Rip Off Report

14 reviews & complaints.

Most Popular | Newest | More Options >
More filter options:
Ripoff report : NEW INFO ripoffreport.com (ripoff report)
Posted by on
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 commission:
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 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:

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
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 gone 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
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 didn't 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
The Straight Story
Posted by on
PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- First, let me tell you my real name, unlike other posters who hide behind a pseudo name. I’m Maria Crimi Speth. I have been the attorney for the operators of Rip-off Report website for over six years, but I’m not writing this at their request or on their behalf (I’m not even billing them for it). I’m writing this because after months of reading the postings on the internet written by Federated Financial, attacking me, Rip-off Report, Ed Magedson, attorneys in Florida representing Rip-off Report, and others who provide services to Rip-off Report, I wanted to tell the straight story. No mud slinging, no name calling, just the facts.

About me:

If you have read the postings by Federated Financial, you’ve seen a picture of me and you know my home address, my home phone, and my property tax information. This is all public information that you could find elsewhere on the internet. What you don’t know is that I have an amazing husband, two school-age children, and two Bichon/Poodle mixes. You also wouldn’t know that I recently had to explain to my children why their Mom was being called a “blatant liar” on the internet and that they have to be real careful when they answer the telephone or the door because some guys that are mad at my client have put all of our home information on the same website where they vilify me.

About Federated Financial:

Federated Financial is a consumer credit counseling company. There’s a non-profit company and a for-profit company. I haven’t researched the difference between the two, but they seem to both be operated by Steve Miller and Chris McFarland. McFarland is a disbarred attorney who, under oath, couldn’t remember why he was disbarred. It seems that something like that would have left more of an impression on him.

About Rip-off Report:

Rip-off Report is a website where people post complaints about companies. Ed Magedson started the website so that businesses were accountable for their actions. The internet is a powerful tool. He figured it could be used to put pressure on businesses to provide good customer service. If customers complain and those complaints can be read by anyone with a web connection, then businesses will be more likely to address the complaint rather than get a bad reputation. In most cases, it has worked really well. Sometimes, though, the business would rather attack Rip-off Report than change their business practices.

Today, Rip-off Report is operated by Xcentric Ventures, llc in Arizona. Ed Magedson is the manager of the llc. There are over 140,000 main reports posted on Rip-off Report, many of which have follow-up reports, and the hit counter is at well over four billion visitors. As popular as the website is, it is also the subject of much controversy. Xcentric and Ed are threatened by companies every day. Some threats are violent and come in emails, phone calls, voice messages, and letters threatening to kill Ed and “those who help him” if he doesn’t remove a report. Some threats are technical, like attempts to hack the website and denial of service attacks on the website. Most of the threats are legal. Almost every day, companies and their attorneys threaten that if a posting is not removed, they will sue the website. Many companies do file lawsuits and, although federal law prevents the court from treating the operator of the website as the publisher or author of content it did not create, some companies try to circumvent that law by claiming that Xcentric or Ed Magedson wrote the reports. In reality, Xcentric’s agents have not written any reports or titles for many years for exactly this reason.

Federated Financial on Rip-off Report

In 2000, two reports were posted on Rip-off Report by someone claiming that Federated didn’t do what they promised and ruined their credit. Another complaint was posted in 2003 and two more were posted in 2004. That is actually not a lot of complaints for a company that has many customers. Federated Financial posted a well written, well reasoned rebuttal to the reports. It could have ended there and everyone would have saved a lot of money and aggravation. Instead, Steve Miller called Ed Magedson and physically threatened him if he did not remove the reports. I was not a party to the conversations, and I am relying on Ed’s version of it. I did listen to tapes and read emails where Ed Magedson confronted Steve Miller about threatening him and Miller did not deny it. After the threats, Magedson then took the position that someone who threatens him does not get to use his company’s property for free, so he removed the rebuttals posted by Miller. From there, things spiraled out of control and since then both Miller and McFarland have spent an enormous amount of time and money attempting to destroy Ed, Rip-off Report, and anyone who provides services to them.

Federated Financial filed a lawsuit against Xcentric and Ed in Florida. We moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in Florida and they have filed many motions and forced numerous court appearances that have resulted in attorney fees far beyond any of our other cases at that procedural stage. McFarland threatened our local counsel on the way out of the courtroom (told him he better watch his back) and when the judge indicated that she was inclined to grant our motion because this case should have been filed in Arizona, they filed a motion against her, accusing her of being biased. She recently recused herself and the case has been re-assigned to another judge.

After the lawsuit was filed, and after Federated began its internet campaign against Rip-off Report, Magedson, and those who provide services to the company, more postings appeared on Rip-off Report about Federated, Miller and McFarland. These postings are as vicious as Federated’s postings about Magedson. Miller and McFarland are convinced that these postings were authored by Ed because of the content and timing. What they haven’t considered is that Rip-off Report and Ed are very popular and there are tens of thousands of people who are fans of Rip-off Report. Anyone of them could have made these postings in response to Federated’s attacks on Rip-off Report and Ed. Ed also has enemies who could have made the postings, knowing that they would infuriate Miller and McFarland and escalate the attacks against Ed. Ed has sworn under oath that he did not author those postings or ask anyone else to make them. Miller and McFarland refuse to believe him. The postings on Rip-off Report about Federated Financial have harmed Ed, not helped him, and if Miller and McFarland considered this rationally instead of emotionally, they might realize that.

In Summary

So there you have it. If you have been reading any of these many postings about me, about Ed’s other attorneys, and about Ed, maybe you have wondered how much of it was true and what’s behind it all. I will tell you that I am not Ed’s partner or his shill, I am his lawyer. Also, I did not “blatantly lie” to the court. I represented to the Court that Ed and Xcentric do not do business in Florida because they don’t. They provide services to two Florida companies, but all of those services were provided here in Arizona.

I hope this has answered some of your questions. I am going to attempt to post this on Federated Financial’s website. If you read it there, then we all should give them credit for being willing to post it. If you don’t see it there, then you know that they would not publish it.

     
Read 31 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
Rip Off Report rules. it is a great tool. I have used it quite a few times and found out interesting stuff about companies I would have done business with.
mad props to Rip Off Report, never give into the pressure to remove reports.
Slimjim on 2005-07-18:
I believe everything this Miller says. I submitted a rebuttal there once about the type of complaint and it's validity, the site never posted it. A few years earlier, the company I was with had a customer tell them they had a complaint at ripoffreport.com. She said, "I'm happy with you so I'll go post a compliment". Ripoff Report took it down within hours. Take a page from this site Marie. Posts should be unedited and unreviewed. If you posts something here, unless it's vulgar or abusive, it stays here. Rip-off Report has an agenda and "cherry picks" what is and isn't on the site.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
ur a liar slim J. there are plenty of rebuttals.
beware those who read this. slimjohnson probably works for miller.
Slimjim on 2005-07-18:
Um yeah Silentasswipe, I've been planted here since 2001 trudging along through fast food gripes just waiting for this review so I could rebuttal. Why would I lie and why DO YOU care? Are you ED? You were right there to second voice it, weren't you. There are plenty of rebuttals, just not ALL of them, and I know that for a fact.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
silentasswipe? gee that's original.
and how do you know all the rebuttals aren't there? do you actually sit on the site and refresh 24 hours a day? if you do then you need to buy yourself a life.
I'm sure the owner of the Rip Off Report site has better things to do than pick and choose which retbuttal to delete. he has provided a great service for us. you on the other hand probably who works for the schmuck who is trying to sue him.
you have been deemed a liar, you may go now, no one believes you.
bill on 2005-07-18:
I believe SlimJim. I don't see how Silent can claim that SlimJim "has been deemed a liar". He simply said that the rebuttal he posted was taken down. Silent seems very defensive. I wonder if Silent works for the Ripoff Report.
Slimjim on 2005-07-18:
You read as well as biz. Didn't I make clear how I know rebuttals don't always make it there? Deemed a liar by who? Someone who just "showed" up defending a site which seems to have been exposed as a front for some serious widespead allegations. What lawyer comes to a b!tching forum for an audience like this anyway?! How unprofessional and unusual . Now it's clear this is nothing more than damage control and you are nothing more than a drone positioned by that site. Just did some research. It is being sued left and right, evidence is all over the net what goes on there, and you come here calling me a liar? Let the readers “deem” who is talking out the side of their silenta$$.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
no bill he claims that he "knows for a fact that not all rebuttals show" which he cannot possibly know. now if he said just his didn't then maybe but that's not what he said. as for working for ripoff report no I don't I just think its a great service, if you don't believe me you can always contact ripoff report and ask them. my name is Michael connor. go ahead and ask if they have an employee buy that name.

as for you slimLiar, just showed up? not even close I've been here quite awhile if you did your research you would have known that.
it is quite clear that you work for that schmuck Miller. you claim its funny how I showed up suddenly after the post but gee so did you, what's your excuse jr?
Slimjim on 2005-07-18:
I've been here since practically this site started. "Contact the ripoff report and ask them"!? Gee, then we'll get the REAL story huh Mike? I posted, it didn't show up. Devotee posted a compliment, it was pulled down. That's how I can "possibly" know. From some of the stuff I just read out there about them, maybe you should be doing the research. You sure got awfully worked up calling people liars about something, according to your testimony, that really has nothing to do with you. Your passion to denounce my occurrence smells of more than a casual observer. Sorry if I ruined your "singer" thread.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
I've been around just as long. so don't start flapping your gums about it you'll only look like a hypocrite oh wait you already do.
why I said contact ripoff report I was talking about ask them if they have an employee with my name, you won't do it, why? because you know you are wrong.
that2 2 comments that "supposedly" weren't put up. wheres the others? you did clam that you know for a fact all the rebuttals don't go up. heres a nickels worth of free advice for you. all doesn't equal 2.
I did the research and that's how I know not only are you full of s*it but you work for that moron.
worked up? over you? hardly. I'm just telling it like it is, you wouldn't have what it takes to "get me worked up" you're a lightweight.

I am an observer and a fan of ripoff report because they are a great service. what part of that did you NOT understand?
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
that2 = that's 2
Slimjim on 2005-07-18:
You've been around just as long huh? My 800+ posts and your, what 37. Half of those are arguing with some sod who got rocks in a box instead of a game console, and most of the rest here defending ROR. I never said ALL rebuttals were removed, but 2 of three I know of were and that was my story. I never debated YOUR story of called YOU a liar (which frankly now I think your story is BS). I rebuttaled the original "straight story", which BTW, certainly isn't the first of these damage control threads that have passed through here. Tell us oh big fan, why is everyone and their mother suing that site all of a sudden?
Slimjim on 2005-07-18:
I guess I do have what it takes to get you all worked up, no? Imagine if I was trying. And no, I will not call them and ask if you work there. A. I doubt that's your name. B. I could give 2 sh@ts.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-18:
yea there are 37 posts, ever think I've been lurking? or did your feeble mind not grasp that?
you said "they don't post all rebuttals" and 2-3 hardly qualifies you as "knowing it as a fact"
that's an easy one to answer. because our country is sue happy. everyones got to sue for something, its pathetic actually. none of the companies that are suing them will win and that I can guarantee.

don't flatter yourself as I said before you don't have what it takes to get me worked up hell I hardly cracked a frown. actually I am laughing at your stupidity.
of course you won't contact them because you are all talk no action. you cannot back up your claim. and btw that is my real name I have nothing to hide.
Anonymous on 2005-07-18:
My real name is Stewie Griffen and my EMAIL address is ned_ryerson at cox.net... EMAIL me..let's do lunch?
Slimjim on 2005-07-19:
Lurking? Waiting to come roaring out for this topic? Do you know what those companies are suing for to make such a guarantee? I bet you do.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-19:
no... and againg if you did your research you would know that I've commented on other topics besides this one. so as usual you're talking out of your a*s which mind you, you're really good at.

No, but I can take a wild guess and know I'm right. as I said before those people who are suing ripoffreport don't have a leg to stand on. just like you in this conversation
Slimjim on 2005-07-19:
Whatever you say ed.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-07-19:
what part of "my name is Michael" did you NOT understand?
chris mcfarland on 2005-07-27:
Crooked Maria Crimi Speth’s ‘Straight’ Story

1. My credibility

An open letter to the public and to Maria Crimi Speth, in particular, in response to her recent online statement about Federated Financial and me, Chris McFarland:

I practiced law for around 12 years or so in Pennsylvania, from 1983 until early in the year 1996. I chose to walk away from the practice of law at a difficult time in my life that was exacerbated by the nature of the profession that I chose to leave. Ms. Speth is quite grandiose in claiming that I refused to answer deposition questions about why I was disbarred, but she knows such historical facts about me were entirely irrelevant in the context of whether or not jurisdiction over her clients is proper in Florida. This was the limited scope of my testimony. Otherwise, she could have simply gotten a court order to compel my testimony, had I improperly refused to answer, as she suggests. Instead, she now attempts to beguile public opinion in this matter with half-stated facts tending to discredit me. Really, she and her client couldn't care less why I was disbarred. It has nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the Rip-Off Report.

Although I freely admit that I want to secure a retraction of the defamation against me and against my employers, I have no reason to lie about Ed Magedson. The defamation about my employers and I remains on Magedson’s websites for all to see; one need not accept my word for it. The damage from this libel is ongoing, and my only concern in all of this has been to put an end to what has unfairly harmed so many innocent employees, clients and consumers, many of who would otherwise know only the truth about the company I work for. We’ve helped thousands, probably tens of thousands by now. Unfortunately, Federated’s hard-earned, excellent reputation can’t simply speak for itself. It’s all well and good for those who say just wait silently and let the courts decide, because those people aren’t the ones with a parasitic leech on their back, demanding money not to tamper with the truth.

My livelihood and the welfare of my wife and kids demand no less than that I fight back when someone’s lies jeopardize these things. So, I don't hide my genuine concern with this case, and I don’t apologize for taking every opportunity to publicize what has become a daily battle for me, personally. I don't deny my personal involvement and interests. Unlike Attorney Speth, I don’t claim that I am "not even billing" Federated in order to self-righteously try to bolster my own credibility. I do submit that, despite (indeed, perhaps because of) the absence of an attorney's license, I am much more credible than Ms. Speth in the matters I discuss here. Regardless, I won’t sit by mute while she misleads people.

The operative facts actually speak for themselves, but one must objectively consider ALL the facts to see the truth clearly, and Attorney Speth knows this. She knows that she can't fight the facts, so she's now joined Ed Magedson's disinformation campaign against me, personally. Although this can often be an effective tactic to obscure the truth in a complicated factual scenario, it's amazing to me, to be perfectly honest. This time it's his lawyer openly lying about what I said and did, apparently on an occasion upon which she was not even present. Amazing. I am entirely uncertain what her poodles have to do with her efforts to assassinate my character.

2. Attorney Speth’s tactics to discredit me

She has become so desperate to discredit me that apparently Attorney Speth is willing to subject herself and others to civil claims by me personally for false light defamation, among other legal grounds. The fact of the matter is that however minor it may appear in the face of my steadfast resolve, their conduct amounts to witness intimidation and harassment in the sense that they are attacking me falsely in an effort to undermine my testimony previously offered and my willingness to give future testimony against their clients. Accordingly, it's only a matter of time before I sue them myself. I now have significant and valuable personal claims of my own. Ms. Speth may wish to take a break from her blog writing long enough to place her insurance carrier on notice of my claims against her, personally. Make no mistake about it, Ms. Speth's effort to falsely portray me as violent is a sign that her client, Ed Magedson, is worried.

Speth doesn't want anyone to look too closely at how Magedson’s criminal operation is really run, so she has no choice but to attempt to discredit me in a hurry. Obviously, her clients' clients, the other extortion marks, are getting restless. Ed's testimonial isn't worth the benefit of their original bargain with him now that the cat is out of the bag. Who wants a testimonial from someone who feels the need to hide the fact that he’s being paid for it? Because Magedson sees his filthy livelihood threatened- the graft he receives from these companies is now in jeopardy- he attacks me on his website through surrogate authors falsely stating that I am violent. Meanwhile, here and elsewhere online, foolishly, his attorney attempts the same tactic. She can't wait to simply challenge my credibility in court. Her client’s graft is seriously threatened by the truth I have helped to expose, so she has had to get online in a hurry to put in her two cents about me, personally. Magedson is obviously thinking, "McFarland knows too much, and he's too clever. He has a way of explaining the ripoffreport.com con that no one understood clearly before. So if McFarland can't be silenced, he must be neutralized in some other fashion." Well, nice try, Maria. You too, Ed. You aren’t dealing with your average bear, however, and I won’t back down because you call me names, or because some fool phones my in-laws to spread lies about me.

3. Who is really hiding the truth?

The actual facts are notably different than Maria and Ed would have the public believe. Let public opinion be informed by the whole truth, Maria. Magedson's adoring thousands can ponder all the evidence and judge for themselves. I am not the one hiding from scrutiny. I am on the highest mountain top shouting here I am, come look at this story about a two bit crook and his wayward lawyer, and I am not going away any time soon.

In fact, Maria Speth, in order to cast a shroud over their conduct, it is YOU, who objected legitimate questions about your clients, Magedson and badbusinessbureau.com, as the transcript of Ben Smith’s testimony will demonstrate for any who care to look at the entire truth about your lack of candor and your clients’ refusal to tell the truth. You objected excessively on the basis that the questions asked Xcentric and Magedson's chosen (faux) witness were beyond the scope of a jurisdictional inquiry. So, you are intentionally misleading the public by not according me the very same testimonial courtesies that you sought, quite excessively in fact, for your own clients. You objected to hide your client’s conduct, and now this is the best you can come up with about me, hoping to imply that I am hiding something about my disbarment, when I’m not. I don’t pretend I am a lawyer, and it isn’t in my job description. That claim is a red herring, and that you would offer this as your best effort at rebutting my testimony is noteworthy in and of itself. Disinformation is a tactic at which your client, Mr. Magedson appears to be quite adept. You have cleverly attempted to use the narrow basis of my objection to testifying about my disbarment, in order to deflect attention from the fact that you used the exact same objection repeatedly and excessively in your efforts to spare the ripoffreport.com from the type of legitimate scrutiny you know will ultimately end Magedson's scam. ‘Go online and attack the witness’ is a new tactic that, as a lawyer I was unfamiliar with, but I guess these are different times.

Meanwhile, you have vigorously resisted the deposition of Ed Magedson, so much so that you produced a witness named, Ben Smith, who is not even an employee of Magedson or his company, Xcentric Ventures, Inc., to testify in response to a subpoena directed to Xcentric Ventures! Why couldn’t any employee of Xcentric testify??? What are they hiding? Ben Smith testified as Xcentric’s (Magedson’s) corporate representative, but Smith belongs to another company entirely. Look at the transcript of this deposition, before deciding whose witness is hiding relevant information. I'll raise my hand at any time and place in order to testify to what I write here, so why won't Magedson testify? He knows the legal walls are closing in, and he can't hide the truth forever.

It's not violence that frightens Magedson, notwithstanding his efforts to play the martyr in the many lawsuits against him. He knows he can't put his hand on a bible and tell the truth about what he and his co conspirators have done. You know this also, Ms. Speth. Just look at how you’ve jealously tried to protect Xcentric and Magedson from testifying under oath in our case. So great was your fear of having your own client submit to a deposition that you produced a witness who, when you allowed him to answer questions at all, repeatedly testified that Ed Magedson would be better able to answer the questions he was being asked.

Now, in order to give the public the impression that I am the one being less than candid with the court, you go online and suggest that I was somehow not being truthful in my testimony and that I threatened violence. Well, you put your foot in it by becoming an additional defendant in my forthcoming defamation action against your client. I state emphatically that I have never intentionally misled any court or fact-finding tribunal, and this is much more than you, "Attorney" Speth can truthfully say. This has already been convincingly shown, and the online materials at www.bad-business-rip-off.com help to prove this. I am confident that a Florida jury will see it the same way I do before all is said and done.

4. Tell the Whole Story!

You are hardly disinterested concerning the revenues and financial wherewithal of the Rip-Off Report, as you apparently would have the public believe. You state that you are “not even billing” the Rip Off Report for your online, defensive statement, but I suggest that this is probably because Magedson and his website have been a fertile source of clients for you. Your class action lawsuit against Pizza Hut, and who knows how many other confidential legal fees have resulted from representing complainants who first appeared on the Rip Off Report. Maria, how many of these clients have confidentially settled their cases before suing?? What was your share of the fees? From these, how much have you ‘contributed’ to the Rip Off Report over the years? Do you have any unauthorized practice of law/ fee splitting concerns? Tell the whole story if you are going to set things “straight.” Open up your trust account records and let them tell the true tale of your involvement with the ripoffreport.com website. Tell it like it is!

You could easily accept service of legal process for Magedson, if it was just his physical safety that concerns him, but the fact of the matter is that he fears the light of day for reasons unrelated to his safety. He fears being held accountable for his illicit actions. You imply that Federated, or Steve Miller or I have hidden behind pseudonyms when this is false. In fact, it is your client that hides behind the identities of third parties, like “Garves” or “Billy from Miami” and many others, on his website, in order to stir up trouble with businesses that express to him some level of concern as to how they are being portrayed by Magedson’s website as a rip off. Ironically and overdramatically, here you are nevertheless, bemoaning the use of pseudonyms, as though Magedson, himself, hasn’t acted like he’s on some great First Amendment quest to protect the right of anonymous sources that claim they were gay hookers in the employment of others who just happen to coincidentally be suing Magedson at or about the same time. Give me a break, lady. The irony and unfairness of it all is killing me. Your absurd dramatics literally hurt my insides. Despite your feigned innocence, you are not nearly as naïve as you apparently hope everyone will believe.

Magedson literally hides from legal process. You could accept service on his behalf, but Magedson intentionally makes this difficult, unnecessarily running up the legal expenses of all concerned, including his own, only to later plead legal fee martyrdom in self-serving diatribes such as your own online statement, and his sappy Rip Off Report solicitations for “contributions,” etc. He told me he has no shortage of money to fund his legal defense. Why doesn’t he open up his finances to public scrutiny in order to prove this, one way or the other? Sooner or later the light will shine on all of this. You don’t have to wait.

5. Magedson’s Tall Tales of Woe

If he isn’t the lying criminal that I maintain, then why must he always conceal his whereabouts and avoid legal service of process? What is it about Magedson alone that gives him such unique secrecy concerns amongst consumer advocates? I challenge anyone to name another consumer advocate who is ‘on the lam’. Why is it that only poor Ed, amongst all consumer advocates, is the named defendant in all of these independent lawsuits against him that claim he is an extortionist? Why is it that his attorneys’ fees are somehow more deserving of compassion than those of the businesses who independently claim that they were given no choice but to sue him? Is it your claim that people just enjoy going to court against Magedson, somehow more so than against all others in the whole wide world? Or is it that he actually relishes the role of martyr, and that it helps to deflect criticism to simply blame businesses for filing frivolous lawsuits against him? Maybe he has a persecution complex. Honestly, isn’t it just as likely, perhaps much more so, that Magedson is actually doing wrong to warrant such unusual treatment? Set the record straight Maria, by telling the whole truth.

What about the small businesses that can afford to pay neither Magedson’s extortion nor the litigation expenses that they are forced to incur in order to obtain relief from even the most salacious and damaging of lies about them? What happens to the employees of honest businesses injured as a result of the absurd lies that are published about them on Magedson’s website? Aren’t these people also consumers? Please tell the entire story, and set things “straight” by fully explaining how their hardship is such a great benefit to society and how Magedson is such a great hero as a result.

The fact of the matter is that Magedson has a guilty conscience, because his wrongdoings are finally being exposed. He wants to act like a defender of the First Amendment, but in reality he impairs free speech, subtly and selfishly, and he has no valid defense. His conduct is catching up to him. You, Ms. Speth, are a little too close to his action, so you have become understandably concerned with how all of this looks. The most material and operative facts, however, you can’t dispute. Magedson receives money from corporations to remove, edit and selectively publish certain entries from consumers that appear on his websites ripoffreport.com and badbusinessbureau.com. This is why you want to now resort to asking for sympathy for your children. Hey I have kids too, and their father deserves his day in court. You can’t handle the truth because you already know a lot more than you want to about Magedson at this point.

Ed Magedson was the first to invasively publish the private information of the attorneys involved in the case against him, yet you are content to mislead the public into believing that Federated published your information for some other reason. You mislead by failing to observe that Magedson was the first to invasively publish Federated Financial’s attorney’s private residence information online without regard to his privacy concerns. The same is true for numerous other individuals who were the victims of Magedson’s retaliation in this matter and in others. In exasperation at the low-handed tactics of Magedson, the website Federated has utilized to publish your address, etc. has simply mirrored Magedson’s actions in this regard. Yet you are content to mislead the public about this, instead of simply telling your client to knock it off. So, yes, Federated’s website continues to publicize how it is still, to this day, being unjustly treated on the RIP OFF REPORT.

Let me offer a few more suggestions on how you can help to set things “straight.”

For instance, Maria, please set the record straight by telling the world how your client has threatened and harassed my family by phoning my wife’s family and friends, thereby forcing us all to wonder before we answer the phone or walk outside: which one of Magedson’s henchmen will be harassing us today? This was all done because I gave truthful testimony against him. Maria, please explain what was it in my testimony that you feel justifies harassing my wife and publishing the lies that Magedson has promoted about me? Will you argue that my wife is less “amazing” than your husband?

I gave truthful testimony against Magedson, so why the retaliation by you and your client? If he was not the author -or the ultimate creative force- behind these lies about me then why won’t he retract them from his website? By refusing to do so, how is it any different than if he had authored these lies himself? Despite my objection and demand for a retraction and an apology, as you know, Magedson continues to publish defamation concerning me, personally, to the effect that I am violent and so forth. If I am standing at the front door to your office, handing out false literature about you, Maria, what is the significance of the identity of the author of such literature? How is the Rip Off Report any different? Please set the record straight by explaining how this subtle distinction justifies your advice to your client. Tell us all, why does Magedson continue to publish these lies about me: that I am violent and so forth? I don’t own Federated Financial. I am not an officer, or director or shareholder. I was merely doing my job when I was a witness in the case against your client, and now suddenly I am the bad guy here? Suddenly now even you can falsely tell everyone that I threatened to commit violence? Please explain to the public what is the legitimate First Amendment interest in protecting defamation, witness intimidation and harassment?

Do you really expect a jury to believe that such conduct is justified because, as you have suggested, Magedson has thousands of adoring fans and one of them – several of them- just spontaneously wrote this crap about me on your client’s behalf? In your professional opinion, does that really make it acceptable, counselor? You are endorsing his website, so I can only conclude that you approve of shameless lies designed to hurt their victims. Tell the world what advice you’ve given your client concerning the blatant lies on his website that he is spreading by calling my wife’s family and friends. Before you cry about your own family, tell the entire truth. Tell the world why Magedson won’t remove this obvious filth about which I have repeatedly complained to you and to him, expressly pointing out that it is false. Maria, explain how Magedson hides behind the identities of supposed third persons to write whatever crap he wishes about anyone he chooses. Tell the entire story, about how even though he has no reasonable basis to believe what he publishes over the objection of people like me, the only way to have such complaints removed is to pay him, dearly. Tell the world Magedson’s price for treating me more favorably on his website, Maria. How much must I pay to have the truth told about me if he won’t remove the lies?

7. What to Expect

Until you and Ed Magedson, treat me as you would wish to be treated, you may expect that I will continue to expose you both for what you are. You should both get comfortable with being called blatant liars, extortionists, and criminals, simply because that is what the facts so plainly suggest. I’ve certainly been given no reason not to Shout these facts at the top of my lungs, repeatedly. I view it as no small public service, considering the grief I am catching for it from you all. Yes, even your children have a right to know whom they are dealing with. I feel sorry for them. Hopefully, their father is a better role model.

If I am asked politely, I freely discuss my problems and experiences. I freely submitted to a deposition under oath at the request of you and Magedson's other lawyers, and I will again answer under oath any relevant question that is placed to me. I hope you can say the same, because your day is coming, Maria. As you know, Magedson refuses to testify. Once he is ordered to testify, then the real case will begin. The day will thereafter come when you will testify, and we’ll all see clearly the entire picture about the extent of your respective interests in the ripoffreport.com and badbusinessbureau.com. We’ll all see how you are paid; we won’t have to accept your word for it.

Probably unlike you, I look forward to giving further testimony concerning you, Magedson, Xcentric Ventures, Inc. ripoffreport.com, badbusinessbureau.com, etc., until those who can stop your misconduct ultimately see the entire truth.

Obviously, you want to place great emphasis on my disbarment only because you cannot challenge the accuracy of the facts that I testified to. If you could, then you would by now be explaining away the graft paid to your client. You know I have been entirely truthful, so instead you attempt to point the focus on my character. I understand that you have no effective alternative. That’s the way the material truth is. Good luck with that tactic in court. You’ll probably have ample opportunity to try that approach, but I make a good witness precisely because I am truthful. Unless I am mistaken and things have changed even more than I thought, you’ll find that it is much harder to sling mud in a courtroom than it is online.

8. Inconvenient facts

You left out several additional inconvenient details while setting things “straight”: Magedson and “his agents” have obviously authored many, many reports on his own website, however you may choose to describe them. These appear as “editor’s comments”; “editor’s suggestion”; under a pseudonym; and/or by the actual hand of ‘anonymous’ third parties who have conspired together with Magedson. Whatever artifice he may now employ to communicate his fourth grade level remarks, he also once openly authored and published his own statement about Federated Financial. He was the very first one to start this dispute by calling our client, Scott, from Colorado, a ‘victim.’ (Incidentally, anyone can see that you are lying in claiming that Magedson and his editors haven’t authored any remarks in years by simply searching for the terms ‘advocacy program’; ‘remediation program’ and ‘corporate advocacy’ on the Rip Off Report website. For instance, look up ‘O Premium Waters’ on Ed’s site. Ed’s testimonial for them was written earlier this year. Counselor, won’t Magedson declare this transaction for purposes of calculating his 2005 income tax? Why do you continue to deny this?)

Anyway, even Magedson doesn’t dispute that he personally authored his 2002 unprovoked attack on us. Magedson expressly shared his uninformed judgment that we hadn’t done the right thing by our client, Scott. Here is the link to the Internet archive of Ed Magedson’s statement:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030117175712/http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff38900.htm

In fact Magedson has over a thousand such insipid comments all over his website about numerous businesses, yet you continue to mislead the public about this. You have had ample opportunity to fess up over the years since your client did this to us. How does this look for you, counselor? Even your client hasn’t denied he wrote this, and yet here you are online claiming he doesn’t do that sort of thing. Pretty far out on that credibility limb for a supposedly disinterested lawyer, aren’t you? This is really what started our case, and it was not some concocted b.s. about supposed threats from Steve Miller, as you continue to falsely suggest. It was the direct taunt Ed, himself, authored and published about Federated. He called our client a ‘victim’ and expressly stated his "EDitor's opinion" that Federated hadn’t done the right thing. In setting things “straight”, you left this out. You apparently employ an awfully convenient memory.

As another example of such convenience, you obviously know full well that at least one Federal Court has already ruled that the Rip-Off Report is not just some passive website and is therefore not entitled to the "message board” immunity you have continued to falsely suggest applies here. MCW, INC. d/b/a Bernard Haldane Associates v. BADBUSINESSBUREAU.COM, L.L.C. d/b/a www.Ripoffreport.Com, et al.,(United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division; No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2727-G; April 19, 2004). You were Magedson’s attorney in that case, but in beguiling the public, you would have them ignore the court’s holding against your client’s immunity from liability for the material on his website. You are aware that Magedson’s activities as a corporate advocate take him far beyond the immunity protection of the Communications Decency Act, yet you continue to try to mislead several courts and the public as to what Ed is really up to. You may not believe you violated any ethical requirements for candor in your dealings with the courts, but seriously, how long do you think you can get away with hiding the money Magedson makes off his “testimonial” marks, counselor?

You wrote about the alleged threats by Steve Miller that you falsely claim started this dispute: “Instead, Steve Miller called Ed Magedson and physically threatened him if [sic] he did not remove the reports. I was not a party to the conversations, and I am relying on Ed’s version of it. I did listen to tapes and read emails where Ed Magedson confronted Steve Miller about threatening him and Miller did not deny it.” Enough already! Steve Miller never threatened your client’s physical well being. You have never produced any such tapes to corroborate Magedson’s allegations, even when the news media that reported our story offered to listen to them. If they actually do exist, you may have committed a crime under Florida law as a secondary perpetrator, as someone who listens to such tapes and further published the contents thereof.

It is a distinct, criminal act on your client’s part to have recorded the conversation of anyone in Florida without the subject’s consent. Did Steve Miller consent to these alleged tapes, counselor? Furthermore, if you have actually listened to any audiotape then you know for certain that Miller never threatened Magedson. Yet you continue to suggest otherwise. Steve certainly never ‘confirmed’ doing so. I was there in November 2004, when Miller attempted to broach discussion of an out of court settlement with Magedson. Steve never, ever, admitted to threatening your client because this just never happened, no matter how Magedson may now attempt to spin what was said and done. Your contrary self-serving story about a physical threat is an excuse, contrived after the fact, to deflect attention from the damage your client has caused, beginning with the defamation about Federated that Magedson first wrote at the link provided above, and continuing thereafter through his ongoing misconduct ever since.

Go back and look at the dates of the ambiguous communications that you claim were supposedly “threats” against Magedson. All of these necessarily post-dated your client’s defamatory statement of December 2002 because this was the first communication to or from Magedson concerning Federated Financial. We are still waiting for a retraction and an apology for that statement that Magedson, himself, authored and published in order to launch his typical extortion scheme against businesses that seek to have false posts removed. This is the same scheme that we have proven he has used against many other companies; so good luck proving this wasn’t his plan in December 2002 when your client stuck his foot in it. The Internet archive proves that Magedson was about his mischief long before you claim Steve Miller threatened him.

9. Unanswered Questions

So, please set things ‘straight’ about what was wrong in 2002 with Federated’s treatment of Scott from Colorado? And what was Magedson’s motive for insulting Federated in December 2002, concerning how Federated treated that client? Please supply the public with an explanation of why Magedson called this individual Federated’s ‘victim’ in 2002, and why, in his opinion Federated had not done the right thing for Scott from Lafayette, even though it had refunded all of his money and then some. This was long before any of the bogus threats of violence that even you have alleged, so if Magedson has all along merely responded to threats and just protected himself, as you suggest, why was he already portraying Federated in a false light in December 2002? This was Magedson’s own statement I’m talking about, and he has admitted this. What was his reason for lying about Federated on his website, even as early as December 2002? Where is the proof on your end?

Frankly, your biased disregard for all but the most select, self-serving facts demands further proof, but I know for certain that the evidence only supports what I say. How is it that I know this with certainty, you might ask? Simple, it’s because I have lived and breathed this case since Magedson first wrote his lies about Federated in December 2002. Unlike you, who obviously has her hands full defending lawsuits against the ripoffreport.com from all over the country, I have been paying very careful attention ever since. I couldn’t believe then that he could be so evil and mischievous, and frankly, the only change since then is that now we can convincingly prove what we have believed about him from the beginning. His rules for website content are at best arbitrary and capricious, and often very, very wrong-spirited. He has exhibited his malicious intentions quite clearly over the years since then. That’s obviously why you now feel the need to go online to try to cover for your boy, but it’s too little too late, Maria. As I’ve said elsewhere, the cat’s out of the bag and roaring more loudly every day.

Contrary to what you and others have suggested, Miller and I never set out to attack the Rip-Off Report, until we were given no other choice. The expense of fighting with you in court has been enormous. If we had a reasonable alternative to clear Federated’s good name, why would we have chosen to go through all of this? We’ve only come across the evidence against your client because he gave us no reasonable choice in responding to his lies and the lies of others which he publishes and promotes on his websites. His lies about me, personally, and now your lies about me, personally, are new, separate matters that now also call for justice. This is what you and he just can’t seem to grasp. You are just making things worse for yourselves and prolonging the ultimate harm to you both because we have the truth on our side and you don’t.

10. Ed Magedson, Corporate Advocate

Federated never trusted Magedson enough to meet his demand that the company pay him as its advocate, and since that time it’s been shown that our instincts were entirely correct. This case could have been settled long ago if he hadn’t demanded that Federated pay him for a “testimonial” to address the many lies that he flatly refused to remove from his website. In fact, he always maintains that he never removes a post and this was also Ben Smith’s testimony. Since then we have learned that Magedson offered to remove complaints for Mini Vacations, a company that has paid him over fifty thousand dollars for favorable treatment. We won’t pay him a penny to say nice things about us, so what choice does that leave us to disprove the negative impression that Magedson continues to give the public about us? Why shouldn’t the public instead see the true motive of this liar and fraud, and judge us in a more informed light? Why shouldn’t all consumers know that Magedson is paid to endorse companies like ours on his website? Why does Magedson not disclose this himself on his own website if his conduct is as benign as you’d like everyone to believe? Why should anyone be compelled to pay someone who hides the fact that he collects money for his testimonial? Tell the whole story Maria, if you are going to set things “straight”. Why all the secrecy surrounding your client if what he does isn’t extortion? Why doesn’t he freely admit what we have proven, that he agrees to remove negative reports only in exchange for thousands and thousands in graft? People all over the country appear to be critical of Steve Miller, Federated Financial, and I because we have alleged Ed is paid by corporations in this fashion. Why don’t you spare us by telling the truth and setting the public “straight”, once and for all?

11. An Ethical Argument

And since you do claim you want to set things straight, here is the chance for you to correct another injustice that offends me personally: the only action I have ever threatened against any lawyers in this matter was to file bar complaints against you and Shutts and Bowen for lying to the Broward court. I freely represent to you again that this remains my settled intention. I have been entirely consistent concerning your ethical misconduct as attorneys. It is an ethical breach by each and every one of Magedson’s lawyers to argue to any Florida court that he does no business in this state. Of course, now that this is common knowledge, you just can’t wait to rationalize that Magedson and his ring “provide services to two Florida companies, but all of those services were provided here in Arizona.” Good luck with that rationalization with the Bar, counselor. You omitted this careful parsing from your legal memoranda and motions in which you instead simply left these facts out entirely. It’s not up to me to decide whether you should retain your license or not, but it is difficult for me to believe that the Bar could find you haven’t willfully misled at least the Broward court.

Do you intend to correct the record now that you have been shown to have misrepresented Magedson’s actual Florida contacts? Will you clarify the truth about your client’s payoffs from World Benefits and National Grants Conferences? Will you bring his Florida contacts with these companies to the attention of the Florida court(s), or will it be left to me to later to show your underwhelming performance in this regard as well? Incidentally, you should live up to your ethical requirement of candor to the court by telling the truth and correcting the record in every Florida court in which Xcentric has been sued, not just in Broward County. Tell the whole truth, counselor. Set the entire record “straight.”

If it’s true that Magedson does no business in Florida with Mini Vacations and Incredible Discoveries, as you continue to glibly suggest, why did you attempt to hide from the court the genuine nature of the services he provides these Florida companies by telling Judge Burnstein these companies were merely Magedson’s ‘vendors’? Why no mention at all of these contacts in the Dade County Court? Will you rely on your “just vendors” theory in Dade County also? Why did Ben Smith perjure himself by stating that he was unaware of any contacts with other Florida businesses when it has since been conclusively proven that he was the one who suggested the escrow arrangement for Mini Vacations’ payments to your client? Was it consciousness of guilt? You can all practice answering these questions now, so that you are well rehearsed when it’s time to respond to your respective Bar Complaints and perjury charges.

To further exacerbate matters, although you were not even present at the time, you now claim that I told some other lawyer to,” watch his back”. In fact, I told Lee Mackson several times on that occasion to “check your facts”, because he too continues to this day to mislead at least two Florida courts as to the extent of Magedson’s contacts with Florida. I am confident that he fully understood what I said and that he knew it had nothing to do with his back. On the contrary, I don’t sneak up on people, and I’ve made no secret about my plans. Mr. Mackson can answer his own ethical charges when Federated’s case is concluded.

Maria, you could also benefit from the same admonishment in this new context. Check your facts. Why do you also feel the need to lie about me and to defame me, personally? You have now ventured forth to do so without the concealing curtain of some fictitious third party. Accordingly, I urge you to immediately retract what you have falsely written about me or you may expect to be sued by me yourself, here in Florida, together with Mackson and /or whomever falsely represented to you that I threatened anyone to as you state, “watch your back.” Your version of what occurred on this occasion, outside of your presence, is simply false, and you should consider this my formal demand for an apology and a retraction. You all continue to portray me as some sort of violent individual at your own risk, and I look forward to my day in court after engaging in forensic discovery of your trust account(s) in order to conclusively establish your true motives and financial interests in lying about me.

Additionally, it’s not just the two (2) two Florida companies you now admit to, Maria, and you know it, although perhaps I can’t quite prove it online yet. This suggestion by you is but one more falsehood. When Magedson was recruiting Federated for his corporate advocacy/extortion program, he gave us the names of at least four (4) Florida companies as examples of what he could offer us in a testimonial. Do you think that you can pull off claiming not to be aware of these others, as well? You better hope your fingerprints aren’t also on those other companies. Or will you also conveniently remember these others only after the truth comes out in sworn testimony over your strenuous objection? I am sure you’d like everyone reading what you wrote here to believe you knew nothing about Ed’s business activities here in this state, his ‘vendors’, as you called them. Time will tell. You should tell the WHOLE truth if you’re going to claim to set things “straight.” You will have ample opportunity to do so in the future, but why wait?? Don’t Arizona lawyers take oaths to level with the court? In Pennsylvania all lawyers swear that they will be candid with the court. I always thought this was true in every state.

12. Conclusion

You wrote, “Miller and McFarland are convinced that these postings were authored by Ed because of the content and timing.” This is true, in part, and the circumstantial evidence is indeed quite convincing in and of itself. We are confident that any objective fact finder will agree, when they see the entire case, Maria. You have failed to factor in the most important evidence, however; and this establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that “these postings” were authored by your client: Despite the fact that we have proven that he removes posts from and manipulates the content of his website for various selfish reasons, not the least of which is his receipt of thousands of dollars in hush money, Magedson steadfastly refuses to remove what he has admitted are harmful lies about Federated from the website that he controls. The gig is up, Maria. The ripoffreport.com has never been just some passive message board. Your client exercises proactive editorial control, including the deletion of posts in exchange for money. He refuses to remove false statements about Federated and related individuals like me and he expects to be paid for his wrongdoing on top of this. It’s his site; he’s free to run it this way if he chooses. And I am fee to sue him while asking loudly and repeatedly, WHY PUBLISH WHAT HE ADMITS ARE LIES ABOUT GOOD BUSINESSES AND THE INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS THEY EMPLOY EVEN AFTER SUCH FILTH IS PROVEN FALSE, OBJECTED TO AND A RETRACTION DEMANDED? What difference does it make if the author was Ed or some anonymous liar if the only means to obtain any relief from the lies is to pay Magedson thousands and thousands of dollars in extortion? You hypocritically claim on one hand that Magedson can control the content of his website- including by preventing Federated from defending itself thereon and by selling his exclusive testimonial services to Federated- because as he claims, his website is his property to do with as he pleases. On the other hand, you claim that he doesn’t control his website’s ‘third party’ defamation against Federated and others. Of course there is yet a third, silent, policy governing those posts that he has removed for other companies who have relented to pay him thousands of dollars each month, proving that there is little consistency and no integrity behind your clients’ editorial policies. Once the whole truth is told, Magedson is clearly seen as orchestrating the content of his website very carefully indeed. Why not just tell the entire story to set things “straight”?

It may not yet have dawned on either of you yet, but you have already lost this fight, and your defeat is simply becoming more public and more complete every day. The truth will prevail in the long run.

Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-10:
bitter much?

what part of you have no case did you NOT understand? notice that the lawsuits against ror have been dismissed. what other sign do you need.
Slimjim on 2005-08-13:
Readers ignore Silent Assassin. he is an ed devote who goes back to every ROR complaint here and types damage control. The lawsuits have not been dropped.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-26:
and they shouldn't ignore a man who is only here because he is bitter at being labeled a crook? get a clue mental.
Rocks on 2005-09-08:
Can someone PLEASE block Silent_Assassin from posting? I am so sick of reading his ignorant comments!!! He always has something negative to say. Slim I enjoy reading your comebacks, but you should stop wasting your time on stupid people!!!!
Silent_Assassin on 2005-09-10:
Rocks,

If you don't like my comments then either stop reading them or leave, those are your only 2 options.

you call those comebacks? yea right, I always rip him apart hes the worst opponent I've ever had. I've embarrassed him badly.
Rocks on 2005-09-14:
Silent, the only person you’re embarrassing is yourself with your ignorance!!
Slimjim on 2005-09-21:
Thanks Rock, I'm surprised this thread was still going and Silenta$$wipe missed getting his last mumble in. Silent, I think he has a third option. Telling you to go f@#k off. That's the one I use.
chris mcfarland on 2005-11-14:
Notably, Maria Crimi-nal Speth never responded to my challenge to what she wrote. She is a mental midget with the ethics to match. She can't answer me, because she represents an evil, lying extortionist, just like we have said all along. Her bs "straight story" was smoke and mirrors all along, and her silence after my open response to her is all the proof any objective reader needs to see that I was and rermain 100% correct.
chris mcfarland on 2006-01-12:
Arizona US District Court provides corroboration for what I have stated in my comments here: http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/12.05Dismiss.pdf Mail fraud and threatened extortion are predicate acts in well pled RICO claims versus Magedson and the Rip-Off Report. Guess we can all see why they were so desperate, just as I suggested all along. Thank you for your applause. Thank you.
B. on 2006-05-24:
Ms. Miller,
You are as cowardly as your client, Ed Magedson. You should be ashamed of yourself! I have PROOF your client elected to withhold my rebuttal more than once. Allowing ANYONE to make statements about me, my family, my life, without the opportunity to defend myself. I have the copies of the e-mails. I have copies of the responses from Editor@Ripoffreport.com stating I was a liar and crook rather than request I resend my rebuttal so it could be properly posted. Additionally, why is it there are so many judgements against Ed and his blackmail efforts over the years? This is nationwide. The fact you call yourself a professional and claim to be Mr. Magedson's Attorney but took the time to post statements to this blog makes me question your professionalism. Your ethics were already in question! Continue to pat yourself on the back! Continue your efforts to further slander other businesses. Like Mr. Magedson, you too will have your judgment day. I would have thought an Attorney would know this was not the proper forum to plead her clients case. But there again, your overall integrity, ethics and intelligence is in question based on your continued representation of this man! God Help You!
B. on 2006-05-24:
chris mcfarland - Dear Sir:
In reading all your posts, the pain Ripoffreport.com and Ed Magedson have caused you is quite apparent. I too am a victim! My family has been subjected to danger because of this excuse of a human being. I have no recourse. I'm a little mom and pop business who does not have the money to take on a legal fight to protect myself. Unfortunately, it might be too far gone for me and my business at this point anyway. My hope is your fight and other's like it will put a stop to this man and his Attorney. I was sickened to read the financial benefit they both seem to enjoy based on the website. If I've learned nothing from my business experience of late, there is always more to the story than the one side. Unfortunately, many people fail to remember that. It's inexcusable you have been forced to present your case in the court of public opinion. Warm wishes to you and your family. Please call upon me if I can help in your fight. I am passionate about spreading the word about this piece of dirt. If I don't have the financial resources, I certainly will find the time to post as many responses and threads as possible. Again, health and happiness to you and your family.
Close commentsAdd reply
Ripoffreport extortionists
Posted by on
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. That's 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:

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.
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.
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.
Anonymous on 2009-10-20:
Ed Magedson and his sleazy operation has been sued so many times it's become an 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.
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.
Ponie on 2009-10-20:
Tupper Lake NY, Alpharetta GA? Are those soap operas still running?
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
Reports on Rip Off Report are often false!
Posted by on
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:

dan gordon on 2008-05-18:
I've also tried to respond to erroneous reports and they charge you to respond.
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.
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 (usually 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
DebtorBasher on 2008-05-26:
He needs to be sued for blackmail!
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.
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
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 that 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
Sharp Knife on 2008-12-08:
Ed Magedson and Rip Off Report is so bad so bad. I don't 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 Inquire 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
Anonymous on 2008-12-08:
Google loves money, Ed pays Google money, end of that story...
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.
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
Ripoff report victims
Posted by on
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. (without 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 supposed 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. Don't 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 a lot 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:

Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-18:
**yawn** your rant is getting quite boring. don't 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 I'm 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(that's 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!
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.
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) I'm 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 wouldn't have done so)
3)still haven't 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 I've 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. I'm tired of shooting you down all the time its too easy.
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!
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.
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 CANNOT prove what I asked.
god I'm good. go beat your wife or something you're prob better at that than debating with your superior
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!
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
Slimjim on 2005-08-20:
So it's "supersource" who is ed, and you're just the mindless drone.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-20:
once again wife-beater, prove it.
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?
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
chris mcfarland on 2006-03-23:
3/23/06: Looks like they are still out to try to 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 harass 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.
chris mcfarland on 2006-03-29:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm
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."
ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
solartek@ispwest.com
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
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 gone 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
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! WORLDWIDE! 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 truly 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

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 doesn't 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
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 within 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 received this email from Mr. Magedson, Founder and Head Hunter at Rip off Report. When you post a complaint at The Squeaky Wheel, every time 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 don't care what you say about us. just don't 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 a lot of those links say. It gives info on who to e-mail at google. Also a lot of other info is in the first 4 pages of that search.
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 judgment 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 BEFORE
Address 1: 2533 N CARSON ST Address 2:
City: CARSON CITY State: NV
Zip Code: 89706 Country:
Status: Active Email:

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

Director - DAVID BEFORE
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 Before is the one that needs to be sued
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
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

desperate 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.
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.
Sharp Knife on 2008-12-09:
There is not one single person or business that has the volume of negative complaints against 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 against Ed Magedson and Rip Off Report.
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 because inevitably they are as bad if not worse than those they point fingers at.
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 against the business. You heard me right, anyone that makes a report on ROR against 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.
DJluvsu on 2009-03-03:
Has anyone digested the volume of complaints against Magedson and Rip Off Report in all venues? There is easily 5000 complaints posted against Magedson and Rip Off Report a whopping 5000 and that's 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 didn't 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
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!
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
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.

PepperElf on 2009-08-25:
dude this complaint is over 4 years old
who cares
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
cynthia grossman on 2011-08-02:
great article. thanks

Cynthia G.
Vent
Close commentsAdd reply
Ripoff report and what to do if attacked!
Posted by on
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 won't 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 will 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 individually but go after him criminally.
since your businees is based in whatever town you are in. I believe it will be smart to file in your own home town. let them come to you.
Even though the internet is crossing state lines which the F.B.I would like to know about. Most police departments have a internet division. Hope a lot 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 won't 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 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:

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.
Slimjim on 2005-08-11:
Well go figure, silenta$$wipe is right there again on another ROR thread singing like a bird. How is it you can type this poster should change his business ways and he's a "crook"? You don't even know him or his business, OR DO YOU??? Yet you "know" ed and he's a good man huh? I originally just blew by this but you've made me once again, have to stop and call you out as either ed himself or one of his cronies performing internet damage control.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-11:
plain and simple, if he wasn't a crook he wouldn't be on the Rip Off Report. its simple, really.
you really have a seriously learning problem so I will ask again. what part of "I AM NOT ED NOR AFFILIATED WITH ROR" did you NOT understand? I've called you out, either put up or shut up, I gave you the opportunity to verify that I don't work for him but yet you are too chicken s*it to do it. so sit down and shut up.
Slimjim on 2005-08-11:
The rip-off report openly acknowledges they do not confirm the authenticity or accuracy of the reports. So 'Mike', how do you make the imbecilic argument “if he wasn’t a crook he wouldn’t be on the rip off report”? Let me give you some advice Silent a$$, 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!
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-11:
as your superior said before. if these complainers weren't 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 I'm on your "shat list"? seriously crook is it supposed to bother me?
I'm smarter,more educated, and street smart than you can EVER even dream about. don't compare yourself to me boy because you are not even REMOTELY in my league. besides I don't associate with crooks and rip off artists.
I don't even know why you bother answering because you always get your a&s handed to you, I embarrass you time and time again you have no dignity left. you can TRY to make sure readers think "I'm 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.
Slimjim on 2005-08-12:
"I'm 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/
bill on 2005-08-12:
"plain and simple, if he wasn't a crook he wouldn't 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.
Slimjim on 2005-08-12:
Exactly Bill, What if I started a thread here and said Silent Assassin was a crook. Then I guess it would be true, no?
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-12:
as I said 5 billion times before jonnson, you have no leg to stand on. you are the laughingstock 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 I'm right and you are wrong heck you cannot 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 DON'T.
buy a clue.
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.
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-12:
did I stutter? no, you cannot back up your claims
1) you cannot back up that I am associated with ror even though I've called you out on this 5 times
2) you cannot prove you submitted any rebuttals on ror
should your superior go on or do you get the point.
you talk about 5 pending lawsuits, don't 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)
I've proven everything that I've said
yes you are the laughingstock 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.
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.
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
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 judgment 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.
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 judgment? or is it imaginary like everything else you say.
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 judgment 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?
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.
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 league scholar.
why do you come back? you get embarrassed 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 doesn't like free advertising.
but then again this is falling on dead ears you aren't bright enough to put 2+2 together.
Slimjim on 2005-08-13:
Dumb is switching user names and typing the same smack thinking you would fool anyone. It's a judgment because he decided to hide rather than 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".
Silent_Assassin on 2005-08-14:
time to take your walk of shame johnson boy.
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?...
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."
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
Ripoff Report ; Ripoff report and what to if attacked by them.
Posted by on
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 customer." 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 activities, 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:

Slimjim on 2005-08-06:
More on the ROR saga. I expect Silent will be along shortly to shill for ED in defense.
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.
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).
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:
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
chris mcfarland on 2006-03-29:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/01/ripoffreportcom_1.htm
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.
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
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 harassment and post them on the internet. Then ROR puts YOUR COMPANY name in Meta tags and submitts it to search engines. (without 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 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 supposed 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. Don't 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 a lot 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!
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 harassment and post them on the internet. Then ROR puts YOUR COMPANY name in Meta tags and submitts it to search engines. (without 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 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 supposed 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 used to host ed but due 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. Don't 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 a lot 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!
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
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 didn't 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.
ripoff1989 on 2006-05-02:
Directnic needs to know the extortion scheme that ed magedson is doing. A lot 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
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
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 doesn't 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.
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
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.
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.
ripoff1989 on 2006-06-26:
Here is the fbi address for cyber crime.
Go file a complaint


http://www.ic3.gov/
Code 5 on 2006-08-24:
We have recently been victimized by Rip Off Report. We have confirmed two postings against 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 against 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 against Disneyland and they would post it as fact.
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?
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.
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
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 the 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.”







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

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.



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



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 discovery 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 commission:
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.

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.
ripoff1989 on 2006-10-23:
check this site out
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=17363&highlight=ripoff+report
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 exaggerating 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 transferred 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 Before 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 authorities 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.
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 judgment 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.
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
billbogart77 on 2010-01-15:
Here is the ripoffreport.com phone number : 888-275-2211
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.
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
Ripoffreport.com
Posted by on
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:

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.
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.
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?
MDSasquatch on 2010-12-09:
"this site" is a reference to ripoffreport.com

just go to their site and type in Direct Buy,
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.
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.
MDSasquatch on 2010-12-09:
Direct Buy, not Best Buy
Slimjim on 2010-12-09:
Oh, either way, no. it's just Ed.
Anonymous on 2010-12-09:
lol I dunno what company would want to by ripoffreport and put themselves in such liability.
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
Slimjim on 2010-12-09:
That's probably because 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.
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
Derogatory And False Reports
Posted by on
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:

Anonymous on 2009-02-26:
That's why they call it Rip off report.
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.
cindie on 2009-02-26:
This is very sad. How does it stop?
Anonymous on 2009-02-26:
Relax, no one takes that site seriously.
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
Correct Information
Posted by on
There have been so many inaccuracies and misportrayals of Federated that it is hard to know where to begin addressing the tales. Since coming across all of this rhetoric about Federated I have done some independent research and wish to share my findings.

Federated has served thousands of clients yet the only place you find complaints about their service is on Ripoffreport. They have helped many, many people through a tough time in their lives with assistance from certified professionals. Federated is ISO certified. That means they have gone through a tough process of internal audits, uniform quality standards metrics and fulfilling requirements for ongoing training of staff and self monitoring of quality standards. In addition, the monitoring entity conducts its own assessment at least annually if not semi-annually.

If there were any truth to the claims of imporopriety they would have lost their designation.

In addition, Federated is a member in good standing with the BBB. Personally, I don't see much value in the BBB, but many people feel it is one more measure of a reputable company. What the critics don't say, is that there are actually TWO BBB's to belong to.

One is the regular BBB there in that area. The other is the BBB ONLINE. Since he was not made aware of the difference between the two, he was using the BBB logo on his web site much as others use the logo on stationery as status of a reputable business. As soon as he was informed of the difference he, being an ethical business person, removed the logo from the site. However, one call call confirm that Federated is indeed a business in good standing.

Some people have asked me why I 'have it in' for this guy, Ed. I don't, it is nothing personal. I don't know him personally. Neither do I know the owners of Federated or Hy-Cite or any of the other companies Ed has targeted for his scam. I just don't like what he is doing. I feel it is important for people to stand up and not allow self-styled journalists to lie to them, or consumer watch groups (or individuals) to profit from making false claims.

The problem with Ed's site is that there is no way to truly address issues the complaintants have. Most business owners are anxious to right any perceived or actual wrongs. In the case of Ed requiring the business owners to pay for the right to rebut the complaint is just plain wrong.

The other problem is that since Ed posts evrything annonymously, there is no way for the business to know if it is a legitimate complaint, neither is there a way for the business owner to address the person's issue and resolve the problem. And Ed will not cooperate in that regard, as, again, he requires a fee to himself as a condition of the owner addressing consumer complaints.

I have seen copies of the letters Ed has sent people who wish to resolve a complaint. He requires a minimum of $5,000 and then a monthly fee. you can see the documents for yourself on http://www.rip-off-bad-business.com/
Federated has the original copy they would be happy to share. a recent news cast also showed the same type of correspondence from Magedson to another company and there are complaints from others as well.

I hope this will help the blind followers of Ed to see more clearly. Instead of imitating the Enquirer, these people who consider themselves journalists should do some checking around before they go maligning others without just cause. Get your facts straight. you go messing around on other people and pretty soon you'll have stink on you.
     
Read 0 RepliesAdd reply
Top of Page | Next Page >