July 7th 2008: Mail from my Provider to dotasia:
To: Edmon Chung <e d m o n @ r e g i s t r y . a s i a>
Date: 07.07.2008, 09:20:00
Subject: RE: Auction rescheduling / Auction platform change
> 2 more things:
> We have received no evidence that any bidder have
> had any information about the maximum bid of another
> bidder. As mentioned, we have conflict of interest
> policies in place to ensure that these type of information is
> kept confidential.
I think, you do not want to understand the problem: If they have did any manipulations? That is not the point! Nobody else than Mr. Robert Hall and Mr. Schreier are able to know all these details actualy. We are not able to look on their computers and servers. We are not able to make an indeep-investigation in their systems, selecting on their databases and scan their internal emails, memos and so else. ...........
Mr. Robert Hall and Mr. Schreier (in their function as a bidder) have had possibilities, which other bidders did not have. They knew (in their function as the auctioneer) the maximum bids of all bidders, they have had manipulating possibilities in the process of notification of auctions and bids to the bidders.... That is unfair, and in my point of view it is a criminal act.
I think it is a great idea of Mr. Rucker to involve the MOFCOM, we will see, what they think about this kind of father-to-son-auctions.
> Is there any way a person can win an auction over you
> unless s/he places a bid higher than your maximum bid?
> If the answer is no, then my argument stands. I.e. there
> is no way anyone can gain an advantage.
The answer is absolutly clear: YES.
With the position of Mr.Schreier and Mr.Hall as bidders (Drake) and auctioneer (pool) in one involved person, they have had possiblities which others did not have. It is not only that they probably have seen the maximum bids. This is only one of their advantages (and this advantage is actualy in the focus of our customer, because it is the one everybody can understand best). Of course there are other ways to manipulate auctions and get advantages. For example they can delay or drop important auction-mails, they can produce effects which seems to be bugs but which are artificially to get advantages and so else. I want not say that they did so, but I want to say, that they have the technical knowhow and they were able to do this. Other bidders were not able to work and bid on this level.
And there are some details which still need explanation, which are going in this direction. For example: The auctions were absolutly fast interrupted - they said there was bid-rigging (Mr. Schreier repeated this in a public discussion board). Why they are lying and telling this false story of "bid-rigging" ?
Second example: Our customer get only snippy reactions as he asked for the reason why the auctions are interrupted. Withholding support und information is also a way to get an advantage around an auction. They can use this to get an advantage - and for our customer it seems that they have made use of this.
There are other indications and other possiblities what you as platform-provider can do to get advantages. We can not verify all of them, because we have no access to the auction systems. This is the reason why an auctioneer naturally is not allowed to bid on his own plattform - and this is the reason why Mr. Hall and Mr. Scheier created and used their dummy companies starting from barbardos and why they are lied about their ownership about: To hide their insider trading, to hide their activities.
Drake and the other dummy companies have to be disqualified. If you can not decide to do so, we both have to wait until local authorities or courts will make a legally binding decision. Our customer will initiate the necessary procedures within the next hours.
> In any case, I do not understand how using a separate provider
> is still not possible to address your client's concern.
Because Drake is in this auction, too. And in our point of view the close relationship between pool and drake is insider trading and auction tampering. And read your own rules, what to do with these kind of bidders.
By the way, Mr.Schreier and his lawyer has said, that their is no ownership or ownership interests between pool and drake. With the new documents our customer Mr. Rucker has proofed, that the chairman of pool Mr Robert Hall is the directos of drake. Why did Mr Schreier lied about? Seems that dotasia has no problem with this lies.
Our customer Mr Rucker has told me, that there is not any step forward, nor with dotasia, nor with Mr Schreier or Mr Hall. He realy tried to get in contact with both, without any reaction. The only reaction was some threats from Schreiers lawyers. Mr Rucker is strong willed to publish all his information and he actual prepares dossiers for the international press (including CNN and some else), the MOFCOM, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the dotasia members and board of directors and the community.