Judge Finds No One To Like In Lawsuit Brought By Ripoff Report Against Overreaching State Prosecutor

from the Section-230-but-an-afterthought dept

Ripoff Report has always been targeted by some very creative legal efforts, thanks to its aggressive use of its Section 230 protections. Forced to find other ways to remove allegedly defamatory content, plaintiffs have tried everything from questionable copyright lawsuits to extortion allegations. Not much of it has stuck.

Ripoff Report not only plays Section 230 hardball, but it often brings lawsuits against those who have attempted to remove third-party content through dubious legal means. In this case, covered by Eric Goldman, Xcentric (Ripoff Report's host/parent company) is seeking a preliminary injunction against Iowa county prosecutor Ben Smith, who has relentlessly pursued the company in hopes of finding a link between certain third party contributors and the company itself.

The judge presiding over the lawsuit isn't impressed with either side. In the course of this opinion, which partially grants Xcentric's demand for an injunction, there are no winners: just two brutish louts engaged in questionable tactics.

Goldman notes there is a Section 230 nexus, but it's only a small part of the overall lawsuit -- one that Xcentric has deployed as an offensive weapon to head off further harassment by Ben Smith. (Goldman compares it to Google's lawsuit against Mississippi attorney general Jim Hood).

Xcentric raises a very questionable CDA claim, arguing that the protections grant it "immunity" from further prosecutorial actions related to content contributed by someone named "Meade." The judge finds that to be a bit of a stretch.

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to immunity under the CDA because – despite their financial relationship with Meade – they were not information content providers with regard to any of the allegedly-unlawful posts about the state’s witnesses. At this stage of the case, however, they have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claim that the CDA protects them from criminal liability for any potential violation of Iowa Code Section 720.4. This is because there is substantial evidence suggesting that the plaintiffs materially contributed to the alleged illegality of the information at issue.

[...]

I am not fully convinced of Magedson’s credibility on this issue. Xcentric paid Meade a large amount of money and Magedson has strong feelings about Richter’s case. I simply do not believe that he was blissfully unaware of what Meade was planning to post.
As Goldman notes, this sort of relationship is much "closer" than most other cases where Section 230 protections are invoked.

This isn't the only thing the judge finds questionable about Xcentric's claims and tactics. There's more criticism contained elsewhere in the opinion. While he does find its First Amendment claims credible, its assertions of Fourth and Sixth Amendment violations are less convincing.
[P]laintiffs contend that Smith violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment. According to their briefs, this argument is based on Smith’s application for, and execution of, a search warrant. The only evidence of record concerning a search warrant is the application and warrant concerning Anna Richter’s home… [Richter was charged with first-degree murder by Ben Smith, something a Ripoff Report review claimed was a bogus charge.]

Even if the plaintiffs had strong arguments on the substantive merits of this claim (and I am hardly convinced that they do), they did not address the crucial issue of standing. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously. In order to have standing to complain about an allegedly-unreasonable search, a party must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched…

Plaintiffs have made no effort to show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to Anna Richter’s home or any of the items seized from that home.
Xcentric's Sixth Amendment claims are even weaker.
Citing no authority, plaintiffs contend Smith violated their Sixth Amendment rights by obtaining and reviewing communications subject to the attorney-client privilege and by filing an ethics complaint against their counsel.

Plaintiffs’ failure to reference supporting authority is a major clue about the merits of this claim. I have not, through independent research, located any case law that might support the claim, as currently framed. Among other things, it is undisputed that Smith has not yet charged plaintiffs with any offense. But see Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172 (2001) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only to charged offenses).

Perhaps there is a non-frivolous Sixth Amendment argument to be made, but plaintiffs have not taken the trouble to make it.
And circling back to Xcentric's First Amendment claims, Judge Leonard Strand finds its demand for an injunction to be more than a little hypocritical.
I also find plaintiffs’ proposed item I (enjoining Smith from “[t]hreatening, intimidating, accusing or otherwise stating that plaintiffs’ lawyers are violating any laws in representing plaintiffs”) to be inappropriate and sadly ironic. After loudly championing the importance of First Amendment freedoms in this case, plaintiffs have proposed a gag order that would restrain Smith’s speech.
But Smith is far from blameless. The judge also smacks the prosecutor around for his obsessive harassment of Xcentric, prompted by criticism of him hosted at Ripoff Report -- all of which was done supposedly to "protect" state's witnesses.
While Smith contends he is acting solely for the benefit of various witnesses who have been targeted on Ripoff Report, I find that he has acted, at least in part, for retaliatory reasons. For starters, I am amazed that Smith offered no direct evidence, such as copies, of any Ripoff Report posts that have allegedly harassed or defamed any witnesses who testified against Richter. Instead, he chose to provide only his own characterizations of the statements at issue...

If Smith’s investigatory tactics have truly been motivated by a desire to protect the State’s witnesses from harassing or defamatory posts on Ripoff Report, it would have been a fine idea for him to offer those statements into evidence.
The judge finds Smith's actions to be -- at least in part -- clearly retaliatory. The opinion lists several examples of how Smith's handling of Xcentric varied greatly from his pursuit of any other entity facing similar charges.
Smith admits that he has worked over a thousand hours and has issued over one hundred subpoenas during his investigation into Ripoff Report. Smith presented no evidence that in his role of Sac County Attorney, he has devoted similar time and resources into other investigations of potential misdemeanor offenses.

[...]

He wrote a 119-page, singled-spaced affidavit in support of an application to obtain a search warrant, relying on avowed enemies of Ripoff Report for substantial portions of its contents. He then filed the application as public record, rather than sealing it as is his usual practice. This allowed him, in effect, to publicly air his allegations about the plaintiffs before filing any charges.

[...]

More troubling, and what I find to be most persuasive, is what Smith did with privileged and confidential information after obtaining it by his myriad of subpoenas. Upon obtaining communications that clearly appear to be between Xcentric and its own counsel (e.g., Ex. 8), Smith did nothing to advise Xcentric of this fact. Nor did Smith do anything to preserve their confidentiality. Instead, he put at least one such communication (Ex. 8) into evidence in a proceeding and provided other presumably privileged communications to third-parties, including various enemies of Ripoff Report. He also disclosed Xcentric’s financial and banking information to third-parties, thus allowing that information to become public. While disclosing privileged and confidential information to others, Smith did not require those individuals to enter into non-disclosure agreements. He has provided no legal justification for this.
It's ugly all over, and Judge Strand is only willing to grant Xcentric some of what it requested. The injunction issued prevents prosecutor Ben Smith from doing the following:
A. Bringing criminal charges against Xcentric or Magedson related to any postings related to criticisms of the State or its evidence presented in State v. Richter.

B. Continuing the investigation of Xcentric and Magedson such as sending search warrants or subpoenas to their banks, email providers and other service providers.

C. Reading Xcentric’s privileged attorney-client communications.

D. Disclosing Xcentric’s attorney-client privileged communications to others.

E. Disclosing Xcentric’s financial and banking records to others.

F. Disclosing Magedson’s personal and private communications to others.

G. Disclosing any communications or information obtained through investigation of Xcentric or Magedson.
It would seem items C-F shouldn't need an injunction. These are things a prosecutor shouldn't be doing in the first place. Unfortunately, Smith's past actions prove he's severely in need of outside guidance. As for Xcentric, it may have a solid First Amendment claim, but its invocation of Section 230 protections is less sturdy than it would normally be, thanks to its for-pay relationship with a contributor.

Filed Under: ben smith, iowa county, meade, section 230, vindictive
Companies: ripoff report, xcentric


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 2:29pm

    [P]laintiffs contend that Smith violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment. According to their briefs, this argument is based on Smith’s application for, and execution of, a search warrant.

    Wait... isn't the point of the Fourth Amendment that you need to get a warrant? And now someone's claiming that Smith getting a warrant and then using it as intended violates their Fourth Amendment rights?

    Am I totally misreading this, or does that claim make no sense whatsoever, to the point where you wonder how it didn't get laughed out of court long before reaching a point where the judge ruled on it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TKnarr (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 2:46pm

      Re:

      I think it's not that Smith got a warrant, but that the warrant was not supported by probable cause and Smith included no evidence in his application for the warrant to support a finding of probable cause. The second half of the 4th Amendment says that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 3:18pm

      Re:

      … does that claim make no sense whatsoever …
      Without necessarily addressing the exact claim at issue here, I'd point out that generally speaking, some warrants may be so facially lacking that any reasonable officer would understand their invalidity.

      Iow, maybe the claim makes sense, or maybe it doesn't, in the the specific context of this particular case. But it most emphatically does not make no sense whatsoever. Some warrants are just bad. Obviously defective. Clearly bad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 5:12pm

        Re: Re:

        … generally speaking, some warrants may be so facially lacking that any reasonable officer would understand their invalidity.
        Groh v Ramirez (2004)
         . . . as we observed in the companion case to Sheppard, "a warrant may be so facially deficient — i. e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid." This is such a case.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 2:36pm

    This may seem silly, but rather than throwing lots of money at a lawsuit, maybe you should just not ripoff your customers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      James M., 15 Jan 2016 @ 12:42pm

      Re: ROR

      This has got to be the biggest load of BS Ive ever read. You make the claim that somehow if your on the ROR you ripped someone off. The site is trolled by whiners and societies worst. If your successful your probably on the site.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 12:21am

    Knowing County Attorney Benjamin Smith as we do, we weren't surprised that he threatened me (Darren Meade) with a criminal indictment because we had, he says — and we're not making this up — been putting Benjamin Smith's name in my articles about prosecutorial misconduct reports'it sucks.'

    In fact, I spent quite some time laughing about it. Benjamin Smith, an elected official; Ben Smith, a public figure? Surely, Benjamin John Smith can't be serious?

    Discernibly, though, County Attorney Ben Smith's ignorance of what journalism is and does is no joke, and illustrates one disturbing aspect too prevalent in conservatives’ beliefs: That the media are all-liberal stooges hell bent on pursuing some fictional leftwing agenda.

    Smith claimed the media are all-liberal cowards. Cowards? Tell that to the families of the 60 journalists killed in 2014, or the 70 in 2013, or the 74 who died in 2012, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. All in pursuit of the truth, or the most reliable version of it at hand in the most dangerous regions of the world.

    Edifying as it may be to lapse into name calling -- and yes, I allowed myself a little childishness above and maybe a little bit below -- I need to make one serious point the County Attorney needs to hear and understand: I will not bow to petty intimidation tactics because a local politician thinks he can score political points and threaten me with 25 years in prison unless I retracted my articles accusing him of Prosecutorial Misconduct.

    Legally, County Attorney Ben Smith had no case.

    And why? Here's how Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh, who "teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law," nicely sums it up:

    “Uh, Council Member: In our country, newspapers are actually allowed to write about elected officials (and others) without their permission. It’s an avantgarde experiment, to be sure, but we’ve had some success with it." You know, that whole First Amendment thing."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 12:53am

    In the days leading up to my video broadcasts on Ripoff Report people mentioned in my previous reporting in the original story had been applying personal and legal pressure on SCRIBD, Techsmith, Slideshare as well as ED Magedson my employer Ripoff Report. So instead of being praised for producing a powerful, important story, I was under siege, being blamed for causing problems. I found myself in an inhospitable environment for original investigative reporting and its occasional consequences - pushback from the powerful (which should be a badge of honor for a reporter), but also my spinelessness from my employer about what we had published. ED Magedson and Ripoff Report terminated me and then left me to fight the criminal indictment for 9 months without any help and to fend for myself in protecting the rights of reporters everywhere.

    http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/ed-magedson-hires-darren-meade-to-co-create-content-on-ripoff -report

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • There is much more to this matter; Smith is a humble & briliant tactician

    Folks, there is much more to this, and we can better understand it is a fuller context with the knowledge that Ben Smith is a humble hero, and very, very patient.

    We should never judge a matter without all the information.RipOffReport initiated the case, presumably as a fishing expedition to see what Ben Smith had against them (them being Ed Magedson, his attorneys Adam Kunz & Maria Crimi Speth, and Ed's ("Reputation Hitman" Darren Meade [see 60 Minutes segment https://youtu.be/HhtbM1M5Rdo).

    It is clear that Smith didn't play along, at great risk to his reputation, but given the full circumstance, to the credit of his character (risking loss of face in the interests of justice). If you followed this case, and if you read the Judges ruling in its full context, you will see that it backfired on the RipOffReport schemers, the Judge ruled against Ben in Law, but His Honor's language shows that he knew there was more to it, this excerpt is particularly telling:

    "His [Smith's] failure to submit relevant evidence at the injunction hearing, while puzzling, does not mean that such evidence does not exist. Once the parties have full opportunity to conduct discovery, Smith’s motivations for acting may prove to be less offensive than they currently appear. At this point, however, it is very easy to infer a retaliatory motive."

    So in review, all RipOffReport got out of it was:

    (1) A Federal Judge finding that 230C has been pierced for RoR, probably sealing their doom for a defamation lawsuit by mu=yself and the other witnesses harassed by Magedson and his agents)
    (2) That Ed Magedson probably perjured himself (I am not fully convinced of Magedson’s credibility on this issue.)
    (3) That Ed Magedson hired agents to author content on RoR.

    I surmise that Ben Smith thought outside the box, in this expensive war initiated by RoR and with verylimited County resources. What appears initially to be a partial tactical win for RoR is in fact a strategic disaster for Ed Magedson and his co-conspirators.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 10:30am

      Re: There is much more to this matter; Smith is a humble & briliant tactician

      We should never judge a matter without all the information.
      Unfortunately, it's still an open question whether the gods are omniscient.

      Humans beings, luckily, have been endowed with instincts sharpened to make snap judgments —and to quickly act on those snap judgments— with incomplete information. Otherwise, we'd get eaten.

      Now, in many cases, it is indeed simply quite wrong to just turn and fire a saw-offed shotgun into the dark. Maybe even most cases.

      But if we were to wait for “all the information” then nothing would ever get judged. And we don't even necessarily want “all the information”, rather we might want to select for material information. Information that makes a not-insubstantial difference to the matter at hand.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      The other Ben, 25 Jan 2017 @ 10:12pm

      Re: There is much more to this matter; Smith is a humble & briliant tactician

      Mr. Roberts may have something here, but in reality the hand the rocks the cradle or co-conspirators is an Internet Attorney and self proclaimed "writer" "radio host" and "speaker" Roberts should get real and remember Iowa offered Magedson et al a $5 million settlement which they refused.
      This speaks volumes that at the end of the day, this isn't about money it's about ROR being able to exercise freedom of speech. It seems like the only schemers that are crying about the victory of the Plaintiff are those that have been the subject of exposure. Fake murder cases, fraud attorneys and sending a person to prison under circumstantial evidence that was mostly fabricated, is quite serious.
      Soon we should know the outcome and justice will be served against those that have a vendetta against ROR for exposing their evil agenda and fake reputation management scams / extortions, false restraining orders and improper filings and service of court documents.(comical at best and tragic at the same time)
      Ben Smith should be concerned with the Californian people he has been manipulated by and stand up for truth before his bar licensed is yanked by his employer who will have to pay a hefty settlement. Because of the ill-conceived dirty plans for California dreaming.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Darren M. Meade, 31 Jan 2017 @ 1:11am

      Re: There is much more to this matter; Smith is a humble & briliant tactician

      BACKGROUND

      The State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney Benjamin John Smith, has brought a ten-count trial information charging one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code § 706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa Code §§ 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code § 719.3).

      Sac County Attorney Benjamin Smith confessed Michael Roberts of Rexxfield drafted the criminal indictment against reporter Darren M. Meade.

      Smith has placed his own personal interests and hiding that Darren M. Meade had a confession from Michael Roberts of Rexxfield about hiring two men to kill his wife and children above the interests of the State of Iowa and its citizens. Smith is prosecuted me not to punish or deter crime but to silence an individual who has vocally and publically criticized not only Smith’s performance as a prosecutor but also his ethics.

      While Smith’s decision to prosecute Richter for the murder of Dustin Wehde brought him and his office national and even international media attention, Meade’s articles about the case and about Smith’s prosecutorial decisions have brought him public derision. Rather than take the criticism in stride and as the price of being a public official (as he is constitutionally required to do), Smith decided to bring to bear his powers as a prosecutor and the considerable resources of the State of Iowa to unconstitutionally silence the criticism against him.

      Although Smith said his prosecution was about protecting the State’s witnesses who testified in the Richter case, Smith personally investigated, wrote and then filed an unsealed 123 page Search Warrant Application on Anna Richter’s house looking for evidence against Meade.

      Smith’s assumption of the role of the sole investigator in the case against Meade raises significant and troubling conflict of interest issues.

      BRILLIANT TACTICIAN ... Huh - Smith cannot be both the prosecutor and witness in a case; It is undisputed that Meade has published articles that have publically criticized Smith and his handling of the Richter murder investigation and prosecution. Meade has published articles accusing Smith of prosecutorial misconduct in the case, including the belief that Smith failed to investigate viable suspects—namely Richter’s now ex-husband Michael Roberts—and that Smith knowingly suborned perjury from some of the state’s witnesses. See

      http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Re-investigation-Uncovers-Evidence-of-Innocence-Attorney-Ben-Smith- Sac-County-Iowa-Eaves-Dropped-on-Confidential-Calls-Between-Tracey-Richter-and-Defense-Counsel-Sac-C ity-IA-Reliance-Telephone/Sac-City-Iowa/Re-investigation-Uncovers-Evidence-of-Innocence-Attorney-Ben -Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Eaves-1124380



      http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/ben-smith-sworn-testimony -5-115-49488879

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 1:54am

    Prosecutor Ben Smith was a proxy for Michael Roberts, Rexxfield and Mile2 who wanted to discredit my research and articles about the prosecutorial misconduct in the Tracey Richter murder trial. Tracey Richter is the ex-wife of Michael Roberts.

    Here is Ben Smith’s sworn testimony that Michael Roberts conspired to draft false claims about reporter Darren Meade which led to the dismissal against reporter Darren Meade.

    http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/ben-smith-sworn-testimony-5-115-48729234

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 2:00am

    The video report which made Ben Smith and Michael Roberts retaliate

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_FyUUmYOnA

    Sac County Attorney Ben Smith dismissed all charges against Darren Meade on May 27, 2015, with prejudice.

    That means that the State of Iowa and Ben Smith stopped prosecuting Meade for the things Meade reported on the Tracey Richter murder trial, and the State of Iowa nor Smith cannot change their minds again and re-file the charges.

    Watch the pre-trial conference hearing dismissing charges against Meade - https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o and granting him immunity in the future without any conditions (Meade, did not make a deal).

    In July, 2014, Smith published a vague affidavit claiming that journalist, Meade had written false and defamatory things about witnesses in the Tracy Richter Murder trial. Smith later filed criminal charges against Meade, claiming that Meade’s writings and postings were criminal offenses, making further vague accusations that at least some of the things Meade wrote and posted were false and defamatory.

    Meade’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, claiming, among other things, that Smith had no evidence to support that what Meade wrote was false or defamatory and that what Meade wrote is protected by the U.S. Constitution as free speech, and could not be a crime. Meade’s attorney also asked the Court to disqualify Prosecutor Ben Smith from the case for a conflict of interest. Meade’s attorney argued that Smith was retaliating against Meade with the vast resources of the State of Iowa and the power of his government office, because Meade had made harsh professional criticisms against Smith in his reporting.

    When the day came for Prosecutor Ben Smith to face Meade’s defense attorney in court, and present some kind of evidence to show that Meade made false statements, Ben Smith gave up instead of fighting. Smith did not present any evidence to show that Meade did anything wrong. Smith did not identify what statements, if any, were supposedly false. Smith did not present any evidence to show that anything Meade wrote was false. Instead, on the morning of the hearing, Ben Smith filed a motion to have the Court dismiss all charges against Meade, with prejudice, so that no charges could ever be re-filed.
    ----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­---------------- -----

    Ben Smith Sac County Iowa Attorney prosecutorial misconduct, improper relationship with star witnesses, allowing witnesses to knowingly lie, seeking fame not justice, Sac county Iowa corruption. Tracey Richter falsely convicted evidence leads to overwhelming evidence to estranged husband Michael Roberts, Rexxfield failed polygraph, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, Prosecutors improper relationship with witnesses & Michael Roberts. Roberts witness protection sham. Exaggerated, misleading information to Dateline NBC. Sac City, Iowa.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • Darren M Meade - Ripoffreport Employee "Reputation Hitman" Darren Mitchell Meade

    This 30 second video explains it all:
    https://youtu.be/bYEL24ZggtY

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 2:35am

    ‘Journalism is Not a Crime and It’s Not Harassment’ / Prosecution chills rights of journalist to report on matters of public concern.

    Michael Roberts, is alleged to have hired two men to kill his wife and three-young children.

    See document here: http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/michael-robertsstillasuspectasof12009pdf

    He previously had been arrested for both beating his then wife, Tracey Richter and their children.

    See police report here:

    http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/michael-roberts-ofrexxfieldarrestreportcitesspousalandchildab usepdf

    See FOUNDED Child Abuse report here:

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/lhc/common/files/Notice_of_Child_Abuse_Assessment.pdf

    Michael, why don't you come clean that in your mentorship of Dustin, Michael Roberts had Dustin work on creative writing exercises that often were violent in nature. Roberts after his failed polygraph admitted he told Dustin details about John Pitman and dont forget in the other notebook, Kill a Pitman. The super-secret evidence, the Pink Notebook was photographed at the crime scene, and listed under section two of the Vehicle Interior.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:50am

    ...wow, that escalated fast.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Oblate (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 7:20am

    Is this the only website posting this story?

    Still waiting for Judge Strand and County Prosecutor Ben Smith to post comments. It's like real-life dinner theater!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sunnyjim (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 9:25am

    methinks mr. meade protest too much...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      methinks mr. meade protest too much...
      Cushing's article here links to Eric Goldman's blog post, which actually discusses two cases, this one and another.

      If you happen to read through that other case there, then you'll run into this fine bit on p.21:
      The plaintiff contends the defendants have waived or forfeited a defense based on the First Amendment. The defendants did not plead such a defense in their answer. No such defense is included in the Final Pretrial Order. Given these circumstances, I conclude that the defendants have waived or forfeited a defense based on the First Amendment. [Footnote 2]
      [Footnote 2] "Waiver is accomplished by intent, but forfeiture comes about through neglect."
      (Citations omitted.)

      Now conclusions like this one are a fairly common occurrence in our court system. Not necessarily waivers or forfeitures of the First Amendment, but waivers and forfeitures generally, based on one party or the other's failure to bring an argument up at the right time—or at the very beginning.

      Stepping back a little bit, we can see that the rules encourage parties to scream like hell about anything and everything that might possibly be relevant—from the start to the very finish. If they don't do that, then the judges tell them that they lost because they didn't.

      Here, Mr Meade doesn't know what may or may not pursuade the audience. Very possibly, nothing can pursuade any of us at this juncture. I certainly don't really understand the core issues of the case yet.

      But faulting him for protesting too much is a bit rich, when he's engaged in a system that cuts him off at the knees for not protesting something.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:39pm

    If you read Judge Strand's opinion at page 31, it doesn't sound like the prosecutor was seeking to remove the reports, he was investigating witness tampering in Iowa.

    Smith's problem appears to be that he didn't submit direct evidence of the allegedly harassing reports against witnesses.

    Blogger Eric Goldman was pointing out what was troublesome for Section 230 analysis, but it was by no means the stated purpose of the Iowa investigation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Noah Bhar, 29 Aug 2015 @ 12:22am

      Smith failed to present any proof of false statement ....

      In July, 2014, Smith published a vague affidavit claiming that Meade had written false and defamatory things about witnesses in the Tracy Richter Murder trial. Smith later filed criminal charges against Meade, claiming that Meade’s writings and postings were criminal offenses, making further vague accusations that at least some of the things Meade wrote and posted were false and defamatory.

      Meade’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, claiming, among other things, that Smith had no evidence to support that what Meade wrote was false or defamatory and that what Meade wrote is protected by the U.S. Constitution as free speech, and could not be a crime. Meade’s attorney also asked the Court to disqualify Prosecutor Ben Smith from the case for a conflict of interest. Meade’s attorney argued that Smith was retaliating against Meade with the power of his government office, because Meade had made harsh professional criticisms against Smith in his postings on the Ripoff Report.

      When the day came for Prosecutor Ben Smith to face Meade’s defense attorney in court, and present some kind of evidence to show that Meade made false statements, Ben Smith gave up instead of fighting. Smith did not present any evidence to show that Meade did anything wrong. Smith did not identify what statements, if any, were supposedly false. Smith did not present any evidence to show that anything Meade wrote was false. Instead, on the morning of the hearing, Ben Smith filed a motion to have the Court dismiss all charges against Meade, with prejudice, so that no charges could ever be re-filed.

      As explained in a previous update, Ripoff Report has asked Smith to specifically identify what statements posted on the website about trial witnesses are accused as false statements. He has consistently and repeatedly refused to do that. Now, even after accusing Meade of a crime in court filings, Smith failed to present any proof of false statements, and instead dropped the charges and dismissed the case.

      WATCH VIDEO HERE - https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jersey Boy, 28 Aug 2015 @ 11:39pm

    BEN SMITH ADMITS HIS BUSINESS PARTNER FAILED HIS ONLY POLICE POLYGRAPH ABOUT THE MURDER

    If you read prosecutors Ben Smith's testimony at page 30, he admits his business associate Michael Roberts Rexxfield failed the police polygraph about the murder of Dustin Wehde.

    http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/ben-smith-sworn-testimony-5-115-48729234

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Early Cafe, 28 Aug 2015 @ 11:48pm

    Make it simple and nail Ben Smith on the two grounds that are undisputed!

    1) I'm trying to understand how Roberts evaded testifying at the murder trial.

    2) I'm trying to go back and mine Robert's online statements for inaccuracies regarding his whereabouts prior to the shooting.

    As for Ben Smith, if you want to be effective at holding him accountable for his misconduct there is an official form you can file, http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfdata/frame2596-1202/File1.pdf

    Iowa Attorney Rules are here:
    https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ACO/CourtRulesChapter/06-30-
    2014.32.pdf

    Make it simple and nail Ben Smith on the two grounds that are undisputed:

    Count I: 32:3.8(d) Failure to disclose.

    Ben Smith failed to disclose his sexual relationship with the daughter of his trial witness Mary Higgins. http://registry.theknot.com/abbie-higgins-ben-smith-november-2014/8889064

    Count II: 32:3.8(f) Out of court statements.

    Ben Smith has been appearing on TV shows and podcasts smearing Tracy Richter.

    http://www2.webmasterradio.fm/cyberlaw-and-business-report/2014/07/16/the-man-taking-on-ripoffreport -and-easy-name-change

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Hillbilly Heaven, 31 Aug 2015 @ 4:07pm

      CONFLICT? "Ben Smith failed to disclose his sexual relationship with the trial witness Mary Higgins."

      LOL - seriously?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2015 @ 12:00am

    Mike Roberts actually launched an automated cyber bullying campaign according to Fox News

    No matter how you slice it, there is a long line of people who will pay handsomely for this own private kill-switch on Internet free speech.

    Every good arms dealer knows if the market isn't big enough (and it never is), you have to create new ones. Michael Roberts and Ben Smith had a plan for that, using automated technology to generate defamatory content about individuals and corporations that value their reputations the bigger the better. We're talking about a whole new strain of WMDs weapons of mass defamation. Think about it: What if allegations of pedophilia were to pop up the next time you Google your name? Or obscene stories about your wife or your daughter? When we're talking about the potential ruin of your career, your marriage, or your child's future, money is no object and these predators know it. When the time is right, you'll get an email and it'll be Rexxfield to the rescue antidote in one hand, anthrax in the other.

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/01/20/google-cide-online-reputation-managers-can-wipe-from-we b/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2015 @ 4:47pm

    Ben Smith's indictment was nothing less than an attempt to silence a critic engaged in constitutionally protected free speech.

    Meade has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to publish stories critical of County Attorney Smith’s handling of the Tracey Richter murder prosecution and Smith’s use of witnesses with questionable background and motives.

    County Attorney Smith’s attempted use of Iowa’s Witness Tampering statute and Obstructing Prosecution against Meade is nothing less than an attempt to silence a critic engaged in constitutionally protected free speech.

    “As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has NO power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, it subject matter or its content.”

    Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 29 Aug 2015 @ 9:32pm

    Darren M Meade is an Extortionist

    Darren M Meade is batshit crazy, living in his car, and trying to extort money from Ripoff Report. He will flip and rat on Ed to save his own skin. No one believes his stories about being a journalist or his conspiracy theories. Ed Magedson is the consumers champion and Meade is trying to extort him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Siamack Yaghobi, 10 Sep 2015 @ 12:07am

      SHOCKING: ED Magedson and Ripoff Report deleting stories and document on Ripoff Report

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Stick Bogart, 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:01am

        Re: SHOCKING: ED Magedson and Ripoff Report deleting stories and document on Ripoff Report

        Darren M. Meade is a bogus 'investigative journalist' who is homeless because he tried to extort the great Ed Magedson and failed. Meade doesn't realise that Ed is not going to pay him a cent because Meade did not do his job. Ripoff Report does not delete reports-ever. Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson do NOT write reports. Ed Magedson did not pay Meade to write any reports. Meade wrote them of his own volition. If Ed has needed to delete Meade's reports it is because Ed cannot be sure that Meade wrote them based upon facts. Meade is prone to lying and it seems that now Meade is lying about Ed Magedson, his friend and benefactor. Shame on you Darren M. Meade for lying to hurt the Ripoff report.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2015 @ 11:59pm

    Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

    The underlying prosecution is not about whether one believes Darren Meade v. Ed Magedson.

    Judge Strand already found it not credible that Magedson did not direct/know about Meade's activities.

    The prosecution is about whether Meade and Magedson "harassed" witnesses Dr. Pitman and others "in retaliation" for testifying in a criminal trial to make out a violation of Iowa Code § 720.4.

    The Iowa Supreme Court has described the elements of the “harassing in retaliation” charge as follows: *16 Under section 720.4, the criminality of one's conduct turns on whether the defendant acts (1) without legitimate purpose, (2) with an intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm the [witness or] juror, and (3) in retaliation for the [witness's or] juror's performance of his or her civic duty as a [witness or] juror on a case.State v. Baker,688 N.W.2d 250, 253–54 (Iowa 2004).

    In Baker, the Court held that even if the conduct at issue includes speech, that conduct is not protected by the First Amendment if these elements are established. Id. at 254 (citing cases). The Court also held that Section 720.4 is not unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 255–56.


    That's from Judge Strand's opinion. So in this case, it's already acknowledged that the Iowa Supreme Court does not consider it an abridgement of the First Amendment to enforce the Iowa witness-harassment law for speech. The only question is whether Smith is motivated by the posts about himself or those about the witnesses.

    It's troublesome that Xcentric's lawyers used this lawsuit to request a gag order about any critical statements about themselves personally. And it seems like they shot themselves in the foot by asking for such an overbroad order.

    Meanwhile, Judge Strand has told Smith about three times what kind of evidence Smith has to put into the record (testimony of Dr. Pitman, evidence of the actual reports about witnesses) when the objections to this report are due to be filed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2015 @ 9:58am

      Re: Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

      In Baker, the Court held that even if the conduct at issue includes speech, that conduct is not protected by the First Amendment if these elements are established.
      [I]t's already acknowledged that the Iowa Supreme Court does not consider it an abridgement of the First Amendment to enforce the Iowa witness-harassment law for speech.
      Wait. Wait. WAIT.

      Skimming through State v Baker (Iowa 2004), Iowa's court there, citing Chaplinsky (1942) generally, but without citing O'Brien (1968), nevertheless reached a result at least arguably consistent with O'Brien.

      But you yourself are making a leap here that puts things on the other side of O'Brien, especially considering the 2010 Stevens gloss on Chaplinsky. Just because speech plus conduct may be regulated based on the government's interest in regulating the conduct, it doesn't follow that pure speech may be regulated under the same standard. That's not the law at all.

      In Baker, Iowa upheld Iowa Code section 720.4 as applied to telephone call that the defendant placed to a former juror. The case was close enough that it went to Iowa's Supreme Court. Suppose instead that the defendant had placed her telephone call to a third party? I don't think it would have necessarily come out the same.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2015 @ 11:57am

        Re: Re: Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

        Interesting.

        If what you are saying is that a defendant's speech to a third party can never meet the elements of :

        Defendant acts:
        (1) without legitimate purpose,
        (2) with an intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm the [witness or] juror, and
        (3) in retaliation for the [witness's or] juror's performance of his or her civic duty as a [witness or] juror on a case

        then several state legislatures disagree.

        There is no First Amendment right in defamatory speech, and the states seem to think there is no First Amendment right in harassing speech. It seems to make no difference if the harassing statements are directed at third parties.

        Take California's prosecution of Casey Meyering for example. (Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Three-Year Sentence for Cyber Exploitation Website Operator)

        Meyering operated WinbyState.com, a cyber exploitation website which solicited the anonymous, public posting of private photographs containing nude and explicit images of individuals without their permission.

        WinbyState.com also required victims to pay $250 via a Google Wallet account to remove their posted photographs, known as “takedowns”.

        Meyering pled no contest to extortion and attempted extortion.

        While a guilty plea under a different set of facts in a different state does not exactly answer your question, the sine qua non of the offense in Iowa seems to be whether the action is taken "with an intent to intimidate, annoy or alarm" the subject and whether it is in retaliation for participation in a case. The prosecution will always have to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Nothing in the Iowa statute requires that the act be directed toward the subject. But it would raise interesting issues for the prosecution.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2015 @ 12:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

          If what you are saying is …
          In fairness, I very well understand that you're trying to fit words into half-a-screenful or less. Some issues properly require hundreds of pages. When you condense them, there's inevitable distortion.

          But, my objection was to your mischaracterization of Baker's holding. You quoted Magistrate Judge Strand—and then you re-worded what he wrote into a different meaning.

          In Baker, Iowa cites an earlier case for—
          This court has held that the term "harass" as used in section 720.4 means "harassment" as defined in Iowa Code section 708.7(1).
          (Hyperlinks added; citation omitted.)

          Addressing general harrassment statutes, such as Iowa's 708.7, the well-known Professor Eugene Volokh argues in a 2013 Northwestern University Law Review article that the appropriate distinction is “one-to-one versus one-to-many speech”. The hypothetical variation on Baker that I advanced earlier illustrates that the numerosity of the audience, as captured by the phrase “one-to-many speech”, is possibly not quite right either. Nevertheless, there is some critical distinction lurking in the cases.

          Touching for a moment on the present dispute between Xcentric and the Sac County Prosecutor, I'll state that I remain neutral. Clearly, some of the other posters here recently seem rather partisan.

          It's possible that the public's compelling interest in preventing witness or juror intimidation might allow Iowa's 720.4 to survive strict scrutiny even though 708.7(1) may be facially overbroad. But that potential line of reasoning is not how Baker construed Iowa's law.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2015 @ 5:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

          … never…
          Incidentally, your use of “never” here is rather opaque. If you were suggesting that you wanted to discuss note 6 of Washington State Grange v Washington State Republican Party (2008)… well, I already mentioned Stevens (2010).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

            "Never" was used to try to understand your comment. It sounded like you were drawing a distinction between communications to a victim and communications to one or many third parties.

            If what you are trying to say now is that Iowa Code Section 708.7(1) is subject to a constitutional challenge for overbreadth, that statute has been challenged at least twice before for vagueness and overbreadth, and found by the Iowa Supreme Court not to be unconstitutional. State v. Fratke and State v. Jaeger. The inclusion of the words "without legitimate purpose" seems to be treated as a "constitutional safety valve."

            Of interest and relevance may be the 2015 decision in State v. Elphic. There, the defendant pleaded guilty to violation of Iowa Code Section 708.7 for matter he posted on Facebook. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the guilty plea because the admission of posting a graphically violent photograph on Facebook, without more, did not meet Iowa's harassment statute. The guilty plea was thrown out and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

            Elphic did not discuss any exception for posting to Facebook. It seemed to assume, without analysis, that the posting of material to third parties via a website like Facebook could constitute harassment if the material was threatening enough.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Speech Be Retaliatory Harassment?

              [ Considering that this article has now moved off the sidebar on Techdirt's front page, I'm presuming that the conversation in this specific forum is effectively over. Perhaps it'll be picked up again in a future Techdirt article. Meanwhile, I'm just taking the liberty of jotting down a note, without attempting any real further discussion here. ]


              State v Jaeger (Iowa 1977), concerning the predecessor to current Iowa Code Section 708.7—
              Defendant appeals from his guilty plea conviction of unlawful use of telephone in violation of Code section 714.37 which provides:
              "It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person. It shall also be unlawful to attempt to extort money or other thing of value from any person, or to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls were received."
               . . . We hold section 714.37 is a statute prohibiting unlawful telephone calls . . .


              Reno v ACLU (1997)
              In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975), we observed that "[e]ach medium of expression. . . may present its own problems." Thus, some of our cases have recognized special justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not applicable to other speakers. In these cases, the Court relied on . . . and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC (1989).
              (Citations selectively omitted.)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Legal Eagle, 31 Aug 2015 @ 2:49pm

      You are wrong there is no "prosecution" MEADE won in court on May 27, 2015. Let me set out the corrections below.

      You wrote: "The prosecution is not about whether one believes Darren Meade v. Ed Magedson."

      You are wrong on all points. There is no on-going prosecution, the State of Iowa dismissed all charges against Meade with prejudice on May 27, 2015, see hearing here:

      https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o

      You wrote: "The prosecution is about whether Meade and Magedson "harassed" witnesses Dr. Pitman and others "in retaliation" for testifying in a criminal trial to make out a violation of Iowa Code § 720.4."

      You need some legal help to understand what you are writing because Darren Meade's attorneys already filed a Bill of Particulars prior asking for specifics which Ben Smith refused to provide leading to the dismissal with prejudice. The Bill of Particulars is available here:

      http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/motion-for-bill-or-particulars-to-specify-alleged-crimes-of-p rosecutor-smith-against-reporter-darren-mitchell-meade

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 30 Aug 2015 @ 3:39am

    Ripoff Report Champion of Consumers

    Mr Darren M. Meade is a disgruntled employee who took advantage of Ed. Meade is now attempting to smear Ed's good name by saying that Ed paid him to write reports. It is Ed's right to publish what he wants on his own website. Isn't that why we have the 1st Amendment? Ed can publish anything he wants about anyone that he chooses on his

    Sure Ed paid Meade but he has the right to do this because it is Ed's right to publish his own personal opinion about businesses.Darren Meade wanted Ed to pay him for doing absolutely no work whatsoever. Ed paid Meade thousands of dollars and then got sick of paying a writer that did not write.

    Do not ever forget that Ed Magedson is a champion of consumer rights. Darren Meade was paid more than adequately for the reports that he wrote for Ed but he wants to extort more from Ripoffreport.com.

    Darren Meade is trying to extort Ed Magedson, the consumer champion who will even write reports for businesses to ensure they will find the way to help consumers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Former Ripoff Reporter, 31 Aug 2015 @ 1:41pm

      Ed Magedson makes millions of dollars of profit through other people's pain; those being people who have had unfounded smear campaigns leveled against them and Ed sits back and rakes in the money.

      Ed Magedson, the founder and owner of RipOffReport.com. I did some reporting work and he NEVER paid me. Although he published my reports on RipOffReport. where he was suing one of his competitors. I did learn a lot about Ed and his character. He viciously smeared my partners business after my partner refused his sexual advances.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        The other Ben, 25 Jan 2017 @ 10:27pm

        Re: Ed Magedson makes millions of dollars of profit through other people's pain; those being people who have had unfounded smear campaigns leveled against them and Ed sits back and rakes in the money.

        AND Ed Magedson is about to make more millions from this current case vs. Iowa and Ben Smith.

        Ben Smith, is a puppet used as a proxy war vs. ROR for the 2 schemers in California, the Internet Attorney and his partner/client Michael Roberts. Both of which have been exposed on ROR for their extortion reputation management scam (they slander people online then contact the victim to charge them $30,000 for removal) The internet attorney does the dirty legal manipulations and false paperwork. It wouldn't be the first public district attorney he has manipulated.

        Ben Smith you should wake up and stop being manipulated by the California puppet masters.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Darren M. Meade (profile), 3 Sep 2015 @ 12:59am

      ED Magedson, claims he's a victim. He's not, in fact, he's the culprit.

      As for the "extortion" that ED Magedson always claims about his critics why didn't he the police prosecute? I'll tell you why...because he's claims were false and he already filed multiple false police reports including making false claims to the FBI and IRS.

      ED Magedson lies about his services/results and steals money from legitimate clients. Luckily nobody takes him seriously and his hidden agenda is easily brought to light in my upcoming expose.

      ED Magedson, is a Class A scam artist, and his claim of "Champion of Consumers," yada yada, is pure garbage and about as useful of taking your chances with Three-Card Monte.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Darren (profile), 8 Nov 2017 @ 9:52pm

      It is not coincidence that this comment is nothing but spin!

      Smith Transitions to Pursuit and Deterrence of Meade

      After the conviction of Ms. Richter and particularly after Mr. Smith survived the first appeal in January 2013, as expected he gained confidence in his decisions and felt justified in feeling that he was unfairly accused by the Richter family, the Ripoff Report and Darren Meade.

      Smith began to use his prosecutorial power to see if he could cause those criticizing him to back off. To accomplish his desire to chill the criticism or punish his critics, Smith used a number of tools that are only available to a prosecutor. These included.

      a. Issuing subpoenas that can be done confidentially.
      b. Issuing sealed search warrants.
      c. Collecting and examining private documents of his critics that would not normally
      be available to a private citizen including, but not limited to: bank records, emails,
      attorney client communications, and phone conversations.
      d. Distributing or releasing confidential documents publicly and privately gathered by
      those subpoenas.
      e. Filing motions to put pressure on those who were critical of him.
      f. Making public allegations about the behavior (criminal) of his critics that, when
      made by a prosecutor, is presumed to be true or valid.
      g. Indicting at least one of his critics, Darren Meade.
      None of the above actions are available to a private citizen or have the power to
      chill or punish to the same level as when made by a prosecutor.

      Smith chose to use prosecutorial power despite knowing it so not only toward Meade but others as well, including but not limited to:
      a. Threatened criminal prosecution against various persons, including Magedson and
      Xcentric Ventures to retaliate against the political and professional criticism that
      has been posted on Ripoff Report;
      b. Unlawfully searched emails, including those containing privileged attorney-client
      communications;
      c. Disclosed attorney-client privileged communications to the public;
      d. Disclosed private and personal communications to the public;
      e. Disclosed bank account numbers and private financial records to the public in
      violation of law;
      f. Wrongfully instituted civil proceedings for the purpose of placing private records
      in the public records;
      g. Issued over 100 criminal subpoenas as part of his campaign of harassment;
      h. Improperly obtained and executed search warrants; and
      i. Falsely accused others, including Meade, of criminal conduct.

      Smith engaged in this wrongful conduct to use his powers as a prosecutor that had the effective of chilling the free speech of Meade.

      Assuming Smith’s affidavit claims are true, after the conviction, he spent more than 1,600 hours investigating Tracey Richter, Richter’s mother, Meade, Magnuson and others for posting criticisms about the Richter investigation and trial.

      Smith issued “over 100 Rule 2.5(6) County Attorney Investigatory Subpoenas
      Duces Tecum.”was improper. He did

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 30 Aug 2015 @ 7:11am

    Darren M. Meade is still trying to extort the Consumers' Champion

    Meade was only employed by Ripoff Report to write lies. He is trying to extort $50,000 K from Ed to shifty up. Meade's charges in Iowa were dismissed on the condition that he ratted on Ed in front of a Grand Jury.

    Meade is not about truth or journalism - he is about money for himself by selling information to anyone.

    Meade is a human being who does not deserve respect. He has tried to extort Ed Magedson. Ed is a hero. In fact, he has to made a fortune of $45 million= from protecting businesses who pay him.

    Darren Meade's biggest problem is that he is jealous of the profits he could make from selling the CAP.
    I have worked for Ed Magedson for almost a decade and a half and I can say that he always pays me for my work in recruiting clients of the CAP.

    Ed Magedson always pays. Meade is vindictive because Ed did not pay jim enough to write RipoffReport.com reports, according to Meade'ss self inflated version of himself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Yaghobi, 31 Aug 2015 @ 3:48pm

      Exposing the world's worst #cyberbully #EdMagedson, helping his 1.7 Million victims http://RipOffReport-Victims-Unite.org https://www.facebook.com/RipOffReportRevolt

      Stick Bogart's quote is "Meade's charges in Iowa were dismissed on the condition that he ratted on Ed in front of a Grand Jury."

      RESPONSE: This is a lie. Watch 22 seconds of the dismissal hearing available on YouTube from time marker 3:48 - 4:10 in which Ben Smith confirms with the Judge the dismissal of all charges against Journalist Darren Meade were NOT conditional.

      https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o

      From what I read in this thread, Magedson, fired Meade, rather than stand by his reporter as most blogs would have done. Meade was vindicated and has immunity if he testifies in any civil or criminal trial against Ripoff Report.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Not SEO MOZ, 31 Aug 2015 @ 4:15pm

      Ed Magedson makes millions of dollars of profit through other people's pain; those being people who have had unfounded smear campaigns leveled against them and Ed sits back and rakes in the money.

      Stick,

      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.

      Well, Stick, while your self-professed boss ED Magedson aka RipOff Report cannot be sued for posting defamatory content written solely by its users. It's a different story for content that it creates.

      https://moz.com/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-ripoff-report-lawsuit

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Angie, 31 Aug 2015 @ 3:09pm

    Rather than take the criticism in stride and as the price of being a public official ( as he is constitutionally required to do) Smith decided to bring to bear his powers as a prosecutor and the considerable resources of the State of Iowa to silence Meade

    The State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney Benjamin John Smith, brought a ten-count trial information charging one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct, and eight counts of Witness Tampering, and one count of Obstructing Prosecution. Meade respectfully requested that the court respectfully disqualify Sac County Attorney Benjamin Smith because he possessed an actual conflict of interest.

    In pursuing the prosecution of Darren M Meade, Smith had placed his own personal interests and the protection of his own reputation above the interests above the State of Iowa and its citizens. Smith prosecuted Meade not to punish or deter crime but to silence and individual who has vocally and publicly criticized not only Smith's performance as a prosecutor but also his ethics.

    While SMith's decision to prosecute Richter for the murder of Dustin Wehde brought his office national and even international media attention, Meade's articles about the case and about Smith's prosecutorial decision brought his public derision. Rather than take the criticism in stride and as the price of being a public official ( as he is constitutionally required to do), Smith decided to bring to bear his powers as a prosecutor and the considerable resources of the State of Iowa to unconstitutionally silence the criticism against him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 1 Sep 2015 @ 7:33am

    Face it Mr Darren M. Meade

    Mr Meade, you need to face facts. You were just no good as an investigative journalist.

    Ed expected that you work for the money he paid you but your work was sub standard. You did not write good copy (reports) and Ed could not trust you. His 'gifts' to you were not worth it. His attorney, Adam Kunz warned
    Ed but I guess he was just to concerned to help you out. Ed did not think of you as a criminal,at first, but then Mr Kunz showed Ed the emails that you sent asking for money for work that you did not do.

    Ed Magedson does not create content and he never removes reports, no matter how much money he is offered. Everyone knows this including you. Mr Meade, you post bogus accusations on sites on the internet and expect to be credible as an investigative journalist. You are nothing but an ungrateful homeless wanna be.

    You should be grateful to Ed. He gave you employment as a writer when you had nothing left. Ed magedson even stopped listing to his own counsel, Mr Kunz, about how you were a loser. Ed Magedson trusted you and paid you in green dots, paid your rent and gave you money to live well.

    How to you pay Ed? With producing sub standard content. You are not in investigative journalist, you are troll who tried to take advantage of Ed's pocket.

    Ed Magedson paid for your attorney in the criminal charges and you repay his kindness by ratting on Ed or trying to extort money.

    I hope Mr Magedson never gives you another cent as long as you live. You are not a person of the calibre of Sam Y, that is for sure. I guess that is why you are no longer employed by Mr Magedson.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2015 @ 12:34am

      Look in the Mirror, Magedson ...

      How ironic, considering that Ed Magedson has convictions for sex crimes against minors and drug possession.

      Magedson, has a documented history as a 'Sugar Daddy' who enlists his sugar babies to write "hit pieces" on his websites.

      And it gets weirder...MAGEDSON AND YAGHOBI SCAM EXTORT DOCTORS!

      Magedson apparently blackmailed Meade to lie to the police and investigators after Meade threaded to expose Magedson for his illegal extortion scheme and documented indiscretions.

      Magedson and Yaghobi (Stick Bogart) are more like a couple of homeless crackheads that shoot up in an abandon building. One day they're conspiring to rob someone for money or drugs, and the next day they're stealing and beating each other up, LOL. These two just can't get their stories straight, but continue to lie, cheat, steal and extort from anyone they can individually or collectively target, when desperation becomes their necessity for unity.

      On The Run...

      No better ending to this story than "where are they now?" Yaghobi is broke, homeless. Both Magedson and Yaghobi are being targeted by the FBI. Magedson on the verge of being evicted from a home he placed on the market from the look of things around Casa Creepy in good ole Fountain Hills, the lights are off and the doors are padlocked. Either Magedson is hiding again, or he's back on the run in his and using his past sugar babies defame anyone that tells him to troll his way out of Dodge.

      Can't wait to see which sugar baby offers up the dirt on Magedson first.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:24pm

    an innocent mother of three (Tracey Richter) is sentenced to die in prison due to Ben Smith and Michael Roberts

    A criminal indictment was filed on September 2nd, 2014 in retaliation of my reporting on the flawed criminal prosecution of Tracey Richter (ex-wife of Michael Roberts Rexxfield).

    Prior to the filing of this criminal indictment against Meade, Michael Roberts business associate County Attorney Ben Smith (aka "overreaching state prosecutor") filed an Application For A Civil Injunction to Restrain Harassment or Intimidation of Victims of Witness - State of Iowa v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, CVCV019540.

    Xcentric Ventures does business as The RipOffReport - www.ripoffreport.com The RipOffReport hired Meade for public relations and an investigative journalist to change its poor image as an extortion website. Meade co-created content with Magedson. Meade also did investigative journalism which Ripoff Report published about the Tracey Richter murder trial.

    County Attorney Smith filed an injunction against Xcentric Ventures seeking to remove Meade's articles about the Tracey Richter trial which included alleged perjury of the State's Witnesses that contained 3rd party unimpeachable documents in State v. Richter.

    County Attorney Smith was directly criticized by Meade for what Meade believes were instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the way Smith handled the Richter investigation and prosecution.

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Update-June-1-2015-INVESTIGATION-UPDATE-Ben-Smith-Sac-Coun ty-Iowa-Attorney-Charges-against-Darren-Meade-dropped-Sac-County-Attorney-Ben-Smith-dismisses-all-cr iminal-charges-against-Darren-Meade-related-to-his-posts-on-Ripoff-Report-Sac-County-Iowa-Attorney-B en-Smith-fails-to-identify-false-statements-fails-to-support-his-accusations-with-clarifications/Sac -City-Iowa-/Update-June-1-2015-INVESTIGATION-UPDATE-Charges-against-Darren-Meade-droppedU-938843

    Smith, told 60 Minutes Australia that Meade's criticism of him "irritated him" and "sucked" that he would "not legitimate the nonsense" by discussing it and that they "attack me and the agents" https://youtu.be/HhtbM1M5Rdo

    Smith, suggest that Meade's reports are such "crap" that no one could believe them anyway. Id. He says Meade's "attacks" were "emotionally" difficult for him for him and almost "broke" him. Id. Furthermore, Smith has testified that Meade and his criticisms are "annoying." "flat-out annoying" and that he doesn't want to have to deal with somebody coming out of the wood work every six months" because they are contacted by somebody exploring Richter's innocence.

    Furthermore, Smith admitted that the Richter case was his "life" for over a year, "20 hours a day" Id., and that as of July 9, 2014, he had spent over 1,500 hours since then investigating Meade, and others for posting criticisms See Search Warrant Application July 9, 2014, Sac County District Court.

    We can only surmise that because this 1,500 hour figure was before Smith filed the criminal indictment against Meade - including 50 pages of the Minutes of Testimony - that figure has grown considerably.

    Smith has a personal relationship with Richter's now ex-husband, a relationship which consisted of in-person meetings with Roberts and "tons" of phone calls with Roberts, including multiple phone calls per day.

    Michael Roberts is a so-called "online reputation expert" who brags about being able to delete content from Google. He was once an employee of ED Magedson and Ripoff Report.

    Roberts then allegedly attempted to extort Ripoff Report.

    Roberts retaliated against Ripoff Report and enlisted his bull-dog attorney and business associate prosector Ben Smith to provide support to Roberts, including an affidavit in support and testimony at a child custody hearing of Roberts and contacting the Australian Consulate of behalf of Roberts (as Australian Citizen) in an effort to remove Roberts children from the only family they have known in the USA.

    Smith, the prosecutor, has vouced for Roberts credibility and has called him "completely and unabashedly honest," even though Smith was aware that Roberts took a polygraph about the murder and was judged to be 99% deceptive in his answers (See failed polygraph - http://www.ripoffreport.com/lhc/common/files/Michael_Roberts_Polygraph_Results.pdf )

    Furthermore, Smith, by Roberts own admission, personally vouched for and/or offered to vouch for Roberts fitness to receive a personal loan to help staunch the bleeding and hemorrhaging of business entities including Rexxfield. When asked if Smith contacted the potential financial backer about asking Ben Smith for a personal reference Roberts replied "Possibly", and then "I'm pretty sure she spoke to Ben Smith." Hearing transcript p. 50, 11 21-25

    Smith, made the highly unusual decision to file an unsealed Search Warrant Application to seize computers and electronic data from the home of Tracey Richter's mother - Anna Richter. The application is a bizarre and rambling document that contains so much extraneous, irrelevant information about Meade as to be almost unreadable.

    Smith, is married to the prosecution "star" witness Mary Higgins daughter, Abbie (Abigal Marie Higgins) Mary Higgins was the state's main witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court Case No. FECRO11900.

    My investigative reporting criticized and questioned Mary Higgins fairytale about the "pink notebook" and when the existence of that pink notebook was revealed to the mother-in-law (Mary Higgins) of prosecutor Ben Smith.

    It also detailed Michael Roberts payments to multiple state witnesses ahead of their testimony in State v. Richter.

    Smith pursued a criminal indictment against Meade not because such a prosecution was in the best interest of the State of Iowa, or even in the furtherance of legitimate public purposes or interest, but instead it was pursued with the purpose of silencing his critic journalist Darren Mitchell Meade.

    His former employer, ED Magedson and Xcentric Ventures rather than rallying to support Meade's investigative journalism refused to honor their commitment and promises to pay Meade once the criminal indictment was dismissed 9 months later.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 3 Sep 2015 @ 12:05am

    Journalism is not a crime and its not harassment!

    The September 2, 2014 indictment lodged against me for my investigative reporting contained ten counts of general conduct which did not provide me under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(6) with the necessary information to prepare an adequate defense.

    Eight of the ten counts of the Trial Information Charged me with Witness Tampering in violation of Iowa Code Section 720.4.

    Section 720.4 provides three methods of committing this offense: "offering a bribe, (2) making threats of forcibly or fraudulently detaining or restraining, or (3) harassing in retaliation." State v. LaPointe, 418 N.W. 2d 49, 51 (Iowa 1988).

    The first two methods were not an issue as County Attorney Smith only alleged I published defamatory statements about witnesses in retaliation for their lawful participation and testimony in State v. Richter, Sac County District Course, Case No. FECR011900.

    Apparently Smith's theory was that Meade's investigative journalism was conducted and published with the intent to harass the states witnesses in the Richter case. Apart from the obvious problem that such journalism is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, Smith made only conclusory assertions about Meade's articles and statements he alleged were intended to harass the witness.

    Although Smith attached a thousand pages of exhibits to the Minutes of Testimony in the indictment Smith never was able to reveal the exact "defamatory" complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published to harass the witnesses.

    Smith, and the State of Iowa, failed to provide due process to Meade and inform him of the exact statements that he intended to show were meant to harass the State's witnesses Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201(1948 holding that due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment requires the accused to be advised of the specific charges against him).

    When the day came for Prosecutor Smith to face Meade's defense attorney in court, and present some kind of evidence to show Meade made false statements, Ben Smith gave up instead of fighting. Smith, did not present any evidence to show Meade did anything wrong. Smith did not present any evidence to show anything Meade wrote was false.

    My life was ruined when I wrote about my belief that a flawed criminal prosecution led to the death sentence of an innocent mother of three.

    I hope a future article will delve into the repercussions of posting on Ripoff Report. Even when you report truthfully victims have been both criminally charged, and sued civilly in court. When that happens, Ripoff Report will not help you, even if you are a reporter on staff. Ripoff Report will leave you to pay your own legal fees and when you share your story the poison pens of Magedson will be detached to destroy your reputation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2015 @ 12:15am

    Ben Smith and Michael Roberts

    Ben Smith is having what we like to call post-reactive sphincter contractions, now that his partner-in-crime, Michael Roberts is readying to serve him up like a stuffed pig, exposing the last 9 months of Smith's scheming and criminal behavior.

    Smith, along with Roberts came together as part of some bogus faction of victims have been rebuked by not only the district court judge presiding over the matters, but Smith was laughed out to legal Siberia - after reciting more of Michael Roberts made up fantasies.

    Stay away from Rexxfield.com and Michael Roberts, who will scam anyone, and has never actually successfully helped a single victim with reputation management, but instead secretly attempts to besmirch them and then extort.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 5 Sep 2015 @ 9:17pm

    Ripoff Report Redacting Mead's sloppy 'investigative journalism'

    Meade, Ripoff Report has been busy redacting 'evidence' from your so-called 'investigative journalism'. You are a lame loser - lol. You tried to extort a computer technician so you are a criminal, wanna be gimp. Your 'journalism' is so sloppy that even Ed, who doesn't remove reports is trying to fix up your garbage writing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2015 @ 1:34am

    Meade's journalism still featured on main page of Ripoff Report

    Stick Bogart, is attacking the journo (Meade) who wrote the pieces about leading to the exoneration of a wrongfully convicted woman - that's out of bounds as far as I'm concerned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2015 @ 1:40am

    ED Magedson tries to place the blame on everyone but himself (his ex-business partners, sugar babies, the reporter who wrote the story, etc...)

    What I find most interesting in this story is that ED Magedson has chosen to respond on this thread, attacking the reporter who penned the story about him. He also claims that the reporter is back peddling and retracting portions of the story, which is also untrue - in fact, what I've seen is that the stories the reporter penned is on the main landing page of http://ripoffreport.com None of the damning statements have been removed, although some of the multi-media files have been deleted. Predictably, the Stick Bogart denies all wrong doing and attributes the story to a reporter with a grudge; the words "paranoid" and "delusional" both spring to mind. And of course, ED Magedson and Siamack Yaghobi not only trys to place the blame on everyone but themselves (his ex-business partners, the reporter who wrote the story, etc...), but they deny all wrong doing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2015 @ 10:52pm

    The Register's Editorial: Judge should correct mistake in Richter case

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 9 Sep 2015 @ 10:55pm

    Meade won't get Ed Magedson to pay him anything

    Darren M Meade wants to extort Ed Magedson with false accusations that Ed conspired with him to create content. Meade has not offered a shred of evidence that Ed had anything to do with Meade's creation of content. Meade has debunked the prosecutor's evidence so how can he say that it now provides enough for a civil trial against Ed Magedson?

    Everyone knows that Ed does not lie and does not create content. Meade is just living in some fantasy world. Even IF Meade could get an attorney to represent him in a civil lawsuit against consumer champion, Ed Magedson, Meade has no evidence.

    The slideshare link is Meade's word against Ed's. Meade has not published any evidence to show that it is true that he created content for Ed. Meade is a loser who wrote false content on his own volition and is now trying to blame Ed. Ripoff Report is redacting a lot of Meade's reports because they simply are not true.

    Meade needs to produce a whole lot more evidence than just his word for anyone to believe him. Right now he is coming across as a pathetic loser who is still banging the same old drum about the people he wrote about on RipoffReport.com and trying to blame Ed. No-one believes Meade and a court will not either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ghost of Goren, 9 Sep 2015 @ 11:46pm

      It is going to be very interesting to see where this goes. Especially after Meade's article on Magedson comes out. It's pretty explosive!

      Just listened to the audio in Meade's new expose' on his former employer ED Magedson.

      Meade, let me listen to the audio as one of his witnesses to how ED operated with immunity in both creating and deleting content on ROR.

      Because Ripoff Report had created content for years with immunity MEADE claims his placing all the evidence into a lawsuit to end Magedson's reign of terror.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Aman Bhar, 9 Sep 2015 @ 11:53pm

        Accusations that Rip-Off Report just an Extortion Business

        The website - Rip Off Report - essentially earns a living through extortion of businesses based on the search results (almost like a reverse reputation management campaign).

        Because the site ranks well at Google (Yahoo!, Live, and Ask appear not to give it as much weight), companies whose profiles appear on the site must pay the owner to have the information removed or have administrative comments added that an issue was resolved or the complaint was found to be false.

        It would appear that content creators unfamiliar with the English language, yet very familiar with keyword stuffing, create many of the negative profiles on the site (ostensibly to help them rank better in the search engines so they will have a greater negative impact on the businesses they list).

        The site even features bizarre allegations (supposedly from a 16 year old girl) that Google's founders propositioned her and another underage girl.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 9 Sep 2015 @ 11:01pm

    lol...Meade has burned too many bridges

    Meade doesn't realize it but every time he tries to bang that same old drum about the people he reported on Ripoff Report he is destroying any credibility with the court. Meade does not realize that his bogus statements about Ed are useless without evidence. The courts run on an almost identical model to Ripoff Report and Meade does not have any evidence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2015 @ 11:50pm

    ED Magedson and Ripoff Report accused of extortion scam on SEO MOZ

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 10 Sep 2015 @ 7:35am

    Darren M. Meade is a bogus 'investigative journalist'.

    Darren M. Meade has not provided any proof that Ed was involved with his reports posted on ripoff report for the purposes of extortion and revenge. Ripoff Report does not publish revenge and cyberbullying reports and if some slip through there is a new policy and they can be removed if ripoff report is contacted.

    Ed gave Darren money out of the goodness of his heart and this is how he is repaid? Meade should realize that he has no proof to support his bogus claims that Meade is trying to use to hurt the Ripoff Report.

    Darren M. Meade is NOT a journalist. He tried to use the Ripoff Report to take revenge on his enemies and when Ed realised this and cut off charity payments to him Meade turned on him.

    Darren M. Meade threatens to write an expose on Ed and Ripoff Report but he has no evidence. Meade just wants Ed to pony up and pay him but this is extortion. There is no lawsuit by Meade and no expose by Meade because he has no proof. Darren M. Meade is a bogus con man.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 12 Sep 2015 @ 4:33pm

    I will push with my reporting with integrity toward a more comprehensive vision of freedom for all.

    ED Magedson and his attorneys Maria Crimi Speth & Adam Kunz have accused Darren Mitchell Meade of extortion.

    These allegations are denied; Darren Mitchell Meade, has a valid fraud in the inducement, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claim against ED aka Stick Bogart.

    I won't take the time to refute every falsehood you've penned under "Stick Bogart".

    I am suing you and will introduce the consensual audio recording along with other evidence that will be used to impeach your credibility not to mention Kunz, Speth, Crossman, and Yaghobi.

    Furthermore, I do not condone the publication of fictitious complaints about ANY organization, even those that support Ed Magedson's Ripoffreport.com financially. I do not need to embellish my reporting with lies as Magedson has alleged.

    - See more at: http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/dear-ed-magedso1

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 19 Sep 2015 @ 2:33am

    Darren M Meade is Bogus

    Darren M Meade is trying to hurt the Ripoff Report and especially the consumers' champion Ed Magedson. Meade was never an employee of Ripoff Report. Ed gave him charity out of the kindness of his heart and now Meade is trying to extort Ripoff Report.

    Meade keeps writing about prosecutorial misconduct. Ed never sanctioned the publication of these reports. Ed was only concerned with the truth and now Meade is trying to blackmail and use the Ripoff Report for his benefit. Ed Magedson will never pay Darren M. Meade a cent, never. Meade has not filed a case against Ed because no attorney will take him on. They know that he is a loser.

    Ed Magedson was not involved in any reports written by Meade on Ripoff Report about prosecutorial misconduct in Iowa. Ripoff Report would never be agree to this because it is cyberbullying and we do not condone this.

    Darren M. Meade is not a journalist. He is a failed extortionist and Ed Magedson, the consumers' champion did not know that Meade was using his website to post false allegations.

    Meade will never get a cent from Ed, not a cent!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2015 @ 12:40pm

    LOL @ ED MAGEDSON aka STICK BOGART SILLY INTERNET THUGS!

    LOL!

    I Swear... watching you internet thugs argue and call each other names is so much fun...

    Keep up the great work!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2015 @ 12:57pm

    Stick Bogart Needs Help With His Facts & IQ

    STICK BOGART COULD USE A CRANIAL BOOST AND GLASSES

    In a similar response here on ROR to Stick Bogart's preposterous lies and fabrications, this non-journalist continues to demonstrate he has absolutely no credibility. What kind of "famous, consumer advocate" uses gripe blogs as his media outlet? - say no more...

    Worse, he writes postlike the one below, alleging he's "black mail" and "extortion" with a sinister complex fraud network. Uh, doughboy, is the Arizona air pollution dislocating the nerves in your eyeballs, forcing you to write falsehoods, or is ED Magedson so illiterate that you cannot understand what you are writing? Either way, shame.


    Did you miss that the Judge stated "Meade" was your employee, LOL.

    Did you miss the You Tube video with ED's voice directing MEADE? I'm no expert, Stick, but I suspect you would have published or gone to the FBI if you were truly black mailed / extorted. And yes, Stick aka ED,I see no further need to continue to embarrass you here (well maybe), but feel free to get out your reading specs and read the stories "Meade" published on ROR. One of them is published here and it does not mention 'Prosecutorial Misconduct"

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Update-June-1-2015-INVESTIGATION-UPDATE-Ben-Smith-Sac-Count y-Iowa-Attorney-Charges-against-Darren-Meade-dropped-Sac-County-Attorney-Ben-Smith-dismisses-all-cri minal-charges-against-Darren-Meade-related-to-his-posts-on-Ripoff-Report-Sac-County-Iowa-Attorney-Be n-Smith-fails-to-identify-false-statements-fails-to-support-his-accusations-with-clarifications/Cost a-Mesa-California-92626/Update-June-1-2015-INVESTIGATION-UPDATE-Charges-against-Darren-Meade-dropped N-829020

    So, ED Magedson, besides being a failed consumer advoate with scrub day job, you have now self-flogged yourself with false narrative, baseless innuendos. business process for client services in the morgtage/tech space. Recommendation: Go to Barnes and Noble and buy "Consumer Advocacy For Dummies." It's just past the $1 giveaway rack, next to the restroom where your book Ripoff Revenge is stored.

    And I did a little research on the Mark Warner case:

    I wish you luck with your noble pursuit as the Consumer Champion of American people - WOW, are you going to run for state assemblymen in Arizona? ED Magedson - you're a bush-league writer with a personal vendetta that should be more aptly directed toward your parents for not giving you a three-digit IQ.

    Besides writing as Stick Bogart for the Ripoff Report, let me guess, you also moonlight as a videographer for weddings, Bar Mitzvahs and court appearances.

    And one last thing: Uh, responding to unsubstantiated, baseless and false nonsense on a gripe board, is not called Online Defamation. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Unlike your Ripoff Report the American people get to call you out here on your lies and stupidity.

    Cheers :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Stick Bogart, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:42am

      Re: Stick Bogart Needs Help With His Facts & IQ

      Everyone knows that Darren M. Meade is a liar. Meade lived of Ed Magedson's charity for years and he was not appreciative. Now Darren M. Meade is trying to spread lies about the Ripoff Report with no proof. Meade has not produced any proof about Mark Warner or anything else.

      The courts are just like ripoff Report because they run on the same model. Ripoff Report has won over 100 lawsuits and Darren M. Meade thinks he can beat Ed Magedson but he is a liar. Darren M. Meade should show real proof but he has nothing to implicate Ed Magedson in his twisted theories. Meade wanted to sell Ripoff Report’s carefully structured consumer protection programs while he was claiming he was dying and on SSDI. Ed Magedson will not support criminal activity and that was why he stopped paying Meade. Darren M. Meade was trying to extort the American Government by extorting wages from Ripoff Report while he was paid by the American taxpayer. Ed Magedson did the right thing and refused to support Meade's criminal activity and stopped giving Meade charity. Meade will have to put his disability documentation into any civil case and the court will know that he is a fraud and Ripoff Report will prevail.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 21 Sep 2015 @ 6:45am

    Darren M. Meade is a Liar against Ed Magedson

    Meade says the American people get to call out consumer champion Ed Magedson but he has not filed any lawsuit. Why? Because he has nothing. Ripoff Report wins! Meade has nothing. Meade IS nothing, living in his car and trying to extort Ed for more than he deserves after Ed gave him charity for nothing other than from his big heart.

    Ripoff Report has been around for over 17 years now. For nearly 15 years lawyers and corrupt businesses have been trying to use lawsuits to put Ripoff Report out of business. Ripoff Report has successfully defended nearly 100 lawsuits, at great expense, but has always prevailed and successfully asserted federally protected rights of the First Amendment / free speech on the internet. Some who have sued Ripoff Report over the years are either in prison or their business has been closed down by some government agency. Ripoff Report always wins.

    Meade is derelict and bogus and trying to extort Ed. Meade says Ed is a bush league writer but Meade has not filed a lawsuit so he is bogus. Meade will never get a cent from Ed Magedson, not a cent, and if he tries to take the consumer champion to court he will fail, like all the others. Meade has nothing. Meade is nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stick Bogart, 22 Sep 2015 @ 2:13am

    Meade is a criminal and is going to prison

    Darren M. Meade is advertising bogus cyber investigation services. He has no team, he is working from his broken down car and without a P.I. licence.

    http://www.business2community.com/crisis-management/ripoff-report-5-reputation-management-st eps-take-youre-targeted-01279045

    Darren M. Meade is trying to twist and corrupt reputation management to serve his own interests. The great Ed Magedson will prevail.

    No court is going to believe Meade and he can't file a lawsuit from prison where he is going for SSA fraud.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:02am

      Re: Meade is a criminal and is going to prison

      Stick Bogart's quote is "Meade's charges in Iowa were dismissed on the condition that he ratted on Ed in front of a Grand Jury."

      RESPONSE: I did some digging and found investigative reporter Darren Meade's dismissal hearing online. It takes only 22 seconds of the dismissal hearing from time marker 3:48 - 4:10 in which Ben Smith confirms with the Judge the dismissal of all charges against Journalist Darren Meade were NOT conditional meaning Meade made no deal.

      https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o

      From what I read in this thread, Magedson, fired Meade, rather than stand by his reporter as most blogs would have done. Meade was vindicated. Even though Meade was facing 25 years in prison he refused to snitch and instead paid for his own attorney. In a twist Meade was granted immunity if he ever testifies against Ripoff Report or ED Magedson aka Stick Bogart.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:44am

      Such a painfully dumb reply!

      Such a painfully dumb reply @ED MAGEDSON can you point out one alleged crime that was not dismissed with prejudice unconditionally?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Stick Bogart, 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:31am

        Re: Such a painfully dumb reply!

        Darren M. Meade may have had the charges in Iowa dismissed but he has not been charged in CA, YET! Meade was provided with charity out of the kindness of Ed's heart. Meade was on disability bit Ed did not know this and that means he committed crimes against the American taxpayers by receiving this money even though it was a gift.

        Ed Magedson owes it to the american people to report these crimes committed by Meade.

        Meade is dumb. He should know better than to try and extort the consumers champion with his bogus lies.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 11:57pm

    Danny Scalf under the name of Frank Torelli created content for ED Magedson and Ripoff Report

    Recordings on http://www.paladinpi.com/blog/ expose ED Magedson giving his sugar baby James Rogers a script and telling his to go create logins so Rogers could create posts on Ripoff Report and rebuttals on other reports on Ripoff Report. Rogers also on audio claims ED Magedson had him wire money to David Bedore using your Rogers ID so the money would not trace to Magedson. Rogers admits that David Bedore and ED Magedson have a similar fondness for each other.

    Danny Scalf under the name Frank Torelli created many stories too. There is 60 hours of recordings that famed investigator John Brewington has of the "Secret Warrior", who left a trail a mile long including money changing hands. Offers to sell investigations to lawyers so they can pump up class action suits. Claims ROR is a not for profit so it will look good to the public and get grant money.

    Trying to get access to sensitive databases reserved for professional intelligence gathering organizations, including PIs, by telling them ROR was a debt collector. These databases have social security numbers, relatives, neighbors etc on them. Why would they want that?

    On the recording Rogers says he was instructed to go to Google and click on certain names that had a ROR posts. Blue World Pools was such a victim and now is a Corporate Advocacy Program victim.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:15am

    Google Agrees: RipOffReport.com’s “Unacceptable Business Practices”

    Members of consumer advocacy group BadForPeople have published a short 3 minute video demonstrating how the Google AdWords® business team has blocked advertising for Ed Magedson‘s RipOffReport.com because of “Unacceptable Business Practices”. But the findings raise other questions:

    Why is Google AdChoices® business unit still sharing revenue with RipOffReport by distributing 3rd party advertisements through the appalling website?
    Why does Google Search business unit hold RipOffReport.com is such high regard and give it high rankings in search results?

    See more here: http://badforpeople.org/tag/ed-magedson/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:12pm

    DISAVOWED: Reporter Darren M. Meade Responds To False Allegations That He Committed Crimes Against Taxpayers

    DISAVOWED: Reporter Darren Meade Responds To Allegations That He Committed Crimes Against Tax Payers.

    These allegations are denied. Darren Meade has not had anything to do with extortion or crimes against tax payers.
    ED Magedson and Ripoff Report are alleged to remove and delete reports on Rip-off Report as a matter of policy at ED Magedson's direction.

    Ripoff Report removes reports at the direction of Rip-off Report owner ED Magedson. Ripoff Report bullies individuals and corporations into joining its so called 'Reputation Management' services also known as Corporate Advocacy Program.

    To learn more read this document here -

    http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/dear-ed-magedso1
    No matter what you may have heard. In fact, ED Magedson, creates and sometimes dictates the content on Rip-off Report all to generate money for Xcentric Ventures.

    Because Ripoff Report has created content for years with immunity. I'm placing this information into a public lawsuit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:20pm

    Google AdWords has officially designated RipOffReport.com as "Unacceptable Business Practices".

    I made an interesting discovery today; Google AdWords has officially designated RipOffReport.com as "Unacceptable Business Practices".

    I made a 4 minute video to express what I found:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8j5TrVsCas

    The findings give rise to other questions however:

    (1) If Google AdWords business unit rejects RipOffReport.com, then why does Google Search business unit hold RipOffReport.com is such high regard by giving it such high search rankings and;

    (2) Why is Google AdChoices® business unit sharing revenue with RipOffReport by distributing advertisements through the appalling website?

    I also just received a Government FOI request back where Federal Government officials are specifically blocking RipOffReport.com from their AdWords spending budget. If anyone would like a copy let me know.

    See also: https://www.facebook.com/RipOffReportRevolt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Darren M. Meade (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:23pm

    The prosecutor ( Ben Smith ) was trying to silence his critic ( Darren Meade ) who reported on prosecutorial misconduct in the Tracey Richter trial

    Dear Mr. Cushing:

    I was the investigative reporter targeted by Iowa county prosecutor Ben Smith. Ripoff Report hired me for PR and as an investigative journalist to change the perception of their website (Ripoff Report) that is a matter of record.

    The preliminary injunction was filed because my employer ED Magedson feared he would also be indicted in Iowa. I was the first journalist in the USA criminally indicted for writing about my belief that a flawed criminal prosecution placed an innocent woman ( Tracey Richter ) in prison.

    See more here -

    http://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/motion-for-bill-or-particulars-to-specify-alleged-crimes-of-p rosecutor-smith-against-reporter-darren-mitchell-meade

    And here - https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Stick Bogart, 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:16am

      Re: The prosecutor ( Ben Smith ) was trying to silence his critic ( Darren Meade ) who reported on prosecutorial misconduct in the Tracey Richter trial

      Darren M. Meade is not an investigative journalist. He has never written anything unless you count the lies he wrote on the Ripoff Report. Meade is trying to blame Ed Magedson for his lies about the states witnesses and others that Meade tried to extort using the good name of Ripoff Report.

      Meade also says he is a P.I and a venture catalyst. Meade is a liar and a nut-job.

      Darren M. Meade abused Ed's charity. As soon as Ed found out that Meade was not what he said, a RP or investigative journalist and that Meade was taking Ed's charity while on SSDI, Ed refused to help him extort the American people or hurt the Ripoff Report.

      Ask Meade for proof of anything he has written as an investigative journalist apart from on the Iowas witnesses and he will be able to show you nothing at all!

      Meade is trying to use Techdirt to extort the consumers champion Ed Magedson and hurt the Ripoff Report. Be warned, Meade is a nut-job and you can't trust him. Buyer beware Mr Cushing he will try to extort you too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Darren (profile), 4 Nov 2017 @ 2:20pm

      Darren Meade v. Ben Smith

      This case is brought by Darren Meade to challenge the actions of Ben Smith both individually and in his capacity as Sac County Attorney. Because of the threat to our criminal justice system and the implicit biases that favor a prosecutor, it is necessary to use this introduction to prevent these biases from impacting the judicial system and to reduce the manner in which previous claims about Mr. Smith’s motives and behavior have polarized this case.

      A prosecutor is just a human being susceptible to biases like everyone else. These
      biases can cause that prosecutor to become improperly focused on a specific person or a certain legal theory.

      These biases can cause the prosecutor to become emotionally involved with a
      witness or suspect, in this case either his future in-laws as key witnesses or the person referred to in this Complaint as the “Male Suspect.”

      On May 27, 2015, Smith dismissed all charges against Meade with prejudice without any conditions.

      Smith dismissed the charges when Meade’s counsel asked him to provide the details or facts that would support the indictment.

      Smith was unable to provide this information because there was none and Smith knew there was none.

      Smith knew that dismissing with prejudice without conditions was a violation of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33 because once dismissed with prejudice, the charges could not be refiled.

      Only a prosecutor who knew, with absolute certainty that the person was innocent of the claims and charges would have dismissed the claims with prejudice.

      Smith knew with certainty that Meade was not guilty of these charges when they were filed.

      Smith filed the indictment to silence Meade as well as to pressure him to turn on Magedson and Xcentric Ventures.

      Smith offered to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice and offered absolute prosecutorial immunity to Meade in exchange for retracting his articles, and providing testimony
      against Ripoff Report but Meade had rejected the offers.

      Mr. Smith was aware on the date he dismissed the indictment with prejudice that the facts that were used to support the indictment were exactly the same as on the day he filed them.

      Mr. Smith is aware of his ethical obligations to ensure fairness to the process.

      Mr. Meade could have been wrong about everything and he still has the right to question public officials in the exercise of their duty without fear of retribution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Legal Eagle, 25 Sep 2015 @ 8:09pm

    I have no dog in this fight | You can find a searchable chronological history on Darren Meade's reporting here:

    You can find searchable versions of the Darren Meades' reporting at http://darrenmitchellmeade.org excerpts provided here:

    County Attorney Benjamin Smith had been directly criticized by investigative reporter Darren M. Meade for what Meade believes were instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the way Smith handled the Tracey Richter investigation and prosecution. See more here: https://youtu.be/s6c9EMwAbwY

    Smith was dating and is now married to prosecution "star" witness Mary Higgins daughter, Abbie (Abigail Marie Higgins). Meade criticized and questioned Mary Higgins story about "the pink notebook" and reported on Smith having sex with his trial witnesses daughter during the Tracey Richter trial. Smith, also had a relationship Richter's now ex-husband Michael Roberts, a relationship which consisted on in-person meetings with Roberts and "tons" of phone calls a day. Smith, was a loan reference loan reference for Roberts prior to Smith prosecuting Richter. Smith, later testified that he and Roberts conspired in the filing of criminal motions against Meade. Read Smith's testimony here:

    www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/ben-smith-sworn-testimony-5-115-48729234

    Michael Roberts is a so-called "online reputation expert", who Meade exposed on Fox News in 2012 Read more here:

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/01/20/google-cide-online-reputation-managers-can-wipe-from-web /

    Smith, admitted the Richter case was his "life" for over a year, "20 hours a day" and that as of July 9, 2014 he had spent in excess of 1,500 hours investigating Meade for posting criticisms about him, agents and witnesses in the Richter murder case. When the day came for Prosecutor Ben Smith to face Meade's defense attorney in court, and present evidence from what Smith and Roberts conspired to silence their critic and silence Meade's reporting. Ben Smith gave up instead of fighting, after spending 1,500 hours of tax payers money and the vast resources of the State of Iowa. On the morning of the hearing, Ben Smith, filed a motion to have the court dismiss all charges against Meade, with prejudice so that no charges could ever be re-filed. The dismissal was without any conditions or in other words "no deal" was made with Meade. Watch the hearing: https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o

    UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

    Never before had a journalist been charged in Iowa (or elsewhere) for merely reporting his belief that a flawed criminal prosecution may have resulted in the incarceration (for life without the possibility of parole) of an innocent young mother.

    Not only does the attempted prosecution of Meade punish him for engaging in his constitutional right to criticize public officials and report on controversies and the people involved in those controversies and the people involved in those controversies, the prosecution of Meade chills the rights of all journalist to report on matters of public concern, especially when those matters are critical of someone of with the power to criminally prosecute them if there is a disagreement with the reporting. Criminal charges are never appropriate if used to silence critical speech. Darren M. Meade said: "When we deal with the powerful, we have to make a stand. I will continue to advocate for the downtrodden with fact-based journalism."

    I resigned my lucrative, Chief-Executive-Officer, position, upon learning, the Dark Side, of the Internet.

    Do you know why your reputation was destroyed online? Automated cyber bullying / cyber defamation is more lucrative than drug dealing and the Reputation Management industry will make over $5 billion dollars in 2015. It's akin to someone implanting cancer in you, then offering to remove it. Since 2006, a proprietary SQL code was sold to breach private websites and change the way that search engines could find them. The so-called "cool technique", was based on a Structured Query Language or SQL. SQL is a standard programming language for managing databases, but if it's injected into somebody's website without their permission and for profit, it's illegal. SQL injections are often used in website identity theft and other cyber-attacks.

    MY NAME IS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, AND I AM A DEAD MAN. Or so I was told when I refused to go along with a so-called "reputation management" company's plan to use weapons-grade hacking technology to help fraudsters, quacks, and other scumbags avoid being exposed online.

    No matter how you slice it, there is a long line of people who will pay handsomely for their own private kill-switch on Internet free speech. Even so, every good arms dealer knows if the market isn't big enough (and it never is), you have to create new ones. The plan for that, using automated technology to generate defamatory content about individuals and corporations that value their reputations the bigger the better. We're talking about a whole new strain of WMDs weapons of mass defamation. Think about it: What if allegations of pedophilia were to pop up the next time you Google your name? Or obscene stories about your wife or your daughter? When we're talking about the potential ruin of your career, your marriage, or your child's future, money is no object and these predators know it. When the time is right, you'll get an email and it'll be Rexxfield, or, Page1me to the rescue antidote in one hand, anthrax in the other.

    I was recruited as the CEO of an unrelated entity, which shared office space with this illicit enterprise. There marketing plan, torment 10-15 children per year to kill themselves. Then panic-stricken parents fearful their child might be next would pay to make the groups automated cyber bullying campaign to go away.

    When I told them I would not be involved, I was offered a six-figure bribe and an equity stake in the venture. I chose option B, tendering my resignation. Shortly thereafter, I received an audio recording wherein the reputation management operatives describe in great detail the effects a .50 caliber bullet will have on my brain should I ever go public with this information. I suppose it's mildly amusing audio if you can ignore the fact that it's coming from someone with a history of criminal violence and who orchestrated a failed murder for hire of his ex-wife, and children.

    Look, I know I can't expect you to take my word for all this, partly the Rexxfield / Page1me Management gang have already made good on their first threat to destroy my reputation online. Go ahead Google my name. It's mud if you don't already know me. That is why I became an investigative journalist to launch an outcry against the $5 billion dollar Online Reputation Management industry whose targeting our children.

    Unfortunately for these guys, their death threats aren't the only thing I have on tape. I have the two-hour strategy session where Rexxfield proposes how they can extort parents over their kids' futures. Here's a taste of that sermon. I also have over 20 additional hours of recordings all consensual that tie the entire operation together. They're now hosted offshore, beyond the reach of Rexxfield / Page1me, goon attorneys, backed with detailed instructions in the event of my untimely demise. Or, for any victims who wish to sue this group and their leadership.

    THIS IS A CALL FOR HELP. I am literally putting my life on the line to expose not just another Internet scam, but a threat against the very fabric of our society: The right to speak the truth and be heard. I only hope someone hears me before it's too late. Fox News, bravely published a story but then the reporter, and the agency including the threat of false criminal charges, levied by a prosecutor (Benjamin John Smith) involved with Mike Roberts.

    Watch More Here: http://youtu.be/wB3X0EvGBQs

    Darren Meade, a CEO in 2010, identified the Online Reputation Management sector as an area of growth. Meade's efforts to reveal the dangers of ORM were featured on Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/20/google-cide-online-reputation-managers-can-wipe-from-web/

    D arren M. Meade, was granted the opportunity to speak directly to the United States District Court Central District of California and address Honorable Cormac J Carney for No. SACR 07-00249-CJC at the sentencing hearing for convicted felons which were majority partners in the ORM. Meade provided details of the organizational structure of the ORM entities and a two-step process of coupling the creation and posting of online defamatory materials in a fee-for-service of removing of the content from online consumer advocacy websites. Meade's testimony provoked an order from the court for an evidentiary hearing to discover further details on Meade's information.

    Meade provided explicit details of this enterprise (including contracts, emails, and consensually recorded audio recordings of planning meetings) to the FBI and US Attorney in 2011. Here an excerpt of ORM entities and a two-step process of coupling the creation and posting of online cyber bullying materials in a fee-for-service of removing of the content from online from fearful parents worried their child may commit suicide.

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/features/audio/Scheme-To-Threaten-Parents-Of-Their-Childrens-Imp ending-Suicide.mp3 (The audio recording takes 90 seconds to load.)

    "My testimony to the Court has now proven true; the code has been used to silence victims, and legitimate consumer complaints about fraudulent business practices (ie - doctors practicing without proper licensing leading to deaths of patients) | plan were made to tamper with juries in murder trials or delete content or manipulate search results on Google, Bing, and Yahoo."

    Darren M Meade, said once he discovered the technology was hacking and what its implications were, he made it his mission to warn the public about the dangers this technology poses to free speech. He also understood the institutionalized repertoire of serial defamation, vexatious litigation, and death threats have all be leveled against him in a futile attempt to force him to retreat from his stated goal.

    In an effort to prevent further profits from this automated Cyber Bullying campaign, Darren Mitchell Meade, provided unedited audio tapes to Fox News. The master mind of the automated cyber bullying campaign published edited versions of the same audio recordings removing his and his main accomplice voice from the recordings of planning sessions detaling the horrors of this fear based campaign, which they called Google-Cide.

    In an effort to obfuscate their actions, Michael Roberts of Rexxfield sued Google, Fox News, and myself. Rexxfield, provided edited versions (removing voices of Michael Roberts & Paul Portelli) on the recordings they provided to law enforcement and news media. To attempt to obfuscate their malefesanace and blame others (Fox News, Google, and Darren Mitchell Meade) for the very campaign they designed.

    The illicit hacking code has silenced victims world-wide by having their stories deleted on consumer advocacy websites, private servers, blogs and even tampered with juries on murder trials sending innocent people to prison.

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/ben-smith-sac-county-iowa-prosecutor-prosecutorial-misconduct-tracey-r ichter-falsely-convicted-o/sac-city-iowa-/ben-smith-sac-county-iowa-attorney-prosecutorial-misconduc t-improper-relationship-with-st-938843

    I made it my mission to warn the public about how this illicit hacking code would was censoring the internet, and the two step process of defaming people and then extorting them for money. I also understood the institutionalized repertoire of serial defamation, vexatious litigation, and death threats have all be leveled against me in a futile attempt to force him to retreat from my stated goal.

    Affiliates of Rexxfield sold fabricated data sets to attorney's attempting to either extort or sue Google in Australia. April 2011, this group asked Google for a 'reward' to end the plot against them (which they called ethical hacking). The reward was offered to end the automated cyber bullying campaign which was driving the Reputation Management industry.


    The Reputation Management sector is estimated to grow to $5 billion by 2015. That was enough of a draw to have nearly 3,000 affiliates utilize the fear-based marketing program mentioned above. The entities are licensed something in geek-speak called a SQL injection code. This particular variety was created to do a number of things, including de-indexing (hiding) specific pages from search engines.

    The $5 billion in Reputation Management seems like a lot, but there are bigger plays involved and they have Google in their sight. That’s right—they plan to extort Google. The fear-based marketing program was predicated on casting Google in a false light, as they say on the audio recordings, they will make Google look like the Evil Empire.

    They determined that the suicides will eventually cause a ground swell of anger toward Google. This will open them to further attacks by Google’s competitors, setting in motion the opportunity for these Reputation Management companies and rivals of Google to garner “expert witness fees” based on junk science by testifying in defamation lawsuits against Google. They have attorneys primed to file class-action lawsuits against Google, and these lawyers will pay a large portion of the settlement fees to the very rivals of Google whom are employing key members of the Reputation Management companies.

    There same Reputation Management companies are extorting wealthy individuals into paying exorbiant "SEO" fees. The M.O. is to publish particulary pernicious demeaning allegations against wealthy individuals including merchant bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. Rexxfield, Authorized Statement, and or its afflilates would pretent to be the 'good cops' and guarantee through SEO the negative materials would be removed from the Google search index very quickly, claiming they employed employees at Google. An alleged victim was "Gilled Herard Jr" of Capital Corp Merchant Bank.

    VIDEO UPDATE: http://youtu.be/s6c9EMwAbwY

    UPDATE: Michael Roberts Rexxfield Mile2 filed a lawsuit to try and silence my whistle blowing. The original lawsuit is interesting because it actually proves the criminal actions of Roberts against multiple parties including Google.

    Exhibits

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/Common/files/2011_01_27_Transcript.pdf

    http://www.ripoffre port.com/Common/files/Meeting_Transcript_2011_01_28.pdf

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/organized-crime/g oogle-cide-exposed/google-cide-exposed-by-the-man-01cd6.htm

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/01/20/go ogle-cide-online-reputation-managers-can-wipe-from-web/

    Iowa prosecutor Ben Smith had a vested interest in prosecuting and punishing his critic - investigative journalist Darren M Meade and in shutting down and removing Meade's articles that questioned Smith's ethics and tactics in wrongly convicting Tracey Richter Part 1 http://youtu.be/sNvFiPIYhLY

    Part 2 : http://youtu.be/s6c9EMwAbwY

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/Common/files/20110126_Transcript.pdf

    http://ww w.ripoffreport.com/organized-crime/matthew-cooke/matthew-cooke-removeyourname-9086b.htm

    http://www.ri poffreport.com/ben-smith-michael-roberts-rexxfield/prosecutorial-misconduct/sac-city-sac-county-iowa -B1A77.htm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2015 @ 4:55pm

    The ED Magedson Response Reflects Badly On Him

    I have no dog in this fight, but having investigated the raw data provided by both sides in this whole "Ripoff Report" controversy, it does not appear that there are any saints. For ED Magedson and Ripoff Report, to hire thugs who extort businesses reflects badly on Magedson. I happen to be a fan of 48 hours and Dateline, so I am familiar with how Darren Meade OFFERED NEVER BEFORE KNOWN EVIDENCE WHICH POINTS TO HER INNOCENCE AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION. Meade had to be aware of Magedson's known history, and for him to claim a 'gripe' site that extorts people as a valid online media against a government corruption/prosecutorial misconduct was dumb. ED Magedson and Ripoff Report lacks integrity if not decency. Meade should have at least mentioned he was a employed by Ripoff Report whose motive was to extort more victims. Magedson was involved with some pretty shady characters, and looking at the raw data, Meade was far from the worst of that lot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Stick Bogart, 26 Sep 2015 @ 6:56pm

      Re: The ED Magedson Response Reflects Badly On Him

      This was written by a Darren M. Meade shill. There is no "NEVER BEFORE KNOWN EVIDENCE WHICH POINTS TO HER INNOCENCE AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION" as Meade claims. He is a liar.

      Darren M. Meade is not in investigative journalist. He is a self described "reputation hitman" who leached onto Ed's charity and used the Ripoff Report to get his kicks from hurting people.

      Tracey Richter was just a tool to be used by Meade to justify his discusting nefarious attacks on the states witnesses. Meade doesnt care about Tracey, he just likes the power given by him Ripoff Report to destroy reputations.

      Meade's aim is to use the Ripoff Report to extort money and if he cant get it from Ed Magedson he tries to offer his 'services' to attorneys. But no attorney will use a witness who was ripping off the American people by taking charity from Ed while on SSDI. There is a real credibity issue with Meade and if he tries to sell Ed's information his attorneys simply have to crush Meade's credibity on the stand.

      Meade is a pathetic lame brained nut-job. Where is this lawsuit he has been boasting about? Meade doesnt care about Tracey, only about how he can make money from extortion. The gimp is a nut-job.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2015 @ 12:42am

    ED MAGEDSON - FINAL VERDICT

    OK. I have read this entire thread, and its obvious that ALL of you are a bunch of d**n criminals.

    Especially this Magedson guy! This cat is all over the internet for screwing people over. I find him guilty, and no one should do ANY type of business with him, or his stooge followers aka Ripoff Report. As far as the talk of him extorting people...

    C'mon folks... with fellas like him, sometimes ya just have to be swift with the pimp hand and smack a h*o. Dont let that goober force ya to give him money.

    As far as Darren Meade... you are probly telling the truth, but d**n dude, you owe me a couple dollars for the time it took to read the books you keep posting on here.

    Verdict:
    1. You are all guilty criminals, but please keep posting your little elementary school name calling back and forth fight on here! I get a laugh out of them.

    THANKS!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2015 @ 6:52pm

      Re: ED MAGEDSON - FINAL VERDICT

      folks are lining up to smack the ho' Magedson...lol...have you seen him? he is a fat porker and it is a crap shoot what will get him first the fist or the cholesterol

      Meade is just stoopid

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    darren chaker (profile), 4 Nov 2015 @ 1:12am

    David Gingras Child Molest Arrest

    See public records about David Gingras. Jaburg Wilk appears as his employer on recent search, http://jaburgwilk.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-gingras-molester.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 8 Feb 2017 @ 12:26pm

    Michael Roberts and Barbra Streisand brought me here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2017 @ 5:02pm

    ditto, worth the trip...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Darren Meade, 20 May 2017 @ 5:20pm

    Darren Meade v Ben Smith

    I may or may not win the Pulitzer Prize for reporting,I may not be a lawyer and I may be wrong about many things, but there were good reason for anyone to be concerned about this situation and I had a right and duty to say something.

    If no one listened or if Smith trashed me personally, so be it, but to use his power as a prosecutor to punish me and shut me down and ruin my life is unwarranted, offensive and illegal.

    I may be wrong on my broader concerns about a conspiracy with Roberts and Smith, but when Smith went that far to punish not just me but others, it makes me unable to shake that I am right about that as well.

    After Smith’s decision to abuse his power by charging me unless I retracted my articles and the posting online that I would be arrested if I set foot in Iowa to testify, I could not shake my gut telling me that this was not just some inexperienced, bumbling prosecutor who allowed his emotions to get the better of him, it is more than that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Craig M. Haliburton, 4 Nov 2017 @ 10:37am

    I was a customer a A COMPANY. Their support person was repatedly rude to me while I needed urgent help, the help to me was dismissed, so I posted on ROR about them. In retaliation, the company or their employee posted anonymous retaliatory fantasy story against me, a very nasty one. Not removable and very damaging. I have no money to fight it. What do you think I should do? My only recourse is to do harm.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.