Buyer Beware: If You Buy A Zuccarini Domain At Latonas Expect To Be Sued
Buyer Beware
That’s the only advice I can give anyone planning on buying one of Zuccarini’s domains now held by a receiver if they are auctioned off at Latonas.
If you buy one of these domains at Latonas auction expect to be sued.
I confirmed with John Zuccarini today that he is planning on suing anyone who buys one of the domains at auction.
John also states that he will file motions asking a court to place all of the earnings of any of the purchase domains into escrow while the suit(s) are pending.
John typically represents himself when he files suit.
The problem for a buyer is that since John represents himself, he incurs no legal fees.
Therefore you might expect to see mulitple motions, discover requests and a lot of paper flying your way which costs John nothing but time, but may result in a pretty large legal bill if you are represented by a lawyer.
I’m not saying you should buy any of these domains, you will have to make that call. All I’m saying is figure into your calculations a certain amount for attorney’s fees and your time and effort that you may have to spend fighting what seems to be an inevitable suit.
Of course Mr. Zuccarini also plans on suing Latonas as well but that’s another matter.
Loading ...
@ slate, very funny. Ha ha.
Let me take roll call here: Who here sends their $$ to the Cayman’s?
If I had money…LOL
The following 4 messages were placed by myself on rick latona’s web site this morning, but later deleted by latona
———————————————
Rick
I see you have a photo of the Supreme Court Building on your page. The Inscription at the top of the building says, “EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL”.
Are you concerned about the Federal Trade Commission and the Third Circuit Court coming after you. After all many of the domain names you are auctioning are the exact same ones that the FTC said I used to illegally redirect Internet Users in violation of the FTC Act.
It would seem to me “Equal Justice For All” would mean at the very least the FTC contacting you to find out what you are all about.
Even Judge Illston in California said in her Order of September 10, 2007; “The Court is concerned, however, with DS Holdings’ ultimate plan to auction off the domain names at issue. As Zuccarini points out, many of the domain names at issue are deliberate misspellings and variations of legitimate domain names, both generic and proprietary. Such names may…be used to misdirect consumers, as apparently Zuccarini himself did.”
What do you think?
Would you like me to contact them for you?
It would be my pleasure.
And thanks for giving me the tip that kronenberger is “attempting to get a motion that would protect the buyers.”
I’m already on it.
Did you get the motions I sent you that I filed in California yesterday? It’s strange isn’t it how kronenberger filed a motion to have you auction the domain names on September 3rd, and the next Court Calendar day on September 7th, the Court approved the motion.
That didn’t allow much time to oppose the motion, did it?
“Equal Justice for All”, that’s an interesting phrase.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/ViewImage.do?masterFileId=20061274274&fileId=20071364890
The above link shows:
KARL KRONENBERGER AS OWNER OF DS HOLDINGS,LLC
Colorado.
“Of course Mr. Zuccarini also plans on suing Latonas as well but that’s another matter.”
Now, you can’t tell me that Rick Latona, being as close to this situation as he is, and come to think of it Howard Neu, now you can’t tell me these people didn’t know that Kronie is DS Holdings….
“Equal Justice for All”
If you go back to the original Office Depot v Zuccarini suit, the Court lacked jurisdiction and venue. They claimed quasi in rem jurisdiction under ACPA, but still a problem… In that case they should have had to go to VA to do the suit.
Then Office Depot gets this judgment, and never tried to collect on it, yea DSH has repeatedly claimed that Office Depot couldn’t ever collect because of Zuccarini an his notorious way of moving around and not being able to find him. That too is hogwash.
The facts clearly show that Zuccarini was living in FL since 2001 and was fairly easy to find (most of the time); nevertheless, Office Depot never bothered to file the Judgment in FL, so that means they never tried to collect on it.
And for everyone else that wants to say some really bad things about Zuccarini… he may be alot of things, but really people “criminal notorious cybersquatter”; “serial cybersquatter”, and other references, which are really quite worse. Then Kronie claims that the Shields case is where some of the worse comes from. I read the Shields Appellate Court Opinion, it didn’t say that at all. It said:
“Although Zuccarini’s sites did not involve pornography, his intent was the same as that mentioned in the legislative history above — to register a domain name in anticipation that consumers would make a mistake, thereby increasing the number of hits his site would receive, and, consequently, the number of advertising dollars he would gain.”
So John was given a bad time, and there are a lot of wild rumors out there, and a lot of people want to say a lot of BullShit, but really… does that make DS Holdings, Rick Latona, or any other number of entities better? They are actually bigger crooks than Zuccarini could ever be… Kronie does it under the guise of being an attorney.
Maybe that is why attorneys have bad names (not all attorneys, Berryhill has shown to not be quite like the rest, and I hear good things about several others that run domain news websites)
Then you have this Judge…Illston. What the hell kind of Judge allows that much fraud upon the Court in their Courtroom? Is she just stupid, or is she in on it too?
Does DS Holdings somehow own Illston?
Hell, now I have more questions than I had before I found out that Kronie is DSH!
That Colorado document does NOT state that Mr. Kronenberger own the Colorado DS Holdings LLC. It simply identifies an “individual causing the document to be filed” which may be a legal representative. The California DS Holdings LLC appears to be associated with a person near San Diego.
“If you go back to the original Office Depot v Zuccarini suit, the Court lacked jurisdiction and venue.”
That horse has left the barn already. “Cupcake Patrol” and/or Mr. Zuccarini maintained an address in Andalusia, PA. Whether he as “really there” or not is irrelevant to the fact that he represented to be there by registering domain names to that address. That was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
While Mr. Zuccarini has admirable enthusiasm, and there are certainly problems with the California case that the court does not seem interested in resolving, the bottom line in litigation is that you win or you don’t.
The most recent order is here, btw:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.187359/gov.uscourts.cand.187359.169.0.pdf
The court was fully briefed on the relevant circumstances. When a court disagrees with your position, it is not a conspiracy. It is simply that the court does not agree. It happens. You appeal or move on. What you don’t do is to try to turn back the clock ten years and re-argue the merits of decisions long past. If the court approves an auction and distribution plan, then that is the end of it.
Mr. Zuccarini has every right to make the various arguments he has made, and IMHO he has raised some very good questions about this proceeding. There may also be some good appeal material in there. What he does not have the right to do, in the event the court approves the auction, is to go marching off into other jurisdictions, having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this court, and look for different answers. At that point, he would be heading into Rule 11 territory.
@ John Berryhill: “the bottom line in litigation is that you win or you don’t.
Too many of us out here realize that, but it shouldn’t be who can afford the best attorney, it should be who is right and who has been wronged.
the bottom line in litigation is that you win or you don’t.the bottom line in litigation is that you win or you don’t. There is a whole lot wrong with the country when everything our forefathers dreamed and hoped for gets pissed on…
“The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, a…. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our Federal system….
The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful… enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after …unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, …the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.
. . . . .
“. . . If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts [364 U.S. 206, 210] of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.” 232 U.S. 383, 391 -393.
These, then, are the considerations of reason and experience which point to the rejection of a doctrine that would freely admit in a federal criminal trial evidence seized by state agents in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. But there is another consideration – the imperative of judicial integrity.
It was of this that Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis so eloquently spoke in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , at 469, 471, more than 30 years ago.
“For those who [364 U.S. 206, 223] agree with me,” said Mr. Justice Holmes, “no distinction can be taken between the Government as prosecutor and the Government as judge.” 277 U.S., at 470 . (Dissenting opinion.) “In a government of laws,” said Mr. Justice Brandeis, “existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” 277 U.S., at 485 . (Dissenting opinion.)
This basic principle was accepted by the Court in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 . There it was held that “a conviction resting on evidence secured through such a flagrant disregard of the procedure which Congress has commanded cannot be allowed to stand without making the courts themselves accomplices in willful disobedience of law.” 318 U.S., at 345 . Even less should the federal courts be accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
God help anyone who has to fight in Court without an attorney… but God help us all if those same people begin refusing to, or begin being denied, the right to do so…
One more thing about the domain names I find rather odd. At first there 248, then I ran across some paperwork, something filed in CA court later, that there were 190, then after that the claim was something else. Now all the sudden there are 113, 114, 116?
I wonder… what happened to the rest?