DRS D00028377
- Thread starter GreyWing
- Start date
Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 98
- Reaction score
- 69
- Trophy points
- 19
I wouldn't touch a McDonald's regardless of the price but what the hell is that? Squid?
Well if you haven't seen it, stop making things up that I backed down, because to have backed down would have required you to have seen what I first wrote.
Post what I said in that admission and let's see - you have my permission. My recollection probably would be that I didn't think you had anything to do with that statement by Toth. I doubt I would have said that you didn't know, because I wouldn't have had that info.
It was when discussing it with EMM legal that it was discovered that I first called Toth at say 16:00, and I told him that GT wasn't in charge anymore and couldn't do anything. He then hangs up, rings you, I then speak to him again 45-60 minutes later and he says that they may not have signed it off and that you knew the person dealing with it. That is why it went from you probably not knowing of his statement, to me saying I don't have any information - because you and Toth spoke - and I don't know what you spoke about. Is it possible that you cooked it up between you, yes possible - do I think that's probable, no I don't, but I can't say, so I don't.
Jim, are you saying I should have not trusted Toth's statement? Well here's a thing, you take it up with him why he said it. The thing is, no matter what way you play this, you know he lied and you have completed 3 witness statements to various places since and you've washed over it - you know full well why you have done that. If you genuinely believed what you are saying, you would have explained your points to the DRS panel, or the IPO. Instead you just breeze past it.
As for not mentioning it to you that they'd gone out of business - Toth said he'd ring you for your advice the day before, and also are you being bloody thick on purpose - it was in the good dam emails I sent you that morning. The ones you claim went to spam but you some how magically you got the guys phone number from. It was after you received those that you came up with the proposals, so don't try and twist this - the email you had says this.
"On 19/01/2023 12:25, J**** wrote:
Commercial in confidence
Hi Graeme,
Unfortunately, I am not aware if / who fees may be paid to. The Company has been dissolved and we no longer
act as administrators.
All the best.
Kind regards
J****"
Just stop misleading people for goodness sake. You would never take this to court, you'd be absolutely smashed on Cross examination. I honestly don't know if you are lying or you are genuinely clueless, you constantly file late, even filing your own work after deadlines in the IPO, how many times is it now that they have sent it back as not being up to standard - about 4? Granted I have had failings myself when I tried to do it in house. As a Solicitor, one specialising in IP matters, you are a legal shambles.
You will not file it with my consent. I neither gave my consent or objected because you are irrelevant. If you've lied to them and gave my consent, I suggest you write to them immediately and update them.
This is a consistent pattern with you that I found, if you don't object out of something, you take it as being allowed, that's not the same thing. It's why you get yourself into the messes that you do. I said I can't stop you sending anything you want, as in I can't watch over you all day like a little toddler.
I'll contact Nominet tomorrow and discuss it with them. I do hope you haven't lied to them, that would be most unfortunate.
Last edited:
haha Breakfast, back then £5.00 on breakfast items would have fed half of Barnsley. I don't think I have been in McDonalds for about 2-3 years, shame as I used to like the egg McMuffin's.
Yeah thats squid, do you like sea fish?
The last oral hearings I asked for cost £20 each.
Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 98
- Reaction score
- 69
- Trophy points
- 19
Sea bass or a prawn cocktail is as adventurous as I get.
Jim Davies
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2025
- Posts
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 3
For a moment I thought they were slugs.
Jim Davies
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2025
- Posts
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 3
But not cross-examination. You didn't want that, did you Graeme. If you really wanted to raise questions like the ones in these posts, you should have wanted the power for witnesses to be questioned. I wonder why you objected to it.
Last edited:
Jim Davies
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2025
- Posts
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 3
You want cross-examination. Until there's a real chance of cross-examination. Then you oppose it. Why was that? And why pretend you want it when you're playing to the crowd here.
And there we get to the truth. You knew who the registrant was. You were trying to buy it from them for 3 years. You even say that in the extract of the SRA complaint you posted on here. So it turns out it hadn't slipped your mind after all.
But you don't want the panel to see that. And when you get the chance to show them the evidence, you panic and do a u-turn.
I was too busy living my life last night to read whatever you were going to post here. So don't worry, nothing was sent to Nominet yesterday, either with or without your consent. But we all got to see your reaction when you were worried that I had.
haha Jim you are nutz. I objected because I had no knowledge that you were applying for a Class 35 trademark - as evidenced by the call I gave you. You didn't tell the truth to the IPO and you still haven't corrected it now that you have the recording, you are inherently a dishonest person. The High Court Judge spotted it. The trademark objection is on the fact that you applied for the Class 35, what on earth can I add to it if I didn't know you were applying?
You told the IPO that you wanted to cross examine me ask me why I resigned my shares 6 months later - haha - that's the best question you had. The IPO laughed at you and told you that's irrelevant to why you applied for a Class 35 trademark.
If you want to cross examine me, go to Court.
hahaha, you are losing the plot pal. For your information, they already have this in one of my NSS's
. All of a sudden, very strange how you no longer need my logins to add a NSS, something you had been claiming for for 3 years. As I said, dishonest is something that follows you about.Why don't you take some advice, concentrate on your own admin. You've had 3 different strike off's notices for Quick Credit limited, you got Jim Davies Solicitors Ltd struck off at Companies House, you got Name Magnet Ltd a strike off notice - and you want to do other people's legal work?
You are a disaster
Hook
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 259
- Reaction score
- 187
- Trophy points
- 44
Is your wife's boyfriend also your mums boyfriend?
@GreyWing, @Jim Davies
I suspect I'm not alone in being unable to make head nor tail of this imbroglio, and I'm not even sure whether the pair of you are trying to convince the forum that it's you who is telling the truth and the other who is lying, or just arguing amongst yourselves for the sake of it.
If it's the former I suggest you both post a comprehensive timeline of your version of events, and then people can make their own mind up.
However, one thing you do seem to agree on is that one or both of you approached Grant Thornton before the administration was complete with a view to buying the domain name quickquid.co.uk for a not inconsiderable sum, but for whatever reason they didn't sell it and @GreyWing ended up with it for the cost of a summary DRS.
If so, this reflects very badly on Grant Thornton.
Happy Easter everyone.
I suspect I'm not alone in being unable to make head nor tail of this imbroglio, and I'm not even sure whether the pair of you are trying to convince the forum that it's you who is telling the truth and the other who is lying, or just arguing amongst yourselves for the sake of it.
If it's the former I suggest you both post a comprehensive timeline of your version of events, and then people can make their own mind up.
However, one thing you do seem to agree on is that one or both of you approached Grant Thornton before the administration was complete with a view to buying the domain name quickquid.co.uk for a not inconsiderable sum, but for whatever reason they didn't sell it and @GreyWing ended up with it for the cost of a summary DRS.
If so, this reflects very badly on Grant Thornton.
Happy Easter everyone.
I'll do it later when I get a bit of time. I'll also upload their two DRS particulars so you can all see the differences from before and after they realised I had call recordings.
Possibly, possibly not. The .co.uk was different, it may not technicality have been with them. To be sure you'd really need to be an expert in Corporate law. I don't know another example of a US company registered in England going into admin with the US company still being active and not in admin. The .uk is a different set of circumstances from the .co.uk.
Sorry for the delay. I've only just got a bit of free time to work on this one. I wanted to do it properly. Forgive any grammar mistakes, I don't want to throw it through AI to change anything incase it alters it in ways I don't catch.
This is a very brief timeline of events.
16/01/23, GW contacts Jim Davies for a price on some work in putting together a DRS. Discuss some options, price given. Shortly after the call I text back and cancel it, JD replies OK.
20/01/23, I call Michael Toth and discuss trying to buy it 50/50. First time MT hears of QQ in this context. Days after, becomes apparent buying it is not possible - path ends.
24/02/23 GW completes his own DRS, submits it to Nominet. No outside party involved.
06/03/23 - Some calls between GW and MT. Brief discussion on the QQ thing. MT suggests speaking to JD, MT ends call and calls JD. 45-60 minutes later, MT calls back and says that JD knows the person dealing with it at Grant Thornton. I say something along the lines of it won't do any good as they've closed it, MT Says that's what they will have told me. Hinting that it isn't closed there yet.
07/03/23 Flurry of emails between us in the morning, I give them all the contacts I have had with GT, later JD emails back and says there are some things he can do to help. Contact GT and try to buy them. Second he will try to amend if needed and if able he will alter my existing DRS.
Both want thirds, Toth will chip in with cash if JD can get GT to sell them TM's and Domains. I agree, what they are bringing in knowing the person there is not something I can do on my own.
03/04/23 Nothing happened until this point when the fee needed to be paid today. Despite being given the existing DRS on the 07/03/23, appears first time JD has read it. JD says that the existing DRS is bad, states "Do not pay the fee". I tell him the deadline is that day, I need to call them by close of business to pay over the phone. Don't pay the fee as it will advance the DRS to the expert. JD wants to swap the DRS, withdraw and resubmit with a new one.
Around 17:00, getting close to the close of business, I ignore JD's advice, call Nom and pay the fee.
Around 21:00 - JD messages and says he hasn't had time to speak to Nom, suggests paying fee
. I would have basically lost my DRS at this point if I'd listened to him. Good job I already paid it.04/04/23 - I call Nom and ask when a decision is due, they say it's gone to the expert and decision could be back any day.
I call JD and MT, All agree this NS needs to go in asap.
Now knowing it's going to the Expert, opportunity now lost to alter the DRS - full attention turns to doing a Non Standard Submission with a lot of evidence that I had left out. These included emails from the Financial Ombudsman service, debt collection companies confusing Quick Loans with Quick Quid.
05/05/23 called FOS in the morning at 09:00, unfortunately they don't keep old records on files so we go with what we have. At one point there may have been over 600-800 complaints lodged with the FOS confusing us with QQ between 2017-2023, 2019 was probably the height. Either way, FOS say they've gone at this point.
10:00:00 JD what's apps back saying that's fine, we'll go with what we have.
06/04/23 I get an email from Nom saying that I had been successful, pending an appeal it's all done. I call JD and MT, tell them the good news and say lets crack on.
In my head, I believe JD has submitted these NSS's to Nominet like he said he had. I believe Jim submitting the extra evidence has won it as I only submitted about 10 examples of confusion in mine from February.
26/04/23 Appeal window ends, name gets transferred to Quick Loans Ltd
03/05/23 Discussions about joining in a partnership with some very experienced members of the domain community with tonnes of experience in the payday lending world. JD and MT say no.
04/05/23 Pressure starts to be put on to transfer the name to NewCo belonging to GW/MT/JD - this was never the plan. GW wanted to speak to accountant and get advice on best way to do it. I say nothing's happening until after my accountant is back on Tuesday.
05/05/23 Even though I tell them that it's going nowhere. JD is worried that I may sell it to the third party they'd turned down few days earlier. JD starts a DRS against me at Nominet - doesn't tell me. In don't find out about this for weeks.
09/05/23 My accountant gets back to me, spots some odd things in what has gone on and gives me some questions to ask. I ask JD if he ever did know anyone at GT, and I note that the Nom expert never made any mention of the NSS in his summary, can he just confirm that he did it.
JD replied and this is when I knew I was dealing with someone that was not of an honest nature.
Said that the DRS was Michael's idea all along.
JD said that he suggested in the 16th of Jan 23 call that confusion between QuickLoans.co.uk and QuickQuid was his idea - errrrrhhhnm, yes because when I called on the 16th of January, my initial idea was writing to Nominet and suggesting confusion between hgv.co.uk and QuickQuid.co.uk. I'd so fecking glad he saved the day on that. By the way, at the 40s mark of the call JD has full access to, it clearly details me telling him what the basis for a complaint is, he's just making it up again.
Then he blamed me for completing the DRS early on Feb 24, I didn't tell him I was going to do it. Again makes no bloody sense, the last day before QQ entered the 5 day drop cycle was maybe the 26th of Feb - 2 days later - if his version was true, it would have dropped before he even got round to it - it's crazy.
Then he blames me for not giving him the login details so he could submitted these Non Standard Submissions - JD has been a solicitor for years, he knows full well you don't need log in details to submit a NSS. He's blatantly not telling the truth, thinking people are idiots. Nominet have since confirmed in writing that it is submitted by email and not through a portal. As JD was going to do a few posts ago when he made up the fact that I gave him consent.
He said I didn't send him the evidence on the 5th of April - More BS. His whatsapp says otherwise, emails say otherwise.
Then he blames it on the expert doing it early so he get can off for easter.
So basically, he didn't know anyone at GT, never altered the DRS or added a Non Standard Submission but both of them still want their thirds for doing nothing and misrepresenting themselves. JD's only real grasp at anything is that he thinks because he had that call with me on the 16th of Jan, he deserves his third. JD wasn't the only person I phoned for a price that week - so I guess I must owe them all a third.
What they didn't know when the filed their DRS against me is that I had all the calls recorded and could disprove their dishonesty. If I hadn't, it would have been their two words against mine. JD says that some of the chronology and things are incorrect, but nothing hinges on them. Doesn't hinge on them because I caught them both and put the record straight.
I could go on and on and on about these two and the evidence I have on them. They both blame each other and play dumb that the other one said it, and nothing to do with them individually. Even in this thread, JD tries to play dumb with whatever Michael may or not have said - he has the call, I gave it to him - he knows full well what was said.
JD sending emails to try and get a payout from Nominet for representing my Mrs and me on NoCreditCheckLoans.co.uk - "for his clients" then when asked by the SRA if I was ever his client, he says no - SRA say all is good, jog on. Then isn't that a whole other issue of telling Nom untruths to try and get money out of them? But anyway, he revealed my confidential to the IPO, so if you are ever a client of his (I and my mrs were clients, his words), be careful as he is not confidential.
But maybe it's just me with issues. That wouldn't explain why Nominet's independent Non Exec Direct couldn't pass him through screening. It wouldn't explain why Setfords Law couldn't onboard him, it wouldn't explain why he isn't allowed at Nominet in person events anymore.
If JD waives his defamation rights, I'll post what the top top Barristers wrote about both their conducts in this matter. I doubt he will. This wouldn't be protected by Honest Opinion, so I can't post it myself.
I'm going to hold off posting JD and MT's DRS complaints to Nominet. They mention other people and I don't want this to expand this disagreement outwards to other people on here who aren't aware they are included. JD and MT are welcome to.
My only regret is that I didn't notice until late last year that they were both individually involved in the DRS against me that locked the name for 4-5 months and cost me a lot of money. If I had noticed I would have sued them individually (their company has no assets). Once I found out, I held off because the SRA stuff was ongoing. Now that's over, maybe it's time to look at that again.
I have blogged countless times about all this, posted witness statements in 4-5 rounds of evidence. If I ever said one thing that I have contradicted in 3 years, feel free to flag it up.
Anyway - Avoid.com