While I have lost so much from the effects of this website and the evil people do, it is a strange comfort to know that I am not alone.
These are only some of the comments from nearly 500 people trying to get Rip-Off Report pulled from Google's indexing.
Mike O'Brien, San Diego CAUnfounded comments causing millions of dollars in damage to our brand.
Robert TreborMY FAMILY NOT ONLY GOT TRASHED ON THIS SITE, BUT THEN RECEIVING DEATH THREATS THROUGH CERTIFIED MAIL FROM THE SAME NUTBALL! THIS SITE ALLOWS THE SAME GUY TO POST IN MANY DIFFERENT NAMES WITHOUT ANY POLICING!
Robert Sweeney, Cheshire, CT
Some Anonymous nut posted a defamatory & utterly false report on this site a few years ago and it is still there. There is no way for me to remove it or to sue this poerson for defamation because it was posted under a false name
Anonymous
These guys are extortionists. They publish potentially slanderous complaints without checking any facts and then charge you to have them removed. Google should not allow this to appear on their engine, and I won't use Google for as long as they do.
AnonymousThis company is nothing but an extortion racket that hides behind the banner of "free speech"
Jason Loiacano, Palm Harbor, FLIm a victim of my competitor making a false report on our company.
Judy Judd, New York, NYRipoffReports.com is a scam. It holds your business hostage by allowing disgruntled people to post libelous comments and using Google to insure that these comment appear if anyone looks you up. They want you to pay money to them to clear your name - lots of money. Please remove them from Google.
T.P.
THE ROR is the most DANGEROUS website on the internet today. In a heartbeat it will COMPLETELY DESTROY one's hard earned reputation--whether or not the "report" is true, half true, or simply and totally 100% false. Being listed has since violated my Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The negative consequences of being blacklisted on this site has caused me severe financial loss, grief, and personal anguish. Google must end their relationship with ROR now!
Mr. WilsonJust google the owners name, Ed Magedson and find ways that you can interact and join groups to stop this creep! He is kiling small business owners!
Jim Caplan, North Palm Beach, FL
two person wrote comments about my firm that are 100% incorrect. In fact one client bounced three checks to my firm
Luanne Heller, Kitty Hawk NC
A disgruntled customer stated untrue facts on several sites. I have pictures of the job after the comments were posted showing that he is being untruthful. These sites are taking away from a reputation that took 20 years to build on the words of one person. This customer would have taken us to court if he even thought he had a chance of winning. These sites are unfair practices & tried to charge our business thousands to even post our side of the story.
Julie Parker, Somerset, UK
Innocent people get caught up in the lies on this site, and its wrong.
Richard Holt - UK
I WILL NOT SUPPORT RIP OFF REPORT IN ANYWAY AS IT IS CAUSING MUCH HARM TO MY DEAR FRIEND LINDA WHO I HAVE THE UP MOST RESPECT AND LOYALTY TOWARDS AND WHAT SHE IS DOING AND DONE IS THE TRUTH AND I FOR ONE WILL SUPPORT LINDA IN EVERYWAY POSSIBLE. AND IF PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH THEN THEY SHOULD JUST LEAVE LINDA ALONE ITS CYBER BULLYING AND IT ISNT NICE IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM
Loretta Pereira, Maiden, NC
On behalf of my friend ,Linda Hood Sigmon I am signing this petition as I feel that the claims and reports against her are false. Too many people have been hurt by this type of reporting. And, I ask that these reports and claims and names of parties involved be removed from Ripoffreport. The fact that nobody from Ripoffreport did any background checking on either side to verify claims shows just how shady and unprofessional this website really is. Sites like these NEED to be held accountable !
Linda Hood Sigmon, Maiden, NC
I have had 5 fraudulent and frivolous complaints filed against me on RipOffReports.com site within a matter of days by two women who are claiming the same ludicrous and defaming things against me & my FREE site. There is NO WAY for a victim of false complaints to get their name removed from RipOffReports. Even the person who files the false complaint can never remove the complaint.
I ask that you please remove RipOffReports from your search engine.
Vinnie Rowe, Tilson NY
I will join in all class action suits against any and all online sites who allow slander of myself or my busniess.
Brian Weiland, Mississauga, ONT, Canada
ROR is ruining businesses everywhere including mine, "Multi-Fit". Time to stop them since the law can't. I will spread the word.
Tamara Leuty, Las Vegas, NV
Misuse of CDA LAW
Anonymous, Ohio
libelous statements of a family member, made on ripoff reports site, has caused serious hardships, mental stress and financial ruin to me and my family.
And there are so many more!
SIGN THE PETITION even if you were not directly affected!
Source:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/remove-rip-off-report-from-google/signatures.html
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Jason Antonic - Victim of Defamation and Internet Libel
To get the full history of my process, please read through the archives on this website in reverse order!
Update:I sent an email to the editor of rip-off report on 6/8/2010 and Ed Magedson did not reply. So, I resent the email tonight on 6/25/2010.
I started another blog for Jason Antonic http://jasonantonic.blogspot.com/ to try and penetrate the high ranking results. SEO companies want to charge me thousands of dollars to do this.
Jason Antonic works with reputable Human Resources firms who provide independent third party verification of his professional credentials.
Additionally:
Jason Antonic has submitted url claims and is working with Google's Abuse support team to have defamatory links about him removed from its search index.
It took me a lot of research, but if you too are in a similar dilemma or want to report content that abuses Google's Terms of Service, click the following link:
http://www.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=ts.cs&ts=1114905
Jason Antonic (Jay Antonic) has been victimized by criminal defamation on the internet. Several reports, all connected, were published in an active attempt to destroy the good name and business reputation of Jason Antonic. Jason Antonic is pursuing civil and criminal action to protect and preserve the integrity of his name from malicious internet libel.
For Human Resources Managers, Recruiters, or Potential Clients ready and verifiable references are available upon request by emailing proformsell@gmail.com or by LinkedIn internal messaging.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/antonic
Jason Antonic has submitted url claims and is working with Google's Abuse support team to have defamatory links about him removed from its search index.
Update:I sent an email to the editor of rip-off report on 6/8/2010 and Ed Magedson did not reply. So, I resent the email tonight on 6/25/2010.
I started another blog for Jason Antonic http://jasonantonic.blogspot.com/ to try and penetrate the high ranking results. SEO companies want to charge me thousands of dollars to do this.
Jason Antonic works with reputable Human Resources firms who provide independent third party verification of his professional credentials.
Additionally:
Jason Antonic has submitted url claims and is working with Google's Abuse support team to have defamatory links about him removed from its search index.
It took me a lot of research, but if you too are in a similar dilemma or want to report content that abuses Google's Terms of Service, click the following link:
http://www.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=ts.cs&ts=1114905
Jason Antonic (Jay Antonic) has been victimized by criminal defamation on the internet. Several reports, all connected, were published in an active attempt to destroy the good name and business reputation of Jason Antonic. Jason Antonic is pursuing civil and criminal action to protect and preserve the integrity of his name from malicious internet libel.
For Human Resources Managers, Recruiters, or Potential Clients ready and verifiable references are available upon request by emailing proformsell@gmail.com or by LinkedIn internal messaging.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/antonic
Jason Antonic has submitted url claims and is working with Google's Abuse support team to have defamatory links about him removed from its search index.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
My email to EDitor@ripoffreport.com
Ok... so I have consulted with three attorneys that have directly opposed Ed in court over the years as well as others who studiously watch his movements on the legal map...and I have decided something....
before I continue down the vigilante path of clearing my name through all legal means possible, I decided to approach Ed again and ask him for direct assistance.
SO........
I e-mailed him tonight with an earnest plea for assistance to relieve me of the defamation I am suffering daily.
I am hoping that if he can help me, I can take my focus off the negative aspects of his website and off of my efforts to obtain legal justification in light of the defamation I have suffered and place it back on my career where it belongs. I certainly don't want to have to waste my time on this blog, nor dedicate hours every day of my life to remediating my dilemma.
We are only given one life to live. I am hoping that, having sat in the seat of adversary for so long, that Ed may chose for a moment to create a new corporate policy to either shield individuals from defamation, or to require that posters on the site post their full names.
ROR maintains that it has an exclusive license to posts... I wonder if that license is revocable by the poster?
Also, what if that license is used to perpetuate defamation... by exercising that license, does the site and its owner harness pass through liablity... or does that license merely extend to publication?
Facebook has a similar license to publish users posts. However, while facebook does not remove posts...the posts can be flagged for abuse, and the posters themselves can alter, edit, delete their posts as the LICENSOR. I am sincerely hoping that Ed could be compelled by way of fairness and reason, to enhance his policies and practices to be more in line with them as the current setup is totally unjust.
For example, if I were to post a lie on Rip Off Report that John Doe is a felon and stole 4,000 dollars from me, I would expect John Doe to complain, sue me, or press criminal charges against me to right the record. If a court would rule in John's favor that I, in fact, did lie and the claim needed to be removed- then accordin to the current and past practices of the Rip Off Report Website, I would NOT BE ABLE TO CORRECT IT in accordance with true Justice. If I could not comply with a court order to cease the defamation, I would then be in contempt of a court order at my own peril. Even if I wanted to and TRIED to do it, I could not comply with the law. In this way, Rip Off Report attempts to transcend the rule of law by way of obstruction.
Two posters against me outright admitted to me that they lied on the site because they were contacted by another poster and told to post. When they tried to remove the claims, they could not and were utterly dismayed... they tried and tried but could only add to the report, NEVER change the original one.
The only one who has the power to change this is Ed Magedson.
My view is this:
Although RipOff Report maintains that it is granted licensure to claimant's posts. Not ownership or liability for the same, but simply licensure.
If this is true as ROR claims, then what legal right does the licensee have to preclude the licensor from modifying the licensed content as it chooses?
In my view, and hopefully the view of the law as well, the sheer ACT of unilaterally preventing a licensee's access to licensed content in a "living" publication, constitutes a transition of ownership of that content to the licencee whether by grant or by assumption. Thereby, the licensee has moved from its original relationship to the content as licensee to owner/controller.
By way of example, insofar as a book's content may be licensed to a publisher, the publisher publishes a representation of that content in a book at a fixed point in time and the version exists a "fixed" publication.
While the author still has ownership of the licensed content, it may elect change an ending, for example. If the licensee (publisher) ever reprints that book at a new fixed point in time, it would be with the new content. The act of a licensed publisher publishing is to produce or manifest content provided to it by an author or licensor. At no time in the standard licensor licensee relationship does the author of the licensed content expect that it should be precluded from adapting its own work nor that it loses control or interest of that content. If the publisher of the book publishes a fixed publication that is amended, it must be re-published or re-printed as the publication is made on paper, a fixed medium. Textbooks are a great example of versioning. Magazines and daily newspapers are fixed publications who print retractions all the time at subsquent fixed moments (new issues)
Web publishing, by way of contrast to a fixed publication is a "live" or "living publication medium". While content may be statitc as long as it appears it is yet editable in real time without limitation. Conditions of editing a live publication may be difficult, but they are never impossible.
The publication of a web page or article may begin at a fixed point in time, its initial iteration is not fixed in time as static and unmutable. For example, this blog post began at a fixed point in time, but once posted, it became mutable. As you are reading this, I have reposted this article six times to correct spelling, grammar, etc.
In the case of this blog post, I am the author. And Blogger is the licensee. Blogger does not prevent me from editing my licensed content unless I abuse their terms and conditions. Blogger does not own my content, it displays MY content on their server. If I want to change it, I can. I am the author. I retain that right. In fact, by allowing me to post ON BLOGGER'S SERVERS, I am granting the right of self-publication. If I am allowed to self-publish would then Blogger have the right of immediate revocation or restriction of that right once I hit "submit"? Certainly not. If they practiced those methods, they would be abandoned.
On Ed's website, authors CAN NOT re-edit their posts. They can not redact themselves, or add to a post. People can append existing posts beneath them as one would comment on an article, but they cannot edit posts themselves once posted. For whatever consumer advocacy reason Ed maintains why this is so, I believe transgresses his claim to licensure and, by way of the limitation of access by authors to edit licensed content, constitutes a breach of a licensee role and makes RipOffReport owner of every single piece of content that it precludes authors from accessing directly.
Facebook knows this.
My understanding of defamation after consulting with many attornies is that statutes of limitations begin with date of the infraction when it is printed libel However, with a static web page being a live document, not a fixed-time document, statute of limitations never expires as long as that content exists publically.
While it is true that a book publisher, by default, does not give access to an author to alter an extant published work, that work (printed) is published as a physical item that exists in an uneditable form, or a "static" form. A website is not a "static" form, but a "living" form which may be edited by many means throughout it's life until its publication ceases to be published.
So... I maintain that while Rip Off Report publishes web content...
1. ROR's claims to licensure are falsely or thinly established
2. The act of preventing authors access to live licensed content is an act of ownership
3. Because Rip-Off Report shares or unilaterally controls content in a "living" publication, it assumes responsibility for all content it restricts authors access to, as long as it continues to restrict that access.
4. Until Rip Off Report allows authors live, unmediated access to licensed content, it shares responsibility in all senses of the word, for that content do other types of publishers...
5. Whereas Rip Off Report cannot always truly verify the identity of the posters, the claims can be said to be anonymous and thereby public domain copyright being thereby siezed by RipOff Report for publication.
6. Rip Off report grants the right of self-publication and then immediately revokes and restricts it to maintain unilateral control of all content.
7. Only Ed can make changes to the web pages and he prevents both claimants and respondants from editing, deleting, or modifying their posts. The architecture of the site has been knowingly developed for this purpose, to allow unfettered immediate access to self-publication and then to rescind that right.
I have not seen any case where this groundwork was properly established by an attorney. It is about time.
I hope Ed can do the right thing and redact my name so I can stop focusing on this...
I can hope.
before I continue down the vigilante path of clearing my name through all legal means possible, I decided to approach Ed again and ask him for direct assistance.
SO........
I e-mailed him tonight with an earnest plea for assistance to relieve me of the defamation I am suffering daily.
I am hoping that if he can help me, I can take my focus off the negative aspects of his website and off of my efforts to obtain legal justification in light of the defamation I have suffered and place it back on my career where it belongs. I certainly don't want to have to waste my time on this blog, nor dedicate hours every day of my life to remediating my dilemma.
We are only given one life to live. I am hoping that, having sat in the seat of adversary for so long, that Ed may chose for a moment to create a new corporate policy to either shield individuals from defamation, or to require that posters on the site post their full names.
ROR maintains that it has an exclusive license to posts... I wonder if that license is revocable by the poster?
Also, what if that license is used to perpetuate defamation... by exercising that license, does the site and its owner harness pass through liablity... or does that license merely extend to publication?
Facebook has a similar license to publish users posts. However, while facebook does not remove posts...the posts can be flagged for abuse, and the posters themselves can alter, edit, delete their posts as the LICENSOR. I am sincerely hoping that Ed could be compelled by way of fairness and reason, to enhance his policies and practices to be more in line with them as the current setup is totally unjust.
For example, if I were to post a lie on Rip Off Report that John Doe is a felon and stole 4,000 dollars from me, I would expect John Doe to complain, sue me, or press criminal charges against me to right the record. If a court would rule in John's favor that I, in fact, did lie and the claim needed to be removed- then accordin to the current and past practices of the Rip Off Report Website, I would NOT BE ABLE TO CORRECT IT in accordance with true Justice. If I could not comply with a court order to cease the defamation, I would then be in contempt of a court order at my own peril. Even if I wanted to and TRIED to do it, I could not comply with the law. In this way, Rip Off Report attempts to transcend the rule of law by way of obstruction.
Two posters against me outright admitted to me that they lied on the site because they were contacted by another poster and told to post. When they tried to remove the claims, they could not and were utterly dismayed... they tried and tried but could only add to the report, NEVER change the original one.
The only one who has the power to change this is Ed Magedson.
My view is this:
Although RipOff Report maintains that it is granted licensure to claimant's posts. Not ownership or liability for the same, but simply licensure.
If this is true as ROR claims, then what legal right does the licensee have to preclude the licensor from modifying the licensed content as it chooses?
In my view, and hopefully the view of the law as well, the sheer ACT of unilaterally preventing a licensee's access to licensed content in a "living" publication, constitutes a transition of ownership of that content to the licencee whether by grant or by assumption. Thereby, the licensee has moved from its original relationship to the content as licensee to owner/controller.
By way of example, insofar as a book's content may be licensed to a publisher, the publisher publishes a representation of that content in a book at a fixed point in time and the version exists a "fixed" publication.
While the author still has ownership of the licensed content, it may elect change an ending, for example. If the licensee (publisher) ever reprints that book at a new fixed point in time, it would be with the new content. The act of a licensed publisher publishing is to produce or manifest content provided to it by an author or licensor. At no time in the standard licensor licensee relationship does the author of the licensed content expect that it should be precluded from adapting its own work nor that it loses control or interest of that content. If the publisher of the book publishes a fixed publication that is amended, it must be re-published or re-printed as the publication is made on paper, a fixed medium. Textbooks are a great example of versioning. Magazines and daily newspapers are fixed publications who print retractions all the time at subsquent fixed moments (new issues)
Web publishing, by way of contrast to a fixed publication is a "live" or "living publication medium". While content may be statitc as long as it appears it is yet editable in real time without limitation. Conditions of editing a live publication may be difficult, but they are never impossible.
The publication of a web page or article may begin at a fixed point in time, its initial iteration is not fixed in time as static and unmutable. For example, this blog post began at a fixed point in time, but once posted, it became mutable. As you are reading this, I have reposted this article six times to correct spelling, grammar, etc.
In the case of this blog post, I am the author. And Blogger is the licensee. Blogger does not prevent me from editing my licensed content unless I abuse their terms and conditions. Blogger does not own my content, it displays MY content on their server. If I want to change it, I can. I am the author. I retain that right. In fact, by allowing me to post ON BLOGGER'S SERVERS, I am granting the right of self-publication. If I am allowed to self-publish would then Blogger have the right of immediate revocation or restriction of that right once I hit "submit"? Certainly not. If they practiced those methods, they would be abandoned.
On Ed's website, authors CAN NOT re-edit their posts. They can not redact themselves, or add to a post. People can append existing posts beneath them as one would comment on an article, but they cannot edit posts themselves once posted. For whatever consumer advocacy reason Ed maintains why this is so, I believe transgresses his claim to licensure and, by way of the limitation of access by authors to edit licensed content, constitutes a breach of a licensee role and makes RipOffReport owner of every single piece of content that it precludes authors from accessing directly.
Facebook knows this.
My understanding of defamation after consulting with many attornies is that statutes of limitations begin with date of the infraction when it is printed libel However, with a static web page being a live document, not a fixed-time document, statute of limitations never expires as long as that content exists publically.
While it is true that a book publisher, by default, does not give access to an author to alter an extant published work, that work (printed) is published as a physical item that exists in an uneditable form, or a "static" form. A website is not a "static" form, but a "living" form which may be edited by many means throughout it's life until its publication ceases to be published.
So... I maintain that while Rip Off Report publishes web content...
1. ROR's claims to licensure are falsely or thinly established
2. The act of preventing authors access to live licensed content is an act of ownership
3. Because Rip-Off Report shares or unilaterally controls content in a "living" publication, it assumes responsibility for all content it restricts authors access to, as long as it continues to restrict that access.
4. Until Rip Off Report allows authors live, unmediated access to licensed content, it shares responsibility in all senses of the word, for that content do other types of publishers...
5. Whereas Rip Off Report cannot always truly verify the identity of the posters, the claims can be said to be anonymous and thereby public domain copyright being thereby siezed by RipOff Report for publication.
6. Rip Off report grants the right of self-publication and then immediately revokes and restricts it to maintain unilateral control of all content.
7. Only Ed can make changes to the web pages and he prevents both claimants and respondants from editing, deleting, or modifying their posts. The architecture of the site has been knowingly developed for this purpose, to allow unfettered immediate access to self-publication and then to rescind that right.
I have not seen any case where this groundwork was properly established by an attorney. It is about time.
I hope Ed can do the right thing and redact my name so I can stop focusing on this...
I can hope.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Jay Antonic Ed Magedson paints himself with an Angelic brush in sworn testimony
reports rip off, a watchdog site policing the activities of Ed Magdeson posted a PDF court transcript of Ed Magdeson's deposition dated October 13, 2005 in Phoenix, Arizona. CLICK THIS LINK TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE PDF
This deposition was before the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County Florida, Case number 04-17721(21), Federated Financial Services Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson, other John/Jane Does, co-conspirators, and other John/Jane Does Incorporated. (Defendants).
Attorney Christopher (John) Whitelock
300 South Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
Attorny Maria Crimi Speth
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
appeared on behalf of the defendant (Magedson).
Richard Borgmann was the videographer.
On page 90 of 128
Whitelock: "You say you investigate complaints, correct, through the CAP program? And you said it depends on the nature of the company -- what about the nature of the company would cause you to investigate the complaint? You said the other thing that would cause you to investigate a complaint would be the type of complaints. What types of complaints would you investigate in CAP?"
Magedson: "If I --okay. If a -- if -- if the -- it was the same IP address filed by -- you know, filing multiple reports, that would cause us to -- and it was the you know, them saying they were one person in one report, another person in another, and it was all from the same IP Address. ...could be the nature of what they are claiming maybe."
Whitelock: "What if they're simply -- and I'm going to represent this because I've seen it on your website -- what if they're simply personal attacks against someone that has nothing to do with -- with the company whatsoever. Are those types of complaints investigated in terms of who's posting that? Like if it's just a hateful complaint.
Magedson: Yes. If there's like one complaint or even two complaints, and somebody would be -- let's say somebody said that joe Schmo committed rape. He raped me. I have a new policy now with those, if it's brought to our attention, and the person doesn't call us like a maniac or threaten me, or sends us a threatening letter or email or something, even then, I'll even try to calm him down and tell him what we'll do. We'll redact --we'll email first the person who filed the complaint and tell them this type of claim that they're making, if there's no police report to back it up, we're going to redact the name of the individual."
Whitelock: "Why did this policy come into effect?"
Magedson:" as you go along, you realize certain things that you need to do and change."
Whitelock: "Okay. There wasn't some specific event that caused this?
Magedson: "I'm sure -- you know, somebody said the right thing and maybe, you know, and you know, you know you get a complaint. It's just like you appeal for anything whether it be to lawmakers, a judge, or anybody. You try and make them understand and say, okay, our business is making a mistake. That's like something we're doing wrong. So I'm trying to -- I'm making a best effort" to try and make the proper changes...to be fair.
Unfortunately, while this is his deposition. My experience with Ed Magedson has been completely opposite. How I only wish that Ed were as reasonable in our phone conversations. How he ignored when I told him how my family has suffered as a result of the defamation on his website was cold and indifferent, and it endures because he will not redact my name from the defamation.
After reading all of this testimony, there may be hope yet that Ed will do the right thing... despite all his legal wrangling. The Christian in me will call Ed one more time to try and get him to redact the false claims about me on the web.
My next post will chronicle that interaction.
Jay Antonic's daily struggle against Rip Off Report - a pro defamation website which actively publishes unmitigated anonymous illegal defamation using clever circumvention of internet publishing law. Follow this blog and join the conversation with Jason Antonic.
This deposition was before the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County Florida, Case number 04-17721(21), Federated Financial Services Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson, other John/Jane Does, co-conspirators, and other John/Jane Does Incorporated. (Defendants).
Attorney Christopher (John) Whitelock
300 South Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
Attorny Maria Crimi Speth
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
appeared on behalf of the defendant (Magedson).
Richard Borgmann was the videographer.
On page 90 of 128
Whitelock: "You say you investigate complaints, correct, through the CAP program? And you said it depends on the nature of the company -- what about the nature of the company would cause you to investigate the complaint? You said the other thing that would cause you to investigate a complaint would be the type of complaints. What types of complaints would you investigate in CAP?"
Magedson: "If I --okay. If a -- if -- if the -- it was the same IP address filed by -- you know, filing multiple reports, that would cause us to -- and it was the you know, them saying they were one person in one report, another person in another, and it was all from the same IP Address. ...could be the nature of what they are claiming maybe."
Whitelock: "What if they're simply -- and I'm going to represent this because I've seen it on your website -- what if they're simply personal attacks against someone that has nothing to do with -- with the company whatsoever. Are those types of complaints investigated in terms of who's posting that? Like if it's just a hateful complaint.
Magedson: Yes. If there's like one complaint or even two complaints, and somebody would be -- let's say somebody said that joe Schmo committed rape. He raped me. I have a new policy now with those, if it's brought to our attention, and the person doesn't call us like a maniac or threaten me, or sends us a threatening letter or email or something, even then, I'll even try to calm him down and tell him what we'll do. We'll redact --we'll email first the person who filed the complaint and tell them this type of claim that they're making, if there's no police report to back it up, we're going to redact the name of the individual."
Whitelock: "Why did this policy come into effect?"
Magedson:" as you go along, you realize certain things that you need to do and change."
Whitelock: "Okay. There wasn't some specific event that caused this?
Magedson: "I'm sure -- you know, somebody said the right thing and maybe, you know, and you know, you know you get a complaint. It's just like you appeal for anything whether it be to lawmakers, a judge, or anybody. You try and make them understand and say, okay, our business is making a mistake. That's like something we're doing wrong. So I'm trying to -- I'm making a best effort" to try and make the proper changes...to be fair.
Unfortunately, while this is his deposition. My experience with Ed Magedson has been completely opposite. How I only wish that Ed were as reasonable in our phone conversations. How he ignored when I told him how my family has suffered as a result of the defamation on his website was cold and indifferent, and it endures because he will not redact my name from the defamation.
After reading all of this testimony, there may be hope yet that Ed will do the right thing... despite all his legal wrangling. The Christian in me will call Ed one more time to try and get him to redact the false claims about me on the web.
My next post will chronicle that interaction.
Jay Antonic's daily struggle against Rip Off Report - a pro defamation website which actively publishes unmitigated anonymous illegal defamation using clever circumvention of internet publishing law. Follow this blog and join the conversation with Jason Antonic.
Jay Antonic: Ed Magedson Video Deposition Excerpts
IN THIS POST I deal with information on page 83 of the 128 page deposition referenced in my last post which specifically has to do with how his site allows for defamation with no front end verification/authentication process. Also he describes the exception that he made which led to his Corporate Advocacy Program.
This deposition was before the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County Florida, Case number 04-17721(21), Federated Financial Services Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson, other John/Jane Does, co-conspirators, and other John/Jane Does Incorporated. (Defendants).
Attorney Christopher (John) Whitelock
300 South Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
Attorny Maria Crimi Speth
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
appeared on behalf of the defendant (Magedson).
Richard Borgmann was the videographer
Ed is asked by Whitelock about verification services as part of the Consumer Advocacy Program asking:
"With respect to a company that's in the program, do you ever disclose the identity of the person who's posting about the company to the company?" This addresses the anonymity issue. How can one respond in kind to an anonymous poster whether to rebut or to resolve?
Ed's answer: "Well, in order for the company to give them a refund or get what they want, they have to know who the person is."
Whitelock replies, "What if it's not a consumer or an ex-employee. What if it's just somebody going after the company?
Ed's answer, "That's very rare, but it does happen"
Whitelock: "Would you identify that? In other words, that individual to the company?"
Ed: "Absolutely"
Whitelock: " Have you done that before?"
Ed: "Yes...one company."
Whitelock: "Who was that?"
Ed: "Incredible Discoveries"... then they go on for a bit until
Whitelock adds..."Okay, so you'll disclose the individual who posts this information pursuant to the program if the company agrees not to sue when it's a consumer or ex-employee, or simply if it's somebody just saying something bad about the company that (sic) go after them?
Ed: "Correct"
Whitelock: "Any other circumstances?...They were just writing something bad to write something bad, but they weren't really a consumer correct?"
Ed: "No, they were an ex-employee"
Whitelock: "Okay. Oh, so it would -- has to be either a consumer or an ex-employee correct? In terms of disclosing the identity to the company of who's doing the postings.
Ed: "No."
Whitelock: "Okay. So it doesn't have to be a consumer or an ex-employee correct?"
Ed: "Well what else is there?"
Whitelock: "Could somebody on, you know, that just wants to write something bad about the company...
Ed interrupts: "You know what, I've never -- out of -- a hundred -- over 154,000 reports, I've never run across that. Not to say that's not possible, but I never heard of it".
Whitelock: "Okay. The only thing you've ever heard of is whether it's a consumer or an ex employee, correct?"
Ed: "Consumer, ex-employee, or --yeah--and --yeah Or it could be an ex-friend, ex-girlfriend, ex-husband. You know, there's some connection. ...
..."I don't take information or do anything (with the verification process) with it. It's like I --did they come from Wisconsin or Ohio and that's... that doesn't happen".
Ed: "Okay. The company calls nicely on the phone and would say -- because you can tell the guilty ones versus the not guilty ones. And there are -- you know it doesn't make a difference what they are. The -- this program (Consumer Advocacy Program) changes them no matter if they're honest, or they're guilty, they made a mistake, or they're the biggest crooks. But the company contacts Rip-Off Report and asks, gee whiz, how long does this stay on - on the internet? You know, and -- you know, and I usually tell them when Al Gore stops the internet, as a joke. But -- and then I--That's exactly what I say to them. As - as jokingly, I say to them that, again, when Al Gore stops the internet that's what(sic) all the reports will be gone. Meaning they're going to be here forever. And -- and -- I urge them to rebut it. I don't sit there and try to to say 'Oh pay me money'. I specifically advise them of the rebuttal box. And it's there for everybody to use if they haven't violated us. And--"
Then he goes on to say how he did remove a rip-off report for a company called "Mini Vacations" because he saw that they were refunding their clients.
Whitelock asks: "did you do it then? Why did you take it down?"
Ed: "I did it because the company is -- I was -- I --- it was -- pretty sure it was at my suggestion. The company still has -- between all their company names. I think has over 200 complaints on the website. And --ah -- um -- they had -- were giving back refunds to people that really shouldn't even have gotten them, which was my philosophy, just give it to them. Because if they -- somebody who's a hard consumer, you're better off, you know dealing with them, shutting them up, just make it right whether it was your fault or not. So the company did that, to everybody. And to people I even thought shouldn't get a refund. But they did, and-- but -- and I -- I believe -- I don't know If I ended up doing it or not. I had offered it. Or either I changed the reports that were bogus, or I removed some of the reports. But that was -- excuse me, one time that I did that, if I did it. And honestly I could not remember if you offered me a million dollars right now....So I don't know if I ended up doing it. I know that I had offered to do it. And I think it was at my suggestion....
...So the --so if I did do it, or -- and -- or I was going to do it, I stopped doing it. And I wouldn't do it, and I didn't do it again. Because when we find that a report is bogus we will expose it as bogus. As you know, you've seen those reports. I'm sure you will ask me anyway. But there are reports that are completely bogus and we've exposed them as bogus. Because they won't contact us back. Don't want a refund. Won't say boo. Told them no one's going to sue them, and they won't do it. So obviously it was like either an ex-employee just filing or -- it -- some disgruntled somebody just trying to be a pain in the butt"
Whitelock: "So in other words you removed it because it was an ex-employee trying to be a pain in the butt?"
Ed: "No. Did I say that?
Speth: "I think so."
Ed:"You know, I shouldn't have given you more -- I should -- I gave you too much, and I --shouldn't have done that, but I was trying to be nice here. And I won't be nice."
Whitelock: "Why did you remove it? And what did you remove?"
Ed: "I-- and I really -- I already answered that question.... I told you, if you offered me a million bucks-- and you even put me on--I'm adding now to testimony--a lie detector test, I would not know. And maybe the lie detector test could tell me whether or not I ended up moving some of Mini Vacation's reports. But it was the first -- one of the first-- people that got on the program who helped me formulate the program. And it's because they're such an honest and good company is -- if I were to run across somebody else, I probably wouldn't be doing that program today. But it was because of them, their integrity, that made me realize to try and do something, so I did. So I realized that I could really be of help and of service to businesses."
Ed goes on to say how he offers the Consumer Advocacy Program for a fee. In other words, one has to pay for Ed to mitigate the complaint. Whitelock references payments up to $50,000.00 to Ed for his CAP program.
This deposition was before the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County Florida, Case number 04-17721(21), Federated Financial Services Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson, other John/Jane Does, co-conspirators, and other John/Jane Does Incorporated. (Defendants).
Attorney Christopher (John) Whitelock
300 South Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
Attorny Maria Crimi Speth
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
appeared on behalf of the defendant (Magedson).
Richard Borgmann was the videographer
Ed is asked by Whitelock about verification services as part of the Consumer Advocacy Program asking:
"With respect to a company that's in the program, do you ever disclose the identity of the person who's posting about the company to the company?" This addresses the anonymity issue. How can one respond in kind to an anonymous poster whether to rebut or to resolve?
Ed's answer: "Well, in order for the company to give them a refund or get what they want, they have to know who the person is."
Whitelock replies, "What if it's not a consumer or an ex-employee. What if it's just somebody going after the company?
Ed's answer, "That's very rare, but it does happen"
Whitelock: "Would you identify that? In other words, that individual to the company?"
Ed: "Absolutely"
Whitelock: " Have you done that before?"
Ed: "Yes...one company."
Whitelock: "Who was that?"
Ed: "Incredible Discoveries"... then they go on for a bit until
Whitelock adds..."Okay, so you'll disclose the individual who posts this information pursuant to the program if the company agrees not to sue when it's a consumer or ex-employee, or simply if it's somebody just saying something bad about the company that (sic) go after them?
Ed: "Correct"
Whitelock: "Any other circumstances?...They were just writing something bad to write something bad, but they weren't really a consumer correct?"
Ed: "No, they were an ex-employee"
Whitelock: "Okay. Oh, so it would -- has to be either a consumer or an ex-employee correct? In terms of disclosing the identity to the company of who's doing the postings.
Ed: "No."
Whitelock: "Okay. So it doesn't have to be a consumer or an ex-employee correct?"
Ed: "Well what else is there?"
Whitelock: "Could somebody on, you know, that just wants to write something bad about the company...
Ed interrupts: "You know what, I've never -- out of -- a hundred -- over 154,000 reports, I've never run across that. Not to say that's not possible, but I never heard of it".
Whitelock: "Okay. The only thing you've ever heard of is whether it's a consumer or an ex employee, correct?"
Ed: "Consumer, ex-employee, or --yeah--and --yeah Or it could be an ex-friend, ex-girlfriend, ex-husband. You know, there's some connection. ...
..."I don't take information or do anything (with the verification process) with it. It's like I --did they come from Wisconsin or Ohio and that's... that doesn't happen".
Ed: "Okay. The company calls nicely on the phone and would say -- because you can tell the guilty ones versus the not guilty ones. And there are -- you know it doesn't make a difference what they are. The -- this program (Consumer Advocacy Program) changes them no matter if they're honest, or they're guilty, they made a mistake, or they're the biggest crooks. But the company contacts Rip-Off Report and asks, gee whiz, how long does this stay on - on the internet? You know, and -- you know, and I usually tell them when Al Gore stops the internet, as a joke. But -- and then I--That's exactly what I say to them. As - as jokingly, I say to them that, again, when Al Gore stops the internet that's what(sic) all the reports will be gone. Meaning they're going to be here forever. And -- and -- I urge them to rebut it. I don't sit there and try to to say 'Oh pay me money'. I specifically advise them of the rebuttal box. And it's there for everybody to use if they haven't violated us. And--"
Then he goes on to say how he did remove a rip-off report for a company called "Mini Vacations" because he saw that they were refunding their clients.
Whitelock asks: "did you do it then? Why did you take it down?"
Ed: "I did it because the company is -- I was -- I --- it was -- pretty sure it was at my suggestion. The company still has -- between all their company names. I think has over 200 complaints on the website. And --ah -- um -- they had -- were giving back refunds to people that really shouldn't even have gotten them, which was my philosophy, just give it to them. Because if they -- somebody who's a hard consumer, you're better off, you know dealing with them, shutting them up, just make it right whether it was your fault or not. So the company did that, to everybody. And to people I even thought shouldn't get a refund. But they did, and-- but -- and I -- I believe -- I don't know If I ended up doing it or not. I had offered it. Or either I changed the reports that were bogus, or I removed some of the reports. But that was -- excuse me, one time that I did that, if I did it. And honestly I could not remember if you offered me a million dollars right now....So I don't know if I ended up doing it. I know that I had offered to do it. And I think it was at my suggestion....
...So the --so if I did do it, or -- and -- or I was going to do it, I stopped doing it. And I wouldn't do it, and I didn't do it again. Because when we find that a report is bogus we will expose it as bogus. As you know, you've seen those reports. I'm sure you will ask me anyway. But there are reports that are completely bogus and we've exposed them as bogus. Because they won't contact us back. Don't want a refund. Won't say boo. Told them no one's going to sue them, and they won't do it. So obviously it was like either an ex-employee just filing or -- it -- some disgruntled somebody just trying to be a pain in the butt"
Whitelock: "So in other words you removed it because it was an ex-employee trying to be a pain in the butt?"
Ed: "No. Did I say that?
Speth: "I think so."
Ed:"You know, I shouldn't have given you more -- I should -- I gave you too much, and I --shouldn't have done that, but I was trying to be nice here. And I won't be nice."
Whitelock: "Why did you remove it? And what did you remove?"
Ed: "I-- and I really -- I already answered that question.... I told you, if you offered me a million bucks-- and you even put me on--I'm adding now to testimony--a lie detector test, I would not know. And maybe the lie detector test could tell me whether or not I ended up moving some of Mini Vacation's reports. But it was the first -- one of the first-- people that got on the program who helped me formulate the program. And it's because they're such an honest and good company is -- if I were to run across somebody else, I probably wouldn't be doing that program today. But it was because of them, their integrity, that made me realize to try and do something, so I did. So I realized that I could really be of help and of service to businesses."
Ed goes on to say how he offers the Consumer Advocacy Program for a fee. In other words, one has to pay for Ed to mitigate the complaint. Whitelock references payments up to $50,000.00 to Ed for his CAP program.
Videotape Deposition of Ed Magdeson in re Federated Financial Services Inc. vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC
reports rip off, a watchdog site policing the activities of Ed Magdeson posted a PDF court transcript of Ed Magdeson's deposition dated October 13, 2005 in Phoenix, Arizona. CLICK THIS LINK TO READ AND DOWNLOAD THE PDF
This deposition was before the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County Florida, Case number 04-17721(21), Federated Financial Services Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson, other John/Jane Does, co-conspirators, and other John/Jane Does Incorporated. (Defendants).
Attorney Christopher (John) Whitelock
300 South Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
Attorny Maria Crimi Speth
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
appeared on behalf of the defendant (Magedson).
Richard Borgmann was the videographer.
My play-by-play notes as follows...
1. Speth starts out immediately asking that the video be sealed, and not even given to the opposing attorney Whitelock to block him from reviewing them in preparation for the case.
2. Whitelock takes issue and concedes the ruling was that it not be published on the web. He also exposes that Speth was trying to get the videographer to not give the video to the plaintiff's counsel. Noteworthy here is that Whitelock is a FL atty and would probably be preparing the case by remote leaning on this deposition.
3. Speth concedes that Whitelock can have printed version but no video but continues to call into question Whitelock's understanding of the ruling twisting the words in this exchange Speth - "...and we also agree that until we hear from the judge, you, Mr. Whitelock, will not produce the videotape to anyone else until we hear further clarification from the judge." Whitelock wisely replied, "Until we hear from the judge, I don't think we really need for clarification." and then Speth backs down.
4. So... before any deposition begins, Ed's attorney is already twisting words and playing semantics.
5. Magedeson cites his name before the court and says that it was formarly spelled MAGIDSON before his family came to the U.S. His driver's license has it as MAGEDSON.
6. Speth goes on to constantly interrupt the deposition and deflect Whitelock when all he is asking is how many times Magedson has been deposed. Whitelock rebukes her citing her violation of the Florida Court rules in not obstructing a deposition and the current pending motion against her for obstructing a witness' answers to a deposition 76 times.
Whitelock goes on to tell her that if she continues to obstruct it would be at her own peril.
7. Whitelock says something interesting next he says that he is
8. Whitelock asks Ed if he's ever been sued in Florida and Ed skirts the question saying he's not been in Florida for 30 years and that he couldn't hear or understand the question because the attorney "had his hand over his mouth", then he can't remember, Ed..stalls then is reasked and whaddya know he admits that yes, he has pending suits in Florida, but "can't remember them". This are the actions of a man under oath to tell the truth.
9. Magedson interrupts Whitelock and Whitelock corrects him saying
10. When Magedson is clearly asked what he does in his role as manager of ripoffreport.com, Ed snidely replies that he "handles answering lawsuits" as part of his job. After a ton of semantic wrangling, he states that he "answers the phone" and "answers mail" and "not really" anything else. He said that his role was "pretty much" that.
11. Then Speth jumps in and objects to Whitelock's use of the term "Xcentrics" vs "Xcentric Ventures" and taunts Whitelock that if he doesn't use the correct term she will advise her client to say "no" to everything "and it will be accurate because that's not the right company, but we're not going to play that game". Then Whitelock calls them on the carpet for smiling/smirking to each other after that exchange. Whitelock says "This is serious, sir. My -- my client is suing you. This is not a joke session. So I am asking you, what's so funny?" Speth instructs the witness not to answer and Whitelock threatens sanctions. Then with the time wasted... Whitelock finally gets back to asking Magedson what he does at Xcentric. Ed says that he can't think of ANYTHING else that he does.
So Ed is either a liar or has a debilatated memory. You choose.
12.Ed states that in the past five years prior to the deposition Xcentric has not operated any other websites.
13. Ed says that he is not the owner of the company Xcentric Ventures.
14. Whitelock pressures Ed to reveal who he reports to or if there is anyone else above him. Speth objects on jurisdictional grounds. Speth agrees that she is not letting Magedson answer any questions about corporate infrastructure. Whitelock asks him if he reports to Ben Smith.
And he asks whether anyone knows more about Xcentric than Ed. Speth begins to yell.
15. Ed admits that there are 5 or 6 employees of Xcentric Ventures.
16. Speth cites that deposition from Ben Smith was taken in this case. Whitelock fires back and says basically that Ben Smith was a fence and Magedson was the true manager, that Smith's deposition was a sham as the plaintiff was having trouble exposing/identifying the controllers of the company
17. Speth said that Ben Smith had the most knowledge of the reports and was produced as a knowledgeable witness in the case. She also said that the reports were traced back to parties in Florida not Arizona... a jurisdictional tactic.
18. Ed goes on to say that the 5 people that work for him never interact with users of the site directly... he says the site has been active since late 1997. He admits that he is the creator of the website.
19. Ed says that he created the site because he was aware of the Communications Decency Act and he created the site as a vehicle for consumers to
20. Ed identifies himself as the editor of the website and that he controls the policies. And that they don't allow foul language. He also says that he recorded all the phone calls. This is probably why he doesn't pick up on inbound calls unless he is ready to record them. He says that he goes through a lot of little tapes very quickly. Sounds like a paranoid person. He says that he recorded them to "catch the threats, the lies, and the deceit" but then admits that he was never actually threatened.
21. Ed says that he has had no legal training other than L.A. Law, his law suits and only has a 10th grade education but attended El Centro college in Dallas, Texas.
22. Whitelock rebukes the witness and his counsel for exchanging looks and nods as a form of silent coaching through body language.
23. Speth continues to use a tactic of diversion and discussion of unrelated semantics to draw out the time and exasperate the opposing attorney. She gets the attorney focused on the tapes and Whitelock loses focus diverting from his line of questioning regarding who ed is, and what he does.
24. Whitelock has to ask Ed about 6 or 7 times whether he receives money from Florida. He dodges, and shifts, and plays stupid while Speth keeps objecting as to form. He even says he doesnt understand the question "do I receive money". After about 5 more attempt he says he does not personally receive money from Florida or a Florida bank. Then he goes on to say how he does "get" checks from Florida. He finally admits that he does "receive checks that come for -- to Rip Off Report or Xcentric Ventures". From Florida. This was after about 3 pages of some of the most deceptive and shifty semantic wrangling I have EVER seen on paper. He says that Mini Vacations and Incredible Discovers has sent him a check.
25. Ed says that a restriction on filing rebuttals is not contacting him and making a threat on his life or using foul language or "if they have links that are going to places that we don't trust or feel are good for the readers to go to or has nothing to do with the subject". Ed also said that certain people are on a do-not-post list for "making threats" Actually Ed's team did redact links I posted in my rebuttal against Kenneth C. Wilson although Kenneth used my personal name and referenced MY website url.
26. Ed says that he is able to verify reports and rebuttals as to the location and sometimes identity of the poster.
27. Ed does refer to Xcentric as "my company"
28. Ed admitted that once he felt people from Federated threatened him, he filed his own rebuttal on the site by placing what he termed as a "benign personal comment" on the site.
29. Ed notes that a company called "Consumer Media" owns the booklets that are sent out about the Rip-Off report guide by way of a contractual relationship. Consumer media owns the trade mark for the Rip Off Revenge Guide.
30. Ben Smith worked at the design company that contracted wit Xcentric to build his website, representing that tehy had a "florida" office.
31. Ed says that he is the only one with authority to take something off the website.
continued next post...
This deposition was before the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County Florida, Case number 04-17721(21), Federated Financial Services Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson, other John/Jane Does, co-conspirators, and other John/Jane Does Incorporated. (Defendants).
Attorney Christopher (John) Whitelock
300 South Thirteenth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
Attorny Maria Crimi Speth
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
appeared on behalf of the defendant (Magedson).
Richard Borgmann was the videographer.
My play-by-play notes as follows...
1. Speth starts out immediately asking that the video be sealed, and not even given to the opposing attorney Whitelock to block him from reviewing them in preparation for the case.
2. Whitelock takes issue and concedes the ruling was that it not be published on the web. He also exposes that Speth was trying to get the videographer to not give the video to the plaintiff's counsel. Noteworthy here is that Whitelock is a FL atty and would probably be preparing the case by remote leaning on this deposition.
3. Speth concedes that Whitelock can have printed version but no video but continues to call into question Whitelock's understanding of the ruling twisting the words in this exchange Speth - "...and we also agree that until we hear from the judge, you, Mr. Whitelock, will not produce the videotape to anyone else until we hear further clarification from the judge." Whitelock wisely replied, "Until we hear from the judge, I don't think we really need for clarification." and then Speth backs down.
4. So... before any deposition begins, Ed's attorney is already twisting words and playing semantics.
5. Magedeson cites his name before the court and says that it was formarly spelled MAGIDSON before his family came to the U.S. His driver's license has it as MAGEDSON.
6. Speth goes on to constantly interrupt the deposition and deflect Whitelock when all he is asking is how many times Magedson has been deposed. Whitelock rebukes her citing her violation of the Florida Court rules in not obstructing a deposition and the current pending motion against her for obstructing a witness' answers to a deposition 76 times.
Whitelock goes on to tell her that if she continues to obstruct it would be at her own peril.
7. Whitelock says something interesting next he says that he is
"certainly allowed to get into who Mr. Magedson is and what is background is as long as it doesn't relate to where he lives and his whereabouts."Interesting that he (Ed)takes such great pains to conceal this. Why would an honest man need to conceal his whereabouts?
8. Whitelock asks Ed if he's ever been sued in Florida and Ed skirts the question saying he's not been in Florida for 30 years and that he couldn't hear or understand the question because the attorney "had his hand over his mouth", then he can't remember, Ed..stalls then is reasked and whaddya know he admits that yes, he has pending suits in Florida, but "can't remember them". This are the actions of a man under oath to tell the truth.
9. Magedson interrupts Whitelock and Whitelock corrects him saying
"Mr. Magedson, another thing you have to do for the court reporter is wait for me to ask the question, then you answer." Magedson retorts "You don't have a third hand?" To which Whitelock replies, "This isn't joke time. I'm asking you questions. I've traveled a long way to do this. So please just respond to my questions so I can get on a plane and leave. Okay?" Ed interrupts Whitelock again, and Whitelock repeats his request that he wait. Magedson says "You-- you don't need to instruct me. I'm okay." Whitelock says "Well, actually I do under the Florida Rules..."So, put into perspective, a company inconvenienced and damaged by Ed' site had to pay to hire an attorney, fly him all the way to Phoenix for a deposition, and Ed's response, instead of taking him seriously, is to mock him and play semantic games. A clear window into the mind of Ed Magedson.
10. When Magedson is clearly asked what he does in his role as manager of ripoffreport.com, Ed snidely replies that he "handles answering lawsuits" as part of his job. After a ton of semantic wrangling, he states that he "answers the phone" and "answers mail" and "not really" anything else. He said that his role was "pretty much" that.
11. Then Speth jumps in and objects to Whitelock's use of the term "Xcentrics" vs "Xcentric Ventures" and taunts Whitelock that if he doesn't use the correct term she will advise her client to say "no" to everything "and it will be accurate because that's not the right company, but we're not going to play that game". Then Whitelock calls them on the carpet for smiling/smirking to each other after that exchange. Whitelock says "This is serious, sir. My -- my client is suing you. This is not a joke session. So I am asking you, what's so funny?" Speth instructs the witness not to answer and Whitelock threatens sanctions. Then with the time wasted... Whitelock finally gets back to asking Magedson what he does at Xcentric. Ed says that he can't think of ANYTHING else that he does.
So Ed is either a liar or has a debilatated memory. You choose.
12.Ed states that in the past five years prior to the deposition Xcentric has not operated any other websites.
13. Ed says that he is not the owner of the company Xcentric Ventures.
14. Whitelock pressures Ed to reveal who he reports to or if there is anyone else above him. Speth objects on jurisdictional grounds. Speth agrees that she is not letting Magedson answer any questions about corporate infrastructure. Whitelock asks him if he reports to Ben Smith.
And he asks whether anyone knows more about Xcentric than Ed. Speth begins to yell.
15. Ed admits that there are 5 or 6 employees of Xcentric Ventures.
16. Speth cites that deposition from Ben Smith was taken in this case. Whitelock fires back and says basically that Ben Smith was a fence and Magedson was the true manager, that Smith's deposition was a sham as the plaintiff was having trouble exposing/identifying the controllers of the company
17. Speth said that Ben Smith had the most knowledge of the reports and was produced as a knowledgeable witness in the case. She also said that the reports were traced back to parties in Florida not Arizona... a jurisdictional tactic.
18. Ed goes on to say that the 5 people that work for him never interact with users of the site directly... he says the site has been active since late 1997. He admits that he is the creator of the website.
19. Ed says that he created the site because he was aware of the Communications Decency Act and he created the site as a vehicle for consumers to
"avoid the - the courts that are clogged" - with the long waiting times and having to deal with unscrupulous lying, theiving, lawyers"Interesting that he has a full time in-house attorney and spends a lot of time in courts!
20. Ed identifies himself as the editor of the website and that he controls the policies. And that they don't allow foul language. He also says that he recorded all the phone calls. This is probably why he doesn't pick up on inbound calls unless he is ready to record them. He says that he goes through a lot of little tapes very quickly. Sounds like a paranoid person. He says that he recorded them to "catch the threats, the lies, and the deceit" but then admits that he was never actually threatened.
21. Ed says that he has had no legal training other than L.A. Law, his law suits and only has a 10th grade education but attended El Centro college in Dallas, Texas.
22. Whitelock rebukes the witness and his counsel for exchanging looks and nods as a form of silent coaching through body language.
23. Speth continues to use a tactic of diversion and discussion of unrelated semantics to draw out the time and exasperate the opposing attorney. She gets the attorney focused on the tapes and Whitelock loses focus diverting from his line of questioning regarding who ed is, and what he does.
24. Whitelock has to ask Ed about 6 or 7 times whether he receives money from Florida. He dodges, and shifts, and plays stupid while Speth keeps objecting as to form. He even says he doesnt understand the question "do I receive money". After about 5 more attempt he says he does not personally receive money from Florida or a Florida bank. Then he goes on to say how he does "get" checks from Florida. He finally admits that he does "receive checks that come for -- to Rip Off Report or Xcentric Ventures". From Florida. This was after about 3 pages of some of the most deceptive and shifty semantic wrangling I have EVER seen on paper. He says that Mini Vacations and Incredible Discovers has sent him a check.
25. Ed says that a restriction on filing rebuttals is not contacting him and making a threat on his life or using foul language or "if they have links that are going to places that we don't trust or feel are good for the readers to go to or has nothing to do with the subject". Ed also said that certain people are on a do-not-post list for "making threats" Actually Ed's team did redact links I posted in my rebuttal against Kenneth C. Wilson although Kenneth used my personal name and referenced MY website url.
26. Ed says that he is able to verify reports and rebuttals as to the location and sometimes identity of the poster.
27. Ed does refer to Xcentric as "my company"
28. Ed admitted that once he felt people from Federated threatened him, he filed his own rebuttal on the site by placing what he termed as a "benign personal comment" on the site.
29. Ed notes that a company called "Consumer Media" owns the booklets that are sent out about the Rip-Off report guide by way of a contractual relationship. Consumer media owns the trade mark for the Rip Off Revenge Guide.
30. Ben Smith worked at the design company that contracted wit Xcentric to build his website, representing that tehy had a "florida" office.
31. Ed says that he is the only one with authority to take something off the website.
continued next post...
Rip-Off Report watchdog site "ReportsRipOff.com" reports list of lawsuits against Magdeson
Per that site owner of ReportsRipOff.com (not to be confused with our nemesis):
I thought it might be useful to list the cases involving RipOff Report that I have located so far and indicate their status. If anyone knows of others, please let me know so I can add it to my list. For example, I know there is a Canadian case that I’ve left out here. For your information, Xcentric Ventures, Badbusinessbureau.com, RipOffReport.com, and Edward Mageson are all the same party.List of known lawsuits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)