LosMitPro Has the Floor...

TO ALL POTENTIAL BUYERS OF IAFF BLOG
Please take notice that any transfer of the IAmFacingForeclosure.com domain name, is subject reversal under California law. Under stipulated settlement pursuant to California law, Casey Serin DOES NOT have sale rights. Therefore should money exchange between you and Casey Serin for a sale of said domain, such a sale is subject to reversal by court order.
_____________________________

AN OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE SALE OF IAFF.com:
I have strong reason to believe Casey Serin is attempting to sell his blog, IAmFacingForeclosure.com, to gain money to flee criminal prosecution. Therefore, please bear with the length of this post (and I DO mean itís a long one) while I explain the issues and ramifications for aiding in this probable act.

Casey and I entered into a stipulated Settlement Agreement concerning litigation, at Casey's request. Regardless as to how you may perceive the merits of my civil complaint I can assure you of one thing, had my claims no merit (the lawsuit being frivolous) Judge Long who Casey and I went before in Chambers (7-10-07) would not have allowed the case to move to OSC. Plain and simple! Because in California a case presented for TRO (Temporary Restraining Oder) before OSC (Order to Show Cause) hearing, would naturally have its merits tested by the TRO reviewing court. So my case DOES indeed have grounds.

Just before the in-Chambers hearing last Tuesday, Casey responded to my REQUIRED offer to meet and confer to settle the dispute. At that time, outside presence of the court, Casey expressed that his single and absolute desire was to demonstrate to Galina his love for her by selling the blog and devoting all proceeds to pay her credit card debts. I felt (and still feel) that was an admirable and honorable thing, even if now disingenuous in light of Casey's most recent actions.

Casey also GAVE me rights to his book and contract with Marty, under the premise that the work was not to be published and that I was to hold the intellectual property (IP) rights in trust for 2-years (during his purported W-2 work stint). At some later date I was to receive a small profit for the sale of such rights, and the contract, which Casey & I left for determination at some later date. I agreed and accepted those rights under those conditions, and did so pursuant to Civil Code ß954 (and Favello vs. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n., 1938 -- supporting case law).

Assignment of IP rights and the PageDaddy contract are thus effective, irrespective non-legal opinion to the contrary... This was an express Casey desire. The contract between Casey and Marty has no assignment restriction, therefore the contract and associated rights are transferable. And I'll not argue with wanna-be lawyers about that, case law and IP counsel concur.

The elements of these facts are memorialized in our Settlement Agreement, a document that is subject to court review. I could therefore NOT "screw" (take advantage of) Casey even if that were my intent, which it was not. I was overly fair in our settlement dealings as I am confident the court will sustain.

The Settlement Agreement stipulates that express "sale rights" to IAFF are mine; in that, I have right to approve, disapprove, seek out and engage the domain sale. Casey has no such rights! I engaged this provision because I did not want to allow Casey any wiggle-room to capture funds for himself, converting the substance of our settlement terms.

As many know Casey has been SHOPPING the domain sale, which is outside the scope and authority of what we agreed by the Settlement Agreement & Release. I have not been involved with those aspects as is appropriate under the court stipulations. I have advised him of this many times in the last few days, especially Friday when we spoke at length.

On Friday (7-13-07) Casey made multiple representations as to changing the terms of the effective and executed Settlement Agreement. Essentially he wanted and suggested a restructuring of the settlement terms to prevent money from the IAFF sale to pay his wife's (Galina) credit cards, contrary to what he originally stipulated. This thwarts a primary motivation for my settling the case, believing that IAFF would be no more and that some good would derive from its sale funds -- Galina's debts primarily. I could have, and some say should have, sought much more for myself.

Casey's motivation for wanting a change of terms was to provide funding for his criminal defense, which, according to Casey's plan would not be more than several thousand dollars. Interview representation and negotiations being far less expensive than a full blown defense and trial prep, as Casey purported to me he would not seek jury determinations.

Normally I would consider this a reasonable consideration had it not been for the fact Casey and I discussed these factors in detail, after the Tuesday hearing (over lunch). He concluded that defense funds could be obtained elsewhere, NOT FROM THE SALE OF THE BLOG, and that there was no need to subtract from money devoted toward his Galina goal (via the sale of IAFF). Yet in a recent IAFF post, Casey purports that one of his goals by selling IAFF was to gain a defense counsel retainer. LIE! This was not stipulated, but left out of our settlement by Casey's own request!!!!

Also on Friday Duane LaGate stepped up to buy the IAFF domain, and he and I negotiated terms with Casey's involvement. Duane's offer was essentially the proximate sum of $31,572.50. This entailed $20,000 up-front and 50% of back end profits generated by a new IAFF until Galina's debts were paid in full, and my factual costs to date of $1572.50. It was exactly the deal Casey wanted, it was the deal Casey purported to me outside of court, it is the deal he agreed to by stipulation after thorough review of the terms.

My conversation with Casey on Friday ended abruptly, when I could no longer stand his whiny pleadings to "leave family out of our dealings" and reset the settlement terms. I became discusted with his blatant nonsensical justifications, childish whimpers and manipulations of fact. I hung-up on him, but not before promising I would see that he abided by this contract (the Settlement Agreement) -- if only this one contract, ever!

Still on Friday Duane & I received emails from Casey (which I'd show you were they not material evidence) and other information that indicated Serin was shopping the deal Duane had proposed after Casey's acceptance, and following my explicit instructions to Casey Thursday not to do so (concerning ANY purchase offers -- not just Duane's). The shopping game was on, yet Duane graciously gave Casey until 12:00 noon Saturday (yesterday) to finally commit to his offer or accept higher offers. Duane even extended a willingness to help Casey negotiate for more money with the phantom ìother buyerî to which Casey declined.

Before concluding business on Friday, I opened escrow pursuant to the Settlement Agreement terms... Just as Casey agreed in writing, and had effectively purported to the court.

Early Saturday morning both Duane & I received another email from Casey, stating that he'd reconsidered and wanted to do the honorable thing. He would accept Duane's deal and wanted us to move forward. His email even spoke of a $50,000 offer he would refuse, to do the right thing by his prior commitment to Duane.

Although Casey did in fact inform me that he would be unavailable for "a few hours" his email also expressly indicated that the domain transfer was initiated, had already begun, pursuant to terms agreed. (Duane was to transfer funds on Monday into escrow.) Now hear what I've stated! Casey expressly specified in writing to me, that the transfer had already started. Yet his most recent posts on IAFF purport that he had not started the transfer, because he had a 'meeting" to attend.

Yes it is true I threatened Casey with more legal action. Why?? Because on Friday when we spoke, Casey indicated that one purported IAFF buyer was prepared to render him $35,000 CASH, and would bring this sum with him during a purported meeting set for today (Sunday). I told Casey he could not accept the cash, that it had to be placed in escrow (express settlement terms), to which I was told in affect; it was his blog, and he could accept money for it no matter what I said.

Apparently Casey thought my mention of court involvement was unreasonable, but considering..? I mean, really, Casey with $35 grand in his hot hands is like a drunk in a distillery; the two don't jive.

Moving on...

As of this morning Casey has been issued effective notice of my pending actions. Under California law a motion under C.C.P. ß664.6 will take control of these issues from both Casey AND myself, and put them before the court to administrate. This is all I seek to do at this time; place the Settlement Agreement before the court and have a judge supervise its execution. Casey doesnít want this, he wants me to stop... Wonder why?

Moreover, GoDaddy.com's Legal Department has been issued effective notice of restraint in correlation to California's Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA), Civil Code ß3439, inclusive. Should the IAFF domain be transferred now, outside the scope and view of the court? Such a sale is subject to reversal, regardless how much money Casey was paid by that buyer... But do you think that matters to Casey?

This explains why I have periodically posted warnings to potential IAFF buyers on various boards. If the new buyer pays anything, their money is as good as gone without consent of the court.

These are the elemental facts as I shall swear to them under penalty of perjury. I disclose this information to you, not out of disrespect for the court; but because any potential IAFF buyer should be well aware of what they are getting into, should a sale transpire outside the courtís supervision. I have no other way of alerting such a party, other than providing this information openly.

Judge me harshly if you choose, but ask yourself one simple question before doing so... If my intent was to take advantage of Mr. Serin, why then would I place these matters before the court where my own conduct comes under scrutiny, in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement Casey and I signed?

...Would one with something to hide do this?

Thank you for you time and consideration.

~Mark
LossMitPro
.
.
TO ALL POTENTIAL BUYERS OF IAFF BLOG
Please take notice that any transfer of the IAmFacingForeclosure.com domain name, is subject reversal under California law. Under stipulated settlement pursuant to California law, Casey Serin DOES NOT have sale rights. Therefore should money exchange between you and Casey Serin for a sale of said domain, such a sale is subject to reversal by court order.
----

Thank you Mark. Let the stunned audience try to defend Casey now.