[secretary.com] stolen domain

[DaddyHalbucks]

hey Hal

your online bickering is making it very hard to get to the bottom of this.

here is chadwicks information

Chadwick Horn

********@hotmail.com

AOL name : ******** *****
msn: ********@hotmail.com
Yahoo: **********

phone: 1-***-***-****

chadwicks moms house (sheached online for this) 1-***-***-****

I wish you best of luck
+++++++++

Chris,

Regarding your recent message above: you accepted the money from me and you guaranteed that this deal was kosher, both privately and even in public.

I hold you responsible. YOU.

I will not be contacting Chadwick, his Mom, nor Mickey Mouse.

I have already given you a week to pay me the $2000 which you took from me.

My next communication will be with law enforcement. To avoid this, please call me within 48 hours to make arrangements for immediate restitution. My phone number is 401-682-2840.

Sincerely,
Hal Meyer

 

[cjmacd]

Hal, PMs are meant to be kept private

please edit out those phone numbers

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

No.

Phone numbers may aid law enforcement in getting to the bottom of this and avoiding future problems.

Shedding light on this matter will only help to disinfect it.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
... here is chadwicks information

Chadwick Horn

********@hotmail.com

AOL name : ******** *****
msn: ********@hotmail.com
Yahoo: **********

phone: 1-***-***-****

chadwicks moms house (sheached online for this) 1-***-***-****

I could understand your frustration, DotComCowboy. However, publishing those private contact information in public is not only unnecessary but also not in line with our rules, in particular #2. Of course, DNForum will abide by any court order or co-operate with law enforcement authorities in rendering information that is necessary in respective criminal investigation (if any).

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"jberryhill - are you suggesting that there are alternative responsibilities for stolen goods?"

No. Stolen goods are another story. Hal doesn't know whether this domain name was stolen or not. That's what he has been told. Being told something and knowing that something is true are two different things. What Hal does know for certain is that he no longer has the domain name, through no fault of his own. What Hal has also said is that he does not have any documentation about whether this domain name was stolen.

You'll note at the end of my post I referred to "warranties". A warranty of title deals with the actual theft situation.

However, in the absence of knowing or being able to prove whether the domain name was stolen, like so many things in life, it is always best to stick with what you know for certain - Hal no longer has the domain name.

I deal with several situations every month where someone didn't renew their domain name, someone else then registered it after it lapsed, and when the original registrant notices the current whois, they come out of the box screaming about how their domain name was stolen.

Now, look at what Hal said Gallegos told him someone "renewed the domain name" and then transferred it. What it sounds like is a typical sequence of facts related by someone who is not particularly familiar with how domain names work, attempting to describe a re-registration. People don't pay their renewal fees, but they still think it is "their" domain name. I see this all of the time.

Add to that the fact that this woman is a government official of some kind in Enom's home state, and you have a situation where they might be inclined to take what she says at face value.

I'm not saying that scenario is or is not what actually happened. But very often "what happened" and "what someone says or thinks happened" are two entirely different things.

So, that is why I addressed this as a "risk of loss" problem, not a "theft" problem. Hal might not ever get any additional information to determine whether or not this domain name was stolen. But the question for Hal is what he might do in the future to avoid any ambiguity when an installment purchased domain name is lost through no fault of his own.

 

[ShaunP]

vouch
v. vouched, vouch·ing, vouch·es
v. intr.
To give personal assurances; give a guarantee: vouch for an old friend's trustworthiness.

For $2000 dollars people are willing to throw their reputation away.

Shaun

 

[cjmacd]

Originally posted by aactive
vouch
v. vouched, vouch·ing, vouch·es
v. intr.
To give personal assurances; give a guarantee: vouch for an old friend's trustworthiness.

For $2000 dollars people are willing to throw their reputation away.

Shaun

Not I.

my vouch at DS was based on past experience with Chad

and i had no reason to doubt his trustworthiness



nice insight though

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"I BELIEVE MARY GALLEGOS TOLD ME THAT IT WAS RENEWED BY SOMEONE ELSE AT NSI"

i.e - it had expired.

"AND THAT HER CONTACT INFORMATION WAS CHANGED."

i.e. - someone else registered it after it expired.

Why does everyone seem to assume the domain name was, in fact, stolen?

 

[Ari Goldberger]

As John suggests, it is highly recommended that sellers and purchasers enter into written contracts that provide for ways of dealing with such issues should they arise. The Seller can make representations and warranties as to their ownership of the domain name and the chain of title as well as agreeing to indemnify the buyer if issues arise and refund money in the event the Seller is found to not have good title.
It's amazing how many deals transpire without the assistance of counsel or, at least, a valid contract. It may feel good to do a quick deal using escrow.com but there are obvious risks. A good contract eliminates those risks and a decent attorney can help as well, including being there to help deal with the headaches when they arise. There are a number of good attorneys here to help in these matters who will also act as escrow agents and consultants. The small upfront investment might be worth the savings down the road.

 

[izopod]

I wouldn't take this matter lightly there cjmacd. As a senior member of this board, I am very disturbed at what's happened here. Although, DCC get's on my nerves sometimes, he certainly doesn't deserve "passive" help in getting his money returned.

You are put on notice!!!!!!!!! You need to do more than what little it appears you are doing. Anyone who just lost $2K on a handshake deal deserves a little better.

The reason why you need to correct this situation there cjmacd is because some of us still enjoy "gentlemen's" agreements. It's why we love DNF. With you being a senior member, I would think you would have handled DCC better after finding out this name was stolen.

Fact finding doesn't take weeks, or even days if you are truly legit in this business. I say if you want to salvage any reputation you have left you had better get this matter resolved soon---oh, and simply providing emails or phone numbers isn't good enough here.

I took a stand a year ago on this board, that people refrain from "crapping" in one sales thread. Well, I am again making a stand here on behalf of DCC and the rest of us DNFers in "making things" right!!!!

signed

izopod

Originally posted by cjmacd


Not I.

my vouch at DS was based on past experience with Chad

and i had no reason to doubt his trustworthiness



nice insight though

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

John,

Mary informed me that the domain was stolen and that documents were forged at NSI using an Illinois drivers license. I assume she is truthful.

 

[cjmacd]

Originally posted by izopod
I wouldn't take this matter lightly there cjmacd. As a senior member of this board, I am very disturbed at what's happened here. Although, DCC get's on my nerves sometimes, he certainly doesn't deserve "passive" help in getting his money returned.

You are put on notice!!!!!!!!! You need to do more than what little it appears you are doing. Anyone who just lost $2K on a handshake deal deserves a little better.

The reason why you need to correct this situation there cjmacd is because some of us still enjoy "gentlemen's" agreements. It's why we love DNF. With you being a senior member, I would think you would have handled DCC better after finding out this name was stolen.

Fact finding doesn't take weeks, or even days if you are truly legit in this business. I say if you want to salvage any reputation you have left you had better get this matter resolved soon---oh, and simply providing emails or phone numbers isn't good enough here.

I took a stand a year ago on this board, that people refrain from "crapping" in one sales thread. Well, I am again making a stand here on behalf of DCC and the rest of us DNFers in "making things" right!!!!

signed

izopod

I respect your opinions Izopod

But contrary to what you said, I am not taking this lightly at all.

I have done what I can, aside from paying other persons debts.
I am not being passive.
I think it's apparent from this and other threads the number of hours I’ve devoted to this.

This is a very serious issue, and I’m waiting on responses from other parties.

I said from the start because I felt I was ethically bound to get Hal’s money back I started to make things right.

I'm just very disappointed in Hal’s actions Threatening me privately and publicly, I can understand his distress, and empathize fully But his direct threats and "bullying" to me and my family is just unacceptable, Despite all this I have been trying my best to get DCC's case resolved. the patients here is clearly one sided.

There is only so much I can do with no co-operation from either side.

If I have anything to say about it, Hal will not be out 2K I will not stop trying to fix this for him, but he has to understand that this isn't something that can be fixed with him sitting on his thumbs.


The emails and phone numbers were a sign that Hal will now have to do something for himself.

I am only human, and not a super being.
And can only do with what I have available.
Harold has to take responsibility here. Trying to pass it off HIS problems someone else, is not the answer.

Everything was done in good faith. Unfortunately Hal want the sun and moon handed to him on a silver platter along with a side of caviar and gravy.
And when he doesn’t get his way he goes on a public rant.

Also It is very hard for me, as a third party not recognized by registrars as a participant, to get any information.

In conclusion, I’m not sure what more I can do, I will continue to be as diligent as I have been but it’s very hard to help those who won’t help themselves.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"Mary informed me that the domain was stolen and that documents were forged at NSI using an Illinois drivers license. I assume she is truthful."

It is not a matter of whether she is "truthful". There are, quite frankly, vast numbers people who are "clueless".

You said that she said something about the domain name being "renewed". What did she mean by that? Had the name, in fact, expired? Why did the subject of the name being "renewed" come up, if this was a fully paid-up valid registration?

You further said something about an email address having changed. That is the classic "the name expired because I didn't get a renewal notification" story. The fact there is that registrants must maintain a valid email address or they are in breach of the registration contract, and if they don't the contract is voidable whether they are paid up or not. If the email address was incorrect, then she was not entitled to the domain name.

Did she mean that someone had used a false identity during the Redemption Grace Period in order to take control of the domain name? Does she know the difference? The reason I ask, again, is because I frequently hear from folks who honestly believe their expired domain name was "stolen". Again, it is not a matter of being "truthful".

I do not consider the parade of folks who accuse my clients of "stealing" domain names to be liars. Many times, people simply and sincerely do not understand that their domain name will be deleted and re-registered if they don't pay their bills on time. But I do not accept as an article of faith every assertion that a domain name is stolen.

All I can see here is that your summary of whatever she said is internally inconsistent. The name needed to be renewed or it didn't. The domain name was registered to you when Enom transferred it to someone else, and hence you are in a good position to demand that their general counsel Martin Garthwaite provide you with whatever it was that convinced him to make the call on this one. Chris, not having been the registrant from whom the name was taken, is not in as good a position as you are to get the facts on this. You have just taken some woman's word for it, and assumed it was true. Key word, your word - assumed. And again, "not true" does not always mean "lie" - it often means "mistake".

At the very least, aren't you at all concerned now that Enom has taken this domain name from you, that they probably consider you to be an accomplice to the theft? Wouldn't you want to know on what basis they made that determination?

You apparently assume that Chris is lying, and that this woman is telling the truth. The fact that she is a politician,which would also motivate Enom to want to proceed on a lower threshold of proof in order to deflect unwanted attention, indicates that they may have also "assumed" the same thing you have.

Now Chris, on the other hand, claims to have acted as a "neutral" party in a transaction where one party was a close friend of his. That's not "neutral". Surely Chris has sought to obtain some kind of explanation from his friend. Assuming that Chris's friend has said that the domain was legitimately registered, and was not stolen, then what do you expect Chris to do? The only thing Chris has to go on is your summary of what some woman told you on the phone. Chris has no way of knowing whether the domain name was stolen, or if Enom has made an error here.

Now, if the domain name was not, in fact, stolen, but Enom has made an error in deciding it was stolen, then why should Chris or his friend owe you a refund? Any domain name, at any time, is at risk of being deleted or transferred by registrar error. Does that mean that anyone who sells a domain name is permanently on the hook to provide a refund if a registrar screws up after a sale? Once again, that's why my initial response was to discuss allocation of risk of loss - sometimes it is doggone near impossible to find out what actually happened to everyone's satisfaction.

What we are not hearing from Chris is his friend's explanation of how he acquired the domain name. I am also astounded that Chris would act as an "escrow" agent between two parties without a clear agreement spelling out his responsibilities and limitations on his liability after the transaction.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"I BELIEVE MARY GALLEGOS TOLD ME THAT IT WAS RENEWED BY SOMEONE ELSE AT NSI"

i.e - it had expired.

"AND THAT HER CONTACT INFORMATION WAS CHANGED."

i.e. - someone else registered it after it expired.

Why does everyone seem to assume the domain name was, in fact, stolen?

And if it was not stolen, (assuming the above hypothetical situation to be correct for a moment), is there really any claim against the seller or the intermediary?
If it was merely a case of someone shouting that "their" name had got re-registered after expiry and Enom arbitrarily took it and transferred it back to the previous "owner", then would this not be a case of any possible claim having to be directed against Enom (subject to their Registration Agreement)?

Seems to me that before any more accusations are made by the buyer or anyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon, it needs to be firmly established that the domain was in fact stolen. If it was not and it was a case of the Registrar arbitrarily returning the name to a previous owner, after the sale, then I do not see how anyone other than the Registrar can be legally held responsible.

 

[namedropper]

This begs the question: Did anyone see secretary.com on any drop lists recently? Did one of the drop places auction this off to someone?

I know that wouldn't necessarily prove anything, but I'm curious. I'm finding it hard to believe a name of that type would expire and not be talked about. I also find the concept that someone would just push a one word common noun used in business dot com domain into someone else's account before getting paid fully without a solid contract. And, if there is a contract, what does it say about situations like this? If there isn't a contract, doesn't that sound fishy? People who are willing to transfer ownership over that easily strike me as the type who know the ownership won't last long enough to do business in a normal manner.

 

[hellstrom]

Originally posted by jberryhill

You further said something about an email address having changed. That is the classic "the name expired because I didn't get a renewal notification" story. The fact there is that registrants must maintain a valid email address or they are in breach of the registration contract, and if they don't the contract is voidable whether they are paid up or not. If the email address was incorrect, then she was not entitled to the domain name.

Is it illegal to register a domain just because it's an admin contact and then transfer the "stolen" domain to yourself in an other account?

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

This domain name never dropped --- don't folks know how to use WHOIS anymore? The Creation Date for secretary.com is September 9, 1995.

 

[bidawinner]

John.. you said and it is true..

"The fact there is that registrants must maintain a valid email address or they are in breach of the registration contract, and if they don't the contract is voidable whether they are paid up or not. If the email address was incorrect, then she was not entitled to the domain name."



So any chance someone could simply grab some of these names without correct email ... seeings as how the registrant is in breach of the registration contract, and voided....and therfore not a legal regstrant
As long as the person grabs the domains and fills out correct registration requirments that person would then become the lawful owner ?


That opens up all kinds of moral and legal dilemmas.. more than enough to keep you and the priest hood secure in your lively hoods .. :laugh:

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"Is it illegal to register a domain just because it's an admin contact and then transfer the "stolen" domain to yourself in an other account?"

I would answer that question as a YES. Although it is technically possible to transfer a domain name this way, the person using the admin contact email address to request and confirm the transfer is making a representation that they are authorized by the registrant. That is fraud. Having the ability, via the domain name, is not the same as having the actual authorization which you are representing to have when you make the transfer.

Register.com may be an exception to this rule, since they have some really oddball understandings of who is the "registrant" for a domain name in their registration agreement and in the way they approach various transfer and ownership issues. Most of the registrars have a "presumptive authorization of the admin contact" approach, but Register.com seems to have a "the admin contact is the registrant" approach.

"People who are willing to transfer ownership over that easily strike me as the type who know the ownership won't last long enough to do business in a normal manner."

That is also a relevant point. By now, most experienced domainers know that it is easier for a transferee to stop paying than it is to get a domain name back if it hasn't been paid for. By the same token, you would think this would raise a red flag in the mind of the transferee, particularly in a mediated transaction where he does not know with whom he is dealing.


"This domain name never dropped --- don't folks know how to use WHOIS anymore? The Creation Date for secretary.com is September 9, 1995."

That is a relevant data point. Creation dates are not always reliable, but at least this is some kind of objective fact. Did NSI re-set the creation date when they took the name back? Another thing that date indicates is, if the domain name were renewed in two year intervals since that date, then it would have been ripe to drop in... early October of 2003.

The reason I ask is that I have seen situations where the registry will delete an NSI name, the name will be registered elsewhere, but NSI will maintain the old whois data for the name in the registrar database. While it doesn't reflect well on NSI registrar's data hygiene, it doesn't do any functional harm as long as the registry data for the authoritative registrar is correct. It is sort of the way your computer "deletes" files by removing entries from a pointer table, rather than erasing data on the disk.

So, it is possible for a deleted domain name to "regain" an earlier creation date if an NSI name is deleted by registry, registered somewhere else, and then moved back to NSI. In fact, this makes it very easy for NSI registrar to recover a mistakenly deleted or stolen name, since the only record change that needs to be made is the registrar indication in the registry data.

"If it was not and it was a case of the Registrar arbitrarily returning the name to a previous owner, after the sale, then I do not see how anyone other than the Registrar can be legally held responsible."

I wish I had the talent to economize on words, but that is exactly the point. Registrars can pretty much do whatever they darn well please with domain name registrations, which causes a certain amount of insecurity, and a known risk, in any sale transaction.

And again, before the Cowboy points his six shooter at me - I don't know whether or not this domain was stolen. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. My point is that transactions can be structured in a way to prevent having to engage in these sorts of forensics when a registrar exercises its power to be capricious.

If the domain name was not stolen, and this was just another instance of a registrar caving under pressure and insufficient proof, then one could argue that Cowboy is still on the hook for the remaining installment payments. And this points to an inconsistency in the position of Chris and his friend. If the seller believes the registration was legitimate, then one would expect him to (a) suspect that Cowboy really sold the name and is making this all up, and (b) demand the continued installment payments. If the seller is waiving receipt of the balance of payments as a courtesy, that is one thing. But if the question never came up, then it does not reflect well on what we can infer about the seller's knowledge.

Cowboy is certainly correct that involving law enforcement authorities should be unobjectionable to the seller, and I would encourage him to do so. Of course, that can be done without making public proclamations on less than certain facts.

 

[izoot]

Excellent Post John ...