People asked to remove posts as part of deal to get money back.
Adam Dicker has hired a lawyer to handle claims made by people who say he owes them money.
Attorney Joel Reinhardt of Gowlings sent a letter Friday afternoon to a number of people that posted complaints about Dicker on NamePros.
The letter states:
The post, made by username “Shane Bellone” is replete with highly damaging false, defamatory and malicious statements. The statements include that our client Mr. Dicker is “a predator” and a “criminal”; that he “treats employees like shit…or outright refuses to pay them”, that he is “extorting people” and that he makes “threats”.
The letter goes on to state that a number of responses on the website contain false and defamatory materials, and claims that some of the disparaging posts were made by usernames connected to recipients of the letter.
Recipients are then informed that Dicker would like to come to a negotiated settlement, which would include taking steps to remove disparaging posts.
If people don’t want to negotiate?
“If you do not wish to discuss resolution of this matter then our client will hold you responsible to the full extent of the law for any breach of our client’s rights.”
Shane Bellone, who posted the initial story that caused the uproar, has started a GoFundMe page to hire a lawyer. The page claims the lawyer will represent “those impacted by this fiasco”.
$1,710 has been raised so far.
David says
This is devolving into silliness. On one side you have an attorney claiming that defamatory statements have been made about his client even though his client’s reputation has been effectively destroyed though his own actions, while on the other side you have someone raising money to pay a lawyer to accomplish who knows what. There’s not a lot of common sense in this picture.
Joseph Peterson says
@David,
What’s silly exactly? There are at least 2 perspectives here, both of which seem rational to me:
(A) People want to be paid the money they claim they are owed without being compelled to curtail their free speech for the sake of a refund. Currently their only leverage is negative publicity, which has apparently reached a stalemate; and they’re looking into the possibility of some legal remedy.
(B) Adam Dicker wants to mitigate the negative publicity these people have used as leverage against him, and he seems to be relying on withholding refunds (and even legal intimidation) as leverage to get negative comments removed.
You can make your own mind up about the facts of the matter and the justice or prudence of either side’s course of action. But both sides are making a serious attempt to safeguard their own interests.
TJ says
Interesting to see this play out from the sidelines.
While I never had business dealings with Adam personally, I see both sides of the story here. I thought Adam was settling these matters directly and amicably. With hiring representation, makes me believe even more about the allegations might be true and something else might be lurking in the closet which had yet to see daylight.
I personally wish both parties the best regarding this matter. Seeing this is the Internet and things progress at lightspeed on here, once a reputation is damaged, the chances of “damage control” and “damage reversal” are pretty much slim-to-none.
David says
The silliness is in the execution. You have an attorney threatening to take action to protect his client’s reputation from the so-called “defamatory” comments made by the complainants, as if Adam’s reputation would be repaired if those posts were removed and the others remained. On the other side, you have money being raised with the sum total of the plan being “let’s get a lawyer” without any specificity about who will be represented and to what end. Perhaps this seems like well thought out strategizing to some, but from my perspective it looks like a lot reactive nonsense without much thought behind it at all.
Joseph Peterson says
@David,
Adam Dicker’s reputation might not be rehabilitated simply by the removal of the NamePros thread – much less by erasing a few comments within it. All the same, that thread isn’t doing him any favors, and he’s not “silly” for wishing it were gone.
As far as the people allegedly owed money are concerned, their goal – or Shane’s – is quite sensible. They’d like a refund without further delay and without strings attached. Possibly, legal action might lead to a settlement. Yes, “Let’s talk to a lawyer” is a vague goal. But it’s a first step. Until they talk to a lawyer and get advice on the best way to proceed, they’d be getting ahead of themselves with any plan that goes beyond that.
David says
‘Yes, “Let’s talk to a lawyer” is a vague goal. But it’s a first step.’
Except that it’s not the first step that has actually been taken. The first step in this case has been to start raising money before an attorney has even been consulted about options and potential costs. Nobody even has a clear idea of whose cases are going to be discussed with the attorney. You might feel comfortable investing your money in a plan to talk to an unspecified attorney about an unspecified set of claims, but I sure as heck don’t.
Joseph Peterson says
@David,
So far, I haven’t looked at the GoFundMe campaign.
In my opinion, there ought to be a detailed breakdown of how funds will be used. Without that, it isn’t clear what money is being used for; and I’m sure some people would be reluctant to donate under those conditions.
Perhaps after an initial consultation they’ll know enough to provide a more specific item-by-item budget.
Their priority might have been to signal publicly that there would be legal retaliation. Had they waited to hammer out all the details, a week might have slipped by after Adam Dicker’s letter – a week without any coordinated response. So even if they did put the car before the horse in a sense, it’s understandable if they were in a bit of a hurry to fire a cannon shot. Sometimes it makes sense to charge first, plan second.
David says
But don’t you think Shane should have clearly mentioned about it that why the funds are being collected and how he’s planning on spending the funds?
I personally think it would have been a better idea to instead of collecting the funds for a lawsuit or a lawyer which we see has no near resolution for the victims, he should be collecting funds to refund those victims who haven’t been paid yet.
Andrew Allemann says
From the looks of that letter, Shane needs a lawyer to respond for himself.
**UPDATE** It turns out Shane wasn’t a recipient of the letter. I misunderstood his blog post. My apologies.
I'm Spartacus says
Unfortunately I feel that David is 100% correct to point out that the fund campaign could have been dealt with much better. Shane needed to get to the point where he could clearly explain what the money is needed for and how it would be spent. I still donated regardless, but my donation would increase if it became clear that the money was needed (why and how much, stated clearly).
Andrew Allemann says
It’s a fair point. People will want to know that the money isn’t just going to Shane’s defense.
**Update: I thought Shane had also received the letter, but it turns out he didn’t.**
I'm Spartacus says
Actually at least 2 people who were not owed money received the letter. There may be more.
thelegendaryjp says
Oh boy
John says
If I were the recipient of that letter i’d be happy to take down my comments-once Mr Dicker put all monies owed me in Escrow.
I'm Spartacus says
And if you were one of the several people who received the same letter but aren’t owed any money? The suggestion seemed to be that they had to remove unspecified posts in order for those with a claim to receive a refund.
Andrew Allemann says
Other than Shane, did other people not owed money receive the letter?
David says
https://www.namepros.com/threads/is-adam-dicker-a-criminal-you-decide.883579/page-115#post-5072935
In the above post Shane seems to be saying that he did NOT receive a letter.
Andrew Allemann says
You’re right, I stand corrected. I misunderstood his blog post and thought it was a letter he personally received.
Joseph Peterson says
@Andrew,
Yes, at least 1 NamePros member who isn’t owed money claims to have received an identical letter.
Andrew Allemann says
Thanks.
I'm Spartacus says
At least 2 people who were not owed money received the letter.
Carl says
Adam’s lawyer is not exactly an experienced attorney, looks like they gave him one of the junior members, maybe sell another name Adam.
YEAR OF CALL
2014 Ontario
EDUCATION
University of Ottawa, JD, 2013
Andrew Allemann says
It’s not that complicated of a matter. I doubt it necessitates a Partner to do the work.
Andrew Allemann says
I don’t blame Adam for wanting people to remove the comments, and putting the carrot of getting money back makes sense. As for the “client will hold you responsible” if you don’t settle, Dicker might not have any grounds to come after someone depending on what they wrote. You can right truthful things.
That said, it might also make sense for someone owed money to agree to the terms, as it might be the easiest and cheapest way to resolve the issue. It’s unlikely that someone owed a thousand or so is going to go to court over it, even small claims court.
Anticareer says
If someone is rightfully owed money they first have to remove their truthful comments? Is that what this is saying? The truth must be removed before people will get what they are owed?
The irony of hiring (and presumably) paying a lawyer before each person who has a valid claim receiving their money back is ridiculous. I would be embarrassed to ever show my face again in public where anyone would recognize me if I ever acted like this.
Jill says
Amazing, isnt it? This is all so backwards.
Reality says
Wow, you don’t blame Adam for forcing people to jump through his hoops to get their own money back?
Andrew Allemann says
I blame him for not delivering on promises in the first place, and ideally this would have all been resolved before it had to become a big issue. Given where he is now, and is typical in business disputes like this, it’s smart of him to try to mitigate the damage as part of settling up with people.
Sam Ryan says
This is not CANADA mr Dicker we have free speech in America.
Trudeau says
Free Speech in American English is a false coagnate with free speech in Canadian English. albeit we enjoy real freedom here in Canadá, one cannot call another a criminal before a proper protocol, under the risk of harming the directive of the claim. aka deuce.
You may petition any Canadian small court claims for FREE from any country and without intermediaries, but you must send your real ID.
from that long thread, it seems most people are angry because they didn’t get rich overnight.
David says
“it seems most people are angry because they didn’t get rich overnight.”
If that’s the impression you came away with, then I can only surmise that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Most people are angry because they paid Adam for something they didn’t get.
David says
It’s too bad that you aren’t sufficiently proud of your free speech to have educated yourself about what it actually means. The issue of free speech is irrelevant to this situation.
Honest Abe says
Who in their right mind would ever do business with Adam Dicker again?
He has basically blackballed himself in this industry, he can do underground deals with Toby Clements
I don’t think any big fish domainer would want to be seen in the same room as him.
I wish the victims luck, everything I read above is not kosher.
Bart says
Visa versa too
Who would ever want to do business with an extortionist
Shane bellone and his part two on Friday if I don’t get paid was as bad as dicker if not worse
And now he wants people who blindly jumped into bed with Adam to blindly jump in bed with him to get a lawyer
Huh
Need a lawyer
Check the yellow pages
Bellone is done in domaining as well
And name pros looks absolutely foolish for allowing this to go on on their server
Reality says
Keep trying to troll *yawn*
Shane Bellone says
I’m done domaining? News to me.
Josh says
Adam Dicker has enough money to hire a lawyer to harass victims, but not enough money to pay the victims?
Yunny says
Bart is no more a troll than you if you champion Bellone great many don’t care for him.
Np thread is way out of hand you have other bloggers claiming they were first to speak today. Andrew, acro and a few others posted way before Monday.
Look if people are going to go after someone for their money then do it. Go after the money stop talking about it.
Eric Borgos says
I understand that Adam feels some of the comments may be wrong or lies, but on the other hand just giving people a full refund years later does not always make up for the problems that were caused. So, they have a right to express their grievances. If he is giving refunds to some people who said things that were not true just to shut them up, then in those cases I agree he should get them to remove the comments.
Many lawsuits are settled this way, where the winner can’t disclose the bad stuff that happened, but that is usually because they are getting extra compensation to make up for it.
As an example, for my site at http://www.cheapflowers.com if the delivering florist messes up an order, like forgetting to deliver birthday flowers, most florists just give a refund. But, I feel that is not enough, since nothing can make up for the recipient thinking you forgot their birthday, so I give the customer a full refund plus I deliver an apology flower order for free.
John Berryhill says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Scott says
Eloquent, JB, as usual.
Dayne says
I will not donate a single penny to the fund until a clear breakdown of how the funds will be allocated is put up. It should have been handled better from the beginning. I know others who feel the same way. At this point, I probably won’t ever donate because I don’t trust Shane.
Shane Bellone says
I’m speaking with a lawyer tomorrow. I will provide a detailed breakdown of expenses and our plan of action on the GoFundMe.com campaign following the conversation.
Ron says
Time to grow up, and be accountable for your actions, in 5 years you can collect a early pension, like come on man, save what dignity you have left,
Most people have left dnforum, pretty much a silent boycott.
Not a good time to be sucking newbies into domaining, these are the same idiots willing to pay more than end users for certain domains.
Scott says
I never realized that the domain industry was flush with so many accomplished civil, criminal, constitutional and international law scholars, quick to offer legal opinions and commentary in a matter so openly twisted and convoluted that the parties — who aren’t really parties at all — would accomplish more with baseball bats than backseat lawyers. I, for one, would contribute to a GoFundMe campaign which might purge all traces of this public stupidity, if only to spare earnest domain professionals from being confused with uninvested hangers-on, perpetuating old stereotypes behind the comfort of cryptic pseudonyms.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not taking sides. I hope everyone with a legitimate grievance is made whole. Quickly. And quietly.
However, to those who persist in waving the red, white and blue virtues of free speech in America, as if an overarching shield against the folly of false accusation and malicious defamation, your words have statutory consequences. You would be wise to review your public comments with an adult, rethink your intent and remove defamatory content which you might later regret.
As for the overzealous blogger who maliciously branded Adam Dicker “a criminal” — an implied claim which has yet to be substantiated — then published a private messaging exchange without the seeming prior knowledge and consent of the people whose privacy was violated, a more ambitious GoFundMe campaign may become necessary to protect your assets (if any), future income and assets (if any) and, perhaps, your freedom.
Stuart says
“Other than Shane, did other people not owed money receive the letter?”
PugDomains received a letter from Adam Dicker simply for commenting on this stuff:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/is-adam-dicker-a-criminal-you-decide.883579/page-108#post-5070187
I'm Spartacus says
Umask077 also claimed to receive a letter, he is not owed money.
Andrew Allemann says
So it appears they sent a form letter to a number of people. Did they not cross-reference it to people that were actually Adam’s clients? That would be a pretty big mistake.
Danny Mac says
Adam dicker is like Shane Bellone both scammers