Introductory Video - How You Can Help Fight Ripoff Report

Video: EXPOSED: RipOffReport.com & Why It Appears Page 1 of Google 





If you would like to help join the fight against Ripoff Report, here's what you can do. Visit these groups and petitions against Ripoff Report and its abusive unethical practices of extortion, and make your voice heard. Together we can make a difference.

http://www.rexxfield.com/RipOffReport-com-Victims-Support-Group.php
http://www.facebook.com/RipOffReportRevolt
http://www.facebook.com/badforpeople
http://twitter.com/Rexxfield





Monday, February 9, 2015

Request Removal of Ripoffreport from Google (Form)

Simply enter the search phrases that display unfavorable results in Google Search:
Results begin to take effect within 2-3 weeks.

DISCLOSURE: This is a commercial service designed for business customers to help reduce lost sales due to online defamation.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Remove Defamatory Results From Google - New Solution fort Ripoff Report Problems

The following is a service that guarantees to remove Ripoffreport.com from Google Search Results.

Get a free quote here:

WWW.PAGE1.ME

The following graphs are actual client results for August 2014:

http://page1.me

Friday, March 28, 2014

Google Blocks RipOffReport.com for having "Unacceptable Business Practices"




Read More below

Rexxfield Internet Law Research has published a short 3 minute video demonstrating how the Google AdWords® business unit has banned advertising for RipOffReport.com due to "Unacceptable Business Practices". The findings give rise to other questions however:

(1) Why does Google Search business unit hold RipOffReport.com in such high regard by giving it such high search rankings and;

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

Saturday, February 16, 2013

How You Can Help Fight Ripoff Report: Groups and Petitions

Video: EXPOSED: RipOffReport.com & Why It Appears Page 1 of Google 





If you would like to help join the fight against Ripoff Report, here's what you can do. Visit these groups and petitions against Ripoff Report and its abusive unethical practices of extortion, and make your voice heard. Together we can make a difference.

http://www.rexxfield.com/RipOffReport-com-Victims-Support-Group.php
http://www.facebook.com/RipOffReportRevolt
http://www.facebook.com/badforpeople
http://twitter.com/Rexxfield





Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Can I REMOVE BadBoyReport Defamation from Search Results?

The answer is yes, sometimes. But there may be a hard road ahead of you.

There been a few suggestions as to different ways you can mitigate the damage being done to you by  the bad boy report website at the following location:


See more at:
http://authorizedstatement.org/BadBoyReport.kr/who-is-Cadillacer/how-to-remove-Bad-Boy-Report.php

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Ed Magedson is a Criminal Extortionist and Scammer! Total Proof!

Ed Magedson, the criminal extortionist behind RipoffReport.com

This is a warning for anyone out there who is considering becoming involved with Ed Magedson of RipoffReport.com or posting on it. He is a SCAMMER and EXTORTIONIST and I have total proof below. (Note: I will NOT remove this site exposing him until he removes MY posts from his site as I asked him to)

Basically, he set up RipoffReport.com to EXTORT money from people unethically. When someone posts a complaint, it can never be removed, even if the poster requests or demands it. Instead, they are referred to an arbitration program that costs thousands of dollars! That is pure extortion. There is no logical reason to ask a poster to pay thousands of dollars just to remove his own post on a website. Legitimate sites allow the poster to remove their own posts, or will gladly remove it per their request.

Anyone can put up a site and demand extortion. But it's highly unethical and an obvious scam. And it's a loser way to make money as well. Such people have no ethics, conscience, morals and are sociopaths and criminals. That's exactly what Ed Magedson is.

I emailed RipoffReport asking them to remove my reports at:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/misc-health-specialists/diagnose-me-com-by-s/diagnose-me-com-by-stefan-muth-325de.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/on-line-business/diagnose-me-com-by-s/diagnose-me-com-by-stefan-muth-nc4b4.htm

They did not respond. Instead, they expect you to pay thousands for their arbitration program. Here is how it works, according to their site. Note the part in bold.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/remove-a-report/vip-arbitration-program/ed-magedson-explains-7ad2e.htm

"Here's how it works. We have contracted with private arbitrators who have extensive experience, including experienced judges in court. Once the program builds momentum, we will add other highly qualified arbitrators to our panel. You submit a written arbitration statement identifying the false statements in the report, or explaining that the report was posted by a competitor pretending to be a customer. You are also given the opportunity to support your position with documented evidence and/or sworn affidavits. There is a filing fee of $2,000 to pay for the arbitrator's time and for administration of the program. The author of the report is then given the opportunity to respond and you are given the opportunity to reply."

$2,000 just to remove a post that takes seconds to delete?! What a RIPOFF! (pardon the pun) This guy Ed Magedson is dreaming. What low class scum.

Furthermore, take a look at his totally illogical explanation and excuse about why he won't remove any reports on his site at the author's request.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx

"If I get the original author of a report to send a retraction demand, will Ripoff Report remove the complaint?

We are ALWAYS happy to hear that a dispute has been resolved! If you reach an agreement to resolve a complaint and the original author is willing to retract his/her report, they can easily post the retraction as an update to their report. This is 100% free and it will let the world know that the matter has been handled to the customer's satisfaction. We are always happy to hear about parties resolving their disputes amicably and we strongly encourage authors to post updates any time their complaints have been satisfied.
However, we cannot and will not consider removal requests from anyone, including a request which claims to be from the original author of a report. The reasons for this are explained above, but to summarize them again, we cannot determine which side to a dispute is telling the truth. Although our Terms of Service prohibit users from posting false information, we simply cannot serve as the judge or jury in disputes between two parties. Likewise, if we receive an email from someone claiming to be the author of a report and asking that it be removed, we have no way of knowing if this request is really from the original author, nor do we know if the request is seeking the removal of truthful information solely because of a threat from the person listed in the report."

This makes NO LOGICAL SENSE at all. You can easily verify the author of a report simply by either 1) letting them delete their own posts by LOGGING IN to their account first (like legitimate websites do), or 2) verifying that the email address from the author matches the email on the account of the author. It's that simple! Every other legitimate site works that way. Are we to believe that Ed Magedson has no common sense or understanding of how forums and websites work?! Yeah right.

Even on internet forums, a poster can delete his own post by simply doing it from their account. No one has to email the forum admin or moderator from an anonymous email asking their post to be removed. Magedson's explanation is stupid and an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

Moreover, Magedson states on his site that he believes in the First Amendment and that anyone should be allowed to say anything about another person or company, so long as the accused is allowed to respond by posting a rebuttal. Well if that's so, then why doesn't he apply that standard to himself, and allow users to post negative reports about him and his site on RipoffReport.com, so long as he is allowed to respond to them too? Why does he not allow that? If one truly believes in something, then one will apply it to himself or herself as well. So the fact that Magedson doesn't, is self-evident proof that he is a HYPOCRITE.

Finally, for some damning and incriminating info about Ed Magedson, see this website about his criminal activities, arrests (with scanned documents and police reports) and $20,000 reward offered for his whereabouts so that he can be served in court.

http://www.ezripofflawsuit.com

The obvious truth is that Ed Magedson is a criminal extortion scammer and a low scum, not that he can't verify who the author of a report is.

So now that I've exposed Magedson and his scam operation, I formally declare that I will NOT remove this site exposing him until he removes MY own reports per my request from his site at the links above.

So if you are seeing this page, then it means that he has not removed them yet.

To Ed Magedson: When you remove my reports, post a notification in the comments section below, and I will check it and if it has been removed, then I will remove this site as well. I hope you will cooperate and find a more ethical way to earn money.

Warning to Ed Magedson: If you do not remove my report as I requested, I will post a copy of this report about you on ScamChecker.com. Once there, it CANNOT be removed, EVER, even at my request! Furthermore, I will also create blogs about you on Blogger and Wordpress, containing this report, which will rank very high in the search engines! So do the right thing and remove my report on your site, and we will be all clear.


Thanks. I await your compliance and cooperation.

Sincerely,
Winston

Links:
http://ed-magedson.blogspot.com
http://ripoffreport-scam.blogspot.com
http://edmagedsonscam.wordpress.com
http://ripoffreportscam.wordpress.com

Thursday, September 2, 2010

CAUGHT: Reporter DANIEL GLICK Exposed by Licensed Private Detective


BUSTED! JOURNALIST DANIEL GLICK EXPOSED BY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. "Because the truth isn't always profitable" - The Story Group Ethics Alert Author

By Michael Roberts of Rexxfield


PRIVATER INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ROBERTS’ RESPONDS TO INACCURATE ARTICLE, “I MARRIED A MURDERESS,” PUBLISHED ON APRIL 20, 2013 IN THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

"Although it is somewhat torturous to read, Michael's logical analysis of Glick's article is a masterpiece."

~JBS

How this response works:

Text displayed in BLACK or RED is the original story as published (after the article title below). The BLACK text is content that does not require a response; RED text represents Glick’s lies, spin or innuendo for which a response is demanded.

NOTE: To avoid confusion, the article excerpts are all italicized and indented just like this, with challenged excerpts in red.

Text displayed in BLUE express my response to each published lie.

This is just the first example of a lie by Reporter Daniel Glick. The comprehensive explanation is available here: Reporter Daniel Glick Embarrassed by logical colonoscopy of his inaccurate attack piece by private investigator.

Response to: “I MARRIED A MURDERESS” by Daniel Glick

Published Date April 20, 2013 Sydney Morning Herald

On the surface, it's a straightforward enough scenario: an Aussie dad locked in an international custody battle with his homicidal American ex-wife. But as Daniel Glick discovers, the truth is a whole lot murkier.

A combination of logical fallacies were used by journalist Daniel Glick in the above article summary as described below:

(1)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO
a.      APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo. The structure of the fallacious argument looks like this:

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.      Michael Roberts is somehow suspect, even though Daniel Glick does not make (or justify) a direct statement of accusation.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.      The innuendo has no supporting evidence except for other logical fallacies such as an appeal to authority, and guilt by association.
b.     Whereas, I implicitly told Daniel Glick during the interview that "the truth behind the story is incredibly convoluted". Daniel Glick's use of the word "discovers” implies that he is responsible for his revelations. Whereas, he did not discover the truth, he simply verified my contention that the case is convoluted (i.e. "Murkier").
c.      MOTIVE: Daniel Glick needs the reader and his editor to believe that he discovered something new to validate his status as an "Investigative Journalist" and to justify the fee paid to him for the story.

(2)  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
a.      AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it is argued that something is true; because someone of authority (like an investigative journalist) says it is true.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.      Daniel Glick says X is true
b.     Daniel Glick is an authoritative source
c.      So X must be true

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.      Daniel Glick and his Editor Ben Naparstek have, according to evidence published by peers, demonstrated a propensity to publish lies and what peers describe as “hatchet pieces” and/or “inaccurate attack pieces”

(3)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY
a.      AN ASSOCIATION FALLACY is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring, which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. It is sometimes referred to as guilt by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.      Michael is associated with the Richter Murder case
b.     Michael is also associated with the Zuckerman case, which is “murky”
c.      Therefore, Michael’s character must be murky.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.      What is true of one thing is not necessarily true of the other.