Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hang on a sec... I'm getting confused with all the stuff going on. Has it been verified that this C&D was, in fact, sent by Mr. Mandlebaum? That it is from an actual attorney? Or is it a fake that was sent by someone pretending to be Mandlebaum to troll Yak?

I'm not trying to defend or derail, I'm honestly confused as to where everything is at currently due to all the conflicting statements, theories, and accusations flying around.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The issue with a phone call is that, while instantaneous, it removes any paper trail and could result in a "he-said-she-said" over the details at a later date. For anything concerning money, contract terms, etc. its best to have it properly recorded for future reference.

'This call may be recorded for suing one's ass off purposes.'

 Breotan wrote:
Hang on a sec... I'm getting confused with all the stuff going on. Has it been verified that this C&D was, in fact, sent by Mr. Mandlebaum? That it is from an actual attorney? Or is it a fake that was sent by someone pretending to be Mandlebaum to troll Yak?

I'm not trying to defend or derail, I'm honestly confused as to where everything is at currently due to all the conflicting statements, theories, and accusations flying around.

It was not sent from an attorney.
It was *possibly* sent from a "security consulting" company based in Germany (whos address and city does not match the one on the C&D)
It makes threats of legal action and the pursuit of monetary compensation over statements NOT made by nor endorsed by Yak.

That's all that can be 100% confirmed at this point afaik.

 Breotan wrote:
Hang on a sec... I'm getting confused with all the stuff going on. Has it been verified that this C&D was, in fact, sent by Mr. Mandlebaum? That it is from an actual attorney? Or is it a fake that was sent by someone pretending to be Mandlebaum to troll Yak?

I'm not trying to defend or derail, I'm honestly confused as to where everything is at currently due to all the conflicting statements, theories, and accusations flying around.

See Rorschach's post above

Also, does anyone see where Lexicanum was proven to have reported the Lawyer's page and gotten it taken down?


Please tell me if the image isn't working, I'm at work and I had to hand write the url (also the image would be work blocked for me)

 Flippa wrote:
Can't you all band together and just file a class action lawsuit against him?

Hate it when my post goes on the last page and gets missed... unless you're ignoring me

Not working.

Anyone considred filing a friendly notice to the Texas State Attorney General with a brief rundown on some of the questionable activities that have taken place? Doesn't cost any money and at the end of the day, who knows they may take action against the company at no cost to dakkanauts.....

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The issue with a phone call is that, while instantaneous, it removes any paper trail and could result in a "he-said-she-said" over the details at a later date. For anything concerning money, contract terms, etc. its best to have it properly recorded for future reference.

'This call may be recorded for suing one's ass off purposes.'

True, but that may give an unscrupulous person a reason not to communicate by phone. In many jurisdictions you have to consent (implied or otherwise) to being recorded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

See Rorschach's post above

Also, does anyone see where Lexicanum was proven to have reported the Lawyer's page and gotten it taken down?
**snip**

Please tell me if the image isn't working, I'm at work and I had to hand write the url (also the image would be work blocked for me)

Is there any chance you could re-post the image without the last two replies shown? I don't think that those are the sorts of replies/discussions that are needed in this thread.

Do you even have to tell the guy you're recording the coversation? or can't you just say at the end.. "BTW, I recorded this, thanks. I'll send you the youtube link in a few..."

When you call him explain that you're recording the call. If they don't hang up consent is implied.

 Necros wrote:
Do you even have to tell the guy you're recording the coversation? or can't you just say at the end.. "BTW, I recorded this, thanks. I'll send you the youtube link in a few..."

Nope legally you are obligated in the U.S to inform an individual if a call or conversation is being recorded otherwise it can be construed as entrapment.

 Empchild wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Do you even have to tell the guy you're recording the coversation? or can't you just say at the end.. "BTW, I recorded this, thanks. I'll send you the youtube link in a few..."

Nope legally you are obligated in the U.S to inform an individual if a call or conversation is being recorded otherwise it can be construed as entrapment.

Not simply entrapment. Federal wiretapping laws are pretty strict on who and when a person can be recorded with and without their consent. On top of that, there are "right to privacy" issues that arise in the face of being recorded without your knowledge. A simple attempt to gather evidence can suddenly turn into you being given the perp-walk.

 Empchild wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Do you even have to tell the guy you're recording the coversation? or can't you just say at the end.. "BTW, I recorded this, thanks. I'll send you the youtube link in a few..."

Nope legally you are obligated in the U.S to inform an individual if a call or conversation is being recorded otherwise it can be construed as entrapment.

Actually the laws vary from state to state, although I don't know which state's laws would apply. In NY you only need one of the parties consent to record

 Flippa wrote:

 Flippa wrote:
Can't you all band together and just file a class action lawsuit against him?

Hate it when my post goes on the last page and gets missed... unless you're ignoring me

By my understanding, the amount of damages suffered by the victims of the alleged scamming are not large enough to qualify for class action status in the USA.

They could still pursue civil litigation on their own, if they wanted to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The issue with a phone call is that, while instantaneous, it removes any paper trail and could result in a "he-said-she-said" over the details at a later date. For anything concerning money, contract terms, etc. its best to have it properly recorded for future reference.

'This call may be recorded for suing one's ass off purposes.'

True, but that may give an unscrupulous person a reason not to communicate by phone. In many jurisdictions you have to consent (implied or otherwise) to being recorded.

Actually, in most parts of the USA, you do not need to inform the person on the other end of the phone of the recording. As long as one person knows, it's not considered wire tapping or anything. If I remember from the last time I researched the subject, only 11 states require all parties on a telephone call to know a recording is taking place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Empchild wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Do you even have to tell the guy you're recording the coversation? or can't you just say at the end.. "BTW, I recorded this, thanks. I'll send you the youtube link in a few..."

Nope legally you are obligated in the U.S to inform an individual if a call or conversation is being recorded otherwise it can be construed as entrapment.

Not simply entrapment. Federal wiretapping laws are pretty strict on who and when a person can be recorded with and without their consent. On top of that, there are "right to privacy" issues that arise in the face of being recorded without your knowledge. A simple attempt to gather evidence can suddenly turn into you being given the perp-walk.

"Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)). "

State laws are sometimes more strict. California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusettes, Montana, Nevada, New Hampsire, Pennsylvania, and Washington are the 11 states that require all people on a call to be aware of the recording.

So.. if just 1 of the parties needs to be notified, that sounds kinda silly... I mean, the guy doing the recording already knows about it, so he notified himself when his brain told him to press record. Or does he have to write himself a letter saying he's going to record a conversation with so and so?

<tinfoilhat>Or is it just worded that way so the the government can track and record everything you do without you knowing about it?</tinfoilhat>

I hate legal stuff, it hurts my brain. My GF is a contracts lawyer, when she talks about work stuff I just smile and nod and pretend I'm paying attention, when I'm really just thinking about what color my next army is gonna be

Saldiven wrote:
Actually, in most parts of the USA, you do not need to inform the person on the other end of the phone of the recording. As long as one person knows, it's not considered wire tapping or anything. If I remember from the last time I researched the subject, only 11 states require all parties on a telephone call to know a recording is taking place.

If that is true then I stand corrected. I personally would still not record without the other's consent, if only to avoid issues at a later date.

 Necros wrote:

<tinfoilhat>Or is it just worded that way so the the government can track and record everything you do without you knowing about it?</tinfoilhat&gt

Unless you're talking to the government, it doesn't work that way. Tapping would be listening without the knowledge of both parties conducting a conversation over the phone.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
Actually, in most parts of the USA, you do not need to inform the person on the other end of the phone of the recording. As long as one person knows, it's not considered wire tapping or anything. If I remember from the last time I researched the subject, only 11 states require all parties on a telephone call to know a recording is taking place.

If that is true then I stand corrected. I personally would still not record without the other's consent, if only to avoid issues at a later date.

Most big business agree with your position. It's safer that way, especially if you're a big company that deals with multiple states through a call center. It's easier to just give the disclosure about recording to everyone than to check with every phone call whether you're required to do it or not.

Better safe that sorry, right?

Interesting the RF FB page refuses to address the circumstances behind their legal representatives sudden "disappearance" from the internet.

 Necros wrote:
So.. if just 1 of the parties needs to be notified, that sounds kinda silly... I mean, the guy doing the recording already knows about it, so he notified himself when his brain told him to press record. Or does he have to write himself a letter saying he's going to record a conversation with so and so?

Think a phone bank setup like a customer support line, etc. A new Agent might not know he's being recorded unless told. Although, in actual practice, most phone queues I hear these days announce they may record for quality assurance anyway.

I've heard an interesting way to confuse a cold-caller sales pitch is to notify the caller that you're recording the call. At best, it flusters the, at worse the ones that are selling a scam might drop the call completely. In general, I don't approve of messing with telemarketers or customer support agents as it's the bosses that are making them be horrible, and ost would probably much rather have another job, but there are some that maybe deserve it.

This is somewhat off-topic, though...

guidsgjg wrote:
Interesting the RF FB page refuses to address the circumstances behind their legal representatives sudden "disappearance" from the internet.

Must have been Lex again
This legal conflict is even more hilarious than the Chapterhouse lawsuit, and that means something. Resin Forge really seems to badly copy GW lawyers.

I think the first step now would be Yakface emailing back, asking who exactly emailed and what legal expertise the author has.

In Texas, it is perfectly legal to record a phone call with the other party not being aware. You cannot however record a call that both parties are not aware (a spouse and a third party for example). He is located in Texas so chances are any calls will be recorded.

Interesting the RF FB page refuses to address the circumstances behind their legal representatives sudden "disappearance" from the internet.

Must have been Lex again

The Lex is for RF what Matt Ward is for GW (anti)fanbois. Just put everything on it. We already stated clearly what we did.

And just for the record: very soon he will probably say that the Lex broke into his bank accounts and cybercriminally stole all the money of his clients. And a Lex-Ninja gang broke into his office/ workshop/ house and stole or destroyed all models and conversions. I wish to have this recorded as proof that we not only have the power to take down any web page in minutes but that we also possess the power or being able to predict the future.

@ Inquisitor S.

Too funny =). The fact that this company is officially pointing to the lexicanum facebook page as to why their legal representation can not be reached is laughable. No self respecting business would ever publish a statement like this, and that fact alone has shot their credibility in my eyes to nothing.

Another quick question for Yak regarding the C&D ..

It states "within 2 days" for compliance. Was this emailed? If so, it can't be taken seriously. Any C&D needs to be mailed, registered mail at that, to the person named, fwiw.

" Community and the posts as such where not written by yourself, however the posts are defamatory and causes "

What kind of lawyer spells where wrong? Their whole field is made or broken on specific wording.

I've taken writing classes on this kind of thing and it doesn't appear all that professional.

Nam wrote:
" Community and the posts as such where not written by yourself, however the posts are defamatory and causes "

What kind of lawyer spells where wrong? Their whole field is made or broken on specific wording.

None will. It's already been shown it was not sent by a lawyer anyway.

I don't know if this was brought up before so sorry if I missed it. Not sure about Germany but it is a crime in the US to represent oneself as an attorney and not actually be one, barratry is the term for it.

 agnosto wrote:
I don't know if this was brought up before so sorry if I missed it. Not sure about Germany but it is a crime in the US to represent oneself as an attorney and not actually be one, barratry is the term for it.

Yep, brought up and shown that the person signed on the letter is not a lawyer. Then again, it does not state they are "legal" representation either (though RF claims they are, supposedly)

Rorschach9 wrote:

Perfections wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Perfections wrote:
The company here us just a security consulting company. The signer is the CEO of that company. According to current law, there it's no legal action that may be taken by any sane lawyer.

If you need help in court, I'll do it for free.

Which company is a security consulting company? And legal action against who? cryptic reply is cryptic.

The company here putting up the C&D.
Any legal action taken against yak.
And britcons IS a real security consulting company based in Germany.

Indeed Britcons is a security consulting company (http://infoguys.com/directory/ListingDisplayPrint.aspx?lid=3104) that is not listed at the address listed in the C&D however (nor can that address even be found with google maps). They are not a law firm. True, anyone can send a cease and desist letter, however, sending one does not necessarily mean you have adequately, or even legally asserted or protected your own rights. Sending a threatening cease and desist letter under false pretenses, or for malicious reasons, could even be a crime that exposes you to potential counter legal action. Before accusing someone of breaking the law and demanding action, especially if you are demanding payment, you should consult an attorney.

I don't believe there can be any legal action taken against Yak either, especially as the offending thread has been removed already (when confirmation of the intend of that thread has been given simply by receiving the C&D).

Infoguys allows anyone to make an account and a listing for free.

The Britcons listing is a free one. The webpage it contains no longer exists, having disappeared earlier today after Mandelbaum was confirmed as proprietor of Resin Forge by his C&D sent from Britcons.

The address given given by Britcons in Infoguys is false. That is, it doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Anyone know what Resin Forge's direct e-mail address is?

Daniel Mandelbaum owes me some money, and I'd like to submit an invoice to him/them.

Thanks!

Just post it on their FaceBook page.