-
Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Exposed
- Thread starter typist
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
Actually, I already stated this on anotehr forum many months ago.
I am fighting this decision and I won one slight concession already. Before anyone starts on the bandwagon, plesse do a archive.org search on the domain and please, someone find me a link at anytime on this site. Their lawyer added a web location onto a screenshot of my site which then the panelist took as a link. Additionally, I have said here I had a fansite, I made no secret of that. I never reveled it because it was noones business. I have always said true fansites are to be protected. I dare anyone to show otherwise. The panelist did zero research and even looked at a wrong website when determining bad faith adn my character. I am pissed about this and I have contacted the ACLU to see if they are willing to help. It is truly sad, they submitted doctured evidence and the financial advisor outright lied about her one single conversation she had with me. She claimed she has been contacting me for years, yet had no evidence. She only contacted me once and I stated I had no desire to get rid of the domain. I even submitted an affidavit from a witness to the phone conversation. It was not even mentioned. The panelist even said he disregarded all unsupported claims. But he chose the 2004 contact date when it should have been 2007. That means she went 6 years without contacting me. Additionally, I was contacted in 2002 about the site from an associate of Kareem, at that time I showed no desire to sell. After several emails, he gave me pictures of Kareem to put on the website and told me if I change my mind to contact him. He gave me permission. Did the panelist ever concider this?? no he did not. I have rejected offers as high as $6000.00 for this site. I really had no desire to get rid of it. I made no money form it and there were no links to it.
And yes, it is vegasgamblers.info. It is my personal website. Do a search on Vega$ Gambler$ and you will see I was a major player in the fantasy sports industry. I am a charter member of the World Championships of Fantsy Football, The World Championships of Fantasy Baseball and the National Fantasy Football Championships. I was ranked in the top 300 at one point in the ESPN fantasy uber rankings. I have won appr. $30,000 playing fantasy sports. I was part of an experts league published by Krause Publications. In addition to that, I was a B/C level softball player that sponsored teams for a decade, of which one team made to the World Series of Softball in 1999 ( I couldn't go because I moved to Maryland). Why am I sharing this you may ask??? Every single one of my teams were names Vega$ Gambler$ (or Vegas Gamblers if I could not use the "$". This goes back to the early 90s when I did my first fantasy game with the baseball weekly. So the "Vega$ Gambler$" is my moniker, not a casino. I submitted all this to the panelists along with a picture of a softball backers trophy from 1996 that showed Gamblers as the team name. It is also the personal email address I use in everyday life.
I got screwed here and I am pissed. Their side lied and altered evidence. They even went to file in court and they demanded 500,000.00 in damages. When I told them of everything I had, they went the UPRP route becuase appearently, panelists can be bought. I am looking to see if there is any connection between the law firms. This panelist deviated from his process and research from all of his previous decisions. I was very confident I would prevail. So basically, just because I own vegasgamblers.info and luckyoddscasino.com (which is a none functioning site), I must be guilty even though the site were never conected in any way to the fansite. I had the domain for 7 years and a fansite for 6. If I had the resoources, I would be challenging this is Federal Court. This was a BS decision which the panelist based his opinion of me from a website to which I did not own or have any association and didn't bother doing any other research.
Now, some of you holes out there is going to get on my case, learn the facts first. Yes, many here are true squatters and I will still stand on that and still call them out. I will continue to argue for the right of fansites. I did nothing wrong here and that situation is completely pathetic. But what this does is show that there is no "slam dunk" for a domain owner out there anywhere. You guys hae no idea how much I am fuming here. I have been offline trying to fight this, and there is no real recourse unless you have a bootmless pocketbook.
Ok, let it rip, I am in a real pisssed off mood, I will take on allcomers.
Wuold the fact that it was fansite and it was NEVER forwarded to a casino, there were NO LINKS, there was no way to even contact me change your opinion of this? The sad part, they are arguing vegasgamblers.info, not kareemabduljabbar.com. The 2 were never related.
Basically they said you own vegasgamblers.com, so the other must be in bad faith, even though the site was nothing with me.
I am fighting this decision and I won one slight concession already. Before anyone starts on the bandwagon, plesse do a archive.org search on the domain and please, someone find me a link at anytime on this site. Their lawyer added a web location onto a screenshot of my site which then the panelist took as a link. Additionally, I have said here I had a fansite, I made no secret of that. I never reveled it because it was noones business. I have always said true fansites are to be protected. I dare anyone to show otherwise. The panelist did zero research and even looked at a wrong website when determining bad faith adn my character. I am pissed about this and I have contacted the ACLU to see if they are willing to help. It is truly sad, they submitted doctured evidence and the financial advisor outright lied about her one single conversation she had with me. She claimed she has been contacting me for years, yet had no evidence. She only contacted me once and I stated I had no desire to get rid of the domain. I even submitted an affidavit from a witness to the phone conversation. It was not even mentioned. The panelist even said he disregarded all unsupported claims. But he chose the 2004 contact date when it should have been 2007. That means she went 6 years without contacting me. Additionally, I was contacted in 2002 about the site from an associate of Kareem, at that time I showed no desire to sell. After several emails, he gave me pictures of Kareem to put on the website and told me if I change my mind to contact him. He gave me permission. Did the panelist ever concider this?? no he did not. I have rejected offers as high as $6000.00 for this site. I really had no desire to get rid of it. I made no money form it and there were no links to it.
And yes, it is vegasgamblers.info. It is my personal website. Do a search on Vega$ Gambler$ and you will see I was a major player in the fantasy sports industry. I am a charter member of the World Championships of Fantsy Football, The World Championships of Fantasy Baseball and the National Fantasy Football Championships. I was ranked in the top 300 at one point in the ESPN fantasy uber rankings. I have won appr. $30,000 playing fantasy sports. I was part of an experts league published by Krause Publications. In addition to that, I was a B/C level softball player that sponsored teams for a decade, of which one team made to the World Series of Softball in 1999 ( I couldn't go because I moved to Maryland). Why am I sharing this you may ask??? Every single one of my teams were names Vega$ Gambler$ (or Vegas Gamblers if I could not use the "$". This goes back to the early 90s when I did my first fantasy game with the baseball weekly. So the "Vega$ Gambler$" is my moniker, not a casino. I submitted all this to the panelists along with a picture of a softball backers trophy from 1996 that showed Gamblers as the team name. It is also the personal email address I use in everyday life.
I got screwed here and I am pissed. Their side lied and altered evidence. They even went to file in court and they demanded 500,000.00 in damages. When I told them of everything I had, they went the UPRP route becuase appearently, panelists can be bought. I am looking to see if there is any connection between the law firms. This panelist deviated from his process and research from all of his previous decisions. I was very confident I would prevail. So basically, just because I own vegasgamblers.info and luckyoddscasino.com (which is a none functioning site), I must be guilty even though the site were never conected in any way to the fansite. I had the domain for 7 years and a fansite for 6. If I had the resoources, I would be challenging this is Federal Court. This was a BS decision which the panelist based his opinion of me from a website to which I did not own or have any association and didn't bother doing any other research.
Now, some of you holes out there is going to get on my case, learn the facts first. Yes, many here are true squatters and I will still stand on that and still call them out. I will continue to argue for the right of fansites. I did nothing wrong here and that situation is completely pathetic. But what this does is show that there is no "slam dunk" for a domain owner out there anywhere. You guys hae no idea how much I am fuming here. I have been offline trying to fight this, and there is no real recourse unless you have a bootmless pocketbook.
Ok, let it rip, I am in a real pisssed off mood, I will take on allcomers.
Wuold the fact that it was fansite and it was NEVER forwarded to a casino, there were NO LINKS, there was no way to even contact me change your opinion of this? The sad part, they are arguing vegasgamblers.info, not kareemabduljabbar.com. The 2 were never related.
Basically they said you own vegasgamblers.com, so the other must be in bad faith, even though the site was nothing with me.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2003
- Messages
- 6,459
- Reaction score
- 3
:lol:
My penis is this big:
========================================================================
========================================================================
========================================================================
========================================================================
========================================================================
========================================================================
========================================================================
My point of this stupid post: who the heck cares about your fantasy sports teams?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,914
- Reaction score
- 4
You broked your penis!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 0
Didn't John Zaccarini say that too?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 317
- Reaction score
- 0
funny...
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
I see you are a size small
let me kow when you become a big boy lolStupid? or the valid reason for using the term "Vegas Gamblers"? And it has nothing to do with gambling, it is just a name I have used for over 15 years for my teams. (which has no bearing on the site being disputed since the 2 domain were never connected in anyway).
No responses at all, but a newspaper wants to do a story on this.
BTW- forgot to address this.. I am the same one who proved I CAN track emails to anyone, remember the "email challenge" and I posted the information here from someone who was expecting it, I and still tracked it. Also, it came in handy in court when my ex claimed she never received my emails, and additionally denied ever forwarding them to her boyfriend. She is currently appealing the the most favorable decision I received.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 0
This is the problem - you get typo / cyber squatters giving the rest of the industry a bad name. Then, when there is a grey area, in a UDRP the panelists find for the complainant on the basis that all domainers are squatters. Such a pity a few bad apples spoil the barrel.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 54
:uhoh:
- Status
