91360
Attorney of Record Anna M. Vradenburgh
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

so.....there may be a "rumble in the jungle" soon

[DTalk]

That is one of the gravest risks of heroin addiction. Two factors work against junkies. First, as their tolerance develops, they get very good at estimating their dose. Second, street heroin tends to be cut multiple times. So, if a shipment of unusual purity hits the street, junkies drop like flies.

It's just a matter of time. Get into a program and get clean.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------



"Retainer" and "amount spent thus far" are two different things. Once you get onto the pony of representing someone in court, you can't just quit without the court's permission, whether you are getting paid or not. So, typically, before any litigation engagement, an attorney will request a suitably large amount to keep the case going for a while, and will request periodic replenishment when it starts to run low.



...because street brawling is more effective? If you are looking for some sort of perfect moral justice, then you're just going to have to bank on the Hereafter. One popular religion proposes that we are all born guilty, so anything else is a bonus. Civil lawsuits don't determine who is right and who is wrong, they merely determine who gets how much. And that is why I always advise against the common error of thinking that it has something to do with Justice within the framework of some eternal plane. The first proposition is that your claim had better reduce to a stated dollar figure, and sometimes ownership of some thing. Nobody ever sprang to life from the grave as a consequence of a wrongful death lawsuit. (What sucked to be Lazarus is that he had to die twice, since his resurrection was only temporary.)

I'm not really a cynical person, but a lot of litigants are really in the wrong place. They believe the spectacle and pageant of a lawsuit is some kind of substitute for finding cosmic affirmation as a consequence of some person in a funny outfit saying, "That guy owes you big bucks." In England, you can even still get a dude wearing a dress and a wig! But in your real life, how many times have you said to yourself, "I need to resolve a moral problem. I guess I'll go ask a hammer-wielding transvestite for the answer." (Okay, you don't have to answer that if you don't want to.)

A long while ago, I was contacted by a disabled person living on supplemental social security with no assets to his name. He was being sued for several million dollars by an overheated plaintiff. I had to tell him, "The good news is that you aren't going to lose several million dollars, no matter what happens!"

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

But if you despise the legal system and don't like government interference, then there's always the libertarian paradise of Somalia. Make as many rules as you have ammunition to support.

John....Sooo funny.......You really oughtta write for comedy TV....