The Real Rip-Off Report

I have been extorted by Ed for close to 5 years now. Our first 7 conversations were long and he was nice, but Ed wanted $44k and $1500 monthly fee. The complaints were about another company with a similar business model. When I did'nt pay Everything changed.They went on the offensive! If you did a google on my company you would find at the top of the page false and hurtful postings. He even added his on comments as well as personal info on kids, dogs, and anything else you can think of. I will still never pay Ed a dime, but that cost me. Ed's site is a powerful monster and it makes him fell god like. I feel bad for anyone that crosses path with ripoffreport.com. One day justice will be served. Great story by the way. You captured Ed's real personality.

What was Magedson trying to charge you for? It seems like every time anyone is asked to pay something, they always say "I've been extorted!!!" Ya know, I pay like $140/mo to Cox Cable and that feels 10000% like extortion to me (plus their service SUCKS), but sadly what Cox does isn't really within the definition of extortion. So, why do you say you have been extorted for five years? If Magedson asked you for money in order to help you, I can see that maybe you would prefer help for free, but that doesn't make it extortion. If you had a company which got complaints on RipoffReport.com, why not just post a rebuttal which explains your side of the story? That doesn't cost a dime, but of course you would have to get off your @ss and make an effort...so that part maybe sucks for you. If you were really the victim of extortion, call the police. If not, you're really not doing any service to anyone to get on here and cry wolf.

Well it is pretty obvious that Oliver is ED Magedson, Don,t worry he plays sock puppets all the time on Forums. Look ED. NO ONE wants to pay you. You are not "helping" anyone. You are what you are and everyone knows what that is. Learn to be a better person. The Defamation Action League is going to "help" you. Bill Stanley DefamationAction.com

Ed wanted $44,000.00 and a $1500.00 a month fee. That is nothing like cox cable. the complaint on Rip Off report was not even about my company. If I paid that then another one would pop up and then I can be extorted twice by ED or whomever else wants money. Just extort it. Ed Magedson bitches about George Bush, but acts just like he accuses our President. Eddy thinks that George Bush acts with any truth. Is that not the whole basis of ripoff report. Ed meddles in the affairs of all types of companies just like Bush messing with all types of countries foreign policy. Ed you are hypocrite just like most left wing liberals. You want free money.

It seems odd to me that Oliver is posting both here and in Scam.com where it became very clear he is Edward Magedson. I guess Oliver is the sum total of the Friends of Ed Magedson. Couldn’t he actually find someone that doesn’t find what he does repugnant?

Water, Glycerin, Distearyldimonium Chloride, Petrolatum, Isopropyl Palmitate, Cetyl Alcohol, Aluminum Starch Octenylsuccinate, Dimethcone, Avena sativa (Oat) Kernal Flour, Benzyl Alcohol, Sodium Chloride

I am appalled at a group claiming to be a consumer advocacy group, allowing real victims to be re-victimized on a site with lies and posts other false information. Ripoffreport.com was a good site when it allowed consumers to post REAL concerns about a product or service you purchased. Now, the site is a joke. Most of the information on the site is fake and people know this so they post more fake information. To legitimatize ripoffreport.com, they need to do the following: If a business or individual PROVES that a ripoffreport is fake, it should be removed upon NOTIFICATION. No one is requiring Magedson or ripoffreport.com to VERIFY each and every report. Consumers are asking only that he REMOVE reports that are proved false. The question many may ask: how can you prove a report is false if it is based upon opinion. Well, if the report contains information that can be proven or disproven then delete the questionable information upon proof that it is erroneous. For instance, I saw a ripoffreport where a lady was called a child molester. If that person contacted ripoffreport and produced her criminal background which contained no such information, the report should be removed until the original poster provides proof of his or her allegation. Yes, this creates additional work, but it also would give the site back its credibility. As it stands, this site is one solely geared towards revenge. I used to post reports notifying consumers of bankrupt companies, companies that will not honor their customer service policy and so forth. Now, I don't feel comfortable posting even helpful information on that site. Any site that would allow false and hurtful information to stand is not a site I would like to be involved. Ripoffreport's dispute with Federated Financial is an utter embarrassment to both Federated and to ripoffreport.com. The dispute is laughable because both parties are in the wrong: If Ripoffreport.com believes it has done nothing wrong, why avoid service. Just go to court and fight on first amendment grounds. If Federated knows it did not do anything wrong to customers, why not just post the correct information and then fight the matter in court. Instead, Federated and these other companies are posting the same thing over and over again: Magedson is a criminal, ripoffreport.com is down, defamationleague is going to get ripoffreport. This sounds like a kindergarten fight. A good business does not have to be concerned with reports on ripoffreport if they know they are engaged in lawful business practices. A consumer advocate site that is doing the right thing doesn't have to hide from the law. Sadly, consumers need legitimate advocates and, other than people like Ralph Nader and a few consumer advocate lawfirms, you don't have them getting the help that they need. With the proliferation of the internet, consumer fraud has ESCALATED and ripoffreport.com (a supposed protecter from consumer fraud) has not reduced the fraudulent activity. Perhaps, if ripoffreport.com, cleaned house and removed the silly fights and other non-sense, people would again refer to it when it needs to research a company. As it stands, no one in their right mind would trust any information on ripoffreport.com

http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric-Complaint.pdf http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_-_Complaint.pdf http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_-_Exhibit_A_to_Complaint.pdf http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/Xcentric_TRO_and_Order_Setting_Preli.pdf This is the TRO asked for. http://extortionnews.googlepages.com/StanleyTRO.pdf This is the revised TRO allowing for free speech. One only has to Google "ED Magedson" to see the hundreds of extortion complaints against him and the Ripoffreport. Most of what is in this complaint is complete fantacy by Ed Magedson in an effort to sway the Judge on how persucuted he is. This TRO is a victory for free speech as it looks like the Judge did some Research on the history of Speth and Magedson and allowed the websites to stay up. It is not like DefamationAction is the only ones who claims Ed Magedson and Speth are Extorting folks. This ruling is a victory for free speech and for all victims of the RipoffReport. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DefamationAction Denies making death threats to Ed Magedson. In all likelihood the Death Threat letters were made by Ed Magedson himself. DefamationAction stands by it's allagation that Maria Speth is a partner in the Ripoffreport Extortion Scam. DefamationAction regrets that Robert was named in this suit as Robert has nothing to do with DefamationAction in anyway whatsoever. Speth only named Robert as a pawn to get to me. William Stanley. visit http://www.DefamationAction.com for more Information http://www.ComplaintRemover.com http://www.mariaspeth.com/ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-02-01/news/the-real-rip-off-report/ Story on ED http://www.goodbusinessbureau.com/ http://www.bad-business-rip-off.com/ http://www.ezripofflawsuit.com/ This is a protest site by the http://www.jaburgwilksucks.com/ http://www.mariacrimispeth.com/

What goes around comes around! Ripoffreport.com (ROR) has allow individuals to be harrassed by allows BLATANT lies to remain on its site and now they are being harrassed. I don't think ripoffreport.com would find a sympathetic jury in light of the nonsense it allows to be posted on its site. For instance, do a search and you will actually find a report from a woman who wasn't allow to leave messages for her husband at work. She basically bad-mouthed the company itself because her husband would not speak with her. What kind of legitimacy can a site like ripoffreport.com have if it would allow a company's reputation to be ruined because of some crazy ex-wife.

Unless, these lawsuits have been settled outside of court, ripoffreport.com (ROR) will finally have a jury decide if he can continue to allow FALSE and LIBELOUS post to appear on his site, in light of the fact that he edits the reports and makes complaint appear even harsher than they actually are. HyCite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 418 F. Supp. 1142 (D. Arizona 2005) (The Plaintiff properly alleged RICO (racketeering activity) as it relates to removal or editing of ripoffreports). George S. May International Co. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (Plaintiff whose reputation was tarnished by allegations of fraud and child pornography could properly bring the action in Illinois) Also, badbusinessbureau.com is located in St. Kitts for the sole purpose of avoiding service in a US court. Does this sound like a legitimate company to you?

Google settles a class action with 90 million dollars. Just as good an opening as can be expected for Rip-Off Reports. I was in Canada at a Storesonline Conference and in attendance were three police from Phone Busters,this moved me to check Rip-Off Reports. RIP-OFF REPORTS was so supportive of Storesonline I ventured into a whole new series of Rip-Off portals and I found Scam review sites, and now more than ever I am dubious of everyone on the Internet. I think the only innocent party in this story is the dog who did not show up for his hamburger. I would not place bets on who ate it either Ed or the reporter from the Phoenix Times. This reporting did not have any meat to it irrelevantly .Who cares about Madgedson's peculiar habits,RIPOFFS is the Main attraction not dog food. Then again Phoenix reporters may have dry humour !The Real Rip-Off report is still an enigma... IS The INTERNET a WIDOW To a WHOLE WIDE WORLD of DOG EAT DOG and RIP OFF ARTISTS ? PREY TELL !

Police Blotter: Dark side of 'reputation defending' service Last modified: June 29, 2007, 11:27 AM PDT By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com Police Blotter is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law. What: A company claiming to remove defamatory comments about clients from the Internet is found liable for defamation and making death threats. When: Arizona federal judge rules on June 21. Outcome: Preliminary injunction granted against DefamationAction.com and ComplaintRemover.com. What happened, according to court documents: Companies like DefendMyMagedson said, and a judge eventually agreed, that William Stanley (behind DefamationAction.com and ComplaintRemover.com) sent him a series of threats demanding that uncomplimentary information be deleted from RipOffReport. An example: "This letter is being sent to you in the name of more than 500 businesses. No matter where you go, we will cause you a problem. Your life is in danger until you comply with our demands. This is your last warning." Stanley also made statements that, unless true, would be libelous including calling RipOffReport's Magedson: "one of the most notorious and prolific extortionists on the Internet today," a "scumbag," a "fugitive," a "wanted criminal...with a track record of fraudulent activity," a "con man," a "career criminal," and an individual who engages in "blackmail schemes." Stanley appears on the Register of Known Spam Operations. Also, Stanley is alleged to have targeted Xcentric's business partners, including Prolexic, which provides Internet security services, saying it would be sued and harassed unless it ceased doing business with Xcentric. The marketing firm Professional Media Group, used by Xcentric, was also drawn in, and the site PGMIsucks.com created. Some business partners terminated their relationships with Xcentric as a result. RipOffReport's Magedson replied by saying he had hired the law firm of Jaburg & Wilk and was going to file a lawsuit. In response, Stanley created the Web site JaburgWilkSucks.com that calls the firm "Internet extortionists." On May 11, U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in Arizona granted a restraining order against Stanley, prohibiting him from sending threats and harassing Xcentric's business partners. The restraining order also applied to the other defendants, Robert Russo (behind DefendMyName.com), the Defamation Action League, and the Internet Defamation League. Name.com have recently been treated to a flurry of positive news articles describing how they help paying clients remove embarrassing information from the Internet. The Wall Street Journal refers to "success stories of customers who have buried snippy blog comments" and an ensuing Slashdot thread was titled "companies that clean up bad online reputations." A court ruling last week, however, revealed the dark side of how some of these companies work. Arizona resident Ed Magedson is the manager of Xcentric Ventures, which operates RipOffReport.com, a clearinghouse where disgruntled customers can post freely about how much they hate a company, its products, or the people who work for it. As you might imagine, RipOffReport has become something of a magnet not only for frustrated consumers, but also the reputation-defending services that can charge up to a few hundred dollars a year to try to clean up someone's name (or business name) online. It didn't seem to makeExcerpts from what Wake ruled was an illegally threatening e-mail message from Stanley in February 2007: This letter is being sent to you in the name of more than 500 businesses. No matter where you go, we will cause you a problem. Your life is in danger until you comply with our demands. This is your last warning. Your neighbors already know about your criminal dealings and how you are making many people loose (sic) their business. You will soon be beaten to a pulp and pounced into the ground six feet under with a baseball bat and sleg (sic) hammer. You will soon be sorry not just from what I am capable of doing to you, but what other members will do as soon as they know exactly where you are. Its (sic) just a matter of time until I get to you. Here is what you can do to save your life. But you must act imidiatly (sic). Make what ever deal it takes, you must comply. You have the previous list of companies that you need to remove from Rip-off Report. We know you hold the power. We know you have that list. You were provided an additional list several hours ago. It's too late for anything that we discussed today. No more deal. No more playing Mr. Nice Guy. Now you must delete any of our members from your data base who have reports listed on any search engine. If not, BVA will drop you with in 24 hours. We will make thier (sic) life misrable (sic) like we have with Prolexic and gigenet. They don't like you either. We now know who your host is and the IP address to your servers. Those you do business with will be in danger and will be continusily (sic) be harassed till they stop doing business with you. We are contacting your advertisers. We will continue to spam you making it impossible for you to read your mail. much of a difference. In a ruling on June 21, Wake said that "Stanley violated the temporary restraining order by knowingly sending spam e-mails that falsely disparaged...Jaburg & Wilk." Wake also noted that the site JaburgWilkSucks.com was created after the initial restraining order was granted. In an ironic twist for Stanley's company, which purports to remove libelous statements from the Internet, Wake ruled: "Stanley committed the tort of libel by publishing online false statements that the attorneys at Jaburg & Wilk are 'partners in slime' and that Speth is an 'unethical attorney,' an 'Internet extortionist,' and a "partner in the ripoff report extortion scam.' The statements were published in at least reckless disregard of their falsity." For good measure, Wake also ruled that Stanley sent unlawful threats to Magedson, unlawfully interfered with Xcentric's business relationships, invaded Magedson's privacy rights by placing him in a false light, and committed copyright infringement as well. Excerpts from a second threatening message sent the same day: We warned you ed magedson. Did you hear the gun shots last night? Because of you innocent people will die. Your tenants, family members and those that work with you. Think we're joking? I told you that your site will be down and it is. That is all we want and we will not hurt anyone. If ripoff report moves again to new hosting facilities you will not like what we will do next. Your home will burn. Those around you will burn. Do not expect any help from the police. Once you have completed with our first list we demand you remove we will give you another list on Saturday and every Saturday from this day forward and you will have 6 hours to do the same from the time we give you that list on each and every Saturday. If the Links work after the 6 there will be a man hunt for you. We know where you shop. We know where you bank. Greenfield and Broadway, Greenfield and Main. Are we getting closer ED? What about Basha's at Higley and Brown?

Sarah Fenske - “the bitch with a pitch.” New Times article on Ed Magedson of ripoffreport.com demanded by New Times Advertisers. I am a employee of New Times and have been well aware of the hit piece authored by Sarah Fenske that attempted to discredit Rip-off Report and its founder, Ed Magedson. A number of us are going to be leaving New Times soon and have my own reasons why I want the truth to come out before I leave. I came to work at New Times for ideological reasons and I have seen them sell out little by little and in the case of Sarah Fenske, she is particularly amenable to doing story for the highest bidder. This is how the story on Rip-off Report came to be and how it came to be Sarah’s assignment. There were a consortium of businesspersons who approached New Times and told sales in marketing that they were going to pull their advertisements unless there was an effort to discredit this website that had done them so much damage, in their opinion. The New Times advertising executives got together, upon order from the advertisers, to decide to whom the assignment would pass. Sarah Fenske! the natural conclusion, but for the reasons you may not know. Sarah has become known as the “pitch woman of print” with our own form of payola. First move was to cut her teeth on a pitch piece for the promoters of the Miss Arizona Pageant in February, 2005, and then a little over 18 months ago, Sarah did a piece with the assignment to help peddle satellite radio, mildly disguised as support for a local X-jockey. So, Sarah quickly became known privately as “the bitch with a pitch.” Contributions to her new car are rumored as her rewards for her effectiveness (I was going to say “loyalty,” but that seems absurd.) The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Ms. Fenske claims to be a morally conservative individual, but is able to overlook swapping the ENTIRE truth for advertising dollars. I became aware that there were strident objections from Mr. Magedson when he sent many of us copies of his emails BCC, which adequately explains the situation. I will add them immediately below with this single analysis; It is true that New Times nominated him as a consumer advocate in “Best of Phoenix” Awards several times over the years as the “Best of Phoenix” most valuable consumer website pick, but shortly before the Fenske article appeared those awards disappeared off our website. It is also true that New Times and its affiliates continue to ask Magedson for help after ripping him so badly. With just a little digging I was able to determine that Sarah did speak with some specific people mentioned in Ed’s emails, below; Rob Russo of QED Media, Bill Stanley of Spamhaus, John Brewington of JFB Acquisitions and Steve Miller and Chris MacFarland, the CEO and in-house counsel for Federated Financial of Deerfield Beach, Florida, a debt consolidation/financial rehabilitation company. I also determined that Fenske made no effort to contact Magedson for his responses to the charges in Fenske’s article, which is a flagrant violation of the ethical guidelines for journalism, although she did contact him to discuss other matters. Ed was also responsible for contributing a number of New Times front page stories and background for several other pieces, not only in Phoenix, but also in other parts of the country. Just in Phoenix, where Ed resides, he provided stories which exposed self-proclaimed civil rights activist, Ramon Gomez http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/005/RipOff0005135.htm in Cause Celeb by Gilbert Garcia, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-06-07/news/cause-celeb/ , Harassment Supreme by Gilbert Garcia, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-08-02/news/harassment-supreme/ about the Pizza Hut from hell (Apache Junction) http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/002/ripoff0002994.htm, Welcome Back Warrior by Paul Rubin, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2002-11-21/news/welcome-back-warrior/ about the veteran who shot himself because a Phoenix car dealer lied to him. In the latter case, the family of the victim had first turned to Rip-off Report, where they posted their hear-breaking story, long before Rubin got wind of it. It is significant that they trusted the website and decided to take their story to the public first on that forum, http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/036/RipOff0036168.htm. Rubin got access to the victim’s family through Ed. Furthermore, Sarah Fenske exposed her lack of objectivity by failing to mention the former relationship New Times has had with Magedson. This is the reason, according to him, that he is hopping mad that Stern now approached him for help so soon after the betrayal. This bold lapse of ethics is a black eye not only for this newspaper, but for the other newspaper franchises, like ours, across the country. If this paper wants to recoup its reputation, advertising should review to whom they sell advertising. This paper can be picked up by anyone, including children and it is crammed with advertisements from the sex industry or that are highly sexual; depicting scantily clad men and women and obviously pandering to prurient interests. Ed refers to these stories in his emails below. That is where Ray Stern comes in. Ray evidently had a preexisting relationship with Ed when he worked at the East Valley Tribune in Mesa, Arizona. I can confirm that Ray Stern did come over to New Times from East Valley Tribune about a year ago and has contacted Ed for some aid recently. I had to laugh at Ray’s attempt to guilt Magedson in to helping. Well, here you can read for yourself his pleas for help below: Ray was asking him for help, no doubt because New Times wanted to test the waters to see if they could still use him as a resource and they were using Ray to bait Ed. It is all very calculated and manipulative… and that’s why I and others are leaving Incidentally, I contacted my sources at the US Postal Inspectors office. They told me ripoffreport.com is a regular tool for additional victims to assist them in scams that use the US Post. They added that Magedson is well-respected and reliable. At a minimum, Magedson deserves an apology, but optimally, he should get acknowledgement for all he has done. If readers cannot rely on us to adhere to the truth, then we are just an advertising rag. Signed, Pissed, in one of the various New Times cities Here is the email interchange Ed sent BCC to everyone with whom he has previously corresponded at New Times. —–Original Message—– From: Ray Stern [mailto:Ray.Stern@newtimes.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:43 PM To: editor@ripoffreport.com Subject: Hi, Ed, I called you today about the identity theft story I’m working on. I can’t find anything on your site about “LifeLock” and I was wondering if you’ve ever dealt with the company or with people wanted to post a ripoff report on the company. I came across some blurb on the Internet that said ripoffreport endorses LifeLock, so I also wanted to ask about that. In addition, I wanted to ask if you knew if there were many posts on your site about identity theft protection companies. There seem to be so many of them these days. You probably don’t remember me, but I talked to you on the phone a few times when I worked for the East Valley Tribune as a reporter a few years ago. I’ve been with New Times since last August after 10 years at the Trib. If you can help me, great. If you can’t, I appreciate your time. Sincerely, Ray Stern 480-205-1686 (mobile) From: EDitor@ripoffreport.com [mailto:EDitor@ripoffreport.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:29 PM To: EDitor@ripoffreport.com Subject: New Times - Phoenix requesting assistance - phone call and email to Rip-off Report - Once I get a public apology we can talk. Just as I had assisted you and your colleagues for years Ray Stern Phoenix new Times 1201 E Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85034 (602) 271-0040 480-205-1686 (mobile) Ray = In response to your phone call and email to me on June 20th 2007…. Yes, I remember you now - - Congratulations on your new job. Sorry for the delay in my response, I have been swamped, and I needed to make sure of my feelings, that they were not misguided. Here are my thoughts…. Your paper has a lot of nerve asking me for assistance again. You do know about the less than flattering, twisted January article New Times did about me and Rip-off Report? I am sure you do. Once I get a public apology we can talk. Just as I had assisted you and your colleagues for years at the East Valley/Mesa Tribune with different stories and victim information, I had also assisted New Times over the years.. The Real New Times. Sarah Fenske. Did you know that New Times named me, ED Magedson / Rip-off Report, as the best consumer website? Ask them how many years in a row that was and be sure to let Sarah Fenske know. Ooops, I forgot, she knows all that. Dont you think it was a little strange that Sarah Fenske did not mention that in her article? That was not ED calling himself a consumer advocate as she repeatedly intimated. That was New Times. Did you know that Rip-off Report assisted in more than 2 dozen published stories by New Times including at least 2 front page articles? No, they never gave any credit - and no, I am not including the satire or hit piece — call it what you will — New Times did on me. Did you know that Rip-off Report assisted almost every newspaper owned by New Times in many stories over the years, including the Village Voice? Did you know that almost all other publications including Wall Street Journal and NY Times gave us credit, and we did a lot less for them? And that all these newspapers and TV News stations across the USA, Canada, Australia and United Kingdom call ED Magedson a consumer advocate, but that Sarah Fenske felt it better to say that I called myself a consumer advocate, as if I was the only one who did. For the record, Sarah Fenske has in her possession a CD with about 20 TV News station stories using Rip-off Report, with most of them dubbing me, ED Magedson, a consumer advocate. Fenske also has emails with more than 30 attachments of articles, many of them describing me as a consumer advocate, including thank you letters from government agencies and dozens of thank you emails from consumers from around the world.. Fenske elected not to mention any of those. Why do you think that was? YELLOW JOURNALISM AT WORK - THE THREATS Fenske’s so called “investigative report” also made light of the countless serious threats I have received, despite the fact that she has in her possession a copy of about four of those different threats, a random sampling, along with threatening letters mailed to Rip-off Report, its attorneys and another business I was doing business with at the time. Yes, despite the evidence supplied to her, she managed to make it seem like there were really no threats, that it was all a lot of hooey. Here is just one of many Fenske knew about. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/174/RipOff0174371.htm Read this Report, especially the first UPDATE. It contains one of the many threatening phone calls along with the transcript of the call. The funny thing about this threatening phone call is that this company, called Roni Lynn Deutch, dropped their lawsuit against Rip-off Report right after we posted those threats by one of their employees , the half brother to the owner of the company of Roni Lynn Deutch, Scott Juceam. And speaking of threats, in September 2006 I received a phone call, that was later traced to a Tempe pay phone located under Hooters at 5th and Mill, from an individual identifying himself as “Bill.” He wanted me to come down there to meet with him so he could kick my ass. But more interesting, in hindsight, is that “Bill” said his relative was affiliated with New Times and that his relative was going to ruin me and Rip-off Report. I just hung up on him. Little did I realize…. Now you tell me. Is that just coincidence? Ask Sarah Fenske why she never mentioned anything about the glowing reviews she received from the State and Federal agencies she had spoken with? Why did Fenske not mention anything about them in the article ? . It would have given me / Rip-off Report too much credibility, counter to her purpose. Ask Sarah Fenske why she tried to get all the people she called who are on our Corporate Advocacy Program to say something negative. They would not do so, as they all had only positive things to say about the program. One member, concerned about the nature of Fenske’s loaded questions, said she was compelled to call Fenske back to make sure Fenske did not twist her words around. ALL COMPANIES ON THE CORPORATE ADVOCACY PROGRAM MUST AGREE TO GIVE A FULL REFUND.. WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE A DISSATISFIED CONSUMER SATISFIED… Fenske mentioned in her article, that I kept repeating myself. Please convey to her, when I was talking about important relevant matters, she had stopped writing notes from our conversation: Matters such as. - - - The first thing that a company must agree to, in order to join the Corporate Advocacy Program is to provide a refund to anyone that filed a Rip-off Report. The company agrees to allow Rip-off Report to send out an email to everyone, letting them know the company will make things right, whatever it takes. I even supplied Sarah Fenske with sample emails that we sent to other companies. There was no mention of any of this. Fenske erroneously impressed upon the reader, that if a business or person pays Rip-off Report, Rip-off Report will write something positive about them or their company, period. Wrong !. New Times has stated to its “secret sources” and others that Rip-off Report is suing New Times. Who said we were doing that? Maybe it’s something we should be looking into? With regard to the lawyer Fenske quoted, who stated that ED Magedson is an extortionist, doesn’t it seem odd that Fenske never mentioned what company the lawyer was with? I will tell you. Look up on the Internet, Whitney Information or Russ Whitney. Given that information, do you think the lawyer’s quote would not have been as strong or credible? .. You think? What a great investigative newspaper reporting “the truth” to its readers, .. you think? Sarah Fenske never mentioned other people she spoke with to certify the validity of her article. Ask her about Federated Financial - owner Steve Miller and also Chris McFarland who is a disbarred attorney, posing as an attorney that we have evidence of. Search them on Rip-off Report. When Fenske asked me to give her some names of those that hate Rip-off Report, I had told Fenske to talk with Steve Miller and Chris McFarland, one of the biggest instigators of hate and distortion about and against Rip-off Report, who tells other businesses to sue ED Magedson and make claims that ED authored the Reports himself, in order to get around the Communications Decency Act, just as Steve Miller did when he sued Rip-off Report. Fenske told me she was already in contact with Miller. I also offered to Fenske the contact info for all those who claim to be victims of Steve Miller of Federated Financial, one of her sources of information. Fenske quotes Miller but conveniently does not mention his company name so that any half-witted reader could look up that person’s company who is making these claims against me and Rip-off Report. Again, Fenske misled readers and distort ed the truth. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/038/RipOff0038900.htm Then there is John F Brewington. Too much to tell you, but in short, this is another one of Fenske’s reliable sources. So, what do you think Ray? If you were me would you ever cooperate with New Times again? If New Times were any kind of a credible newspaper, the editor and/or the owner of the paper would have called me back when I left word for them to return my call about three days after the Fenske article came out. I am working on an article about all this, and I called to interview her editor and Sarah Fenske. I was told Sarah Fenske and New Times staff do not do interviews. hmmm. New Times never printed any positive comments it had received about Rip-off Report. Many people emailed and called us, saying they have lost total respect for New Times. I was contacted by many people who submitted positive comments to New Times about Rip-off Report and myself.. not one letter/email that was submitted was ever posted. This did not include the submissions from my lawyers and others we know personally who were then outraged further that their letters / comments to the article were ignored. New Times lawyers told our lawyers at Rip-off Report that New Times lost their letters to the editor. None of the negative letters got lost, those got posted. You would think, if your newspaper were credible, that New Times would have contacted me to rectify the article. Think how much respect readers will have for a newspaper admitting the reporter made a mistake. What about a little FACT CHECKING ?!! Something most reputable newspapers do today.. Ray, do you think you made the right move? You may have had issues with the Tribune, which has captured some awards for investigative reporting. Yet there are standards of journalistic integrity that all ethical newspapers, the Tribune included, adhere to. I seriously doubt that the Tribune would have stooped to the purposeful deceit, dishonest spins and malevolent intent exhibited by New Times in its misguided article on Rip-off Report and myself. We all know you cannot always believe what you see on the 6 o’clock or 10 o’clock news, much less the Internet — but one would not expect a local weekly newspaper, known for its uncommonly long narratives, to fervently twist and grind in order to make a sensationalized story. After a while readers catch on. At least on Rip-off Report you’re getting it straight from the horse’s mouth, unedited, where anyone can rebut a submitted Report. Readers can then decide for themselves what the truth is and make their own informed/educated decision. regarding your email to me below… Ray - nothing against you personally, but, I will be glad to assist your newspaper with any article as I have in the past - once New Times rectifies this matter. I believe many readers will have new found respect for New Times. This is the same lesson /concept that our Corporate Advocacy Program members understand and appreciate. It is best to admit wrongdoing or that a mistake was made, and rectify the situation. Be they readers of newspapers or consumers of goods and services, trust is restored when wrongdoing or a mistake is acknowledged and corrected. .. http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/167/ripoff0167471.htm So, when the New Times publishes an apology for its one sided journalism and acknowledges all the help we at RipoffReport.com have provided, I will be happy to get you any info you need and continue to help your team in any way I can, as I always have. Sincerely - ED Magedson - Founder EDitor@RipoffReport.com www.ripoffreport.com We are not lawyers. We are not a collection agency. We are Consumer Advocates. …the victims’ advocate WE are Civil and Human Rights Activists We are a Worldwide Consumer Reporting News Agency ..by consumers, for consumers Rip-off Report PO Box 310, Tempe, Arizona 85280 Remember. Don’t let them get away with it!™ Make sure they make the Rip-off Report™ —–Original Message—– From: Ray Stern [mailto:Ray.Stern@newtimes.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:58 PM To: EDitor@ripoffreport.com Subject: Re: New Times - Phoenix requesting assistance - phone call andemail to Rip-off Report - Once I get Of course I had read the story about you and ripoffreport.com, but I would never let the fact that someone might be pissed at me or my newspaper to stand in the way of me calling them for a comment. Whether you withhold info or not that might benefit the public is up to you. Thanks for taking the time to write back. ray From: EDitor@ripoffreport.com [mailto: EDitor@ripoffreport.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:47 PM To: EDitor@ripoffreport.com Subject: New Times - Phoenix requesting assistance - phone call and email to Rip-off Report - Once I get a public apology we can talk. Just as I had assisted you and your colleagues for years Ray - - First, I am disappointed that you never addressed my request for New Times to make this right. Second, you say that I am pissed at you. I dont see where I blame you anywhere in my email to you below. Your newspaper needs to take responsibility when a reporter does something wrong. And, if it happened to me, who else is a victim of this same type of distorted journalism? How condescending….! I just cannot believe you responded the way you did. I expected more from you In April, two months ago, without question, I again assisted New Times Dade / Broward County in Florida, along with other New Times papers over the last five months. That is because I am more concerned with consumers being educated and didn’t think twice about sending the information the reporters sought… and at my expense, knowing damn well they will never give us a mention, as usual… a sign of poor and unethical journalism. Now, after thinking about all this, if New Times allows this type of Fenske behavior in Phoenix , I have to ask myself, is this the same editorial mentality throughout the New Times/Village Voice newspapers…since, after the relatively recent merger, they are all under the same ownership/management? Until I am convinced otherwise, I want nothing to do with the New Times/Village Voice papers. Although the truth will eventually be revealed, this action and inaction by Phoenix New Times naturally leads me to conclude that I am not the only victim or sucker. You stated below “Whether you withhold info or not that might benefit the public is up to you.” Withholding information? New Times is in the business of doing that. What part of my email did you not understand? Your odd, “let’s pretend” reply makes me wonder if you even did read my entire email, or if you merely looked at it from your blackberry. If that is the case, I would like to afford you the opportunity to review my email to you once again in its entirety. One would think that a responsible journalist seeking assistance, one who abides by the given standards of his profession, would have thought, “Gee, if that really happened, I can understand why ED is so upset with my employer.” I assure you it all really happened, as well as so many more complex but provable wrongdoings or errors that were not conveyed to you. Does the New Times/Village Voice have a Code of Ethics as does the Arizona Republic? If so, has it been registered with Poynter? ED Magedson - Founder EDitor@RipoffReport.com www.ripoffreport.com From: EDitor@ripoffreport.com [mailto:EDitor@ripoffreport.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:30 PM To: Ray.Stern@newtimes.com Subject: SPJ Code of Ethics - New Times - Phoenix requesting assistance - phone call and email to Rip-off Report - Once I get a public apology we can talk. Just as I had assisted you and your colleagues for years Ray Stern Phoenix new Times FYI The entire SPJ Code of Ethics is attached. . Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. — Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability. — Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises. — Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. —Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should: — Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. — Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media. — Admit mistakes and correct them promptly. — Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media. — Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. ED Magedson www.ripoffreport.com

this long diatribe could only be from one sick-in-the-head source, and he's obviously a lying sack of shit. new times employee, my ass! this guy's an idiot to think anybody would believe this crap, or care what's going on in his delusional little pea brain. a cospiracy of business people burned by ed m., dumbass please!? truth is, ed's been whining like a little c-word about this story since it was published. everybody knows that. hmmm, i haven't seen new times run any corrections, clarifications, nothing. guess whoever wrote this diatribe knows where to stick his bullshit.

Hatefuckingliars, your post is quite an emotional rant. However, you offer nothing to substantiate your accusations, nothing specific to dispute whatever it is you are disputing. Referencing the previous VERY lengthy post by a person who identified himself as an employee of a New Times franchise -- who said he received two BCC emails from Ed Magedson, emails that were addressed to another New Times employee Ray Stern -- you dismiss the employee's statements with broad brush general assertions, "This guy's an idiot" and "He's obviously a lying sack of shit." You call him a "sick-in-the-head source" and say, "New Times employee, my ass." The employee's post was EIGHT paragraphs longMy, my, that's quite a rant, "hatefuckingliars. Then there are the two emails he received from Magedson -- one is 26 paragraphs long, the other 9 paragraphs long -- which the employee also posted for readers of these blogs. What specifically are you disputing in his long post What do YOU know about anything in particular that proves him wrong? I found his post and his comments quite credible since he backs up his statements with specific background examples of Phoenix New Times articles and previous actions of both Phoenix New Times and of its employee Sarah Fenske. Are YOU an employee of Phoenix New Times or a New Times affiliate paper? How do YOU know what its advertisers did or did not do and what New Times advertising executives did or did not do? Do you know Sarah Fenske? If so, have you spoken to her about this issue? For example, are you disputing that she spoke to Rob Russo of QED Media, Bill Stanley of Spamhaus, John Brewington of JFB Acquisitions, Steve Miller and Chris MacFarland of Federated Financial from Florida in preparation for her hit piece of a few months ago on Ed Magedson and the ripoffreport.com consumer website? What and who motivated Fenske's assignment for that voluminous Feb 1 article, if it was something other than what is stated by the previous poster? Providing particular examples of previous Fenske articles, the NT employee says, "Sarah has become known as the 'pitch woman of print' with our own form of payola." Do you dispute that statement? If so, please give reasons for your contrary viewpoint. Magedson's emails to Stern relate Magedson's first-hand experience with Fenske, how he provided her with documentation, which she ignored, but which add authenticity to his position. What is YOUR first-hand experience in this matter that can add authenticity to YOUR sweeping general statement that the previous poster is "a liar"? Lastly, you say, "I haven't seen new times run any corrections, clarification, nothing." Precisely. New Times' arrogance and non-adherence to ethics in journalism is perhaps the strongest point made by both the New Times employee and by Magedson. Citing Fenske's particular methods, the employee says Fenske's article is a "flagrant violation of the ethical guidelines for journalism" and "This bold lapse of ethics is a black eye not only for this newspaper, but for the other newspaper franchises, like ours, across the country." Similarly, I noticed that Magedson also provided Stern and recipients of his BCC emails certain tenets from the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. In this instance, of course there will not be any clarifications or corrections. Seems to me that both the employee who has opted to leave his New Times affiliate and Magedson have amply demonstrated that the credibility of New Times as a viable alternative newspaper is in the toilet.

I couldn’t help but laugh as I read post #13 – Ed Magedson pretending to be a New Times sales executive. It’s amazing that Magedson has to resort to such a complicated fantasy to explain away “The Real Rip-Off Report.” To paraphrase a certain cheesy movie, he can’t handle the truth – so he’s concocted outright lies as evidence of an elaborate conspiracy against him. For the record: No one at New Times ever suggested that I write about The Rip-Off Report, or for that matter, the Miss Arizona pageant or satellite radio. I’ve never taken a dime from anyone on the sales staff, or indeed, anyone I’ve written about. That’s just not how it works. My story speaks for itself. We’ve never retracted, or apologized, for a word of it. Magedson and his buddies can keep dreaming, but we won’t be doing so in the future, either.

"And speaking of threats, in September 2006 I received a phone call, that was later traced to a Tempe pay phone located under Hooters at 5th and Mill, from an individual identifying himself as “Bill.” He wanted me to come down there to meet with him so he could kick my ass. But more interesting, in hindsight, is that “Bill” said his relative was affiliated with New Times and that his relative was going to ruin me and Rip-off Report. I just hung up on him. Little did I realize…." Quoted from a prior comment attributed to Edward Magedson. Speaking of yellow journalism I think it’s time to set the record straight. I have just now read the rebuttal to The Real Rip Off Report as posted by Ed Magedson and another party. The story gets crazier all the time. As you know, I brought the story to Sarah Fenske based upon her past work. No one from the paper ever solicited me for the story. I bought it to the New Times because it is important to me that a story has some checks and balances that do not occur in everyday life. Those balances to me would be the investigation by the reporter, the editor and the legal teams. How I feel as a person has little relevance and I choose to have a non biased party look into the facts themselves, thus Sarah Fenske did the story and well I might add. It seems the FBI has taken notice as they visited with me about 4 weeks ago and I gave them what information that I could and continue to do so. There is much that has not been made public but now will because I am set to be deposed in the action Magedson has against Russo & Stanley. The FBI gets thrown about a great deal by lots of people. A post on the Rip Off Report claims that I have posed as an agent. Magedson has claimed he has me on tape doing so. I have sent this information to both the FBI and the Arizona Department of Public Safety asking that they investigate this claim made about me. So far there is no investigation as to my actions that I am aware of and I will be very interested in finding out who made that post and what proof they have. I of course deny it and since I am not in jail presume the authorities know this. Bill Stanley has asked that I investigate the death threat letters that have been disseminated to the press by Mr. Magedson. I have never been hired or received money as a result of any investigation about Rip Off Report or Edward Magedson. I agreed to represent Mr. Stanley because I think it is outrageous for these issues to be reduced to threats of violence and made it clear to him that if I find out who did it they will be reported to the authorities. The courts will resolve the other issues. Prior to the story I have never spoken to any of the parties. I have never spoken to Steve Miller and do not know him except for his posts on the internet. As a result of the investigation I have forwarded the threats to the City of Mesa Mayors office asking that an investigation take place. This was at the insistence of Mr. Stanley who also asked for the involvement of the Attorney General. In the complaint made to the Mesa Police, Mr. Magedson mentions he fears the police because of past actions. Mr. Magedson is not the only one threatened in the letters. My thoughts are that those others need the protection of the police and I asked the detective in charge of the case to reopen it, again at the request of Mr. Stanley. They declined because Mr. Magedson had informed them that the FBI was now handling the case but to date no agent has contacted them. When I discussed this with the agent that visited me he seemed puzzled by that. In fact he was very clear that the FBI does not investigate death threats unless they are on public officials. The Mesa detective made it clear to me that Mr. Magedson wanted me to become a person of interest. The detective says Mr. Magedson was told that it was unlikely I had anything to do with it. Mr. Magedson turned over tapes to the police to substantiate his death threat claims. The police report is very clear that they did not find deaths threats on the tapes. Their investigation is closed until Mr. Magedson asks that it is reopened, something we would very much like. Everyone I have spoken to would gladly take a polygraph or assist in any way, including me. My observation on this is that many are trying to make this a good vs. evil. It is clear that if there are sides to this debate, both have done things they should be ashamed of. After all some of the posts in The Rip Off Report are true. Sadly many are not true. I have seen how those that claim to be victims of the Rip Off Report spit out disinformation with the intent to malign Mr. Magedson or get revenge and he has been accused of the same thing. My thoughts on this subject is that an “Eye for an Eye and we would all be blind”. Vengeance doesn’t work. Ask the defendants that have been sued as a result of posting on the Rip Off Report in spite of freedom of speech. There is a great public clamoring for the demise of the Rip Off Report and of course there are those that feel it is a good thing. As for me I think there should be a way for consumers to learn the truth. After all if I am a conman the world should know. What I also think is that no man is all either one thing or another. A moment in their lives should not define who they are for eternity. We are a nation of great forgiveness but the internet doesn’t really have a statute of limitations. If I have been accused of something rightly or wrongly it will be there for eternity. Really though should that be the case if the person had one moment in their lives that seems inconsistent with the way they have lived the majority of their lives? And should the masses, who have little legal knowledge, be the ones to judge and convict anyone? Not for me to say, it is for the courts to decide. Everyone one needs to take a step back and take a breath. The Feds and the police are on this. The courts will hear the cases. People should not commit illegal acts or that will be how they are defined. Unfortunately though like the agent said, there are many who don’t care what the truth is, they will believe what they want and then disburse that to the masses. So far as Magedson not getting his due? He wants credit for the postings on his site made by others? I thought he was trying to distance himself from that. He after all is just the portal that allows the posters to vent. My experience with helping consumers is that there will be little thanks for it. Some do it for money, fame and some because it is wrong to turn your back on injustice. Mr. Magedson is going to make history. He will be glad for that I think but I somehow suspect it won’t be for what he would like. The Rip Off Report now has many heir apparents. If the site were shut down tomorrow there are several more sites that one can post to and there will be more to come. These are very interesting issues and the public needs to know, just like they need to know if I am a conman or if Magedson has really done the things he has been accused of. Rip Off Reports Corporate Advocacy Program will have little impact when there are 7 other sites that have posts of those clients and have even stronger links. Mr. Magedson has mentioned calls made from a pay phone under the stairs of Hooters downtown Tempe at 501 S Mill Ave Tempe. At my website www.jfbainc.com, on the pictures page you will find the stairs under Hooters. There is no phone. However across the street at the US Post Office 500 S Mill Ave Tempe you will find 2 pay phones. You will also find P.O. Box 310 which is of course the box Rip Off Report has operated out of for years. Strange coincidence I would say. Maybe I would be the first to encourage everyone to go to the Rip Off Report and look up my post. John F Brewington and JFB Acquisitions. While this will of course strengthen the links to Rip Off Report, I feel the world should see how the system works and I offer myself not that it matters because my name and others names have been thrown about here with the intent to have search engines pick it up and post it on the internet. That magic goes 2 ways.

Those are outstanding comments John. Proof you are sticking to the high road here, even though evidence to the contrary appears overwhelming. To me, it's espcially impressive, since you have experienced the "no other way to retaliate" game often played by Ripoff Report because of your work. You've paid a personal price for getting involved at all. I appreciate all your efforts, to shed light on this situation. It takes a very brave person to go there. Sarah, you wrote a very insightful and well written article. I am a person who has suffered the effects of that website, and it's been extremely difficult. I am thankful for the opportunity to read a professional journalist's unbiased opinion. I appreciate the fact, you carefully considered the website as a whole, and not in peices (I get the idea, that's what Ed might prefer). Thank you for your hard work and even more importantly, for not apologizing. Ed Magedson has some very creative, elaborate and flat out weird responses to people who disagree with him. He's clearly not content to file a "rebuttal". In fact, the little phone booth blip, might prove hard to "rebut". It seems in Ed's quest to whatever it takes to "win every argument", he's perfectly happy to drop the truth off at the door. IMO Ripoff Report is a glaring example of the how left unguarded, unchecked and without boundaries the Internet lobbed right over into Lord of the Flies. Or better yet in this case, Gadflies.

Thanks Fly, I think it would be important for the reader to understand what it means to be a Private Investigator in Arizona. JFB Acquisitions, LLC is a licensed Private Investigative Agency. Below you will find requirements as set forth by the state for me to hold that license. The state is very concerned that consumers get what they pay for, which is why a bond for $2,500.00 is on file. As you see they also want the QP of the agency to have experience. Not all “Investigators” are created equal as we will see in the below. Not all “reporters” are created equal either. Legal Definition of a Private Investigator (ARS 32-2401-16) 16. "Private investigator" means a person other than an insurance adjuster or an on-duty peace officer as defined in section 1-215 who, for any consideration, engages in business or accepts employment to: (a) Furnish, agree to make or make any investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to: (i) Crime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States. (ii) The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation or character of any person or group of persons. (iii) The credibility of witnesses or other persons. (iv) The whereabouts of missing persons, owners of abandoned property or escheated property or heirs to estates. (v) The location or recovery of lost or stolen property. (vi) The causes and origin of, or responsibility for, a fire, libel, slander, a loss, an accident, damage or an injury to real or personal property. (b) Secure evidence to be used before investigating committees or boards of award or arbitration or in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefor. (c) Investigate threats of violence and provide the service of protection of individuals from serious bodily harm or death. Conducting investigations in Arizona Anyone conducting private investigations in Arizona must be licensed in Arizona. Failure to do so can be a class 1 misdemeanor. You may hire other employees, such as office staff, but they cannot conduct private investigation in Arizona. You do not need an Arizona address or a Resident Manager to be licensed as a private investigation agency in Arizona. After all requested information has been received at DPS and the background checks and experience have been reviewed and approved, we then request the new agency license fee of $400 and a Surety Bond in the amount of $2,500.00. Qualifications of Licensee A Private Investigation agency license is issued to an individual who is the Qualifying Party (QP) regardless of the agency structure (sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation). The Qualifying Party is sometimes called the Licensee. The Qualifying Party must comply with the requirements as listed in the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §32-2422.A.9, which states: Have had a minimum of three years of full-time investigative experience or the equivalent of three years of full-time investigative experience that consists of actual work performed as an investigator for a private concern, for the federal government or for a state, county or municipal government. This is a post on the Rip Off Report about a Private Investigative Agency whose name I have redacted. You will see this report is from is a Ripoff Reporter. Ripoff Reporter HA, California U.S.A. (Redacted) Investigations – (Redacted) Search (Redacted) Investigations on this site for information on this company. The owner is not a licensed PI in California and the company is not a California Corporation as his website claims. He has multiple criminal convictions in Orange County California Superior Court for theft, stalking and failure to provide for minor child. The BBB has 19 complaints in Southern California and one pending in Delaware. Buyer beware! What consumers should have been told is that the agency name does actually have a license in California, it just doesn’t appear online. You have to call the state and they will tell you it does exist and its condition. The actual owner of this California agency does not have the public record as suggested by the reporter. The state told me that employees do not have to be licensed. You will find that the name on the license though is not the name of the party that claims the license on the internet or whose name appears frequently on complaints. The redacted name is actually a corporation. I don’t believe the website specifies what state they are incorporated in, though an unsophisticated consumer would presume it be California, it is in fact Delaware. The office location for that corporation is Alabama. This is the law regarding licensing for PIs in Alabama. Alabama There is no P.I. licensing requirement in Alabama, although some cities, such as Birmingham and Mobile, have their own, and a state business license is required to operate any business in Alabama. The address in Alabama appears to be a virtual office and there may not be a physical presence there, just the illusion they are there. One might conclude they are trying to circumvent California and other state laws by making it appear they operate in a state that does not have a licensing requirement for PIs. Toll free numbers with no state area code cover up a location. This is a clear example on why it is best to go with a professional because this agency has many alleged complaints against them. Also because the Ripoff Reporter missed so much of the truth either because they are not skilled or just didn’t care what the truth was. Either way the consumer is not well served. I have filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Public Safety because this agency is advertising to do work here. I have also forwarded the information to the FBI, because this agency has mounted a campaign of terror against the Rip Off Report and Edward Magedson. Because of my involvement in investigating the death threats against Mr. Magedson, I feel any pertinent information should go to the authorities. I hope everyone agrees.

I know Ed Magedson personally. What is amazing is that the FBI uses him as an informant and lets him get away with this clear cut extortion of American Businesses. The guy hides from the process servers, moves from house to house ever 6 months, and with the exception of his website email address: editor@ripoffreport.com , is for all intents and purposes an invisible man. We receive a new client aka victim of ripoffreport.com - almost every day that uses our service to bury the ripoff report. The Government lacks the power or maybe it’s the desire to shut this guy down but Computer Nerds seems to be doing a pretty good job. We have successfully posted fake complaints to ripoffreport.com with strong keywords that trigger Yahoo and Google ripoff reports. Our search engine experts within just a few days neutralize the effects of those keywords and the ripoff report comes of the first page of the search results. Until the FBI finally latches on to these criminals, Computer Nerds will help with this problem. Any one thinking of suing ripoff report should not even waste the time or money. Ed Magedson, Maria Crimi Speth and the Law Firm of Jaburg and Wilk are a strong force to be reckoned with. In my humble opinion they are all internet terrorists deserving to be in prison. I hope Judge Neil Wake who is the Federal Judge in several cases involving the aforementioned comes to the conclusion that the bulk of the American Businessmen have already come to. If you are a victim of ripoffreport.com - See: http://www.computernerds.net/seo/ The database that we are collecting at this web site is being turned over to the FBI, maybe we can finally get this guy shut down. Computer Nerds (254) 690-6373 Shawn A. Richeson

Shawn, what took you so long to display your warped value system and your deceit? You boast about posting fake complaints on ripoffreport. In that case, you created your own unwitting victims, who you are now luring to avail themselves of your "services." For a price, of course. In your pathetic attempt to pick up the pieces here, your motives are evident by their transparency.

To the previous poster on this blog may I respond like this? Computer Nerds posted fake complaints on itself on ripoffreport.com. At one time, the key words “computer nerds” were buried by the fake reports that we created as a hoax on ripoffreport.com outranking our own web site. Now try and “Google” or “Yahoo” or “MSN” the key words “Computer Nerds”. Magedson’s can’t make any money by scamming businesses anymore. We teach the ripoffreport.com victims how to neutralize the negative postings that Magedson, Speth and the other surrogates post on ripoff report. I just want American businesses to fully understand that they can quit stressing out over the ripoff report and the evil it perpetuates and fix the problem on their own. However, if you don’t know how to fix this problem yourself, then I understand the panic and fear the business feels from extortionists like Magedson, Speth and a law office as powerful and well connected as Jaburg and Wilk. If the last poster is just Ed Magedson, then I would respectfully submit that your extortion days are numbered my friend. When you get a permanent address at whatever Federal Prison you are assigned to, please send me a line: Computer Nerds 1906 Twilight Drive Killeen, Texas 76543 (254) 690-6373 Shawn A. Richeson Author and poster to this Fair and honest community forum

Wow. You certainly are a journalist with a yellow streak. This is NOT an impassioned article but one with a vengeance. I especially liked the mention of a pot bust -- in this plastic fantastic hypocritical country where children can watch wrestlers bash each other with chairs but nipples must be pixilated. What a country! I have posted many dead beat degenerates on the ROR. Furthermore if you take the time to read some of the postings say against American Express or AT&T you will find many folks with real gripes that have nowhere else to go to post their problems. For example there are sites such as ROR specifically dedicated to bashing Scientology but few to bash the church -- murderers and liars who for thousands of years have abused humanity. So what is your beef with the ROR? You have any better ideas on how to get people reported? I was robbed by a lawyer of at least 40,000 dollars that I know of. I was ripped off by an Indian firm named Mindware Software Solutions (P) Ltd. and they beat me for a lot of money while my firm was the only one selling for them. Lies and robbery, where do you think I should post this? Should I sue and wait for 15 years or so to find that after I won a judgment the guy died or the company is no more? What do YOU have to suggest as an alternative? How about if we look into YOUR past and skeletons, thank G*d you didn't start taking positions on the guy's sexual preferences. Again what do YOU have to replace this? I posted my own brother in law who ripped me off after promising to give us a client with a 150,000 contract and basically told me to go f myself. By the way I want to thank our dear President the Bush for sending Osama's family out of the country after 9/11 and for beeping the f out of cable and other media. That will be on his grave as an epitaph "He beeped the f---k out of everything." lol.

Call me or send a mail -- I always found Ed to be 100% there for me. I was beat for money by many different low lifes. Search for Jack Abraham; Abraham (Abie) Pierkarski or Piekarsky; Gene Kazlow -- the crooked lawyer; Steven Sigman nee Armstrong and his appliancesbuyphone.com site. He ripped me for 8000 dollars after we delivered the work product he went to American Express and they refunded his cash because he said he never authorized use of his card. Funny where did we get his card number and x date? Also look for Raj Lonsane and DynaShoppe another low life who made promises to me and my clients and ripped us all off. S. Bruce Klein who worked for me and got paid $30,000+ for his best WEEK and stole my back up tape along with a disbarred attorney Kenneth (Ken) Ampel. Now where the hell do you think I could have gotten these scum low lifes posted other than by Ed? The latter never asked me for a penny, my brother in law attempted to pay him off to remove the posting and Ed refused the money. So I think you miscreants posting here are probably dead beats who got posted by Ed in the first place... come on now... tell us the truth ya bum ya! Call me at 646-383-7961 and I will corroborate all this clearly for you. Don't call to hassle me because I will abuse you in a grand way! I am at realtimemeister@gmail.com.

To the previous poster on this blog may I respond like this? You are aligning yourself with a criminal (Ed Magedson) aka (Edward Magedson) If you are being paid to write posts on the ROR - the FBI may be contacting you soon. You are obviously “a few fries short of a happy meal” and most assuredly missing the point. ((( Extortion is a criminal offense in this Country ))) The search engine ranking power of ripoffreport.com and similar blog sites are becoming a fading memory and the subject of many jokes in the technical arena. Please visit: http://www.freeripoffreport.com On a positive note, I would however, like to defend the reporter Sarah Fenske. She is the only reporter to date that has taken the time to really investigate this criminal enterprise. In spite of the fact that Magedson and Speth make it a point to sue anyone who gets close to exposing the real motive behind ripoffreport.com, Sarah has demonstrated a remarkable courage. American Business and Consumers alike are wise to the online extortion scam and are now empowered to deal with it on a technical front. We teach the ripoffreport.com victims how to neutralize the negative postings that Magedson, Speth and the other surrogates (such as you) post on ripoff report. Computer Nerds 1906 Twilight Drive Killeen, Texas 76543 (254) 690-6373 Shawn A. Richeson Author and poster to this Fair and honest community forum

I see Tweedle Dum Shawn Richeson is still at it. Your lies have already been disproved, and you've aided that endeavor. I realize that much of your problem and your erratic posts stem from your need for attention, and probably the fact that "business" at Computer Nerds must be faltering motivates you to post the garbage you do. But if you're viewing this as free advertising, keep in mind that honorable people prefer working with honorable businesses. Your contact in the Phoenix area is not an honorable person.

Hello Tina aka Edward Magedson aka Ed Magedson The search engine ranking power of ripoffreport.com and similar blog sites are becoming a fading memory and the subject of many jokes in the technical arena. Please visit: http://www.freeripoffreport.com American Business and Consumers alike are wise to the online extortion scam and are now empowered to deal with it on a technical front. We teach the ripoffreport.com victims how to neutralize the negative postings that Magedson, Speth and the other surrogates (such as you) post on ripoff report. Computer Nerds 1906 Twilight Drive Killeen, Texas 76543 (254) 690-6373 Shawn A. Richeson Author and poster to this Fair and honest community forum

Wrong again, Shawn. I am not Ed Magedson or Edward Magedson. Not even close. Do you hear clicks on your telephone? Are there strange vehicles parked outside your house at night? Has your mail been opened? You, of all scheming and dreaming people (yes, I've read your bizarre posts on other blogs), are now cooking up conspiracy theories of your own. I related on ripoffreport a few years ago my own experience of getting scammed by one company's unlawful practices, and learned from other victims in many subsequent posts that I was by no means alone. Although posting my experience didn't help me directly since I'd already been scammed, I later found that many of those unlawful practices did ultimately come to a halt. Ripoffreport exposure undoubtedly helped to right those wrongs and helped others as well. Consequently, Sarah Fenske's cockeyed hit piece here was a real puzzlement. Since then I've followed the unraveling of characters and their actions, including your own, with great interest. It's become evident to interested readers that half-baked Sarah Fenske fell in bed with malevolent thugs, by design or not, whereas you've been a wacko case for quite a while now. I doubt if she would have doctored a tape as you did (I remember your many posts on that CNetNews report)or deviously created a bogus website posing as Magedson then unsuccessfully filing a false report with the Arizona State Bar. Creative? Yes. Stupid? Yes. However, Fenske's paranoid reaction to criticism is the same as your own. Unable to respond rationally to criticism by another writer, she too hit a brick wall and accused that writer of being Ed Magedson, something a true wordsmith could never have done in good conscience. You can opt for the high road, or take the short-lived-gratification low road playing second string with your pathetically dishonorable Phoenix contact. For your own well being, I offer this caveat. Pathological liars end up lying to each other. And that's when the "game" ceases to be fun.

If you are not Ed Magedson then please call me at (254) 690-6373 and tell me why you don't believe Ed Magedson deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. As far as the audio recordings of Ed Magedson, you may be interested in hearing several of them. We have an interesting video of Edward as well. That will be published online towards mid September. I also feel you should maybe get a hold of Judge Neil Wake. He is the presiding Judge over the Magedson v Russo cause #CV-00954-NVW. The case is being administered right there in the Federal Court in Phoenix. I am assuming you are Ed or possibly that woman that works for Ed. In either event you are all probably going to get indicted. When you see Maria Speth at the Law Offices of jaburg and Wilk - have her seek a subpoena and come get this audio and video evidence of Ed Magedson crimes. It may help clear up a few issues for you !

We have viewed your comments with interest too Tina. It seems there is really no dispute over the content of Sarah’s story, just the agenda behind it. I am not clear why you would object so strongly, this is after all the freedom of the press and in this case there were editorial controls. It appears Mr. Magedson had full access in the interview as did some of his Corporate Advocacy Program clients who seem to refrain from entering this debate. I don’t know that I have read anywhere that the Rip Off Report is a total work of fiction. There are absolutely true stories of consumers being victimized. There is no doubt that consumers have been helped as a result of other consumers posting in a forum. There is also no doubt there was very little EDitorial constraints in place on the Rip Off Report, he after all chooses to refrain from that. Mr. Magedson has been clear that he does not post items himself and that is true till it is proven otherwise. However what has become clear is that he manipulates the posts by providing information to others knowing they will take that information and post it themselves. He is able to lay claim that he does not post himself. Look at it like Woodard and Bernstein calling Deep Throat and telling him everything about Watergate knowing Deep Throat would call the Washington Post and provide that information. Deep Throat would therefore expect to have his identity protected and Woodard and Bernstein can take credit for breaking the story. Paranoid is a word that has been used to describe Edward Magedson. Personality disorder aside it is reasonable to expect that he is being followed and that there are those with a malevolent agenda. But so far they haven’t been arrested or convicted of crimes or civil torts…yet. Being paranoid causes one to imagine there are conspiracies where they don’t exist. The back door conversations with consumers espousing those conspiracy theories cause and are meant for those conspiracies to be posted as fact in a public forum. Some would call it rumor mongering, others baring false witness against ones neighbor. Either way it is a view into the ugliness that can exist in human nature. I think most readers would be glad that companies that choose to operate in unethical ways are glad that that they are being exposed. Also though I think those same readers are horrified to understand that some if not many of the posts are the ugly agenda of those that would do them harm. Some of those posts are the direct result of paranoid delusions or just malevolence, either way quite harmful and in many ways. I would think that the editorial staff of The Phoenix New Times would be able to figure that out but clearly not so for the Rip Off Report. One of the bigger dangers that exist is that “consumer sites” are being viewed with great suspicion as to their agendas. There is great confusion as to what is the truth, a conspiracy theory or a malevolent lie. Consumers are no longer able to make educated decisions because of disinformation. Hopefully they will choose to rely on information from unbiased sources like the public record. Richard Ackerman is a great friend of the Rip Off Report and he has many posts as he admits. What is hidden here is that Richi Ackerman has been in the debt collection business for many years and advertises Rip Off Report on his web site. Richard Ackemerman posted the personal American Express account number of one of his victims in a public fashion for anyone to get. That account has been closed and American Express is conducting an investigation. The victim has suggested that Richard Ackerman commented that if he is paid the money he alleges is owed, that he will remove his post off the Rip Off Report. It is dubious that that could come to fruition but it would not be the first time that someone has tried to strong arm another by the use of public posts and search engine optimization. Imagine the consequences if every bill collector went on a forum and posted scurrilous items about a debtor. It isn’t clear why suit wasn’t filed against Richard Ackermans debtor, after all the courts are the place where disputes should be handled. Tell us Tina how does one get moral immunity? Why aren’t you complaining about the Fox News story that came out? Was that reporter also involved with dishonorable people? I assure you more stories are going to come out and you will have your hands full trying to spin those. To answer Richard Ackermans question as to where one can go to post items about people he perceives to be a danger to the community, other than The Rip Off Report? There are many places. Scam.com, consumeraffairs, my3cents. There are many other “consumer” sites and I don’t think they are in Federal court “accused” of extortion. Why he even feels compelled to post here and while there has been an odd claim that there is a conspiracy to this story, you both nonetheless draw attention to it with your posts. So far there doesn’t appear to be Consumer Advocacy Program in place for those sites and therefore no claims of commissions being paid for the referral of Consumer Advocacy Program members. Edward Magedson sells revenge. It would seem he objects when that is used on him and maybe that’s been the point of all this. Revenge…doesn’t…work. It perpetuates itself and goes on forever.

TO: All ripoffreport.com victims Do not pay money to have your ripoff report removed or buried in the search engines. Because we believe Ed Magedson, Maria Crimi Speth and the other criminals should be in prison for running an online extortion scam like ripoffreport.com - we will show you how to fix this problem for FREE. Please Visit - www.freeripoffreport.com Computer Nerds 1906 Twilight Drive Killeen, Texas 76543 (512) 458-6373 – Austin Texas (303) 892-6373 - Denver Colorado (239) 226-0014 – Fort Myers Florida (850) 244-6373 – Fort Walton Beach Florida (254) 690-6373 – Fort Hood Killeen Texas (816) 523-6373 - Kansas City Missouri (480) 969-6373 – Mesa Arizona (405) 748-6373 - Oklahoma City Oklahoma (416) 630-6373 - Toronto Canada (866) 451-0588 - Fax

Jonah, Your comment was for the most part well thought out, and although it slips and slides around somewhat, it does offer a welcome break. Unlike yourself, before reading his posts here, I'd never heard of Richard Ackerman, much less the allegations you assert; and your strange Woodward & Bernstein/Deep Throat analogy escapes me, as do your presumptuous and inconsequential assertions about Magedson that precede it. However, I do have some questions. You ask, "Why aren't you complaining about the Fox News story that came out?" THE Fox news story? WHAT Fox news story? I have no clue what "Fox news story" you are referring to. In fact, I don't even watch Fox News. Please fill me in. When and where did it air? Did it air nationally? What was it about? Was there a follow-up to it? Who was the reporter? An investigative reporter? Again, please fill me in. I'd like to look into it, learn more about it. Near the end of your post you say, "There are many other 'consumer' sites and I don't think they are in Federal court 'accused' of extortion." Your inference is that Ed Magedson is a defendant in a current Federal court case pertaining to the ripoffreport website with the charge of extortion having been leveled against him. I could be wrong, but I thought extortion was a criminal, not a civil, matter. Nevertheless, this is another matter I'd like to learn more about. Can you provide the case number, date of filing and what Federal District Court is adjudicating the case? I'd like to read the pleadings, particularly the extortion claim. More than anything, it is your first paragraph that is intriguing. It begins, "We have viewed your comments with interest too Tina." Why did you use the pronoun "we" here? (Further down in your post, you say, "I assure you more stories are going to come out and you will have your hands full trying to spin those.") Because your first paragraph then circuitously defends "Sarah's story" in the context of being some kind of overseer of the paper, the reader here is led to believe that you might be speaking from the position of being in an executive capacity with New Times or Village Voice (for example, Michael Lacey, Jim Larkin, Scott Tobias) just using the handle "Jonah." Are you? Or do you use "We" here to indicate you are closely aligned with ripoffreport's adversaries (e.g., those named and quoted in the New Times story) and you all collectively "have viewed Tina's comments with interest"? Or is "We" simply the "royal we" used by some for snob appeal and interchangeable with "I"? Is there some significance to your use of "We" instead of "I"? Amazingly, you go on to say, "It seems there is really no dispute over the content of Sarah's story, just the agenda behind it." Where have you been? Your statement stems either from ignorance or dishonesty. All you need do is scroll up to comment # 13, posted by a New Times writer who indicated he was one of many New Times writers in receipt of three BCC emails addressed to Phoenix New Times writer Ray Stern. (Magedson was responding to Stern's request for assistance with an article he was writing, and Magedson let it all hang out, detail after detail, point after point, on what Fenske knew and did NOT report to rebut the statements made by Magedson's adversaries in her New Times story on ripoffreport and Magedson.) At any rate, as you can see, that New Times writer posted the Magedson emails addressed to Stern, which you can read for yourself, right here. It was not Magedson who posted his letters to Stern, it was the party who received them. When I first read Fenske's story, having had no preconceived notions from anyone about it, I thought "Something is wrong here." Yes, there was balanced fluff: pink fluff and lime fluff. Yet she glossed over the identities of ripoffreport's strongest accusatory adversaries with whom she was in contact and did not name their companies or clients that consumers had supposedly written complaints about on the website. Her choice of derogatory adverbs and adjectives, with nothing to back them up, was also prevalent in her writing. At the time, I had no clue about anybody's "agenda behind it." My gut feel about her lopsided story, was later reinforced in the post by that other New Times writer (comment # 13) when he said, "I also determined that Fenske made no effort to contact Magedson for his reponses to the charges in Fenske's article, which is a flagrant violation of the ethical guidelines for journalism, although she did contact him to discuss other matters." You then say, "I am not clear why you would object so strongly, this is after all the freedom of the press and in this case there were editorial controls." In my previous posts here (comments 15, 21, 26 and 28) I didn't think I came across as "objecting so strongly" to the contents of Fenske's story. Rather I questioned other posters' comments on matters other than the Fenske story itself. However, my first reaction after reading the story, for the reasons stated above, was that there were little or no "editorial controls" and that it was not respectable journalism. You end that first paragraph with, "It appears Mr. Magedson had full access in the interview as did some of his Corporate Advocacy Program clients who seem to refrain from entering this debate." The Fenske article described "the interview" as a meeting with Magedson for lunch at a restaurant called Chompie's that lasted a few hours. Surely if there were also Corporate Advocacy Program members present, she would have mentioned it in her article or he would have mentioned it in his detailed letter of complaint to Ray Stern. It's unclear what you mean by having "full access in the interview." Full access to what? An interview is an interview. Both Fenske and Magedson say that Fenske contacted Corporate Advocacy Program members, with no negative reports from program members. So where's the story? As I read Magedson's letter to Stern, his big gripe was that Fenske misled readers into believing his CAP was something that it was not. Other comments in your post pertaining to paranoia, personality disorders, certainly an obsessive fixation on a particular person exhibited in many of these posts here, and other behavioral abnormalities might be worth discussing at another time.

In one way I would like to thank rip off report for exposing groups like Kim Lurie's, Monica Getz', John Rubin, Debbie Blangiardo, The Coalition for Family Justice, Carl Lanzisera, Americans for Legal Reform and the Alliance to Restore Integrity in Divorce. They make money off people's suffering. They give them crazy advice and I cannot tell you how many people lost custody and or visitation of their children and declared bankruptcy and lost everything in Court. In another way it is not fair, as only the real lunatics, without a job that live off their parents, and have borderline personality disorder and a criminal record will post outrageous and crazy things that will impugn a good person's reputation, especially if the good person exposed the Con Artists in these groups. So I am on the fence about rip off.

I am writing because I was asked to give Ed M $3,000.00 up front, and $1,000.00 per month to have the stuff removed. And Defend My Name asked for a similar amount. It seems like a lot of money to get rid of a post by a crazy person with borderline personality disorder who is using the posts of get out of paying her bills. Finally, her trustee in bankruptcy was featured on the news as being tough on FRAUD. Oh and obviously because Ed is not posting the ripoff's about Carl Lanzisera, Americans for Legal Reform, Kim Lurie, Monica Getz, John Rubin, the Coalition for Family Justice, he must be receiving money $$$$$$$ from them. (Money that members donate in a "tax free" manner", Anyone who went to these groups has been screwed up in Court or lost custody of their children because they go over the edge with their demands and nonsense.

Can'tsay much for Magedson's tactics, but he's got one thing right: The "Better Business Bureau" is a membership organization, not an advocacy group, with their own worrysome issues. Here's a local headline discussing the issue, along with a link. ---------- Michigan City resident out nearly $50,000 after Better Business Bureau reneges on lease agreement http://www.heraldargus.com/archives/ha/front_photo.cgi?prcss=display&id=377469 ---------- Whatever else Magedson's got going on, he should get Props for exposing the BBB.

I periodically check the comments here, awaiting a reply from Jonah to my questions of August 23. It's been three weeks, certainly longer than 3 days, so I assume Jonah was simply unable to be extricated from the belly of the big fish to account for himself. Meanwhile, Lena and Laura have posted comments pertaining to matters which apparently have something to do with parental custody and visitation rights for children in divorce settlements. The specifics are unclear, but I gather that since Lena named eight "groups" that must somehow involve themselves or misrepresent their "services" in disputes of this kind, that Lena might be a general "watchdog" in these matters, more than just one aggrieved parent who supposedly came out on the short end of a dispute. She commends the host Rip-off Report website for having made it possible for people to air their grievances about the eight groups she names, which she says, "make money off people's suffering" and "impugn a good person's reputation." Laura repeats Lena's terminology about somebody or some people having a "borderline personality disorder" and says that "anyone who went to these groups has been screwed up in Court or lost custody of their children because they go over the edge with their demands and nonsense." However, the beginning statement of Laura's post is a falsehood and flies in the face of logic. She says, "I am writing because I was asked to give Ed M $3,000 up front, and $1,000 per month to have the stuff removed." (She must be referring to posts on Rip-Off Report by others that maligned her in some matter, and if this was the case, I assume Laura certainly must have posted rebuttals to the negative remarks and claims posted about her.) At any rate, Laura has obviously mixed up Ed Magedson of Rip-Off Report with one of those get-rich-quick "reputation defending" companies that have sprouted up, such as DefendMyName, Complaintremover, DefamationAction and probably half a dozen others. It's even alluded to in this lopsided story by Sarah Fenske, that Ed Magedson has not lost lawsuits. And those costly lawsuits are filed against HIM by misguided or unethical people and companies, with sometimes unscrupulous lawyers, who DEMAND he remove negative reports filed against them or their companies. It doesn't work because he is merely the host of the website, as are hosts of other consumer webites, and is protected by the Communications Decency Act. He simply will not remove reports for anybody at any cost, not even his Corporate Advocacy Program members who must make good with their customers or clients. It is not logical that he would spend probably hundreds of thousands of dollars defending lawsuits by threatening, well-heeled bullies (which is ultimately returned to him when they lose and have to pay his legal fees) to NOT remove a report, and then say to Laura that $3,000 and $1,000 a month will do the trick to have a report removed. Maybe Laura could reveal WHO asked her "to give Ed M $3,000 up front, and $1,000 per month to have the stuff removed."

This is for Laura and Lena: I'm not a regular reader of New Times, and a couple days after posting my inquiries to Jonah (above), I ran across this letter to the editor I'd never seen before while idly googling names and issues on the Internet. It was gratifying to me, seeing as how Ed Magedson's attorney here had posed two of the same issues that I did when I first read the story. ____________________________________________________________________ LETTERS FROM THE ISSUE OF MARCH 8, 2007 After reviewing your article ("The Real Rip-off Report," Sarah Fenske, February 1), I feel that it is important to point out two important aspects of the story that you failed to address. We fully understand that your job includes making difficult decisions regarding what to include and what to not include in the space that you have. However, as to these two aspects that I address below, we feel strongly that their absence in the story affects the integrity of the story. The first and most important missing aspect is a description of how the Corporate Advocacy Program works. This failure to describe the program was particularly disconcerting in light of the accusations that the program constitutes extortion. A description of the program can be found at http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff167471.htm. The core of the program is that the business must commit to complete customer satisfaction, including providing refunds. The program is a win-win-win. The consumer benefits because the company commits to address the past and future complaints to the satisfaction of its customers. The company benefits because the complaints posted about the company are investigated and updated to reflect the company's commitment to resolve it or to expose the falsity of the report when applicable. Rip-Off Report is compensated for the time and effort spent on investigating the company, contacting the authors of the reports and updating the reports. The second important oversight was not disclosing the names of the companies who falsely accuse [RipOffReport.com creator] Ed Magedson of extortion. Readers who are evaluating these allegations might want to investigate the companies represented by those making the allegations. Steve Miller [one of Magedson's most outspoken critics] is the principal of Federated Financial Services Credit Counseling Corporation, a non-profit whose address is in the same building as a for-profit called Federated Financial Services, Inc., which is in the same building as a non-profit called Federated Financial Debt Management Group, Inc., which is in the same building as a for-profit called Federated Consumer Counseling Institute, Inc., which is in the same building as a non-profit corporation known as Federated Financial Counseling Services, Inc. Christopher Sharp [who criticizes Magedson in Fenske's story] is the attorney for Whitney Information Network — run by Russ Whitney. Whitney Information Network is the subject of a securities law class action and an SEC investigation. Also, Ed Magedson does not understand why you never mentioned the thousands of thank-you e-mails he receives and his work with the FBI, FTC, Homeland Security, U.S. Postal inspectors, attorneys general from more than 20 states, the IRS, the Justice Department, and local authorities all over the U.S. Maria Crimi Speth, Ed Magedson´s attorney, Phoenix

We have been running a test for months now on Ed. He removes certain reports. We have been trying to pin point who he removes them for. We have also been investigating why on Google certain persons go straight to the report, others to the search results, and then others do not appear. We have also been investigating who backs him. If he is going to remove a report for one, then he should do it for all. I think you have it wrong about investigations.

Hello TINA a/k/a ED MAGEDSON, In the past weeks, we have seen you remove a report about a business person seeking "for profit business" for a not for profit groups and having scammed others on EBAY!!!! We are writing a book about how unfair and injust you are and how your "alleged" concern for CONSUMERS is the real RIPOFF> Why did you remove if you are not getting paid?? Do you only remove for friends???? Where do you bank???? Who funds you???? Why not disclose this information if you Ed Magedson are legitimate???? ED MAGEDSON, You remove ripoffs as long as the ALMIGHTY BUCK IS IN YOUR POCKET!!!!!!

I filed this report about this person on RIPOFF, Ed Magedson took it off ; Is this not worthy of RIPOFF? Appears to be a scam to me and very involved. ED MAGEDSON a/k/a TIna who are your contacts??? Who is funding you??? eBay seller Dina Elardo (Dina Elardo continues to do business on eBay with a different email address. Her feedbacks have been returned to public view, but eBay has deleted my ... www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/ebay.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

We have been trying to understand more about ripoffreport also. Mainly what the deal is with the 'volunteer' part of the site. One can click on this from the front page. Ripoffreport asks people to volunteer for them, to go out and find ripoffs then write them up on the site. It says, that if the ripoff is good enough they will be compensated for their time. What is that all about? What do they mean by good enough? How much are they paid? Do they try to avoid responsibility for whats posted that way? Would that change if the person doing the reporting was on their payroll? How would anyone figure this out since the site privately owned and immune from lawsuits (so they say)? I would have a lot of trust in that arrangement. I don't know if/how class action la