Ripoff Report Defamation: Duffy v Google
UPDATE 28 October 2015: WE WON!!! I beat the Bastards
UPDATE MARCH 2016: A satirical video on Ed Magedson from Ripoff Report.
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2016: As reported by @SeanFewster, the South Australian Supreme Court has ordered that Google release the court fee from my damages so that I can file a second case against them. This was filed on 10 October 2016. Any Australian plaintiffs or potential plaintiffs (or their lawyers are welcome to have a copy).
UPDATE December 2016: Ed Magedson and Ripoff Report sued for USD$60,000,000: This is NOT a section 230 CDA lawsuit. It was filed by a US plastic surgeon and army colonel who was the target of a sustained and vicious reputation assassination attack by Ed Magedson of Ripoff Report and his paid writer, Darren M Meade. The end is nigh!
I recommend page1.me but I do not have any business affiliation with this service and do not receive any commissions or fees. I trust the person who developed it.
The media may use the following image on the Condition that a conspicuous “DOFOLLOW” hyperlink with the following text is included in association with the use of the image: “Image courtesy of Googliath.org“
Media may also contact my Ripoff Report boycott co-founder, Michael Roberts (Licensed Private Investigator)
I started this blog in the first week of October 2011. This was 2 years after Google issued its first refusal to remove the defamatory links to webpages containing false and defamatory allegations on the website Ripoff Report. In February 2011 I issued defamation proceedings in an Australian Court against Google. The Defendant attempted, without success, to make me ‘go away’.
Soon after my blog went online Google removed it from all of its domains. My blog suddenly reappeared in the Google search results the day after I complained in a discussion in which Matt Cutts was participating.
For several years I have been involved in the fight to expose the extensive criminal activities perpetrated by Ripoff Report in order to continue its estimated USD $15 million annual revenue. Information gathered and provided by other activists is documented on the following websites:
It has been a long hard battle but there have been significant successes.
The Advertising Boycott
In 2013 advertisers were alerted to the proliferation of vile and abusive content (examples can be downloaded from here) on Ripoff Report. This was a success! When confronted with their brand next to hate speech and headlines that referred to women as ‘whores’, ‘sluts’ and ‘skanks’ (and worse) the advertising servers and their clients could not get their business off the website fast enough. By January 2014 Google and other major advertisers ceased to serve ads on Ripoff Report. From April 2015 advirtisments were once again served on the website. The advertising boycott mark 2 is about to commence.
In November Ripoff Report tried to sue Michael to shut us both up. They failed. As stated in the US court decision, our actions were ‘protected speech’. Ripoff Report has a long history of exacting revenge on anyone who stands up to it. In retaliation for my advertising boycott, further serious and false allegations were published on Ripoff Report by one of its paid writers, Darren M Meade. This defamatory content included false allegations hat I defamed Australian Judges and hired hackers to bolster my case and extort Google. This blog post provides links to the documents: Ripoff Report linked to witness tampering and extortion.
The Ripoff Report Conspiracy
Ed Magedson, Ripoff Report and his cronies are trying to manufacture some sort of conspiracy in order to win a civil trial designed to prevent the criminal investigation. I have refused to be deposed by Magedson’s attorneys.
As an Australian I am not required by law to submit to a deposition. Moreover, I have NEVER met not had any contact with the Sac County attorney, Ben Smith.
I do not and have never had any business, legal or personal relationship with Michael Roberts. We are fellow activists fighting for the rights of victims of the extortion racket that is Ripoff Report.
Ripoff Report has been able to get away with committing extortion because of its high Google page rank and the US law, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, as noted by a Professor of Law in the Huffington Post, this law does not include immunity from federal criminal law, intellectual property law or communications privacy law. Therein lies the crux of Ripoff Report’s current problems. That lack of immunity for criminal activities and another US law known as RICO. The question of how much of Ripoff Report’s USD $45 million worth was gained through criminal activities will be answered in the US courts in due course.