[ikeboy]

> They insisted I never talk to any LEO

Nothing wrong with this ...

>PTR records, Enabling Spam

Doesn't say why that's illegal. At best it says they had customers that broke the law.

>Often both the CEO and Vice President would talk openly about how one of our clients was violating the TOS of several companies.

Not criminal even for the client, at least assuming the HiQ v Linkedin case is upheld. And not illegal for the company. Maybe civil liability under tortious interference? Pretty high bar there, though. And that's all assuming there's an actual ToS - the one example given is of Google search results. Manipulating your own website in the hopes Google treats it favorably can't be seen as violating any agreed ToS.

The stuff Micfo was accused of in court, and the stuff OP is claiming are criminal acts, are disjoint.

[ghostbrainalpha]

>At best it says they had customers that broke the law.

Did you see the part at the top where the CEO admitted to being all of those "customers"? They were playing a shell game, and while this guy didn't do the criminal activities he definitely was working for the "legitimate front end" of a larger criminal organization.

[busterarm]

Even if you take the OP at face value, they're an unreliable narrator at best.

They have questionable character and moral standards by their own admission. That's before even considering the effects of their mental illness.

I would never hire this "perpetually unemployed" person. Everything they say points to something being off.

[saber6]

Flipside: This criminal enterprise spotted those same exact attributes, but the mitigating factor was technical competence and submissiveness. And if it came to be where they thought it would never end up (the situation today), someone would discredit them as crazy, given their background.

[busterarm]

Absolutely they did. I'm not discounting OP's story, I'm basically suggesting exactly what you're saying.

I've seen a similar scenario play out before with another spammer and the kind of people he hired.

[saber6]

Gotcha. I misunderstood - I thought you were saying they were crazy and not to believe them etc.

[ikeboy]

I read the entire post. Can you please quote the part you're referring to?

[ghostbrainalpha]

"Within a week I was convinced Micfo encompassed more than just Micfo, but a handful of shell companies:

This was later proved to be true when the CEO(Amir), admitted in the ARIN(American Registry for Internet Numbers) trial, he was really behind these entities."

[ikeboy]

As far as I can tell, those shell companies were to get additional IP addresses out of ARIN. It's not been alleged that they were customers of Micfo running spamming etc services, by anyone except you.

[ajross]

And the author.

But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case.

It's true that it alleges other stuff. That doesn't make the IP fraud point somehow not corroboration.

[ikeboy]

The author does not allege that.

>But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case.

Now you're misreading both OP and the response to my comment. ghostbrainalpha claimed that the OP says the CEO was the same as the customers that were allegedly committing crimes like spamming. The OP does not say this.

>That doesn't make the IP fraud point somehow not corroboration.

OP never mentions this as one of the crimes he's listing. He lists:

1. Mishandling of warrants

2. Child endangerment

3. Enabling spamming

4. Enabling ToS violations

None of the things OP says are crimes are actually illegal, and none of them were at issue during the trial. That's what I pointed out.

[kevin_thibedeau]

So 1%'ers can use shell companies to get what they want, but ordinary corporations can't use their free speech rights to spend money for the same?

[blincoln]

>> They insisted I never talk to any LEO

> Nothing wrong with this ...

Depending on where they're located, failure to report certain types of crime to law enforcement may itself be a crime.

[dannyw]

In many, if not most companies, taking legal matters into your own hands without involving your company’s legal team will surely get you reprimanded if not fired.

Just like how you would get fired if you sent out a legal demand letter to another company without legal being in the loop. Law enforcement is no different: they are not your friend.

[n0rbwah]

Your employer isn't your friend either and most of them will gladly throw you under the law enforcement bus if it comes to that.

[kbenson]

You employer isn't your friend, but there are aligned incentives when it comes to the business continuity and your continued employment as affected by general business health (even if not necessarily aligned when it comes to your benefits and salary).

Law enforcement doesn't even have that aligned incentive. You might say you are aligned in that you want the law to be followed, but their incentive is more along the lines of making sure they bring in and prosecute cases. If the only way to make the case work is to throw the company that reported it (and by extension, its employees) into the grinder because that's all they think they can successfully do, then that's likely what they'll do.

[hrktb]

Reporting the issues to the legal department, which then deals with it could be a ways around this.

For blatant issues (i.e. there's a dead body) you'd still be expected to act on your own, but on any greyer area you'd be covered.