GoDaddy Inc Sucks - GoDaddyIncSucks.com

These domain names are NOT FOR SALE at any price!

Domain name registrations that are justified by legitimate free speech rights or by legitimate non-commercial considerations would... not be considered to be abusive, especially in conjunction with the "Totality of Circumstances".

This is a First Amendment Protected Website Intended to Enlighten the World Regarding the above Listed People Prefacing the Word 'Sucks' - There are consequences for harming people. Justice will prevail.

This is what "Freedom of Speech" is all about, the ability and right to tell the truth without some corporate giant preventing any person from having their say no matter who wants to stop you. 

This website is non-commercial and non-trademark infringing in compliance with, and not in violation of, the Lanham Act operating as a protest and gripe site regarding the 17 'sucks' domain names listed above and following the guidelines outlined in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in that the 3 distinguishing characteristics that matter and any reasonable person would easily recognize that there is no "confusingly similar" domain names in that this one utilizes the word 'sucks' in each and every domain name associated with it, and there is no ability to register any domain names nor the ability for web hosting as GoDaddy.com does and due to the dissemination of information of illegal activity regarding the company and individuals listed I have the absolute legitimate interests and rights to register and own these specific domain names and am not acting in "bad faith" as the Supreme Court allows for dissension websites to exist legally.

Any interested party wanting to inform themselves regarding such activity can search the records pertaining to several WIPO decisions regarding such 'sucks' domain names as TaubmanSucks.com, LucentSucks.com, WalMartCanadaSucks.com, LockheedSucks.com, LockheedMartinSucks.com, McLaneEastSucks.com, HomeDepotSucks.com, in addition to individual persons names even without 'sucks' attached such as BruceSpringsteen.com and many others just by searching through WIPO.int records.

Most of the Names Listed Above Are Easily Recognized, Unfortunately For Most of the Wrong Reasons However the Real Reasons Will Be Posted Herein as Time Passes.

The Purpose of This Website Among Other Reasons is to Allow the Customers of GoDaddy Inc. to Be Able to Reach Out to the Respective Individuals Responsible For Whatever Occurs Pertaining to Their Accounts Etc. Should any visitors have complaints about your relationship with GoDaddy this will also be a forum to lodge those complaints and to follow any lawsuits against GoDaddy either ongoing currently or from the past to determine whether you also wish to file a lawsuit to recover damages caused by GoDaddy either from domain name registrations or web hosting etc. This is a Work in Progress, Check Back Often...

On 2/27/2017 GoDaddy Inc. Severely Breached and Violated My Internet Privacy

I subsequently sent approximately 45 emails to the executives of GoDaddy.com without any response requesting that they resolve the privacy violation and they neither responded, acknowledged nor attempted to resolve the issue so I advised them in an email that should they not take responsibility for the breach or rectify the problem I would be forced to hold them accountable by filing a legal action against the company and also name individuals in the suit for their wrong doing. I then attempted to get their attention by asserting my First Amendment Rights by registering a total of 17 "Sucks" domain names pertaining to GoDaddy and the executives who refused to solve their Breach of Privacy issue and because I created this website on 3/21/2017 they sent me an email stating "Your current accounts have been locked" thereby denying me access to all of the websites that I have paid for 1 year in advance and denied access to my approximately 1700-1800 domain names hosted at GoDaddy which by its vary nature is depriving me of my livelihood and the ability to further develop my websites such as TheCongressionalMedalOfHonor.com, TheMedalOfFreedom.com,  TheCongressionalGoldMedal.com,TheCitizensMedal.com, TheMedalOfValor.com and several others where my plethora of domains for sale are listed at like VideosOnDemand.com, CaliforniaRVSuperstore.com, TheETFExchange.com, ClassicDomains.co, ElderAbuseAct.com etc.    

GoDaddy, Inc. used specific contract terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform their contractual obligations. I believe that the executives at GoDaddy "took inappropriate and illegal action against me" in "locking me out of my domain names and websites" in retaliation for exercising my "First Amendment Rights" and therefore due to this "Locked Out" scenario created by GoDaddy I have no other option but am forced to liquidate all of my domain names as quickly as possibly since they will eventually expire as I have no access to even 'log in' for renewals and/or redirection or updates and therefore I need to sell the entire domain name portfolio without hesitation for whatever the market will bear considering time is of the essence! The difference between the "Reasonable Market Value" which could be as high as $3,000,000+ and the time sensitive distressed price will be part of what GoDaddy will have to offset in the lawsuit. This would mean the average price would be under $1650 which is a small amount on an individual basis but considering 1800+ domains at the time GoDaddy, Inc. "Locked My Accounts" the total is quite substantial. Every day my loss increases and therefore the damages also increase exponentially. On Friday March 24, 2017 I sent an email to the CEO's office of GoDaddy, Inc. Demanding that they "Unlock My Accounts" containing my domain names and websites and they emphatically refused thereby denying access again. 

I am currently in the process of researching which causes of actions and violations I might pursue against the company and respective individuals who I contend have harmed me and though there are several possibilities, a few but by all means not the entire list, of them are referred to below.

Which court/s should this be undertaken in, The Civil Court, The Criminal Court, the Court of Public Opinion or all 3?

This website project lives for the purpose of seeking JUSTICE and I will not be deterred from that path. Hopefully it will also educate others to be aware and beware of who they entrust their own property to.

The relationship between the parties need not be a formal fiduciary relationship but may be present whenever someone places trust and confidence in the good faith and integrity of another person and it also need not be identified via a written document.

I trusted GoDaddy, Inc. with my domain names and numerous websites and they betrayed my trust! I spent many thousands of dollars with GoDaddy but they still harmed me for their own benefit. 

California Civil Code § 3336 Conversion (Theft) - Any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over the personal property of another inconsistent with the owner’s rights constitutes Conversion.

It is my opinion that GoDaddy Inc.'s "locking me out of my accounts" ergo "wrongfully withholding my property from me" and "preventing access to the domain names and websites" is tantamount to Conversion which in the state of California is considered both a civil tort and a criminal act and as defined by the Civil Code is in fact 'theft'.

The civil wrong (tort) of wrongfully using another's personal property and any intermeddling with it as if it were one's own, holding onto another's property that accidentally comes into one's hands, or purposely giving the impression that the assets of another belong to oneself. The true owner has the right to sue for the property or the value and loss of use of it. The converter can be guilty of the crime of theft. This gives the true owner the right to sue for his/her own property or the value and loss of use of it, as well as going to law enforcement authorities since conversion usually includes the crime of theft. The tortuous taking of property is, of itself, a conversion and any intermeddling with it, or any exercise of dominion over it, subversive of the dominion of the owner or the nature of the bailment if it be bailed, is evidence of a conversion.

Mitigation of Damages, An offer to return converted property made after the conversion, has no effect as a defense against Plaintiff's cause of action for Conversion.

Conspiracy to Commit Conversion - Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a conspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors. A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act. Such an agreement may be made orally or in writing or may be implied by the conduct of the parties.

While criminal conspiracies involve distinct substantive wrongs, civil conspiracies do not involve separate torts. The doctrine provides a remedial measure for affixing liability to all persons who have 'agreed to a common design to commit a wrong.' The elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy; (2) the wrongful act or acts done pursuant thereto; and (3) the damage resulting. As long as two or more persons agree to perform a wrongful act, the law places civil liability for the resulting damages on all of them, regardless of whether they actually commit the tort themselves. The effect of charging . . . conspiratorial conduct is to implicate all . . . who agree to the plan to commit the wrong as well as those who actually carry it out.

It is a legal commonplace that the existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances, and that the conspiracy need not be the result of an express agreement but may rest upon tacit assent and acquiescence.

A conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances, including the nature of the acts done, the relationships between the parties, and the interests of the alleged co-conspirators. Plaintiff is not required to prove that all of the defendants personally committed a wrongful act or that they knew all the details of the agreement or the identities of all the other participants.

Robert Parsons is still a board member of GoDaddy, Inc. and the single largest stockholder and on the three member executive committee and when asked who's the second largest stockholder is Parsons replied "Two other guys". 

Excerpted from an interview with Retired CEO and founder of GoDaddy who meets regularly with current CEO Blake Irving.

"I may tell (Irving) about something, but I will never tell him what to do, he decides what to do and how he operates the company. He's done a good job. These guys always agree (on the committee), so it's pretty superfluous, but if they ever don't, I'm the most powerful man"!!

California Penal Code 182 PC - A criminal conspiracy takes place when (1) agrees with one or more other people to commit a crime, and (2) one of them commits an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. 

Conspiracy elements: (1) Commit any crime (this is the catch-all conspiracy clause and includes any California crime, including misdemeanors, (2) Accuse another person falsely or maliciously of committing or participating in a crime (this clause is intended for situations where two or more people attempt to "frame" an innocent person for a crime or make false allegations that actually lead to an arrest and formal charges).

Any member of the conspiracy may commit the overt act...which doesn't need to be criminal in and of itself. But does need to be performed before the commission of the agreed upon offense.

California Penal Code 503 PC Embezzlement (Theft): Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted. When GoDaddy, Inc. illegally converted my property (by locking my accounts to prevent any access), they intended to deprive me of it permanently and/or to remove it from my possession for so extended a period of time that I would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property.

"Embezzlement" is the fraudulent 'conversion' of the property of another by one who already has possession of it. "Conversion" is an act of interference with the owner’s rights to the property. It requires a use of the property by the defendant that goes against the terms of the arrangement by which the defendant has the property.

Embezzlement of property, money, or services, and many enumerated items, worth more than $950 is grand theft. A conviction carries a jail sentence of up to one year (if a misdemeanor). But state prison time of 16 months, 2, or 3 years is also possible for felony grand theft, for enumerated items. The state may also consider whether any aggravated factors justify an increased punishment during felony sentencing.

California Penal Code §496 - Receiving Stolen Property

(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. However, if the value of the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, if such person has no prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290.

Section 496(a) extends to property "that has been obtained in any manner constituting "theft" and a principle in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section.

Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

California Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division 3 decision on January 15, 2013 case # G046166 Sharon Bell v Igal J. Feibush making it illegal to receive or withhold stolen goods. (Treble Damages Affirmed)

California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e) Elder Financial Abuse and Civil Code Section §1575. Elder Financial Abuse is both a civil tort and a criminal offense. 

California Welfare and Institutions Codes § 15610.07 and § 15610.30 "Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult" - I am almost 70 years old and GoDaddy, Inc. was fully aware of my age prior to "Locking Out My Domain Names and Websites"!

California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.27 provides: 'Elder' means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 provides:

(a) "Financial abuse" of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:

(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates or retains possession of property in bad faith.

A person or entity shall be deemed to have acted in bad faith if the person or entity knew or should have known that the elder or dependent adult had the right to have the property transferred or made readily available to the elder or dependent adult or to his or her representative.

I am also researching tort damages against the employer GoDaddy, Inc. under a theory of Vicarious Liability against numerous employees and/or executives and directors.

California Civil Code - Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing - The covenant of good faith finds particular application in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary power affecting the rights of another. Such power must be exercised in good faith.

Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.) - In 1974, the Arizona Supreme Court held a private cause of action exists for an injured consumer against a person who violated the Act. The elements for consumer fraud are different from, and more easily shown than, the elements for common law fraud. The Act defines an unlawful practice as: The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. It is not necessary that the wrongdoer benefitted from the fraud.

California Civil Code section 3294(c)(1) provides: 'Malice' means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. A person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. "Despicable conduct" is conduct that is so mean, vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.

Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.False representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly.

California Civil Code section 1572, dealing specifically with fraud in the making of contracts, restates definitions in slightly differing language, with the addition of a fifth kind of deceit, described generally as “Any other act fitted to deceive". Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact and intentionally uttered. 

Oppression is defined as "despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights".

California False Advertising Law

California Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. - Section § 17200 includes five definitions of unfair competition: (1) an unlawful business act or practice; (2) an unfair business act or practice; (3) a fraudulent business act or practice; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising; or (5) any act prohibited by Sections § 17500-17577.5.

Section § 17203 allows the court to order injunctions and other equitable defenses to prevent the unfair competition.

Section § 17204 authorizes the Attorney General, district attorneys, county counsels and city attorneys to file lawsuits on behalf of injured citizens. In addition, any consumer could act as a representative and file a class action lawsuit against a business committing unfair competition. Section 17500 prohibits any untrue or misleading statements made in connection with the sale of goods or services, which is a much narrower standard than section § 17200.

Plaintiffs suing under Sections § 17200 or § 17500 often also assert violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), set forth in California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. The CLRA protects consumers against 23 specific activities that it defines as unfair and deceptive business practices.

Section § 17200 also forbids “fraudulent business acts or practices” unconnected with advertising.

In addition, section § 17500 carries criminal penalties, whereas only civil remedies are available for section § 17200 violations.

The UCL allows the court to prevent the use of unfair competition and to restore money or property to victims of unfair competition. Essentially, this provision allows for both monetary damages and injunctive relief where necessary. When an injunction is issued pursuant to section § 17200, penalties of up to $6,000 per day for intentional violations are authorized.

The California Supreme Court observed in 2011 that “the quantum of lost money or property” to establish standing (the right to sue) is only so much as necessary to constitute “injury in fact.” For standing purposes, that is a low burden. To emphasize how low, the Court quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito: “injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest.” Put another way, the “injury in fact” test is met, for standing purposes, by some specific, identifiable “trifle of injury.”

The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. ... The CLRA claim is attractive to potential plaintiffs because California Civil Code § 1780 allows consumers who suffer damage as a result of a practice declared unlawful by § 1770 to obtain actual damages (the total award of damages in a class action shall be more than $1,000); an order enjoining the methods, acts, or practices; restitution of property; punitive damages; court costs and attorney's fees; and any other relief that the court deems proper. A prevailing plaintiff gets to recover his attorney's fees, but a prevailing defendant usually may not recover his attorney's fees.

California Civil Code § 1751 - Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void. 

California Civil Code § 1752 - The provisions of this title are not exclusive. The remedies provided herein for violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed by any section of this title shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law.

Nothing in this title shall limit any other statutory or any common law rights of the Attorney General or any other person to bring class actions. Class actions by consumers brought under the specific provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1770) of this title shall be governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1780); however, this shall not be construed so as to deprive a consumer of any statutory or common law right to bring a class action without resort to this title. If any act or practice proscribed under this title also constitutes a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the consumer may assert such common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such law.

CLRA is one of the most powerful and useful weapons at the disposal of consumers and consumer-law attorneys and is intended both to outlaw unethical business practices and to make it economical for consumers to pursue legal redress for violations of the Act.

California Civil Code § 1549 Breach of Contract - Section § 1549 provides: “A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing.” ... A complaint for breach of contract must include the following: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for non-performance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damages to plaintiff therefrom.

California Civil Code section § 1710 Fraudulent Concealment - Section § 1710 specifies four kinds of deceit. A deceit, within the meaning of sections § 1709-1710 is either:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be;

3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,

4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

The fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others less experienced. There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he or she transacts business. Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious. The rule of "caveat emptor" should not be relied upon to reward fraud and deception.  

Defamation and Privacy - It is my opinion that GoDaddy, Inc. by negligence and false statements publicized information and material that was made public either by communicating it to the public at large or to so many people that the information and material was substantially certain to become public knowledge at some time in the foreseeable future in the process of their mishandling and misleading statements of their 'patents pending' of "DomainsByProxy" and many of these patents were applied for by Robert Parsons, Barbara Jo Rechterman and others as verified by the USPTO.gov. examples: #20040064561 7/21/2003, #20100023592, 10/8/2009 #20100057878, 11/13/2009, #20100106793 4/29/2010 what appears to be on behalf of The GoDaddy Group Inc.

California Civil Code Negligent Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation is a separate and distinct tort, a species of the tort of deceit. ‘Where the defendant makes false statements, honestly believing that they are true, but without reasonable ground for such belief, he may be liable for negligent misrepresentation, a form of deceit'.

California Civil Code § 1714(a) Negligence - Provides in part: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person. The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are “(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; and (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.

Recklessness refers to a subjective state of culpability greater than simple negligence and rises to the level of a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.


18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.

The United States Supreme Court in 1996 issued 3 "guideposts" to determine the Constitutionality of Punitive Damages, The reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct, the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award, and the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.

California Civil Code § 3295(c) allows plaintiff to subpoena documents of financial condition and net worth, which is the ability to pay a punitive damages award, for all named defendants for delivery at trial. All defendants need to be prepared to provide financial condition and net worth documents and information, if and when it becomes necessary, and make the documents available at trial in the event the Jury makes a finding of Malice, Oppression or Fraud.

California Civil Code § 3294 - Identify any prospective and/or potential witnesses who may be qualified to respond to or testify on the issue of all defendant's financial condition and net worth.

The National Football League (NFL) which promotes GoDaddy as a major sponsor of the "Super Bowl" is associating itself with a company that does not respect an individual's right to privacy and the NFL should abandon all future connections with an entity so disreputable and reprehensible, the NFL players and true football fans should call for a boycott of doing business with GoDaddy Inc. until such time as it remedies all egregious actions against its long term paying customers.

GoDaddy, Inc. CEO Blake Irving issued a stern message to the NFL.

“GoDaddy.com is extremely disappointed in the message the NFL is sending. Where has the morality of the league gone? What kind of message is this sending to women? Our women need to feel safe and protected. Here at GoDaddy.com headquarters if any man is suspected of any type of sexual harassment he gets a stern lecture and is forced to put his pants back on for the rest of the day. GoDaddy.com wants to encourage women to know they should feel safe whether at home or whatever Hooters, tanning salon or strip club they call a workplace.”

Irving elaborated that he had yet to hear from Roger Goodell or anyone at the league office.

“Maybe they are under their desks looking for a missing DVD,” Irving joked.

“If we don’t get a clearer message from the league regarding these moral issues, we might be forced to pull our future Super Bowl ad this year, and that would be a shame. We’ve just filmed it too. This year Danica [Patrick] is joined by our newest client, Johnny Manziel at a Vegas nightclub. Two people our society greatly respects for their high moral ethics.”

When Irving was asked what would happen for GoDaddy.com without the Super Bowl commercial he stated that they would look into opportunities with the Lingerie Football League."

The above was taken directly from the Heckler website.

Talk about calling the 'Kettle' black...

​In my continuing research and discovery process of GoDaddy's criminal behavior it has come to my attention that GoDaddy, Inc. has violated Civil and Criminal laws in both the states of Arizona and California and thus I have decided that the criminal laws relating to Arizona are much more stringent and the punishments more severe regarding what they have done to me and therefore I will be pursuing my claims in Arizona as there is a pervasive pattern of illegal activities.

Arizona Criminal Code section A.R.S. § 13-1003

A. A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony upon the person of another, or to commit an offense under section 13-1508 or 13-1704.

B. If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined in subsection A of this section, knows or has reason to know that a person with whom such person conspires to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiring to commit the offense with such other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity.

Arizona Criminal Code section A.R.S. § 13-1802: A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:

1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property; or

2. Converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of another entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term or use; or

3. Obtains services or property of another by means of any material misrepresentation with intent to deprive the other person of such property or services; et al

Part of Arizona Criminal Code section A.R.S. § 13-1802 defines as illegal if someone excludes another from using their own property 'except on your terms' which is part and parcel of what GoDaddy, Inc. did by "locking me out of my accounts".

Theft of property or services with a value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more is a class 2 felony.

A person who is convicted of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 of this section that involved property with a value of one hundred thousand dollars or more is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted and the range is “prison only” from three (3) years to twelve and one half (12.5) years of incarceration.

It is my contention that GoDaddy, Inc. and its executives and directors may wish to hide their criminal activity behind the company's "Terms of Service" as their supposed authority to "control the property of another" by "locking them out of their accounts" and thus stealing their domain names and/or websites which deprives them of their property and constitutes illegal actions as defined under Arizona Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices A.R.S. § 13-2310 and though these 'TOS' may provide some protection for civil liability there may not be similar protection from criminal liability and I intend to use their own 'TOS' as the proof needed to show GoDaddy, Inc. connived and violated many laws that gave them impetus to "Withhold My Property" with impunity. "Terms of Service" that are in any way, shape or form promoting illegal activity is Void and/or is Voidable. Any agent/director/employee/executive who knowingly conspired to defraud me could also be construed to be an "Accessory After the Fact" which is another illegal activity.

Any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions is guilty of a class 2 felony.

18 U.S. Code § 1346

The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes do not define the terms "scheme" or "artifice" and the courts have traditionally been reluctant to offer definitions of either term except in the broadest and most general terms. Congress did not define 'scheme or artifice to defraud' when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since. Instead that expression has taken on its present meaning from 111 years of case law.

The fraudulent aspect of the scheme to defraud is to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. The words 'to defraud' in the mail fraud statute have the 'common understanding' of '"wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes," and "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."

The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is '"the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another."

Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all details or all instances of allegedly illicit conduct. It is well established that proof of every allegation is not required in order to convict; the government need only prove that the scheme to defraud existed. The Government is not required to prove the details of a scheme; it is, however, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant . . . willfully and knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud. A scheme to defraud may consist of numerous elements, no particular one of which need be proved if there is sufficient overall proof that the scheme exists nor all instances of illicit conduct need not be proved to sustain a conviction.  All that is required is that the defendant has knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme; he/she/they need not have performed every key act themselves. The "evidence need only show that defendant was a 'knowing and active participant' in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire communications.

It is my contention that part of GoDaddy's "Terms of Service" language was devised to 'willfully and knowingly act as a "Scheme and Artifice" to defraud their own customers by giving themselves 'permission' to among other things "lock out accounts" which include domain names and websites etc. Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1801(2). "Control" or "exercise control" means to act so as to exclude others from using their property except on the defendant's own terms. (4) "Deprive" means to withhold the property interest of another either permanently or for so long a time period that a substantial portion of its economic value or usefulness or enjoyment is lost, to withhold with the intent to restore it only on payment of any reward or other compensation or to transfer or dispose of it so that it is unlikely to be recovered. (8) "Material misrepresentation" means a pretense, promise, representation or statement of present, past or future fact that is fraudulent and that, when used or communicated, is instrumental in causing the wrongful control or transfer of property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act.

By GoDaddy, Inc. "locking me out of my accounts" prevented me from updating my credit card information which then caused websites to disappear and domain names to expire causing me tremendous financial losses. Contained within the aforementioned "Terms of Service" 'With respect to user content..."If you have a website or other content hosted by GoDaddy you shall retain ownership or licensed rights in User Content"! This verbiage is a contradiction in terms' pertaining to what GoDaddy did by 'taking control of my property' stating that their "TOS" allowed them to justify that illegal action.

California Court of Appeal (192 Cal. App. 4th 265) Second District Division Five case # B216650 Brown v Grimes January 27, 2011 decided that "A material breach of one aspect of a contract generally constitutes a material breach of the entire contract" therefore eliminating the "Enforceability of an Illegal Contract" and making 'Void' and/or 'Voidable' their contract "TOS" denying them any legal right to "Withhold My Property".  I believe GoDaddy 'never clearly and conspicuously' described that they have any legal right to "lock my accounts" because I exercised my Constitutional Rights to create a 'First Amendment' website. This is what I call 'Deceptive Conduct' which deprived me of the "Intangible Right of Honest Services" et al.  

The Attorney General should prosecute the criminal act of "Scheme and Artifice to Defraud" in relation to 18 U.S. Code § 1346 which violated my 'legal right to own and control my own property', approximately 1843 domain names and 10 websites, rather than allowing GoDaddy to prevent me from accessing my user content. This violation is a further example of GoDaddy engaging in an ongoing RICO enterprise.

If any part of GoDaddy's "TOS" is found to be 'Void' and/or 'Voidable' then that would definitely constitute their actions of "locking my accounts" against numerous laws and therefore would be considered felonies punishable by the Attorney General under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and/or 18 U.S. Code 1346. GoDaddy's "Terms of Service" is in and of itself a "Scheme and Artifice to Defraud" and I seriously doubt that no none has contested it in a criminal court as of yet however if done successfully GoDaddy, Inc. will have to 'make a multitude of customers whole again'.

Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.) defines an unlawful practice as: The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.

GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC themselves, through a subsidiary NameFind LLC, owned some domain names that were taken away by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for example Femikuti.com, AgVision.com and currently ThePlayers.com is undergoing a Universal Domain Name Dispute (UDRP) process to possibly take that domain name away from GoDaddy also.

Trademark Infringement, Racketeering, Standard Tactics LLC, Special Domain Services LLC and Domain Name Warehousing etc.

As so many have aptly stated before, GoDaddy thrives on deceit and deception in cheating and stealing from their own customers over many long years and are still doing so today against me. 

Here's just one Smoking Gun... Many more ongoing and A Continuing Pattern of Violations of RICO Statutes and Enterprise Corruption:

I now have more than enough irrefutable evidence of numerous Class 2 felony criminal acts and civil tort predicate acts of not only Arizona Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices A.R.S. § 13-2310, Accessory After the Fact, Conspiracy, Conspiracy to Commit Conversion, Conversion (Theft), Elder Financial Abuse, Embezzlement, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Intent, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Malice, Oppression, Violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with Defamation and Privacy, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligence, possible Interstate Wire Fraud, Trademark Infringement and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and even possibly Sherman Antitrust Act violations "to forward over to the appropriate Federal and various States legal authorities, including but not limited to both California and Arizona, for criminal prosecution"!

GoDaddy, Inc. and/or GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC, The GoDaddy Group et al  

By GoDaddy "Locking Me Out of My Domain Names and Various Websites" and "Withholding My Property" they have 'Hijacked' my approximately 1,843 domain names and approximately 10 websites including "MatineeClassics.com" which I have owned a Federal Trademark for since May 22, 2012 # 85976579 for "MATINEE CLASSICS" and which they are redirecting to their 'own domain name parking page' which is an absolute violation of Trademark law and which devalues my trademark exponentially and gives the public impression that GoDaddy is in fact the trademark holder of "Matinee Classics" instead of the rightful owner Matinee Classics LLC which I am the sole owner of.  GoDaddy has by its own 'Terms of Service Agreement" violations stripped themselves of any legal protections against their dishonest, reprehensible and unconscionable actions against me.

"By Andrew Alleman, Domain Name Wire 12/3/2008

Standard Tactics, LLC: How GoDaddy Profits from Expired Domains

GoDaddy goes to great lengths to hide its expired domain warehousing operations.  
 
Scottsdale, Arizona based The Go Daddy Group, which runs the world’s largest domain name registrar GoDaddy.com, is warehousing its customers’ expired domain names and profiting from them. The company has taken a number of steps to hide this practice from public view. This article covers the results of a Domain Name Wire investigation into GoDaddy’s domain warehousing activities.

Profiting from Expired Domain Names
 
When domain names expire, most large domain name registrars try to make money from them. Network Solutions and eNom auction expired domains at NameJet. Register.com auctions domains through SnapNames.

GoDaddy.com and other registrars that are part of The Go Daddy Group don’t use a partner to sell customers’ expired domain names. Instead it auctions them on the company’s own platform originally called The Domain Name Aftermarket (TDNAM). It’s a fairly transparent system. But when a valuable domain doesn’t sell, something not-so-transparent goes on in the background, as described in detail below.

It’s not unique that GoDaddy profits from expired domains. What’s unique are the steps GoDaddy takes to cover up its tracks, that it holds on to some domains that aren’t sold at auction, and its apparent hypocrisy between domains it owns and some of its activities such as combating online pharmacy fraud.

Go Daddy’s Domain Name Warehouse
 
I first discovered GoDaddy’s domain warehousing efforts in 2005. I noticed a typo domain name that didn’t sell at TDNAM and wasn’t released. It was subsequently monetized by GoDaddy using a domain parking page. At the same time I purchased several domains on TDNAM that had expired but hadn’t sold in the initial auction, much like the typo. Interestingly, I received notification from an email address at StandardTactics.com offering to transfer all of the domains I purchased into my account.

Standard Tactics, LLC, is a The Go Daddy Group subsidiary that takes ownership of valuable expired domains that don’t sell at TDNAM. It then monetizes the domain names using parked domain pages and lists the domains for resale on TDNAM.

The Formation and Structure
 
When GoDaddy launched TDNAM back in 2005, it finally started cashing in on its customers’ expiring domain names. By auctioning off the domains it was able to generate revenue even when its customers didn’t pay to renew their domains. But GoDaddy understood it could also make money by keeping some of the domain names that didn’t sell at auction for itself.

On August 16, 2005, GoDaddy formed a subsidiary called Standard Tactics, LLC in New Mexico. Before founding Standard Tactics, all of GoDaddy’s subsidiaries were incorporated in Arizona where the company is headquartered. There are a couple reasons GoDaddy may have chosen to form the company as a New Mexico limited liability company rather than an Arizona corporation. First, by creating the company in New Mexico it could distance itself from it. Second, by filing as a limited liability company instead of a corporation, it didn’t have to list directors of the corporation. It only had to list an organizer — Scottsdale, Arizona lawyer Robert J. Rosepink. Rosepink filed the papers in New Mexico and listed the company’s principal address outside the state at 7373 North Scottsdale Rd, Suite E-200 in Scottsdale. That’s the address for Rosepink’s law firm.

GoDaddy says Rosepink is outside counsel for the company. 

He may have run in the same circles as GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons in Scottsdale. Both Rosepink and Parsons donated to Jon Kyl’s campaign for U.S. Senate.

Earlier this year, Rosepink was indicted on 102 counts by the Arizona Attorney General office for his part in a concert promotion investment scheme. Rosepink allegedly earned nearly $1 million in fees for recruiting investors in what The Arizona Republic labeled a Ponzi scheme. [UPDATE: 12/17/08: In an interview with Parsons on his internet radio show today, Parsons told me that Rosepink was exonerated on all charges. Additionally, he says that Rosepink was merely outside counsel for the company.]

[UPDATE 4/3/09: Apparently Rosepink was not exonerated on all charges as Parson said. The Arizona Republic reports today that Rosepink struck a plea bargain with prosecutors and plead guilty to four counts of solicitation or sale of unregistered securities.]

Although GoDaddy did a good job distancing itself from Standard Tactics as a separate company (one source said Standard Tactics was commonly called “a client” of GoDaddy’s even inside the company), GoDaddy’s filing to go public in 2006 provides a definitive link between the two companies. It showed that Standard Tactics, LLC is indeed a subsidiary of GoDaddy. It’s distanced even further from the parent company as a subsidiary of a subsidiary. Special Domain Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of The Go Daddy Group. Standard Tactics, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Special Domain Services, Inc. Special Domain Services, Inc. is also the parent company of GoDaddy’s Domains By Proxy, a whois privacy service that helps people shield their information from the whois database.
GoDaddy’s S-1 filing lists subsidiaries including Standard Tactics, LLC.

Because GoDaddy.com is itself a subsidiary of The Go Daddy Group, the domain registrar could technically say it did not warehouse domain names.

How it Works 

GoDaddy is able to determine potential traffic to its customers’ expired domains. When a domain expires, GoDaddy places a parking page with paid advertising on the domain to count traffic. This also gives the company the ability to measure potential revenue. If a domain gets lots of traffic, GoDaddy places a higher starting bid on the domain when it is subsequently auctioned on TDNAM. GoDaddy also discloses estimated traffic to potential buyers. If a high traffic domain doesn’t sell at TDNAM, it is often transferred to Standard Tactics.

Standard Tactics makes money from the domains by placing parked pages on them. It sometimes lists the domains for sale on TDNAM at fixed prices, creating another opportunity to profit.

When Standard Tactics takes over a domain, it typically uses Domains By Proxy’s whois privacy service to hide its identity. There are a couple reasons Standard Tactics may do this. First, it hides the fact that a Go Daddy company owns domains its customers originally registered. This comes in handy when a customer merely forgets to renew a domain and later wants to re-acquire it. It also allows GoDaddy to tell customers that it doesn’t own the domains. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it hides that Standard Tactics’ portfolio includes a number of unsavory domain names including trademarks.

One way to uncover the name of a domain owner that uses whois privacy is to file for arbitration under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Whois privacy services are required to disclose the owner’s name when an arbitration is filed. Standard Tactics has been on the losing end of a number of arbitration cases, including for the domains Ambian.org, buy-ambien-now.com, cheapest-ambien.net, JunoDSL.com, and PorschePartSite. It’s especially ironic that Standard Tactics owns prescription drug names since GoDaddy touts its lobbying efforts at the U.S. Congress to stomp out online prescription drug fraud. When I asked Camille Ede, Director of Domain Services at GoDaddy, about the company’s ownership of pharmacy and trademark domains, she said the accusation that the company owned such domains was false. Records at the arbitration companies prove otherwise. In fact, in one UDRP case a Standard Tactics representative asked complainant Sanofi-aventis, a pharmaceutical company in France, to close the arbitration request and that it would transfer the domain automatically:

“Hello, We are aware of the domain dispute that has been filed on this domain. This domain was purchased in a bulk backorder. We do not support trademark infringement. We would like to transfer this domain to you at no cost you.

You will have to contact WIPO to close the dispute before I will be allowed to transfer the domain to you.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Regards

Administrator
Standard Tactics”

In a follow up to my questioning, Ede wrote:

“We by no means meant to mislead you about trademarks. We are NOT saying Standard Tactics doesn’t own a variety of names in a variety of different contexts, but disagreed with your characterization. Go Daddy treats all parked pages in the same way. If the trademark holder contacts DBP, asking us to remove…we remove it.

Standard Tactics Today
 
It’s clear that GoDaddy has taken a number of steps, including setting up a subsidiary in a different state, to cover its tracks warehousing domain names. GoDaddy has over 30 million domains registered, and a quick look at TDNAM shows a number of high traffic domains being auctioned off every day. One source said the company receives millions of hits a week on its Standard Tactics domains.

Ede calls Standard Tactics a “research” subsidiary:

“For a number of years, traffic aggregation, monetization and advertising has become an increasingly prevalent aspect of the domain name industry.

As the world’s largest registrar, we felt it was important for us to understand trends and developments in this industry. As a result, we created Standard Tactics as a research group.

All names in Standard Tactics are presented to the public for purchase in TDNAM. We do not withhold these names from TDNAM. There are relatively few names with Standard Tactics and there is randomness built in to the process in order to provide sample types representing all domain characteristics. By comparison, domain aggregators have 100’s of 1000’s of domain names.

This is an interesting response given the multitude of evidence that Standard Tactics acquires domains that don’t sell on TDNAM, including the statement in the above mentioned UDRP that Standard Tactics acquires domains in “bulk backorders”. Whether Standard Tactics technically acquires the domains before or after the auction is irrelevant, although expired domains are in a grace period until after the auction and should not be transferred to a new owner.

Furthermore, Standard Tactic’s web page states that the company buys and sells domain names, that it may own trademarks as a result of bulk purchases, and refers interested buyers to TDNAM.

A phone number for Standard Tactics, found on the whois record for a .us domain name owned by the company (.us domains cannot use whois privacy), has a New Mexico phone number. A Call to the number is answered by a recording that asks you to wait for a representative, and then sends you straight to voicemail. A fax number on the same record is in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area.
Getting former GoDaddy employees to talk about Standard Tactics is a challenge. I contacted former employees who were happy to talk about GoDaddy in general. When I brought up Standard Tactics, a common response was for a brief pause followed by, “I can’t talk about that”.

Perhaps Standard Tactics answers another question: why Bob Parsons is so adamant that customers need whois privacy.

[This story was edited at 2:18 PM CDT on Wednesday, 12/3/08 to include Ede’s response to denying that the company owns trademark and pharmaceutical names.]

UPDATE 12/17/08: GoDaddy is shutting down Standard Tactics.

Go Daddy To Shut Down Standard Tactics, LLC

Standard Tactics and 60-day lock discussed on Radio Go Daddy.

I just concluded my interview with Go Daddy CEO Bob Parsons on his internet radio show. It is available for on demand listening RadioGoDaddy.com.

Perhaps the biggest news that came out of the interview is that GoDaddy is effectively shutting down Standard Tactics. Parsons said it had about 33,000 domains in the subsidiary and 8,000 that made most of the money. This is lower than I privately estimated based on the company having 500 or so .us domains alone (that weren’t covered by domain privacy). Regardless, it’s good to hear that Go Daddy is closing this down. Parsons said all of the names are being added to TDNAM with a $10 starting bid.

We also discussed the 60 day transfer lock that Go Daddy places on domains when you change your whois information. Go Daddy General Counsel Christine Jones said this is in place to stop domain theft. While domain theft is certainly a big problem, domains are usually hijacked by compromised e-mail addresses, not whois registrant name changes. Go Daddy will have to change this practice soon because ICANN’s board recently approved a ban on this practice that had been working its way through committee.

One area that I hope Go Daddy reconsiders is trademarked domain names that are sold on TDNAM. Many of these are expired domains. I don’t know how unreasonable it is to have someone monitoring them for obvious trademarks. You won’t eliminate 100%, but surely someone who sees NHLCenterIce.com, Comcastg.net, and Sirius1.info would realize these are trademarks. (All of these domains were in expired domain auctions as of last Friday.) Unfortunately, a technology that Go Daddy filed a patent for last year that would resolve this problem is just an idea at this point, not a working product.

Below Information provided by CrunchBase 

Having working in the domain name industry myself for a couple of years, I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that there’s such a big business formed around something as trivial as a bunch of letters and numbers used to ‘translate’ IP addresses. And when there’s a big business in something, you just know there will be a grey area as well where ethics are left at the door sometimes.

Andrew Allemann over at Domain Name Wire has been doing an excellent job researching the hoops The Go Daddy Group jumps through to keep its shady tactics outside of the public view, resulting in this great blog post. Turns out The Go Daddy Group, which runs the world’s largest domain name registrar GoDaddy.com as well as some other domain name related companies, is apparently warehousing its customers’ expired domain names and directly profiting from them.

Warehousing and auctioning off expired domain names is not necessarily against ICANN (the governing body over domain name registration) regulations and actually quite a common practice among larger registrars, but the story only gets interesting when you take a look at what goes on behind the transparent part of it. When a valuable expired domain doesn’t sell through an auction on The Domain Name Aftermarket (aka TDNAM, GoDaddy’s auction platform), The Go Daddy Group changes the ownership of the domain to one of its lesser known subsidiaries, Standard Tactics LLC, using Domains By Proxy’s whois privacy service to hide its identity. Next thing you know, that company will start monetizing the domain names using parked domain pages filled with ads and list the domains for resale on TDNAM.

On August 16, 2005, GoDaddy formed a subsidiary called Standard Tactics, LLC in New Mexico. Before founding Standard Tactics, all of GoDaddy’s subsidiaries were incorporated in Arizona where the company is headquartered. There are a couple reasons GoDaddy may have chosen to form the company as a New Mexico limited liability company rather than an Arizona corporation. First, by creating the company in New Mexico it could distance itself from it. Second, by filing as a limited liability company instead of a corporation, it didn’t have to list directors of the corporation.

In fact, Standard Tactics LLC is a subsidiary of Special Domain Services Inc, which is a subsidiary of GoDaddy Inc, which is a subsidiary of The Go Daddy Group. See a pattern here? The only reason why we even know this is because the information got out when GoDaddy attempted to file for an IPO in 2006 (it eventually withdrew the filing).

So why is Go Daddy going through such lengths to keep the public from knowing about its aftermarket operations, when it’s not even against ICANN regulations? Paragraph 3.7.9 of the agreement between ICANN and Registrars says:

“Registrars shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.”

Only problem is ICANN hasn’t yet adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing, leaving registrars in a unique position to impact domain name pricing top-down by introducing competitive bidding or auctions for expired domain names.

It’s really no wonder GoDaddy is trying to cover its tracks and hide these practices, but thanks to Andrew the word is now out.

GoDaddy through its Standard Tactics, LLC subsidiary "Cybersquated" many domain names including but not limited to'Ambian.org', 'Cheapest-Ambien.us, 'GetGenericAmbien.com', 'MahindraRetail.com', 'MisookClothing.com', 'JunoDSL.com', 'PorschePartsite.com' and DinerRewards.com'

Part of Arizona Criminal Code section A.R.S. § 13-1802 defines as illegal if someone excludes another from using their own property 'except on your terms' which is part and parcel of what GoDaddy did by "locking me out of my accounts".

Theft of property or services with a value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more is a class 2 felony. 

A person who is convicted of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 of this section that involved property with a value of one hundred thousand dollars or more is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted and the range is “prison only” from three (3) years to twelve and one half (12.5) years of incarceration.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

At least 33 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands, in addition to the Federal government, have enacted laws to prosecute illegal activities under RICO. As such I plan to file for both a RICO prosecution and act as a "Whistleblower" to obtain restitution for the crimes GoDaddy, Inc. and their respective executives and directors have committed against me and it is my understanding that all "ill-gotten gains" received are considered income by the Internal Revenue Service and the 'full market value' of the domain names and websites they have embezzled from me and acquired by way of Conversion (Theft) etc. is income to them and should be reported as such which I intend to notify IRS of same. Since I believe this is something they have done hundreds, if not thousands, of times prior to mine they should conduct a thorough investigation to make certain all income thusly obtained has been appropriately reported over the years.

Filing under the Federal RICO statutes, and since GoDaddy operates in all 50 states to my knowledge, I will also need to forward a copy to all the states where there exists a RICO statute, and I would assume that among the hundreds of attorneys that are involved with RICO, that one or more will determine if GoDaddy, Inc. has violated RICO and they will then substantiate my claims for me in the process. I believe there is a distinct probability that at least one of them will see through the ruse of their 'TOS' and make a finding that even one aspect of the language contained therein violates some portion of any RICO statute given that there is almost 40 different and unique jurisdictions involved. Once the criminal activities are established by a state or federal agency then my civil lawsuit will be a 'slam dunk'!

I'll then be in a position to file a Class Action and advertise for anyone else so harmed by GoDaddy that they will be forced to DISGORGE many, many millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains by having cheated their very own customers for many years!!

Dodd-Frank describes some parameters of a "Whistleblower".

As a 'Whistleblower' I will be entitled to a 'compensation reward' and since I have lost much already and more every day that passes it will serve as one method for restitution of my losses!

It is unlawful for anyone employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c).

A violation of Section 1962(c), requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.

In order to convict someone under RICO or a state equivalent, it’s no longer necessary to prove the suspect personally committed an illegal activity. Instead, prosecutors must prove:

The defendant owns and/or manages an organization;

The organization regularly performs one or more specific illegal activity.

Various illegal activities under RICO among others are Conspiracy, Embezzlement, Fraud, Restraint of Trade or Commerce in Violation of A.R.S. § 34-252, Scheme or Artifice to Defraud and Theft “Committed for Financial Gain”.

A.R.S. § 13-2314.04 authorizes a private claim for civil racketeering: “A person who sustains reasonably foreseeable injury to his person, business or property by a pattern of racketeering activity, or by violation of section § 13-2312 involving a pattern of racketeering activity, may file an action in superior court . . . .” A.R.S. § 13-2314.04(A).

With respect to the “committed for financial gain” requirement for all acts of racketeering under A.R.S. § 13-2314.04“ ‘Gain’ means any benefit, interest or property of any kind without reduction for expenses of acquiring or maintaining it or incurred for any other reason.”

A natural person or an enterprise may not be held liable in damages or for other relief under A.R.S. § 13-2314.04 based on the conduct of another or agent, unless the fact finder finds by a preponderance of evidence that the natural person or director or high managerial agent performed, authorized, requested, commanded, ratified or recklessly tolerated the unlawful conduct of the other or agent, and in such circumstances, the fact finder must make particularized findings sufficient to permit a full and complete review of the record, if any, of the person’s conduct. A.R.S. § 13-2314.04

A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages and may recover the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees for trial and appellate representation, and prejudgment interest on actual damages.

A more expansive view holds that in order to be found guilty of violating the RICO statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment.

An "enterprise" is defined as including any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.

Many courts have noted that Congress mandated a liberal construction of the RICO statute in order to effectuate its remedial purposes by holding that the term "enterprise" has an expansive statutory definition.

"Pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity committed within ten years of each other.

The government must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.

Racketeering predicates are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.

Furthermore, the degree in which these factors establish a pattern may depend on the degree of proximity, or any similarities in goals or methodology, or the number of repetitions.

Continuity refers either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement as Congress was concerned with RICO in long-term criminal conduct.

As to the continuity requirement, the government may show that the racketeering acts found to have been committed pose a threat of continued racketeering activity by proving: (1) that the acts are part of a long-term association that exists for criminal purposes, or (2) that they are a regular way of conducting the defendant's ongoing legitimate business, or (3) that they are a regular way of conducting or participating in an ongoing and legitimate enterprise.

When a RICO action is brought before continuity can be established, then liability depends on whether the threat of continuity is demonstrated.

However, Judge Antonin Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion that it would be absurd to say that "at least a few months of racketeering activity. . .is generally for free, as far as RICO is concerned." Therefore, if the predicate acts involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity, either implicit or explicit, a RICO pattern is established.

The RICO statute expressly states that it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the subsections of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962. The government need not prove that the defendant agreed with every other conspirator, knew all of the other conspirators, or had full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy.

All that must be shown is: (1) that the defendant agreed to commit the substantive racketeering offense through agreeing to participate in two racketeering acts; (2) that he knew the general status of the conspiracy; and (3) that he knew the conspiracy extended beyond his individual role.

AZAG.gov - Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich - Enforces the ARIZONA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (A.R.S. §44-1521 et seq.) and other state and federal consumer protection laws. They investigate complaints involving deceptive or unfair practices which occur in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services and also for the filing of 'Criminal Complaints'.

MaricopaCountyAttorney.org - Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery - “The first duty of society is justice.”

When a plaintiff marshals plausible allegations of systematic criminal acts conducted by defendants it should not have the courthouse doors closed to them on the grounds of sophistry.

There appears to be a distinctiveness combination between the executives/agents/directors and GoDaddy, Inc. which constitutes a single 'enterprise' separate and distinct from the 'person' of GoDaddy, Inc. and this combination is permissible under RICO jurisprudence.

12 and a half years incarceration in prison is a very long time...

JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!

The Management and Leadership at GoDaddy May Be Reached Through These Listed Email Addresses Which We Believe Are Accurate and Up To Date But May Be Unreliable, Contact at Your Own Risk - Additional Addresses Will Be Added Soon

As This is a Public Company All Officers and Directors Are Answerable to the Stockholders
 
Robert 'Bob' Parsons - Founder and Retired Chief Executive Officer [email protected]
Blake J Irving - Chief Executive Officer GoDaddy Inc. [email protected]
Scott R Wagner - President and COO GoDaddy Inc. [email protected]
Barb J Rechterman - Chief Marketing Officer & Chief Customer Officer [email protected]
Nima Jacobs Kelly - Executive Vice President and General Counsel [email protected]
Raymond E. Winborne Jr. - Chief Financial Officer [email protected]

This website will be a repository of information and images garnered from public records that are deemed either in the public domain or protected under The U.S Copyright Title 17 Section U.S. Code § 107 Fair Use - Under no circumstances does this website claim to be affiliated or associated with the domain register company GoDaddy

The Retired CEO and still 28% Owner Robert 'Bob' Parsons travelled to an African country, Zimbabwe to shoot and kill a helpless Elephant for fun and pleasure and then showed the video touting his manly prowess, Oh what a 'man'... 

Parsons boasted among other things...“It’s one of the most beneficial and rewarding things I do.”

What an absolutely cruel and despicable way to treat any living creature! I ponder what he may have done that was not videotaped, who knows! Total disrespect for life...

People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) - Bob Parsons, CEO of GoDaddy, is so heinous that we created an award just for him: the Scummiest CEO of the Year Award!

Open We Stand, a GoDaddy website with numerous "Partners"

---

Animal rights groups call for boycott of company after seeing graphic video.
For more, go here: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/daddy-...

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico Case No. D2000-0477
Disputed domain names "walmartcanadasucks.com", "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com", "walmartpuertorico.com" and "walmartpuertoricosucks.com".

Forbes.com Says 5 Reasons You Should Leave GoDaddy (And How)...the company was willing to engage in unethical practices...

WARNING - Don't use godaddy they are not a good comapany

THE ANTI-GODADDY REVOLUTION IS MOVING FORWARD

3 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Use GoDaddy For Your Website Needs

Consumer Affairs - Top 374 Complaints and Reviews about Godaddy.com

GoDaddy Misrepresents Web Hosting Services, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges

Former GoDaddy employee suing company, claiming "illicit wage theft scheme"...

GoDaddy Consumer Fraud Class Action Filed over Dedicated and Virtual Servers

Hollywood Reporter - Film Academy Blasts GoDaddy For Revealing Settlement Talks...