5,000 Domains Seized Based On Sealed Court Filing; Confused Domain Owners Have No Idea Why

from the that-seems-problematic dept

Mon, Oct 6th 2014 10:22am — Mike Masnick

In the past, we'd been fairly worried about governments seizing website domains with little or no notice, but it's perhaps equally, if not more, troubling when it's done by private individuals and companies. This was one of our concerns with the original version of SOPA, which included a "private right of action." But, even though SOPA never became law (and the private right of action was dropped fairly early on), it appears that some courts are still allowing this to happen. Just a couple of months ago, we wrote about a troubling ruling in an Oregon district court that let a Filipino entertainment company seize a bunch of domains, in a process that was done under seal. In the past, we've seen other brands, like Chanel do the same thing. Louis Vuitton has also tried seizing domains.

The latest such example seems especially troubling because no one has any idea what's fully happening, but it appears to involve Chan Luu, a jewelry and clothing retailer. The Internet Commerce Association notes that approximately 5,000 domains appear to have been seized, handed over to a private "receiver" who is now trying to sell those domains -- for no clear reason. One of the victims, Michael Berkens, who lost some of his domains, has explained what little details he's been able to find out:

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 only information that Berkens received was the following email:

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

Others have tracked down that it has something to do with this case, but with the details under seal, it's all a bit of a mess. Here's Phil Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association:

The only other available facts that we are presently aware of are that a copy of the “Clerk’s Certification Of A Judgment To be Registered In Another District” issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the case of Chan Luu Inc. v. Online Growth, LLC et al is available at the Justia website, and the order was registered in the Florida Middle District Court. The other defendants in the case are “Grant Shellhammer et al”. There was a considerable time lag in this proceeding, with the original judgment entered in California on May 23rd, the certification dated September 8th, and the domain transfers occurring around October 2nd. The damages granted to plaintiff are $200,000 plus interest, court costs and attorney fees; we note that there is a strong possibility that the domains transferred in this case may have an aggregate market value far in excess of that total judgment, and that is likewise disturbing. The California court document covers domains that are identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s CHAN LUU mark – but we’re not sure if the domain cited by Mike in his article, RETRACTIT.COM, or any of the other transferred domains fit in that category. Chan Luu is a retailer of jewelry, accessories, and ready-to-wear clothing based in Los Angeles, and so far as can be discerned makes no commercial use of the term “retractit”, so it is unclear why that domain was covered by the court order.

This is problematic on many, many levels -- and is exactly why we've been so concerned about any process that allows for domain seizures without any sense of due process. In this case, with all the details under seal and the domain owners having their websites simply ripped away from them with no explanation at all, it should raise serious questions about why courts are allowing this to occur. To take domain names away from people who aren't even parties to a lawsuit, based on a sealed document, and then to immediately put them up for resale seems sketchy beyond belief.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: domain seizures, domains, due process, michael berkens, secrecy, trademark, transparency, under seal
Companies: chan luu, verisign

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:09am

To take domain names away from people who aren't even parties to a lawsuit, based on a sealed document, and then to immediately put them up for resale seems sketchy beyond belief.

Business as always unless you hit somebody with plenty of money and influence (it won't happen unless by mistake, they target the small folk). Sketchy beyond belief is and euphemism. It's plain criminal. And it's sealed beyond appeal or due process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:27am

Who do you even sue?
What option to they have? Sue the government? And no lawyer would do this for free. The cost would be huge and your chance of winning minute. This is just robbery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:31am

"The California court document covers domains that are identical or confusingly similar"

OMG OMG!! I have domain names that also use the letters a through z !!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:31am

Justice is blind because apparently it doesn't know what the shit is going on under its nose.
Perhaps it's more appropriate to say Justice is blind, deaf and dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:35am

Re: Who do you even sue?
The option they have is probably to file some emergency motion on the original case to stop the sale and get the domain temporarily back until the final judgment in the case, or something like that (I am not a lawyer and I am not a USA citizen).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:39am

Re: Who do you even sue?
Chan Luu for violation of free speech rights (ACLU?), criminal conversion, theft of property and interference with business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Who do you even sue?
This sounds plausible, but with the entire process kept secret, how do the injured parties even know if they are filing in the right court?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:41am

Re:
Justice isn't blind at all. It's selectively blind where cost-effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:41am

What really needs to be done is to slide in the following on these kinds of domain seizures...
mpaa.org
riaa.com

and chrisdodd.com for kicks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:44am

Re:
and can't smell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:45am

The claim that this has anything to do with trademark infringement is defeated by the fact that the domains in question are being sold on the open market. After all, if your concern is that particular domains infringe upon your marks, why would you then go and sell those domains without also selling your trademarks?

Even if the domains were, in fact, infringing, it should not be possible to sell them without first giving the former owner the right to contest the seizure in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:46am

Re:
Justice is blind... and deaf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:47am

Secret injustice happening in secret courts. Just another day in America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: Re: Who do you even sue?
Verisign would have to get involved (through an emergency injuction or something like that if they don't cooperate) to give the case number they received. If they didn't receive enough information to find the right case, the order was probably invalid and there should be some judicial mumbo-jumbo to force Verisign to give the domain back. (Again, I am not a lawyer and I am not a USA citizen).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:48am

Re: Re:
No, I think it's fair to say the perpetrating court smells. Indeed, it stinks to high heavens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:48am

"clearly a lot of people believe there should be no state interference at all on the internet, but that leads to lawlessness and anarchy"

DCI Fyfe, City of London Police.

See, the City of London police were right all along!! They'll be here any minute now to seize the seized domains and everything will be fine again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:48am

Re:
It would appear that predominantly it is lacking a sense of smell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:50am

Re: why sell?
" if your concern is that particular domains infringe upon your marks, why would you then go and sell those domains "

My guess was that the proceeds of the sales are intended to go to the wronged party. It's all I could think of but it makes no sense. But since it's all secret..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
connermac725 (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:51am

$200,000.00 is a lot
sue them for grand theft with that amount listed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:51am

Re: Re:
- You: "Justice is blind, deaf and dumb."
- Me: "Justice is blind... and deaf."

Evidently, so am I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:58am

While the lack of due process is a problem...
...it's worth noting that a lot of these were held by domaineers, aka typosquatters, phishers, parasites, spammers, phishers, etc. -- some of the Internet's worst scum. So yes, even they should be accorded due process/proper procedure, but it's difficult to feel sympathy for people who make their living exploiting the entire rest of the Internet for profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:59am

It's possible that the domain troll is just pre-marketing the seized properties to see what anyone will bid on them, while still waiting for clearance from the court to sell them (which might never come). It's a shady way of operating, but just about every company does this sort of thing to some degree. (it's annoying as hell to learn that you wasted your time pursuing a "phantom carrot" or whatever these scams are called.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:01am

So Due Process is just lip service now?

They took property from people via the courts without ever serving any documents on the targets.
They order is sealed of someone using the publicly funded court system, probably because of some statements of questionable "merit" that they would just transfer them away. Oh I read the order, they got an unopposed default... quaint.

Huh I wonder if this is 5000 domains that happened to share the same host or something that a freaking moron would assume connected them to the actual target.

Loyola might want to look into who they hire and if they are qualified in this technical age.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:07am

Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
Someone doesn't like phishers much...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:18am

I will own Techdirt.com soon.
You mean in California I can take ownership of Techdirt.com!! This is amazing, you may all start bowing since the constitution doesn't apply to the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:20am

Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
"but it's difficult to feel sympathy for people who make their living exploiting the entire rest of the Internet"

This isn't about sympathy for crooks. This is about justice. Your very comment indicates why this is an issue: you're assuming that all of the domains that were stolen were run by scumbags, when we have exactly no evidence that this is the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:21am

Wait a minute
If the problem is Trademark confusion (counterfeit goods) or defamation (saying untrue things) or some other badness involved with SPECIFIC domains...........

Why would they seize them, then turn around and SELL them?

What would prevent the future owners from doing the same thing with said domains?

This sounds more like a court approved robbery, not some action designed to right a wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:25am

this what happens when the law enforcement services are allowed to be controlled by industry, and a self-serving, entertainment industry at that, that refuses to join everyone else in the digital world and throws out 'campaign contributions for this very reason, then employs at an exorbitant salary a person who has left politics and been employed by the industries, not for his entertainment related skills, but for his continuing access to government!
however to seize a domain without holding a court session, without informing the site runners and giving no reason(s) is nothing less than we deserve because of the short-sighted way we are being manipulated into a corner, where the internet is going to be run by the industries stated above and full of spyware, not for criminals to pull off dirty deeds against us, but for governments to do so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: why sell?
Indeed, but what then next? Do they then file suit against the buyers for infringement, and in turn re-sell them again to recoup "losses"?

This seems like an awfully disgusting downward spiral of profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:35am

Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
...and of course the fact that this MUST be conducted in secret certainly supports that claim.

Somehow, I feel if they truly were the "Internet's worst scum" then a secret court/secret order/secret squirrel would be completely unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:35am

This all seems very BASIC to me ...
10. Lump 5,000 unrelated domains together & sue
20. Win by default by never informing defendants
30. Seal court proceedings from defendants
40. Sell 5,000 unrelated domains
50. Profit
60. GOTO 10
Compiles OK in a court of law. Package and ship it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scott, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:45am

Nothing to do with domain names?
Just guessing here but based on what was in the article posted here this really has nothing to do with domain names per-se. Instead it has to do with a lawsuit being won, damages being assessed and the winner being able to collect assets from the losing party. Just as if you lose any lawsuit, a court can order property you own be turned over to the winner. Domain names are just property. The real clue is in the fact that a jewelry company with no connection to some of the domain names in question has them for sale. Now, if domain names not owned by the losing party are involved, that is a different issue (i.e., mi-identification of the owner of the property). Again, a separate issue not related directly to domain names. Think someone repossessing the wrong car. It's not about the car but the incorrect identification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:47am

They can't do that.
5th Amendment, they can't take property without due compensation. The very fact that they've immediately turned and listed the domains for resale proves there is value that needs to be compensated.

You bet you need to run, not walk to the nearest relevant court. Yes, this involves litigation. But justice is freedom and FREEDOM ISN'T FREE. Think of it as being drafted, but instead of your life, freedom is only asking for your money. A bunch of folks interned in Normandy, Bunker Hill and Gettysburg would love to trade places with you.

Courts don't go around looking for injustice. They CAN'T do anything until some hero brings a case to them. When that happens, they move swiftly and with astonishing force to bring an end to injustices like Righthaven, Prenda and whatnot. The exact same thing WILL happen here, all we need is a hero to run the legal process through. Like I say, freedom isn't free, but in those cases, the courts awarded legal fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 11:55am

This is incompatible with the fourteenth amendment ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). A case like this, where the property is taken and then immediately put up for sale, before the owner is even notified that there IS a case pending, is about the most clear-cut case of no due process you can imagine.

This is like towing someone's car out of a parking lot because the previous owner is having his assets seized. The car (or domain) was paid for. The guy you're going after now has more cash - go after that. If he somehow hid the money from the sale, that's on him, not on the guy who bought it in good faith.

The only justification I can think of for taking the domain from a third party is if the domain was stolen property (if A steals from B and sells to C, C must give the property back to B), and even then, there's no good reason to do it THIS way (no notice and under seal). Additionally, having your domain seized, assuming it's actually being used and not just parked, constitutes irreparable harm. Especially since it's without notice and you can't just tell your visitors that you need to find a new address. You've likely lost most of them forever, even if the court later found it was in error and gave it back.

My first thought on why it was done this way was that the judge was concerned that if notice was given, some of the domains might have been transferred, perhaps to an out-of-country registrar, thereby defeating the court order. But after stopping to think for two seconds, VeriSign is responsible for operating the entire .com domain. And in fact, they transferred the domain from one registrar to another to comply with the court order. So that sort of thing seems impossible.

In any case, we need to break this trend of judges giving sealed orders. It's repugnant. We can't even intelligently comment on this because we don't know what's going on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quiet Lurcker, 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:13pm

Re: Nothing to do with domain names?
There's just one small problem with this notion. The mechanics of this case are more or less identical in some ways with the mechanics of the megaupload case, where innocent people lost their files when those servers went down. How the government handled that was totally illegal, and is surviving only because the courts aren't biting the hand that feeds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:28pm

Court approved robbery
This is pretty much no different than if a moving company showed up at your house while you were out, started packing up all your belongings, and then when you got home you were told only that:

A) You'd lost a case you had never heard of or were aware you were involved in.
B) You were blocked from even knowing any of the details of the case because it was sealed for some reason.
C) Your stuff would be sold to help pay off the fines you were found to owe.

And if you wanted to contest the robbery, you'd have to take it up with the judge, somehow, but better hurry, because your former property was going on the selling block as of now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:31pm

Blind deaf and dumb justice.
But I hear justice plays great pinball.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:32pm

Online Growth, LLC
Is the court cracking down on penis enlargement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:43pm

Re: They can't do that.
They CAN'T do anything until some hero brings a case to them. When that happens, they move swiftly

Excuse me for a minute while I laugh at that statement. Swiftly? It takes years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous, 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:45pm

Re:
This is what I cannot comprehend. What possible reason could there be to keep this so secret? It makes absolutely no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:48pm

one domain speculator scumbag. . .
stealing from another. The process under which the handover happened still stinks but for this specific case the "victim" appears to be just as sleazy as whomever took the domains from him. If ICANN wasn't so corrupt neither of these entities would own any of these domains.

IMHO of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re:
It makes plenty of sense if you are trying to deliberately perpetrate some injustice. Things like this are harder to do under a bright spotlight. It must be done under cover of darkness.

Maybe it is a way to seize the domains for some other unstated reason. Or to shut down certain websites for some reason unrelated to the argument being made in court.

Do not assume incompetence with malice will suffice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 1:20pm

Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
Irrelevant.

Even if every single one of the domains seized belonged to scum(unlikely), the fact that they only found out about it after the case was over, and their domains had been taken from them and put up for sale is a gross violation of their right to be able to face, and defend themselves in court, before having a judgement made against them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 1:29pm

Re: Court approved robbery
And if you wanted to contest the robbery, you'd have to take it up with the judge, somehow, but better hurry, because your former property was going on the selling block as of now.

I suspect that, now with only 233 domains showing up as owned by the domain seller, the property is gone now and this will only be solved by suing the parties involved (and you won't likely get your property back.) I haven't found any of the other 5000 domains, so I can't verify they've already been sold or not, but I suspect they may have been sold to other scammers.

Luckily my one .com wasn't part of this land-grab. But I had to make sure, since nobody has actually published a list of the 5000 domains grabbed. It would be interesting to see a list, but so far looking at the 233 up for sale on the domain sellers site, there is an awful lot of what looks like vanity and unrelated domains on there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 1:49pm

Re: Court approved robbery
maybe you've missed some stories where -in various combinations- home OWNERS (in AT LEAST one case, the house was OUTRIGHT OWNED, no mortgage, no debts, no liens) who are kicked out of their houses, and the house either sold or taken over by the banksters, whatever, AND THEY HAVE NO FUCKING RECOURSE...
EVERYONE agrees the seizure was wrong and had no basis, BUT THE PEOPLE can't get any relief, much less be made whole...

it is just so much naked 'might makes right'...
these people were 100% 'in the legal right', but it doesn't matter because the (in)justice system is slanted to the haves...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 2:23pm

I am just wondering here,,,
How long would it take before all non-random named domains were sized if all companies did this kind of thing? 5000 seems like insanely many for one company to own.
It seems to me like this was some sort of payment instead of money, but holy cow these guys are bastards, just shutting the sites down without any regard for the people who's living might be dependent upon that site.
This does not include scammers and such... screw those guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
I'm only half-presuming that. A cursory investigation indicates that some of these domains were in the hands of domaineers (scumbags) but it doesn't show that they all were.

I'm not supporting the lack of due process. I'm not supporting the secrecy. Both of those are horribly bad ideas principle and in practice. Everybody, even filth like domaineers, has the right to know what the hell is going on and to defend themselves in court/with counsel/etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 2:29pm

For the second decade, "it's too complicated" is the reason none of this is reported in the press.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 6 Oct 2014 @ 2:58pm

But to sell the domains?
If the domains were damaging to another business how does it make sense to then sell the domain only for it to be back out on the market "confusing" innocent consumers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 3:04pm

Re: But to sell the domains?
No you misunderstand, the domains themselves weren't damaging to the business, they were the "damages" in the court settlement...

Here take these 5000 domains that belong to other people who may be conducting business with them, and sell them as part of your settlement...

It all makes perfect sense if you squint really hard and try to think like you work for a TLA...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 3:35pm

Bingo!
" try to think like you work for a TLA..."

Question is were some of these domains honeypots or somehow not entirely 'consumer-grade'. Why else the secrecy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 3:56pm

Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
"they only found out about it after the case was over"

Citation?

There's no details in the above article, just a bunch of "due process" FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 4:48pm

Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
First they came for the domains of the typosquatters and I said nothing because I was not a typosquatter...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
From the article you clearly didn't read:

'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 only information that Berkens received was the following email:

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'

Also, 'Due process' FUD? Please, objecting to having a ruling made in court in a case you had no clue was going on, and only finding out about it when your site was seized is 'FUD' now? That's not even close to 'FUD', that's a very real, very legitimate concern and objection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

antidirt (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 5:25pm

Re: Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
There's no details in the above article, just a bunch of "due process" FUD.

Yep. Claim that you invented email, and he'll go to the ends of the earth to prove you wrong. Claim that 5,000 domain names were seized without due process, and that's repeated as gospel truth with neither knowledge of the facts nor the law. Journalism! Go Mike!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 6:57pm

This sort of thing happens a lot more often than you realize. I see notifications from VeriSign about a court-ordered change of registrar much more often than I would expect. Some are sealed and some aren't, but almost all of them come from the same few law firms. Christie, Parker & Hale LLP is a new one to me though.

The relief described in that 2011 Chanel article linked in OP is actually pretty common and still happens today. The law firms write up their proposed relief and the judge just signs off on it.

Why don't you hear about it more? One possible reason is that the lawyers get an ex parte order approved that permits service of documents via email to the address listed as the WHOIS contact... so if your WHOIS mailbox gets a lot of spam (or you're using a privacy service), it's very easy to miss the notice and if you don't respond, say hello to default judgment.

I'm curious now, so I'll be keeping an eye on the inbox where I work to see if any of the domains registered through my company get nabbed and if Verisign gives us any more info.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 7:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
"when your site was seized"

Say again? I'm sorry, what *website* was *seized*? Hmm?

These guys were domain name squatters. Did Masnick happen to post the details of the arrangement these guys had to squat on those names? No? He just spouted his due process FUD? Oh ok. Snore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2014 @ 8:20pm

They started with seizing property now they move to seizing abstract internet domains.

Why exactly do people put up with a blatantly criminal government that rules like they are royalty and their citizens are slaves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
'Domain', 'site', now you're just splitting hairs trying to defend your claim. They had their property taken by order of a court, and only found out about it after the fact. Even then, almost all of the details are sealed by court order, making contesting the validity of the seizure difficult at best, and given the seized domains were almost immediately put up for sale, the time they had to do so was non-existent.

Also, for someone claiming that Mike isn't posting any details(since apparently clicking on the links in the article is too difficult for you), it's funny how you automatically assume they were all domain squatters, as though that magically removes their right to defend themselves in court before action is taken against them.

Nope, much easier to assume they were all scum, not deserving of equal rights under the law, and then pile on the insults. /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paraquat (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 10:40pm

Third World Country
You'd expect this kind of thing in a corrupt third world country. Maybe Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan. But this is the USA. You know, self-appointed "leader of the free world." A "land of milk and honey." A "paradise on Earth" (oh, wait, I think North Korea has that title trademarked).

It's official - the USA has finally crossed the line to become a third world country. A banana republic, without the bananas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2014 @ 6:01am

Re: Third World Country
"Third world" means* "not affiliated with Nato/the USA/etc. Nor the warsaw pact/USSR, sooo... that might be a bit tricky :p

And i'd not expect that sort of thing from those places, they're generally not functional enough for it to come up. It's Exactly the sort of thing i'd expect from the USA though. Or China. Maybe Russia. I'd expect most of the EU would manage to actually notify people Before taking their stuff (all done by the book), but otherwise it sounds believeable for there, too. Not too unlikely for japan, either. Each has their own spin on it, of course.

*That is, origionally meant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marc John Randazza (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 6:19am

Details... details....
It might help if we knew what some of the domains were. (Might not, but might)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 8:41am

Re: Re: Re:
It makes plenty of sense if you are trying to deliberately perpetrate some injustice. Things like this are harder to do under a bright spotlight. It must be done under cover of darkness.

Quite true - the question is, why would the court cooperate with the plaintiff's desire to do this in secret?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 8:45am

Re: Re: Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
John Fenderson: This is about justice. Your very comment indicates why this is an issue: you're assuming that all of the domains that were stolen were run by scumbags, when we have exactly no evidence that this is the case.

It wouldn't even matter if every one of them were a card-carrying member of the National Federation of Scumbags.

AC: Everybody, even filth like domaineers, has the right to know what the hell is going on and to defend themselves in court/with counsel/etc.

Right on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 8:46am

Re:
Oh I read the order, they got an unopposed default... quaint.

So the order was against Verisign, not the domain owners, and they didn't bother showing up because they don't care about their customers? Nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 8:49am

Re: Nothing to do with domain names?
Just guessing here but based on what was in the article posted here this really has nothing to do with domain names per-se. Instead it has to do with a lawsuit being won, damages being assessed and the winner being able to collect assets from the losing party.

Even if correct, these people didn't even receive notice of the existence of a lawsuit before the domains were seized. That's not justice, or due process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 8:50am

Re: They can't do that.
Courts don't go around looking for injustice. They CAN'T do anything until some hero brings a case to them. When that happens, they move swiftly and with astonishing force to bring an end to injustices like Righthaven, Prenda and whatnot.

In this case, the injustice was perpetrated (or at best abetted) by the court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easily Amused (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 9:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
keep fucking that chicken
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AMusingFool (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 11:35am

Sounds like a case...
of Eminent Domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 7 Oct 2014 @ 12:59pm

Re: They can't do that.
I would love to see Chan Luu, Uniregistry, and Robert Olea suddenly find themselves defending 5,000 small claims court cases against them simultaneously as a result of this secret large scale theft of property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 2:19pm

Why we tolerate feudal dictatorship
Why exactly do people put up with a blatantly criminal government that rules like they are royalty and their citizens are slaves?

Easy. The seizures and the murders are easy to ignore. Many day-to-day workers don't have time to look up from their desks or service stations to parent their own kids, let alone watch their liberties crumble.

We only tend to notice our rights are gone after we need them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2014 @ 3:23pm

Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
So you're saying it's okay to lock up all men just because some are rapists?

As somebody else pointed out if they're infringing on the trademark then you won't want to sell them the domains. Maybe some of the others are scum but when you seize /50,000/ domains you have to expect there to be some mistakes and you can't harm innocents just because you've been harmed yourself. It sounds like they didn't even seize the domains to stop imminent harm, they did it to compensate someone else and they've made no effort to ensure they didn't cause harm to others.

So maybe it's not a 'lock up everyone because some are rapists', it's 'seize everyone's bank account since some of the money was stolen from Joe'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2014 @ 3:28pm

Re: Re: While the lack of due process is a problem...
Sorry, 5,000, not 50,000.

Still a ridiculously large number to see with the expectation of no errors, esp. when the affected parties can't challenge the claim. You don't get 5,000 hits easily - they're probably making assumptions like matching names on domain contact info and not ensuring that "John Smith" is the same John Smith in question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2014 @ 5:14am

John Steele?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Oct 2014 @ 6:56am

Re: Re:
No the order that this sprang from was against some dude and a couple llcs that were picking on some other firm.
All of the other domains just seem to be collateral damage that weren't all connected to the bad man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2014 @ 2:47am

Re: yes, blind justice
If one wades though the crap here:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.wieb.358648/

You can see a bankruptcy filed with claims that just don't hold up to other documents like the car registration in the dispute.

But we can all watch the Judge toss the thing or the debtor stop showing up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2014 @ 2:57am

Re: They can't do that.
They CAN'T do anything until some hero brings a case to them. When that happens, they move swiftly and with astonishing force to bring an end to injustices like Righthaven, Prenda and whatnot.

Bullshit. https://ia601402.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.wieb.358648/

There is a gent demanding back property that is not his like the car or "the spices" - with "the spices" having a court order of this:
The defendants shall return forthwith to Sandwich Kings all spices, spice containers and spice dispensers removed from the premises on or after September 6, 2013 (Milwaukee 2013cv2944)

If you look at the past bankruptcy of this gent in PACER you'll see he tried to claim the property in dispute in Milwaukee 2013CV2944 as his - including the location the State Court already awarded to the other party.

Take a guess what has been done so far VS him WRT those items? Go ahead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RON ELSBERG, 28 Feb 2017 @ 10:34am

THEFT OF PROPERY BY FRAUD/ABUSE OF POWER
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, THEFT AND FRAUD JUDICIAL ABUSE IN VIOLATING OTHER ASSETS IS COMMON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL RACKETEERING UNDER BOTH, 18 USC, 1961, 1964. THERE EXIST A LAUNDRY LIST OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW.

CLEARLY, THESE CASES ARE CLASS ACTION, AND MORE. A FEDERAL CASE IN L.A. WITH THE APPEAL IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT MAY BE THE BEST LOGIC.

AND A TEMPORAY INJUCTION, AND NAME THE FEDERAL JUDGE THAT ORDERED THE CASE SEALED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND ASK TO DEPOSE HIM UNDER DISCOVERY, THEN ASK THE THE SEAL BE REMOVED, DUE TO THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, DUE PROCESS, FED RULES OF CIV/CRIM PROC. WHY WOULD THIS CASE BE ANY DIFFERENT, JUST BECAUSE ITS INTERNET. ALL LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIES, BECAUSE THE US DIST CT IS GOVERNMENT, THUS INVOLKS FULL CONST. RIGHTS. MY OP. RON ELSBERG, PROF OF LAW
[ link to this | view in thread ]