@NamePros has entered the chat:
In the latest round of filings, a curious thread on Namepros has been introduced into evidence. In particular, this thread about "intermediar.com" - the fake "escrow service" that was used in the scheme to swindle VPN LLC:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964.78.3.pdf
Show attachment 246948
That thread, for reference, is here:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/do...-intermediar-for-escrow-transactions.1266786/
One interesting feature of that thread is a Namepros user who shows up to claim that intermediar.com is a legit escrow site. As many have pointed out, a few moments inspection of that site at the time would have been sufficient to determine it was a scam site.
IMHO, it would be worthwhile to find out what, if any, contact or log information Namepros might have on that user who showed up to defend intermediar.com as a legit site (along with other third-party discovery relevant to the history of that domain name).
I'm not sure anyone at Namepros is terribly interested in following this lawsuit any further, since the gritty reality of litigation is not "as seen on TV". Developments are slow, and often tedious. So, do let me know whether I should continue to post updates on it.
The exhibit linked above is part of a filing to re-arrange the schedule for the proceedings going forward. The Amended Complaint has been filed:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964.77.0.pdf
VPN has dropped the demand for the phantom commissions and is principally now looking to get $250k back along with punitive damages:
Show attachment 246949
I have no idea what is the point of a permanent injunction "freezing" a domain name, and I doubt a registrar is going to understand an order to "freeze" a domain name either. Sounds chilly. "Locking" has a meaning, but that can be done at room temperature.
The reason for requesting the modified schedule is that VPN's attention has expanded to include the defendant's son, as detailed to some extent (with redactions) in this brief, noting that "Dikian" had mentioned that his son had access to his email address:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964.78.1.pdf
Show attachment 246950
VPN offers "two" explanations for the alleged continued unauthorized access to the relevant email account. There are, of course, more than two possible explanations for that, but the only explanations of interest to VPN are ones which lead to a recovery against Dikian. Notably, the Amended Complaint doesn't make any claims involving Dikian's son.
Show attachment 246951
I don't know about this judge, but arguing things which aren't proven can be annoying to a judge. Notice the leap from Dikian admitting that his son accessed his email account in the evidence, to his son being "the only other person to have accessed" the account in the argument. Does the evidence show that Dikian's son was the
only other person to have accessed the account? Well, no, it doesn't. Clearly, Dikian's testimony states that his son accessed the account. That is sufficient to suggest that Dikian's son may have been involved. But overselling your evidence to make an exaggeration that he is the
ONLY other person who could have accessed the account detracts from the point. Obviously, any email account that is shared among two people is less secure than one used by one person.
What is difficult to assess, when the words of a deposition are rendered in print, is the demeanor of the witness. Additionally, depositions go on for seven hours and the selected pieces used in argument may seem different out of context. I'm curious to know, for example, what is the technical proficiency of the Dikians. Even from the excerpts, the elder Dikian seems a bit scatterbrained and not tremendously attentive to events concerning his email address from several years ago. Of course, people in depositions can put on various acts, but it is also true that sitting at a table with a camera pointed at you while someone fires off questions concerning a parade of documents can be disorienting and intimidating to some people, who knows. But someone put together the intermediar.com website and constructed a fake Dutch identity around it. Hence, one wonders whether either of the Dikians had the chops to do that, or would have had to enlist the services of yet another party in the scheme.
In any event, short of Mike or Brett using RECAP to copy the PACER filings into the Courtlistener archive, it costs me ten cents a page to download this stuff to have it captured and copied to Courtlistener. That may not be worthwhile for the two or three people still following this thing, but if someone else with PACER and RECAP is interested, there's a couple of more documents which may shed further light on the technical claims made by VPN, albeit without an expert.
