[X]
Feedburner count

Rip Off Report


14 Reviews & Complaints

Most Popular | Newest | More Options >
More filter options:
Ripoff Report ; Ripoff report and what to if attacked by them.
Posted by Ripoff1989 on 08/09/2005
ARIZONA -- I have been watching Ed Magedson from Ripoffreport come onto these sites and attack people who have legitimate claims against his site. Whenever one of these people, who are simply defending their name, writes up their story of being libeled by Ed Magedson, he and his staff immediately work to have any negative remarks about Ripoffreport removed. I find it hypocritical that Ed even as Ed is having negative postings about himself removed, he refuses to remove any negative postings from HIS site, even when they are obviously lies, because he states that "they are anonymous postings and he has no liability" according to some 1996 Act. A Wisconsin court ruled that they had no place in a lawsuit against Ed, not because of some 1996 Act, but because they felt they had no jurisdiction because Ed was in St. Kitts. Well, he was never doing business in St. Kitts, but simply used the offshore address to try to defer any legitimate lawsuits that he knows he would lose otherwise. Luckily for me, and EVERYONE that has been maliciously and falsely attacked on Ripoffreports, Ed is indeed based in the US and any lawsuits against him ARE under the jurisdiction of US courts, as long as you have the rigjht information. Ed Magedson is not in St. Kitts, he is in Arizona. If YOU have been maliciously and falsely attacked by Ed Magedson, then this is the name and address that you need:

Ed Magedson
Xcentric Ventures, LLC
P.O. Box 470
Tempe, AZ 85280
(602)518-4357 cell

As you can see, in an attempt to slither under the radar and be "above the law", he lists only a P.O. Box and cell phone number as his business contact information. (What legitimate businessperson uses a P.O. Box and personal cell phone as business contacts? I can only think of drug dealers, hit men, thieves, and any other slimy, crooked individuals that luckily I've only seen in movies.)
Several lawsuit papers have SUCCESSFULLY been served to Ed Magedson. Here is one of them:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 04-17721-21
go look it up!

There are also formal complaints filed against Ed Magedson at the Office of the Attorney General of Arizona because of the CRIMINAL nature of his site:
CIC 04-21090
call them about it! voice YOUR complaint! (602)542-5763

Also, the companies that provide the services for Ed Magedson, and enable him to ILLEGALLY attack YOU, try to hide behind the fact that Ed is "only a costumer." ANY court WILL find them responsible because THEY are the ones providing the service. It is no different than a getaway driver for bank robbers. The driver is just as guilty, even if he doesn't know about the robbery. Here is those companies info:
Puregig.com
3443 N. Central Ave.
Suite 706
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)445-1850
abuse@puregig.net

Prolexic.com
(866)800-0366
abuse@prolexic.com

These companies admit nothing except that "Ed is a customer." But, these companies DO know about Ed's illegal activity, he simply pays them to let him be. When you do press for more information about their relationship with ED, and get through the circles of BS, these companies' lawyers will tell you some BS about some 1996 Act, but that is simply to discourage you. TALK TO A LAWYER! This Act does NOT protect them. (Look at the service agreements for these companies. They DO know that they are liable, and they have provisions to allow them to stop any service if they feel it makes them liable for lawsuits and/or criminal acts. They WILL shut Ed down, if we push forth against them. Unless they are in bed with Ed and his criminal empire.) They cannot win a countersuit against you, it is obvious to ANYONE who reads his site that he libels HUNDREDS of different people and companies. All you are going for is the truth, and that is what courts are for.

Also, contact your local BBB, they are well aware of Ed's activites, and welcome any new information about his illegal attacks against innocent people.
Ed Magedson believes that he is all knowing, and that he alone should have the power to be the judge, jury, and executioner. Watch this posting. Ed will probably have it removed, even though he would refuse to do the same on his site. But this posting is all true, and his site is full of lies. And remember, Ed is illegally using YOUR company name to advertise his site. He includes you company name in his metatags for search engine submissions so that his site full of lies will come up under a search of your business name. THIS IS ILLEGAL. He CANNOT use your licensed company name to advertise his site, unless he has your expressed written permission
     
Read 36 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-06:
More on the ROR saga. I expect Silent will be along shortly to shill for ED in defense.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-08:
no, theres really nothing else to say that already hasn't been said. as a remember to johnson and that other schmo these petty lawsuit will be throw out just like the others were. ror is not responsible, those who sue have no leg to stand on.
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-01-16:
The Wisconsin Court never told the entire tale. An Arizona Fedral Judge just ruled that threatened extortion and mail fraud by the Rip-Off Report are predicate acts in well pled RICO claims. (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations).
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-01-16:
The Wisconsin Court never told the entire tale. An Arizona Fedral Judge just ruled that threatened extortion and mail fraud by the Rip-Off Report are predicate acts in well pled RICO claims. (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations).
http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/12.05Dismiss.pdf
Here is the link to the order:
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-01-16:
Arizona Federal Judge rules that threatened extortion and mail fraud are predicate acts in well pled RICO claims against Rip-Off Report and Ed Magedson: http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/12.05Dismiss.pdf
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-03-29:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-30:
Lets of great info here. I contacted google as desribed and got my ripoff report removed. Plus, I contacted DIRECTNIC and that seemed to help even though they acted like they knew nothing, but I know they are worried because of the response I got back from them. if more people conact google and Ed's service providers something will ger done.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-30:
Illinois Federal Court Smacks Down Jurisdictional Objection of Rip-Off Report. his is the same U.S. District Court Judge (Norgle) that has held Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures in contempt of court for refusing to delete defamation from www.ripoffreport.com and www.badbusinessbureau.com . Magedson pretends that promoting defamation is the only way he can "retaliate" for being sued. He apparently hopes to advance the fiction that paying him is the only way to cope with harmful defamation on his websites. In fact, Rip-Off Report can be sued, even for third party defamation, where well pled RICO claims are predicated on alleged acts of wire fraud and threatened extortion. Haven't we been saying this all along? What makes Ed Magedson think his websites are the only wall in the world where hateful graffiti can remain forever? More importantly, why would he desire this????? READ ON>>>

01/04/06

Federal Judge denies Magedson's lawyers' request to verbally address the court for reconsideration of this Federal Court Order that he contemptuously disregarded this Order regarding defamation of George S. May by the Rip-Off Report.

Meanwhile, Magedson continues to publish comments like this about George S. May's employee: "He used mind controlling fear tactics to make us believe our company had failed and I could only fix it by buying his overpriced services."

Why does Ed Magedson continue to risk the wrath of the Illinois Federal Judge?

Read this Order by an Arizona Federal Judge that RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ) claims against Magedson and the Rip-Off Report are well pled, and that he has no immunity under the Communications Decency Act. Mr. Magedson may soon learn a lesson in individual responsibility that the rest of us learned in grammar school. He admittedly knows better: "Adherence to the Golden Rule and treating others fairly and squarely is a code of conduct that I practice in all business and personal endeavors." -Ed Magedson
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-30:
What to do if attacked by Ripoff Report,Ultra Dns,Puregig,Prolexic,and maria c. speth!
1. Ripoff report was set up to be a site that is beneficial to consumers, butit is much more than that as you know. it is set up to also extort money from companies. Ripoff Report(ROR) takes annonymous complaints with no regard to the truth,slander or harrasment and post them on the internet. Then ROR puts YOUR COMPANY name in Meta tags and submitts it to search engines. (with out your permission). That is how it gets a high rank on search engines. Now if anyone types in your company's name in a search engine Ed's ROR pops up. Only way to get fixed is to pay ed. that is extortion!Join ed's consumer advocacy program(LOL).
2.Contact Arizona attorney general office.
RE: CIC 04-21090 Magedson, ED
(602) 542-5763
Tammy Miller
3. Contact his service providers and sue them. they have a responsibility for their clients. If one of their clients had a site that promoted terrorism or child porn they would remove and have liabilty for servicing site,servers, or provide bandwidth. IF they didnt know about the content in site then they would stop doing business with ED. Now, ROR is not as harsh as the two examples above,but it is harrasment, slander,liable and illegal. If ED or the service providers throw up The 1996 act that suppose to protect free speech on internet it does not fit in this situation , but it does not cover extortion or any other illegal activities. Why do service providers have TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS or ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES with there customers. It is very clearly spelled out what they tolerate. Your lawyer should have feild day with this one unless they like long drawn out legal battles. You can call personally too sometime you cna do more than lawyers. If you have good lawyer they can cut Ed's legs out from under him.By going after service providers! Ed is a ghost so you have to be crafty. There are many pepole that can stop ed's service. Here is a list of people or companies that for now provide services to ED and ROR.
A. Maria C. Speth
She has accepted service for ED's legal matters. contact her
Jaburg & Wilk
3200 N. Central Ave
Phoenix , Az 85012
602-248-1000
B. Ultra DNS
Domain servers for ed's siTE
directnic or DIRECTNIC
abuse@directnic.com or just do a whois search on the name of ripoff report and you will get who his ISP is. At least one if them.
C. Prolexic Tech.(I still believe they do)
They provide bandwidth
866-800-0366
abuse@prolexic.com
D. Puregig
provides a block of bandwidth for prolexic.
(602)445-1850
Matt Wilson (general manager)
They will try to make you run in circles,but they have Terms of Service agreement with their customers.
4. Contact Google,yahoo,msn,lycos. they all have abuse departments. I got my ROR deindexed,but it took me a while. You have to e-mail and mainly call until you get something done. Use the same letter to each abuse department.
5. Dont call Ed 602-518-4357 unless you want to. Only way to get any thing done with him is to pay.
6.Go for crimianl case not just civil.
7. have fun, be honest and get your story out there.
8.If you had a ripoff report on you being a child molestor, crooked business perdon, or a bad mom you would get it removed. You would just pay ed.
9. How much $$$$$$ have you lost or like me why would you want lies out there. With no regards to truth. remember he is advertising your comapny's name in Meta tags without your permission. Then how else does your ROR get ranked so high.
10.Contact BBB.
11.Ed s llc
Xcentric ventures
P.O box 470
Tempe, Az 85280
(602) 518-4357
EDitor@ripoffreport.com
This can be waste of time since ed has po box and cell phone number listed.
12. St kitts is made up to make companies run in circles just like Hy-cite did. Ed's company is in Arizona and his service providers are in the USA. Plus, ed through his site does business in every state in the union. copnanies in florida have been sueing ed in their state. PLUS, THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE MARIA C. SPETH ANY LEGAL PAPERS.
13. HAMMER!!! on the T.O.S (terms of service provision at allinternet comapnies).
Look at the content of the post and see if it is in violation of their own policy. Why do they have this policy if they are portected by the 1996 act. LoL
14. If you know any information about Ed and ripoff report please post in any forum or message board or do it here.
15. Maria c Speth got all irate when we contacted there other service provider Sterling networks
602-682-2200
abuse@sterlingnetwork.com
Now it seems like they(ROR) are no longer customers of sterling networks. Good stuff!!!
16.It sucks having people post things on the internet annonymously.
17. Hope alot of you can read more into this post.
18. Do not let ed get away with his scheme. Do something. We can easily get this taken care of if we all do something. Just how does it feel when you put your company name in a search engine and you see a Ripoff report there.
19. Here are legal judgements on ed magedson and ripoff report
http:www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseinfo.asp?caseNumber=CV1995-004052
and CV2004-021685. There is probably more.
20. 17th Judicial court
Broward county Florida
case no: 04-17721-21
Ed magedson and xcentric ventures LLc is the defendant.
21. There are probably more . Just post if you find out any info. If ed jumps sercive providers or any is filled in court (anywhere) .
22. It is very hard for ed to switch service providers!
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-30:
What to do if attacked by Ripoff Report,Ultra Dns,Puregig,Prolexic,and maria c. speth!
1. Ripoff report was set up to be a site that is beneficial to consumers, butit is much more than that as you know. it is set up to also extort money from companies. Ripoff Report(ROR) takes annonymous complaints with no regard to the truth,slander or harrasment and post them on the internet. Then ROR puts YOUR COMPANY name in Meta tags and submitts it to search engines. (with out your permission). That is how it gets a high rank on search engines. Now if anyone types in your company's name in a search engine Ed's ROR pops up. Only way to get fixed is to pay ed. that is extortion!Join ed's consumer advocacy program(LOL).
2.Contact Arizona attorney general office.
RE: CIC 04-21090 Magedson, ED
(602) 542-5763
Tammy Miller
3. Contact his service providers and sue them. they have a responsibility for their clients. If one of their clients had a site that promoted terrorism or child porn they would remove and have liabilty for servicing site,servers, or provide bandwidth. IF they didnt know about the content in site then they would stop doing business with ED. Now, ROR is not as harsh as the two examples above,but it is harrasment, slander,liable and illegal. If ED or the service providers throw up The 1996 act that suppose to protect free speech on internet it does not fit in this situation , but it does not cover extortion or any other illegal activities. Why do service providers have TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS or ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES with there customers. It is very clearly spelled out what they tolerate. Your lawyer should have feild day with this one unless they like long drawn out legal battles. You can call personally too sometime you cna do more than lawyers. If you have good lawyer they can cut Ed's legs out from under him.By going after service providers! Ed is a ghost so you have to be crafty. There are many pepole that can stop ed's service. Here is a list of people or companies that for now provide services to ED and ROR.
A. Maria C. Speth
She has accepted service for ED's legal matters. contact her
Jaburg & Wilk
3200 N. Central Ave
Phoenix , Az 85012
602-248-1000
B. Ultradns use to host ed but do to my efforts he had to switch now he is with DIRECTNIC( I JUST DID A WHO IS SEARCH FOR RIPOFF REPORT AND FOUND OUT A TON OF INFO)
CONTACT ABUSE@DIRECTNIC.COM OR CALL THEM.
Domain servers for ed's site:
C. Prolexic Tech.
They provide bandwidth
866-800-0366
abuse@prolexic.com
D. Puregig
provides a block of bandwidth for prolexic.
(602)445-1850
Matt Wilson (general manager)
They will try to make you run in circles,but they have Terms of Service agreement with their customers.
4. Contact Google,yahoo,msn,lycos. they all have abuse departments. I got my ROR deindexed,but it took me a while. You have to e-mail and mainly call until you get something done. Use the same letter to each abuse department.
5. Dont call Ed 602-518-4357 unless you want to. Only way to get any thing done with him is to pay.
6.Go for crimianl case not just civil.
7. have fun, be honest and get your story out there.
8.If you had a ripoff report on you being a child molestor, crooked business perdon, or a bad mom you would get it removed. You would just pay ed.
9. How much $$$$$$ have you lost or like me why would you want lies out there. With no regards to truth. remember he is advertising your comapny's name in Meta tags without your permission. Then how else does your ROR get ranked so high.
10.Contact BBB.
11.Ed s llc
Xcentric ventures
P.O box 470
Tempe, Az 85280
(602) 518-4357
EDitor@ripoffreport.com
This can be waste of time since ed has po box and cell phone number listed.
12. St kitts is made up to make companies run in circles just like Hy-cite did. Ed's company is in Arizona and his service providers are in the USA. Plus, ed through his site does business in every state in the union. copnanies in florida have been sueing ed in their state. PLUS, THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE MARIA C. SPETH ANY LEGAL PAPERS.
13. HAMMER!!! on the T.O.S (terms of service provision at allinternet comapnies).
Look at the content of the post and see if it is in violation of their own policy. Why do they have this policy if they are portected by the 1996 act. LoL
14. If you know any information about Ed and ripoff report please post in any forum or message board or do it here.
15. Maria c Speth got all irate when we contacted there other service provider Sterling networks
602-682-2200
abuse@sterlingnetwork.com
Now it seems like they(ROR) are no longer customers of sterling networks. Good stuff!!!
16.It sucks having people post things on the internet annonymously.
17. Hope alot of you can read more into this post.
18. Do not let ed get away with his scheme. Do something. We can easily get this taken care of if we all do something. Just how does it feel when you put your company name in a search engine and you see a Ripoff report there.
19. Here are legal judgements on ed magedson and ripoff report
http:www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseinfo.asp?caseNumber=CV1995-004052
and CV2004-021685. There is probably more.
20. 17th Judicial court
Broward county Florida
case no: 04-17721-21
Ed magedson and xcentric ventures LLc is the defendant.
21. There are probably more . Just post if you find out any info. If ed jumps sercive providers or any is filled in court (anywhere) .
22. It is very hard for ed to switch service providers!
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
One of ed service providers . If we all call and send letters we can probably get liability on directnic, but you have to put them on notice first.



they may not even know about ed extortion scheme. then they will try to distance themselves.


HOW DOES THIS COMPANY DO BUSINESS WITH RIPOFF REPORT. I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. SO WE ALL NEED TO CONTACT THEM.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS0.DIRECTNIC.COM 204.251.10.100
NS1.DIRECTNIC.COM 206.251.177.2

abuse@directnic.com

abuse@directnic.com

To contact our sales department, send email to:
sales@directnic.com

To contact directNIC's Human Resources dept:
jobs@directnic.com

To contact our legal department, send mail to:
legal@directnic.com

All other inquiries can be sent to:
inquiries@directnic.com

For inquires via mail:
Intercosmos Media Group, Inc.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1150
New Orleans, LA 70130-6116
USA


To contact us via telephone:
Our telephone number: +1 (504) 679-5170
Our telephone support hours: 7 am to 7 pm Central Standard Time Monday - Friday
Our fax number: +1 (504) 566-0484

Our local time is currently: May 2, 2006, 2:40 pm CDT
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
eVERYONE NEED TO CONTACT GOOGLE AND EXPLAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT ED'S RIPOFF REPORT AND HIS EXTOTION SCHEME. His site was removed about ayear ago due to complaints, but he got it back up there. So if enough of us call and e-mail something will happen. Google is not an unfair company. So they can deindex ed's site. plus ed illegally uses your name in advertising and in his html codes and meta tags. I am sure you didnt give him permission to use your name.
Google's headquarters are located in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
phone: (650) 253-0000
fax: (650) 253-0001
use our web form at www.google.com/support
abuse@google.com
legal@google.com

I called ,e-mailed, and faxed google over a two month period and finally someone in their adwords department helped me and got my ripoff report (URL) removed.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
Directnic needs to know the extortion scheme that ed magedson is doing. Alot of people are being hurt by Ed and his scam. Plus do a google search on ed magedson and see for yourself. Ed is not out to protect the little people. How would you like if someone made up lies about you and posted annonymously on ripoff report and then ed made sure that this report(URL) was ranked on the first page on search engines. So if any customer loooked up your name or your company they would see all the annonymous slanderous, malicious, and illegal info. Then the only remedy would be to call ed and pay him thousands of dollars to join his consumer advocacy program(LOL) so your ripoff report(which was untrue) is changed. That is not right
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-06-07:
http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

Everyone go to this site and explain your situation with ripoff report and their extortion scam. Ripoff report is illegally using trade marked names. Plus, Ed magedson and ripoff report is doing something else illegal to keep their site right next to yours. I do not know exactly what they do,but it is something. They use spam, robots, redirect,cloaked pages, illeagl use of your name,hiddnen text, deceptive redirects, repeated words,doorway pages, and who knows what else. If anyone knows more about how ed is doing this please post on this site or contact google.

http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-06-08:
Here it is: I got the e-mail of two V.P's at google
Marissa Mayer V.P User experience
marissa@google.com

Vinton G Cerf V.P
vcerf@mci.net

E-mail these people and explain the scam that ed is running. Also , do a google search on "google contact info" and go to each place you can e-mail and copy and paste the exact same letter you sent to the V.P's. Google is huge so the more departments we contact the faster we find someone who can help. I also e-mailed all the board of directors. I also bought some google stock when they became public. Maybe, I can say something at the shareholders meeting if this doesnt work. Something got to be done and I will not stop until my compnay name is exonerated and off ripoff report.Anyone in california buy some google stock and go to the shareholders meeting and contact shareholders relations at google. Come on guys we all need to get out and stop this Madman from hurting nice people.
Posted by JDinDallas on 2006-06-14:
Thanks ripoff1989! I e-mailed several different addresses with google about this extortion scheme, and will continue to do so. I have wasted thousands of dollars with lawyers who were unable to get ANYTHING done. I think that if everyone continues to e-mail google about this, then they will be forced to investigate. Here is a list of e-mails that I sent my letter to. If you have any other addresses for people at google, please let me know
marissa@google.com, vcerf@mci.net, suggestions@google.com, comments@google.com, search-quality@google.com, webmaster@google.com, help@google.com
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-06-17:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Home

About Google

Terms of Service
Find on this site:


Product Specific DMCA
· AdSense
· AdWords
· Base
· Blogger
· Book Search
· Co-op
· Finance
· Groups
· Image Search
· News
· Notebook
· Page Creator
· Personalized Homepage
· Picasa Web Albums
· Video
· All other products


Digital Millennium Copyright Act

It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office Web Site, http://lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/) and other applicable intellectual property laws. Responses may include removing or disabling access to material claimed to be the subject of infringing activity and/or terminating subscribers. If we remove or disable access in response to such a notice, we will make a good-faith attempt to contact the owner or administrator of the affected site or content so that they may make a counter notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of that Act. It is our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act. As with all legal notices, a copy of the notice may be sent to one or more third parties who may make it available to the public.

Infringement notification
Counter notification
Infringement Notification for Web Search and all other products

To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail -- not by email, except by prior agreement) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following format (including section numbers):

1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, "The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.legal.com/legal_page.html") or other information sufficient to specify the copyrighted work being infringed (for example, "The copyrighted work at issue is the “Touch Not This Cat” by Dudley Smith, published by Smith Publishing, ISBN #0123456789").

2. Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above.

FOR WEB SEARCH, YOU MUST IDENTIFY EACH SEARCH RESULT THAT DIRECTLY LINKS TO A WEB PAGE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS INFRINGING MATERIAL. This requires you to provide (a) the search query that you used, and (b) the URL for each allegedly infringing search result.

For example, suppose (hypothetically) that you conducted a search on google.com using the query "google", and found that the third and fourth results directly link to a web page that you believe infringes the copyrighted text you identified in item #1 above. In this case, you would provide the following information:

Search Query: google
Infringing Web Pages: www.infringingwebsite.com
directory.infringingwebsite.com
If you are sending a large number of URLs in one removal request, please also send an electronic copy of the notice to removals@google.com.

3. Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Google to contact you (email address is preferred).

4. Provide information, if possible, sufficient to permit Google to notify the owner/administrator of the allegedly infringing webpage or other content (email address is preferred).

5. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."

6. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

7. Sign the paper.

8. Send the written communication to the following address:

Google, Inc.
Attn: Google Legal Support, DMCA Complaints
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

OR fax to:

(650) 963-3255, Attn: Google Legal Support, DMCA Complaints

Please note that a copy of each legal notice we receive is sent to a third-party partner for publication and annotation. As such, your letter (with your personal information removed) will be forwarded to Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org) for publication. You can see an example of such a publication at http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861. A link to your published letter will be displayed in Google's search results in place of the removed content.

Counter Notification

The administrator of an affected site or the provider of affected content may make a counter notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. When we receive a counter notification, we may reinstate the material in question.

To file a counter notification with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail -- not by email, except by prior agreement) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is not infringing the copyrights of others. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether certain material infringes the copyrights of others, we suggest that you first contact an attorney. A sample counter notification may be found atwww.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf.

To expedite our ability to process your counter notification, please use the following format (including section numbers):

1. Identify the specific URLs or other unique identifying information of material that Google has removed or to which Google has disabled access.

2. Provide your name, address, telephone number, email address, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your address is located (or Santa Clara County, California if your address is outside of the United States), and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

3. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that each search result, message, or other item of content identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled, or that the material identified by the complainant has been removed or disabled at the URL identified and will no longer be shown."

4. Sign the paper.

5. Send the written communication to the following address:

Google, Inc.
Attn: Google Legal Support, DMCA Counter Notification
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

OR fax to:

(650) 963-3255, Attn: Google Legal Support, DMCA Counter Notification

Account Termination

Many Google Services do not have account holders or subscribers. For Services that do, Google will, in appropriate circumstances, terminate repeat infringers. If you believe that an account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer, please follow the instructions above to contact Google's DMCA agent and provide information sufficient for us to verify that the account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-06-24:
After talking to google all they need is more people filling complaints to pull his site. Everyone conact google and get ed extortion scam removed from there organic files.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-06-26:
Here is the fbi address for cyber crime.
Go file a complaint


http://www.ic3.gov/
Posted by Code 5 on 2006-08-24:
We have recently been victimized by Rip Off Report. We have confirmed two postings agaisnt our firm are in fact fabricated and most likely submitted by a competitor trying to do harm to our business. This site breeds fraud and allows anyone to post a fabricated complaint agaisnt someone. This needs to be addressed on a local, state and federal level. Since we ourselves are an Investigation firm, we are committing man hours to looking into this site and Ed, who is the reported founder of this web site. Mickey mouse could allege something agaisnt Disneyland and they would post it as fact.
Posted by evagoblin on 2006-08-29:
I have used Rip off Report and found it helpful and wish I had known about it before I was cheated once. I don't know about his extortion schemes etc. but I disagree because he DOES have rebuttals that company can put on there. This site- 3 cents can also post complaints about companies so how would it be any different?
Posted by ardent_power on 2006-09-06:
ripoff1989 - nice job on this extortion site. Ripoffreport.com is like a communist society deciding what will or will not be posted. What a great scam. Feed off of disgruntled employees, never satisfied consumers and malicious competition to extort money out of companies and individuals. What a gig. I have submitted to the various individuals and places you suggested in hope of some help to control this maniac site.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-07:
All people who are attacked by ED's scam(he is in it for the money). Contact his service providers. He may have switched ,but just do a "whois" search on any of his sites. Contact google anyway you can. They remove child porn all the time. The more complaints the faster his whole site gets taken down.

More info: A

The first Site is Ripoffreport.com, which is a site that encourages unhappy customers and employees to post their complaints on the website. In order to post a complaint the victim must post and address, phone number, and valid email address. This is all to make sure the information is legit the company claims.

Once the Ripoffreport.com has duped the victims into posting a negative report, then the operation begins.

The first thing they do is try to sell the customer a pamphlet on how to attack companies. This book basically advises customers to harass and attack the company, especially to keep posting on Ripoffreprt.com. (Click here to see link for manual solicitation)

The second thing that Ripoffreport does is send emails to the posters asking for donations to help fight legal battles with these companies. They use a combination of guilt and veiled threats. We are being attacked by these companies because we just want to help you the consumer. Please help us; we can barely keep our doors open and our servers running. “Our legal costs will bankrupt us”, they claim. Then the veiled threat; implying that the evil corporations do not want to sue just Ripoffreport, but also the poster of negative information. “We will do everything we can to protect you, we just need money for lawyers”, they claim. (Click Here for a sample of the letters sent out by Ripoffreport.com)

After trying to collect money from the consumer then Ripoff charges a business $25 to respond to a complaint after the fourth response. To keep the responses going Ripoffreport emails every complaining consumer every time a complaint is responded to. This gets the consumers to keep complaining and forces the company to keep responding. If the consumer does not file additional complaints, RipoffReport simply makes some up. This forces the company to pay to respond.

Initially it stopped there and was just a run of the mill penny anti scam run by convicted felon Ed Magedson (He bills himself as “Editor” on the site). He probably wouldn’t have attracted too much attention and could have continued this scam forever, but then they decided to go for the big dollars:

rip-off report – Criminal Ed Magedson then joined forces with a group of criminals that form
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-13:
SAFETY Act (S. 3499) this is an legal act to stop interent porn, this could apply to ed's hate site.
more legal info:
S 809 IS, Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999.
Sponsors: Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Date introduced: April 15, 1999.
Source: Library of Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 809

To require the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe regulations to protect the privacy of personal information collected from and about individuals who are not covered by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 on the Internet, to provide greater individual control over the collection and use of that information, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 15, 1999

Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To require the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe regulations to protect the privacy of personal information collected from and about individuals who are not covered by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 on the Internet, to provide greater individual control over the collection and use of that information, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999'.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION, USE AND DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.
(a) Acts Prohibited-

(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for an operator of a Web site or online service to collect, use or disclose personal information in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection (b).
MORE LEGAL INFO:

What are 'gripe sites' or 'cybergripers'?
Gripe sites are Web sites providing consumer commentary criticizing the business practices of certain companies. Many cybergriper sites contain parodies of their corporate targets. For example, a consumer who believes that “Business X” engages in unfair business practices might establish a Web site with the domain name “BusinessXsucks.com.”




Why is the concept of 'local community standards' difficult to apply to the Internet?
Local community standards are difficult to apply on the global medium of the Internet because Web publishers cannot limit access to their sites based on the geographic location of Internet users. For this reason several U.S. Supreme Court justices have expressed their discomfort with applying local standards in determining what material is harmful to minors under the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, for example, advocated the adoption of a “national standard for regulation for obscenity of the Internet.” Justice Stephen Breyer reasoned that COPA should be read to include a national standard. Other justices expressed concern about the notion of local community standards, as well.




Do 'gripe sites' violate federal trademark laws?
The answer depends on several factors, including whether the gripe site is engaged in commercial use of the target’s trademarked business name, or whether the gripe site owner has a bad-faith intent to profit from his or her site.

Businesses targeted by gripe sits have sued under both the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1996 and the Anti-Cybersquatting Law of 1998. If the gripe site is consumer commentary of a noncommercial nature, it is less likely to be violation of these federal laws, particularly the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.

Many commentators believe that gripe sites that do not engage in commerce are protected under the First Amendment. Some recent court decisions have upheld this viewpoint.

For example, in Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a gripe site was “purely an exhibition of Free Speech, and the Lanham Act (the major federal trademark law) is not invoked.” The appeals court explained: "We find that the domain name is a type of public expression, not different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and [the gripe site owner] has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it."




What is the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1996?
The law provides a cause of action for trademark owners if they can establish the following:


They own a famous mark (determined by eight factors listed in the law).
The defendant is making commercial use in interstate commerce of the plaintiff’s mark or trade name.
The defendant’s use of plaintiff’s mark occurred after the mark became famous.
The defendant’s use causes dilution of plaintiff’s mark by lessening the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.

The law exempts noncommercial use of trademarks. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained in its 1998 decision in Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation v. Faber that “commercial use is an essential element of any dilution claim.”

However, some courts appear to take a broad view of what constitutes commercial activity. For example, a federal district court in New York ruled in 1997 in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci that a radio host and anti-abortion activist who had a Web site with the domain name www.plannedparenthood.com engaged in commercial activity for several reasons. These include that fact that the radio host promoted his book on the site, solicited funds for his nonprofit political activism, and designed it to harm Planned Parenthood commercially. The court explained:


Finally, defendant’s use is commercial because of its effect on plaintiff’s activities. First, defendant has appropriated plaintiff’s mark in order to reach an audience of Internet users who want to reach plaintiff’s services and viewpoint, intercepting them and misleading them in an attempt to offer his own political message. Second, defendant’s appropriation not only provides Internet users with competing and directly opposing information, but also prevents those users from reaching plaintiff and its services and message. In that way, defendant’s use is classically competitive: he has taken plaintiff’s mark as his own in order to purvey his Internet services — his Web site — to an audience intending to access plaintiff’s services.




I got kicked off AOL for cursing in several messages. Doesn’t that violate my free speech?
No. Online services have the right to establish and enforce codes of conduct. When you sign up, you’re using a service that belongs to a private company, and you are subject to its rules. Because the online service is a private company, its restrictions do not constitute government censorship and, therefore, do not violate the First Amendment.




What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 and does it prohibit gripe sites?
The act provides a cause of action to a trademark holder when someone registers a domain name of a well-known trademark — or something very similar to it — and then attempts to profit from it by ransoming the domain name back to the trademark holder or by using the domain name to divert business from the trademark holder to the domain-name holder. Cybersquatters buy up the domain names of well-known companies in the hopes of profiting by selling the online "real estate" back to the trademark holder. Whether a cybergriper violates the anti-cybersquatting law depends on whether the griper has a bad-faith intent to profit from the purchase of the domain name.

However, there is no per se commercial-use requirement in the anti-cybersquatting law. As the 9th Circuit recently wrote in its 2005 decision Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer: “Allowing a cybersquatter to register the domain name with a bad faith intent to profit but get around the law by making noncommercial use of the mark would run counter to the purpose of the act.”

The statute contains a list of nine factors that courts must consider to determine whether someone had a bad faith intent to profit. One of the relevant factors is whether the domain name holder, the alleged cybersquatter, had a “bonafide non-commercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name.”

Many commentators have criticized the use of the anti-cybersquatting law to cover true gripe sites developed not to profit but to release critical consumer commentary. For example, law professor Hannibal Travis writes in a 2005 article in the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology that “trademark rights should be limited to policing commercial competition, rather than non-commercial Internet speech.”







Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-18:
a Bill signed into law this week it prohibits using a false identity to otherwise annoy, slander, libel or harass anyone on the Internet. Some who are posters on Blogs decry this because they say that that it is a violation of free speech, unfair and it should not be a Federal Crime.

Indeed interesting comments. Yet chances are we have all be slandered and libeled on the Internet by vindictive, nut cases. If we own companies, we have had competitors do this. Most often someone will make up something and make a fake name and try to destroy your brand name, personal integrity out of jealousy, competitiveness or simply spite.

If such slanderous attacks and libel were to be stopped all at once, we could have better quality communication and maybe people would not be so fast to attack someone if they knew it could be traced back to them? The Internet is the greatest communication device in the history of the human endeavor, we need to protect its integrity, so people should use their true identity, especially if they wish to slam another or libel them. Think how upset you were last time someone attacked you?

What if they didn't wouldn't that have the best for all concerned? So if it makes people think twice, it could turn out to be a very good law. I know why the law was created, because politicians would get attacked via slander comments from opposition, no wonder they all voted for it? They are tired of being attacked. So, that abuse now is coming back on those who falsify their identity only to slander, annoy or libel. So, anyway, some flipside comments for the debate here. Think on this in 2006.

Lance Winslow - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-18:
Defamatory postings on the Internet are libel, not slander, under California law and plaintiffs may collect damages for them without demonstrating specific injury, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Justice Eugene M. Premo rejected the contention of two former employees of a Silicon Valley technological equipment manufacturer that the postings were best analogized to radio or television broadcasts, which if defamatory are classified as slander under Civil Code Sec. 46. The section does not mention television, but refers to communications which are “orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means,” and has been construed to include television broadcasts.

Plaintiffs suing for slander must prove special damages, while in libel—defined by Sec. 45 as defamation by “writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye”—damages are presumed.

Varian Associates Inc. and two of its executives sued Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day after the two former employees posted a series of messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to the company’s publicly traded stock. The messages maligned the company’s products and suggested that the two executives were incompetent and dishonest and that one of them, a woman, might have obtained her position by having sex with a supervisor.

After the suit was filed Delfino and Day intensified the message campaign and developed a Web site devoted to their allegations. They also vowed, Premo noted, to “continue posting until they died.”

A jury found the defendants liable for libel, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and conspiracy, awarding $425,000 in general damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jack Komar also enjoined Delfino and Day from repeating allegations he found to be untrue and defamatory.

Premo pointed out that the issue of whether defamatory Internet postings are libel or slander was not raised at trial, but said the court was exercising its discretion to consider it.

“The issue presented here involves a question that has arisen only with the advent of Internet communications,” Premo wrote. “Application of the common law to matters involving the Internet is of considerable public interest. Moreover, the distinction between libel and slander involves a practical difference in the requirements for pleading and proof so that the question is one that is likely to recur.”

Internet postings are not communications by “mechanical or other means” within the meaning of Sec. 46, the justice explained.

“Logic tells us that ‘mechanical or other means’ cannot apply to all mechanical methods for producing a communication,” he declared. “After all, the cause of action for libel arose with the invention of mechanical means for reproducing the printed word.”

The legislative history of Sec. 46, adopted in 1945, suggests that the Legislature intended to preserve the traditional distinction between libel as written and slander as spoken defamation, Premo said.

He wrote:

“We find the plain language of the defamation statutes is dispositive. That is, defendants’ messages were publications by writing. The messages were composed and transmitted in the form of written words just like newspapers, handbills, or notes tacked to a conventional bulletin board. They are representations ‘to the eye.’ True, when sent out over the Internet the messages may be deleted or modified and to that extent they are not ‘fixed.’ But in contrast with the spoken word, they are certainly ‘fixed.’ Furthermore, the messages are just as easily preserved (as by printing them) as they are deleted or modified. In short, the only difference between the publications defendants made in this case and traditionally libelous publications is defendants’ choice to disseminate the writings electronically.”

Premo said there was ample evidence introduced at trial to support the jury’s finding that the two former employees defamed the company and the two executives. Citing a law review article about defamation in cyberspace, he rejected the argument that Internet postings are typically so lacking in credibility that no reasonable person would take them as fact.

“Even if the exchange that takes place on these message boards is typically freewheeling and irreverent, we do not agree that it is exempt from established legal and social norms. The Internet may be the ‘new marketplace of ideas,’....but it can never achieve its potential as such unless it is subject to the civilizing influence of the law like all other social discourse. Some curb on abusive speech is necessary for meaningful discussion. We would be doing a great disservice to the Internet audience if we were to conclude that all speech on Internet bulletin boards was so suspect that it could not be defamatory as a matter of law. In effect, such a conclusion could extinguish any potential the forum might have for the meaningful exchange of ideas.”

In any case, the justice reasoned, the messages posted by Delfino and Day were “especially vituperative personal attacks” which were unlike other messages on the bulletin boards on which they appeared.

“If there were other postings on the boards that were more like defendants’ postings, they were not part of the record,” Premo commented, noting that there were “numerous messages that either directly assert or imply” that the female executive “was professionally incompetent, that she engaged in sex outside of marriage, that she was a liar, that she had sabotaged her laboratory at work, and that she held her position by having sex with a supervisor.”

The justice said the jury’s verdict was not undermined by the fact that the verdict form did not require jurors to specifically identify the postings they found to be defamatory, though he said “the better practice might have been” to the contrary.

“[O]ur review of the whole record satisfies us that even if there were some messages that were protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, the jury did not rest its verdict upon them,” Premo said.

But the justice said the portions of Komar’s injunction barring the defendants from asserting specific facts, such as that the female executive had sex with a supervisor, “that defame any person...in any of the ways specified” went too far and constituted an impermissible prior restraint on free speech.

The injunction was unlike one upheld by the state Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, Premo said, noting that the Aguilar injunction prohibited use of racial epithets in a workplace.

Aguilar lacked a majority opinion and Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s concurring opinion analogized the injunction to a time, place or manner restriction, Premo pointed out.

“None of the reasoning used to support the injunction in Aguilar applies in this case,” the justice said.

The portions of Komar’s injunction the court invalidated, Premo declared, prohibited “publications based upon their content and do not purport to limit that regulation in terms of time, place, or manner.”

He explained:

“Rather, they prohibit the written communications anytime, anywhere. Defendants are left with no alternative means of communication on those subjects.”

Justices Franklin D. Elia and William M. Wunderlich concurred.

The case is Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, H024214.



Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-18:
Defamatory postings on the Internet are libel, not slander, under California law and plaintiffs may collect damages for them without demonstrating specific injury, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Justice Eugene M. Premo rejected the contention of two former employees of a Silicon Valley technological equipment manufacturer that the postings were best analogized to radio or television broadcasts, which if defamatory are classified as slander under Civil Code Sec. 46. The section does not mention television, but refers to communications which are “orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means,” and has been construed to include television broadcasts.

Plaintiffs suing for slander must prove special damages, while in libel—defined by Sec. 45 as defamation by “writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye”—damages are presumed.

Varian Associates Inc. and two of its executives sued Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day after the two former employees posted a series of messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to the company’s publicly traded stock. The messages maligned the company’s products and suggested that the two executives were incompetent and dishonest and that one of them, a woman, might have obtained her position by having sex with a supervisor.

After the suit was filed Delfino and Day intensified the message campaign and developed a Web site devoted to their allegations. They also vowed, Premo noted, to “continue posting until they died.”

A jury found the defendants liable for libel, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and conspiracy, awarding $425,000 in general damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jack Komar also enjoined Delfino and Day from repeating allegations he found to be untrue and defamatory.

Premo pointed out that the issue of whether defamatory Internet postings are libel or slander was not raised at trial, but said the court was exercising its discretion to consider it.

“The issue presented here involves a question that has arisen only with the advent of Internet communications,” Premo wrote. “Application of the common law to matters involving the Internet is of considerable public interest. Moreover, the distinction between libel and slander involves a practical difference in the requirements for pleading and proof so that the question is one that is likely to recur.”

Internet postings are not communications by “mechanical or other means” within the meaning of Sec. 46, the justice explained.

“Logic tells us that ‘mechanical or other means’ cannot apply to all mechanical methods for producing a communication,” he declared. “After all, the cause of action for libel arose with the invention of mechanical means for reproducing the printed word.”

The legislative history of Sec. 46, adopted in 1945, suggests that the Legislature intended to preserve the traditional distinction between libel as written and slander as spoken defamation, Premo said.

He wrote:

“We find the plain language of the defamation statutes is dispositive. That is, defendants’ messages were publications by writing. The messages were composed and transmitted in the form of written words just like newspapers, handbills, or notes tacked to a conventional bulletin board. They are representations ‘to the eye.’ True, when sent out over the Internet the messages may be deleted or modified and to that extent they are not ‘fixed.’ But in contrast with the spoken word, they are certainly ‘fixed.’ Furthermore, the messages are just as easily preserved (as by printing them) as they are deleted or modified. In short, the only difference between the publications defendants made in this case and traditionally libelous publications is defendants’ choice to disseminate the writings electronically.”

Premo said there was ample evidence introduced at trial to support the jury’s finding that the two former employees defamed the company and the two executives. Citing a law review article about defamation in cyberspace, he rejected the argument that Internet postings are typically so lacking in credibility that no reasonable person would take them as fact.

“Even if the exchange that takes place on these message boards is typically freewheeling and irreverent, we do not agree that it is exempt from established legal and social norms. The Internet may be the ‘new marketplace of ideas,’....but it can never achieve its potential as such unless it is subject to the civilizing influence of the law like all other social discourse. Some curb on abusive speech is necessary for meaningful discussion. We would be doing a great disservice to the Internet audience if we were to conclude that all speech on Internet bulletin boards was so suspect that it could not be defamatory as a matter of law. In effect, such a conclusion could extinguish any potential the forum might have for the meaningful exchange of ideas.”

In any case, the justice reasoned, the messages posted by Delfino and Day were “especially vituperative personal attacks” which were unlike other messages on the bulletin boards on which they appeared.

“If there were other postings on the boards that were more like defendants’ postings, they were not part of the record,” Premo commented, noting that there were “numerous messages that either directly assert or imply” that the female executive “was professionally incompetent, that she engaged in sex outside of marriage, that she was a liar, that she had sabotaged her laboratory at work, and that she held her position by having sex with a supervisor.”

The justice said the jury’s verdict was not undermined by the fact that the verdict form did not require jurors to specifically identify the postings they found to be defamatory, though he said “the better practice might have been” to the contrary.

“[O]ur review of the whole record satisfies us that even if there were some messages that were protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, the jury did not rest its verdict upon them,” Premo said.

But the justice said the portions of Komar’s injunction barring the defendants from asserting specific facts, such as that the female executive had sex with a supervisor, “that defame any person...in any of the ways specified” went too far and constituted an impermissible prior restraint on free speech.

The injunction was unlike one upheld by the state Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, Premo said, noting that the Aguilar injunction prohibited use of racial epithets in a workplace.

Aguilar lacked a majority opinion and Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s concurring opinion analogized the injunction to a time, place or manner restriction, Premo pointed out.

“None of the reasoning used to support the injunction in Aguilar applies in this case,” the justice said.

The portions of Komar’s injunction the court invalidated, Premo declared, prohibited “publications based upon their content and do not purport to limit that regulation in terms of time, place, or manner.”

He explained:

“Rather, they prohibit the written communications anytime, anywhere. Defendants are left with no alternative means of communication on those subjects.”

Justices Franklin D. Elia and William M. Wunderlich concurred.

The case is Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, H024214.


Defamatory postings on the Internet are libel, not slander, under California law and plaintiffs may collect damages for them without demonstrating specific injury, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Justice Eugene M. Premo rejected the contention of two former employees of a Silicon Valley technological equipment manufacturer that the postings were best analogized to radio or television broadcasts, which if defamatory are classified as slander under Civil Code Sec. 46. The section does not mention television, but refers to communications which are “orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means,” and has been construed to include television broadcasts.

Plaintiffs suing for slander must prove special damages, while in libel—defined by Sec. 45 as defamation by “writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye”—damages are presumed.

Varian Associates Inc. and two of its executives sued Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day after the two former employees posted a series of messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to the company’s publicly traded stock. The messages maligned the company’s products and suggested that the two executives were incompetent and dishonest and that one of them, a woman, might have obtained her position by having sex with a supervisor.

After the suit was filed Delfino and Day intensified the message campaign and developed a Web site devoted to their allegations. They also vowed, Premo noted, to “continue posting until they died.”

A jury found the defendants liable for libel, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and conspiracy, awarding $425,000 in general damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jack Komar also enjoined Delfino and Day from repeating allegations he found to be untrue and defamatory.

Premo pointed out that the issue of whether defamatory Internet postings are libel or slander was not raised at trial, but said the court was exercising its discretion to consider it.

“The issue presented here involves a question that has arisen only with the advent of Internet communications,” Premo wrote. “Application of the common law to matters involving the Internet is of considerable public interest. Moreover, the distinction between libel and slander involves a practical difference in the requirements for pleading and proof so that the question is one that is likely to recur.”

Internet postings are not communications by “mechanical or other means” within the meaning of Sec. 46, the justice explained.

“Logic tells us that ‘mechanical or other means’ cannot apply to all mechanical methods for producing a communication,” he declared. “After all, the cause of action for libel arose with the invention of mechanical means for reproducing the printed word.”

The legislative history of Sec. 46, adopted in 1945, suggests that the Legislature intended to preserve the traditional distinction between libel as written and slander as spoken defamation, Premo said.

He wrote:

“We find the plain language of the defamation statutes is dispositive. That is, defendants’ messages were publications by writing. The messages were composed and transmitted in the form of written words just like newspapers, handbills, or notes tacked to a conventional bulletin board. They are representations ‘to the eye.’ True, when sent out over the Internet the messages may be deleted or modified and to that extent they are not ‘fixed.’ But in contrast with the spoken word, they are certainly ‘fixed.’ Furthermore, the messages are just as easily preserved (as by printing them) as they are deleted or modified. In short, the only difference between the publications defendants made in this case and traditionally libelous publications is defendants’ choice to disseminate the writings electronically.”

Premo said there was ample evidence introduced at trial to support the jury’s finding that the two former employees defamed the company and the two executives. Citing a law review article about defamation in cyberspace, he rejected the argument that Internet postings are typically so lacking in credibility that no reasonable person would take them as fact.

“Even if the exchange that takes place on these message boards is typically freewheeling and irreverent, we do not agree that it is exempt from established legal and social norms. The Internet may be the ‘new marketplace of ideas,’....but it can never achieve its potential as such unless it is subject to the civilizing influence of the law like all other social discourse. Some curb on abusive speech is necessary for meaningful discussion. We would be doing a great disservice to the Internet audience if we were to conclude that all speech on Internet bulletin boards was so suspect that it could not be defamatory as a matter of law. In effect, such a conclusion could extinguish any potential the forum might have for the meaningful exchange of ideas.”

In any case, the justice reasoned, the messages posted by Delfino and Day were “especially vituperative personal attacks” which were unlike other messages on the bulletin boards on which they appeared.

“If there were other postings on the boards that were more like defendants’ postings, they were not part of the record,” Premo commented, noting that there were “numerous messages that either directly assert or imply” that the female executive “was professionally incompetent, that she engaged in sex outside of marriage, that she was a liar, that she had sabotaged her laboratory at work, and that she held her position by having sex with a supervisor.”

The justice said the jury’s verdict was not undermined by the fact that the verdict form did not require jurors to specifically identify the postings they found to be defamatory, though he said “the better practice might have been” to the contrary.

“[O]ur review of the whole record satisfies us that even if there were some messages that were protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, the jury did not rest its verdict upon them,” Premo said.

But the justice said the portions of Komar’s injunction barring the defendants from asserting specific facts, such as that the female executive had sex with a supervisor, “that defame any person...in any of the ways specified” went too far and constituted an impermissible prior restraint on free speech.

The injunction was unlike one upheld by the state Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, Premo said, noting that the Aguilar injunction prohibited use of racial epithets in a workplace.

Aguilar lacked a majority opinion and Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s concurring opinion analogized the injunction to a time, place or manner restriction, Premo pointed out.

“None of the reasoning used to support the injunction in Aguilar applies in this case,” the justice said.

The portions of Komar’s injunction the court invalidated, Premo declared, prohibited “publications based upon their content and do not purport to limit that regulation in terms of time, place, or manner.”

He explained:

“Rather, they prohibit the written communications anytime, anywhere. Defendants are left with no alternative means of communication on those subjects.”

Justices Franklin D. Elia and William M. Wunderlich concurred.

The case is Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, H024214.

Libelous messages placed on the Internet in the United States is upheld to the same level of scrutiny as other forms of communication. However, the ease in which a person can keep their identity secret frequently poses a problem for finding a responsible party. Recent trends indicate that the owners and operators of on-line services will sometimes be held liable for what is placed on their services. Recent case law in the United States considering the liability of owners and operators of on-line services for items posted upon bulletin boards exemplify the evolving area of computer law. The courts have looked upon on-line libel with an eye upon traditional libel law and also recognizing the uniqueness of on-line circumstances.

The liability of the owners and operators of on-line systems for the posting of defamatory statements depends on whether they are considered by the courts as a distributor of information or a publisher of information. These two categories, publisher and distributor are treated differently in traditional libel law. The distributor of information, such as libraries, newsstands, bookstores, telephone and telegraph operators are not normally held liable. Publishers, such as newspapers and publishing houses are held responsible for the materials that they print. (Internet and the Law, p. 164). Thus, in the Internet world, if the accused is considered to be a distributor, then no liability will be found unless the individual had personal knowledge of the contents of the material. However, if the operator or owner is considered to be a publisher, then liability will be found.

Holding on-line operators liable for material placed on the Internet is complicated by the uniqueness of the Internet. *The Internet consists of approximately 7 million computers seamlessly integrated using a common technology via 60,000 largely private networks . . . It operates over virtually every kind of underlying means, including: local networks (LANS), telephone lines, ISDN, CATV, wireless, cellular, private and common carrier fiber, satellite and submarine cable circuits. A common joke is that the Internet runs over everything except wet string. The Internet operates as a highly distributed intelligent network that can automatically learn and adapt to dynamically route traffic over myriad alternative routes. A message or even pieces of a message may go different paths to an end destination at any time.* (*Prepared Testimony of Anthony M. Rutkowski Executive Director, The Internet Society Before the House Committee on Science Technology Subcommittee Regarding the Internet and the Management of Objectionable Materials*, Federal News Service, July 27, 1995.)

Two recent cases reveal the importance of the distinction between distributor and publisher in the United States. In one case, CUBBY, INC. V. COMPUSERVE, INC., the court granted CompuServe Inc. summary judgment based upon the court's finding that CompuServe served the same purpose as a library. The court stated that CompuServe would have been held liable only if the company knew or had reason to know of the defamatory statement. (Internet and the Law, p. 166). The court found that an agency relationship had not been established since CompuServe did not directly regulate the materials placed upon the electronic bulletin boards. (Internet and the Law, p. 168).

In another case, STRATTON OAKMONT, INC. V. PRODIGY SERVICES CO., the court found that unlike CompuServe, Inc., Prodigy Services Co. did hold itself out to the general public as a publisher because it used software to prescreen messages that were offensive, and therefore was liable for materials that appeared on the Prodigy computer bulletin board. (Internet and the Law, p. 168). Thus, in the United States, the definition of the owner/operator as either a publisher or common carrier will be definitive as to the liability of the owner/operator. (*Internet Publishing Raises Legal Questions; Copyright violations are possible*, Business Insurance, February 26, 1996, p. 21).

Libel lawsuits arising within the United States have also targeted the individual user. A journalist, Brock Meeks, operated a bulletin board in which he questioned the integrity of Suarez Corporation's marketing practices. Meeks posted two messages on his bulletin board concerning Suarez Corporation, in which he referred to the electronic advertisements used by Suarez as *questionable marketing scams*. (*Defining Cyberlibel*, Jeremy Stone Weber, 46 Case W. Res. 235, 1995, p. 255.) In response, Suarez Corporation sued Meeks for libel. In his defense, Meeks argued that Suarez should be considered to be a "public figure" because the alleged libel was made on a computer bulletin board and Suarez could respond by placing a reply on the bulletin board. If Suarez was found to be a public figure, his burden of proof to recover damages would be higher. However, the parties settled out of court before the issue was decided of whether a person, or corporation slandered on the Internet should be treated as a public figure. (Id. at 255.) Advocates for viewing persons libeled on the Internet as public figures point out that rebuttals can be made swiftly. However, critics point out that not all persons have access to the same bulletin boards, and furthermore, not all persons use the Internet. (*A Lawyer's Ramble Down the Information Superhighway: Defamation*, Jessica R. Friedman, 64 Fordham L. Rev. 794, p.800.)

The treatment of Internet libel remains unresolved. A proposed Uniform Defamation Act would not hold computer bulletin board operators liable if it *(1) is not reasonably understood to assert in the normal course of business the truthfulness of the information maintained or transmitted; or (2) takes reasonable steps to inform users that it does not assert the truthfulness of the information maintained or transmitted*. (Id. at 260.). However, at this time the Uniform Defamation Act has not been passed by lawmakers.

Recently, the state of Wisconsin took the initiative to combat libel on the Internet. On March 26, 1996, the Wisconsin Assembly approved a bill, AB 852, that holds material published on the Internet to the same standards that currently apply to other mass media. Thus, under Wisconsin law, an individual libeled on the Internet can not sue until they notify the alleged libeler that they have taken offense. The alleged libeler then has the opportunity to make a correction or retraction. If the correction is made, only actual damages may be recovered. (*Libel Law Expansion*, Madison Newspapers, Inc., March 26, 1996, p. 4A). Furthermore the new Wisconsin Bill, AB 852, holds system operators liable only if they knew that the information was false, and still published it, or did not remove the material upon being told that it was defamatory. (Id. at 4A



Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-10-06:
Re you are your company being attacked(EXTORTED) by Ed Magedson and Ripoff report? If so, here is a way to handle this situation. This got my URL or ripoff report removed. Ed and his service providers will say there is no liability for service providers, but then why did they remove mine with just a few phone calls and a couple letters from my attorney.
Fisrt thing you need to do is to find out who is service providers are. Do a whois search for domain listings. You will be able to see who provides one of his services.
Puregig has his Ip address, but you can check out who provides bandwidth. There are several different options. I did a who is search and ed was with a company called sterling networks. I called ,e-mailed, and had my Lawyer send them letters leting them know that they are on notice. That they now knew that ed site carries liability for them. At first they they even denied ed as a customer and then tried to act like they have no liability,but atfer about three weeks and us getting ready to do dicovery they are ed removed my ripoff report. Also, just weeks later ed had to switch providers(lol)REmember service providers have acceptable use policy or terms of service that very clearly spells out what they will tolerate. Why do they have this if they have no liability. The service providers can enforce their own policies HMMMM!!.He was no longer with sterling networks
All you got to do is just let the service providers that you are putting them on notice. Also these companies got money so if you or your company has been hurt you can go after them because ed hides. I GOT MY RIPOFF REPORT REMOVED. A GOOD lawyer can find liability here, but you got to put them on notice first.

Also, here are some other things you can do:
1.Contact Arizona attorney general office
File #CIC 04-210090 Magedson, ed
602-542-5763

You can serve ed at
Jaburg $ wilk
3200 n central ave
phoenix Az 85012
602-248-1000

Contact info for google get your report removed)
Google Inc.
Mountian view California
94043 USA

Directnic is the regitrar for ed's sites

Domain servers(I did a whois search)

NSO.Directnic.com 204.251.10.100
NS1.Directnic.com 206.251.1772



contact your local BBB http://www.dc.bbb.org/report.h tml?national=Y&compid=1038 533 :

contact
Contact F.B.I:http://www.ifccfbi.gov/i ndex.asp

the Federal trade commision:
File # FOIA-2005
ripoffreport.com
202-326-2417
margeret woodson
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wso lcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
Rememember this Extortion. No service provider will fight this for long.

Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-10-19:
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?


Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-10-23:
check this site out
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=17363&highlight=ripoff+report
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-11-01:
Ed is at work here in that last posting. I took the post down because I found where Magedson lives and how he is making his money. There are judgment creditors that I have contacted to see if they want to execute against him. Any other people here saying they want to serve him are greatly exagerating because no one responded.

Ed lives at 2033 W McDowel Blvd in Apache Junction. This is Pinal County. Ed is the trustee of Sylvia and Martin Magedson Trust which owns the property. In September he borrowed $417,000.00 from the bank on a refinance. In April he evicted Eric Skelling (Frenchy) from the house. Frenchy is a well known meth user and I am tracking him down to get more information.

As a trustee Ed is allowed to draw a fee to administer the trust. While breaking trusts are difficult, the money that is transfered from the trust to the trustee is up for grabs.

It appears that the trust includes a commercial property at 6426 S McClintock, Tempe AZ, Stein Mart is there.

There are several people that are using the PO Box 310 in Tempe, David Bedore and others. Most of the people associated with Ed Magedson are in Tupper Lake, NY and you will note there are many listings in RIPOFFREPORT about Tupper Lake. They are all friends and reletives posting. Revenge yes, but there is reason to doubt the validity of those claims.

Pay close attention...the last poster was Ed Magedson. You will see that he is starting to become unraveled and attempt tp misdirect people from him.

I am a Private Investigator in Arizona and the is no client involed in this. I used to use RIPOFFREPORT for intelegence purposes to help solve crimes and or provide intelegence reports to the authorites and non-profit organizations, at no cost. I nor any company I am affiliated with are not listed in RIPOFFREPORT.

Ed Magedson uses Robert Paisola as a reference. Paisola is on Utahs Sex Offenders Registry. He also has other felony fraud arrests as can be seen if you google his name. Paisola also is a deffendant in a Federal case.

Ed I know you read this, you never should have called me a liar.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-12-05:

RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT
EXTORTION EXTORTION MALCIOUS LIBELOUS CRIMINAL SCAM RIPOFF REPORT!!!!
I have seen and talk to many people trying to protect their name and reputation and so far they have not had much luck against rip off report. The reason why is the all go down the same path. You have not done anything until you e-mail and call his service providers. If you have not done that , then why do you spend your $$$ on lawyers. A e-mail or call is free. Just use the same letter and just explain the truth. One letter to one of service providers got his extortion scam off a google for a while. Rip off Report has hurt a lot of good people and companies. At least alert the people below of what Rip off report is doing to you and your company.
If you are attacked by rip off report e-mail the abuse departments of his service providers. Ed's site is in violation of their terms of service(T.OS).. If enough try to get the truth out maybe something will happen. Ed's had to switch one of his providers before because of our e-mails and calls. How can the Government and his service providers let this scam go on.They wouldn't like false, malicious,libelous,half truths and any other lie about them. I bet Ed would remove, edit or take down any URL that was malicious about them. It is not FREEDOM OF SPEECH. One day justice will be served! Defamatory postings on the Internet are libel, not slander, under California law and plaintiffs may collect damages for them without demonstrating specific injury, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Justice Eugene M. Premo rejected the contention of two former employees of a Silicon Valley technological equipment manufacturer that the postings were best analogized to radio or television broadcasts, which if defamatory are classified as slander under Civil Code Sec. 46. The section does not mention television, but refers to communications which are “orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means,” and has been construed to include television broadcasts

Does Ed attach spy ware to people? Is that legal?

Why does rip off report trace go through Oklahoma City?

If you have any info(trust's,LLC's,FLP, alias,etc) On Ed's criminal Empire please post or leave a message to me and I will get the info out.

Here is more info:
Registrant:
DOMAINSBYPROXY.COM
15111 N. Hayden Rd ste 160
PMB 353
Scottsdale AZ 85260
480-624-2599
abuse@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by proxy's Domain name proxy agreement. DBP's Right to deny, suspend,Or terminate. Go to section 4 of their agreement and it is very clear what they will tolerate. Why do they have this in their agreement if they are totally protected by free speech?

Registered through Godaddy.com
480-624-2546
press@godaddy.com
abuse@godaddy.com
created 20-jun-04
expires 20-jun-11
Go daddy can terminate service because of violation to their policies and agreements. Why would they have policies if they were fully protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C 2701.
Domain servers in listed order:
OSDNSO1.PROLEXIC.COM
02
03
CIDR # 209.200.128
. Ed contact info:
A. 2033 W McDowell Blvd Apache Junction AZ 85220 (he refinanced in September for $417,000.00)
B. 1138 S Rose Mesa AZ (he has owned since 1985)
2. Magedson Sylvia Trust owns land at 6426 S McClintock Tempe AZ ( a Stein mart is there)
Ed is the trustee and hides his money in this trust as well as others. So it looks like ed has no money.
Check names of Martin Magedson,Sylvia Magedson, Molly or Mollie Magedson for more.
3. There are 11 docket reports for federal cases. there are probably a lot more. all these are Vs Ed Magedson and his other names.

1. MCW inc d/b/a Bernard Haldane Assoc (federal TX 2002) ?
2. Dr. Robert Guida (Federal NY 2003) 8 E 75TH St Ste 1
New York, NY 10021-2609
(212) 871-0900
3. Terri Bears (federal AZ 2003) ?
4. Mark Tolner Fashion Rocks (federal AZ 2003) info@TalentRock.com
5. Joan Randell (federal AZ 2003)
6. Trans continental records (federal FL 2003)
7. roni Lynn Deutch (federal Ca 2004)
8. Hy Cite Corp (federal AZ 2004)
9. Robert Ted Pritchard (federal Pa 2004)
10. Whitney Information systems & Russ Whitney (federal Fl 2004)
11. energy Automation Systems (federal TN 2006)


Here are some of Ed Magedson's lawsuits and links:
www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=2072
http://www.easybackgroundchecked.com/default.htm
http://www.ezripofflawsuit.com/
http://bad-business-rip-off.net
http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10554
www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2004
http://scamreviewsites.com/Rip_Off_Reports.htm
http://brownraysman.typepad.com/technology_law_update/cda_immunity/index.html

AZ Superior - Maricopa CV2006-051453 Civil Magedson Ed 2006 10/25/2006 n/a Mi sc : CV
CA Superior - Los Angeles County BC285776 Americanfone Llc VS Rip Off Reports et al Badbusinessbureau.Com Llc 11/21/2002 04/19/2004 Dism Lack Prosecutn per 581a & 583 03/27/2003 NOS : (1031) Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
FL Circuit & County - Dade 2004-016967-CA-01 Invention Technologies Inc v. Xcentric Ventures (Llc) Invention Technologies Inc 08/05/2004 12/07/2004 n/a NOS : (81) Injunctive Relief
FL Circuit & County - Dade 2005-000175-CA-01 Universal Communication Sys Inc v. Xcentric Ventures (Llc) Universal Communication Sys Inc 01/04/2005 10/18/2006 Order of Dismissal NOS : (17) Other Civil Complaint
NJ Superior - Mercer L 002378 06 n/a Magedson , Edward 2006 10/25/2006 n/a Misc : n/a
NJ Superior - Mercer L 002378 06 n/a Xcentric Ventures LL C 2006 10/25/2006 n/a Misc : n/a
OH Court of Common Pleas - Hamilton A 0303025 Injunction- Oc- Taxed in Costs Magedson Edward 04/18/2003 10/25/2006 n/a Role: Defendant-2 Misc : Clerk Disposition: Dismissal
PA Court of Common Pleas - Allegheny AR-06-002880 Vavrick vs Magedson etal Edward Magedson 04/14/2006 10/03/2006 Praecipe NOS : (48) Defamation
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 05th Circuit 04-10583 MCW Inc v. badbusinessbureau, et al Edward Magedson 05/25/2004 10/21/2005 NOS : (890) Other Statutory Actions
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit 06-11888 Whitney Information Network v. Xcentric Ventures Ed Magedson 03/24/2006 10/20/2006 Closed NOS : (840) Trademark
U.S. District - New York Southern 1:03cv4479 Guida v. Magedson, et al Ed Magedson 06/12/2003 11/30/2003 Closed NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Illinois Northern 1:04cv6018 George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Ed Magedson 09/15/2004 10/21/2004 Active NOS : (890) Other Statutory Actions
U.S. District - Arizona 2:03cv848 Randell v. Badbusinessbureau.or, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 05/06/2003 05/14/2003 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Arizona 2:03cv894 Tolner v. Badbusinessbureau.or, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 05/13/2003 09/11/2003 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Arizona 2:03cv895 Bears v. Badbusinessbureau.or, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 05/13/2003 05/15/2003 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - California Eastern 2:04cv1175 Deutch v. Kreb, et al Edward Magedson 06/18/2004 06/22/2004 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Arizona 2:04cv2856 HY Cite Corporation v. Badbusinessbureau.co, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 12/10/2004 12/16/2004 Active NOS : (470) Rico
U.S. District - Florida Middle 2:04cv47 Whitney Information, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Ed Magedson, an Individual 01/27/2004 01/29/2004 Active NOS : (840) Trademark
U.S. District - Pennsylvania Western 2:04cv567 Pritchard, et al v. Magedson, et al Ed Magedson 04/14/2004 04/16/2004 Closed NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Texas Northern 3:02cv2727 MCW Inc v. Www.badbusinessbureau.com LLC, et al Edward Magedson AKA Ed Magidson 12/20/2002 12/24/2002 Active NOS : (890) Other Statutory Actions
U.S. District - Florida Middle 6:03cv279 Trans Cont Talent, et al v. Badbusinessbureau, et al Ed Magedson, A Resident of Arizona 03/07/2003 03/11/2003 Closed NOS : (890) Other Statutory

All people being extorted do not sit back and let Ed keep hurting good people. All you got to do is explain the truth to anyone that may listen. It is worth a shot for you to contact Google(abuse@google.com , Legal@google.com), prolexic (abuse@prolexic.com , 911@prolexic.com) , Godaddy.com(abuse@godaddy.com) , Domains by Proxy( abuse@domainsbyproxy.com) and any others you can find.

Ed has been hiding for years. He keeps all his money in Trust's so no one can find him. I am almost positive that he keeps his ill gotten gains in trust that are set up in dead relatives names. Sylvia Magedson( he uses his own mom) trust owns land that a STEIN Mart is on. He must be getting a ton of money each month from that land. What else is on that land? Can there be a judgement and have Stein Mart pay directly to whomever wins the court battle vs Ed. As a trustee Ed is allowed to draw a fee to administer the trust. While breaking trusts are difficult, the money that is transferred from the trust to the trustee is up for grabs. Other names are Martin(dad) and Mollie(molly) Magedson. This is how he has kept his scam going.

It appears that the trust includes a commercial property at 6426 S McClintock, Tempe AZ, Stein Mart is there.
Posted by Defamationaction on 2007-02-01:
Hello all
I would like to announce a Victory by the Defamation Action League in getting ED Magedson and the Rippoffreport Shut from their Hosting company.

As part of the agreement I cannot divulge the Name of the hosting company and DDOS protection company that shut him but it was done today February 1, 2007. We are now going after his current hosting company and I am sure soon they will be saying goodbye to ED also. The goal of our actions is to force ED to remove the Defamation of our Members or face the permanent shut down of his website. We are tired of the lack of action by law enforcement and civil remedies. With the power of our membership and our aggressive tactics it is not likely that any hosting company will be able to keep him. On his last host we called over and over again and created un flattering websites about them XXXXXhostingSUCKS.com and so on. at this point ED is on the run and we will be attacking him at every turn until his extortion stops.

If you would like to join our efforts contact me

Thank You
William Stanley
DefamationAction.com
action@defamationaction.com

Yahoo defamationaction
MSN defamationaction@hotmail.com
AIM defamationaction
ICQ 238768427
Posted by billbogart77 on 2010-01-15:
Here is the ripoffreport.com phone number : 888-275-2211
Posted by Jimjameson on 2010-01-23:
I used ReputationMatrix.com to remove my Ripoff Report and they did just that. Now it is on page 20. They are awesome! 1-877-241-7613 all I had to do was supply them with a little content and they had it off the front page of google in 2 weeks.
Posted by PaulBush on 2012-06-23:
Watch this VIDEO on Ed Magedson Why Google Loves Defamation & Displays It On Page 1... Especially RipOffReport.com

http://youtu.be/tMTCCT_NtBk
Close commentsAdd reply


Ripoff report victims
Posted by Ripoff1989 on 08/21/2005
ARIZONA -- RIPOFF REPORT VICTIMS!
What to do if attacked by Ripoff Report, Ultra Dns, Puregig, Prolexic [snip]

1. Ripoff report was set up to be a site that is beneficial to consumers, but it is much more than that as you know. it is set up to also extort money from companies. Ripoff Report (ROR) takes anonymous complaints with no regard to the truth,slander or harassment and post them on the internet. Then ROR puts YOUR COMPANY name in Meta tags and submits it to search engines. (with out your permission). That is how it gets a high rank on search engines. Now if anyone types in your company's name in a search engine Ed's ROR pops up. Only way to get fixed is to pay ed. that is extortion!Join ed's consumer advocacy program(LOL).

2.Contact Arizona attorney general office.
RE: CIC 04-21090 Magedson, ED
(602) 542-5763
[snip]

3. Contact his service providers and sue them. they have a responsibility for their clients. If one of their clients had a site that promoted terrorism or child porn they would remove and have liability for servicing site,servers, or provide bandwidth. IF they didn't know about the content in site then they would stop doing business with ED. Now, ROR is not as harsh as the two examples above,but it is harassment, slander,liable and illegal. If ED or the service providers throw up The 1996 act that suppose to protect free speech on internet it does not fit in this situation , but it does not cover extortion or any other illegal activities. Why do service providers have TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS or ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES with there customers. It is very clearly spelled out what they tolerate. Your lawyer should have filed day with this one unless they like long drawn out legal battles. You can call personally too sometime you cna do more than lawyers. If you have good lawyer they can cut Ed's legs out from under him.By going after service providers! Ed is a ghost so you have to be crafty. There are many pepole that can stop ed's service. Here is a list of people or companies that for now provide services to ED and ROR.
[snip]
She has accepted service for ED's legal matters. contact her
Jaburg & Wilk
3200 N. Central Ave
Phoenix , Az 85012
602-248-1000
B. Ultra DNS
Domain servers for ed's site:
UDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET 204.69.234.1
UDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET 204.74.101.1
ULTRA DNS
(650) 228-2300
support@ultadns.com
888-367-4820
C. Prolexic Tech.
They provide bandwidth
866-800-0366
abuse@prolexic.com
D. Puregig
provides a block of bandwidth for prolexic.
(602)445-1850
Matt Wilson (general manager)
They will try to make you run in circles,but they have Terms of Service agreement with their customers.
4. Contact Google,yahoo,msn,lycos. they all have abuse departments. I got my ROR deindexed,but it took me a while. You have to e-mail and mainly call until you get something done. Use the same letter to each abuse department.
5. Dont call Ed 602-518-4357 unless you want to. Only way to get any thing done with him is to pay.
6.Go for crimianl case not just civil.
7. have fun, be honest and get your story out there.
8.If you had a ripoff report on you being a child molestor, crooked business perdon, or a bad mom you would get it removed. You would just pay ed.
9. How much $$$$$$ have you lost or like me why would you want lies out there. With no regards to truth. remember he is advertising your comapny's name in Meta tags without your permission. Then how else does your ROR get ranked so high.
10.Contact BBB.
11.Ed s llc
Xcentric ventures
P.O box 470
Tempe, Az 85280
(602) 518-4357
EDitor@ripoffreport.com
This can be waste of time since ed has po box and cell phone number listed.
12. St kitts is made up to make companies run in circles just like Hy-cite did. Ed's company is in Arizona and his service providers are in the USA. Plus, ed through his site does business in every state in the union. copnanies in florida have been sueing ed in their state. PLUS, THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE MARIA C. SPETH ANY LEGAL PAPERS.
13. HAMMER!!! on the T.O.S (terms of service provision at allinternet comapnies).
Look at the content of the post and see if it is in violation of their own policy. Why do they have this policy if they are portected by the 1996 act. LoL
14. If you know any information about Ed and ripoff report please post in any forum or message board or do it here.
15. [snip] got all irate when we contacted there other service provider Sterling networks
602-682-2200
abuse@sterlingnetwork.com
Now it seems like they(ROR) are no longer customers of sterling networks. Good stuff!!!
16.It sucks having people post things on the internet annonymously.
17. Hope alot of you can read more into this post.
18. Do not let ed get away with his scheme. Do something. We can easily get this taken care of if we all do something. Just how does it feel when you put your company name in a search engine and you see a Ripoff report there.
19. Here are legal judgements on ed magedson and ripoff report
http:www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseinfo.asp?caseNumber=CV1995-004052
and CV2004-021685. There is probably more.
20. 17th Judicial court
Broward county Florida
case no: 04-17721-21
Ed magedson and xcentric ventures LLc is the defendant.
21. There are probably more . Just post if you find out any info. If ed jumps sercive providers or any is filled in court (anywhere) .
22. It is very hard for ed to switch service providers!
     
Read 35 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-18:
**yawn** your rant is getting quite boring. dont you get it? nobody cares, nobody believes you. the only reason you are whining like a little girl is because you were exposed as crook(well deserved im sure) i can picture you sitting in the corner throwing a temper tantrum and holding your breath. its your own fault perhaps you should look into being an honest company.
Realize this, with these juvenile rants all you are doing is giving RoR publicity and hits, you make people more curious about RoR and they go there and expose more backwards companies.
As a fan of RoR(thats all i am a fan i have no affiliation with them despite mental boy johnsons clams) thank you for getting the word out there that there is help for consumers!
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-19:
*Yawn* Readers here's the routine. Someone complains about the rip-off report. ROR plant and shill Silent Assassin comes flying out of the closet calling them crooks. He gets slapped with evidence he is wrong, then still calls others liars while he turns around and pretends to be someone else by using a different ID. He gets called out for using multi-handles, and then he says they are "business associates". Do a search here for other rip-off report complaints. Silent can be found singing the same babble on all of them.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-19:
you've been defeated, mental. time to take your walk of shame. you have not provided proof on:
1) im a plant
2)that i was pretending to be someone else(i explained the situation to you and ADMITTED it was me if i was trying to fool people i wouldnt have done so)
3)still havent provided proof that rebuttals were deleted.(if you were smart you would have screen printed when you posted a rebuttal that what most people do)
all ive done is show people that the people that complain about ror are ones who were exposed as crooks and are crying about it.

until you provide ALL proof, you need to walk away while you still have an ounce of dignity left. im tired of shooting you down all the time its too easy.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-19:
"Most" people screen print what they type in a forum first before submitting?? So on the last ROR complaint where admin had to delete your last over-the-top posts, you can show us "screen shots" of what you had posted here huh? Wacko!
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-19:
BTW liar, you did NOT admit it was you. You said Superscoop2005 was a "business associate" who was working with you at your office. You can't keep your own lies straight yet you come here calling others liars wanting "proof"? Get bent loser.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-19:
oh my god mental, do you not listen? i said I WAS AT A BUSINESS ASSOCIATES OFFICE AND HIS ACCT WAS LOGGED IN. and by the way dumb a$$ its supersource not superscoop. and nice backpedaling, keep it up you just make me look better and better.
the reason you are backpedaling is because you CANT prove what I asked.
god im good. go beat your wife or something you're prob better at that than debating with your superior
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-19:
So you hopped on someone elses WORK computer at another office who just happened to be a my3cents member AND loggin in?! A member who also happened to pick an ID that implies he has inside information? Well I guess that explains it-liar!
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-20:
yea moron because he reads posts here too. hes the one i get the majority of my info from. you aren'tto smart are you wife beater? you must be a redneck
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-20:
So it's "supersource" who is ed, and you're just the mindless drone.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-20:
once again wife-beater, prove it.
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2005-11-29:
what a surprise! Attorney crimi-nal speth had a lot to say before but she hasn't answered one of the questions that I posed to her. Now, why would that be?
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-01-16:
An Arizona Fedral Judge just ruled that threatened extortion and mail fraud by the Rip-Off Report are predicate acts in well pled RICO claims. (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations). http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/12.05Dismiss.pdf
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-03-23:
3/23/06: Looks like they are still out to try and intimidate me from telling the straight story. They've posted personal information about me and my wife online in the hope that I won't continue to tell the world that they are extortionists. on 3/19/06 Magedson published a rip-off report about me for no other reason than to retailiate and harrass me for telling the truth about his so-called corporate advocacy program. At least one Federal Court has ruled that mail fraud and threatened extortion were predicate acts in a well-pled Complaint raising RICO claims against the Rip-Off Report and its owner, Ed Magedson. You know it's true by Magedson's reaction against me. He publishes false nonesense and threats and intimidation on his website to try to keep people like me from exposing his crimes. It won't work, and I look forward to watching and commenting freely as this racket implodes.
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-03-29:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-28:
RipoffReport.com Loses 47 USC 230 Motion to Dismiss--Hy Cite v. badbusinessbureau.com

By Eric Goldman

Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38082 (D. Ariz. Dec. 27, 2005)

This is the third 47 USC 230 ruling involving badbusinessbureau.com/RipoffReport.com. The first two were:

* MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., 2004 WL 833595 (N.D.Tex. Apr 19, 2004).
* Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2005 WL 1677256 (MD Fla. Jul 14, 2005).

(In 2004, there was also an earlier Wisconsin district court ruling in this Hy Cite litigation involving Hy Cite's lack of jurisdiction--note the case has moved to Arizona).

The prior two 47 USC 230 rulings were a split. The defendants lost the 47 USC 230 claim in the MCW case and won it in the Whitney case. Completing the troika, this case resembles the MCW case in its reasoning--making these defendants a rare two-time loser of a 47 USC 230 defense.

Here's my understanding of the badbusinessbureau.com/RipoffReport business. The websites ask users to submit complaints about various businesses. The website operators then post the complaints, but the operators add their own headline to the posting. The operators also write various editorials/other content they originate themselves. Once a company has been targeted by website users, the operators then approach the company and offer various recourses to the targeted company for not-insubstantial fees. (The plaintiffs allege that this latter step is extortionate).

In this case, the targeted company was Hy Cite for its "Royal Prestige" dinnerware/cookware. There were 35 user-submitted reports complaining about this brand. After Hy Cite unsuccessfully demanded redress against these postings under defamation and trademark law, Hy Cite sued. The defendants claim the 230 defense.

In rejecting the 230 defense, the court points to the following allegations:

Plaintiffs alleg[e] that wrongful content appears on the Rip-off Report website in editorial comments created by Defendants and titles to Rip-off Reports, which Defendants allegedly provide. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "produce original content contained in the Rip-off Reports." Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants "solicit individuals to submit reports with the promise that individuals may ultimately be compensated for their reports.
On that basis, the court concludes that the defendants cannot claim that the information came from another information content provider.

There are 2 obvious flaws in the court's thin analysis. First, the last allegation--that the defendants solicit content for potential compensation--should be completely irrelevant to the 230 defense. The 230 defense should apply even if the ICS pays for the content (see Blumenthal v. Drudge) and even if the ICS owns the content (see Schneider v. Amazon.com).

Second, the court misconstrues the statutory language. An ICS isn't liable if the content is provided by another ICP. Someone is an ICP if they are responsible, even in part, for the content. Therefore, even if the ICS could be deemed an ICP with respect to a particular content item, that item could still provided by another ICP so long as any third party was partially responsible for its development.

The court reverses this reading, treating the ICS as responsible for the content if the ICS was even partially responsible for this content. (This mistake was also made by the MCW court). Not only does this court's reading contradict the express statutory language, but it contradicts a slew of precedent where the ICS was partially responsible for the content but still was eligible for the 230 defense (cases that come immediately to mind: Drudge, Schneider, Ramey v. Darkside Productions and the controlling 9th circuit Carafano v. Metrosplah ruling).

Despite this, I think the court got the ruling right. If the plaintiffs allege that they are suing based on content solely authored by the defendants (which apparently the plaintiffs did), then 47 USC 230 doesn't apply to that content and the motion to dismiss should be denied. Of course, the plaintiff ultimately has to prove its facts, and the predicate condition (solely authored by the defendants) should limit the items that are appropriately within the lawsuit's scope.

The ruling also addresses trademark/unfair competition claims. The court dismisses the Lanham Act claim because there's no way a gripe site can divert customers (cite to Bosley). However, the court does not dismiss the common law unfair competition claim because that doctrine covers commercially-detrimental false/misleading statements.


UPDATE: The attorney for Ripoffreports.com tried to post the following comment but the comments function is acting strange. Her comment:

"As the attorney who handled all three cases against Rip-off Report, I would just like to add one comment to Eric's insightful analysis of these cases. In both cases where the decisions were against us, the court was deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). That is important because the standard by which the court considers those motions is accepting all of the allegations of the complaint as true. In those cases, the complaint alleged that Rip-off Report was responsible for or helped create the content, and that was the basis for the ruling. The next step is for us to file a motion for summary judgment, where the court actually considers the evidence instead of just accepting the allegations. In Hy Cite, we are preparing to file a motion for summary judgment and we expect it to be granted. There is no dispute that agents of Rip-off Report did not author the content at issue. The MCW case was dismissed on other grounds and there was no need to file anything further. Thanks for keeping the public posted on these important free speech cases.

Maria Crimi Speth, Esq."


UPDATE #2: I received the following email, which I am posting without comment (the sender said he also had problems posting a reply via Typekey):

"3/27/06

Dear Mr. Goldman:

Thank you for the opportunity to address Maria Speth's comment here:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm

While I understand that you are primarily concerned with 47 USC 230 immunity, the discussion of the Rip-Off Report misses many important facts and one crucial legal point: Please indulge me. Leave aside the allegations as to whether or not Mr. Magedson, himself authored the defamatory reports. He did, but forget that for a minute. The extortion and/or threatened extortion and/or fraud didn't occur online. These communications occurred in email and by telephone.

Florida Statutes provide:

F.S.836.05 Threats; extortion.--Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree...."

This conduct is not immunized in any way shape or form by 47 USC 230. Ms. Speth conflates the two issues and thereby misleads the public into believing that her client can extort with impunity.

We proved that Mr. Magedson "creates content" on his website in order to further his extortion scheme. In fact, the nation is replete with Mr. Magedson's extortion victims, and the Arizona Court has clearly held that threatened extortion is a predicate act in a well-pled RICO claim. The acts of extortion or threatened extortion, however, were not communicated on the website publication. No matter how factually probative the online material itself may be, CDA immunity has no relevance to the RICO claims in the Hy Cite case. Considering the legislative purposes for the CDA, and for 47 USC 230 immunity, it is clear that holding Magedson and Xcentric liable for threatened extortion will not undermine the legislative intent. I'll spare you, the expert, a discussion of those purposes, but if you look at these and consider the nature of the extortion in this case, I am certain that you will agree that such crimes should not be protected.

Although I believe Ms. Speth incorrectly claims that authorship isn't disputed, this misses the point that proof of authorship is not elemental to the extortion claims. There is more than one way to manipulate content to further this extortion, beyond simply authoring one's own statements, or having third persons submit reports in furtherance of this scheme. Magedson publishes only bad reports about my company: despite the efforts of many who tried to report favorably on our company without success. He freely admits he won't allow us to publish. Who can reasonably believe that the federal courts will sanction the use of the CDA to bar otherwise valid extortion claims?

Everyone must step back from this for a moment to consider this. Magedson and Xcentric committed the threatened extortion with communications in email and over the telephone. The comments on the website, themselves, are not the only actionable conduct.

Defamation is one act, the act of publishing, itself. Arguably there is immunity from a defamation claim where one can demonstrate a passive website with only third party "content" creation. But I can also make an excellent argument that the circumstances under which rip-off reports were filed in our case, for instance, leave no room for concluding that anyone not conspiring with Magedson could or would have authored the statements in question. To appreciate this, you would need to carefully consider the content and timing of these purported third party posts, as well as those defamatory insults which Mr. Magedson, himself, admitted to personally authoring in our case.

A far better case, however, and one that will certainly get to a jury, is the claim that Speth utterly fails to address, again, in laying her straw man. This unwillingness to address the extortion appears to be a favorite tactic of hers. The CDA website immunity simply isn't enjoyed for torts like extortion- or murder, for instance- that are based on conduct other than the act of publishing material on a website. This should be obvious. It is intrinsic to an understanding of the law in this case because the rip-off report extortion occurs after the material has been published (and prior to other threatened future publications). The actionable conduct isn't necessarily the publication, at all, although one should not overlook this type of claim. (In our case, Mr. Magedson was foolish enough to sign his own name to the original defamatory content about us, and in fact he later admitted authorship. I would argue that conduct of the website operator outside of the context of publishing, should also be considered in evaluating the propriety of the application of the CDA immunity, as well, but that is in regards to defamation, not extortion or threatened extortion. The claims are distinct, if not unrelated.)

The damages sought in an extortion and /or RICO claim based thereupon are unrelated to the conduct of publication, itself. Rather, it is the nefarious attempt to obtain compensation to which Rip-Off Report and its operator should and do enjoy no legal right or claim that constitutes threatened extortion. The Arizona Court said so quite clearly. The website operators have participated in a continuing crime, no element of which consists of simple publication.

It's like someone standing at your front door handing out false stuff about you. If I offer to insert favorable material every day for a hefty fee from you, it hardly matters what media the guy at the door uses. My conduct is illegal if I have a reasonable basis to believe the guy at the door is lying. This is true even if I have no idea on earth who that third party may be. Also, whether he is using a bullhorn, pamphlets, an internet website, or smoke signals really doesn't matter. No doubt, many coward extortionists throughout history have used "anonymous" third parties to make their threats through a variety of media. Many others have certainly threatened to refused to share a true alibi or to concoct a false one unless they were paid. The victim's motivation, the extortionist's mode, or the precise nature of the embarrassment or falsehood threatened- even the necessity of a falsehood- doesn't define the crime. These are less compelling elements of extortion than the shakedown. It's still extortion if I later shake you down to collect a fee to which I have no legal claim. There is no question as to who authored the shakedown in the Magedson case. It's not the false stuff alone that is actionable by Hy Cite. It's the shakedown. No matter who the "original" author is. Right? It's the criminal intent to llegally capitalize on the secret or on the embarrassment that defines the crime, the intent to "expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will...."

Surely, Ms. Speth doesn't feel as though Mr. Magedson's testimonial is so precious that his victims willingly pay him. Even they claim that his methods are "extortionate". Thus, the RICO claims survived in Hy Cite, and no civil immunity will save the Rip-Off Report. If there is still any serious disagreement on this, then perhaps the Arizona Federal Court could have been more clear in its legal analysis, but it certainly got the result right.

Really, it only makes common sense. Neither Magedson nor Xcentric should be permitted to demand fees to ameliorate defamatory content on a supposedly passive website. Think about it: the consideration and quid pro quo for the extortionate payments to Magedson are supposedly ...wait... and let this sink in...the website operator's promise of favorable content creation! Efforts to use the CDA to further this criminal scheme will inevitably fail. Ms. Speth acts like she doesn't know this, but the fact is that this is precisely why she came to your site making these straw man arguments. She probably knows her case is very weak.

Mr. Magedson's publications do not come strictly from third parties. He is the source of much of the more absurd material appearing on his website. That he may have conspired with others around the country whose IP addresses are also used for this purpose doesn't change the underlying factual issue. Even were Ms. Speth and her client to somehow establish third party authorship (highly improbable inasmuch as their own "expert" testified that he has no idea who authored any of the offending material in our case), this won't excuse or immunize threatened extortion. One may argue, as Speth tries to, that the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish authorship. I reiterate that this is not an element of the extortion claim, and therefore it should not be an element of the RICO claims for which threatened extortion is a sufficient predicate. Any other application of the law should be reversible because the extortion is so obvious and obnoxious here.

The fact finder will inevitably look at the content of the website in the context of the conduct substantiating the extortion claim and NOT after a fashion that assumes that Mr. Magedson ISN'T in the business of making money off lies about innocent individuals and businesses. No one seriously disputes the fact that he makes huge amounts of money to say nice things about those defamed on his website. In fact, our efforts first motivated him to disclose on his website that he is paid for testimonials...if you look for this you'll now find it on his website since earlier this year. Now he also admits he doesn't let us publish responses on his website. Consumer advocate that he is, he previously hid the source of his compensation from the public. He still asks for public donations on a web page that doesn't disclose that he accepts money from businesses maligned on his website. How it can be argued to be a passive website under all of the circumstances is beyond me.

Obviously, one may find that Magedson and Rip-Off Report have threatened extortion without necessarily treating them as the "publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." For instance, if I only agree to reveal the source of third party defamation if you pay me, that is extortion. If I refuse to remove the offensive material or to permit you to respond if you pay me, that is extortion. If I agree to not publish future defamation about you, but only if you pay me, that is extortion. If I suggest that I have several posts that are defamatory that I have not yet posted but will if you don't pay me, that is extortion. The publishing of the information online and the threat to extort are distinct acts, as much as Ms. Speth would like to conflate the two torts. Who authored the extortionate emails was never in dispute. The defendants are "rare, two-time" losers under 47 USC 270 because they are extortionists, and their pathetic claim that they are merely website operators who publish only third party remarks is both factually false and legally insufficient in any event. They just bank on outlasting litigants by making litigation as costly as possible or they settle the cases brought against them, when they can. So far, their strategy has succeeded, but we'll see how long this lasts.

In the interests of full and fair disclosure, I must add that the Rip-Off Report is still trying to silence me by publishing none-too-veiled threats against my wife, and me, on that website. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff38900.htm (Yes, that's my booking photo from a domestic disturbance that had nothing to do with Rip-Off Report, but they used it to try to intimidate me within days after I testified against them; scroll down to the bottom for their latest, unsuccessful, attempt to intimidate me on 3/19/06, by publishing private personal information about my wife and me and threatening us. They make the weak redaction and, in essence say to the public, "don't threaten or commit violence to the guy in the above photo! Wink, wink; nudge, nudge.") They've done this because I've exercised my right of free speech, first in testifying, and most recently in promoting online the legal opinions that bear directly on their illegal operation. You may recall that I wrote to you about the Hy Cite opinion when it was first published.) Also, this isn't the first time Ms. Speth and I have knocked heads online. She took the unusual step of personally attacking my credibility online after I gave testimony in a case against Magedson and the Rip-Off Report. (7/17/2005- http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10378) I attempted to debunk her claims at that time: (7/27/06-http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10464) They'll probably sue me for writing this, but rest assured I will be heard from again before all is said and done with this.

Chris McFarland, J.D.
800 527 0476 x311

PS My understanding is that the MCW case was quickly settled by confidential agreement after that opinion came down."
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
solartek@ispwest.com
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
One of ed service providers . If we all call and send letters we can probably get liability on directnic, but you have to put them on notice first.



they may not even know about ed extortion scheme. then they will try to distance themselves.


HOW DOES THIS COMPANY DO BUSINESS WITH RIPOFF REPORT. I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. SO WE ALL NEED TO CONTACT THEM.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS0.DIRECTNIC.COM 204.251.10.100
NS1.DIRECTNIC.COM 206.251.177.2

abuse@directnic.com

abuse@directnic.com

To contact our sales department, send email to:
sales@directnic.com

To contact directNIC's Human Resources dept:
jobs@directnic.com

To contact our legal department, send mail to:
legal@directnic.com

All other inquiries can be sent to:
inquiries@directnic.com

For inquires via mail:
Intercosmos Media Group, Inc.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1150
New Orleans, LA 70130-6116
USA


To contact us via telephone:
Our telephone number: +1 (504) 679-5170
Our telephone support hours: 7 am to 7 pm Central Standard Time Monday - Friday
Our fax number: +1 (504) 566-0484

Our local time is currently: May 2, 2006, 2:40 pm CDT
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-03:
RIPOFF REPORT

Why does Ed and his people go all out to get post removed that are negative about ripoff report ,but when someone post a anonymous, slanderous, malicious ,or hurtful Report on RIPOFF Report he says he does not remove any post unless he is paid and you join his consumer advocacy program(LOL). He has went to extremes to get post removed. Why so hypocritical? Well it does not matter we will get the message out about ED and his rip off report. I will not stop until I get ed out of my life!

Also, does anyone notice all the spy ware(or something) attached to ED'd rip off report site? There is some program or multiple programs there,but someone with more computer expertise can figure that one out.

Who provides bandwidth for rip off report? is it still Puregig and prolexic technologies

Directnic provides his domain, but there are a few more ISP's that help ed's extortion scheme/
If anyone knows these answers please post company name and any info you know
Posted by B. on 2006-05-24:
I've read the various threads posted on the worldwide web, here, on ripoffreport.com, and other websites and could not be more disgusted by this excuse of a man. In his early day's, extortion was his method of scamming money from businesses. Now he has the sick audacity, the balls to ask for charity!? Are you kidding me? I am a victim of this fool. As he allowed ANYONE to make libelous statements about me and my family, including allowing my personal home address, the ages of my children, deeds to my home, to be posted..... (How about posting your personal living address ED!? Your too much of a coward!) I attempted to rebut the filth Ed (aka Editor@ripoffreport.com) elected to post. However, he refused to allow my response on his piece of crap website. When I sent an emai to Editor@ripoffreport.com requesting a reason for none of my threads being included on his good for nothing Ripoffreport.com, I was met with nasty, vial, hateful emails calling me a "liar" and "crook". I still have them and have provided them to my lawyer. How could any consumer, business owner, family member, neighbor put any stock in a website with categories such as, "Child Abuser's" or "Adultery"? If any of these threads were true, any good American would do the right thing and report abuse to the authorities. Cheaters can be handled by their spouses. I don't think families need your "kind of help" Ed! Problem is, this website is hurtful and many people have not learned to take it with a grain of salt and view it as nothing more than silly entertainment. (I use the word entertainment loosely.) All it takes folks is someone entering your personal name in a search engine and there you will be! (if you've had the misfortune to be included on this site.) THIS IS THE WEB! WORLD WIDE! Imagine losing touch with a friend or family member and this idiot allowed some hateful post about you and/or your family, your business, your misfortunes. Meanwhile your loved one enter's your name and the search engine takes you to this lousy sight spewing nothing but fiction about you and your life AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! ED holds all your cards! How EVIL can one human being be? The court of law is the proper forum for those who have truely broken the law. Since when was this piece of dirt elected Judge and Jury? Just investigate this slime ball and you'll find endless lawsuits and judgements against Ed. If this jerk is such a standup American, how about supporting your fellow business owner struggling to make it in this world of consumers wanting something for nothing. It's jerks like this guy and the people he'll allow to post on his website that drive businesses out of business. I've come to believe there are lots of wonderful business owners who care deeply about their businesses and customers. Unfortunately, it's people like this disgusting, cowardly man who make it hard to get over a bump in the road. Instead, he stirs a pot with his posting choices making creating a situation people cannot business owners cannot overcome. There is no doubt there are unscrupulous business owners from time to time. But there are far more good people just trying to make it and this A-hole comes along! Then we all look at one another and wonder why business owners are leaving the US. Our economy stinks. And we all have Ed Magedson and his consumer network to thank for their contribution to an already difficult economy. Ed, your an embarresment. That would include those idiots who have bought into your website to which you'be posted their fiction! Your a horrible man! Your dead parents must be turning in their graves you pig! GOD will be your ulitmate judge and you will have lots to answer for having hurt people and families the way you have! I hope you rot in hell!

2:12 AM

Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-07-11:
ere it is: I got the e-mail of two V.P's at google Marissa Mayer V.P User experience marissa@google.com Vinton G Cerf V.P vcerf@mci.net E-mail these people and explain the scam that ed is running. Also , do a google search on "google contact info" and go to each place you can e-mail and copy and paste the exact same letter you sent to the V.P's. Google is huge so the more departments we contact the faster we find someone who can help. I also e-mailed all the board of directors. I also bought some google stock when they became public. Maybe, I can say something at the shareholders meeting if this doesnt work. Something got to be ... more >>

JDinDallas (06/14/2006) Reward this user for helpful advice
Thanks ripoff1989! I e-mailed several different addresses with google about this extortion scheme, and will continue to do so. I have wasted thousands of dollars with lawyers who were unable to get ANYTHING done. I think that if everyone continues to e-mail google about this, then they will be forced to investigate. Here is a list of e-mails that I sent my letter to. If you have any other addresses for people at google, please let me know marissa@google.com, vcerf@mci.net, suggestions@google.com, comments@google.com, search-quality@google.com, webmaster@google.com, help@google.com
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-15:
Do a goolge search on "ed magedson" an d "ripoffreport". Look at the first four pages and follow their lead. It will take a little time, but it will be worth to get his illegal EXTORTION SITE down.
Have you been harmed by the website www.ripoffreport.com? Have you been falsely accused with no way, other than to post on that site, to defend yourself? Join us in shutting this man down. Contact goolge. the more the complaints the better. he was remover over a year ago. They remove child porn and other ilegal sites all the time. Do a google search on"ed magedson"
Here is how that site works. Anyone with any complaint can post on there, it costs nothing. You can do it while you hide. Let me say that again ANYONE can post ANYTHING about ANYONE on www.ripoffreport.com with no accountability for their statements. That is libel, plain and simple. However, just try to email the site's founder Ed Magedson from Tempe AZ asking for assistance in locating the people who have made libelous statements against you. You will get a nasty surprise from ol' Ed or his "staff"!

They have paid "hunters" on that website. People who do short background checks on anyone who is "reported" to them. It is pretty easy to find a bit of information about anyone. Then these hunters post as if they know you, inciting you, baiting you with outright lies. It is like a Jerry Springer show or one of those tabloid magazines. It is also illegal. They also try to find people who complain at legitimate site to post their stories on their website. Again, inciting them to make bigger and rasher statements.

Every time you defend yourself of someone posts anything, good or bad, then the whole thread is kicked up into the top GOOGLE search again. Google can do something to stop this. We have gotten URL removed. Contact as many different departments as possible.
Also, contact his service providers. Do a "whois" search to find out who host his servers.
Also, puregig and prolexic tech. provided bandwidth last i checked. They all have TOS(terms of service) policies. Ripoff report is in clear violation of all their T.O.S's

There is so much wrong with in the world today, scammers preying on people, countries bombing each other, the world seems to indeed be "going to hell in a hand basket" as my grandma said so often. But people should still be held accountable, they should be made to stand behind what they say, especially when what they say is not true, an outright lie, libelous and harms others be it personally or in business.

Rip off Reports has many BBB (Better Business Bureau) complaints, including mine. If they have harmed you, please, visit the BBB and post a complaint. So many times people give up and think " I am only one, I can do nothing." Yes, you can. WE can.

We welcome any information to provide to attorneys and to shut these reprehensible people down. I think perhaps, if enough people kick and scream over this bloated mis-carriage of justice, we can make a difference. Any thoughts, ideas or if you just want to talk, email me. It may take awhile but together we can do this. I will do it alone if I have too. Ed has picked on the wrong person. His site is a grotesque parody of the little guy getting even with the big guy. Go there, read, spend some time. It is absolutely appalling. If you are decent person with one iota of fair play in you, you will too will be outraged.

Here is the response Mr. Magedson sent to me after I posted a LEGITIMATE complaint against him on the Squeaky Wheel. I had emailed rip off reports many times asking for "Sarah's" information. Never any response until I posted my complaint on the Squeaky Wheel. Then I recieved this email from Mr. Magedson, Founder and Head Hunter at Rip off Report. When you post a complaint at The Squeaky Wheel, everytime a new person views it, the company complained about receives an email! NEAT HUH? Oh and you have to pay to make a report on The Squeaky Wheel. So it does not get out of hand now does it?

Please note, the use of name calling ( I am a nut job and my friend is BS or at least her comments are), the lack of professionalism and the vaguely threatening undertone of this email. Simply because I posted a legitimate complaint against his site, which is pretty ironic, considering Ed makes his share of bucks with a site that claims to report complaints fairly. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculousness of this situation?

If you spam us again with any more email we are removing your comments from Rip-off Report and kicking you off the site.

You have been given a fair chance to post your comments and the BS comments from your friend.

If we get one more email from you, you are off the site for good.. and your comments will be removed.

We do not care what you say about us. anyone with half a brain will look at the Rip-off Report about you and figure out that you are a Rip-off and a nut job.

We have a policy,. anyone found to be threatening us with harm or doing harm to us, including spamming us with email from your email account. will be grounds for kicking you off Rip-off Report... along with any previous comments made by you.

Again, we dont care what you say about us. just dont send us emails. Maybe you should put your efforts into taking care of the customer you ripped off.

Do not respond.

DO NOT EMAIL US AGAIN FROM ANYWHERE.

Staff for...

ED Magedson - Founder

After doing a goolge search on "ed magedson" or "ripoff report" and do what alot of those links say. It gives info on who to e-mail at google. Also alot of other info is in the first 4 pages of that search.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-12-21:
I do not know if you are still after this guy, but here is info I have found. It shows where they are hiding his money. Something got to be done against this scum bag. If you would like any other info please feel free to e-mail me back. Here is the info:
I saw that your company was being extorted and attacked by Ed Magedson,Rip off report, and other criminals .I have been dealing with these criminals for over 4 years. Your legal department should want this info.
RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT
EXTORTION EXTORTION MALCIOUS LIBELOUS CRIMINAL SCAM RIPOFF REPORT!!!!
I have seen and talk to many people trying to protect their name and reputation and so far they have not had much luck against rip off report. The reason why is the all go down the same path. You have not done anything until you e-mail and call his service providers. If you have not done that , then why do you spend your $$$ on lawyers. A e-mail or call is free. Just use the same letter and just explain the truth. One letter to one of service providers got his extortion scam off a google for a while. Rip off Report has hurt a lot of good people and companies. At least alert the people below of what Rip off report is doing to you and your company.
If you are attacked by rip off report e-mail the abuse departments of his service providers. Ed's site is in violation of their of service(T.OS).. If enough try to get the truth out maybe something will happen. Ed's had to switch one of his providers before because of our e-mails and calls. How can the Government and his service providers let this scam go on.They wouldn't like false, malicious,libelous,half truths and any other lie about them. I bet Ed would remove, edit or take down any URL that was malicious about them. It is not FREEDOM OF SPEECH. One day justice will be served! Defamatory postings on the Internet are libel, not slander, under California law and plaintiffs may collect damages for them without demonstrating specific injury, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Justice Eugene M. Premo rejected the contention of two former employees of a Silicon Valley technological equipment manufacturer that the postings were best analogized to radio or television broadcasts, which if defamatory are classified as slander under Civil Code Sec. 46. The section does not mention television, but refers to communications which are “orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means,” and has been construed to include television broadcasts

Does Ed attach spy ware to people? Is that legal?

Why does rip off report trace go through Oklahoma City?

If you have any info(trust's,LLC's,FLP, alias,etc) On Ed's criminal Empire please post or leave a message to me and I will get the info out.

Here is more info:
Registrant:
DOMAINSBYPROXY.COM
15111 N. Hayden Rd ste 160
PMB 353
Scottsdale AZ 85260
480-624-2599
abuse@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by proxy's Domain name proxy agreement. DBP's Right to deny, suspend,Or terminate. Go to section 4 of their agreement and it is very clear what they will tolerate. Why do they have this in their agreement if they are totally protected by free speech?

Registered through Godaddy.com
480-624-2546
press@godaddy.com
abuse@godaddy.com
created 20-jun-04
expires 20-jun-11
Go daddy can terminate service because of violation to their policies and agreements. Why would they have policies if they were fully protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C 2701.
Domain servers in listed order:
OSDNSO1.PROLEXIC.COM
02
03
CIDR # 209.200.128
. Ed contact info:
A. 2033 W McDowell Blvd Apache Junction AZ 85220 (he refinanced in September for $417,000.00)
B. 1138 S Rose Mesa AZ (he has owned since 1985)
2. Magedson Sylvia Trust owns land at 6426 S McClintock Tempe AZ ( a Stein mart is there)
Ed is the trustee and hides his money in this trust as well as others. So it looks like ed has no money.
Check names of Martin Magedson,Sylvia Magedson, Molly or Mollie Magedson for more.
3. There are 11 docket reports for federal cases. there are probably a lot more. all these are Vs Ed Magedson and his other names.

1. MCW inc d/b/a Bernard Haldane Assoc (federal TX 2002) ?
2. Dr. Robert Guida (Federal NY 2003) 8 E 75TH St Ste 1
New York, NY 10021-2609
(212) 871-0900
3. Terri Bears (federal AZ 2003) ?
4. Mark Tolner Fashion Rocks (federal AZ 2003) info@TalentRock.com
5. Joan Randell (federal AZ 2003)
6. Trans continental records (federal FL 2003)
7. roni Lynn Deutch (federal Ca 2004)
8. Hy Cite Corp (federal AZ 2004)
9. Robert Ted Pritchard (federal Pa 2004)
10. Whitney Information systems & Russ Whitney (federal Fl 2004)
11. energy Automation Systems (federal TN 2006)


Here are some of Ed Magedson's lawsuits and links:
www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=2072
http://www.easybackgroundchecked.com/default.htm
http://www.ezripofflawsuit.com/
http://bad-business-rip-off.net
http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10554
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...seNumber=CV2004
http://scamreviewsites.com/Rip_Off_Reports.htm
http://brownraysman.typepad.com/tec...nity/index.html

AZ Superior - Maricopa CV2006-051453 Civil Magedson Ed 2006 10/25/2006 n/a Mi sc : CV
CA Superior - Los Angeles County BC285776 Americanfone Llc VS Rip Off Reports et al Badbusinessbureau.Com Llc 11/21/2002 04/19/2004 Dism Lack Prosecutn per 581a & 583 03/27/2003 NOS : (1031) Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
FL Circuit & County - Dade 2004-016967-CA-01 Invention Technologies Inc v. Xcentric Ventures (Llc) Invention Technologies Inc 08/05/2004 12/07/2004 n/a NOS : (81) Injunctive Relief
FL Circuit & County - Dade 2005-000175-CA-01 Universal Communication Sys Inc v. Xcentric Ventures (Llc) Universal Communication Sys Inc 01/04/2005 10/18/2006 Order of Dismissal NOS : (17) Other Civil Complaint
NJ Superior - Mercer L 002378 06 n/a Magedson , Edward 2006 10/25/2006 n/a Misc : n/a
NJ Superior - Mercer L 002378 06 n/a Xcentric Ventures LL C 2006 10/25/2006 n/a Misc : n/a
OH Court of Common Pleas - Hamilton A 0303025 Injunction- Oc- Taxed in Costs Magedson Edward 04/18/2003 10/25/2006 n/a Role: Defendant-2 Misc : Clerk Disposition: Dismissal
PA Court of Common Pleas - Allegheny AR-06-002880 Vavrick vs Magedson etal Edward Magedson 04/14/2006 10/03/2006 Praecipe NOS : (48) Defamation
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 05th Circuit 04-10583 MCW Inc v. badbusinessbureau, et al Edward Magedson 05/25/2004 10/21/2005 NOS : (890) Other Statutory Actions
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit 06-11888 Whitney Information Network v. Xcentric Ventures Ed Magedson 03/24/2006 10/20/2006 Closed NOS : (840) Trademark
U.S. District - New York Southern 1:03cv4479 Guida v. Magedson, et al Ed Magedson 06/12/2003 11/30/2003 Closed NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Illinois Northern 1:04cv6018 George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Ed Magedson 09/15/2004 10/21/2004 Active NOS : (890) Other Statutory Actions
U.S. District - Arizona 2:03cv848 Randell v. Badbusinessbureau.or, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 05/06/2003 05/14/2003 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Arizona 2:03cv894 Tolner v. Badbusinessbureau.or, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 05/13/2003 09/11/2003 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Arizona 2:03cv895 Bears v. Badbusinessbureau.or, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 05/13/2003 05/15/2003 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - California Eastern 2:04cv1175 Deutch v. Kreb, et al Edward Magedson 06/18/2004 06/22/2004 Active NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Arizona 2:04cv2856 HY Cite Corporation v. Badbusinessbureau.co, et al Ed Magedson, an Arizona Resident 12/10/2004 12/16/2004 Active NOS : (470) Rico
U.S. District - Florida Middle 2:04cv47 Whitney Information, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Ed Magedson, an Individual 01/27/2004 01/29/2004 Active NOS : (840) Trademark
U.S. District - Pennsylvania Western 2:04cv567 Pritchard, et al v. Magedson, et al Ed Magedson 04/14/2004 04/16/2004 Closed NOS : (320) Assault, Libel & Slander
U.S. District - Texas Northern 3:02cv2727 MCW Inc v. Www.badbusinessbureau.com LLC, et al Edward Magedson AKA Ed Magidson 12/20/2002 12/24/2002 Active NOS : (890) Other Statutory Actions
U.S. District - Florida Middle 6:03cv279 Trans Cont Talent, et al v. Badbusinessbureau, et al Ed Magedson, A Resident of Arizona 03/07/2003 03/11/2003 Closed NOS : (890) Other Statutory

All people being extorted do not sit back and let Ed keep hurting good people. All you got to do is explain the truth to anyone that may listen. It is worth a shot for you to contact Google(abuse@google.com , Legal@google.com), prolexic (abuse@prolexic.com , 911@prolexic.com) , Godaddy.com(abuse@godaddy.com) , Domains by Proxy( abuse@domainsbyproxy.com) and any others you can find.

Ed has been hiding for years. He keeps all his money in Trust's so no one can find him. I am almost positive that he keeps his ill gotten gains in trust that are set up in dead relatives names. Sylvia Magedson( he uses his own mom) trust owns land that a STEIN Mart is on. He must be getting a ton of money each month from that land. What else is on that land? Can there be a judgement and have Stein Mart pay directly to whomever wins the court battle vs Ed. As a trustee Ed is allowed to draw a fee to administer the trust. While breaking trusts are difficult, the money that is transferred from the trust to the trustee is up for grabs. Other names are Martin(dad) and Mollie(molly) Magedson. This is how he has kept his scam going.

It appears that the trust includes a commercial property at 6426 S McClintock, Tempe AZ, Stein Mart is there

In July this was posted on chilling effect as a result of Magedson's attorney complaining about copyright

July 18, 2005

Sender Information:
Consumer Media Publishing, LLC
Sent by: [Private]
Jaburg & Wilk
Phoenix, AZ, 85012, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

Sent via: VIA FACSIMILE
Re: www.bad-business-rip-off.com www.rip-off-bad-business.com

Dear User Support:

This firm represents Consumer Media Publishing, LLC, in connection with the protection of its intellectual property. The above-referenced websites are infringing the copyright of Consumer Media Publishing, LLC.

This following statement is made in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3)(A):

1. There are two copyrighted works which have been infringed:

a. A cartoon drawing owned by Consumer Media Publishing, LLC; and,

b. A quote from Ed Magedson that begins with "treat others as you would want them to treat you" owned by Consumer Media Publishing, LLC;

The infringing material is located at www.bad-business-rip-off.com and at www.rip-off-bad-business.com

3. Use of this material by the operator of the above-referenced website is not authorized by Consumer Media Publishing, LLC.

4. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Consumer Media Publishing, LLC, the owner of the exclusive right to the copyrights.

Pursuant to the DMCA, please remove links to infringing website upon receipt of this notice. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

JABURG & WILK, P.C.
[signature]
[private], Esq.

Here is the Arizona Corporate Commissions listing.

CONSUMER MEDIA PUBLISHING, LLC
Domestic Address PO BOX 470
PHOENIX, AZ 85280


Statutory Agent Information Agent Name: G PETER BUSNACK

Agent Mailing/Physical Address:
8833 S JB RD
REEVIS MOUNTAIN, AZ 85545

Agent Status: APPOINTED 09/13/2004
Agent Last Updated: 09/20/2004


Officer and Director Information Name: ED MAGEDSON
Title: MANAGER
Address: P.O. BOX 470


TEMPE, AZ 85280
Date Assigned: 01/14/2005 Last Updated: 03/04/2005


Name: CREATIVE BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Title: MEMBER
Address: CONCEPTS, INC.- ANV CORP
2533 N CARSON CITY
CARSON CITY, NV 89706
Date Assigned: 01/14/2005 Last Updated: 03/04/2005


Here is the Nevada Secreatry of State listing for:

Creative Business Investment Concepts, Inc.
President - DAVID BEDORE
Address 1: 2533 N CARSON ST Address 2:
City: CARSON CITY State: NV
Zip Code: 89706 Country:
Status: Active Email:

Treasurer - DAVID BEDORE
Address 1: 2533 N CARSON ST Address 2:
City: CARSON CITY State: NV
Zip Code: 89706 Country:
Status: Active Email:

Director - DAVID BEDORE
Address 1: 2533 N CARSON ST Address 2:
City: CARSON CITY State: NV
Zip Code: 89706 Country:
Status: Active Email:

Secretary - JOHN F GOODSON
Address 1: 2533 N CARSON ST Address 2:
City: CARSON CITY State: NV
Zip Code: 89706 Country:
Status: Active

Maybe David Bedore is the one that needs to be sued
Posted by The Quality Report on 2007-08-19:
I have read all the evidence and have to say that Ed is a ripoff. I started a website for the COMPANIES so consumers can have their say rather than having "good experiences" blocked from sites like ripoffreport. My site is www.TheQualityReport.com
Posted by LilyN on 2008-03-21:
Here is someone who apparently works in collusion rip-off report. From what I have heard, he actually partners with Ed Madgeson. The

company he worked for is run down to the ground too. They tried fighting multiple reports against them but failed miserable.

The man behind the reports was a salesman for them and to their surprise, they found that he was heavily involved in cyber terrorism,

cyber extortion and was mentally deranged as can be seen from the reports. He was immediately terminated but is still tormenting them. He

also had a collection agency background.

Having lost a lot of credibility clients and investors due to the reports, they tried changed the name of their business because there was

no way to remove the offending reports. Their business was literally bust. But the new name also found its way into rip off report. All of

it was the activity of one man named Richard Ackerman. He has filed reports on 5 different companies and tried extorting money from them.

And the company he was working for is again down to the ground having lost quite a couple of lucrative deals in the past month alone

because of these reports. The CEO of this company is a good friend of mine and is devastated, but still going strong because of solid

support from existing clients who are referring the company to friends. He has lost all the millions he has invested over the past 3

years.

CHECK THIS OUT: The CEO's Father is a well renowned scientist and is known worldwide for his contribution in the filed of fermentation

technology, microbiology and biochemistry. He has written books on these which are a part of the syllabus in the universities of the US.

He was the only scientist in 20 years to receive the post of an Emeritus scientist which is rarely given. TODAY HIS NAME IS IN MULTIPLE

RIP OFF REPORTS AS A CHEATER, CRIMINAL, LIAR even though he is not a part of the company reported. Same with our CEO's wife. She has also

been reported as a liar, cheater, criminal and husband beater.

One way to get to Ed Madgeson is through Richard. We would do anything to join a group which would bring down rip-off report.com He had

one proudly mentioned to our CEO that he was a close partner and associate of Ed Madgeson of rip-off report and that if he brough Ed any

clients who would pay up the extortion amount, he would get 40% of that amount.

Richard now puts up reports on people who he thinks he can rip money off easily...then he works with Ed to ensure that they are always in

the 3rd or 4th position on google. Then 2 - 3 weeks later, after the victims have realized that they are losing business and going down

the drain with their business which they struggled to build, he attacks them with demands for money with unrealistic reasons and

statements with absolutely no substance. He keeps calling the, mailing the, harassing their wives and family at odd hours, uses very very

vulgar language and torments them to death. And he promises and assures them that he will get the reports off the site if he is paid.



Now, Who is being harassed, tormented and extorted by Richard Akerman




VICTIM 1

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/223/RipOff0223263.htm

Extortion amount: $50,000 upfront and $1500 per month to keep the reports off the site.




VICTIM 2

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff244535.htm

Extortion amount: $57,000 upfront as a one time fee.

He tortured and tormented this man and his wife with vulgar phone calls till he became so disgusted that he had to leave working on his

business and hire a lawfirm to counter Richards extortion demands. Richard associated him with the mafia, called him a gangster, kept

telling him that the feds were after him. And what does this man do - He runs a top class company dealing with home appliances.


Here is a copy of communication with this victim...


This letter is in regards to Mr. Richard Ackerman. I am now aware that Mr.Ackerman is no longer a sales representative for your company.

It has come to my attention that Metatran Technologies, realtimemeister.com, and Real Time LLC. the companies owned by Mr. Ackerman are no

longer associated with your company. You have told me that Mr. Ackerman was only a sales rep in the US for your company and not a

consultant. You also mentioned that he was terminated for abusive language, and cyber extortion towards customers. You also mentioned that

Mr. Ackerman never paid you any money towards the website creation of Appliances Buy Phone, Inc. The monies were given to Mr Ackerman in

Sept of 2006. Mr.Ackerman took the American Express deposit paid to him of 8000.00 which was supposed to be a deposit towards the project

for his own use. Please respond to my email as soon as possibe for us to begin legal action against Mr.Ackerman.
Thank you,
S


Dear R,

Thank you for your fast reply. I am sorry for accusing you and your company of fraud and misrepresentation. Richard left me no choice but

to believe you were heading for bankruptcy. It is terrible when someone like Richard represents your company since he is a reflection of

you and your company. The reason he looked at other companies to sell me was his message about new management, and you about to lose

millions in capital. Egocart would not even do business with Richard. He never gave them any money either. N of egocart told me he sounded

desparate he called her countless times and emailed her till she cut him off. I can not believe that your company is not going after

Richard for slandering you. He has done enormous harm to your companies reputation. I will not pay him a cent. Richard has an offer on the

table, and if I was Richard I would take it fast and forget my telephone number and email.
S

Original copies of this communication can be obtained for legal use.





VICTIM 3

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff214184.htm

Extortion amount: $10,000 upfront as a one time fee.

See how this guy is pleading that he is innocent and has children and that no one should believe the report. He started losing a lot of business because of the report.






VICTIM 4

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff190913.htm

Extortion amount - An unbelievable $100,000 as a one time fee.

This VICTIM FILED A CASE AGAINST RICHARD, HAD RICHARD JAILED AND ARRESTED, IS FIGHTING HIM IN COURT.





victim 5

This is the same company he used to work with earlier, this time with a higher extortion amount

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/317/RipOff0317839.htm

Extortion amount: THIS TIME IT IS 85,000 AS A ONE TIME FEE with a threat that he will not give up damaging them till they pay him.

FROM WHAT I KNOW, THIS COMPANY WILL NOT PAY A SINGLE CENT TO RICHARD. They are tired.


Richards address and all contact details can be obtained very easily. In fact there is a suit against him now and he has to appear in court and can be easily nailed along with all the evidence. We can get to Ed through Richard. Moreover, all the victims mentioned above will join in to nail Richard and Ed and their Rip off report site which has cause devastating damage to hundreds of innocent victims.

Voice recordings of Richard Akerman trying to extort money, threatening to put up more stuff on ROR ( His favourite dialogue is - In just a few minutes, I am going to press the Submit button on the Rip Off Report site. What happened earlier is nothing compared to what is going to happen now.) He has also threatened on tape that if we give the evidence to any attorneys, law firms, cops or any of the other victims, he would put up many more reports and cause more damage.

See how the ROR site gives WEASELS the power to hurt others. Richard is 55 years old, divorced 3 times, owes a lot of money to his ex-wives and is flat broke. One of the victims did an asset check to see if he could be sued for damages and Richard has nothing at all. He lives on food coupons provided by the Government and rides a broken down bicycle. None of the victims mentioned above paid him as far as I know. I can say so because their reports are still on page 1 of Google.

Something has to be done about ROR.
Posted by Sharp Knife on 2008-12-09:
Ed Magedson is such a terrible person. Seriously, I truly believe Ed Magedson is one of the worst if not the worst criminal operating in the United States. He finds pleasure if extorting monies from individuals and companies, he writes fake fraudulent listings to post on his Rip Off Report and then demand money from that person or business to remove the posting he created himself.

This is not a good person, Ed lacks complete integrity across the board. No redeeming values of any kind. The most dishonest person I have knowledge of.
Posted by Sharp Knife on 2008-12-09:
There is not one single person or business that has the volume of negative complaints agaisnt them. Rip Off Report far exceeds any other person or business with what must be thousands of documented complaints on numerous sites across the internet. You would need a calculator to determine the number of listed complaints agaisnt Ed Magedson and Rip Off Report.
Posted by Jesse James Is Gunning 4 U on 2009-01-06:
My question is why hasn't anyone shot dirty pool with this guy? He likes to play dirty so why is everyone trying to use above board methods to deal with him? I think it'd be a small matter to hire a PI in AZ to hunt him down and spy on him. The guy has GOT to have dirt on him somewhere and everyone knows how much investigative reporters and prosecuting attornies love to have have that sort of information at hand. It would be a small matter for several peeps to go in together and hire a licensed PI to hunt down and trail this guy. Who knows what they may find out about him? Perhaps Ed is a closet child molestor? Or perhaps something equally as heinous? No one will know until they've begun a proper examination of his past including childhood friends, neighbors, teachers, business associates, former employers, and so on. It's always interesting to see self-proclaimed crusaders like this Ed guy fall becuase inevitably they are as bad if not worse than those they point fingers at.
Posted by Tinaluvsu on 2009-01-30:
Ed and Rip Off Report is running a new scam and has been for a while now. He is selling the identity of the ROR poster that made the complaint agaisnt the business. You heard me right, anyone that makes a report on ROR agaisnt a business assumes they are to remain hidden and their names not released by ROR. This is a LIE as Ed has found a new way to make double the money on each post. He extorts money from the business and takes the identity of the person making the ROR report and sells it to the business being reported.

This ROR has gone from very very bad to the worst possible in terms of dishonesty and criminal. Ed Magedson has no integrity none at all zero, nada none.
Posted by DJluvsu on 2009-03-03:
Has anyone digested the volume of complaints agaisnt Magedson and Rip Off Report in all venues? There is easily 5000 complaints posted agaisnt Magedson and Rip Off Report a whopping 5000 and thats conservative

Now, if this was anyone else would google give this ranking ability to a person or business with this incredible amount of complaints that all seem to share a common thread of fraud and extortion??? I didnt think so

I honestly believe Magedson is the biggest fraud scam on the net worlwide and one of the top 10 criminals in the nation
Posted by Celia1 on 2009-04-23:
Beware of Jack LaLannes Power Juicer purchased on TV from Tristar Products Inc as they will scam you as they did me. They show and price a Classic PJ at a price of two easy payments of $49.90 each and an exorbitant S&H of $44.96. When the package arrives you discover that they have billed your credit card in the amount of $105.85 with a balance due of $59.95 as the 2nd payment. This amounts to hidden extortion. ($49.90 + $44.96 does not equal $105.85. If you pay the balance due and complain you can send it back for the same S&H. That amounts to being overcharged $20.00 plus 2-1/2 times the normal UPS charge for shipping. There are several other sites that only charge $14.95 for shipping. I've learned my lesson and will teach others to never buy anything from a TV Infomercial. Always check the Internet before buying anything lest you get ripped off like I did!
Posted by Hot Dog with Onions on 2009-05-09:
Here we all are getting up early running our business or reporting to work for your employer. Then we have Magedson and Rip Off Report who lies in wait like a thief spending his day eating, writting false reports on thousands of businesses and demanding extortion money to remove his posting.

Myself, I told Mr. Magedson to stick it up his rear end when he came to me demanding $15,000 to remove a posting that I swear to god he wrote himself. I turned my matter over to the FBI in Arizona immediately to investigate Magedson. Apparently from what the FBI told me when I filed my report is they were already much aware of Magedson and said they had numerous other reports on Magedson.

Magedson is truly Satans Son who is the worst of the worst of human beings.

Anyone (Google) who promotes ROR is as guilty as Mr. Extortion himself Magedson
Posted by michaelmurphy550 on 2009-08-25:
I have a business friend that has been adversely affected by ripoffreports from a partner who lied. Daniel Tzvetkoff is a well-known sham businessman who has been has several criminal allegations against him and he is still able to post false ripoff reports. See:

http://www.alanat.com/business/net-tycoon-denies-siphoning-off-35m/

and

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/16/98451_gold-coast-news.html

When people like this are able to post reports to the world then it really puts the credibility of sites like ripoffreport.com in question and makes us all vulnerable to damaging, unsupported rantings.

Posted by PepperElf on 2009-08-25:
dude this complaint is over 4 years old
who cares
Posted by Commenter2010 on 2009-12-03:
Here is an article the explains what is going on with ripoff report and gives you a link to report their activity to the Department of Justice:

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-rip-off-report-ror-victims-fight-back-1259391823.html
Posted by cynthia grossman on 2011-08-02:
great article. thanks

Cynthia G.
Vent
Close commentsAdd reply

The Rip Off Report
Posted by RORisaScam on 02/16/2006
This guy's site needs to be restructured and/or shut down. The Rip Off Report is a money making machine and there is nothing positive about it for anyone other than Ed and his bank account. Anyone can post anything bad about your company, whether it's true or not. So if you are a business owner in a competitive market (especially if you're a consumer based online company like us), your competition can post a few negative comments that could severely impact your business. That's what happened to us. We spend over $500,000 a month to market our site and the ROR is severly impacting our business b/c a competitor is posting false claims on ROR. Ed has a search engine optimization (SEO) team to code his pages by placing a company's name in Meta tags among other SEO tricks (Big bold letters so that they come up first in search engines results when someone Googles your company. He knows that we are in a 'Google' age and he can and is making a ton of $$ from selling his ROR book for $19.95 and through extortion masked by 'donations' to 'bury' the posts about our company. I sent him a long and detailed email explaining the situation and asked politely for a way to resolve it. All I got in response was an auto-response stating that I could donate money if I wanted. This guy could care a less about consumer complaints...this is a big business for him all he cares about is free advertising and generating revenue. Really this guy and his site are not that far off from the Wendy's 'finger in the Chili' case.
     
Read 16 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by SuperSource2005 on 2006-02-17:
oh please. you are just bitter because your company was exposed as a rip-off. perhaps next time you become an honest business who isnt out to screw the public, its your own fault and no one feels sorry for you. as for Rip-off report it's what us consumers need it's a great tool to decide what businesses deserve my business.
Posted by Slimjim on 2006-02-17:
Supersource is another alias for silentassasin, who is a ripoff report plant, here to try and shill away what are an ongoing amount of complaints. It's amazing how he can be gone for like 6 months, yet be here in an hour if a rip-off report complaint shows up. "Search this site for other reports on Rip-Off Report"
Posted by tander on 2006-02-17:
I don't care for rip off report either. They completely let other people slander others for sleeping with this persons husband, or for molesting this persons child,and completely ignore the posts that go on and on and on. Rip Off Report should be shut down, or they should follow M3C.Com's rules and have the reviews stick to company's.
Posted by KenPC on 2006-02-17:
I stopped reviewing Ripoff Report when I realized (from monitoring a friend's thread) that they only selectively post responses, and spin the criticism in the direction they want it to go. I personally saw a response where they altered the text of the response, which changed its context.

It seems like it would be a need for that site, but from what I can tell, Ed Magedson is more of a bottom feeder than the companies he pretends to be monitoring. I agree that his site needs some legal scrutiny.
Posted by Ponie on 2006-02-17:
Don't remember how I heard of that so-called forum, but at one time I checked it quite often. Found the majority of ror's consisted of people who max out their credit cards, go to a credit counseling company for debt consolidation and handling, and then make more complaints when they are 'just a few days' late when making their payments. Then there are the ones who claim the banks are punishing them with 'fees'--mainly for issuing NSF checks--and they should be put out of business for doing so. They all seem to have the same attitude--the world owes me a living and I have no intention of working for it. Just hand over your money or I'll contact my State Attorney General, BBC, FCC, FTC, ABCDEFG, etc. The majority of the answers seem to agree with them, too. IMHO, I think they're all a bunch of losers, except for the guy (whoever he is) who started it all and by reports I've read is making money hand over fist selling his books.
Posted by Slimjim on 2006-02-17:
Court documents show the site owner was in negotiations with an IL. law firm where he would send over referrals from posts to drum up class-action suits in return for $800,000 per year. Those zeros are not a typo. A site for the people?? If the people are named Ed Magedson, I guess.
Posted by SuperSource2005 on 2006-02-17:
wife beater johnson, perhaps you should do your research a little better because I never left. secondly what part of Im not a ROR plant do you not understand? you had no evidence months ago nor do you have evidence now, you really should stop embarrassing yourself.
how many different ways do i need to embarass you? again, Silent assassin and I are 2 DIFFERENT people get that through your wife beating head
Posted by Slimjim on 2006-02-18:
You're a flat out liar, you're the same person and it's been proven. Looks like your rip-off report has many vioces saying the same things. Is Ken ,Tander and Ponie all crooks and liars too? Drag your sorry a$$ back to ROR shill!
Posted by SuperSource2005 on 2006-02-18:
you never proved it despite being asked many times. provide your evidence, wife beater.
Posted by shayen on 2006-02-18:
I LOVE the RoR, they provide a valuable service and I would like to remind the OP that anyone at anytime can make a FAKE posting against any company, whether its here at my3cents, PF, RoR, complaints.com, livejournal, their own website, whatever!!!
Posted by Brenda Leah on 2006-02-19:
I used to like Rip Off Report until I saw how many "rip offs" were idiots trying to slander others. It's quite sad that they let anyone post whatever they want too. I wonder how many of the deadbeat father or drug addict mother claims are true? I don't know... if I knew a mother who was a drug addict who couldn't take care of her children I wouldn't be wasting my time on a website. I would be calling child protective services.....
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-02-19:
I never go to rip off reports anymore. I, too, stopped going there when I realized they do not post all the comments sent to them.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-08:
eVERYONE NEED TO CONTACT GOOGLE AND EXPLAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT ED'S RIPOFF REPORT AND HIS EXTOTION SCHEME. His site was removed about ayear ago due to complaints, but he got it back up there. So if enough of us call and e-mail something will happen. Google is not an unfair company. So they can deindex ed's site. plus ed illegally uses your name in advertising and in his html codes and meta tags. I am sure you didnt give him permission to use your name.
Google's headquarters are located in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
phone: (650) 253-0000
fax: (650) 253-0001
use our web form at www.google.com/support
abuse@google.com
legal@google.com

I called ,e-mailed, and faxed google over a two month period and finally someone in their adwords department helped me and got my ripoff report (URL) removed.
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-08:
All people who are attacked by ED's scam(he is in it for the money). Contact his service providers. He may have switched ,but just do a "whois" search on any of his sites. Contact google anyway you can. They remove child porn all the time. The more complaints the faster his whole site gets taken down.

More info: A

The first Site is Ripoffreport.com, which is a site that encourages unhappy customers and employees to post their complaints on the website. In order to post a complaint the victim must post and address, phone number, and valid email address. This is all to make sure the information is legit the company claims.

Once the Ripoffreport.com has duped the victims into posting a negative report, then the operation begins.

The first thing they do is try to sell the customer a pamphlet on how to attack companies. This book basically advises customers to harass and attack the company, especially to keep posting on Ripoffreprt.com. (Click here to see link for manual solicitation)

The second thing that Ripoffreport does is send emails to the posters asking for donations to help fight legal battles with these companies. They use a combination of guilt and veiled threats. We are being attacked by these companies because we just want to help you the consumer. Please help us; we can barely keep our doors open and our servers running. “Our legal costs will bankrupt us”, they claim. Then the veiled threat; implying that the evil corporations do not want to sue just Ripoffreport, but also the poster of negative information. “We will do everything we can to protect you, we just need money for lawyers”, they claim. (Click Here for a sample of the letters sent out by Ripoffreport.com)

After trying to collect money from the consumer then Ripoff charges a business $25 to respond to a complaint after the fourth response. To keep the responses going Ripoffreport emails every complaining consumer every time a complaint is responded to. This gets the consumers to keep complaining and forces the company to keep responding. If the consumer does not file additional complaints, RipoffReport simply makes some up. This forces the company to pay to respond.

Initially it stopped there and was just a run of the mill penny anti scam run by convicted felon Ed Magedson (He bills himself as “Editor” on the site). He probably wouldn’t have attracted too much attention and could have continued this scam forever, but then they decided to go for the big dollars:

rip-off report – Criminal Ed Magedson then joined forces with a group of criminals that form
Posted by Code 5 on 2007-09-14:
is Rip Off Report Down? I heard it was shut down? you cant access it the last 48 hours? Is this true. If it is what a great thing for all of us
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-09-14:
Looks like it. I can ping them:

Ping ripoffreport.com (217.17.158.39) ...
1 Addr:217.17.158.39, RTT: 171ms, TTL: 49

Ed is now using:
Xcentric Ventures, LLC on the RIPE network (Europe) Ankara - Turkiye
ALKIMNET Telecommunication LTD
Gundogdu Mah. Cayir sk. No: 14B
Ankara - Turkiye 06230

So wether he has been under a DOS attack or his servers are off line. He moved to Turkey because it was getting to hot for him here in the USA.

It is anybody's guess right now as there are thousands of people and companies trying to shut him down at any given time.

Close commentsAdd reply

Ripoff report : NEW INFO ripoffreport.com (ripoff report)
Posted by Ripoff1989 on 12/04/2005
PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- Thanks for the help I got my ripoff report removed on google
1. www.antiripoffreport.com
2. www.goodbusinessbureau.com
3. www.bad-business-rip-off.com
4. www.ezripofflawsuit.com
5. http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10554
6. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket ... o.asp?caseNumber=CV2004-021685
7. http://www.dcpages.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5058
8.http://www.pulsemanagement.com/press/beic.htm
9. http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/8445/t/10
10. http://express-press-release.com/16/Extortio ... %20place,%20the%20Internet.php
11. http://sleazereport.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=12&
Contact Arizona attorney general office
File #CIC 04-210090 Magedson, ed
602-542-5763

You can serve ed at
Jaburg $ wilk
3200 n central ave
phoenix Az 85012
602-248-1000

Contact info for google get your report removed)
Google Inc.
Mountian view California
94043 USA

Directnic is the regitrar for ed's sites

Domain servers(I did a whois search)

NSO.Directnic.com 204.251.10.100
NS1.Directnic.com 206.251.1772

Contact christopher scorina (Lawyer)
949-582-1544

contact your local BBB http://www.dc.bbb.org/report.html?national=Y&compid=1038533 :

contact the Federal trade commision:
File # FOIA-2005
ripoffreport.com
202-326-2417
margeret woodson
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

Contact F.B.I:http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp


Earn a bounty with information about Ed Magedson
There are several federal laws that provide bounties or rewards or the equivalent of bounties for certain information or lawsuits.

Federal income taxes
Section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to pay rewards to those who help detect and/or prosecute tax cheats. If you have any information that Ed Magedson has cheated on his income taxes, send it to the IRS. Their tax fraud hot line is 800-829-0433. If they use it successfully, they may pay you a reward. There is no set reward amount, although you often hear the figure 10%. The basic idea is that the IRS wishes to encourage such information. They will acknowledge receipt of your information and tell you one way or the other if they will be rewarding you for it.

Inside information trading
This is the crime Martha Stewart made famous. In general, persons who have inside formation about a public company may not buy or sell shares of that stock unless they first register that information, which makes it public. The news stories about Martha Stewart have suggested that she knew Imclone was about to be told publicly that they would be denied approval of an important new drug. Arguably, she and others sold before the news became public to avoid the likely decline in stock price. The head of Imclone has pleaded guilty to insider trading. She got indicted for covering up her behavior in that incident. The stock in her company went down by a half a billion as a result.

If you report an apparent illegal inside trade by Ed Magedson to the SEC, you are eligible to collect a bounty of up to 10% of the amount of improper profits he is forced to give back. 17 CFR §§201.61 to 201.68 The Web page for the SEC’s Inside Information Bounty Program is at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/insider.htm.

There is a general complaint center at SEC. Their address and fax number are SEC Complaint Center, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549 202-942-9634 and their complaint Web page is http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml.

Racketeering
As with many laws, RICO has a misleading name. RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 USC 1961-4). The name conjures up images of the Godfather. The law is not confined to mobsters at all. Rather, it simply is triggered whenever a person or organization commits two or more acts of mail fraud (18 USC 1341) or wire fraud (18 USC 1343) in a ten-year period.

Mail fraud is “…obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises…” involving the mail in any way. Wire fraud is the same, only it requires the transimission of some sound by wire in interstate commerce. I think that’s the Congress’s way to describe a phone call or fax. Nowadays, it may cover Internet as well. If you listen to a dial-up modem, you can hear a rushing sound of the data being transmitted. Arguably, that, too, would be wire fraud.

Do Ed Magedson or his companies commit mail fraud or wire fraud? I do not know. I do know that he owns a telemarketing company and uses telemarketing. I also know that he has a Web site. Sale of books, tapes, or printed newsletters generally require use of the mail. That’s part of the requirement. The other question is are there any misrepresentations? The " Better Business Bureau has given Ed Magedson an unsatisfactory rating" is part of a misrepresentations. Do they rated him unsatisfactory because of not giving refunds? To the extent that he or his firm represented that they would give refunds, not giving them when the customer has complied with the refund terms sounds like another misrepresentation.

In general, mail fraud and wire fraud are crimes and crimes are prosecuted only by government prosecutors, namely the U.S. Attorney. But sometimes, the government is concerned that their resources are too limited to deter the crimes in question enough. In those cases, they add a clause to the law that enables civilians to become “prosecutors” of a sort by giving them a legal right to file a civil suit for those same crimes and providing a financial incentive to do so. So-called “civil RICO” is such a law.

18 USC 1964 permits civil (private) suits for RICO violations. It also provides incentive by entitling the winning plaintiff to triple damages. I do not want to encourage suits against Ed Magedson or anyone else without good grounds. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says it is illegal to file a suit unless you have investigate both the facts and the law and made sure the suit is warranted by both. So if you plan to sue Ed Magedson under RICO or any other law, make sure you have good grounds.

False Claims Act
Another federal law that encourages private citizens to sue is the False Claims Act. In this law, if you win, you get a large reward. I see less likelihood that Ed Magedson would come under this, but it’s worth looking into. The main chance would be his use of and his advocacy of the use of federally related contacts or cooperations in his so-called “working with the FBI”. The False Claims Act generally relates to persons getting money from the federal government improperly — or not paying the federal government as much as they were supposed to
     
Read 3 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by chris mcfarland on 2006-01-16:
An Arizona Fedral Judge just ruled that threatened extortion and mail fraud by the Rip-Off Report and ed magedson, personally, are predicate acts in well pled RICO claims. (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations). http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/12.05Dismiss.pdf
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-05-03:
RIPOFF REPORT

Why does Ed and his people go all out to get post removed that are negative about ripoff report ,but when someone post a anonymous, slanderous, malicious ,or hurtful Report on RIPOFF Report he says he does not remove any post unless he is paid and you join his consumer advocacy program(LOL). He has went to extremes to get post removed. Why so hypocritical? Well it does not matter we will get the message out about ED and his rip off report. I will not stop until I get ed out of my life!

Also, does anyone notice all the spy ware(or something) attached to ED'd rip off report site? There is some program or multiple programs there,but someone with more computer expertise can figure that one out.

Who provides bandwidth for rip off report? is it still Puregig and prolexic technologies

Directnic provides his domain, but there are a few more ISP's that help ed's extortion scheme/
If anyone knows these answers please post company name and any info you know
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-09-20:




Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: ED MAGEDSON RIPOFF REPORT EXTORTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIPOFF REPORT EXTORTION RIPOFF REPORT EXTORTION
gO TO THIS LINK: http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10554

eVERYONE NEED TO CONTACT GOOGLE AND EXPLAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT ED'S RIPOFF REPORT AND HIS EXTOTION SCHEME. His site was removed about ayear ago due to complaints, but he got it back up there. So if enough of us call and e-mail something will happen. Google is not an unfair company. So they can deindex ed's site. plus ed illegally uses your name in advertising and in his html codes and meta tags. I am sure you didnt give him permission to use your name.
Google's headquarters are located in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
phone: (650) 253-0000
fax: (650) 253-0001
use our web form at www.google.com/support
abuse@google.com
legal@google.com
RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT RIPOFF REPORT EXTORTION EXTORTION
I called ,e-mailed, and faxed google over a two month period and finally someone in their adwords department helped me and got my ripoff report (URL) removed
All people who are attacked by ED's scam(he is in it for the money). Contact his service providers. He may have switched ,but just do a "whois" search on any of his sites. Contact google anyway you can. They remove child porn all the time. The more complaints the faster his whole site gets taken down.
Defamatory postings on the Internet are libel, not slander, under California law and plaintiffs may collect damages for them without demonstrating specific injury, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Justice Eugene M. Premo rejected the contention of two former employees of a Silicon Valley technological equipment manufacturer that the postings were best analogized to radio or television broadcasts, which if defamatory are classified as slander under Civil Code Sec. 46. The section does not mention television, but refers to communications which are “orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means,” and has been construed to include television broadcasts.

Plaintiffs suing for slander must prove special damages, while in libel—defined by Sec. 45 as defamation by “writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye”—damages are presumed.

Varian Associates Inc. and two of its executives sued Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day after the two former employees posted a series of messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to the company’s publicly traded stock. The messages maligned the company’s products and suggested that the two executives were incompetent and dishonest and that one of them, a woman, might have obtained her position by having sex with a supervisor.

After the suit was filed Delfino and Day intensified the message campaign and developed a Web site devoted to their allegations. They also vowed, Premo noted, to “continue posting until they died.”

A jury found the defendants liable for libel, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and conspiracy, awarding $425,000 in general damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jack Komar also enjoined Delfino and Day from repeating allegations he found to be untrue and defamatory.

Premo pointed out that the issue of whether defamatory Internet postings are libel or slander was not raised at trial, but said the court was exercising its discretion to consider it.

“The issue presented here involves a question that has arisen only with the advent of Internet communications,” Premo wrote. “Application of the common law to matters involving the Internet is of considerable public interest. Moreover, the distinction between libel and slander involves a practical difference in the requirements for pleading and proof so that the question is one that is likely to recur.”

Internet postings are not communications by “mechanical or other means” within the meaning of Sec. 46, the justice explained.

“Logic tells us that ‘mechanical or other means’ cannot apply to all mechanical methods for producing a communication,” he declared. “After all, the cause of action for libel arose with the invention of mechanical means for reproducing the printed word.”

The legislative history of Sec. 46, adopted in 1945, suggests that the Legislature intended to preserve the traditional distinction between libel as written and slander as spoken defamation, Premo said.

He wrote:

“We find the plain language of the defamation statutes is dispositive. That is, defendants’ messages were publications by writing. The messages were composed and transmitted in the form of written words just like newspapers, handbills, or notes tacked to a conventional bulletin board. They are representations ‘to the eye.’ True, when sent out over the Internet the messages may be deleted or modified and to that extent they are not ‘fixed.’ But in contrast with the spoken word, they are certainly ‘fixed.’ Furthermore, the messages are just as easily preserved (as by printing them) as they are deleted or modified. In short, the only difference between the publications defendants made in this case and traditionally libelous publications is defendants’ choice to disseminate the writings electronically.”


Close commentsAdd reply


Ripoff report and what to do if attacked!
Posted by Ripoff1989 on 08/14/2005
PHO -- love to post things i find on the internet. I will spend hours everyday posting info about ripoff report and ed magedson. Ripoff report attacks my company.The complaint(url) is not even about my company.

Ed knows he will lose service if companies press service providers. o puregig and prolexic,STERLING NETWORK, AND ULTRA DNS SHOULD NOT WANT THE LIABLILTY OF ED'S SITE. they cared why wont they explain there business relationship with ed. They want us to go away or they will threaten to counter sue.
All you want is the truth!
If they want courts to handle this matter then they will get their wish.
How can they provide service to a company that is illegally doing things? If it was not for them ed would not be in business. Yes ed can go around and get new service providers, but that would take him down in rankings which would shut down his criminal site. Also, if you had the corresondence between you and service providers it would be hard for him to pick another service provider. Just show exactly what happened with his last service providers. Having a lawsuit on ed is like suing a ghost,but the people responsible for getting ed'd malcious site out to the people can be fair game. Why would they want to defend ed?
Ed could pick an overseas service provider?
The realibility of those companies are very real.It wil not get him ranked high in search engines.There are so many problems with that its actually funny.
Any info that anyone can get is appreciated.
I.P address's
service providers
any lawsuit
anything
The more we get this info out the better companies can defend themselves.
Who cares what ed and his cronnies post.It actually gives different angles to attack.
If ed's site is attacking you unfairly with no regard to the truth then the easiest way i see that can get rid of this convicted criminal is to go after service providers.
If they bring up the 1996 act then ask them how does that pertain to extortion, R.I.C.O,and all the many different laws that are being broken.
Also, not only go after individualy but go after him criminally.
since your businees is based in whatever town you are in. I beleive it will be smart to file in your own home town. let them come to you.
Eventhough the internet is crossing state lines which the F.B.I would like to know about. Most police departments have a internet division. Hope alot of you can read into this.
Contact the Arizona attorney general office.
File:CIC 04-21090 Magedson,ed
Tammy miller
602-542-5763
Small claims may also be another way
Puregig inc
3443 N.Central ave
suite 706
Phoenix, az 85012
602-445-1850
sTERLING NETWORKS
ULTRADNS
888-367-4820
They will tell you ed is a customer of a customer, but wont give you exactly their agreement for them to malicously attack your company. Even if ed is doing it . If it was not for them ed would not have bandwidth.
Prolexic tech is who puregig passes the buck too.
Who does what?
There are many ways to skin a cAT.
It sucks having anonymous posting about your company. Imagine only way to remove anonymous posting was to pay ed $50,000.00
and a monthly fee.
WHY DOES EDS ATTORNEY SEND LETTER TO SERVICE PROVIDERS? hIS LAWYERS ARE SMARTER THAN YOURS.
From my research, I have found some more information regarding Ed Magedson and Ripoffreport, the man and company who are attempting to extort money from YOU by posting false negative information. I have found the providers for the Ripoffreport site, and they all have the legal right and ability to stop servicing his site. It is in every one of their terms of service. They may throw all kinds of bs jargon at you as to not being responsible for Ed, but, if we continue to call them with complaints, they will have no option but to either explain their exact stance regarding Ed, or more likely, they will simply stop doing business with him. think about it. Any business wants customers, but not at the expense of dealing with all of the customer's problems. Here is the information that I have acquired.
1) Prolexic Technologies provides the bandwidth for ripoffreport. (866)800-0366
2) Pure Gig provides the bandwidth to Prolexic
Matt Wilson, General Manager
Puregig.com
3443 N. Central Ave
Suite 706
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)445-1850
3)*new info*
Sterling Network HOSTS ripoffreport.com. They ARE responsible if you have been extorted by Ed, because they are the ones providing the actual service. www.sterlingnetwork.com
(602)682-2200 general
(602)682-2210 9am-5pm
(800)482-5310 after hours
noc@sterlingnetwork.com
abuse@sterlingnetwork.com
4.ULTRA DNS IS ARE RESONSIBLE FOR ED'S DOMAIN
888-367-4820
These companies have to bear responsibility for Ed's actions, because they are the ones providing him the website to extort you, or post libelous info about you. Bartenders ARE responsible for providing alcohol to intoxicated individuals that they know are going to drive. Gun shops ARE responsible for selling guns to people who they know are going to go kill someone. getaway drivers ARE responsible for driving bank robbers to and from the robbery. We must inform these companies of Ed Magedson's activities, and they WILL be responsible for his actions. You CAN serve these companies lawsuit papers no matter what they try to tell you. Call them. Make complaints. If there is no action, continue to call and make compaints. If they still don't respond to the complaints, then you know that they are involved in Ed Magedson's scheme to extort and libel you, and SERVE THEM A LAWSUIT! They have money, and they will HAVE to pay! If we all do this, they will have no choice but to take action against Ed and his crooked activities.
1. puregig provids bandwidth to
2.Prolexic tech
3.Sterlingnetworks.net host his web page.
If anyone has any info on ripoff report please post.
4.ULTRA DNS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DOMAIN.
     
Read 23 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-11:
wow, are you bitter. please seek professional help as you are wayyyyy to angry of a person and you put other lives in jeopardy with your anger.
all the ideas you have posted about have been done and dismissed(as you can tell ror is still up) despite some lamebrains thinking otherwise i am not associated with ed or rip off report I am just a fan of rip off report its a great service that actually is on the consumers side no more being screwed by joe corporation. In fact ror has helped in not using certain companies that have complaints against them id rather use a reputable company.
Ed is a good man, you are just bitter because your company was exposed as crooked. perhaps you should change your business ways and stop being a crook.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-11:
Well go figure, silenta$$wipe is right there again on another ROR thread singing like a bird. How is it you can type this poster should change his business ways and he's a "crook"? You don't even know him or his business, OR DO YOU??? Yet you "know" ed and he's a good man huh? I originally just blew by this but you've made me once again, have to stop and call you out as either ed himself or one of his cronies performing internet damage control.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-11:
plain and simple, if he wasnt a crook he wouldnt be on the rip off report. its simple, really.
you really have a seriously learning problem so i will ask again. what part of "I AM NOT ED NOR AFFILIATED WITH ROR" did you NOT understand? ive called you out, either put up or shut up, i gave you the opportunity to verify that i dont work for him but yet you are too chicken s*it to do it. so sit down and shut up.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-11:
The rip-off report openly acknowledges they do not confirm the authenticity or accuracy of the reports. So 'Mike', how do you make the imbecilic argument “if he wasn’t a crook he wouldn’t be on the rip off report”? Let me give you some advice Silent a$$, the day I added my3cents on one of these ROR gripe threads about my posts not being added, and you came screaming in calling me a liar, was the day I put you officially on my shat list. You’re a know nothing, uneducated, street dumb, loud mouth who can have all the evidence in the world shoved up his nose, yet still would be blinded by ignorance. Oh yeah, my advice- you would do the rip-off report and ed a favor by not running to shill on these little battle posts that pop up by not so ROR fans. Originally, I said my peace and had no desire to add on to subsequent threads. However, as long as I see you singing for ROR while bashing people who have been victimized by this e-rag, I WILL make sure thread readers know you’re a fool with an agenda.. Considering the wealth of links pertaining to ROR lawsuits, investigations, news exposes’ and the like, why prompt me or someone else to help people find them? Do eddie a favor and STFU. You won’t be helping him here, I promise!
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-11:
as your superior said before. if these complainers werent crooks and liars they would not be listed on this website, they are so they are reported for all to see(what a great system it is)
you are a liar, your a little bitter liar who was caught being a crook and/or a liar and was put on here for all to see(i applaud the person who did it)
am I really supposed to care if im on your "shat list"? seriously crook is it supposed to bother me?
im smarter,more educated, and street smart than you can EVER even dream about. dont compare yourself to me boy because you are not even REMOTELY in my league. besides i dont associate with crooks and rip off artists.
I dont even know why you bother answering because you always get your a&s handed to you, i embarass you time and time again you have no dignity left. you can TRY to make sure readers think "im a fool with an agenda" but everyone see right through your bitter lies and laughs at you. so please let the readers know because you are actually helping my cause.
there can be all the links to lawsuits they want but every single suit will be thrown out. you bitter fools have no case and no leg to stand on. no wonder your nickname is hoppalong.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-12:
"im smarter,more educated, and street smart than you can EVER even dream about." Really, coming from a bullhorn who can't even spell or punctuate correctly. As I've said little man, I've never been on the ror so really I have nothing to be bitter or lying about. Did a search and found this page worthy of bookmarking. In fact, the open letters at the top are the exact ones their authors posted each here recently. Please tell us oh superior one, how do you explain off all this documentation.? I would say that there's the proof you keep crying out for. Now stick that binky back in your mouth and do us all a favor. http://bad-business-rip-off.com/
Posted by bill on 2005-08-12:
"plain and simple, if he wasnt a crook he wouldnt be on the rip off report" OMG Are you for real? That's like saying everyone who is arrested is guilty otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-12:
Exactly Bill, What if I started a thread here and said Silent Assasin was a crook. Then I guess it would be true, no?
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-12:
as i said 5 billion times before jonnson, you have no leg to stand on. you are the laughing stock of my3cents and rip off report, perhaps you should join that other dillweed and seek professional help for your bitterness. go somewhere else and complain like a little girl about how ror deletes rebuttals. as always im right and you are wrong heck you cant even back up your claims. move on little boy you are out of your league here.
notice how ror still exists and most of the lawsuits DONT.
buy a clue.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-12:
WHAT?! can't back up my claims? I just gave you a link with court documents scanned of about 5 pending lawsuits, plus other interesting scanned goodies. Did you even go there?? You have shown NOTHING but the ability to make the most ridiculous statements as arguments for again, something you are suspiciously way too sensitive about. I’m the laugh stock of the rip-off report? I don’t post there and I’m not in any reports. Show me otherwise. Not only are you a naïve little b@stard, but evidently you’re a liar as well.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-12:
did I stutter? no, you cant back up your claims
1) you cant back up that i am associated with ror even though ive called you out on this 5 times
2) you cant prove you submitted any rebuttals on ror
should your superior go on or do you get the point.
you talk about 5 pending lawsuits, dont you mean 5 lawsuits that are going to be dismissed very soon? those companies have no leg to stand on. ror is not responsible for the posts on their.(so says a little federal law)
ive proven everything that ive said
yes you are the laughing stock of ror AND HERE. again I did not stutter.
come on crook boy johnson you need to do way better than this to keep up with me. the clocks ticking little boy.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-12:
Those lawsuits are very real and very serious junior and your claim the clock is ticking may very well be true. Heck, I just read the site again and now it says his own lawyers quit due to irreconcilable differences(with proof, of course). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that can't be good. If you love the ROR so much why are you here all the time "lurking" as you put it? Lurking, monitoring, yet rarely posting except when the ROR is the subject. Very strange. Why not do us all a favor and get back over there before that clock ticks its last tick and you get that "site not found" message. There you can sing his praises all you want and Ed will make sure no one interferes.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-12:
oh please Crook boy, those lawsuits will be thrown out just like the other ones. Ror is a great tool for information i would hardly call it love. and to answer you question(for the millionth time) i lurk here for information. again you need to do better than this to keep up with your superior you're slipping further and further. no ones interfering with the praise of ror, most certainly not you, you are considered a clown here you are laughed at constantly.
walk away johnson you are out of your league here
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-13:
You keep saying the same wrong things don't you? If I'm not mistaken, ROR LOST a suit and has a judgement for, drumroll please, about 50,000,000. Ouch, that didn't get thrown out, did it. Maybe YOU should re-examine what "league" youu're in and stay there.
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-13:
practice what you preach you keep going over the same nonsense. so before you decide to open your undereducated mouth you might want to keep it shut.
wheres your proof about the judgement? or is it imaginary like everything else you say.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-13:
Right there in front of your face on the webpage link I gave you. Blind by delusion? Actually, according to the COURT document, the judgement was for $27,100,932.00. Staring at a court order and then ask "where's the proof"? Geez, not just a tad on the dense side are we?
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-13:
P.S. I believe the term is uneducated. Had you past 3rd grade, you might know that- and what an apostrophe is.
Posted by SuperSource2005 on 2005-08-13:
you must not know the law. you actually think hes going to pay? hes going to appeal and prob get it overturned any good lawyer can do that.
again practice what you preach when you call someone dense. you are the dumbest man on this planet, hell you make Mike Tyson look like an ivy leage scholar.
why do you come back? you get embarassed on a daily basis. you are not in my league nor will you ever be. take this as a loss and move on.
when you and your merry band of i*iots complain about ROR you just give them MORE traffic do you not realize this? keep talking about them you will make ed and the other company that owns ROR real happy, who doesnt like free advertising.
but then again this is falling on dead ears you aren't bright enough to put 2+2 together.
Posted by Slimjim on 2005-08-13:
Dumb is switching user names and typing the same smack thinking you would fool anyone. It's a judgement because he decided to hide rather then show up for his trial. SOL is long gone for any appeals. No appeal, and no overturns, lawyer boy. Of course he's not paying. There aren't enough dopes like you out there donating money to ROR for him to offord a 27 mil bill. Regardless, he lost, (which I guess you finally accept), its record, and those other suits are far from being "thrown out".
Posted by Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-14:
time to take your walk of shame johnson boy.
Posted by chris mcfarland on 2005-11-29:
what a surprise! Attorney crimi-nal speth had a lot to say before but she hasn't answered one of the questions that I posed to her. Now, why would that be?...
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-28:
RipoffReport.com Loses 47 USC 230 Motion to Dismiss--Hy Cite v. badbusinessbureau.com

By Eric Goldman

Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38082 (D. Ariz. Dec. 27, 2005)

This is the third 47 USC 230 ruling involving badbusinessbureau.com/RipoffReport.com. The first two were:

* MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., 2004 WL 833595 (N.D.Tex. Apr 19, 2004).
* Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2005 WL 1677256 (MD Fla. Jul 14, 2005).

(In 2004, there was also an earlier Wisconsin district court ruling in this Hy Cite litigation involving Hy Cite's lack of jurisdiction--note the case has moved to Arizona).

The prior two 47 USC 230 rulings were a split. The defendants lost the 47 USC 230 claim in the MCW case and won it in the Whitney case. Completing the troika, this case resembles the MCW case in its reasoning--making these defendants a rare two-time loser of a 47 USC 230 defense.

Here's my understanding of the badbusinessbureau.com/RipoffReport business. The websites ask users to submit complaints about various businesses. The website operators then post the complaints, but the operators add their own headline to the posting. The operators also write various editorials/other content they originate themselves. Once a company has been targeted by website users, the operators then approach the company and offer various recourses to the targeted company for not-insubstantial fees. (The plaintiffs allege that this latter step is extortionate).

In this case, the targeted company was Hy Cite for its "Royal Prestige" dinnerware/cookware. There were 35 user-submitted reports complaining about this brand. After Hy Cite unsuccessfully demanded redress against these postings under defamation and trademark law, Hy Cite sued. The defendants claim the 230 defense.

In rejecting the 230 defense, the court points to the following allegations:

Plaintiffs alleg[e] that wrongful content appears on the Rip-off Report website in editorial comments created by Defendants and titles to Rip-off Reports, which Defendants allegedly provide. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "produce original content contained in the Rip-off Reports." Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants "solicit individuals to submit reports with the promise that individuals may ultimately be compensated for their reports.
On that basis, the court concludes that the defendants cannot claim that the information came from another information content provider.

There are 2 obvious flaws in the court's thin analysis. First, the last allegation--that the defendants solicit content for potential compensation--should be completely irrelevant to the 230 defense. The 230 defense should apply even if the ICS pays for the content (see Blumenthal v. Drudge) and even if the ICS owns the content (see Schneider v. Amazon.com).

Second, the court misconstrues the statutory language. An ICS isn't liable if the content is provided by another ICP. Someone is an ICP if they are responsible, even in part, for the content. Therefore, even if the ICS could be deemed an ICP with respect to a particular content item, that item could still provided by another ICP so long as any third party was partially responsible for its development.

The court reverses this reading, treating the ICS as responsible for the content if the ICS was even partially responsible for this content. (This mistake was also made by the MCW court). Not only does this court's reading contradict the express statutory language, but it contradicts a slew of precedent where the ICS was partially responsible for the content but still was eligible for the 230 defense (cases that come immediately to mind: Drudge, Schneider, Ramey v. Darkside Productions and the controlling 9th circuit Carafano v. Metrosplah ruling).

Despite this, I think the court got the ruling right. If the plaintiffs allege that they are suing based on content solely authored by the defendants (which apparently the plaintiffs did), then 47 USC 230 doesn't apply to that content and the motion to dismiss should be denied. Of course, the plaintiff ultimately has to prove its facts, and the predicate condition (solely authored by the defendants) should limit the items that are appropriately within the lawsuit's scope.

The ruling also addresses trademark/unfair competition claims. The court dismisses the Lanham Act claim because there's no way a gripe site can divert customers (cite to Bosley). However, the court does not dismiss the common law unfair competition claim because that doctrine covers commercially-detrimental false/misleading statements.


UPDATE: The attorney for Ripoffreports.com tried to post the following comment but the comments function is acting strange. Her comment:

"As the attorney who handled all three cases against Rip-off Report, I would just like to add one comment to Eric's insightful analysis of these cases. In both cases where the decisions were against us, the court was deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). That is important because the standard by which the court considers those motions is accepting all of the allegations of the complaint as true. In those cases, the complaint alleged that Rip-off Report was responsible for or helped create the content, and that was the basis for the ruling. The next step is for us to file a motion for summary judgment, where the court actually considers the evidence instead of just accepting the allegations. In Hy Cite, we are preparing to file a motion for summary judgment and we expect it to be granted. There is no dispute that agents of Rip-off Report did not author the content at issue. The MCW case was dismissed on other grounds and there was no need to file anything further. Thanks for keeping the public posted on these important free speech cases.

Maria Crimi Speth, Esq."


UPDATE #2: I received the following email, which I am posting without comment (the sender said he also had problems posting a reply via Typekey):

"3/27/06

Dear Mr. Goldman:

Thank you for the opportunity to address Maria Speth's comment here:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm

While I understand that you are primarily concerned with 47 USC 230 immunity, the discussion of the Rip-Off Report misses many important facts and one crucial legal point: Please indulge me. Leave aside the allegations as to whether or not Mr. Magedson, himself authored the defamatory reports. He did, but forget that for a minute. The extortion and/or threatened extortion and/or fraud didn't occur online. These communications occurred in email and by telephone.

Florida Statutes provide:

F.S.836.05 Threats; extortion.--Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree...."

This conduct is not immunized in any way shape or form by 47 USC 230. Ms. Speth conflates the two issues and thereby misleads the public into believing that her client can extort with impunity.

We proved that Mr. Magedson "creates content" on his website in order to further his extortion scheme. In fact, the nation is replete with Mr. Magedson's extortion victims, and the Arizona Court has clearly held that threatened extortion is a predicate act in a well-pled RICO claim. The acts of extortion or threatened extortion, however, were not communicated on the website publication. No matter how factually probative the online material itself may be, CDA immunity has no relevance to the RICO claims in the Hy Cite case. Considering the legislative purposes for the CDA, and for 47 USC 230 immunity, it is clear that holding Magedson and Xcentric liable for threatened extortion will not undermine the legislative intent. I'll spare you, the expert, a discussion of those purposes, but if you look at these and consider the nature of the extortion in this case, I am certain that you will agree that such crimes should not be protected.

Although I believe Ms. Speth incorrectly claims that authorship isn't disputed, this misses the point that proof of authorship is not elemental to the extortion claims. There is more than one way to manipulate content to further this extortion, beyond simply authoring one's own statements, or having third persons submit reports in furtherance of this scheme. Magedson publishes only bad reports about my company: despite the efforts of many who tried to report favorably on our company without success. He freely admits he won't allow us to publish. Who can reasonably believe that the federal courts will sanction the use of the CDA to bar otherwise valid extortion claims?

Everyone must step back from this for a moment to consider this. Magedson and Xcentric committed the threatened extortion with communications in email and over the telephone. The comments on the website, themselves, are not the only actionable conduct.

Defamation is one act, the act of publishing, itself. Arguably there is immunity from a defamation claim where one can demonstrate a passive website with only third party "content" creation. But I can also make an excellent argument that the circumstances under which rip-off reports were filed in our case, for instance, leave no room for concluding that anyone not conspiring with Magedson could or would have authored the statements in question. To appreciate this, you would need to carefully consider the content and timing of these purported third party posts, as well as those defamatory insults which Mr. Magedson, himself, admitted to personally authoring in our case.

A far better case, however, and one that will certainly get to a jury, is the claim that Speth utterly fails to address, again, in laying her straw man. This unwillingness to address the extortion appears to be a favorite tactic of hers. The CDA website immunity simply isn't enjoyed for torts like extortion- or murder, for instance- that are based on conduct other than the act of publishing material on a website. This should be obvious. It is intrinsic to an understanding of the law in this case because the rip-off report extortion occurs after the material has been published (and prior to other threatened future publications). The actionable conduct isn't necessarily the publication, at all, although one should not overlook this type of claim. (In our case, Mr. Magedson was foolish enough to sign his own name to the original defamatory content about us, and in fact he later admitted authorship. I would argue that conduct of the website operator outside of the context of publishing, should also be considered in evaluating the propriety of the application of the CDA immunity, as well, but that is in regards to defamation, not extortion or threatened extortion. The claims are distinct, if not unrelated.)

The damages sought in an extortion and /or RICO claim based thereupon are unrelated to the conduct of publication, itself. Rather, it is the nefarious attempt to obtain compensation to which Rip-Off Report and its operator should and do enjoy no legal right or claim that constitutes threatened extortion. The Arizona Court said so quite clearly. The website operators have participated in a continuing crime, no element of which consists of simple publication.

It's like someone standing at your front door handing out false stuff about you. If I offer to insert favorable material every day for a hefty fee from you, it hardly matters what media the guy at the door uses. My conduct is illegal if I have a reasonable basis to believe the guy at the door is lying. This is true even if I have no idea on earth who that third party may be. Also, whether he is using a bullhorn, pamphlets, an internet website, or smoke signals really doesn't matter. No doubt, many coward extortionists throughout history have used "anonymous" third parties to make their threats through a variety of media. Many others have certainly threatened to refused to share a true alibi or to concoct a false one unless they were paid. The victim's motivation, the extortionist's mode, or the precise nature of the embarrassment or falsehood threatened- even the necessity of a falsehood- doesn't define the crime. These are less compelling elements of extortion than the shakedown. It's still extortion if I later shake you down to collect a fee to which I have no legal claim. There is no question as to who authored the shakedown in the Magedson case. It's not the false stuff alone that is actionable by Hy Cite. It's the shakedown. No matter who the "original" author is. Right? It's the criminal intent to llegally capitalize on the secret or on the embarrassment that defines the crime, the intent to "expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will...."

Surely, Ms. Speth doesn't feel as though Mr. Magedson's testimonial is so precious that his victims willingly pay him. Even they claim that his methods are "extortionate". Thus, the RICO claims survived in Hy Cite, and no civil immunity will save the Rip-Off Report. If there is still any serious disagreement on this, then perhaps the Arizona Federal Court could have been more clear in its legal analysis, but it certainly got the result right.

Really, it only makes common sense. Neither Magedson nor Xcentric should be permitted to demand fees to ameliorate defamatory content on a supposedly passive website. Think about it: the consideration and quid pro quo for the extortionate payments to Magedson are supposedly ...wait... and let this sink in...the website operator's promise of favorable content creation! Efforts to use the CDA to further this criminal scheme will inevitably fail. Ms. Speth acts like she doesn't know this, but the fact is that this is precisely why she came to your site making these straw man arguments. She probably knows her case is very weak.

Mr. Magedson's publications do not come strictly from third parties. He is the source of much of the more absurd material appearing on his website. That he may have conspired with others around the country whose IP addresses are also used for this purpose doesn't change the underlying factual issue. Even were Ms. Speth and her client to somehow establish third party authorship (highly improbable inasmuch as their own "expert" testified that he has no idea who authored any of the offending material in our case), this won't excuse or immunize threatened extortion. One may argue, as Speth tries to, that the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish authorship. I reiterate that this is not an element of the extortion claim, and therefore it should not be an element of the RICO claims for which threatened extortion is a sufficient predicate. Any other application of the law should be reversible because the extortion is so obvious and obnoxious here.

The fact finder will inevitably look at the content of the website in the context of the conduct substantiating the extortion claim and NOT after a fashion that assumes that Mr. Magedson ISN'T in the business of making money off lies about innocent individuals and businesses. No one seriously disputes the fact that he makes huge amounts of money to say nice things about those defamed on his website. In fact, our efforts first motivated him to disclose on his website that he is paid for testimonials...if you look for this you'll now find it on his website since earlier this year. Now he also admits he doesn't let us publish responses on his website. Consumer advocate that he is, he previously hid the source of his compensation from the public. He still asks for public donations on a web page that doesn't disclose that he accepts money from businesses maligned on his website. How it can be argued to be a passive website under all of the circumstances is beyond me.

Obviously, one may find that Magedson and Rip-Off Report have threatened extortion without necessarily treating them as the "publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." For instance, if I only agree to reveal the source of third party defamation if you pay me, that is extortion. If I refuse to remove the offensive material or to permit you to respond if you pay me, that is extortion. If I agree to not publish future defamation about you, but only if you pay me, that is extortion. If I suggest that I have several posts that are defamatory that I have not yet posted but will if you don't pay me, that is extortion. The publishing of the information online and the threat to extort are distinct acts, as much as Ms. Speth would like to conflate the two torts. Who authored the extortionate emails was never in dispute. The defendants are "rare, two-time" losers under 47 USC 270 because they are extortionists, and their pathetic claim that they are merely website operators who publish only third party remarks is both factually false and legally insufficient in any event. They just bank on outlasting litigants by making litigation as costly as possible or they settle the cases brought against them, when they can. So far, their strategy has succeeded, but we'll see how long this lasts.

In the interests of full and fair disclosure, I must add that the Rip-Off Report is still trying to silence me by publishing none-too-veiled threats against my wife, and me, on that website. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff38900.htm (Yes, that's my booking photo from a domestic disturbance that had nothing to do with Rip-Off Report, but they used it to try to intimidate me within days after I testified against them; scroll down to the bottom for their latest, unsuccessful, attempt to intimidate me on 3/19/06, by publishing private personal information about my wife and me and threatening us. They make the weak redaction and, in essence say to the public, "don't threaten or commit violence to the guy in the above photo! Wink, wink; nudge, nudge.") They've done this because I've exercised my right of free speech, first in testifying, and most recently in promoting online the legal opinions that bear directly on their illegal operation. You may recall that I wrote to you about the Hy Cite opinion when it was first published.) Also, this isn't the first time Ms. Speth and I have knocked heads online. She took the unusual step of personally attacking my credibility online after I gave testimony in a case against Magedson and the Rip-Off Report. (7/17/2005- http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10378) I attempted to debunk her claims at that time: (7/27/06-http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10464) They'll probably sue me for writing this, but rest assured I will be heard from again before all is said and done with this.

Chris McFarland, J.D.
800 527 0476 x311

PS My understanding is that the MCW case was quickly settled by confidential agreement after that opinion came down."
Posted by ripoff1989 on 2006-04-28:
RipoffReport.com Loses 47 USC 230 Motion to Dismiss--Hy Cite v. badbusinessbureau.com

By Eric Goldman

Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38082 (D. Ariz. Dec. 27, 2005)

This is the third 47 USC 230 ruling involving badbusinessbureau.com/RipoffReport.com. The first two were:

* MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., 2004 WL 833595 (N.D.Tex. Apr 19, 2004).
* Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2005 WL 1677256 (MD Fla. Jul 14, 2005).

(In 2004, there was also an earlier Wisconsin district court ruling in this Hy Cite litigation involving Hy Cite's lack of jurisdiction--note the case has moved to Arizona).

The prior two 47 USC 230 rulings were a split. The defendants lost the 47 USC 230 claim in the MCW case and won it in the Whitney case. Completing the troika, this case resembles the MCW case in its reasoning--making these defendants a rare two-time loser of a 47 USC 230 defense.

Here's my understanding of the badbusinessbureau.com/RipoffReport business. The websites ask users to submit complaints about various businesses. The website operators then post the complaints, but the operators add their own headline to the posting. The operators also write various editorials/other content they originate themselves. Once a company has been targeted by website users, the operators then approach the company and offer various recourses to the targeted company for not-insubstantial fees. (The plaintiffs allege that this latter step is extortionate).

In this case, the targeted company was Hy Cite for its "Royal Prestige" dinnerware/cookware. There were 35 user-submitted reports complaining about this brand. After Hy Cite unsuccessfully demanded redress against these postings under defamation and trademark law, Hy Cite sued. The defendants claim the 230 defense.

In rejecting the 230 defense, the court points to the following allegations:

Plaintiffs alleg[e] that wrongful content appears on the Rip-off Report website in editorial comments created by Defendants and titles to Rip-off Reports, which Defendants allegedly provide. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "produce original content contained in the Rip-off Reports." Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants "solicit individuals to submit reports with the promise that individuals may ultimately be compensated for their reports.
On that basis, the court concludes that the defendants cannot claim that the information came from another information content provider.

There are 2 obvious flaws in the court's thin analysis. First, the last allegation--that the defendants solicit content for potential compensation--should be completely irrelevant to the 230 defense. The 230 defense should apply even if the ICS pays for the content (see Blumenthal v. Drudge) and even if the ICS owns the content (see Schneider v. Amazon.com).

Second, the court misconstrues the statutory language. An ICS isn't liable if the content is provided by another ICP. Someone is an ICP if they are responsible, even in part, for the content. Therefore, even if the ICS could be deemed an ICP with respect to a particular content item, that item could still provided by another ICP so long as any third party was partially responsible for its development.

The court reverses this reading, treating the ICS as responsible for the content if the ICS was even partially responsible for this content. (This mistake was also made by the MCW court). Not only does this court's reading contradict the express statutory language, but it contradicts a slew of precedent where the ICS was partially responsible for the content but still was eligible for the 230 defense (cases that come immediately to mind: Drudge, Schneider, Ramey v. Darkside Productions and the controlling 9th circuit Carafano v. Metrosplah ruling).

Despite this, I think the court got the ruling right. If the plaintiffs allege that they are suing based on content solely authored by the defendants (which apparently the plaintiffs did), then 47 USC 230 doesn't apply to that content and the motion to dismiss should be denied. Of course, the plaintiff ultimately has to prove its facts, and the predicate condition (solely authored by the defendants) should limit the items that are appropriately within the lawsuit's scope.

The ruling also addresses trademark/unfair competition claims. The court dismisses the Lanham Act claim because there's no way a gripe site can divert customers (cite to Bosley). However, the court does not dismiss the common law unfair competition claim because that doctrine covers commercially-detrimental false/misleading statements.


UPDATE: The attorney for Ripoffreports.com tried to post the following comment but the comments function is acting strange. Her comment:

"As the attorney who handled all three cases against Rip-off Report, I would just like to add one comment to Eric's insightful analysis of these cases. In both cases where the decisions were against us, the court was deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). That is important because the standard by which the court considers those motions is accepting all of the allegations of the complaint as true. In those cases, the complaint alleged that Rip-off Report was responsible for or helped create the content, and that was the basis for the ruling. The next step is for us to file a motion for summary judgment, where the court actually considers the evidence instead of just accepting the allegations. In Hy Cite, we are preparing to file a motion for summary judgment and we expect it to be granted. There is no dispute that agents of Rip-off Report did not author the content at issue. The MCW case was dismissed on other grounds and there was no need to file anything further. Thanks for keeping the public posted on these important free speech cases.

Maria Crimi Speth, Esq."


UPDATE #2: I received the following email, which I am posting without comment (the sender said he also had problems posting a reply via Typekey):

"3/27/06

Dear Mr. Goldman:

Thank you for the opportunity to address Maria Speth's comment here:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm

While I understand that you are primarily concerned with 47 USC 230 immunity, the discussion of the Rip-Off Report misses many important facts and one crucial legal point: Please indulge me. Leave aside the allegations as to whether or not Mr. Magedson, himself authored the defamatory reports. He did, but forget that for a minute. The extortion and/or threatened extortion and/or fraud didn't occur online. These communications occurred in email and by telephone.

Florida Statutes provide:

F.S.836.05 Threats; extortion.--Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree...."

This conduct is not immunized in any way shape or form by 47 USC 230. Ms. Speth conflates the two issues and thereby misleads the public into believing that her client can extort with impunity.

We proved that Mr. Magedson "creates content" on his website in order to further his extortion scheme. In fact, the nation is replete with Mr. Magedson's extortion victims, and the Arizona Court has clearly held that threatened extortion is a predicate act in a well-pled RICO claim. The acts of extortion or threatened extortion, however, were not communicated on the website publication. No matter how factually probative the online material itself may be, CDA immunity has no relevance to the RICO claims in the Hy Cite case. Considering the legislative purposes for the CDA, and for 47 USC 230 immunity, it is clear that holding Magedson and Xcentric liable for threatened extortion will not undermine the legislative intent. I'll spare you, the expert, a discussion of those purposes, but if you look at these and consider the nature of the extortion in this case, I am certain that you will agree that such crimes should not be protected.

Although I believe Ms. Speth incorrectly claims that authorship isn't disputed, this misses the point that proof of authorship is not elemental to the extortion claims. There is more than one way to manipulate content to further this extortion, beyond simply authoring one's own statements, or having third persons submit reports in furtherance of this scheme. Magedson publishes only bad reports about my company: despite the efforts of many who tried to report favorably on our company without success. He freely admits he won't allow us to publish. Who can reasonably believe that the federal courts will sanction the use of the CDA to bar otherwise valid extortion claims?

Everyone must step back from this for a moment to consider this. Magedson and Xcentric committed the threatened extortion with communications in email and over the telephone. The comments on the website, themselves, are not the only actionable conduct.

Defamation is one act, the act of publishing, itself. Arguably there is immunity from a defamation claim where one can demonstrate a passive website with only third party "content" creation. But I can also make an excellent argument that the circumstances under which rip-off reports were filed in our case, for instance, leave no room for concluding that anyone not conspiring with Magedson could or would have authored the statements in question. To appreciate this, you would need to carefully consider the content and timing of these purported third party posts, as well as those defamatory insults which Mr. Magedson, himself, admitted to personally authoring in our case.

A far better case, however, and one that will certainly get to a jury, is the claim that Speth utterly fails to address, again, in laying her straw man. This unwillingness to address the extortion appears to be a favorite tactic of hers. The CDA website immunity simply isn't enjoyed for torts like extortion- or murder, for instance- that are based on conduct other than the act of publishing material on a website. This should be obvious. It is intrinsic to an understanding of the law in this case because the rip-off report extortion occurs after the material has been published (and prior to other threatened future publications). The actionable conduct isn't necessarily the publication, at all, although one should not overlook this type of claim. (In our case, Mr. Magedson was foolish enough to sign his own name to the original defamatory content about us, and in fact he later admitted authorship. I would argue that conduct of the website operator outside of the context of publishing, should also be considered in evaluating the propriety of the application of the CDA immunity, as well, but that is in regards to defamation, not extortion or threatened extortion. The claims are distinct, if not unrelated.)

The damages sought in an extortion and /or RICO claim based thereupon are unrelated to the conduct of publication, itself. Rather, it is the nefarious attempt to obtain compensation to which Rip-Off Report and its operator should and do enjoy no legal right or claim that constitutes threatened extortion. The Arizona Court said so quite clearly. The website operators have participated in a continuing crime, no element of which consists of simple publication.

It's like someone standing at your front door handing out false stuff about you. If I offer to insert favorable material every day for a hefty fee from you, it hardly matters what media the guy at the door uses. My conduct is illegal if I have a reasonable basis to believe the guy at the door is lying. This is true even if I have no idea on earth who that third party may be. Also, whether he is using a bullhorn, pamphlets, an internet website, or smoke signals really doesn't matter. No doubt, many coward extortionists throughout history have used "anonymous" third parties to make their threats through a variety of media. Many others have certainly threatened to refused to share a true alibi or to concoct a false one unless they were paid. The victim's motivation, the extortionist's mode, or the precise nature of the embarrassment or falsehood threatened- even the necessity of a falsehood- doesn't define the crime. These are less compelling elements of extortion than the shakedown. It's still extortion if I later shake you down to collect a fee to which I have no legal claim. There is no question as to who authored the shakedown in the Magedson case. It's not the false stuff alone that is actionable by Hy Cite. It's the shakedown. No matter who the "original" author is. Right? It's the criminal intent to llegally capitalize on the secret or on the embarrassment that defines the crime, the intent to "expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will...."

Surely, Ms. Speth doesn't feel as though Mr. Magedson's testimonial is so precious that his victims willingly pay him. Even they claim that his methods are "extortionate". Thus, the RICO claims survived in Hy Cite, and no civil immunity will save the Rip-Off Report. If there is still any serious disagreement on this, then perhaps the Arizona Federal Court could have been more clear in its legal analysis, but it certainly got the result right.

Really, it only makes common sense. Neither Magedson nor Xcentric should be permitted to demand fees to ameliorate defamatory content on a supposedly passive website. Think about it: the consideration and quid pro quo for the extortionate payments to Magedson are supposedly ...wait... and let this sink in...the website operator's promise of favorable content creation! Efforts to use the CDA to further this criminal scheme will inevitably fail. Ms. Speth acts like she doesn't know this, but the fact is that this is precisely why she came to your site making these straw man arguments. She probably knows her case is very weak.

Mr. Magedson's publications do not come strictly from third parties. He is the source of much of the more absurd material appearing on his website. That he may have conspired with others around the country whose IP addresses are also used for this purpose doesn't change the underlying factual issue. Even were Ms. Speth and her client to somehow establish third party authorship (highly improbable inasmuch as their own "expert" testified that he has no idea who authored any of the offending material in our case), this won't excuse or immunize threatened extortion. One may argue, as Speth tries to, that the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish authorship. I reiterate that this is not an element of the extortion claim, and therefore it should not be an element of the RICO claims for which threatened extortion is a sufficient predicate. Any other application of the law should be reversible because the extortion is so obvious and obnoxious here.

The fact finder will inevitably look at the content of the website in the context of the conduct substantiating the extortion claim and NOT after a fashion that assumes that Mr. Magedson ISN'T in the business of making money off lies about innocent individuals and businesses. No one seriously disputes the fact that he makes huge amounts of money to say nice things about those defamed on his website. In fact, our efforts first motivated him to disclose on his website that he is paid for testimonials...if you look for this you'll now find it on his website since earlier this year. Now he also admits he doesn't let us publish responses on his website. Consumer advocate that he is, he previously hid the source of his compensation from the public. He still asks for public donations on a web page that doesn't disclose that he accepts money from businesses maligned on his website. How it can be argued to be a passive website under all of the circumstances is beyond me.

Obviously, one may find that Magedson and Rip-Off Report have threatened extortion without necessarily treating them as the "publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." For instance, if I only agree to reveal the source of third party defamation if you pay me, that is extortion. If I refuse to remove the offensive material or to permit you to respond if you pay me, that is extortion. If I agree to not publish future defamation about you, but only if you pay me, that is extortion. If I suggest that I have several posts that are defamatory that I have not yet posted but will if you don't pay me, that is extortion. The publishing of the information online and the threat to extort are distinct acts, as much as Ms. Speth would like to conflate the two torts. Who authored the extortionate emails was never in dispute. The defendants are "rare, two-time" losers under 47 USC 270 because they are extortionists, and their pathetic claim that they are merely website operators who publish only third party remarks is both factually false and legally insufficient in any event. They just bank on outlasting litigants by making litigation as costly as possible or they settle the cases brought against them, when they can. So far, their strategy has succeeded, but we'll see how long this lasts.

In the interests of full and fair disclosure, I must add that the Rip-Off Report is still trying to silence me by publishing none-too-veiled threats against my wife, and me, on that website. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff38900.htm (Yes, that's my booking photo from a domestic disturbance that had nothing to do with Rip-Off Report, but they used it to try to intimidate me within days after I testified against them; scroll down to the bottom for their latest, unsuccessful, attempt to intimidate me on 3/19/06, by publishing private personal information about my wife and me and threatening us. They make the weak redaction and, in essence say to the public, "don't threaten or commit violence to the guy in the above photo! Wink, wink; nudge, nudge.") They've done this because I've exercised my right of free speech, first in testifying, and most recently in promoting online the legal opinions that bear directly on their illegal operation. You may recall that I wrote to you about the Hy Cite opinion when it was first published.) Also, this isn't the first time Ms. Speth and I have knocked heads online. She took the unusual step of personally attacking my credibility online after I gave testimony in a case against Magedson and the Rip-Off Report. (7/17/2005- http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10378) I attempted to debunk her claims at that time: (7/27/06-http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=10464) They'll probably sue me for writing this, but rest assured I will be heard from again before all is said and done with this.

Chris McFarland, J.D.
800 527 0476 x311

PS My understanding is that the MCW case was quickly settled by confidential agreement after that opinion came down."
Close commentsAdd reply

Ripoffreport.com
Posted by Beaufort Bruce on 12/09/2010
It seems to me that the real rip off here is this organization “Ripoff Reports”. They claim to be advocates of good business practice yet post anonymous claims against any business as they are received. No verification, no investigation, no justification. They go so far as to admit this on their main page. While we encourage and even require authors to only file truthful reports, Ripoff Report does not guarantee that all reports are authentic or accurate.

They further state that they never remove reports, presumably even when those reports are false, slanderous, or just plain dishonest. Yet a quick search on Google shows several companies that guarantee ripoff Report removal, for a fee. Could these companies be somehow related? That would be extortion as I see it? Against federal law as I understand it. Could that be the reason the Ripoff Report server is located in Turkey? They do have a PO Box in Tempe, Arizona, perhaps a mail forwarding service of some type? I do not know, smells funny to me.

Rip offs by ripoffs.com seem to be quite a growing concern, so much in fact that their web page even has a section on why it would be foolish to sue them. Let me add my own opinions:
1. It is hard to sue a con man, they often have the angles figured out, it is their occupation.
2. It is impossible to sue a PO Box.
3. It’s very difficult and expensive to sue someone in Turkey if you live in the USA.

If you feel that you have been victimized by this or some other scam here are a few places that you can go. All are US government sponsored.

www.ic3.gov The Internet Crime Complaint Center ( FBI and NW3C Partnership ).

www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Internet_Fraud. shtml Us Government internet fraud.

www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud/internet_fraud/internet_fraud FBI

www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting.htm Department of Justice site.

     
Read 12 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by MDSasquatch on 2010-12-09:
I believe this site is owned and operated by Direct Buy, that alone ought to tell you how credible the site is.
Posted by dan gordon on 2010-12-09:
if you want to respond they used to charge which you don't know until you type out the whole response.
Posted by tnchuck100 on 2010-12-09:
MDSasquatch, where did you get the connection between DirectBuy and Ripoff Report?

Or is your reference to "this site" meant as my3cents?
Posted by MDSasquatch on 2010-12-09:
"this site" is a reference to ripoffreport.com

just go to their site and type in Direct Buy,
Posted by trmn8r on 2010-12-09:
Do any of the feedback websites verify the information posted - ComplaintsBoard, RipOffReport, My3Cents, PlanetFeedback?

I have seen instances where after litigation, posters have come back to ROR and added a comment "I retract my previous comments re: company XYZ," but I believe the original comment remains.

RipOffReport has the feature that asks you to identify yourself as someone who: has dealt with the company, who is just an observer, an employee of the company, etc. This is not verified either, I assume.

Think of all the work it would take to verify comments.
Posted by Slimjim on 2010-12-09:
Tr's right in that no complaint site is under much obligation to verify content since they don't author it. Rip-Off Report is distinctly different from others in the evidence they(he) manipulates certain reports and the ability to fairly respond and rebuttal. In a nutshell, you won't find my3cents charging a company to rebuttal an attack against them, nor will you find any of those sites offering the ability to spin complaints in return for thousands of dollars in extortion payments.

FYI, the site is not owned by Best Buy, but one individual owner/operator named Ed Magedson.
Posted by MDSasquatch on 2010-12-09:
Direct Buy, not Best Buy
Posted by Slimjim on 2010-12-09:
Oh, either way, no. it's just Ed.
Posted by Anonymous on 2010-12-09:
lol I dunno what company would wanna by ripoffreport and put themselves in such liability.
Posted by MDSasquatch on 2010-12-09:
ripoff report used to be full of negative blogs about Direct Buy, then one day, they all were replaced by positive blogs.

You do the math
Posted by Slimjim on 2010-12-09:
That's probably becuase they joined the "Corporate Advocacy" program of his I briefly described above. Here's the short version.
*Your business has negative rip off reports on his site.
*You pay him thousands of dollars up front and then monthly
*You get a glowing endorsement from ROR and all of the sudden, you're the best company since sliced bread.

It's a pretty simple gig he has going. I'm still amazed no one can stick RICO charges on him yet, but it certainly hasn't been for a lack of trying.
Posted by leet60 on 2010-12-09:
The owner of this website has a nefarious past at best. There are websites online that are in opposition to ROR that have posted letters their businesses received from ROR asking them to "sign up" for a service they provide to businesses in which they will delete any negative complaints, push "compliment" posts to the forefront, post updates that the business has pleasantly resolved the Original complainants issue etc. All this for a hefty signup fee and a monthly maintenance fee.
Close commentsAdd reply

Ripoffreport extortionists
Posted by Nuview24 on 10/20/2009
I first became aware on Ripoffreport. Com in 2006 while browsing the internet. I looked up my company name and found a negative report about a company with the same name as mine, but in a state 500 miles away. I made use of the comment section, using my company name, my personal name, and my location, suggesting that the complainer should pursue through local channels if they actually have a complaint, rather than posting a company name on a national forum such as Ripoffreport. I expressed that I hoped this report did not cause confusion that would negatively affect my company. I asked that the report be removed, and I received a response saying no, and that it was clear to anyone reading it that it was about a business other than mine. Over the next two years my business volume plummeted. I had no idea why, until summer of 2009 when I again searched my company name on the internet. Ripoffreport was now linking this complaint together with my response. Therefore when someone did a websearch for my business and hometown, up comes a link saying '(my business name) contactors, run away as fast as you can, terrible service, arrogant owner....." It then lists my personal name and hometown from my response to the original complaint, giving the impression that this ad is about my company. When you try to click the link to read the report, 9 times out of ten the site will not open for about 5 minutes. I imagine this is caused by the website not properly maintaining its servers. So my business income fell from 100,000 in 2006 to 20,000 in 2009. I then asked Ripoffreport. Com to remove my response to the original complaint so that it would stop showing up on the web with my personal info in it. Obviously it was not the intent of the complainer to ruin an innocent business. Twice Ripoffreport. Com never responded to my request.

I then searched the web for ways of getting this info removed. Lots of websites willing to provide service for $5000.00. And guess what. I'm willing to bet that theses same websites are discreetly owned by ed magedson, the same person who owns Ripoffreport. Thats the only possible explanation for why this scumbag has decided to destroy my business, a business in no way related to the original complaint. Time for the attorney general to put this scumbag behind bars instead of letting him profit off destroying honest businessmen while hiding behind the U.S. Constitution.
     
Read 7 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by Anonymous on 2009-10-20:
This is why you don't post personal information on a public forum. Anyone can see it. And, if they see fit... can do exactly what some little jerk water did to you.
Posted by redmx3racer on 2009-10-20:
Your blaming $80K in losses over 3 years on one little report on one little website? How do any of the "frequent fliers" on this site manage to stay in business..Best Buy, the cell phone providers, car rental companies-all have hundreds of reviews on here-not to mention Epinions, Planetfeedback, ripoff report etc etc.
Sorry, but I think there are deeper issues here. Also-maybe you did not hear, but the economy has been in the crapper the last 2 years. A lot of companies have lost revenue in the last few years.
Posted by trp2hevn on 2009-10-20:
I don't see how you could blame that much of a loss on one website report. Not sure what kind of company you have, but I think just about every company in the US has seen a decline in income lately.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-10-20:
Ed Magedson and his sleazy operation has been sued so many times it's become a Internet joke of sorts. The only way Ed will clean up what might be hurting your business is to pay him off. Ed makes his money by extoring money from business owners that want lies removed and truth told. Errors in information only help Ed to extort more money. Ed will also take money from criminal operations like the Galaxy Mall and remove hundreds of complaints about their company.


Ed and his sleazy operation is nothing nice.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-10-20:
Supe is correct. The site is widely regarded as a joke, is down more than it is up, and very few, if any, take it seriously. I doubt it costs you any business.
Posted by Ponie on 2009-10-20:
Tupper Lake NY, Alpharetta GA? Are those soap operas still running?
Posted by Slimjim on 2009-10-20:
That's so strange ED wouldn't respond to you. Oh wait, you weren't signing up for him "corporate advocacy" feature with your check book open.
Close commentsAdd reply

Derogatory And False Reports
Posted by Cindie on 02/26/2009
RICHARDSON, TEXAS -- I have been in the staffing industry for almost 20 years. I have contacted rip off report to remove the negative lies and false comments about myself and my companies that are now closed. They told me since my company was closed that I would not qualify for the resolution program. After much research we now know why. They can't demand monetary payments from me or my company if it's no longer in service. I refuse to respond to any comments made via rip off report but will respond to anyone that wants answers regarding Advanced Plus Personnel, Inc. dba HIVE Advanced Solutions. There was never any type of fraudulent activity via APPI OR HAS but rather fraudulent checks written on the company account by an individual in Houston, TX. Unfortunately, the account was closed by the bank without notice. All checks that were returned, were stamped returned due to fraud. People assumed fraud was made on our part. All checks have been paid by my company along with any fees that were charged. I offered to submit the documents to rip off report but they refused to remove the negative comments from their site. Anyone that knows me, Cindie Steger-Heit, knows that I do not have a long reputation of burning anyone but rather have helped a lot of staff in the 17+ year time frame I have been in this industry. This is a very unfortunate situation. It's bothersome to know that anyone can write anything about you even when you have proof that it's wrong. I have contacted Google, they have offered no help in removing these false and derogatory comments from their search engines but merely refer me back to Rip Off Report. Go Figure!!! SEO at its best.

Below is an interesting point I found on the internet. This is just one of many reports out there.


Last week, there were several excellent posts elucidating the many ways RipOff Report violates Google’s Terms of Service, and yet manages to stay on top of the Google search results pages. Rand, Chris Bennet, Will Critchlow, and Andy Beal did a great job of bringing RipOff Report out in the open for a serious discussion.

It is no secret that RipOff Report has been widely and universally accused of promulgating defamatory content and then extorting money from the victims of the very libel it publishes. This business model has made RipOff Report the subject of many lawsuits.

In my opinion enough said.

Cindie Steger-Heit




     
Read 5 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by Anonymous on 2009-02-26:
Thats why they call it Rip off report.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-02-26:
You found if Ed can't terrorize you and your business into paying him off he won't give you the time of day. Now that you have made an issue out of him and his sleazy operation don't be at all surprised if you don't find "anonymous" reports start appearing on the ROR about you. Of course Ed will be writing them.

ps) About the only thing that matters to Google is money. If Ed is paying them (which he is) they will play in his sandbox.
Posted by cindie on 2009-02-26:
This is very sad. How does it stop?
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-02-26:
Relax, no one takes that site seriously.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-02-26:
Being dissed by ROR is a bit like having Hitler calling you out as a schoolyard bully. It means nothing.
Close commentsAdd reply


Fake RipOffReport Complaints
Posted by Ripoffreporter on 01/12/2009
I recently noticed my name and company name showing up as a complaint on RipOffReport. There was a complaint on there from a fake name and they said that they did business with me/us (we do web design). The person that filed a complaint never did business with us and we don't even offer the services they mention in the complaint.

RipOffReport contacted me and said "I can see the complaint is fake" ... "But our policy is we do not remove complaints no matter what".

Then I noticed when people searched for my company name on google, this ripoffreport complaint showed up before our own website.

Then.. Some guy from Ripoffreport called me and basically said if I paid thousands of dollars that they can help me with the complaint issue. I felt like they were extorting me.

I told them no, and was rude with the guy. 2 weeks later there are now 3 new complaints that are completely FAKE LIES. I believe Ripoffreport did this to me.

Finally after I found a company that offered to remove Ripoffreport complaints I got it to not show up on Google. But the complaint is still on Ripoffreport.

If it were not for the help from the company ReputationArmor then this complaint would be seen by all my clients and potential clients. I think that Ripoffreport is the actual ripoff and they are just in business to scare people in to paying them fees to take down complaints...

DO NOT POST TO RIPOFFREPORT they are con-artists!
     
Read 11 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by Ponie on 2009-01-12:
It's not the first time I've heard this about ROR. You don't take their 'complaints' with a grain of salt--you use the whole box! When life gets too serious, I sometimes peruse that site for comic relief. Hope things worked out OK for you.
Posted by lobo65 on 2009-01-12:
That's why I don't visit that site any more. I hear the guy who runs it is pretty unsavory.
Posted by Slimjim on 2009-01-12:
I'm still waiting for someone in government to grow some and see this cyber-rag should not be able to hide behind the first amendment while committing RICO acts.
Posted by dan gordon on 2009-01-12:
I tried to respond to some complaints that dealt with companies I was associated with and was surprised that they want to charge you to print anything counteracting the negative reviews. Not a valuable tool
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-01-12:
I couldn't take that site seriously after noticing they allowed users to post defamatory comments about people who were identified by full name and the area where they lived. Of course it is an internet gripe board, so there's at least a 50% chance anything posted is going to be filled with lies and embellishment.
Posted by bill on 2009-01-12:
The ripoff report is nothing more than an extortion racket.
Posted by madconsumer on 2009-01-12:
um, okay ......
Posted by DJluvsu on 2009-02-17:
ED Magedson sold my personal information to the company I made a complaint agaisnt on his Rip Off Report! This is BS and now I am scared. I filed a ROR report on a company that was a scam business 3 months ago. On January 4 this year I got a letter in my mailbox at my residence from the owner of the company I complained about on ROR. He told me he was sold my personal information by Ed Magedson for 2200.00 and now he can come to my damn home and harass me.

This Ed Magdeson and his ROR is a true scum site. You think your information is protected when you make a report on his site and Ed turns around and sells your contact information to the business you reported on
Posted by BokiBean on 2009-02-17:
That's the way Ed rolls...he also keeps slithering out from under lawsuits either by settling, not showing and subsequently not paying the judgements against him, and even winning some.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-02-17:
Why would anyone pay $2200 for your personal information?
Posted by BokiBean on 2009-02-17:
They pay for ed's "advocacy" program. Ed will let them know who posted the information, at the same time doing damage control on his site by way of editorial comments, etc. BTW, $2200 is a deal according to the cases that have made it to court...

Here's an indepth article from the Phoneix News (ed sued them for it then dropped the suit later):

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-02-01/news/the-real-rip-off-report/

Very interesting read.

Close commentsAdd reply

Reports on Rip Off Report are often false!
Posted by DebraJ on 05/18/2008
I first discovered Ripoffreport.com in the late 1990's. At that time, the site was listed as a consumer advocacy site and solicited funds to go after fraudulent companies. I even "donated" money to assist in this goal.

I continued to use the site and then started to notice the advertising and all the crazy reports about psychics, unfaithful husbands and so forth. I still, however, thought the site was legitimate.

THEN, when an individual posted a fake report about me, I started to do my research. I found out that the site does not filter or censor the reports so the reports can be fake or true.

I basically wrote Ed Magedson (received no response), called (got no response) and even considered suing until I noticed that all the case law supports a site that just serves as a host to complaints, compliments and so forth.

The individual who posted the fake report about me posted another report stating that they had posted the fake report and would do it again if I continued to complain about their report. At this point, I thought Magedson would agree to remove the report - he did not.

My point is this: I just want to inform individuals, businesses and so forth that ripoffreport.com is not a reliable source to research an individual or a company. The best research tools are amazon.com, epinions.com, and the better business bureau.

Ripoffreport.com takes money from businesses to remove and edit reports and now takes money from businesses to advertise. Ripoffreport.com is NOT a consumer advocacy site, but one solely designed to profit off the misery and complaints of others.

Another internet company: juicy campus tidbits dot com or something to that effect recently lost its credibility with college students when the site continuously allowed false and harmful reports to appear.

If you have a false report about your company or yourself on Ripoffreport.com, just go to the site and post positive reports to counter the negative reports. Once the discussion becomes so ridiculous, no one will believe the report anyway.
     
Read 20 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:Close comments

Posted by dan gordon on 2008-05-18:
I've also tried to respond to erroneous reports and they charge you to respond.
Posted by tnchuck100 on 2008-05-18:
Welcome to the world of internet complaint sites. Most, if not all, do not verify what is posted. All have posts that may or may not be true. Generally the complaints or reviews are the authors opinion. Not necessarily 100% factual. Most are probably are based on some facts.

I seems pretty common knowledge that money can get things removed from RipOffReport.

So, unless the post about you is slanderous, libelous, or defamatory in some way and is done with malicious intent there is not a whole lot you can do other than post a rebuttal.

Legal remedies can be time consuming, expensive, and frustrating.
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-05-18:
Chuck's right. Plus Ed has been sued so many times he can't even count them anymore. He is a worm that works off a pre-paid cell phone and has nothing in his name. Ed also edits and removes reports he does not like (usualy about him). Ed will make up a false report just to get some damage going with a company. The best part is if a person wants to clear their name he charges a huge fee to clean up the reports but only if you pay him.

Example, one day StoresOnline were the biggest crooks on the Internet, hundreds of bad reports on the ROR. They paid Ed a huge sum of money and the next day they had no bad reports and were a wonderful company to deal with.

Some scam he is running over there.
Posted by Starlord on 2008-05-19:
Maybe I am not on the same page here, but why in the world would anyone go to the trouble of posting a false report on you on a complaint site? I have never heard of you, so why would someone feel it necessary to badmouth you online?
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-05-19:
ROR fluctuates between bottom feeders, and the stuoidest postings ever read.If you want to get a bad report off the site it's easy, just write a check to Ed.
Posted by Slimjim on 2008-05-19:
All gripe sites have posts that are anyway from 100% on the money to total malicious fabrications. The problem with rip off report is you can't get them removed without a check to ed and unlike here and many other places, ROR sometimes will not post positive opinions, and that's a fact. Also, if you are complained about, there is a ceiling you can rebuttal before you get hit with a $25 charge by ED for each subsequent response. Of course, not only can the complainant keep coming back for free, but the ROR makes sure they get emailed every time it's their turn too.
It still amazes me ED hasn't been brought up on racketeering charges yet.
Posted by lobo65 on 2008-05-19:
I'd heard the same thing about Ripoffreport-that it was a bunch of bull. I don't go there any more as a result.
Posted by DebraJ on 2008-05-26:
Starlord,

I am a nobody in the grand scheme of things. When I first started using ROR, I posted under my REAL NAME. A business had one of their employees post a lie about me in retaliation. The employee admitted they posted the lie, but ROR will not remove it. My recourse would be to sue the employee who likely doesn't have any money and that would not correct the ultimate problem which is the fact that the lie is on ROR.

In response to your original question, go to ROR and you will see reports calling people pedofiles, perverts, gossippers and so forth. My report is under "BLABBER MOUTH." ROR is a site for lunatics.
Posted by DebraJ on 2008-05-26:
To Slim re: RICO charges

Some companies have sued ROR on RICO charges and sought money damages. I think ultimately it will take the Arizona US Attorney's Office or the Department of Justice to bring the RICO charges criminally, which I think is likely to happen.

Several companies have admitted to paying to have their reports removed or modified. At this point, it is just an issue of getting the Arizona US Attorney's office involved or interested in the action.
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-05-26:
Ed was feeling a lot of heat from all the law suits and some AG's hot on his heals so he moved his web site from Florida to ALKIMNET Telecommunication LTD in Ankara, Turkey. It will be more difficult to take him down now.

If you don't like something at the ROR just write ED a check, he will be happy to change it for you.
Posted by DebtorBasher on 2008-05-26:
Slim...I've never checked out ROR...but you say they charge the company to have negative reviews removed? What stops ROR from "planting" negative reviews, just to get companies to pay them to have them removed?
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-05-26:
Nothing DB. There are dozens of web sites claiming Ed made up fake reports in order to get a company to pay up.
Posted by DebtorBasher on 2008-05-26:
He needs to be sued for blackmail!
Posted by DebraJ on 2008-05-30:
Superbowl,

I find it hard to believe that a person living in Turkey is operating a website out of Arizona. The justice department can get jurisdiction over ED based upon the fact that he is really operating out of AZ.

I asked this question on another site:

If people have evidence of ED blackmailing them (in the forms of letters and recordings), why hasn't this information been forwarded to the Dept of Justice or the US Attorney's Office in AZ so that they can begin a RICO investigation.

Instead, these companies have just done an internet smear campaign. If there is clear evidence of blackmail, it should be easy to get the media's attn or some prosecutor's attention. I am starting to believe that he is not blackmailing the people as they claim, but just refusing to remove the reports so they are getting upset.

If someone has information that could be used against ROR criminally, SEND COPIES TO THE DEPT OF JUSTICE in WASHINGTON DC; send a copy to the US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE in Arizona.

If you all don't have anything, then stop saying it all over the internet.
Posted by lamett on 2008-10-07:
Going to another complaint board (personal opinion forum)that does not check facts to post complaints against another complaint board because it does not check facts or refuses to remove complaints.

If the complaints are false - the only legally responsible person is the one who actually posted it
Posted by lamett on 2008-10-07:
I agree with Debra J -
There is no evidence!!!!
Ed and ROR have been sued by very large businesses and have won every time for the same things ROR bashers are citing here.

The real oxymoron -

Going to another complaint board (personal opinion forum)that does not check facts to post complaints against another complaint board because it refuses to remove complaints just because the person who the was the subject of the complaint did not like it.

Then of course there is the ever popular = That ROR is actually the ones creating the complaints. It could not possibly be unhappy customers, disgruntled employees etc.



If the complaints are false - the only legally responsible person is the one who actually posted it.

Offer a business service and your scream extortion.

The reason the government is not going after ROR is there is no evidence to support these bogus claims
Posted by Sharp Knife on 2008-12-08:
Ed Magedson and Rip Off Report is so bad so bad. I dont think Ed has one redeeming value at all period. There are so many crazy flat out lies posted about businesses including ours that its laughable to read some of these. This is the National Enquire Magazine here but Ed knows no other way to generate income other than scams and extortion. Some way he has to feed that fat blubber body of his so extortion is the easy way to put a roof over his head.

I mean the volume of complaints in various venues is frightening. Hundreds of thousands of complaints about Rip Off Report yet Google promotes them
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-12-08:
Google loves money, Ed pays Google money, end of that story...
Posted by Lidsville on 2009-01-08:
There is quite a bit of bad information being thrown about here. Let’s try to get to the facts. Ed Magedson/Rip Off Report/Xcentric Ventures has not won every case. Some have settled and the terms of that are not for public consumption. Perhaps they both got tired of spending money. Who knows but they haven’t all been won. Ed would like for you to think that because in spite of his demeanor to the contrary, he doesn’t want to be sued because it will cost him money to defend. He sued the journalist of The Real Rip Off Report and the Phoenix New Times and didn’t win that. There are others.

There has been much posting about whether Ed Magedson creates his own posts. For the most part he does not but there is no doubt that he encourages others to post and that is part of the public record. There is no doubt that he feeds information for them to post so he can remain above the fray.

That said if he does this 10 times, has he set a pattern and practice of editing or creating all posts? Clearly not. The cases he has won were results of the plaintiffs not being able to prove that he took an active role in creating the material of their case. His participation in defaming others is not defaming everyone.

So far as criminal investigations? Law enforcement does have the information, much more today than they did 2 years ago. You should ask the same question about the subjects of the posts on Rip Off Report. Why haven’t they been prosecuted for all the crimes alleged against them? Because it takes compelling evidence for that to happen. So far it’s been people throwing out accusations without providing overwhelming proof. What statutes specifically have been broken?

There is quite a bit of information from all over the place that needs to be put into a clear format. The information gathered needs to show there was violation of law and it needs to be spelled out what laws have been broken. It needs to show a pattern. If that can be done effectively then a criminal conspiracy exists but that may not fit into what many scream about. So what else?

Wiretapping. There are reports that Ed Magedson tapes most if not all his phone calls. Is it legal to do that? He will tell you that he lives in a one party state, meaning only he has to give permission to tape. What about calling into two party states? That becomes federal but also under that state statute as well. There is case law from the California Supreme court that clarifies this somewhat. When you call into a two party state, both parties must give permission for a recording to take place even if you are in a one party state. Has anyone heard the mysterious death threat tapes he discusses? If not there may be a reason.

So take a sandwich to investigators and you may not get much attention. Take a feast on a silver platter and they might actually do something especially if you make their case for them, or not. Maybe they like the idea of criminals destroying each other. Maybe the courts and law enforcement need to decide what laws have been broken and not we lay people. In order for them to decide though they have to get the information. I doubt anyone here as filed a report. If you are so outraged why don’t you take your information to law enforcement? No one can complain about that.
Posted by Commenter2010 on 2009-12-03:
Here is a story that explains what is going on with rip off report and gives you a link to report the company's activity to the Department of Justice:

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-rip-off-report-ror-victims-fight-back-1259391823.html
Close commentsAdd reply

Top of Page | Next Page >