AFAIK, it was alleged to have been stolen AFTER he'd purchased the domain. Not before. Prove otherwise with hard evidence and not conjectures, theories and assumptions.
it depends on your point of view. when did Rebecca claim that the domain was stolen? it seems after
@BoothDomains bought it. when it was known that shaddy things had been happening with the domain? since September/October 2017, and during which a domainer/broker bought the domain and then return it after suspecting of fraud. then this can also go against
@BoothDomains due diligence. Why Rebecca (
@spoiltrider ) did not act during these several months? She has a very good reason and she probably will use it with her lawyers...
Your conjectured connection between Jack/Jake and
@BoothDomains as well as assumption that someone with one of those two names is the buyer is at best a guess and at worse an incorrect belief. Until you can provide evidence proving this theory unequivocally, it does not hold any weight where it really matters, in a court of law and not the court of public (read namepros) opinion.
They are not conjectures or innuendos. it has been proved that Jack (other times Jake) is connected with
@BoothDomains , that he made the contacts with the alleged Rebecca when making the deal, and he has responded do emails involving James Booth and Escrow.com (
@Jackson Elsegood ). Escrow has remained silent on this probably to see if they can get pass thru this without anyone noticing that they HAD a bug on their system and that there is a possibility that this bug may have been used to change information of one of the parties and so compromising their KYC/AML system OR, if the bug had been resolved already, then someone forged an Escrow document, which is also a serious matter.
Personally, I don't like
@BoothDomains especially due to their involvement in the shill bidding scandal at NJ (and a very very weak argument on that thread) and think their ethics are at a standard much below what they should be. And further still, I don't think offering to sell the domain to the previous registrant is a nice gesture (far from magnanimous as some have indicated it). I think their hands are not fully clean.
and that is a *very good point* that people insist to forget or to hide under the carpet.
But, in this case, I don't think they should merely give the domain back without all facts available and judged by a court of law. For all I know, the person claiming to be the previous registrant either isn't or is misrepresenting facts. I don't know either and nor am I (or anyone on this thread) a judge in a court of law to pass judgement. Form opinions all you (you in the 3rd party) want but that changes nothing for either of the alleged victims. And consequently, as much as many folks here want him to return the domain, answer their insinuations/allgations/accusations/questions etc., it is either's choice to do so. And as it is "alleged" that the new buyer has retained legal counsel, pretty sure they'll listen to the counsel more than anyone else here despite calls and warnings to share evidence here.
He owes nothing to anyone here.
the big question is: why did Network Solutions returned the domain to
@BoothDomains when there is clear evidence of suspicious activity with the domain name prior to the sale, and without reaching Rebecca first to listen to her side of the story? Network solutions does not deserve any credit on my book so they are guilty until proved otherwise.
Without this James Booth would not have any case whatsoever. And would now already be licking his wounds and learned his lesson to make a due diligence first and accept that this is part of this business, special when you market yourself as a guy moving millions in domain sales in 2 years.
