Is Adam Dicker a criminal? You decide.

[S-B]

This story starts with DNF; a barren wasteland that once was a leading forum within the domain industry. While the forum itself played a huge role in propagating the myth that is Adam Dicker, the story really begins with DNF College in the summer of 2011.

Read More

---

Updates / Reports
These are in no particular order.

• Report by headsupp (Resolved)
  • Relevant Videos
  • Reply to Adam
  • Update: Resolved
  
  
• Report by LannyB (Unresolved)
  • Response
    • Follow-up Questions
  
  
• Report by domainesque (Unresolved)
  • Update: Unresolved
  • Report Details
  • Update: Waiting on Refund
  
  
• Report of Shane Cultra's friends (Unresolved)
  • Update: Unpaid
  
  
• Report by Jeff Markus (Dissatisfied)
  
  
• Report by simmplex (Resolved)
  • Refunded
  
  
• Report by Blenja_Man (Pending)
  • Voucher
  • Update: Work in Progress
  
  
• Report by RandysDomains (Resolved)
  • Resolved
  
  
• Report by swamismith (Unresolved)
  
  
• Report by Charlie (Unresolved)
  • Cover-up
  • Update: Unresolved
  
  
• Report by Jaqpot (Unresolved)
  
  
• Report by anon22339 (Unresolved)
  • Details
  
  
• Report by Joseph Peterson (Resolved)
  • Update: Unpaid after 8 days
  • Update: Paid
  
  
• Report by Frank Schilling (Resolved)
  • Update: Paid
  
  
• Report by Lonewolf5503 (Paypal Dispute)
  • Update: Website not delivered and no longer accessible
  • Update: Lonewolf5503 wins PayPal dispute
  
  
• Report by GermanRaven (Unresolved)
  • Update: Full story
  
  
• Report by ClaudeDauman (Unresolved)
  
  
• Report by bobsranch (Unresolved)
  • Details
  • Update: Legal Letter Received
  
  
• Report by Newby888 (Unresolved)
  
  
• Report by dougasd (Unresolved)

From what I understand, Adam still owes north of $33,000 to previous customers and business partners. As I receive more information, I will update this figure.

 

[DomainGist]

Read what I said carefully. I stated an opinion.

You stated an opinion, yes. Unfortunately you are yet to substantiate it.

I look forward to part 2, which will hopefully contain some hard evidence.

 

[Templr]

It's easy to try and psychological dissect each party in this matter. It does however appear that Shane Bellone is acting as an agent for ethics in the industry. As with his Flippa post, he searched deep inside himself to expose the wrongs.

I'm sad to hear this about Adam Dicker, we used to be in contact, mainly on Facebook. But I parted connection amicably during his new business enterprise scheme, it didn't feel right for me.

We can just presume on here, and the story will unfold, as unfortunately it has weight. The truth either way needs to be exposed for the sake of the industry.

 

[DomainGist]

Perhaps you missed this part: And, as far as I know, financial irregularities leading to profiteering, is a CRIME in USA and, Shane, being a veteran, probably knows what's he saying going by his evidence he is still withholding.

I'm pretty sure that's a crime in any developed country, in the UK we call it fraud, the problem is at the moment I've seen no evidence of it.

You appear to be ruling Adam Dicker guilty based on evidence that you presume exists but have yet to see, making this no better than a kangeroo court.

I'm keeping an open mind. You appear to have made your mind up already, society should just be glad that you aren't a judge, although I suppose it is still possible that some poor soul will have you on their jury.

 

[discobull]

going by his evidence he is still withholding.

It's only evidence once it's produced. Until then it's just make believe BS.

 

[Sam Roy]

I feel Shane wanted a huge publicity for the new blog he just started :D Unfortunately for him it resulted in negative publicity. He might even face a law suit but I know how it being an ex-military man!!!

 

[RU]

@Adam Dicker is a Legend.

 

[DomainGist]

and, Shane, being a veteran, probably knows what's he saying going by his evidence he is still withholding.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Here are some similar statements....

Bob, being a butcher, knows how to make the perfect loaf of bread.

James, being a patent attorney, knows a lot about military strategy.

Jack, being a production line worker, knows a lot about domaining.

Paul, being a professional boxer, knows a lot about making cheese.

 

[Domain Shane]

EDIT: Just read your article. The info about Adam may or may not be true but publishing Michael Cyger's conversation is dead wrong unless he gave you permission.
Why anyone would do business with you at this point is beyond me. Just the fact that you are going to hang them out to dry if things go bad would be enough for me. Again, not saying the info is wrong or right but harming Michael Cyger was unnecessary.

 

[GoWeb]

I'm pretty sure that's a crime in any developed country, in the UK we call it fraud, the problem is at the moment I've seen no evidence of it.

You appear to be ruling Adam Dicker guilty based on evidence that you presume exists but have yet to see, making this no better than a kangeroo court.

I'm keeping an open mind. You appear to have made your mind up already, society should just be glad that you aren't a judge, although I suppose it is still possible that some poor soul will have you on their jury.

No, you are wrong. Don't make a presumption about what I am presuming.

There is no need for you to be Adam's spokesman, I am just on the side of conducting business ethically.

Please read the whole thread carefully, in particular, Adam's own admission of some of these allegations being true.

The whole truth will come out in some time, so let the time shine some light on it.
And don't worry about me being a bad judge, if ever I was on a Jury brought against you, I can guarantee to a very fair and impartial trial.

Now, I would appreciate if you allow other members some space for their opinions as well.

 

[discobull]

Read what I said carefully. I stated an opinion.

That you're coming out here to label that comment 'opinion' makes it clear that you recognize that there are no facts to support a claim of criminality. Meanwhile, you're also not retracting the insinuation. Totally pathetic.

 

[Atomic Domains]

That you're coming out here to label that comment 'opinion' makes it clear that you recognize that there are no facts to support a claim of criminality. Meanwhile, you're also not retracting the insinuation. Totally pathetic.

Calling someone "pathetic" is a personally insult, I'm not here to defend anyone as Shane is his own man. But, Adam Dicker said, some of this stuff is true and he knows who the informant is. Did he say what parts were true and what parts were false? NO!

So maybe people should stop discrediting Shane and ask Adam Dicker which parts are true/false. Until then everything should be considered factual.

 

[DomainGist]

No, you are wrong. Don't make a presumption about what I am presuming.

There is no need for you to be Adam's spokesman, I am just on the side of conducting business ethically.

Please read the whole thread carefully, in particular, Adam's own admission of some of these allegations being true.

The whole truth will come out in some time, so let the time shine some light on it.
And don't worry about me being a bad judge, if ever I was on a Jury brought against you, I can guarantee to a very fair and impartial.

Now, I would appreciate if you allow other members some space for their opinions as well.

Nobody has been able to state what laws are alleged to have been broken.

So even if some of the claims in the article are true, by Adam's admission, that still wouldn't make him a criminal.

What part of that don't you understand?

Unless you have seen this evidence in advance of everybody else then you certainly are presuming. There hasn't been a single person contribute to this thread to claim that they have been defrauded by Adam Dicker, and not a single person able to explain how he has broken a law.

I'm not on his side, just stating the facts, at the moment there hasn't been much of an argument presented at all towards him being a "criminal", which was supposed to be the topic of this thread.

If your answer to the question is "yes" then I really feel that the burden of proof is on you. You seem to have chosen the answer "yes", but don't seem capable of explaining why, whilst I've picked "undecided" based on a complete lack of evidence on one side, and a lack of response from the other.

I've clearly taken the most sensible position at this stage. You seem to have taken exception to my position, that's fine, but I don't see how this conversation can go any further unless you are state your case as to why.

Claiming that a product is worth $299 when you were selling it for $29 is unethical, but probably not illegal.

Making grandoise claims of earnings potential to people for free or cheap labour is unethical, but not illegal.

But the question isn't "Is Adam Dicker unethical", the question is "Is Adam Dicker a criminal".

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that's my presumption.

 

[Wisename]

"P.S. The website may be down due to high levels of traffic. If so, please post here and check back frequently."

 

[discobull]

Calling someone "pathetic" is a personally insult, I'm not here to defend anyone as Shane is his own man. But, Adam Dicker said, some of this stuff is true and he knows who the informant is. Did he say what parts were true and what parts were false? NO!

So maybe people should stop discrediting Shane and ask Adam Dicker which parts are true/false. Until then everything should be considered factual.

So if I understand you correctly, people should be allowed to level accusations whether they can substantiate them or not, and then it's up to the person being accused to prove the accusation false? So, for example, if I claimed that you were a pedophile, then that statement should be considered factual until you can disprove it? Does that really make sense to you?

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

Assume

Ass U Me
More U than Me

First Flippa, now Dicker, are you going to put a cape on and save the world from bad domains, domaining,domainers

Captain Domain, who's next on the list of Shane's shames

 

[JayJay]

So maybe people should stop discrediting Shane and ask Adam Dicker which parts are true/false. Until then everything should be considered factual.

I think this was stated backwards, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty...in my opinion.

 

[Jen-Sin]

Claiming that a product is worth $299 when you were selling it for $29 is unethical, but probably not illegal.

[OFF TOPIC]If the consensus is that such practice is unethical / illegal etc, how many of us are guilty of doing the same while selling domains?[/OFF TOPIC]

 

[Atomic Domains]

So if I understand you correctly, people should be allowed to level accusations whether they can substantiate them or not, and then it's up to the person being accused to prove the accusation false? So, for example, if I claimed that you were a pedophile, then that statement should be considered factual until you can disprove it? Does that really make sense to you?

Your logic is all messed up. This has factual evidence backing it. You would have no evidence accusing me to be a pedophile. Get it? Or should I draw some nice colorful pictures and make a nursery rhyme?

 

[S-B]

Claiming that a product is worth $299 when you were selling it for $29 is unethical, but probably not illegal.

It actually is illegal in the United States, however, he resides in Canada.

I know little to nothing about the Canadian legal system.

 

[discobull]

Your logic is all messed up. This has factual evidence backing it. You would have no evidence accusing me to be a pedophile. Get it? Or should I draw some nice colorful pictures and make a nursery rhyme?

Great. So, I'll ask again. What is the crime, and what is evidence for that crime? You seem clear about it so you should be able to answer the question. And no pictures necessary, words are fine.