information VPN.com LLC has filed a multimillion lawsuit

[Lox]

VPN.com LLC has filed a multimillion lawsuit against long time domain investor George Dikian (California), Qiang Du (Hong Kong) and John Doe at the US District Court (California).

The lawsuit involves a $250,000 payment in Bitcoin and $6.625 million in owed commissions on multiple transactions involving 96 premium 2N.com and 3N.com domains.

read more

 

[jberryhill]

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr

This address has transacted 9 times on the Bitcoin blockchain. It has received a total of 28.38953714 BTC ($502,803.12) and has sent a total of 28.38953714 BTC ($502,803.12). The current value of this address is 0.00000000 BTC ($0.00).

 

[Future Sensors]

I have asked x person to make in-person visit and there is no record of renting the office (po box) in Beethovenstraat building.

Ty @Lox!

On May 1st 2022, I've also removed the entry for that company from Google Maps (accepted).

 

[Lox]

Ty @Lox!

On May 1st 2022, I've also removed the entry for that company from Google Maps (accepted).

Show attachment 228584

Thanks @Future Sensors !

 

[Grilled]

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr

This address has transacted 9 times on the Bitcoin blockchain. It has received a total of 28.38953714 BTC ($502,803.12) and has sent a total of 28.38953714 BTC ($502,803.12). The current value of this address is 0.00000000 BTC ($0.00).

I'm not sure how accurate that 28 BTC input/output # actually is. ((but I'm a blockchain novice, so this summary is my best assumption))

When looking at the blockchain.com transaction log, I see:

The first transaction looks like it was the .0001BTC that VPN sent as a test transaction with hash ID <935dc7ef6f55ee0cd4a1159ef367324824ef1ccf239019154672e1630 cdaa81b>

Blockchain.com seems to list 6.91589205 BTC as outPut but the wallet in question looks to only have received the .0001BTC input.

((ie. the BTC output may equal 28 BTC, but it doesn't look like the wallet actually received that amoiunt))

When I first took a stab at looking at the chain history, I used: https://www.blockonomics.co/#/search?q=bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr

It looks like:

4 May 2022 @1205: received: +0.0001 BTC
4 May 2022 @1246: received: +6.27 BTC
11 May 2022 @2128: sent -0.50002679 BTC
11 May 2022 @2138: sent -0.50002679 BTC
11 May 2022 @2233: sent -1.00002679 BTC
11 May 2022 @2255: sent -1.00002679 BTC
12 May 2022 @0011: sent -1.00002736 BTC
12 May 2022 @0057: sent -1.00002592 BTC
12 May 2022 @2143: sent -1.26993956 BTC





**(time stamps from blockchain.com | hyperlinks to blockonomics.co)

*** Notably, the transaction times on Blockchain.com and Blockonomics.co are a few minutes apart, so take the transaction times with a grain of salt
...

11 May 2022 @2128: sent -0.50002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qfu465pdlg5yfkdmq5nvkmehngzpxvgraam2x4j



bc1qfu465pdlg5yfkdmq5nvkmehngzpxvgraam2x4j (address history)



Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: 14FoANzjfuzx5kjcE2t9RHu5GyF21EDgwF
...

11 May 2022 @2138: sent -0.50002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qky0tpy908awklx78yczq3krg5f284ze3g6qarc

bc1qky0tpy908awklx78yczq3krg5f284ze3g6qarc (address history)



Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: bc1qrgdndftdm03kkdzs3crm85ter8prdcv5qgg5nn
...

11 May 2022 @2233: sent -1.00002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qz326c2yjfhmn2hh8vdpa5h5fe09gwu5v53atrg

bc1qz326c2yjfhmn2hh8vdpa5h5fe09gwu5v53atrg (address history)


Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: bc1qrgdndftdm03kkdzs3crm85ter8prdcv5qgg5nn or maybe 16hiTVsDsGJun1ZiufqPyVw9fbaWbeykQW

...

11 May 2022 @2255: sent -1.00002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qs5q5qeclklgn8j2lqkncjztp34tzjnxafyh8lj

bc1qs5q5qeclklgn8j2lqkncjztp34tzjnxafyh8lj (address history)



Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: bc1qrgdndftdm03kkdzs3crm85ter8prdcv5qgg5nn or 16hiTVsDsGJun1ZiufqPyVw9fbaWbeykQW
...

12 May 2022 @0011: sent -1.00002736 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: 19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc

19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc (address history)



Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: 1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC
...

12 May 2022 @0057: sent -1.00002592 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: 19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc (same address as above)

19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc (address history)


...

12 May 2022 @2143: sent -1.26993956 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: 127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y

127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y (address history)


Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: 1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC

---

Needless to say, all addresses that received BTC directly from the BTC address that VPN sent 6.2701 BTC to appears to have been emptied.

However, you can see the destination wallet address that these were emptied to. I didn't post some active wallets I found earlier because I don't know how to confirm or make sense of these transactions when these coins enter wallets with lots of activity.

For instance, take a closer look at the final transaction, <12 May 2022 @2143: sent -1.26993956 BTC>

The transaction input was:
bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr << that's the address alleged Dikian provided VPN>
1.26983956 BTC
bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr << that's the address alleged Dikian provided VPN>
0.0001 BTC

The transaction output was:
127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y <<that's the gaining address>
1.26989974 BTC

The gaining wallet address <127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y> then sent its remaining 1.269.. BTC to address <1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC>

The BTC Wallet Address <1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC> appears to have a BTC balance of 2659 BTC (= current value of apprx $47million)

In summary (for instance), VPN sent 6.27 BTC to alleged Dikian wallet > the alleged Dikian wallet sent the remaining apprx 1.269 BTC to wallet ending in XfF4y > the wallet ending in XfF4y looks to have been emptied to wallet ending in 5kmqC > wallet ending in 5kmqC appears to have a current balance 2659 BTC, albeit with lots of incoming/outgoing transaction history..

I have no idea how to identify the wallet <1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC> which has a $47mllion BTC balance... is it an exchange? a mixer? or...?

 

[Grilled]

I have asked x person to make in-person visit and there is no record of renting the office (po box) in Beethovenstraat building. The business/company is not registered in t NL chamber of commerce and has no legitimate physical address nor person name. Other "intermediar" companies registered in NL do not act as a collection agent or do not provide escrow service.

Oh how thy world is connected...

I'm walking distance to the Mountain View business address listed for the assumed California domainer Qiang Du. Several business at that address, at a relatively busy intersection.

Always fun to have a cup of coffee with another domainer.

But per the VPN lawsuit this case alleges a Hong Kong Qiang Du.

 

[jberryhill]

So if it's determined emails weren't spoofed, and emails were sent to/from [email protected] without the real Mr. Dikians knowledge, it seems for Mr. Gargiulo to be mistaken, then Mr Dikians accounts or emails would have to had been accessed by somebody (likely a bitcoin thief?) without the real Mr. Dikians authorization?

Yes. That's a common pattern. You get into the email account, don't change anything, and simply use automated notifications to conduct correspondence with others while deleting the received and sent comms from the account as you go. It takes a real level of dedication, and perhaps more than one person at the switch, but it is something that happens.

 

[Lox]

Show attachment 228539

Search for HQS Russia or similar cc

 

[Grilled]

This case seems to have it all: A fake website, mysterious domain investors, unheard of commissions and some awesome domains...

Not that this case/thread needs any more popCorn, but there is some additional headlining theatrics related to the California Qiang Du. But again, California Du may have nothing to do with Hong Kong Du.

(1) There is a current California case involving Qiang Du: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/36223659/Reflex_Media,_Inc_et_al_v_Successfulmatchcom_et_al

(2) Qiang Du (California) might be the registrant of SugarDaddyMeet.com. This domain was in the fake news earlier this year after it seems to have been alleged that, "Lauren Boebert, a US Congresswoman from Colorado, apparently was an escort on the site and met the Koch family and then Ted Cruz because of it." ... CNN reached out to a representative of SugarDaddyMeet.com who identified only as "Alice" who supported Lauren Boeberts claim that she had never used the site.

 

[Grilled]

If I was “George Dikian” and wanted to clear my name the first thing I would do is state my real name in the court. I wouldn’t use an alias in the first place but anyway…"

Perhaps, but with trademark domains, typos, parking, and all the imaginable stuff domains can be used for, the real George Dikian may have various reasons for hiding his real identity. Beyond the normal concerns of wanting privacy to protect valuable assets (ie man gets 30 years in jail for trying to steal a domain name at gun point), there's probably many reasons why somebody may want to operate via alias.

One reason may be attempting to distance oneself from potential (past or future) arbitration/administrative decisions connected to previous cached email addresses, businesses, or names.

I can't confirm if email address [email protected] does in fact belong to the real George Dikian. That email address has historical WHOIS connections to a number of highly questionable trademark domains/typos and is historically connected to other believed Dikian domains. Additionally jtubul.yahoo.com is listed as the SOA for 89.com and other assumed George Dikian owned domains.

That [email protected] (assumed to be connected to Dikian) has an early arbitration histroy among other early internet histories. One such arbitration case where this email is listed as the domain registrant is: https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/881337.htm

(c) In addition to the domain names at issue in this case, Respondent has infringed upon numerous third party marks and is a notorious cybersquatter. As noted above, Respondent intentionally uses various aliases and false mailing addresses to hide his/her identity. It is clear from reviewing the unique e-mail address ([email protected]) provided in the Whois records, however, that Respondent owns numerous infringing domain names, including “AltatVista.com” “Amritrade.com” “AskJevees.com” “Chevrolett.com” and “BritishAirlines.com.” It is apparent from this list that Respondent indiscriminately targets trademark owners from a variety of professions and businesses. Respondent’s intentional recidivism and knowing infringements constitute a bad faith use of the infringing domain names pursuant to Section 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP, and prevent Time Warner from reflecting its own marks in corresponding domain names. Respondent’s intentional and repeated use of a false mailing address further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith intent.

 

[Surya Giri Kurniawan]

I'm not sure how accurate that 28 BTC input/output # actually is. ((but I'm a blockchain novice, so this summary is my best assumption))

When looking at the blockchain.com transaction log, I see:

The first transaction looks like it was the .0001BTC that VPN sent as a test transaction with hash ID <935dc7ef6f55ee0cd4a1159ef367324824ef1ccf239019154672e1630 cdaa81b>

Blockchain.com seems to list 6.91589205 BTC as outPut but the wallet in question looks to only have received the .0001BTC input.

((ie. the BTC output may equal 28 BTC, but it doesn't look like the wallet actually received that amoiunt))

When I first took a stab at looking at the chain history, I used: https://www.blockonomics.co/#/search?q=bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr

It looks like:

4 May 2022 @1205: received: +0.0001 BTC
4 May 2022 @1246: received: +6.27 BTC
11 May 2022 @2128: sent -0.50002679 BTC
11 May 2022 @2138: sent -0.50002679 BTC
11 May 2022 @2233: sent -1.00002679 BTC
11 May 2022 @2255: sent -1.00002679 BTC
12 May 2022 @0011: sent -1.00002736 BTC
12 May 2022 @0057: sent -1.00002592 BTC
12 May 2022 @2143: sent -1.26993956 BTC


Show attachment 228586


**(time stamps from blockchain.com | hyperlinks to blockonomics.co)

*** Notably, the transaction times on Blockchain.com and Blockonomics.co are a few minutes apart, so take the transaction times with a grain of salt
...

11 May 2022 @2128: sent -0.50002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qfu465pdlg5yfkdmq5nvkmehngzpxvgraam2x4j

Show attachment 228587

bc1qfu465pdlg5yfkdmq5nvkmehngzpxvgraam2x4j (address history)

Show attachment 228589

Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: 14FoANzjfuzx5kjcE2t9RHu5GyF21EDgwF
...

11 May 2022 @2138: sent -0.50002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qky0tpy908awklx78yczq3krg5f284ze3g6qarc

bc1qky0tpy908awklx78yczq3krg5f284ze3g6qarc (address history)
Show attachment 228591


Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: bc1qrgdndftdm03kkdzs3crm85ter8prdcv5qgg5nn
...

11 May 2022 @2233: sent -1.00002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qz326c2yjfhmn2hh8vdpa5h5fe09gwu5v53atrg

bc1qz326c2yjfhmn2hh8vdpa5h5fe09gwu5v53atrg (address history)
Show attachment 228592

Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: bc1qrgdndftdm03kkdzs3crm85ter8prdcv5qgg5nn or maybe 16hiTVsDsGJun1ZiufqPyVw9fbaWbeykQW

...

11 May 2022 @2255: sent -1.00002679 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: bc1qs5q5qeclklgn8j2lqkncjztp34tzjnxafyh8lj

bc1qs5q5qeclklgn8j2lqkncjztp34tzjnxafyh8lj (address history)
Show attachment 228593


Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: bc1qrgdndftdm03kkdzs3crm85ter8prdcv5qgg5nn or 16hiTVsDsGJun1ZiufqPyVw9fbaWbeykQW
...

12 May 2022 @0011: sent -1.00002736 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: 19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc

19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc (address history)
Show attachment 228594


Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: 1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC
...

12 May 2022 @0057: sent -1.00002592 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: 19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc (same address as above)

19apZEZjdXQpVH9GJnwCJiaccXXgfLXvrc (address history)
Show attachment 228594

...

12 May 2022 @2143: sent -1.26993956 BTC >> looks to have been sent to wallet address: 127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y

127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y (address history)
Show attachment 228595

Looks to have been emptied to wallet address: 1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC

---

Needless to say, all addresses that received BTC directly from the BTC address that VPN sent 6.2701 BTC to appears to have been emptied.

However, you can see the destination wallet address that these were emptied to. I didn't post some active wallets I found earlier because I don't know how to confirm or make sense of these transactions when these coins enter wallets with lots of activity.

For instance, take a closer look at the final transaction, <12 May 2022 @2143: sent -1.26993956 BTC>

The transaction input was:
bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr << that's the address alleged Dikian provided VPN>
1.26983956 BTC
bc1qymcdwgqde47qxd8s7tk0jyufpgejrgtg4gw5qr << that's the address alleged Dikian provided VPN>
0.0001 BTC

The transaction output was:
127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y <<that's the gaining address>
1.26989974 BTC

The gaining wallet address <127ygKZgJXDDk7g3mcUuEyrqRQ2MzXfF4Y> then sent its remaining 1.269.. BTC to address <1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC>

The BTC Wallet Address <1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC> appears to have a BTC balance of 2659 BTC (= current value of apprx $47million)

In summary (for instance), VPN sent 6.27 BTC to alleged Dikian wallet > the alleged Dikian wallet sent the remaining apprx 1.269 BTC to wallet ending in XfF4y > the wallet ending in XfF4y looks to have been emptied to wallet ending in 5kmqC > wallet ending in 5kmqC appears to have a current balance 2659 BTC, albeit with lots of incoming/outgoing transaction history..

I have no idea how to identify the wallet <1GrwDkr33gT6LuumniYjKEGjTLhsL5kmqC> which has a $47mllion BTC balance... is it an exchange? a mixer? or...?

So technically, where is the Bitcoin can be traced because it is open ledger. I believe to cash in 250,000 $ through Exchanger will need ID Card for account holder. So can VPN.com report to Police for criminal and get back their 250,000$? It seems it is easier than asking multimillions $ to Dikian..

 

[Grilled]

I think Konstantinos Zournas has quite an interesting comment on his website:

"I am not too familiar with US law but I am pretty sure that in most countries you need to state your real name in a court to file an answer and you can not reply using an alias and sign the response as “Attorneys for Defendant sued as George Dikian”.

So, who is “George Dikian” on the VPN.com lawsuit?

If I was “George Dikian” and wanted to clear my name the first thing I would do is state my real name in the court. I wouldn’t use an alias in the first place but anyway…"

https://onlinedomain.com/2022/12/13/domain-name-news/who-is-george-dikian-on-the-vpn-com-lawsuit/

Some interesting back and forth in the comment section there. Hopefully it heats up like @OnlineDomainCom last related article.

Reading Konstantinos reply to @jberryhill in the comments of OnlineDomain.com last article, got me thinking to the mystery behind past historically well known domainers. Yun Ye comes to mind.

https://kesmodel.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/yun-ye-merely-human-but-very-smart/

Until journalists started reporting on the Chinese-born Ye (my favorite piece is here), some domain investors didn’t believe he was a real person; perhaps, they thought, there were 10 people working for Ultimate Search, and Ye was really just an alias for the firm. Still, little was known about Ye the man. Now, some new details are slowly emerging, thanks largely to the power of public records. Here are a few of those details: Ye was born in June 1972, which means he was merely 32 when he negotiated the sale of his portfolio to Marchex...

https://web.archive.org/web/2006020...usiness2_archive/2005/12/01/8364591/index.htm

His prowess quickly became clear. Chad Folkening, a domainer in Indianapolis, was disorganized in those years and sometimes missed renewal deadlines. He noticed that Ye was grabbing his expired names with lightning speed. After Ye had snapped up 100 of them, Folkening decided he needed to talk to Ye. "I was eating, sleeping, and drinking Yun Ye," he says. E-mail drew no response. Nor did phone calls. So in late 2001, Folkening traveled to an address near San Jose listed on Ye's domain registrations. "I figured I was going to walk up to his front door, knock, and say, 'Yun Ye, I just had to meet you,'" says Folkening, who now owns 7,000 names. Instead, the address led him to a Mail Boxes Etc. outlet. Folkening stuck Post-It notes on Ye's box asking him to call. Ye sent Folkening an e-mail a couple of days later, but the two never met up. Two years later, some acquaintances of Folkening's set up a get-together with Ye in a Los Angeles bar. "I did most of the talking, then he left," Folkening recalls. It wasn't until the next day that it dawned on Folkening that the man he'd had drinks with was probably an entirely different Yun Ye, which the real Ye confirmed to him in an e-mail. (Ye's attorney, John Barryhill, says Ye won't talk to the press, and he adds, "I don't answer questions about him.")

I assume there may be a heavier call for George Dikian to reveal himself considering emails were sent from his email address, but does that mean any email hacker should look for domain registrant alias's containing valuable domains to force the registrant to reveal themself or risk losing their domains to a default judgement?

Also, at what point does using a alias as a whois registrant break any ICANN or applicable rules? Could George Dikian be a legit DBA?

 

[jberryhill]

The only person I know to have met Yun Ye, other than myself, is Frank Schilling. I took a picture of Frank and Yun after a lunch one day, and had it made into a Canadian postage stamp…

https://twitter.com/x/status/812810897718644736

Show attachment 228607

 

[jberryhill]

does that mean any email hacker should look for domain registrant alias's containing valuable domains to force the registrant to reveal themself or risk losing their domains to a default judgement?

But who would ultimately benefit from that scheme?

 

[Grilled]

But who would ultimately benefit from that scheme?

#KimWexler #SalGoodman #MillionDollarQuestions

 

[Grilled]

The only person I know to have met Yun Ye, other than myself, is Frank Schilling. I took a picture of Frank and Yun after a lunch one day, and had it made into a Canadian postage stamp…

https://twitter.com/x/status/812810897718644736

Show attachment 228607

https://johnchow.com/making-money-with-domain-names/ (2006)

Ye sold his domain empire in November 2004 to publicly traded Seattle-based Marchex for, get this, $164 million. Since then, Ye has never been heard from again.

 

[Grilled]

I don't know where I read that RHWDomains(@)gmail.com is Qiang Du's email address; maybe I'm mistaken? The only google result for that email address is from PacerMonitor citing this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63559525/22/vpncom-llc-v-george-dikian/

---

If Qiang Du is a common name, how would a default judgement against Du go? Would it be a default judgement against the email address [email protected]?

Basically wondering how a default judgement would know the difference between a Qiang Du who is 18 years old, VS a Qiang Du who is 80 years old Vs John Doe who is X years old?

---

I still can't find any historical hits for [email protected]. Wondering if it's a long time use email, or if it was just a throwaway gmail address?

It looks like [email protected] may have submitted a google acct deletion request.

That doesn't mean [email protected] was never registered:

Dikian denies ever having registered or used the “[email protected]” email address

Similarly it looks like the [email protected] email address may also have been deleted.

...

A working gmail account would return a result such as:

...

A not working, never been registered gmail address would look like:

+

 

[AEProgram]

I still can't find any historical hits for [email protected]. Wondering if it's a long time use email, or if it was just a throwaway gmail address?

if an email is not in the haveibeenpawned db it probably hasn't been used much. Use that site to search those email and also note when you see a . in a gmail address, try searching it without the . too. Gmail lets you add . as much as you want.

 

[Grilled]

Ok, after a sleepless night avoiding a math final, and sleuthing here instead, it appears with the communities help, we may have discovered the identity of George Dikian. If not the identity, I discovered previous litigation against somebody with a lot of internet connections to George Dikian, with believed at least one domain arbitration instance leading a default judgement previously ruled against this domainer. Possibly even their name used in earlier years, unless that too is/was another alias. Some wild stuff!

Seeing how I'm low on sleep, and not thinking straight, I'm not sure what the benefits/purpose of exposing the Dikian alias. The sleuth journey is usually more entertaining than the destination.

TBH, I only really got invested enough to start sleuthing after reading Mr. Garigiulo douchey response to @jberryhill on the OnlineDomain.com article. and getting charged by such a douchey response being spat at sound advice.

..

Mr. Gargiulo was responding to @jberryhill comment below

...

Maybe it's douchey on my end to withhold information like a bridge troll. And perhaps Mr. Garigulo and his lawyers already discovered what appears to be the identity/further connections of George Dikian, assuming that's the point to hiring competent council. But in the event Mr. Garigulo needs some help determining more information on George Dikian, I will be happy to share some found connections if @VPN.com interacts in this thread, and apologizes to @jberryhill for his douchey comment.

 

[jberryhill]

Lol. No one needs to apologize to me. We all have our good days and bad days. Mr. Gargiulo is out quite a bit of money and is understandably upset.

 

[jberryhill]

If Qiang Du is a common name, how would a default judgement against Du go?

Isn't that a great question. Maybe they all have to chip in.

The sleuth journey is usually more entertaining than the destination.

I, for one, have no idea who it is. It will probably come out eventually, but I agree that ruining the surprise is not sporting.