Comments on: Will “Halvarez” Face Criminal Charges? It Maybe Up To You

By: Patricia Kaehler

Patricia Kaehler — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:39:32 +0000

I would contact the Attorney General.
I would contact the best of the TV Media Investigative Journalists.
I would do preemtive flight risk measures…
I would contact the IRS .

Is waterboarding them off limits ??
(yes I said them… this gal wasn’t born yesterday — but
having said that – not everyone within those companies
are bad apples… there are many wonderful folks there getting
caught up in this mess… –stay strong– )
(kidding about the waterboarding – because I can…)

~Patricia

By: pitbullstew

pitbullstew — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:33:18 +0000

Mr Bishoff has a crystal ball no?

http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/snap-classaction.pdf

Team of Experienced Domain Monetization Executives Join Initiative -
LOS ANGELES and FRANKFURT, November 26 /PRNewswire/ — DomainSponsor(R), the domain monetization division of Oversee.net(R), announced today that it plans to establish operations in Europe during the first quarter of 2010 and has appointed Joerg Schnermann as General Manager, DomainSponsor Europe. Joining his team are Jessica Besseling and Joe Higgins, experienced domain monetization executives with deep expertise working with European publishers

By: john bischoff

john bischoff — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:31:22 +0000

oversee, snapnames and moniker are officially out of the domain auction business.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:22:32 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by dnnews: Will ?Halvarez? Face Criminal Charges? It Maybe Up To You – http://tinyurl.com/y87tfdb...

By: nSathees

nSathees — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:39:54 +0000

Keep Bido under radar!

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:33:45 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong here but accepting the rebate offer only waives my right to future claims of liability against Snapnames/Oversee.net but not Nelson Brady, right?

By: Ryder

Ryder — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:10:07 +0000

I remember reading blog complaints about Halvarez years ago and there is simply no way Snapnames couldn’t have had full knowledge that Halvarez (Brady) was an inside bidder. Any honest online auction company receiving so many complaints about one bidder would have conducted a full investigation and quickly discovered the fraud. Hence, the “rogue employee” defense against Brady is complete BS.

Oversee.com may or may not have known what was going on, but it is extremely unlikely that there wasn’t systematic wide fraud and cover-up taking place at SnapNames. The “rogue employee” defense is nothing but a damage control strategy, as is the refund offer with settlement agreement.

Unfortunately for Oversee.com they will have to pay the price. Not only did they overpay for Snapnames, they now will most likely face a class action lawsuit that will cost them many millions of dollars.

I hope they sue Brady and the rest of the principals at SnapNames personally for fraud. They, as well as any customers who may have suffered damages, should also file criminal charges.

By: Danny Pryor

Danny Pryor — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:44:43 +0000

If the law is going to catch up to the domain industry, in terms of recognizing property rights and not just contract rights on domain names, then there has to be some kind of criminal action taken here. There was property affected, and that is the money that was spent to acquire the domain. Additionally, any action taken would probably be both state and federal, since many domainers who bid were likely not Oregon residents.

Keep in mind, like David Castello said, the only way the domain industry will be taken seriously is for everyone to take this seriously. There are multiple actions to be taken, criminal and civil, that will help ferret out the various problems that contributed to this situation.

I, personally, find it difficult to believe one man could have pulled this stunt, alone, for so long. If you ran an online auction and saw someone bidding on names, but never actually winning an auction, wouldn’t that, alone, raise at least a yellow flag?

By: Redundant

Redundant — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:19:32 +0000

MHB,

Point taken! On your basis they could definitely prove shill bidding, if he did indeed bid up to everyones proxy bid amount. If this is the case it would make it kind of suspicious that he is not the only person in the scheme. Especially if he was not compensated on the profit of the business. It would seem like he is definitely not acting alone and that a higher up that is seeing a bonus or profit incentive is in on the game.

By: brian

brian — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:30:59 +0000

I would also suggest calling your state’s attorney general’s office. Depending on the laws of your state, they may file their own charges or investigation. And nothing is more powerful than (for instance) the attorney generals office calling the Oregon atty general and saying that they are investigating a fraud against one of their citizens.

Just a thought.