There are provisions in Bankruptcy law to prevent what they call preferential treatment of payment to debtors, but I’m not sure what the time frame is.

My understanding is these funds may have already been placed into an escrow account so they maybe segregated and safe even if the “B” word comes into play, but as always check with your own attorney

They wanted my opinion which I politely refused.

Their biggest concern was that Snapnames/Oversee might not be around in the near future.
I said “no one knows”.

They thought under U.S. bankruptcy law, the creditors committee has the legal right to reclaim money sent out within the past 60 days of filing. (I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer.)
So, they were thinking to get the money quick just in case.

It got me thinking –
Has anyone received a payment yet?

Or, are they going to wait and see how many releases they receive before they commit?

1. I truly believe that this was not just a one-man operation. Controls with so many millions of dollars floating around every day demand accounting from several sources. Even with Brady’s inside knowledge, such a systmatic looting of the system could not logically be committed by one man only.

2. Treble damages are put into place SPECIFICALLY for the general punitive calculations to cover legal costs, as well as to provide a substantial financial penalty to the complainant.

Now, I agree that a one- or two-time ripoff may not warrant this much trouble, but keep in mind that there is a lot more at stake. This is CRIMINAL territory. This activity is SPECIFICALLY outlawed all over the United States with regard to racketeering laws that are ALREADY on the books. I would submit that EVERY affected person file a criminal complaint in whatever jurisdiction you may be in against Oversee. While civil complaints may help get back the money in an expeditious manner, only a criminal complaint will add teeth to the regulation of an industry that, sadly, needs governmental intervention, at least temporarily.

Keep in mind that halvarez may NOT be the only entity. I understand that someone else had parsed through the data and made an educated determination that Brady only went through halvarez. But the investigation must be complete, thorough, and involve the entire management department of both Oversee and Snapnames.

Let’s face it: Martha Stewart spent six months for a LOT LESS than this. Granted, the laws were far more codified for her crimes, but existing racketeering laws should be sufficient to place Brady in deep doodoo, and perhaps make Oversee completely revamp the top leadership. Even if everyone else was clueless to Brady’s activities, the sheer lack of industrial knowledge by the leadership is enough to fire them all on their collective rear ends.

I would direct your comments and concerns about the language in the revised release to Jeff K, president of Oversee, he left his e-mail address in a comment on this post

I’ll contact them so I can get it in writing as it still looks more like of a legal loop hole to me…what’s that old saying “Interpretation is nine-tenths of the law”

Can I ask you who told you that so I can speak to the same guy ?

Many thanks for checking Michael, I appreciate it.

PS – I have always trusted the snapnames team/platform but I have never really trusted the strange habbits of “Halvarez” since someone made the following comments about him way back in 2006. (one of many)

Avensen – “Imho ‘Halvarez’ looks like a script working at Snapnames.”

http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/216933-has-halvarez-ever-won-an-auction.html

Looks like the guy was right !

The word back is they do not intend the release to read how your interpreting it.

You are only releasing your claims against the bidder Halvarez not any other Brady activity.

The whole idea of the release is to reduce litigation, not to increase it so I’m going to agree on their interpretation.

They are not going to change the release any further.

So your going to have to make your own call on this

“Release To Limit It Just To Halvarez”

Thats not what it implies – Nelson Brady’s name is not there per se Michael but the way they have worded it actually puts far more emphasis on Nelson Brady than it does his bidder id: Halvarez (even though they are one in the same….so far)

…Snapnames user “associated” (with the user name Halvarez)

They might as well have replaced associated with “Nelson Brady” then left off the bit in brackets…it means the same thing IMO

It would’nt be a problem “if” Brady only used one alias but “if” he used more than one you would be signing away any further claims on any past auctions that Nelson Brady (or any partners) were involved in from 2005 to 2009 – period.

While this would’nt make much difference to me in dollar terms it could be alot of money to many other domainers like yourself.

If they are so sure Brady only used one fake ID then they should’nt mind wording it something like:

…Snapnames bidding ID “Halvarez”

Hopefully they will get back to you with some clarification before everyone signs it.

.