Expect to hear his side of the story within 30 days.
By filing suit against former employee Nelson Brady this week, Oversee.net and Snapnames hope to accomplish a couple things. Yes, it wants to get some of its money back. But more importantly, it wants to clear its name.
Ever since the scandal broke last year, conspiracy theorists have suggested that the company was complicit in what happened and that’s why it wasn’t going after Brady. In reality, it was trying to settle with Brady outside of court before filing a lawsuit. By filing the suit, the company must think that it is “clean”, and there’s only one person who orchestrated the bidding scheme.
I talked to Nelson Brady’s defense lawyer yesterday and he informed me that Brady will be filing a “complete” response within 30 days. That Brady didn’t settle out of court to make this problem go away suggests that he doesn’t feel completely responsible for what happened. It’s unclear what he could argue, but I go back to a conversation I had with him shortly after the scandal broke. He informed me that he acted alone, but there was more to the story.
For obvious reasons, Brady and his lawyer don’t want to discuss the rest of the story publicly right now. But the only thing that pops to mind is that perhaps someone else knew about what was happening and didn’t tell anyone. Clearly, Oversee would not be aware that someone else knew when it filed this lawsuit. And, to be clear, I have no insight into what “more to the story” means.
But I don’t expect the typical flat-out denial from Brady in his response. I suspect he’ll have something more to say.
DomainsAreUS says
I think you are right Andrew. The problem with the Berkens analysis was that Berkens was not chasing the kind of domains that Nelson was chasing.
The identity of the second bidder/conspirator will now be revealed.
Many people already know who it is.
Andrew Allemann says
Hold on here folks – I’m not suggesting that there’s another shill bidder. I’m saying that Brady says there’s more to the story, and a possibility is that someone else knew about what was going on, not that there was another shill bidder.
Ms Domainer says
*
I hope this second person is no longer at Oversee.
I have a suspicion about another user name there, but just in case I’m wrong (and I could be), I’ll keep the name to myself.
*
Jamie says
Grabbing some Popcorn because this may get even more interesting!
I see a book deal in the works.
snap@shilling.com says
Oversee is “clean” like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are “real”.
Ramiro Canales says
The federal rules only require the defendant to admit or deny each allegation in his answer. Detailed responses are not required. I look forward to reading the filing.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Ramiro – yes, but I’m assuming he’s going to do a little bit more than that in this case.
stewart says
oh yes he will have alot more to say and it will probably begin with the well worn phrase…
On the advice of counsel, I assert my rights against self incrimination.
Gazzip says
“I suspect he’ll have something more to say.”
Probably, there’s always two sides to any story, I’m pleased that oversee/snap is talking him to court as it makes me think they have nothing to hide.(which is a good thing)
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.
ref: “The identity of the second bidder/conspirator will now be revealed.
Many people already know who it is.”
Has this been proven as a fact or is it just suspicion / speculation ?
Thanks
Matt says
There’s always three sides to the story..
ron sheridan says
re: “Oversee is “clean” like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are “real”.”
ouch..