October 2014: Ripoff Report Implicated in Extortion & Witness Tampering

I started this blog in the first week of October 2011, exactly 2 years since Google issued its first refusal to remove the defamatory links to webpages containing false and defamatory allegations on the website Ripoff Report. My identity was sold and I have now spent more than five years trying to clear my name.

In February 2011 I issued defamation proceedings in an Australian Court against Google. The case is still ongoing because Google have attempted, without success, to make me ‘go away’. The background can be found in this interview on the respected website, Civili Nation or on this webpage.

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.

I have not updated my blog since late 2012 for legal and procedural reasons. With the Australian activist against cyberbullying, Michael Roberts, and the American Investigator Paladin PI, 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. This is documented on the following websites:

The Ripoff Report Revolt

Ripoff Report Victims Unite

Ripoff Report Revolt: Facebook

Ripoff Report Scam Exposed

Reputation Arson: Facebook

Jaburg & Wilk: Facebook

It has been a long hard battle but there have been significant successes.

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.

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. Further serious and false allegations were published by a paid writer that included, among others, that I defamed Australian Judges and hired hackers to bloster my case and extort Google. These  allegations are in a separate court application due to be heard again on October 10th 2014.

Over the past three months there have been major legal developments in both the US regarding Ripoff Report. A paid writer for the website, Darren M Meade has been indicted by the State of Iowa on a number of serious charges including witness tampering and extortion. This blog post provides links to the documents: Ripoff Report linked to witness tampering and extortion.

It is clear from the evidence in these documents that the Ripoff Report founder and editor, Ed Magedson has utilised the website’ s  high Google page rank to instigate, finance and control a vicious and prolonged campaign of intimidation by global humiliation against a number of witnesses in a US criminal case, anyone remotely associated with the witnesses and, in fact anyone who challenges this (as described by a US Judge) ‘appalling’ business model.

Ripoff Report states that it never removed material. Yet the recently unsealed court documents contain evidence of ‘selling’ removals for the cost of $10,000 a webpage. It is only able to extort individuals and businesses because Google protects it. Why? Well, this popular video by Michael Roberts provides some insight into that question:

The impact of Ripoff Report’s Google enabled racket of reputation assassination and cyberbullying for profit is catastrophic. Many parents have pleaded with Ripoff Report and Google to at least remove the identifying details about their children without success. Many ordinary people cannot pay $10,000 per webpage that falsely names them as paedophiles, whores, murders, skanks and drug abusers and face global public humiliation, the ruin of their careers and businesses and have to live with the fear that their children will be harmed or cyberbullied. Individuals, families and small businesses are rendered socially, vocationally, emotionally and financially paralysed by this criminal operation.

Ripoff Report was recently exposed as one of the worse websites  in the US on  The O’Reilly Factor. The website’s lawyers got the segment removed but we have published it under the fair use copyright doctrine. This is usual practice for Ed Magedson: Use legal means to gag critics (while purporting to fight for the First Amendment right of freedom of speech) and then write vile garbage about those who stand up to them on Ripoff Report. It is no wonder that so few people have managed to sustain a fight against them.

For Michael and I, while there are now tangible successes in the battle for victims of the narcissistic and sadist creep Ed Magedson, the emotional and financial costs have been, at times, seemingly insurmountable. Google have not removed the defamatory links because they want to break me. Over the past few years I have been through periods of many months waking up almost every day thinking of suicide and am only standing now because of my lawyers and the fact that the boycott gave me a reason to fight. I could not use my qualifications in paid employment but I could and did use them for the boycott.

Michael has needed to find tens of thousands of dollars to defend the boycott in the Arizona court as well as care for his children. We ARE winning the battle. In the meantime, and until Ripoff Report is removed or closed down, there is an alternative and half of any profits go to supporting the Boycott. I want to be quite clear. I do not and have never had any business, legal or personal relationship with Michael. We are fellow activists fighting for the rights of the mostly US victims. We are both Australian and therefore not bound by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - the US law that has protected Ripoff Report. However, as noted by a Professor of Law in the Huffington Post, this 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.

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.