Dr Andres Guadamuz: Sussex University & Technollama
Since Dr Andres Guadamuz is so fond of Storifying his horror that someone actually stands up to him and his cruel attempts to vilify a plaintiff who has been emotionally decimated, I thought that I should learn to Storify. So I decided to try my hand at Storify. With a bit of luck, I have worked out the mechanics of how to use the platform and have published my first Storify post on Guadamuz.
In May 2017 I decided to update my blog. I made some edits to this post and checked the links. But the substance remains the same. I have also written an authorized statement.
The Technollama Blog Post
In October 2015 Dr Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer at Sussex University and author of the blog Technollama wrote a post about my win on liability in a defamation case against Google. It caused me significant distress because, after a trial in which the Defendant’s own medical expert testified my need to represent myself had a horrendous impact on my health, I had won and set a global precedent in common law. Guadamuz did not approve! He stated that I did not sue Ripoff Report, I sued Google and that was apparently his reason for writing a post without any investigation into the facts or the circumstances.
I pointed out that I had no choice because I am statute barred from suing Ripoff Report because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the US Speech Act. Someone with a legal background surely should know this!
I tweeted to Guadamuz that Ripoff Report is long known to profit from its high Google page rank and cause the destruction of lives and livelihoods of those individuals, families and businesses (mouse over view to read the comments reflecting their despair) victimised by its refusal to remove false and defamtory content. The Ripoff Report founder, Ed Magedson boasted in a 2013 article in Forbes that it earned millions of dollars a year mostly from advertising served by Google. Subsequent evidence from a criminal investigation, put this figure at around $USD15 million a year.
In 2017 this Ripoff Report ‘business model’ of profiting from pain has resulted in a USD$60 million lawsuit by a plaintiff, a plastic surgeon and decorated war hero filed because Magedson paid a person to write false and defamatory content and this resulted in the destruction of his practice. Ripoff Report cannot avail itself of a section 230 defence because this law protects intermediaries from liability for the actions of others, not individuals from liability for their own illegal conduct. The trial in this matter commences on 5 December 2017.
Guadamuz stated that he read the whole case. But he did not read all the evidence. I tried to explain that Ripoff Report is an extortion racket enabled by Google that destroys lives:
I asked Guadamuz to at least read the evidence that I had put into the trial Tender Books and amend his blog article that blamed me for the defamation and imputed that the justification defence should have been upheld. He refused to either read the evidence or amend the article.
Guadamuz suggested in the article that I was not an ‘exemplary witness’. In any trial the presiding Justice can only rule on the evidence before him. No, I was not an exemplary witness. I had 18 days to prepare for a trial, no legal experience, few resources and the Defendant was dumping folders of documents on my less than 48 hours before the trial. This is called a ‘scorched earth’ defence and it is harrowing to experience in court.
During the liability trial I was exhausted, distressed, terrified and under attack. The Defendant tried to portray me in the worse light possible and partially succeeded because I did not know how to stop it. Every night of the trial I went home, curled up and sobbed. At one lunch break I was distressed and clinging onto a pole outside the court and sobbing. The Defendant’s legal representatives said to me to go to the court and withdraw the case. When I refused they said, “well Dr Duffy ring Lifeline”.
Luckily I had legal representation for the damages trial and my team managed to repair some of the damage. In fact, at that trial my QC asked the Defendant’s expert medical witness if he believed my description of the trial as ‘horrendous’ and my statement that I went home every night and sobbed. The Defendant’s psychiatrist replied that he did believe me.
Guadamuz tried to vilify me and cause maximum emotional distress in his blog post. And it worked! The word he used was ‘amused’ and that says a lot about this man’s character.
The Australian Human Rights lawyer, George Newhouse, who actually fights for the rights of people rather than engaging in punditry, provided some hope in what was a distressing situation.
Newhouse and lawyers of his ilk fight for human rights for those who cannot. The fact that others choose to amuse themselves and denigrate a successfull litigant WITHOUT reading the evidence pretty much says it all. But most worrying of all is that students are taught that powerfull corporations have the right to profit from decimating lives, families and livelihoods.
Guadamuz imputed that my litigation was all about money.
What sort of person says that? Seriously! All I wanted was my life back.
As I had stated in court, and which was supported by the Defendant’s own expert medical witness and the Supreme Court Justice in his costs decision, all I ever wanted was the defamatory content removed so I could get on with my life. Only a person without a conscience or soul would interpret these as threats, not an expression of extreme distress.
Either Guadamuz or one of his mates even briefly got me suspended from twitter because I posted a link to my authorized statement.
This suspension was overturned.
So much for their version of ‘freedom of speech’. Now he has bravely blocked me:
The links to the Storify tweets published by Guadamuz are below. The tone ranges from contempt to justification but always with the aim of ridiculing me. Yes, I was upset and emotional and it distressed me deeply that he would use a very painfull aspect of my life, to amuse himself and his cronies. I have since learned that a few people who claim to believe in ‘free speech’ congregate on a blogs in the US such as Techdirt and Popehat and back up each other on twitter to vilify anyone who stands up for the online rights of individuals.
In the months since the trial I have been attacked by these people on Techdirt. However, both Masnick and Guadamuz have attempted to obtain removal of negative content about themselves. So much for ‘free speech’. I intend to write about that shortly.