WEBCAPADES - Eroticy Fraud reports - FURTHER INFO - First major public disclosure CLEARWATER Florida

What you are about to read is testimony of my experience with WebCapades (the owners of Eroticy.com) and their war with us (NX2000.net).

NX2000 (Network X) provides networking, database and infrastructure support for open-source communities and services. We have databases for anti-SPAM utilities, hosting spaces for open source projects and FTP/bittorent space for open source distribution. We do not have any association with the adult industry or sites like Eroticy.com.

In 2002, we were one-third owners of a company called Koolkam Industries. Koolkam Industries provided webcam software for a small Canadian dating site called Casualkiss.com. Now back then, I did not know the owners of Casual Kiss or anything about it. This war with WebCapades actually introduced me to the owner of Casualkiss.com. This introduction came in a rather unorthodox method in as much as the owner of Casualkiss was named as a co-defendant along with myself in a law suit filed with the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case # 8:02-CV-1958-T-23GW, alleging that myself and the owner of Casualkiss conspired to damage Eroticy.com. They did not expect a response to this case and they were quite surprised when I filed a defence. A common tactic with American litigation is to initiate litigation and drop the case before discoveries, thus sticking the defendants with a huge legal bill. Eroticy.com and its principal Scott Mitchell, made this tenuous connection through the loose affiliation I had with Koolkam Industries. As predicted, Eroticy dropped their case. In April of that year, Spammer Eddie Marin launched a massive legal campaign against every anti-SPAM organization on the Internet under the guise of EMarketersAmerica.org.

On the exact same day that EmarketersAmerica.org (Eddie Marin) launched their legal campaign, Scott Mitchell and WebCapades launched an action in Canada (WebCapades V. Duncan, Court File 03-CV-246024 CM2) at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Attached to this claim was a motion seeking an Interlocutory Injunction preventing me from publishing the information I had uncovered whilst investigating their previous claim against me, most of which is repeated in this forum.

I pause here to clear up a few facts and to provide some other juicy tidbits of information. During the American action a former employee of WebCapades contacted me, and the information they provided was quite revealing. First and foremost there is not, and never has been, a Lisa Martin at WebCapades. This former employee gave me internal e-mails where they repeatedly joked about how Lisa responded by saying, or I received this complaint from the Lisa account. Meanwhile, Eroticy's attack on Casualkiss was in full swing. Fully half the profiles on this legitimate dating site were SPAMMING for Eroticy. It was then that I offered my assistance to the owner of Casualkiss. I even acquired a 1% ownership so I was in a position to act on their behalf. After deploying some anti-SPAM measures I drew up an undertaking and submitted it to WebCapades' Canadian counsel binding Eroticy.com to a $1,000 enforcement/removal fee per SPAM profile. Suddenly the SPAM profiles disappeared. To this day, notice of that enforcement policy exists in the CasualKiss terms of use.

Continuing on, Eroticy.com lost their Interlocutory Injunction motion against me. Interlocutory Injunctions are one of the most expensive legal procedures to defend. You'd be hard-pressed to find a lawyer in Toronto that would not require a $30,000 retainer. What they didn't expect was that I could defend it myself. I defended it very well. And that's when WebCapades got burned. You see, in Canada you need the defendant's PERMISSION to drop a lawsuit. I won't give it to them. I'm forcing them to trial. As a method of intimidation they decided to enjoin my wife in the suit.

Unfortunately they had dug themselves into such a hole with contradictions that they did not dare expose themselves to cross-examination. They subsequently withdrew that motion and went after my wife separately in Case # 04CV-266489 CM3, also at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In this claim they make absolutely ridiculous allegations such as attempting to lure Eroticy customers to our site. I'm no marketing expert but I'm pretty sure that members of Eroticy.com are not interested in our personal site, which contains programming tips and social commentary.

In the Interlocutory Motion in my case, they alleged that along with defaming them I, hacked their site and destroyed their user database, and deleted a profile we created to lure customers away. They also stated that the damage was irreparable and the data could not be recovered. Then In a supplementary motion they introduced as evidence this profile that had allegedly be destroyed and could not be recovered. This glaring contradiction was one of the many reasons they didn't wish to be cross-examined. One of the rules on our personal site was that all connected users have their IP address listed in the right column of the site. This is normally done for the user's protection and for ours because we receive numerous death threats yearly for our social commentary. The site in question no longer exists and has been consolidated into Roguesupport.com, and essentially carries the same mandate as its predecessor.

Mr. Mitchell used this information to write a poorly fabricated log written in notepad (snicker) associating my wife with this fictitious hacking. With each legal action in their campaign, their claims become more and more grandiose. All this time we asked ourselves, Why? Why are they throwing some much money towards shutting us up? Over several years we've had many theories but the revealing occurrence happened when I submitted a verbatim search for WebCapades, in an Affidavit. At the time both on the UseNet and on the Web, most of the returns were regarding their spamming activities. Recently Mr. Mitchell has discovered blog-spamming. This is a method by which he signs up to a Web Log and posts nonsensical articles mentioning the word, WebCapades fifty or sixty times.

Again, another effort to cover up their reputation. Their motivation recently became obvious as a search results will now return huge numbers of reports indicating that an over-the-counter bulletin board company, called CGI HOLDING CORPORATION, has purchased WebCapades. It is clear that Mr. Mitchell has investigated who I am and my anti-fraud activities in the past. I have exposed and prosecuted and shut-down several fraudulent over-the-counter fraud companies. These two are notable in as much as they also had public announcements implying that huge amounts of cash were paid for these purchases of private companies.

WebCapades is no different and they are bound by law to disclose the exact nature of the transaction. Further information on how to obtain information pertaining to the nature of this transaction is available at www.sec.gov. I think you will find it amusing when you see just how much real cash was transferred. I attempted to contact the owner of CGI Holdings by telephone and of course, the call simply goes to a cellular phone. Their motivations on silencing me are clear is going to have details of all upcoming trials including transcripts. All information is verifiable, and at the conclusion of the trial the entire record will be available for download and of course, on-linewe can't deprive the search engines. Searching for WebCapades V. Duncan will also produce some very interesting information. You may contact me via the information provided

So far, Scott Mitchell has evaded attending ANY court action. He is now being forced to attend mediation on October 28, 2004. We'll keep you posted as to whether he actually shows.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I welcome questions or comments.

Scott
Toronto, Ontario
Canada

sorry, allowing you to give a competitors name would instigate others to just file against their competition, to only come back later to suggest their company your comments on this policy are welcome! CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.