discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

[Slanted]

Hi domainers,

Please take a moment to help defend domain owner rights. The grandmother who owns HeidiPowell.com needs our help. You don't need to spend a penny. Just stand up and say, "This is unacceptable." It will take public pressure outside NamePros. But there are a lot of us; so hopefully we can join forces and spread the word.

Scroll down. There are a few specific things we can do to help. It's urgent.

Some of you know the story already. A grandmother has owned HeidiPowell.com for many years, but a minor TV celebrity has decided that she is the only Heidi Powell in the world who matters. And this arrogant celeb has dragged the original Mrs. Powell through a UDRP and even into bankruptcy court, attempting to take not just her domain but her own NAME from her by force. Truly, it's one of the most reprehensible cases I've ever come across. If we don't defend her, nobody will defend us when we ourselves are targeted.

Background:

Mrs. Powell has been Heidi Powell since her marriage in 1979. Back in 2005, 12 years ago, her husband presented her with the domain HeidiPowell.com as an anniversary gift. It's a developed website where she offers web design services. But it's more than just a site whose name can be changed. To this day, Heidi uses HeidiPowell.com for her email address, which is tied to all her online accounts. So if she loses this domain, it's akin to identity theft.

Then along comes another Heidi Powell – a celebrity fitness trainer who had a short-lived TV show on ABC. ("Celebrity", so they say. I'd never heard of her.) She became Heidi Powell after a 2010 marriage – long after HeidiPowell.com was registered by the rightful owners, Mr. and Mrs. Powell.

Greed and megalomania – it's the usual tale of a spoiled narcissistic brat who feels entitled to confiscate whatever she wants, no matter the damage to us "little people". First came the UDRP. Fortunately, David Weslow – a well respected attorney – stepped forward to defend Heidi pro bono (i.e. free of charge). I think there's a very good chance justice will prevail in the UDRP case, thanks to his efforts.

But Mrs. Powell and her husband are still suffering, and her domain remains in jeopardy. You see, this fitness trainer "star", this usurper, this would-be thief and her lawyers have found another way to attack the rightful Heidi Powell – even while the UDRP case is still in progress. Years ago, Mrs. Powell and her husband experienced some misfortunes and had to file for bankruptcy. Life can be like that. Now, this covetous celeb is arguing that the domain HeidiPowell.com ought to have been declared as a valuable asset during their bankruptcy case years ago. It's absurd, of course. The market value of HeidiPowell.com is negligible except for 1 greedy celebrity who came along later on. I personally prepared a 5-10 page document for David Weslow, citing verifiable data that proves this.

However, the celeb and her lawyers are bribing the trustee with a 5-figure sum to drag Mr. and Mrs. Powell back into bankruptcy court! And legal representation in this bankruptcy case is not provided by David Weslow; he's only handling the UDRP. Far from being free, this additional legal burden will cost Mr. and Mrs. Powell thousands – not to mention stress, time, and damage to their credit and reputation. Obviously, the celeb's strategy is to bleed this humble couple until they give up from exhaustion.

Press Coverage:

From time to time, we hear about domainers requesting financial help. Personally, I'm always very skeptical about those claims because it's easy to exploit people's sympathies. Heidi Powell is not a domainer. What she primarily needs our help with is public pressure. Giving that kind of help is 100% free.

Heidi's case has been written about extensively:

(1) USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...andmother-heidi-powell-over-website/90916602/

(2) The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/narcissist_heidi_powell_wants_her_dotcom/

(3) DomainNameWire.com

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/09/13/reverse-domain-name-hijacking-alleged-heidipowell-com-lawsuit/

and

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/19/heidi-powell-lawsuit/

(4) At NamesCon, David Weslow of Wiley Rein was given the first ever "Lonnie Borck Memorial Award" in recognition of his "exceptional efforts in championing the rights of domain name registrants". Those of us who are members of the ICA – the Internet Commerce Association, which advocates tirelessly for domain owner rights – voted for Mr. Weslow specifically because of this Heidi Powell case.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2016/dailyposts/20161219.htm

I was hoping that Heidi's case would get some publicity at NamesCon when David Weslow received the award. However, I understand he wasn't able to attend due to illness.

TAKE ACTION!

Alright, guys. This is where we can make a difference. Get angry! Imagine it's your grandma being dragged into bankruptcy court! Imagine it's your domain being taken away unjustly! Imagine it's costing you thousands and thousands to defend yourself against an arrogant narcissist with deep pockets!

What we can do:

(1) Visit HeidiPowell.com. There's a button on grandma's site, allowing you to tweet directly at this thieving celebrity. Tell her what you think of her. Please no threats. Please no profanity. Remember, we want domain owner rights to be respected and honored. Making threats or using profanity would only give people an excuse to dismiss us. Be professional. But be angry!

(2) Visit the celeb's website:

http://heidipowell.net/contact-me/

Tell her what you think. Again, be polite but firm.

(3) Grandma has a GoFundMe campaign:

https://www.gofundme.com/grandma-bullied-sued-for-her-name

Please leave a comment showing your support. I'm not asking anybody to contribute money. But if you can spare something small – even $1 – it might help show that Mrs. Powell is not alone ... that even total strangers are willing to back an underdog against a bully. If you don't want to donate, that's completely fine. Just leave a comment there. This thieving celeb needs to understand that her reputation is going to suffer if she persists in persecuting Mrs. Powell ... that she will be punching a cactus.

(4) Let's put pressure on ABC, since they created this monster. Maybe if they encounter some bad publicity themselves, they will in turn put pressure on the celebrity usurper to cease and desist:

https://twitter.com/ABCNetwork

Tell ABC what you think. Tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting Heidi Powell bully a grandmother and steal her property. Be sure to reference Heidi Powell specifically; otherwise ABC won't have a clue what we're talking about.

(5) We all have domainer acquaintances. Please send 3 people a link to this NamePros thread. There's strength in numbers.

(6) Once you've helped out, brag about it! Let other domainers here know that you give a damn. Post a reply in this thread so we can keep it visible. Positive peer pressure, folks! Let's show the world that domainers aren't parasitic cybersquatters. We stand up for property rights.

 

[Gaptooth]

Put yourselves in the grandmother's shoes. She and her husband have gone through bankruptcy. So she has presumably lost a large part of what she owned – lost, perhaps, a large part of the life she and her husband had built or even her identity, her sense of herself. One thing she did keep, though, was the domain name her husband had given her as an anniversary present, as a symbol of the couple's enduring through time. Through that difficult period, she kept her own name. When people show up trying to deprive her of THAT, maybe it matters – at a gut level – to say it's not for sale.

Initially maybe the offer amount is low. And maybe a higher offer, if delivered in a better way, could have moved you to sell. But if the approach is hostile and coercive, if it escalates to not 1 but 2 lawsuits, you might dig in your heels and refuse to give in – no matter the amount.

I don't know how on earth you could know exactly how we feel but you hit the nail precisely on the head. Thank you for this.

 

[Gaptooth]

Take a look for yourself:

https://twistedsifter.files.wordpre...-move-sell-nail-house-china-1.jpg?w=800&h=515

I think I'd prefer to be the new Edith Macefield

https://assets3.roadtrippers.com/up...mage-7780236a-ffff-4670-b077-943500a3815e.jpg

 

[Silentptnr]

The original

It's all going to work out. The name is rightfully yours. Stick to your guns. TOH will back off soon. She will soon disgust herself with her actions. The only way she will have it is with your blessings. And that is your decision as the owner, and yours alone. That's how this will end.

 

[Silentptnr]

There are alot of people, including yours truly, that would love to have their first and last name .com. I own hundreds of domain names yet that one eludes me. I know that there are people out there with the same name and equal interest. Just the way it is.

If I owned my name and someone wanted it, I would probably never sell for less than more than they could afford.

You just can't take someone's rightful, lawfully owned property....period.

Actually, I would probably offer to sell it. One chance, only one. And only to another person named HP.
5 million dollars. Sounds crazy, oh well. Companies have paid much more for names that have little importance to the general public.

 

[DU]

@Slanted

That's a nice story and I do appreciate the time you took to post it but a few of points:

1) I don't believe that anyone thinks that Fitness Trainer HeidiPowell had a true claim to the name based on a cybersquatting claim
2) It doesn't require the saccharine treatment or enduring love story for a grandma to make that true
3) It doesn't require the language of bribes and to assume that your reason to not trust the fitness trainer's team as fact in their filing

Simple facts are enough and that prevents an implied prejudice with the one-sided portrayal. In this case I believe that Fitness Instructor Heidi probably got some genuinely awful advice, bad,terrible advice,disaster.... and Jaburg Wilk is unlikely to win IP Legal Team Of The Year.

But the question still remains....

What's the point of this thread at this point?

There's only one legal item open that I can ascertain..... David E. Weslow, said Powell refuses to dismiss the case without prejudice, asserting that Kent and Heidi Powell deserve judgment on their counterclaims for her attempt to take the domain name, which they have held for more than 10 years.

The legal system is working and doing exactly what it is supposed to do so it seems [unfortunately,the one case has a cost burden for Grandma Powell z].

I may be wrong but the case could have been dismissed (albeit without prejudice) and over for everyone by now. Grandma could be giving her grandkids Werthers Originals™ and knitting next Christmas' gifts. But there are attorney's fees, a nice payday, and a chance for the ICA to make a big bang (someone else's word not mine). I do agree with the RDNH and it's justified, valid, etc. but none of the "urgent" thread request alter that path.

So everyone can Tweet and it won't change anything in the proceedings. The Grandma is holding the nuts.... (either a poker metaphor or other ) and things will run their course. It's being handled pro-bono (though even I could see the fees from an RDNH coming) so ... yeah....keep the tweets coming... I have NO IDEA what ABC has to do with anything.... but for some reason @Jaburg_Wilk got nothing.

Hey @Jabug_Wilk You guys like totally suck (allegedly) for @HeidiPowell or is that @RealHeidPowell..

But the new real question is - why am I here at this point?

 

[Slanted]

I'm sure I could spin this to make Grandma Heidi Powell look like a money-grabbing domain squatter if I really had the inclination

And it seems as though you're trying to do so – or, at least, to inject as much doubt as possible into the case. Why?

It seems more that the Fitness trainer is being dragged through the court system at this point.

You see what I mean?

There are also statements made in the legal findings that contradict the wonderful "motherhood and apple-pie" provided back-story: "the grandmother" asked for $50K

Again, strenuously denied as FALSE – indeed, as an outright lie – by the grandmother. And irrelevant in any case, since domain owners have the right to name a price. That's the premise of this whole forum! Why disseminate a claim by the fitness trainer's attorneys when their allegation is possibly untrue and has no bearing on the case whatsoever except to paint the grandmother as greedy and dishonest? Moreoever, why introduce that unsubstantiated charge without ALSO bringing up the fact that the grandmother has denied that allegation in a sworn statement. For the sake of fairness and balance, I should think that the allegation either ought NOT to be brought up or else both sides ought to be presented. Yet you introduced ONLY the claim made by the fitness trainer.

It really seems that you're working very hard to undermine things. Not sure why, unless it's an ingrained tendency to be contrarian. Normally I'm the guy pushing back with skepticism; so I get that. But I think you do agree that the grandmother is right to keep her domain and the fitness instructor is wrong to attempt to steal it; so I wonder why you're at pains to muddy the waters and obscure that basic underlying issue.

it's not just a domain it's a love story....

Scoffing at the grandmother and the way she recounts her story is partly what I'm referring to.

It doesn't require the saccharine treatment or enduring love story for a grandma to make that true [i.e. that the fitness trainer's claim to the domain is illegitimate]

What you call a "saccharine treatment" is perhaps an honest, heartfelt plea by the grandmother for some public support. Those of us who sympathize with her predicament aren't necessarily blubbering babies.

It's being handled pro-bono

Only the 1 lawsuit. The other lawsuit is costing Heidi Powell and her husband a substantial amount of money. That's my understanding, at any rate.

I have NO IDEA what ABC has to do with anything

Come on, you're smarter than this. ABC isn't responsible for the fitness trainer's actions. But ABC aired her TV show, which made her a celebrity. Given that, ABC presumably has some stake in the fitness instructor's "Heidi Powell" brand. It's standard practice when protesting against any sort of injustice to look for leverage. By raising awareness at ABC and applying pressure to a company that's positioned to influence the fitness instructor, we might indirectly convince the fitness instructor to withdraw her backing for the bankruptcy suit and seek some sort of settlement.

It doesn't require the language of bribes

Lord, this is fatiguing! How many times must this "bribe" thing be explained? Yes, bribery can have a criminal meaning. But in everyday speech it also has a broader, looser meaning. And, as I've explained over and over, that perfectly ordinary sense of the word "bribe" is how I've employed the word. Everybody here is familiar with that word usage. But for some reason, once 1 guy misunderstood what I'd written, it keeps coming up; and no matter what I say, people continue to deliberately or carelessly misread what I've said.

This is really simple:

Kid doesn't want to do his homework. Parent bribes kid with trip to Disney Land if kid gets straight "A"s. Kid changes behavior and studies. Illegal? No. Bribe? Yes. This example is literally what the dictionary uses to illustrate the word "bribe".

Bankruptcy court is done with Grandma Powell. Fitness trainer's lawyers bribe those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case. How? By dangling a 5-figure bribe / reward / bounty ... contingent on confiscating the domain HeidiPowell.com. Court changes its behavior and begins investigating whether the domain – which they had previously ignored because it really has no significant market value – should be confiscated. Illegal? No. Bribe? Yes. This example is logically identical to the 1 above.

If you disagree with my use of the word "bribe", then I challenge you find a better verb. Please substitute your preferred euphemism in the following sentence: "Fitness trainer's lawyers bribe those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case."

Really, guys, my word usage is immaterial to the case. I'm not even involved.

But the new real question is - why am I here at this point?

If you can't see a reason to be here, then you have no reason to be here.

 

[Slanted]

What are the odds my comment makes it through?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/chris-heidi-powell-share-workouts-home-44461737

Even if blocked, a moderator may see it.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Hi domainers,

Please take a moment to help defend domain owner rights. The grandmother who owns HeidiPowell.com needs our help. You don't need to spend a penny. Just stand up and say, "This is unacceptable." It will take public pressure outside NamePros. But there are a lot of us; so hopefully we can join forces and spread the word.

Scroll down. There are a few specific things we can do to help. It's urgent.

Some of you know the story already. A grandmother has owned HeidiPowell.com for many years, but a minor TV celebrity has decided that she is the only Heidi Powell in the world who matters. And this arrogant celeb has dragged the original Mrs. Powell through a UDRP and even into bankruptcy court, attempting to take not just her domain but her own NAME from her by force. Truly, it's one of the most reprehensible cases I've ever come across. If we don't defend her, nobody will defend us when we ourselves are targeted.

Background:

Mrs. Powell has been Heidi Powell since her marriage in 1979. Back in 2005, 12 years ago, her husband presented her with the domain HeidiPowell.com as an anniversary gift. It's a developed website where she offers web design services. But it's more than just a site whose name can be changed. To this day, Heidi uses HeidiPowell.com for her email address, which is tied to all her online accounts. So if she loses this domain, it's akin to identity theft.

Then along comes another Heidi Powell – a celebrity fitness trainer who had a short-lived TV show on ABC. ("Celebrity", so they say. I'd never heard of her.) She became Heidi Powell after a 2010 marriage – long after HeidiPowell.com was registered by the rightful owners, Mr. and Mrs. Powell.

Greed and megalomania – it's the usual tale of a spoiled narcissistic brat who feels entitled to confiscate whatever she wants, no matter the damage to us "little people". First came the UDRP. Fortunately, David Weslow – a well respected attorney – stepped forward to defend Heidi pro bono (i.e. free of charge). I think there's a very good chance justice will prevail in the UDRP case, thanks to his efforts.

But Mrs. Powell and her husband are still suffering, and her domain remains in jeopardy. You see, this fitness trainer "star", this usurper, this would-be thief and her lawyers have found another way to attack the rightful Heidi Powell – even while the UDRP case is still in progress. Years ago, Mrs. Powell and her husband experienced some misfortunes and had to file for bankruptcy. Life can be like that. Now, this covetous celeb is arguing that the domain HeidiPowell.com ought to have been declared as a valuable asset during their bankruptcy case years ago. It's absurd, of course. The market value of HeidiPowell.com is negligible except for 1 greedy celebrity who came along later on. I personally prepared a 5-10 page document for David Weslow, citing verifiable data that proves this.

However, the celeb and her lawyers are bribing the trustee with a 5-figure sum to drag Mr. and Mrs. Powell back into bankruptcy court! And legal representation in this bankruptcy case is not provided by David Weslow; he's only handling the UDRP. Far from being free, this additional legal burden will cost Mr. and Mrs. Powell thousands – not to mention stress, time, and damage to their credit and reputation. Obviously, the celeb's strategy is to bleed this humble couple until they give up from exhaustion.

Press Coverage:

From time to time, we hear about domainers requesting financial help. Personally, I'm always very skeptical about those claims because it's easy to exploit people's sympathies. Heidi Powell is not a domainer. What she primarily needs our help with is public pressure. Giving that kind of help is 100% free.

Heidi's case has been written about extensively:

(1) USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...andmother-heidi-powell-over-website/90916602/

(2) The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/narcissist_heidi_powell_wants_her_dotcom/

(3) DomainNameWire.com

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/09/13/reverse-domain-name-hijacking-alleged-heidipowell-com-lawsuit/

and

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/19/heidi-powell-lawsuit/

(4) At NamesCon, David Weslow of Wiley Rein was given the first ever "Lonnie Borck Memorial Award" in recognition of his "exceptional efforts in championing the rights of domain name registrants". Those of us who are members of the ICA – the Internet Commerce Association, which advocates tirelessly for domain owner rights – voted for Mr. Weslow specifically because of this Heidi Powell case.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2016/dailyposts/20161219.htm

I was hoping that Heidi's case would get some publicity at NamesCon when David Weslow received the award. However, I understand he wasn't able to attend due to illness.

TAKE ACTION!

Alright, guys. This is where we can make a difference. Get angry! Imagine it's your grandma being dragged into bankruptcy court! Imagine it's your domain being taken away unjustly! Imagine it's costing you thousands and thousands to defend yourself against an arrogant narcissist with deep pockets!

What we can do:

(1) Visit HeidiPowell.com. There's a button on grandma's site, allowing you to tweet directly at this thieving celebrity. Tell her what you think of her. Please no threats. Please no profanity. Remember, we want domain owner rights to be respected and honored. Making threats or using profanity would only give people an excuse to dismiss us. Be professional. But be angry!

(2) Visit the celeb's website:

http://heidipowell.net/contact-me/

Tell her what you think. Again, be polite but firm.

(3) Grandma has a GoFundMe campaign:

https://www.gofundme.com/grandma-bullied-sued-for-her-name

Please leave a comment showing your support. I'm not asking anybody to contribute money. But if you can spare something small – even $1 – it might help show that Mrs. Powell is not alone ... that even total strangers are willing to back an underdog against a bully. If you don't want to donate, that's completely fine. Just leave a comment there. This thieving celeb needs to understand that her reputation is going to suffer if she persists in persecuting Mrs. Powell ... that she will be punching a cactus.

(4) Let's put pressure on ABC, since they created this monster. Maybe if they encounter some bad publicity themselves, they will in turn put pressure on the celebrity usurper to cease and desist:

https://twitter.com/ABCNetwork

Tell ABC what you think. Tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting Heidi Powell bully a grandmother and steal her property. Be sure to reference Heidi Powell specifically; otherwise ABC won't have a clue what we're talking about.

(5) We all have domainer acquaintances. Please send 3 people a link to this NamePros thread. There's strength in numbers.

(6) Once you've helped out, brag about it! Let other domainers here know that you give a damn. Post a reply in this thread so we can keep it visible. Positive peer pressure, folks! Let's show the world that domainers aren't parasitic cybersquatters. We stand up for property rights.

Wow
You are amazing
How can we support ?
I will share your post

 

[Silentptnr]

Well, sure, but I'd guess their creditors have a different view of that matter as well.



The duty of a bankruptcy trustee to secure and dispose of assets in bankruptcy on behalf of the creditors is not any of those things.

Not every legal dispute boils down to a moral outrage. The Powells availed themselves of the bankruptcy laws in order to avoid paying their obligations to their creditors. That's a perfectly normal thing for a lot of people and organizations, for a lot of reasons.

Whether an asset has emotional value, market value, or whatever, isn't relevant to the fact that if you are going to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws to stiff your creditors - which is fine - then you are also obligated to inventory your assets.

And here we come to one of my pet peeves - the irrational insistence by some domainers that domain names should be "property" instead of personal service contract rights. Quite a few states, Virginia being a prominent example, do not consider domain names to be attachable property in bankruptcy. I don't know whether that's the case in Washington, and the trustee in his withdrawal motion, noted that the status of a domain name as property is unclear. If one is in the "domain names are property" camp, then one would have to agree they should be inventoried as assets in bankruptcy.

But a difference of legal opinion on whether or not the domain name should have been listed as property in the bankruptcy proceeding, does not reduce to any sort of moral question. It's merely a difference of opinion.

So, let's take a simple example of this in action:

A sweet grandmother has all of her savings invested in Peterson National Bank. My neighbor takes out loans from the Peterson National Bank in the amount of $100,000, defaults, and then goes into bankruptcy. He inventories his assets, excludes his car, and his assets are liquidated to the tune of $50,000.

Who got screwed there? My neighbor? No, he had the benefit of borrowing $100,000, paying back $50,000, and thus shorting the Peterson National Bank, and by extension the sweet granny who had her money there.

But, hey, stuff happens, and that's why bankruptcy laws are there (for those who can afford it, and as long as we are talking about casino owners and not, say, student loans which can't be discharged in bankruptcy).

So a few years goes by and I'd like to buy my neighbors car. We can't reach an agreement, but I find out he excluded it from his bankruptcy inventory. So, I go back to the trustee, say he excluded it, and seek to buy the car from the trustee on behalf of the bankrupt estate.

There is utterly no moral defect in my doing that. None. I can't even see how you can characterize that as some kind of underhanded behavior in the least. It was my neighbor who didn't include it in the inventory when he was screwing the Peterson National Bank and all the grannies who save their money there.

So, who is the "bad guy" in that scenario? Yes, bankruptcy trustees get paid. Of course they do. Ever since the 13th Amendment, that's just a fact of life. Your local McDonald's induces their employees to show up every day by paying them money. You seem to want to define that as "bribery".

Now, sure, one can argue about whether the car was of de minimus value, or whether it was subject to exclusion, there are QUITE A FEW domainers who have sought to buy assets from court-appointed trustees. If you want to start flinging turds about the practice of buying assets from court-appointed trustees, I can assure you that you are including a pretty good chunk of the industry there. In fact, that's pretty much the whole argument going on in the Associated Recovery cases in Texas and Virginia, where the claimed successor to Jeff Baron's assets is accusing everyone who bought domain names from the trustee - including a prominent member of the ICA represented by David Weslow - of conversion for having bought names from a court-appointed trustee.

So is it a "bribe" in this case, but not in the other case where Weslow represents the buyers from the court trustee? Because that's, generally stated, what Associated Recovery is claiming in those suits.

You are casting an awfully wide net. That's all I'm saying. I don't know if you've looked into the Associated Recovery cases, but it's almost a Who's Who of the domain industry.

Now, yes, the 2010 market value of "HeidiPowell.com" was pretty much nil, but if my expert in that proceeding was sounding off elsewhere with loaded language suggesting that the expert opinion was driven by some animus instead of objective professional considerations, I'd be kind of disappointed that my expert was undermining my case.

I thought the role of the bankruptcy court is to provide protection to those who legimately seek it and the adjudicate between the debtor and the creditors. The reference to "stiffing" the creditors is not accurate. Creditors are notorious for unfair practices such as 20 day billing cycles versus 30 day payment cycles resulting in extended interest payments.

The central issue here is simple. The ownership of the domain name. The tactics used by the plaintiff were legal but unscrupulous. That's what this is about. It is so tiring seeing good people attacked by bad people using the legal system. Where does it end? It's high time that people are required to consider costly consequences of frivolous legal actions.

I don't think that citizens who have sought the protection of the bankruptcy court should be vulnerable to anyone that wants to re-open their case hoping to find some nugget of non disclosure in order to gain assets. Creditors are given a defined amount of time to challenge a petition for bankruptcy. Once that door shuts, should be end of story.

 

[Keith]

Well, you'll get a range of opinions on that from all sorts of folks in all sorts of situations. Many domain registrants consider themselves to be the "owner" of the domain name who can "sell" the domain name, instead of a "lessee" of the domain name who can charge a premium for re-assigning the lease. If you want to characterize it as a lease, then it begs the question of whom you believe the "owner/lessor" to be?

But, Joseph, if these things are going to be decided on maternal expressions of outrage, then have a look at this one, and let me know if you think David Weslow's clients in the Associated Recovery case are thieves because they bought names from a court-appointed trustee, as claimed by the plaintiff in that case

In the case of domains, you are required to keep up on your payments or forfeit the "asset", much like a car, whether it's leased or purchased on a payment plan.

I'd also really like to know how you put a value on a domain in that kind of situation.

I guess if there are clear and binding offers to buy that could be used for a value. But what other measures could there be and who could be trusted to set them?

I bet there are several $100 binding offers to buy domains that might sell for 5 figures if auctioned off.

 

[jberryhill]

But what other measures could there be and who could be trusted to set them?

Typically, the parties engage experts for that purpose, and the court decides whom it believes. In one branch of the murky swamp of Jeff Baron cases, for example, it went thusly:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In BCO 20121122081/IN RE ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY

13. This court describes herein the categories or types of Domain Names for a variety of reason. First, the question of value of these names has been hotly disputed at the Confirmation Hearing. Mr. Baron has objected vehemently to the sale of the Domain Names. He believes they are worth $60+ million, which is far less than the $5.2 million Winning Bid for the Domain Names. But the credible evidence from the Confirmation Hearing (from the Receiver; the Chapter 11 Trustee; Mr. Baron; Matthew Morris (the Receiver's expert); Thies Lindenthal (Mr. Baron's expert); and Steve Lieberman, a lawyer representative for the Winning Bidder, by telephone) just does not support such a conclusion. As pointed out, a great many of the Domain Names are Typo-Squatting Names (subject to challenge as trademark infringing and likely to be culled out, as further described below) or are Pornography Names (many of which will be culled out because of their Child Pornography nature). The Generic Names are the names that mostly have potential interest and value and some history of earning revenue. The court also points out the nature of the Domain Names for another reason. Mr. Baron has represented himself as being a "grandfather" of the internet and a business entrepreneur being deprived of his livelihood. Mr. Baron has spent enormous time in the court system, purportedly to protect his business interests. The Confirmation Hearing was the first time this bankruptcy court (and perhaps any court) has been given a full flavor for the nature of the Domain Names. As set forth above, a great majority of the names are centered around what is commonly referred to as typo-squatting or cyber-squatting and, essentially, involves leasing a name that is arguably subject to another person's trademark. And, while this court does not pass judgment on the societal value of the Pornography Names, certainly, it does not pass the "smell-test" (or good faith notions) to ask this court or any other court to value or protect Mr. Baron's right to Child Pornography Names such as "naked13yearolds.com."

 

[jberryhill]

The reference to "stiffing" the creditors is not accurate.

Well, it all depends on whether you are one of the creditors, or whether you decide to run for president.

The primary creditor was the US Dept. of Education, which had a different view of the situation in their unsuccessful appeal of the bankruptcy discharge. The way they looked at it is described in their appeal in Case 2:13-cv-00465-JLR Document 9 Filed 06/17/13:

---------
For instance, the Powells’ bank statements from 2010 to 2012 reflect that the Powells still routinely visited Slo-Pitch Pub and Casino and Silver Reef Casino. See (Tr. Ex. D-3). In fact, the Powells visited them at least 45 times in 2010. Id. (per their bank statements). Mrs. Powell denies that she and Mr. Powell gamble at these casinos. See (TTR at 134) (stating that they eat out at these casinos and visit with friends). However, there is no question that the Powells have gambled there in the past. Mrs. Powell testified that she reported gambling winnings from Slo-Pitch Pub and Casino in 2005. See (TTR at 132); (Tr. Ex. D-1) (W-2G reflecting winnings). And Mrs. Powell testified that Mr. Powell reported gambling winnings from Silver Reef Casino in 2008. See (TTR at 132-133); (Tr. Ex. D-2) (W2-G reflecting winnings). Mrs. Powell also admits that around the time of taking out the student loan, she was playing in poker tournaments. See (TTR at 138-39) (stating that she began playing in them in 2005).


The circumstantial evidence shows that the gambling has continued. Between 2006 and 2011, the Powells’ credit card statements not only show money spent at the same two casinos, but also show large ATM cash withdrawals at those locations, on those same dates. See, e.g., (Tr.Ex. D- 4) (Alaska Airlines Credit Card Statements). For example:

1. January 30, 2008: An entry for Silver Reef Casino in Ferndale, WA. Id. at 30. And an entry for ATM withdrawals from a Ferndale WA ATM for $400. Id. at 29.
   
2. April 27, 2008: An entry for Silver Reef Casino in Ferndale, WA. Id. at 33. And an entry for an ATM withdrawal from a Ferndale WA ATM for $200. Id. at 34.
   
3. November 19, 2008: An entry for $200 taken with the notation “ATM Transaction, Slo Pitch.” Id. at 41.
   
4. November 20, 2008: An entry for $200 taken with the notation “ATM Transaction, Slo Pitch.” Id. at 41.
   
5. November 24, 2008: An entry for $100 taken with the notation “ATM Transaction, Slo Pitch.” Id. at 42.
   
6. November 26, 2008: Two $100 entries taken with the notation “ATM Transaction, Slo Pitch.” Id. at 42.
   

These examples were noted to the Bankruptcy Court in closing argument. See (TTR at 174-175). There are also other examples from other years. When the Powells visited Las Vegas in 2009 (while the loan was in forbearance for “economic hardship”), the Powells’ credit card statement shows a $400 ATM withdrawal from Caesar’s Palace and another ATM withdrawal for $400 from The Orleans Casino, Las Vegas. See (Tr.Ex. D-4), 57 and 59. Likewise, in 2010, entries for Slo-Pitch Pub and Casino align with ATM cash withdrawals. See, e.g., (Tr.Ex. D-3), at 1 (December 20, 2010 charge to Slo Pitch and December 20, 2010 ATM withdrawal for $320).6 These incidents provide strong evidence that the Powells have continued to gamble well into the period of their loan repayment obligations.
--------

The Dept. of Education, it should be noted, lost that appeal. But the "creditors" were US taxpayers and not some payday loan outfit.

 

[DU]

Mrs. Powell denies that she and Mr. Powell gamble at these casinos

Should have said "strenuously denied".

By the way, I became a grandfather a few months ago, so anyone who disagrees with me is hereby on notice of my automatic credibility pass attaching to everything and anything I say. You shall henceforth refer to me as Grandfather Berryhill.

Congratulations.


I know I said I would leave but it got interesting again.

 

[Keith]

But no matter how you slice it, if I go into bankruptcy and someone wants to pay the estate $10,000 for a pair of my old socks, that might be many things, but it isn't a "bribe".

I guess the question is, why aren't they offering $10k for the $2 bag of chips you own? Assets are assets...

It's clear in this case that the fitness person is trying to "legally" steal what isn't hers. I think we should back the real Heidi so she can go after the .net

 

[carob]

I will say this, if you google me and my experience on the show. You can see what kind of people the Powells actually are.

http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_c...akeover-weight-loss-treatment-of-contestants/

I googled it and that is eye-opening, thanks for posting that.

 

[DU]

No such thing as "hard numbers" as it pertains to domains. I can't even believe they would allow a guessing game to happen in a court of law.

It's not up to anyone but the individual domain owner to determine worth. If I own nowayyoucantellmewhatmydomainisworth.com and won't accept offers less than $50k, that's how I value it. It's irrelevant if you only think it's worth $1 because you can't possibly know why I value it the way I do. Market comps, not that they exist, do not apply.

So... using your logic... if I file for bankruptcy and I have an 1983 Corvette I could argue that I wouldn't sell it because it's worth at least $10,000,000 and it alone settles my debts.

But it's not the asset owner that dictates the value - it's based on principal of Fair Market Value.

“price which a willing seller under no compulsion to sell and a willing buyer under no compulsion to buy would agree after the property has been exposed to the market for a reasonable amount of time.”

This is not exact and with non-tangibles and other assets it's harder to establish than physical assets.... but that's why you have people like @Slanted with market experience and knowledge to help establish the value in a professional way that is approaching the problem from an unbiased point of view. I'm sure that under most circumstances both sides will feel aggrieved.

The creditor ultimately based on what monies can actually be exchanged - no way they will get $50K for nowayyoucantellmewhatmydomainisworth.com. FVM is not based on hopes and dreams but reality.

Similarly - Gold/Bitcoin will be based on prevailing rates and not on speculative hopes of the indebted investor.

 

[Silentptnr]

Analyzing funds spent on entertainment while in bankruptcy i would liken to funds spent on junk food by an overweight debtor.. Chapter 7 bankruptcy carries credit reprecussions that the debtor must endure. They dont walk away unscathed.
Most filings are less than accurate by error and by omission. Again, not the central issue.

 

[168]

"She's not running a business on it so it's only sensible that she wouldn't list it as an asset. There's no special treatment it's just common sense."
Keith makes a good point. Assuming bankruptcy is to liquidate "liquid" assets. The only value AT THAT TIME that could be assumed was sentimental plus the illiquidity of most domains like that even if it was ruled "omitted" it would be moot.

I get queries for one of my kids names over the years from artists. There is no way the time between reg. date and acquiring "prominence" by marriage or otherwise could be ignored. Heidi's attorney should be sanctioned for "should have known" or at least used in favor of one of the most egregious RDNH attempt s and claim damages.

On the light side in today's review of the NamesCon auction, apparently domain investors see more value in fortunetellers !

litigator.com Type: Public Auction Bids: 10 Min. Bid:$300 High Bid:$3100 R Time Left:2d 22h

fortuneteller.com Type: Public Auction Bids: 14 Min. Bid:$300 High Bid:$5800 R Time Left:2d 22h
Cheers

 

[ProvenPro]

There is nothing wrong with a .net website. Putting the grandmother through this damages your image more than whatever benefit you would gain from having a .com site. If the fitness guru absolutely needs a .com for her site, she could start branding herself as HeidiPow.com, which is available. Leave grandma alone.

 

[Silentptnr]

I would only say that in "this" case, it is a good thing that the debtor did not report a domain name as personal property. It would have been incorrect based on the agreement she entered when she "registered" the domain.

We domain "registrants" are just that. There will never be a day when domains are "paid off". Certainly we can exercise all the rights of registration, but the TOS are very clear. Every domain registrant should read those and be familiar.

What we are "selling" in the domain world is "ownership of the registration", not the domain.

 

[john_karr]

HeidiPowell.com Twitter

https://twitter.com/heidipowell

 

[platey]

Cases like this will effectively destroy the domain name industry as if this domain changes ownership - no domain name is safe which would make domain name ownership pointless and or impossible and leave the domain name industry all at sea because if every domain name ownership is questioned potential buyers won't want to buy domain names because even if the seller owns the domain name the seller would only own the domain name and for that matter the buyer would only own the domain name until it was challenged

 

[todaygold]

Thanks for letting us know. I had not heard of this before you posted it.

 

[ison]

However, the celeb and her lawyers are bribing the trustee with a 5-figure sum to drag Mr. and Mrs. Powell back into bankruptcy court!

Is there evidence of this? If yes, what is being done about it? If no, it'll be a moral advantage to the other Heidi (could even constitute libel) to repeat it.

Tweeted.

 

[mwzd]

Tweeted.

Hopefully the courts will see the issue in the correct perspective too.

The UDRP should be an easy RDNH.