Overnight I received a notice that several domain names I owned were transferred by a sealed court from Verisign without notice and of course without the court order.
The domain names just were transferred by Verisign to another domain and are now listed for sale at another marketplace.
Another domainer sent me an identical notice he received overnight on domain names he owned.
The Domain names are now all owned by COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER – ROBERT OLEA and have been moved to Uniregisty as the registrar and are now listed for sale at domainnamesales.com
The domain names resolve and the go to a domainnamesales.com page.
According to DomainTools.com, there are now 4,973 domain names associated with the registrant COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER, ROBERT OLEA.
I have send emails out to Verisign, Bob Olea and Mr. Steele who is a partner is a law firm as well as a teacher at a law school who I was instructed to contact at the bottom of the email I received.
I haven’t received any response back so far from anyone.
Here is the notice I got on one of the domains:
“Please be advised that Verisign has changed the registrar of record for certain domain names pursuant to a ***SEALED*** court order.
The domain names identified below were affected by this action.
Alexander the Great, LLC
—————————————————————————–
RETRACTIT.COM
If you have any questions relating to these actions, please contact:
David J. Steele
Partner, Christie, Parker & Hale LLP
Adj. Professor of Law, Loyola School
18101 Von Karman Ave, Suite 1950
Irvine, CA 92612-0163
office: +1 (949) 476-0757
direct: +1 (949) 823-3232
fax: +1 (949) 476-8640
email: david.steele@cph.com
Thank you very much,
The Verisign Transfer Dispute Team””
transfers@verisign-grs.com
Here is the whois record as of today:
Domain Name: RETRACTIT.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1872128460_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.uniregistrar.net
Registrar URL: http://uniregistry.com
Updated Date: 2014-10-01-T15:47:02Z
Creation Date: 2014-08-21-T18:30:14Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-08-21-T18:30:14Z
Registrar: UNIREGISTRAR CORP
Registrar IANA ID: 1659
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@uniregistry.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.9494785380
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: UNIREGUVR6JSXRS
Registrant Name: COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER – ROBERT OLEA
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: P.O. BOX 935
Registrant City: DANA POINT
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 92629
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.9498422143
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: BOB@DOMAINSALESPLUS.COM
Registry Admin ID: UNIREGUVR6JSXRS
Admin Name: COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER – ROBERT OLEA
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: P.O. BOX 935
Admin City: DANA POINT
Admin State/Province: CA
Admin Postal Code: 92629
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.9498422143
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: BOB@DOMAINSALESPLUS.COM
Registry Tech ID: UNIREGUVR6JSXRS
Tech Name: COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER – ROBERT OLEA
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: P.O. BOX 935
Tech City: DANA POINT
Tech State/Province: CA
Tech Postal Code: 92629
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.9498422143
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: BOB@DOMAINSALESPLUS.COM
Name Server: buy.internettraffic.com
Name Server: sell.internettraffic.com
DNSSEC: unsigned
Here is the whois record yesterday before the domain was seized by Verisign and given away to someone else:
Domain Name: retractit.com Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.pheenix.com Registrar URL: http://www.alexanderthegreat-888.com Updated Date: 2014-08-21 Creation Date: 2014-08-21 Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-08-21 Registrar: Alexander the Great, LLC Registrar IANA ID: 1702 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@pheenix.com Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.562.222.8886 Registrant Name: Domain Administrator Registrant Organization: Worldwide Media, Inc. Registrant Address: 265 S. Federal Highway Registrant City: Deerfield Beach Registrant State: FL Registrant Postal Code: 33441-4146 Registrant Country: United States Registrant Phone: 9543046227 Registrant Email: info@mostwanteddomains.com Admin Name: Domain Administrator Admin Organization: Worldwide Media, Inc. Admin Address: 265 S. Federal Highway Admin City: Deerfield Beach Admin State: FL Admin Postal Code: 33441-4146 Admin Country: United States Admin Phone: 9543046227 Admin Email: info@mostwanteddomains.com Tech Name: Domain Administrator Tech Organization: Worldwide Media, Inc. Tech Address: 265 S. Federal Highway Tech City: Deerfield Beach Tech State: FL Tech Postal Code: 33441-4146 Tech Country: United States Tech Phone: 9543046227 Tech Email: info@mostwanteddomains.com Nameserver: buy.internettraffic.com Nameserver: sell.internettraffic.com
If you have had domains taken away from you let me know.
I’m going to be following up on this to see under what rights domain names can be seized by innocent buyers in due course without notice to owner only to be put up for sale by another domainer.
Obviously very troubling.
I looked up a name yesterday on DomainTools and saw similar in the WHOIS. Was going to ask Bob about it but thought it was a one-off. Interested to hear the outcome on this.
This one is a classic: https://whois.domaintools.com/hairyforum.com
Looks like the transfer occurred a month ago.
Michael –
Who was the owner of the domain before you.
Did you buy it in the secondary market.
How long have you owned it.
You know where I am going with this.
Bri
disturbing!
Backorders?
I am not a lawyer, but that does not seem legal. They should at least be required to compensate you for whatever registration fees you paid, and if you paid a drop catching service for it, they should be required to refund the fee to you.
Michael, Here is something that you may find it useful. During a quick research on your seized domain retractit.com I noticed another domain with the same whois info tunicapoker.com.
Now, both domains retractit.com & tunicapoker.com had the following email in their whois in 2013 (sales@dreamteamfinancial.com).
Followup: the domain DreamTeamFinancial.com itself have the same whois now. I think DreamTeamFinancial.com is the connection.
This is very disturbing and alarming. Why this guy is given the control
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bobolea
The first person I thought of when I got this email last night was you, MHB.
You being directly involved gives me total confidence this whole thing will come to light.
It looks like you recently acquired the domain in a drop.
My guess is the domain was part of some sort of bankruptcy or cybersquatting settlement previously. Or perhaps a cybersquatting judgment that resulted in a bankruptcy.
David Steele is both a UDRP panelist and a plaintiff’s attorney for companies that file big cybersquatting lawsuits.
I’m surprised Bob Olea is the receiver, but he was probably enlisted to help sell the domains and make money to settle the judgment.
sometimes a bankruptcy court will pull back assets transferred within 1 year or 6 months of the bankruptcy filing. the sealed part is strange since changing registrars would not have affected anything at the registry level. Registrants would not have been able to stop the transfer even if they had notice.
So Enrico, does Mike just lose HIS domain name now because of someone else’s judgement ?
How does that work ?
Brian
Mine was a drop, got it through pheenix.com
Don’t know who owned it before and don’t care, not my problem
Now it maybe related to this one registrar
Alexander the Great, LLC
or maybe pheenix.com is just good and/or quick in notifying those effected
@Sameh’s post. Looks like he’s on to something.
Looks like DreamTeamFinancial.com was an online web domain/business solutions company. If you look at the old web archives pages their ‘about us’ page shows they own about 5k domains…5k domains were seized. They owned sites like ‘MrLease dot com’ that site has the same Whois as the one in this article…same with ‘onlinegrowth dot com’ and so on. So it looks like the lost all 5k of their domains, Mike happened to pick one if then up after the fact.
Enrico
So I can buy a domain at a namejet.com drop auction for $20K and then someone can come along with court order to Verisign and without my knowledge just take the domain away based on something having nothing to do with me and without compensation?
If so that is the end of the Aftermarket as we know it
The UCC doesn’t apply to domains, buyer in due course.
I keep seeing Dream Team Financial, Online Growth LLC etc in the whois history
Just noticed this on Justia : dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2014mc00072/301892
The Florida database of companies says Online Growth LLC is still active company
Here’s some possible names associated with those entities
https://whoisology.com/email/archive_4/sales%40dreamteamfinancial.com
https://whoisology.com/email/archive_5/grant%40onlinegrowth.com
I also have an e-mail address for grant@dreamteamfinancial.com
Very strange story. Bob Olea is a known name in the industry. Keep us updated.
This is strange, and far fetching 5K names is not an isolated incident. Some of these names cost thousands in aftermarket auctions, serious situation here. Should Pheenix, and other backorder operations provide a refund, and not be able to profit, or does Mike have to start an action to get such a refund.
I am wondering if all the registars have reported or if Pheenix was just quick out of the gate, 5000 names of a quality portfolio, in an aggressive drop aftermarket, can have a ripple effect.
Sorry to hear this, not what any investor wants to hear, the domains seemed to have run thru there deletion cycle, so they were up for public registration, not sure how you can pull them back as they were no longer in valid registration.
I don’t recall the exact circumstances, but a similar case occurred in the past, where domains that were dropped by a party involved in litigation (perhaps, on purpose) were given once re-registered, to the plaintiff in that case.
This is similar how the “ETRP” would have worked, where allegedly “stolen” domain names could be “recovered” up to 6 months later without any due process. Fortunately, folks spoke up and stopped that idiotic proposal at ICANN.
It’s time to lawyer up, and have the ex parte and sealed order set aside. Lots of strange things happen when judges only hear from one side, without the benefit of the adversarial system of justice. This is something from a Kafka or Orwell novel, and doesn’t befit a modern legal system which should have the open court principle and due process at its core.
If I’m not mistaken, “Alexander The Great, LLC” should be one of the many registrars that used to catch domains on behalf of Snapnames in the past.
yes prior case was the stealthmode guy, what ahppneed and i bet what ahppened in this case is SLOPPY LAWYERING combined with CLUELESS JUDGE and NONPROTECTING registrars.
they have no concept of the annual renewal fee nature of domains, and if unpaid name is gone.
Espceially on names flushed through a drop, and this may finally be the test of the namejet/snap agrements to snatch names, lawyer takes a list from months and years ago, attaches it to a lawsuit, win and then sends to registrars.
SO LAWYER is subject to misconduct for submitting a court order on property not subject to the case… at least that was the feeling last time.
the local law form backpedeled and released names.
BIGGER issue is taking property without due process, and old case should have been a wakeup call for registrar to put in place procedures, or at least holds.
page howe
Page – one correction. You say “NONPROTECTING registrars” and “been a wakeup call for registrar to put in place procedures, or at least holds”. This has nothing to do with the registrar. This happened by VeriSign – the registry. The registrar has nothing to do with this when it happens, and in fact the registrar gets the exact same email that Mike Berkens got. So the registrar is as helpless as the registrant in this case and is just “told” what has happened.
wow, thats even more of an issue that need looking at thanks for the clarification.
so the registry gets a court order applied to a name, which i would like to see an attorney opine on, shouldnt it be an order based on a registrant.
What if a registrar had a lost judgement on its operations, are my names comongled with that registrar?
No the court order should have to have a registrant assigned, it would be like being able to go to Ford Motor company and enforce an order on my car because the person who sold be the car suffe a judgement and owned the car. So now i am driving the car, and the person gives a court order to Ford to automatically turn of the car.
Lastly if this gets back to is a domain property, than its not property for the registry (verisign) either. they can unilaterally turn it over.
Page Howe
I had 26 .com domains grabbed by Verisign in late Spring, and still seek proper remedy. I’d owned the names for nearly a year and had built them out with ads, lander links, images & sales banners.
The sites had many hundreds of visitors and were valuable generic terms: for example “pure” in Japanese, 純.com xn--hb0a.com
There was no due process. Verisign took the names and didn’t contact me for many weeks (and then only in response to repeated complaints). Verisign Director & Senior Corporate Counsel James T. Hubler claimed the names were disallowed IDN variants (registered via name.com).
Purchased in May & June 2013, Verisign took the domains after 9 April 2014. It’s like repossessing a canvas, sold blank a year before, now painted and improved. Rectifying their ‘mistake’ (if so) within hours or days may be somewhat understood, but after so many months – I feel they acted criminally. Surely such unilateral & belated acts greatly erode trust. These Verisign actions make domain ownership uncertain and can thus greatly damage the industry.
@abcBrand – I had an similar issue unrelated to the article group (at least so far that I am aware of) but similar to your comment. I own fiqu8s.com – fiqu8s is a variant of fiqs8s – both spell ‘China’, but the former became a variant that the new IDNA overrode. But, it is also a domain name that could be registered and registrars and registries gladly accepted payment for at that time.
Without any notice or message about it, or even awareness – it simply just vanished but I was not aware until I saw your comment. This prompted me to look up whois for fiqu8s.com (“China”) that I had bought and have owned since 2007 and had over at Name.com.
A registrant should not need to constantly look over their shoulder to validate that their registrar has not screwed up and especially that the registry in question had not slipped their name out from under them.
I appreciate the awareness – and glad to have looked because it appears that despite charging me in March of this year for the renewal of the name, I was shocked to see it was not registered any more – I had to hand register it at a different registrar elsewhere to get it back.
Either name.com was incompetent and failed to renew it after charging me or Verisign did a sneaky silent claw back on the name.
There needs to be policy around handling this type of situation. The registry was compelled by a court order to disrupt legitimate registrations, and someone MUST be accountable for the instability and insecurity this caused.
same thing happened to me. Lost business.com in simplified chinese.
My registrar told me “talk to verisign”. Verisign told me “talk to your registrar”.
SECOND ISSUE – so i guess the 60 day rule is now a soft rule also. how were they able to change registrars
page howe
Based on an experience I had a few years ago, I suspect Andrew Allemann’s explanation is the correct one.
It’s digital nomads, online growth, grant shellhammer
He was cybersquatting on chan luu….
And chan got a judgment to seize all of their assets…
They looked at the parking DNS and grabbed everything with his account number in August of this year. So more than likely, you ( like me) got some domains on the drop and forgot to update the dns right away and they might still be pointed at his old parking pages.
Yes, you are correct. This is quite unfortunate. Met Grant at TRAFFIC 2012 in Miami, really nice guy. His web site is still up at OneYearOff dot com – but under the new receivership’s control.
I was about to say to have a look at OnlineGrowrh.com, which was Grant Shellhammer. Great guy. Would love to hear his side of the story. Can you elaborate on the Chan Luu bit??
I don’t think we have all the facts, on this specific issue, therefore, my comment is directed to the “drop catching” apparatus, and complex itself. I am against it. I don’t have enough information as to Berkens’ issue, so I will have to wait to comment on it.
This court should have gone all the way and ban the practice of dropcatching!
It is a vehicle that allows insiders, and Registrars to do all sorts of things, that make a mockery of the entire rules set in place by IANA. It thwarts every reasonable order, and creates gaping holes for acquisition of the choicest domain names by insiders and their cronies. I am not ambivalent about this, I am against it.
Why should anybody have a first bite at the apple? Domain names should be left to expire, and nobody should tamper with that process; and when a domain name is available for registration, it should be available for all.
Until the practice of drop catching is banned, we, the ordinary person are mere pawns in the game.
PLUS:
If ICANN is serious about serving the general public, as far as IDNs are concerned, it should immediately BAN all its accredited registrars from selling aftermarket domain names; no Registrar should sell a domain name for more than what it cost to register a virgin domain year.
This is the test of who this organization is serving, the people or the elites?
If you let Registrars to sell aftermarket names above what it cost to register a new domain, you cannot claim to be a responsive, and responsible entity.
As I noted on Twitter, it looks like the relevant case might be: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division – Los Angeles) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13-cv-08763-PSG-AJW.
Chan Luu Inc. v. Online Growth, LLC et al
Plaintiff Chan Luu Inc.
a California corporation
Defendant Online Growth, LLC
Defendant
Grant Shellhammer
d/b/a Dream Team Financial, d/b/a Ride Networks, and d/b/a Network Ride
Page:
The “60 day rule” is an ICANN imposed IRTP requirement (Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy). You will NOT be able to transfer a domain registration to another registrar. Therefore this will most likely NOT have happened.
Presumably what will have happened is something I call “registrar laundering” (analogy to money laundering) by simply using the provisions of the 5 day AGP (add grace period): Domains that are deleted during that time do NOT enter the delete cycle with the RGP (Redemption Grace Periods) etc but instead will be purged from the zone IMMEDIATELY! If you snap it up ASAP – no one will ever know! And you can time it perfectly and no one even SUSPECTS that a delete might happen – so no one is competing in that snap! The transaction is of course billable – but who really cares.
Does this make sense?
Alexander.berlin
Domenclature.com
The domains I got where on free drops, not in house drops not dedicated drops where all the netsol domains go to namejet, old fashion drops, first come first served, caught by whomever it caught by
The attorney for the plaintiff should have and I would argue is required as an officer of the court to present a list of domains that are owned by the debtor as of the day the seizure order is sent to the registry to be 100% accurate.
Otherwise plaintiffs attorney is just either
1. lazy
2. has no idea how to check whois records
3. Knows there are some domains his client is not entitled to in the list but is willing to let it roll assuming many innocents effected by the transfer will never know or go through the process of recovering the domains
Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is going on
Verisign is the registry not a registrar the 60 day rule does not apply
Page
You are correct is sloppy or intentionally sloppy work by plaintiff’s attorney
Adam/Enrico
The hell with my domains, the law is the law and in principal my comment is if someone buys a dropped domain for $20K in an auction can we lose it when someone asserts a claim against the former owner in a matter that doesn’t involve us?
your answer indicates yes
I was not a directly impacted party on this, but I see a serious need for ‘consensus policy’ to be suggested at the upcoming ICANN meeting.
At very minimum, policy needs to be introduced to make prior registrant notice a requirement for registries before disruption of a registration like this. Failing that, even plain notice of the disruption within 24 hours afterwards would be a reasonable minimum.
Stability, confidence, and security are the flag everyone is saluting at the ICANN meetings.
If the justification was that VeriSign was compelled by court order to take this action, it could have been any registry in the juristiction of law they are within. Let’s focus on providing the registry operators a mechanism that in the presence of a court order of mild competence like this one, they are not forced into liability, and I don’t mean weasel words in a registration agreement that indemnify… I mean compel notice to impacted registrants.
This action introduced instability, was entirely disruptive, has eroded confidence in the registry, and could very well have security implications for the parties harmed by the way this was handled.
At least one Verisign report recently states on its cover:
For confidence, click here.
But in fact we can have no confidence. Even many months, perhaps years after a domain purchase, Verisign might unilaterally and without due process mess with our online presence and recall domains. This can easily & suddenly destroy a person’s reputation and any business, and is wholly unacceptable. It strikes at the heart of billions in online investments. We all need to trust Verisign as registry for .com domains (and I sincerely want to), but trust has been eroded by arrogance: tardy unilateral dictates create insecurity.
Just like on Wall Street of the ’90’s, sounds like insiders are using the law to exploit an unregulated facet of the dns, which is the aftermarket. Can’t believe the effect on Most Wanted is anything except an oversight, because the reach of this blog, and your background in legal. What does Frank Schilling have to say? Though Oleo and Steele didn’t get back to you – “whoops! some of Mike Berkens domains got seized!” – communication must have taken place between them and Schilling. What does your pally Frank Schilling say? Guess you can’t consult with your domain attorney Berryhill, as that would be a conflict, since he represents Domain Name Sales. You, as an insider, are strictly protected, according to my observation.
People, an alternative you have to consider is that Ms. Luu is moonlighting with her business degree, allowing her name used on frivolous suits which allow transfer of valuable portfolios, after the aftermarket has been milked and money made.
I retract the word, “insider.” A better term would be friend of the domain industry.
Mike Berkens is a friend of the domain industry. You help give it legitimacy.
Louise, you’re completely misunderstanding the situation. Neither Frank nor Berryhill has any part in this whatsoever, other than Frank’s platform is being currently utilized by the plaintiff’s broker. I’d expect JB himself to chime in any time now with an acerbically written post that accurately describes this whole thing, in a style that only he can master 😉
I would say Page is pretty bang on but that is why he is a fellow Sherpa
)::
This is not a Verisign issue
Verisign gets presented with a court order and they follow it
I’m still going to place the blame of any domain that was seized that was not owned by the defendant/debtor/ subject of the judgement on the date the order was signed on the attorney for the Plaintiff
thanks mIke for bringing this issue to light, great timing with ICANN in a few weeks. If only there were a constituency for registrants…………….
so the registry gets a court order applied to a name, which i would like to see an attorney opine on, shouldnt it be an order based on a registrant.
What if a registrar had a lost judgement on its operations, are my names comongled with that registrar?
No the court order should have to have a registrant assigned, it would be like being able to go to Ford Motor company and enforce an order on my car because the person who sold be the car suffe a judgement and owned the car. So now i am driving the car, and the person gives a court order to Ford to automatically turn of the car.
Lastly if this gets back to is a domain property, than its not property for the registry (verisign) either. they can unilaterally turn it over.
Page Howe
Would seem to me that’s exactly where the blame lies, as well as the liability – on the attorney that swore the list he submitted was a true and accurate list of domains currently owned by the defendant. Because of this sloppy work, your business has been impacted and you should be entitled to not only all of your domains back but damages as well – from the plaintiff’s attorney.
Cartoonz is right its not Franks fault or issue
On the other hand its franks reputation that is most a risk to take a hit so he may have to get into something of not his doing just to protect his reputation
Using the bulk whois tool whoisology.com and live whois lookups, it appears the actual number of impacted names grows to more close to 9k names.
I gratefully am not part of the whole mess, but I think we need to not point our fingers at VeriSign. As a registry, and a business in Northern Virginia, they were compelled by court order.
There is little, if anything, that Verisign likely had available to them in ensuring the current registrant of the domain names had protection from service disruption. This could happen at any registry.
Whether it be law or consensus policy that could introduce registrant protection, this instability event should not be repeated in the future if there is to be any security or trust in registries or the integrity of the ICANN registry-registrar ecosystem.
I suspect there will be an increased participation in person at the LA ICANN meeting by impacted registrants seeking some form of assurance of stability in the domain lifecycle and registrant rights protection.
I would encourage folks who ‘come in hot’ to the meeting in 2 weeks – respect that though you are angry, ICANN meeting public forum rants can work as easily against a solution as for. It would be far more powerful a statement to have one person take the microphone and ask the hundreds to stand up who were impacted, and to state that hundreds of people stood up for the public record, and even more powerful to have news media there.
Just sayin.
It is reasonable to believe, given how quickly others have been able to reproduce the list of affected domains, that the law firm knew (or should have known) what the domain name assets were long before they expired. In the VeriSign suit against iREIT (where David J. Steele was “of counsel”)
http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/
they were able to show (via paragraph 43 of the complaint and Exhibit 5) one famous trademark for each letter of the alphabet and various names that appear to infringe trademarks. So, this is not a law firm that is unsophisticated. Knowing the expiry of a domain name is one of the most basic pieces of knowledge.
If they wanted to preserve the rights to those domain names for their client’s benefit, they could have and should have asked the court for an order on VeriSign to freeze the domains before they expired, pending the resolution of the matter. Instead, they slept on their rights. In my opinion, any blame should fall upon them for not preserving any such rights, and not upon the innocent people who registered the domain names after they went through the entire deletion cycle. This doesn’t appear (various documents are under seal, so we can’t be sure) to be a case of registry or registrar error, either, where a domain name that should have been frozen was accidentally deleted. (even in such a case, there should be fair compensation for the victims)
Blame should also fall upon VeriSign. How many times have we read about Google, Microsoft, Yahoo or other companies who’ve received court orders but then went back to those courts to have them set aside or challenged? (e.g. turning over documents to the NSA, or whatever) It happens all the time by responsible companies receiving questionable court orders.
VeriSign can’t just say “We were simply following orders.” History is full of villains who asserted that they “were simply following orders.” VeriSign is a poor custodian of the dot-com registry, if they simply follow court orders blindly, without questioning whether appropriate due process was accorded to all affected by those orders.
George
Fine but its the Plaintiff’s lawyer responsibility, they are an officer of the court and they are representing to the judge that the information he is presenting is correct and accurate.
If you want to spend the money to jump into the suit you can, I will get it hooked up for you
Otherwise if no one is willing to spend thousands and possibly tens of thousands to teach the guy a lesson and bring this in front of the judge everyone is just bitching
Mike: to “jump into the suit”, money isn’t sufficient — one needs “standing”. Certainly yourself, HugeDomains, BuyDomains and others who are most directly affected by the order have standing to gain intervenor status with the court. It’s not “bitching” to comment upon matters of public interest, like this court case that affects the domain industry. I can see you are frustrated, but to say that all the comments on this blog are “just bitching” is unfair to your readers and those who’ve made comments. If you didn’t want comments, you would have closed the comments to begin with. It’s not “just bitching” when you yourself blog about domain industry topics where you’re not a participant in the lawsuit (e.g. when writing about UDRPs or lawsuits from other people, etc.)
Some of us *have* stepped up, in appropriate circumstance, to oppose court orders. I agree with you that the Plaintiff’s lawyer has a direct responsibility. I’m *quite* familiar with what that responsibility is, at least in a Canadian context (and I’m confident the common law in the US is similar). Let me quote some law to you, that I’ve become aware of (that awareness came from circumstances unrelated to this domain case, but which I’ll discuss at a later date when it’s appropriate):
“26. It is a well established principle of our law that a party who seeks the extraordinary relief of an ex parte injunction must make full and frank disclosure of the case. The rationale for this rule is obvious. The Judge hearing an ex parte motion and the absent party are literally at the mercy of the party seeking injunctive relief. The ordinary checks and balances of the adversary system are not operative. The opposite party is deprived of the opportunity to challenge the factual and legal contentions advanced by the moving party in support of the injunction. The situation is rife with the danger that an injustice will be done to the absent party. As a British Columbia judge noted recently:
There is no situation more fraught with potential injustice and abuse of the Court’s powers than an application for an ex parte injunction.
(Watson v. Slavik, [1996] B.C.J. No. 1885, August 23rd, 1996, paragraph 10.)
27 For that reason, the law imposes an exceptional duty on the party who seeks ex parte relief. That party is not entitled to present only its side of the case in the best possible light, as it would if the other side were present. Rather, it is incumbent on the moving party to make a balanced presentation of the facts in law. The moving party must state its own case fairly and must inform the Court of any points of fact or law known to it which favour the other side. The duty of full and frank disclosure is required to mitigate the obvious risk of injustice inherent in any situation where a Judge is asked to grant an order without hearing from the other side.
28 If the party seeking ox parte relief fails to abide by this duty to make full and frank disclosure by omitting or misrepresenting material facts, the opposite party is entitled to have the injunction set aside. That is the price the Plaintiff must pay for failure to live up to the duty imposed by the law. Were it otherwise, the duty would be empty and the law would be powerless to protect the absent party.” (United States v. Friedland) [1996] O.J. No. 4399 at paras. 26-28 (Gen. Div.)
(That’s a Canadian case; I can send you the PDF, if you’d like) And I know of other Canadian precedents where that obligation to make full and fair disclosure applies even where the person affected by the failure to meet the obligation is a non-party (like yourself). I’m sure your lawyers in the US will find the comparable US precedents and case law.
So, everyone here is trying to help in their own way, even if they don’t have standing to get directly involved like you do.
@George Kirikos,
Very salient points, as always.
I don’t think Berkens meant the “bitching” thing in a nefarious way, as it is often interpreted, I believe he meant it in a “street way”, to one of the guys, which would be you. [He was addressing more formal folk, like myself].
I still reserve judgement on this issue, until I get all the facts. Berkens, and a few others you listed up there have been luckier than normal in nabbing “drop catches”, of which I am against as a matter of principle; it is my hope that the larger issue raises the ire of industry stalwarts, such as yourself. This particular issue is petty, compared to the shenanigans going on with drop catching, any form of drop catching, I make no exceptions. Domains should not be drop caught. They should expire, and the date of its availability should be kept secret form Registries, Registrars, and Registrants alike. I hope CONGRESS or Dept. of Commerce step in here and do something about it.
It will solve most problems of the world. Hyperbole aside, it will free up millions of domains hoarded by Registries, Registrars and their acolytes, assistants, helpers, attendants, aides, minions, underlings, lackeys, henchmen, bloggers, and so forth.
I had been saying that Verisign (could be any registry) was simply compelled to follow the order.
It is certainly amazing to me, given the decidedly small level of effort that I was able to put in and determine names that had followed all of the process and policies to the letter that were still disrupted by this court order – that in this day and age where there are tools and capabilities of research available to research things, that such a ‘kill everyone and let god sort them out’ type of situation like this could have happened.
I read George’s comment and he has a very reasonable and fair point here about where Verisign might have completed laughing about the competence of the order and put up some resistance – citing examples of where other companies have demonstrated a standard of industry practice of how to behave in the presence of being compelled to take clearly disruptive actions that harm their customers (or their customers’ customers in this case).
A registry could look at something like this, and have a couple different courses of action. Comply blindly as appears to be the case here, or to step into potential liability and push this back for a more competent order that would not disrupt existing registrants.
At the core of this, though, is there is not a standard, a law, or a ‘consensus policy’ (in ICANNese) that could have protected the registrants who were impacted.
The Court has a responsibility as well when they issue a “seizure” order to do due diligence to ensure the assets they are getting are actual defendant assets. There was failure on that front as well–but lets face it, most Federal judges are only interested in wrapping cases, not protecting the property rights of those outside of the case.
In the end you only get as much justice as you can afford as Michael stated awhile back.
If you do not pay your property taxes (on a domain) – a registrar CAN by virtue of paying the $8 to the central registry.
Then if the registrar sells the domain in auction but it all gets reversed based on a judgement then the central registry gives the $8 back to the registrar and the registrar gives the $8 plus any auction premium back to the end user.
Even if the registrar and the end user are the same – it is all the cost of doing business – yes ?
There were a number of names that had been released and are still available to hand register from the pool if someone wanted to become involved as a registrant in this.
ArubaTaxLaw.com
InternetScoop.com (Ironic, eh?)
Jothan: Consider that ICANN, in a sense, is the registry of the “root”, and they received a court order (from the terrorist victims) for assignment of various ccTLDs (including .ir). The case is on ICANN’s website in the litigation section (Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Calderon-Cardona v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic).
If ICANN had done as VeriSign did, and assigned the ccTLDs saying “We were simply following orders”, what would have happened? Instead, they moved to set the order aside, or at a minimum have the matter more fully explored in the courts.
Now, whether we agree or disagree with ICANN’s position on that case (I disagree with one of ICANN’s positions, personally; I believe that domains are intangible assets, a form of property; whether one can consider the ccTLD to be property that is “located” within the US is another issue), the fact remains that ICANN didn’t simply allow a controversial order (which would have affected many “downstream” users) to be followed without it being fully litigated. The countries involved presumably “didn’t show up” or claimed “sovereign immunity”. Presumably the registrants of domains in those ccTLDs were not able to have a say, even though they would be affected by a redelegation of the entire ccTLD.
Of course, there’s a very important difference between the ccTLDs case, and this sealed court order. In the ccTLDs case, the domain in dispute (i.e. the entire country code) is *currently* managed/owned/assigned (depending on whether you consider domains “property” or not) by those countries. Presumably those countries also received “due process” and were properly served notice of the claim, etc. That’s quite different from this matter, where these innocent registrants are getting their domains taken away via sealed court orders that they never had an opportunity to respond to, and for which the underlying lawsuit involved against a *past* registrant of the domain name.
I think there is a bit of mixing of apples and oranges in the example you give George, but there are small similarities.
I also had my domain name stolen by Robert Olea and company. This is a despicable abuse of the domain name system.
I really don’t know where to start with this – hire a lawyer I guess? The domain name probably isn’t worth all that much to me but I really wanted to keep it and use it for my business. I owned it for 1 year 11 months and then suddenly it’s gone. It just doesn’t seem right!
I think Robert Olea should have thought twice before stealing so many domain names.
neimad: Are you sure you owned it for 1 year and 11 months? The California lawsuit was filed on November 26, 2013. If they’re seizing domain names that were not even registered to the defendants at the time that the case was initiated, you’d probably have an even stronger case than anybody else.
Presumably some of the “big guys” who are affected are already organizing a legal strategy. I’d suggest that you reach out to them via email (or they’ll be trying to reach out to you; presumably Mike has your contact info via the WordPress signup).
I had been interested in the domain name since 2008 but it was unavailable. Then I started getting e-mails from domain spammers that the domain would be come available soon. I own the .NET variant of the domain name, so I was getting a lot of spam to buy the .COM variant.
I attempted to use a “domain capture” service in 2011 to get the domain name, without success.
Then in 10/2012, I was contacted by sales@dreamteamfinancial.com as they were now selling the .COM domain name I had wanted for $209.19 USD. I made the purchase, and the domain name was transferred to my registrar and it was completed on 10/5/2012. I renewed the domain name in 10/2013.
I don’t see any record of any communication from anyone that the domain was being removed from my ownership. I noticed it was missing on 10/1/2014.
My registrar confirmed that the domain name was removed from my ownership on 9/2/2014.
Neimad – I think the big question is :
“How long dud you hold that domain name before it was ‘removed from your ownership’ on 9/2/2014?”
If you picked these domain names up on drop then you might have a basis for getting them back, re that you are a bona fide purchaser for value. It would however require the filing of a lawsuit. If you didn’t do anything wrong and could not reasonably have known the domains were the subject of another action then you should not be harmed by an unknown third party’s actions.
Stevan Lieberman
http://www.aplegal.com
The syndicate behind ICANN/VeriSign/Major Registrars is testing cycling valuable dot coms through the aftermarket, over and over. That way, many can be paid.
Stevan
Why should a buyer in due course have to “discover” that a domain they owned has been transfered and how many are going to file a lawsuit to recover the domain, of course that appears what Bob and Plaintiff’s counsel is taking advantage of, why produce an accurate list of domain names when you can just get more domains by just not doing the work.
Its really about bringing these guys back in front of the federal judge and let the judge know that the list that was furnished under oath and as a officer of the court was inaccurate which resulted in the judge signing an order seizing property that did not belong to the debtor.
The judge will be less than thrilled
I agree it is not right. One can file a motion for to join the current action and a motion to have the domain returned. That might be the least expensive way to go, but different states have different rules and you might do better on your claims in another jurisdiction. Of course creating a situation where you have two different federal courts fighting over jurisdiction over one or more domain names would cause lots of confusion and might work in the domain owners advantage. The domain owner can claim that the other court has no in personam jurisdiction over them, they do not wish to assent to such jurisdiction and that is why they are filing in a different court. But yes, the Judge in the current case would be less than thrilled.
You know – it occurs to me that if one or more domainers live near that courthouse and / or folks are willing to travel now and then it would throw a lot of wrenches into the works if each person who lost a domain with a claim that it was taken without notice or right filed a separate motion to join the suit and to have their domains returned pro se then THAT would give the Court conniptions. So long as the domains were held personally each individual may represent themselves. The Court would be obligated to assist each pro se litigant and a lot of such would churn attorney’s fees to the point where it might just make sense for those folk to be given their domains back to get them out of the case.This of course would cost the pro se domainers a lot less than filing with attorneys.
Where is the courthouse? Who is is the judge? I’d drive a few hours if I had to if this would help get my domain name back. Unfortunately I’m still a bit clueless about how this works.
I live down the street from ICANN world headquarters, is there any good I could do by paying them a visit?
As I pointed out in an earlier comment, the relevant court (and case) appears to be:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division – Los Angeles) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13-cv-08763-PSG-AJW.
Chan Luu Inc. v. Online Growth, LLC et al
Plaintiff Chan Luu Inc.
a California corporation
Defendant Online Growth, LLC
Defendant
Grant Shellhammer
d/b/a Dream Team Financial, d/b/a Ride Networks, and d/b/a Network Ride
If you do a Google search for my Twitter account, I have links to the docket, complaint, etc.
Since you’re down the street from ICANN, then you’re in luck, because the relevant court appears to be nearby.
Yes I see that now, I’ve gone to your twitter feed and looked up the court documents you posted, and thank you very much for doing so! This sheds a lot of light on the situation, though I’m not really sure what my next step is. It seems like the court is in Los Angeles, and I’m in Los Angeles, so I could go down there and go through whatever process needs to be done. Not sure where to start though. Should I get a lawyer? I really don’t have the money to spend fighting legal battles though. Any advice helps at this point.
Folks –
I have met Rob Olay.
He is just there because someone needs to be “there” – this ahs nothing to do with him or whoever he is working for.
All of this reinforced indirectly by the previous guy Stevan Lieberman and a handful of other comments when you read in between the lines.
In the end any judge need a good hook to hang his hat on – especially if his court has been stroked – and that said – it is all about who will be paying the legal fees because of that stroke 🙂
I don’t care if you met Bob Olay and he professed his innocence – he is involved in some very shady business dealings and he certainly is culpable as far as his involvement goes. He should and likely will face backlash over this matter, hopefully along with his associates. I’m probably going to have to”lawyer-up” over this, and the person I’m most unhappy with right now is the guy who’s name is on the domain I rightfully own(ed).
I think that is a fair assessment. Whatever happened legally or not, the current owner is the one who “seemingly” stole the domain from you. Or wound up with it in his name. Bad choice on his part. It should be sitting in the name of “Domain Admin” and “In the trust of XYZ”. And then had him as the technical contact. Putting himself in ownership of the domain (assuming this is correct, I did not verify), that would put him personally in a precarious position to currently be the registrant of stolen property. (Legally or not) I do not envy his position right now.
I correct myself. The domain is in “COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER – ROBERT OLEA”. Or at least as the original posting said. But still, I would not want my name anywhere in the “ownership” of the domain.
Kd
That is what I said in the original post
Please update this when you get additional information.
Was there any notice other than what you received as this was done?
Do they claim you missed a notification that was sent to an old address or in some other way?
A company I consult had this happen. It is not part of this 5000 domains, but is happened in a similar way. All different parties. Not the same people that did this to you.
Thanks,
John
This is very troubling. How is Bob Olea coming up with a price for some of these domains? How much commission is he taking him for himself et cetera? What if I own the trademark and want my domain and this court appointed receiver has it?
All the domain names appear to be being brokered by domainnamesales.com so I guess you can get a price
Berkens:
I still need more information on this.
Are the characters mentioned as “Receivers” friends of yours in the Domain boardroom?
Is the “Registrar” receiving the name advertiser and buddy of yours?
Did you know the previous owner of the domains before or during the court battle?
Have you communicated with Olea?
Has there been any discussions in the Domainboardroom?
How many domains did you win from the 5000 or so, and how many did you lose in the claw black?
Domenclature.com says
Are the characters mentioned as “Receivers” friends of yours in the Domain boardroom?
The receiver is Bob Olea have no idea what forum’s or Boards he belongs to I personally don’t got on them
Is the “Registrar” receiving the name advertiser and buddy of yours?
The registrar receiving all the domains is Uniregistry (in the original post)
Did you know the previous owner of the domains before or during the court battle?
The defendant I don’t know him personally
Have you communicated with Olea?
Yes
Has there been any discussions in the Domainboardroom?
I was banned from the domain boardroom years ago after I went on it for two days to defend myself from a personal attack i was alerted to.
How many domains did you win from the 5000 or so, and how many did you lose in the claw black?
I lost 3 domains
I appears there maybe more like 8,000 domains that were seized we are still trying to put the info together
Still reserving judgement, it seems to me that the readers should be updated as to the nature of your communication with Olea; I appreciate telling me how many domains you lost (3), I would have at least determined that such a small number (relatively speaking) seems to be innocent, and rules out collusion with the “Defendant”, the former owner of the domains, but you avoided answering how many out of the purported 8000 original names you “won” in the “drop catching” ; if the answer is 3 total, then it brings me closer to certain conclusions, which i will detail as soon as i get all the information.
I also wanted to know if you knew the previous owner in any kind of way, NOT just personally, but by email, by association, via a third party, did Monte Cahn know them, have you ever communicated with that previous owner before, or during the pendency of the court action, or litigation?
Please shed some light on your discussion with Olea, the above clarifications, and any new information that could be relevant in sorting this through.
I lost one domain in this situation. I’ve never heard of Robert Olea before, or anyone involved in this case except for “dream team financial” who I purchased the domain name from in 2012.
I’m really wanting to do something to get my domain name back. I live in Los Angeles, near the court where this took place in. I’m willing to do something but I just don’t know what I can do.
Does anyone know a lawyer I could talk to that knows anything about domain name ownership?
ICA rep Phil Corwin, who is an attorney, blogged about this article:
Undue Process: Nearly Five Thousand Domains Transferred Under Sealed Court Order
http://www.internetcommerce.org/undue-process
where he invites any affected to post at the ICA’s Facebook page:
so you have to notify Phil Corwin on the ICA’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/Internetcommerce.org
or contact him via contact form:
http://www.internetcommerce.org/contact
Hope that helps! 🙂
Domenclature said
Why do you level accusations toward MHB without grounds? How can you make such an association? Mike blogged that a few of his winning domain names got taken away – what raises suspicion about that? I asked, “What does Frank Schilling say?” because Frank Schilling has more first-hand knowledge about what is going on, and the two are friends. I hope Mr. Schilling appreciates Mike defence of his character and friendship to the extreme he does.
In the syndicate manipulation of domain ownership and sales, I think Mike’s involvement is a big surprise and mistake among the insiders. LIkely, they could say a few words, and get the whois corrected on the 3 domain names. I check, Retractit.com, every day, to see when the whois updates to the correct info.
But the peons, no.
No, Louise I actually stated that I am reserving judgment on this matter. I have no idea what happened. While seeking the facts on this particular matter, I am more interested on how domain names are “drop caught”; so there’s a parallel curiosity involved. Berkens have answered some of the questions posed, tho not fully; he doesn’t have to answer any of it, so I’m grateful for the little he has been able to muster, and have referred me to tomorrow’s Domainsherpa. I will check it for further information.
There’s no suspicion against Berken. It would be nice to know if, for instance, he “won” 4999 of the 5000 domains he originally reported, before I can decide. It happens that he would NOT reveal how many he won, rather only telling us how many got clawed back. I like all the facts before I proceed. that’s all. Nothing more. I respect Berkens, but I’m not going to just make decisions based on that.
Okay, Domenclature, I understand.
You sound like a TROLL.
You’re saying I sound like a troll? I went to a lot of effort to post Phil Corwin’s invitation to accept information. I think a, “thank you,” would be more in order.
Domen
Yes I lost 3 domains
Over 9K were seized
Watch domainsherpa.com tomorrow much more info is on there
Okay.
I called up Robert Olea on the phone this morning. He seems like a nice enough guy. He immediately offered to transfer my domain name back to me. I provided him with proof I owned the domain name, and he initiated the transfer and within minutes it was back in my possession in a uniregistry account which I am not attempting to transfer back to my original registrar.
Bob Olea seems like a nice guy, though I’m not really sure what the extent of his involvement is.
Someone got a judge to sign something forcing verisign to yank the domain names, and Bob Olea is welcoming people to contact him if they want their domain name(s) returned. If someone doesn’t contact him then it seems they are not likely to get their domain name back, and then I assume it will eventually be sold and the profit goes to Bob Olea and/or his associates?
It’s too confusing for me, so I got my domain name back and now I’m checking-out of this discussion.
One thing I have learned from this is that there are some shady dealings in the world of domain names.
It seems very odd that a company would go through the huge trouble and expense of getting a court order to clawback these domains, yet then easily give them back to anybody who requests it. I would assume all 9000 of the domains are now owned by people not directly involved with the company that had the legal problems, so it appear that all the people who lost domains could get their domains back. Maybe a certain group of domains were illegally transferred to related parties, I have no idea, but it seems like of that were the case, they should have only taken back those specific domains. The fact the neimad could just ask for his domain back and then get it returned to him seems to prove that some sort of mistake was made.
9000 domain names transferred by a court order doesn’t sound like a mistake to me. It sounds fishy. I’ll leave that for the domainers to decide though, because I’ll be doing creative things instead of just buying and selling domain names.
@neimad,
I’m not tooting any horn, but it’s because of the questions I posed to Berkens that gave you the idea to call Olea.
Some commentators are more interested in sympathies for Berken, than finding out the facts. From my questioning of Berkens, it was revealed that he had in fact been in contact with Olea, who offered his domains back; yet there was no update on that front to the post.
So, I’m using this comment to teach Louise an important lesson: it’s better to rely on true or false, than good or bad, or even, wrong or right. I do not approach Berkens and his blog based on the latter two, but on the former.
You’re wrong – I got the idea to call Olea from watching Berkens himself in the video this morning on domainsherpa – he mentioned that he called Olea and Olea offered to give his domains back. I was hoping for more information about a larger fix for the 9000 domains, but it didn’t seem like Berkens or anyone else will be taking them to court to fix it, so I decided to just call Olea myself and ask for my domains back, and it worked.
Too bad, if you look up there, you’ll see that Berkens revealed that he called Olea yesterday, in answer to my questions, and the domain sherpa stuff didn’t air until today.
Do try to keep up, neimad.
Did you talk to Olea yourself this morning? No. Do try to keep up, asshole.
I’m unsubscribing from this bullshit, have fun with your trolling.
@neimad,
Besides, I quote you below responding to me yesterday, including time, actually responding to Berkens response to my Olea question, so you have forgotten where you got it, here:
“neimad says
OCTOBER 8, 2014 AT 4:58 PM
I lost one domain in this situation. I’ve never heard of Robert Olea before, or anyone involved in this case except for “dream team financial” who I purchased the domain name from in 2012.”
@ Neimad, glad you got your domain name back. This looks like a windfall for Uniregistry. More power, to you Frank Schilling, if UniRegistry supplies a trustworthy shelter in a desert of sketchy Registrars.
@ Domenclature, this excerpt of the transcript to yesterday’s Sherpa interview, quoting Mike Berkens, speaks for itself
Mike Berkens, you’re a rock star!
@Louise,
Berkens might be everything, but I doubt that he is a rock star.
But the real issue is how was someone (Bob Olay in this case) who is not an officer of the court allowed to “give back” a domain that was originally taken by the court.
We are publishing a story on this in the AM and I think everyone will be quite happy (not the defendant) even Domen may find little to bitch about, and since I’m traveling to ICANN tomorrow I won’t be around to read the bitching anyway
Bob
In this case is an officer of the court he is the person the court appointed receiver for the domain names.