Dr Andres Guadamuz, Sussex Uni, Technollama, Storify by Dr Janice Duffy

I originally wrote this as a webpage but decided that since Dr Andres Guadamuz is so fond of Storifying his horror that someone actually stands up to him and his cruel attempts to vilify someone who had been emotionally decimated I should learn to Storify. So I have decided just to turn this into a blog post and with a bit of luck I have worked out the mechanics of how to use it and have published my first Storify on Guadamuz.

The Blog Page.

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, set a global precedent in common law, and Guadamuz did not approve.

Guadamuz appears to be one of those ‘free speech Nazis’ (along with others such as Mike Masnick, Popehat, Cathy Gellis and an obscure Englishwoman, Wendy Cockcroft) who espouse that anyone who challenges the great ‘god of the internet’ (Google) to retain their right to freedom from global humiliation and deprivation of their right to work should be ridiculed because they endanger the very fabric of the Internet.

This is the same argument posited by proponents of basic health and industrial laws to protect the capitalist exploitation of ordinary people at the birth of the Industrial Revolution. Ripoff Report is long known by many who have been victimised by Ripoff Report (mouse over view to read the comments reflecting their despair), to profit from its high Google page rank. In fact, as noted in evidence from a criminal investigation, Ripoff Report earns around $USD 15 million a year, mostly from advertising served by Google. The Ripoff Report founder, Ed Magedson boasted about this in 2013 article in Forbes.

Recently this Ripoff Report ‘business model’ of profiting from pain and destruction of individuals, families and businesses, has been recognised in a US court and its section 230 defence legitimately challenged. Guadamuz stated I did not sue Ripoff Report, I sued Google and that was apparently his beef with me.

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!

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:

I asked him to at least read the evidence I had put into the Tender Books and which was provided to Justice Blue and amend his bl;og article that blamed me for the defamtion and imputed that the justification defence should have been upheld.

But Guadamuz refused to read the evidence or amend the article. What he set out to do was to display his disapproval of a legal ruling by using the exact same tactics as the Defendant, who by the way, failed on every defence.

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-or lack thereof..

Guadamuz did not mention in his article that I represented myself at a trial against 7 corporate lawyers with no legal experience. I found out 18 days before the a defamation trial in a Supreme Court that I needed to run it myself. After five years of fighting to have false accusations removed from the Google search results (SERPs) written on a website, Ripoff Report that commercialises defamation and abuse, I had no savings left.

Guadamuz wrote that I was not an ‘exemplary witness’ and imputed that I was guilty of the crimes of stalking and harassment. In effect, after years of fighting for vindication, Guadamuz decided, based on evidence he did not read, to inflict emotional distress in order to prove a point or maybe just for his self amusement!

Well, no, as I wrote in a recent complaint I was not an exemplary witness because I was representing myself, exhausted, under attack and terrified. During one lunch break I was so distressed and clinging onto a pole outside the court and the Defendant’s legal representatives said to me to go to the court and withdraw the case or ring Lifeline.

In fact, in the damages trial my QC asked the Defendant’s expert medical witness if he believed my description of the trial as ‘horrendous’ and that my statement that I went home every night and sobbed. The Defendant’s psychiatrist replied that he did believe me.

Guadamuz and his cronies belittled and ridiculed me in their blogs and on twitter because they disagreed that the great ‘god of the internet’ (Google) should NOT be responsible for knowingly for earning millions of dollars in cahoots with a website that profits from the monetarisation of pain and despair. 

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 people’s rights. Guadamuz and his band of internet devotees would be scary if they had any real power, or balls for that matter. Nonetheless, the fact that they choose to amuse themselves and denigrate a successfull litigant WITHOUT reading the evidence pretty much says it all: They are legends in their own minds but the laws are changing despite their hisrionics and cruel vilification of those who take a stand.

But most concerning was the reference by Guadamuz to teaching students:

I have complained because quite apart from the cruelty involved in the approach taken by Guadamuz and his ‘free speech Nazis’, I believe that teaching students to publicly vilify those who win legal decisions that they do not support is a dangerous pedagogy. I will update the status of this complaint on this page next week.

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. 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 cronies even briefly got me suspended from twitter because I posted a link to my complaint.

This suspension was overturned.

So much for their version of ‘freedom of speech’ and that just proves my assessment of this person and his cronies is correct. 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. What sort of man does that?

Since he has blocked me on twitter because the poor man is so unable to cope, or something, the only way that all of the tweets can be read are in his Storify posts. Yes, I was upset and emotional and it distressed me deeply that he would use a very painfull aspect of my life, that I had just overcome to amuse himself and his cronies. I had been to hell and back.

But Guadamuz was cruel and moreover, tried to vilify me for his own objectives and this is clear from reading his version of the tweets. In the end it is Guadamuz who will be construed as a coward and whatever else I am, I stood up and I fought and I won.

Storify 1

Storify 2

Storify 3

Storify 4

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.