The former owner of the domain name Prince.com, Andrew Prince has filed a UDRP on the domain, claiming the domain which was sold by Mediaoptions.com for $235,000 in August was stolen.
The domain is currently at Moniker.com showing the buyers whois info but is locked by the registry so the respondent of the UDRP (as it is referred to below) is Moniker.com
Matter of fact in his telling of his story Dr. Hartnett mentioned that he was contacted in reference to this exact domain Prince.com:
“A few weeks ago John Mauriello from SnapNames/Moniker called me to see why I hadn’t paid an invoice for $35,000.
“For what I asked?”
“He said because I had sold the domain, Prince.com privately but I signed a 90 day exclusive with Moniker and the domain was in the August Showcase auction.”
“I told him I never owned that domain name.”
“This person put the domain up for auction using my name”
The story regarding Prince.com, as far as I have been able to piece it together from the information I already have from Dr. Hartnett, and the claims of Andrew Prince from his UDRP is that around the beginning of April 2010 the domain name was stolen.
The domain was submitted to the SnapNames.com monthly showcase auction for August. As part of submitting the domain to the SnapNames.com auction the domain was transferred into Moniker.com and as part of that process Moniker got a 90 day exclusive contract to sell the domain.
The reserve in the SnapNames.com auction was in excess of $350K.
The domain did not sell.
Shortly thereafter MediaOptions.com was retained to sell the domain and completed a sale sometime after the showcase auction ended but still in August for $235,000.
The original owner of the domain Andrew Prince is claming that the domain was stolen and sold without his permission and he did not not get any of the purchase price.
The buyer who paid $235,000 is now showing as the owner of the domain on the whois, but the domain is locked at the registry and not in the buyers control.
From the Complaint this is what Andrew Prince had to say about this domain:
“On April 4, 2010 the Registrar had changed.”
“That transfer at the beginning of April this year was undertaken without my knowledge or consent.”
“I have at no time had any contact with the Respondent or anyone acting for them. ”
“The only information that I have on the transfer is what I have been told by Claranet Limited the hosting company and the Technical contact for the Domain Name while it was in my name. In a telephone conversation on September 28, 2010 with Ian Davis, a team leader at Claranet I was informed that they received an email on March 24, 2010 from “Andrew Prince” using the account NOC1@fastservice.com purporting to come from me and requesting the transfer. The following day the sender of that email provided Claranet with the first and last letters of my password and that on March 30, 2010 they transferred the Domain Name.”
“I confirm that I have never contacted Claranet with a view to arranging transfer of the Domain Name, nor have I instructed anyone to contact them on my behalf. The Domain Name has been stolen from me.”
“I do not begin to understand what has happened. I have never sought to sell the Domain Name to anyone. From the sums of money mentioned, it is apparent that the Domain Name has a very high value. It is inconceivable that anyone would be paying that sum of money for an asset without checking very carefully the chain of title to that asset. In the UK if one purchases, a car which has been stolen one does not obtain title to the car. The responsibility is on the purchaser and any intervening dealers to conduct proper checks. With an asset said to be worth over half a million dollars it would be crass not to conduct in depth investigations. Failure to do so is strongly indicative, I suggest, that those involved in the theft and subsequent dealings in the Domain Name were aware either that the Domain Name had been stolen or was likely to have
been stolen.”
The purpose of this Complaint is simply to recover my stolen property. I reported the theft to the Police on September 27, 2010.
“The Domain Name is confusingly similar to my registered UK trade mark no. 2123377, PRINCE (word and device) dated February 11, 1997 in classes 41 and 42. Details of my trade
mark registration taken from the database of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property office are at Annex 6. The mark comprises the word ‘PRINCE” and the device of a frog, the former being the more prominent. The mark is held in the joint names of my wife and myself. At Annex 7 is a communication from my wife confirming that she supports this complaint and agrees that, if the Complaint is successful, the Domain Name should be transferred into my name, as before.”
“Self-evidently, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name. The Respondent stole it. It is currently in use merely to resolve to the Google UK homepage.”
“I respectfully request the Panel to interrogate the Respondent and the underlying registrant and anyone else involved as to (a) precisely how and when and by whom the relevant transfers were effected and (b) what title checks were conducted to verify the title to this asset valued by the Respondent at over half a million dollars. ”
“Self-evidently, again, the Domain Name has been acquired by the Respondent in bad faith and while I can have no idea what plans the Respondent has for the Domain Name it is fair to assume that the planned use is abusive. No use of a stolen name can be anything other than abusive. Currently, if one enters the URL www.prince.com into the browser it resolves to the Google UK homepage. I assume, but do not know that the Respondent is rewarded in some way by Google.”
“Indeed I contend that any use of a stolen domain name must constitute an abusive use.”
A few observations:
First of all I’m not sure if a UDRP is a proper venue for such a claim, that is the return of a stolen domain name that seems to have been bought by an innocent third party. Maybe one of the lawyers that frequently comment on this blog can address that issue.
Second there is a LOT of time from the beginning of April when Mr. Prince says the domain was stolen until late September when this complaint was filed.
Moniker.com/SnapNames.com typically publicizes its showcase auctions pretty heavily and Prince.com was one of the stars of the auction.
One would hope if they owned as Mr. Prince says a domain worth over a half of million dollars, you would catch some news of the auction of the domain.
Thirdly based on the brief connection with Mr. Hartnett as decribed above, I would have to assume the same person that hacked into Hartnett computer, and took his identity and domains, is the same person involved here.
Therefore this would be a second victim of the same thief.
“I suggest, that those involved in the theft and subsequent dealings in the Domain Name were aware either that the Domain Name had been stolen or was likely to have
been stolen.”
Well said!
Friend
I’m not sure how the parties were aware or should have been aware
The domain was in the snapnames.com showcase which means it cleared Moniker review and then it was sold by another party, mediaoptions.com and cleared whatever review they had.
Its not like the domain was sold for $25K it was sold for $235K which is very conceivable as a price for this domain.
I know Mr. Prince says the domain is worth at least $500K but when I saw the sale in August I didn’t think its was a HUGE bargain.
” One would hope if they owned as Mr. Prince says a domain worth over a half of million dollars, you would catch some news of the auction of the domain.”
This is going to be hard to believe. I still came across owners of killer domain names when I placed call, that they didn’t know there was a domain industry or even domain auctions!
One boston-based, 100 domain name portfolio owner I spoke to recently, with some serious domains from the 90’s had no idea about the growing domain industry or even heard about the recent big sales of domain names.
I kid you not.
In our domain world, we are well connected. Some of the stuff we talk about is big news to us. I still get the impression that the world is somewhat aware. NOT.
Out there? Who the hell are we? Stolen names..uh..what does that mean?
@ John
Did you buy his entire portfolio? You must have bought some great names.
So what happened to the $235,000 that the current owner paid for Prince.com ? Who has it ?
@Anon
From this guy? No. He didn’t need the money.
He took one GeoCategory.com name built a butt-ugly site on it, went out and found
500+ advertisers at $600 per year the hard way.
Add’em up.
It didn’t matter the numbers thrown at him. He just plain didn’t need the money lol.
I will reveal it on my blog when the time is right.
Adam
As far as I can tell the thief, less commission
MHB,
Whose on the hook in a situation like this?
Elliot
Howard had a story on his blog a while back which would indicate the buyer maybe the one holding the bag at the end of the day:
http://howardneu.com/blog/legal/DO-YOU-KNOW-THE-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-FRAUD-AND-THEFT.php?post_id=52&pgtitle=DO%20YOU%20KNOW%20THE%20DIFFERENCE%20BETWEEN%20FRAUD%20AND%20THEFT&category=legal
So who was mediaoptions brokering it for? surely they should know that and where they sent the payment to.
Was Andrew Prince also an active domainer ?
Can the Broker be sued if discovered to not have done a proper title/chain of ownership search?
I would think ultimately the buyer loses the name and the money.
This would also mean I would have to go through the aggravation of verifying any names I bid on at your typical domain auction.
Think about this:
Whats are the chances that there’s a stolen domain or two lurking in these upcoming domain conference auctions? I’d require a %100 reimbursement from the broker if the name I bought was stolen and it had to be returned. If all the buyers banded together and sent an email to these auction brokers that no bids will take place without the reimbursement guarantee, then they’ll have to examine the names a little closer.
How about that?
Unfortunately for Andrew Prince, he is in the wrong venue. UDRP was not designed to recover stolen domains, though his approach is a novel one. He is claiming that the domain infringes on his trademark, was registered in Bad Faith and therefore should be turned over to him. He just might be able to make a case. The UDRP panel will not question the Respondent as it is not their job and they have no authority under the Rules to do so. However, they just might turn it over to him whether it was stolen or not because of his trademark.
As you can imagine, we are very concerned to hear that Prince.com was allegedly stolen prior to it’s sale and we are cooperating in every possible way to resolve this situation, albeit to the favor of our client, the buyer.
However, let’s take a closer look at this:
First off, if the domain was stolen, then it was stolen 6 months prior to my company selling it. That means that the “real owner” didn’t realize it was missing or that his email and domain had been hijacked for 6 months? This is very odd.
Both ourselves and Moniker performed the standard checks and due-diligence on this domain and there were no red flags. The email address had been the same for 6 months and there were no other WHOIS changes. As far as I know there has NEVER been a case of a thief stealing a domain name and sitting on it for 6 months – NEVERMIND entering it into a very public and publicized auction. Domain theft usually is a very fast episode and the domain is usually sold at far below market value in order to get away with the money before anyone notices the domain is missing.
As Michael noted, $235,000 for Prince.com is certainly not a “discount” or below market price. In fact, several parties contacted me after the sale to congradulate us for fetching such a high price for this domain – much higher than they anticipated.
The negotiation process for the sale of Prince.com was also not conducted in a way which would be consistent with a thief trying to offload a stolen domain. The seller was very firm and inflexible over small points, such as who pays the escrow fees.
Lastly, the actual sale was handled directly between buyer and seller via Escrow.com. Media Options Inc merely facilitated the sale. We never took possession of the domain name, nor the money. Our commission was paid by the buyer after the completion of the transaction.
There are many more details to the case than are apparent from this post – many of which will come to light in the near future. But I can tell you that it would have been impossible for anyone to have been alerted to this domain being stolen prior to the original owner coming forward (only last week).
At this point, I firmly stand behind our client who is the buyer of this domain. The domain was sold and purchased in good faith. The buyer is an innocent 3rd party. I am confident that the buyer will be successful in the UDRP finding as they have not infringed on any trademark, used this domain in any form of commerce or for commercial benefit and as I stated previously, purchased this domain in good faith.
Although many of you will disagree with our stance on this subject, we adamantly support the buyer in this case and will assist them in anyway available to us to protect their rights to this domain.
If there is anyone who is seemingly negligent in this case, it is the previous owner of Prince.com. 6 months without noticing the loss of a high value domain name such as Prince.com and without noticing that your email has been hijacked is simply absurd.
While I certainly feel terrible for the previous owner, as I have been the subject of domain theft myself, the domain has been purchased in good faith for a fair sum by an innocent 3rd party. Due to such a long time lapse, I’m afraid that the previous owner’s negligence will be his own undoing.
@ Andrew Rosener – “Although many of you will disagree with our stance on this subject, we adamantly support the buyer in this case and will assist them in anyway available to us to protect their rights to this domain.
If there is anyone who is seemingly negligent in this case, it is the previous owner of Prince.com. 6 months without noticing the loss of a high value domain name such as Prince.com and without noticing that your email has been hijacked is simply absurd. ”
If the domain was stolen, your buyer nor anyone else other than the victim should have any ‘rights to this domain’. And to suggest that the victim is negligent…wow! And that coming from someone who has profited from handling stolen goods. Will you be helping the authorities with tracing your seller, or just protecting your commission.
“Due to such a long time lapse, I’m afraid that the previous owner’s negligence will be his own undoing.”
theft is theft. doesn’t matter if he didn’t notice.
i think it’s a police matter rather than udrp, whether the police understand this arena or have an appetite for cross border investigations, who knows
i admit its very unusual to have such a public sale and nothing outwardly looking suspicious
so, who was the seller? people ,ust know, like moniker and mediaoptions, and they have to give as much detail as possible to the authorities so it can be properly investiagted, and guilty parties brought to justice
We are and will cooperate with all authorities involved.
James – we are a mediary who facilitated a sale. Our obligation and fiduciary responsibility is to the buyer – no one else.
It is very easy for you to sit back at your keyboard and throw stones – but this is a very complicated case which NO ONE has been able to get straight answers on.
This is the single most advanced domain thief this industry has ever seen.
I can look back at this transaction and honestly tell myself that there was nothing more I could have done to discover that this domain may have been stolen. Once I can say that, then I have no problem supporting and defending my buyer.
Don’t sit there and think that you would have done anything different because this domain passed through some of the top brokers and companies in this business and no one identified it as stolen.
First DDNA.com was brokering the domain (specifically to Prince Sports). Then Moniker brokered it and even put it an public auction. Only THEN did we broker it and successfully sell the domain.
Since when do buyers pay the commission on domain sales ? That’s a first I’ve seen.
yes, i was thinking the same. sellers pay the commission
maybe thats why the keenness to defend the buyer, and hope he doesnt sue the brokers!
$235,000 is a heck of a hit to take if the thief disappears into the night.
did the brokers not think to go into domaintools and look at previous registrant and ring him up?
These thieves are getting wise, and doing things differently these days. They are not trying to sell domains they steal immediately, but waiting for 6 months+ first, so that those who have access to Whois history tools are not set off by recent changes. I’ve seen at least four domains that this has been true for. Any communication with free email addresses should immediately raise suspicion (Especially live.com for some reason).
If you have the funds to buy and sell premium domain names, you should be able to afford a Domaintools paid membership. If you don’t use these services, you should be held 100% accountable for anything that happens. This is not aimed at anyone specifically.
I want to make something else very clear to you all:
As far as I’m concerned and until proven otherwise, the seller was and is Andrew Prince. All communication, both by email and phone was with an individual claiming to be and who seemingly was Andrew Prince. We had and still have no physical evidence to prove this was not the case.
I can assure you that we looked back at the whois history in DomainTools and it is no different than the whois information at the time of sale. The email address changed, but that was 6 months prior to the sale. That is not reason for alarm.
Before you start throwing around words like “suing the broker” – I would like to know how this could have been handled differently?
Anyone accusing us of negligence in this case had better be ready to defend their statements in a court of law, as that is slander.
Every standard measure was taken to trace ownership of this domain prior to its sale. Not only by my company, but also by Moniker and others.
@ Steve –
Media Options acts as a buying agent for many different clients. In all of those situations the buyer pays the commission.
As well, in many of the 6 figure plus transactions which we have handled, it is common, particularly if we find it necessary to reduce our commission in order to close a deal (as was the case with Prince.com), that the buyer agrees to pay the commission.
In fact, I would say that more of times than not, on our larger sales, the buyer has paid the commission.
“As far as I’m concerned and until proven otherwise, the seller was and is Andrew Prince. All communication, both by email and phone was with an individual claiming to be and who seemingly was Andrew Prince. We had and still have no physical evidence to prove this was not the case.”
If you find out that this is a case of stolen identity, are you going to try to get the domain name back to the real Andrew Prince?
“Every standard measure was taken to trace ownership of this domain prior to its sale. Not only by my company, but also by Moniker and others.”
What are the standard measures ? Because obviously this criminal now knows how to get around them quite handily and we should all work to come up with something a little more safe for both buyers and sellers.
—“If there is anyone who is seemingly negligent in this case, it is the previous owner of Prince.com. 6 months without noticing the loss of a high value domain name such as Prince.com and without noticing that your email has been hijacked is simply absurd.”
You should be ashamed of yourself, really.
—“While I certainly feel terrible for the previous owner, as I have been the subject of domain theft myself, the domain has been purchased in good faith for a fair sum by an innocent 3rd party. Due to such a long time lapse, I’m afraid that the previous owner’s negligence will be his own undoing.”
Stolen property is stolen property, if it was indeed stolen, so what you say is irrelevant.
There should be a lot of traceable stuff out there, namely who cashed that check /received that wire transfer.
Imho, what Mr. Rosener says makes sense. And it certainly seems like there’s something *much* more intriguing to this story. Perhaps someone with the same legal name savvy enough to pull it off. Or divorce shenanigans, etc.
Not sure how it has a happy ending though.
“As far as I know there has NEVER been a case of a thief stealing a domain name and sitting on it for 6 months – NEVERMIND entering it into a very public and publicized auction.“
Andrew, if what you say is sincere and the truthful, you sir do not know very much concerning the subject of domain theft.
Which measures are taken to be sure that it was sold by the right Andrew Prince? Copy of passport? Telephone calls? Where was the check send to?
@ Andrew
You said above:
(Quote) We are a mediary who facilitated a sale. Our obligation and fiduciary responsibility is to the buyer – no one else.(Unquote)
INCORRECT!
Your obligation and legal responsibility is to facilitate the return
of said stolen property upon your knowledge thereof,
any other other path of action may be considered an obstruction of justice,
and may perhaps even be considered as a form of aiding and abetting.
It is not within my power or responsibility to return anything.
Also, you people don’t know all the facts in this case, and Andrew Prince, may not be the innocent victim who you think he is. Trust me, this is far more elaborate than a simple domain theft.
I facilitated the sale of this domain. It was a month after the sale that any of this business about it being stolen came up. So Media Options no longer has any role in this whatsoever other than to provide information to the proper authorities as requested to resolve this case.
If the domain is found to have been stolen and that my client has no legal right to the domain, which at this point in time, he does have legal right to the domain, then we will gladly refund our brokerage fee.
This is my final comment on this case until further evidence is presented and or it is resolved.
“Second there is a LOT of time from the beginning of April when Mr. Prince says the domain was stolen until late September when this complaint was filed”
Fishy Very Fishy…
Has anybody ever had a look at your TOS for a domain name ? well take a look you dont own it the registry does you are just a leasee .. think that you got rights .. think again!
OH MY! THE NEW SNAPNAMES? SAY IT AINT SO!
Seems like the real owner staged this whole thing and is trying to keep the money and the domain.
I would audit his bank accounts and the bank account you sent the money to when you bought it.
LOL…What’s new with Rosener?
It’s all I can expect from one of domainerdom’s biggest spammer…spamming all & sundry with his domain listings…don’t know how the f he got my email address
So the logic seems to be: if I have a picasso in my vault but it gets stolen…and I don’t notice it’s gone for 6 mths…then I’m negligent? WTF
in reading about these cases, how many times have we heard the equivalent of the phrase “email purporting to come from me”?
do the people involved in these disputes know how to use PGP?
why not instruct your hosting company/registrar not to accept any unsigned email from “you”, nor follow-up calls based thereon? in fact, this requirement should be in writing.
Looking at the whowas service, the scammers changed the email address to an addy of fastservice.com a domain owned by World Media Group, LLC.
From an other blog:
http://www.thedomains.com/2010/10/04/alert-identity-theft-hits-namejet-dr-chris-hartnett-it-can-happen-to-you/
“A few weeks ago John Mauriello from SnapNames/Moniker called meto see why I hadn’t paid an invoice for $35,000.
“For what I asked?”
“He said because I had sold the domain, Prince.com privately but I signed a 90 day exclusive with Moniker and the domain was in the August Showcase auction.”
“I told him I never owned that domain name.”
“This person put the domain up for auction using my name”
“John apologized for the mistake”
So they can find the ‘owner’ if an invoice is not paid, but no research at all is done beforehand ? This for a name they list for over 300K ? Unbelievable !
Hosting.india.to of vibhu rathor
Mr. Vibhu rathore of hosting.india.to. has theft my domain names and trying to black mail me. i requested him to give my domains back to me but still he is not giving i have all the detail of my domains and bills with me which i purchased from hosting.india.to. he has deleted my log-in id and password. i request to block his web hosting site so that he can’t do this kind of things and request other also not to purchase any domains name and hosting plans from this hosting company
thanks for reading
vitthal
Looks like the buyer of Prince.com was …Kim Dotcom’s buddy, Sven Echternach of Megaupload.
I have email proof that as of now 22/02/2017
Andrew Rosener is once again brokering the sale of Prince.com
Curioser and curioser!
Maybe Rosener never actually brokered it at all and has owned it all along?
Here were the findings when Andrew Prince tried to getthe name back
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1661
by Rosener owning it all along I meant that in a negative sense as there is something very fishy going on here it seems
@Joey – there is nothing fishy going on in any way whatsoever. We did broker the sale to Sven Echternach back in 2010 or so. We had no idea the domain could have been stolen at the time. At the time we sold the name on behalf of the apparent owner, he had been in possession of the domain for over 2 years! Usually the signature of a domain theft is a recent whois change or slight email modification followed by an immediate attempt to sell the name. Also, thieves are usually looking to move the name quickly. This owner was a brutal negotiator and turned down multiple 6 figure offers before accepting the offer we ultimately sold Prince.com for. So that means that if the domain was stolen from Andrew Prince, he didn’t even notice that the domain was stolen for more than 2 years! I’m not the only one who tried to broker this name, I’m just the one who actually sold it. Some still believe that Andrew Prince just had seller’s remorse after selling it and made up the whole domain theft story (not sure I buy that, but…).
SnapNames auctioned off Prince.com in a public live auction only a month before I sold it. They were representing the same “owner” whom I sold the domain for. But it didn’t hit reserve. Network Solutions even got involved in trying to sell it and failed. But the point is, NONE of them, including myself, had any suspicion whatsoever that the name could have been stolen. There were absolutely no signs to point to a theft. After the sale, there was a UDRP and subsequent legal case around Prince.com and the current owner, Sven, has prevailed in each. I’m not sure what more you want? Even the UDRP was filed around a year after the sale or so I believe. Maybe more, don’t remember at this point.
Anyhow, we are not actively brokering Prince.com but it is a “pocket listing” if you will. Sven is still one of our clients and when a potential buyer might be a fit for Prince.com we will present the name to them. Nothing I’m trying to hide by any stretch of the imagination.
Before you go publicly accusing someone of something, you should fact check. I’m not exactly a hard person to get a hold of. Just send me a note and ask whats up and I’d be more than happy to explain.
I don’t buy it at all
This domain must be stolen as why was
Why was Dr. Hartnett falsely initially brought in to this?
answer is clear both he and the actual owner were victims of ID theft
Come on Rosener for all we know its you hiding behind the privacy all this time
This whole thing stinks and you seem to be massively implicated
@Josh (or should I say Andy Kelly?) – you are clearly a half wit so I’ll clear up your confusion.
“…for all we know its you hiding behind the privacy all this time”
Well Josh, you worthless sack of horse shit, you know its not me because there was a UDRP filed against Prince.com after it was sold (which YOU posted a link to above, under another of your alter ego’s, as you have been doing for a decade or more now) and the actual registrant (Sven Echternach) responded to that UDRP, represented by John Berryhill, and won the case. Not only was neither my company or myself the respondent in that case, but the WHOIS privacy was removed upon filing of the UDRP as is required by ICANN. So if you actually had half a brain you could read the WIPO decision which you posted OR if you actually made any money in this business (or any for that matter), then you could afford a membership to DomainTools or DomainIQ in order to look at historical Whois records and verify what I’m telling you. But being the dip shit that you are, I’m doing the work for you and trying to explain to you in layman’s terms why your slanderous accusation is complete BS. Of course I would expect nothing less from a blog troll like yourself.
Once again, that will be my final comment on the subject. Troll on…
Andrew Rosener has always been ethical, professional and candid in any transactions either my company or I have had with him.
Andrew’s reputation has been and remains stellar in an industry, not unlike art investing and auctions and real estate, that is vulnerable to folks looking for a ‘quick cash-hit”.
I don’t know the particulars of this case. But I’d still stand by Andrew as having been only professional.
Plenty more folks who would very much contest that Steve
he has a very bad rep with many – very bad
if some are the more serious rumors are true there is way more to this episode
than meets the eye
First time I’ve commented here Rosener. Are you insane enough to think I am the only person who totally dislikes you and completely distrusts you?
I have though followed this thread with great interest over the years and I’m even more interested to see it spring back in to life again as something seems to smell “fishy” but that’s not surprising is it really Mr Ex Fishmonger.
Make your mind up huh, one minute you’re claiming I don’t exist then next I’m posting stuff about you under countless aliases? Then you post elsewhere (under one of your pathetic aliases) completely vile and false comments about me – isn’t that right Mr Sucks.
I know it’s a lot to get your tiny mind around but maybe it’s all a bit quantum? You know like the wave / particle paradox. I do exist but I don’t LOL
As you know I used to co-broker with you a long time back…before your insatiable grubby greed made me determined never to work with you again that is. Not back for any more comments? Shame would love you to read what I really think of you and your slimy MO.
At least you have dropped that total BS you used to have on your site claiming to donate errm was it 10% to a Panamanian rainforest thingy…got any receipts for your previous “donations” ????