Archive for November, 2013|Monthly archive page

SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JUSTIN ARMSDEN, Journalist of A Current Affair – Victim of Ripoff Report

In Internet defamation, Redacted Revolt on November 8, 2013 at 9:11 am

BACKGROUND: is an infamous and discredited website used by anti-social trouble makers to defame individuals and businesses

JUSTIN ARMSDEN, Journalist of A Current Affair - Response to False Ripoff Report JUSTIN ARMSDEN of A Current Affair has not yet posted a response to the flaming aspersions Cast Against him on, presumably posted by convicted criminal and serial conman Peter Foster, of whom Justin scrutinized, reported and warned the public.
Conspicuous by its timing was another Ripoff Report accusing Justice John Logan RFD, the Judge who sentenced Foster, on the very same day.
This appalling website is a good argument for a national firewall, if we can find a balance for reasonable censorship.
“And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects…”

Renowned Journalist John Seigenthaler.

RipOffReport Victims Follow us on Twitter:

Join us on Facebook:


In Google's Omnipotence, Internet defamation on November 4, 2013 at 1:57 pm
NOTE: I am not an attorney, so do not act or refrain from acting on anything herein without first consulting an attorney. However, I do know right from wrong, and I know that Google’s refusal to remove defamatory search results in order to sell more AdWords is very, very wrong.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Roberts
Internet Victim’s Advocate, Forensic Analyst and Litigation Support Consultant
Licensed Private Investigator # 3589109
Journalist # A 10450 LAPC

Suppress Defamatory Search Results– Simply enter the search phrases that display unfavorable results in Google Search and choose your country:


New Legal Theory on Google’s Liability for Defamation:

Google claims it is immune to defamation liability in the USA due to Section 230C of the Communications Decency Act. I humbly submit that there is an Achilles Heel within that law for Google, and it is all about the definition of the word “INFORMATION”, as it is used in the 230C law.

Below is my respectful suggestions for any USA residents who are being defamed by Google. Non-USA residents can also sample the text and use it to demolish any defenses Google may have for “innocent dissemination”, which they often use in Common Law countries, such as Australia & The UK.

This is an open source work, feel free to use it as you see fit, you do not need to give me any credit, although a back link would be appreciated. Respectful and constructive suggestions and criticisms are welcomed.

If you are a lawyer, I would assume you can improve on this unartful attempt on my part to bridle this silicon valley Giant. I would appreciate it if you sent me your improvements so this post can improve in quality over time.

Important Legal Disclaimer:

  1. Google, Inc. (“Google”) is an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), and is a California corporation that does business internationally, including (insert your jurisdiction).
  2. “DON’T BE EVIL” was or is Google’s unofficial corporate motto.
  3. Google has demonstrated clear market share domination of for searches conducted on the Internet in the United States and beyond.
  4. A Google Rich Snippet construct  (“Google Snippet Construct”) is displayed along with nine (9)[1] additional and diverse Google Snippet Constructs on any given Google Search Results Page (“GSRP”)
  5.  A Google Snippet Construct is a small extract from information provided by another information content provider.
  6.  Furthermore, a Google Snippet Construct is published by Google on a GSRP; usually as two lines of text.
  7. A Google Snippet Construct is extracted either (a) arbitrarily and/or (b) algorithmically extracted, out of the fuller context, from information provided by another information content provider.
  8. A Google Snippet Construct is reconstituted on a GSRP at Google’s sole discretion and control.
  9. A single Google Snippet Construct as presented in a GSRP with the nine (9) other aforementioned Google Snippet Constructs is a new context because of the absence of all balance of the original ‘information’, and because of the introduction of the nine (9) other Google Snippet Constructs.
  10. Google Snippet Construct constitutes new information because the reconstruction process is attributed entirely to Google which “is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [this new] information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service”.[2]
  11. Google’s presumed immunity to liability for defamation pursuant to part (C) of §230 of the U.S Communications Decency Act (“§230”) does not apply because §230(c)(1)’s contextual reference to “information” as literally defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary is: “Something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture), which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct.”[3]
  12. The legislative intent of §230(c) is to ensure that an ISP is not held liable on account of—:”any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
  13. The United States Congress’ clear intent for §230(c) is evidenced by the reference to the “Good Samaritan” character from Jesus Christ’s parable[4]of the same name in the section heading for §230(c) as follows:”Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material”
  14. The use of the quote punctuation for “Good Samaritan” in the heading for §230(c) was by the U.S Congress, the quote leaves no doubt as the Congresses intent because the biblical “Good Samaritan” did not turn his back on the victim of assault; furthermore, the character used his own financial resources to restore the victim.
  15. Google’s cookie-cutter template response, which denies good faith requests by injured parties for removal of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected material, is clearly in diametric opposition to the intent of the Congress’ intent for the immunity provisions.
  16. Based on fact and belief, Google has received tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of requests from parties lightly, moderately and severely injured by the false, malicious and defamatory Google Snippet Constructs created or developed in whole or in part by Google and then provided through the Internet or [any] other interactive computer service[s]”.
  17. Numerous suicides have been attributed in whole or in part to Google’s creation of Snippet Constructs.
  18. Google has publicly indicated that Snippet Constructs have deficiencies:“Google tries to present users with the most useful and informative search results. The more information a search result snippet can provide, the easier it is for users to decide whether that page is relevant to their search.[5]
  19. Google’s humiliation algorithm is imperfect in that it cannot intuit moral intent through mathematical analysis, ergo,  by elevating inaccurate humiliating search results, Google is causing injury to the subjects of the inaccurate allegations in clear breach of established duty of care responsibilities.
  20. Google’s Search Engine Algorithm “ALGO” is secret and proprietary.
  21. Google does not publish the technical details of its ALGO for public, peer, academic or professional scrutiny, review or inspection.
  22. Based on fact and belief Google has made provisions in its ALGO which cause otherwise low Google Search Result Rankings (“GSRR”) for content containing demeaning or derogatory words or phrases which are found in close proximity to proper nouns such as an individual’s name or an organization’s name, trademark or brand (hereinafter referred to as “Humility Algorithm”).
  23. Snippet Constructs from Humility Algorithm search results have a tendency to display the demeaning or derogatory Humility Algorithm Keyword “Humility Modifiers” over snippets that contain less inflammatory keywords.
  24. Google benefits financially through advertising revenue as a result of the humiliation algorithm, at the expense of its defamation victims, because the elevation of defamatory results repulses Google users from the person or business they originally sought, and diverts them, in many instances, to the victim’s competitors by way of AdWords displayed next to the search results.

[1] Customarily ten results are displayed per page.

[2] As defined by §230(f)(3)

[3] Definition# 2.C(2) @ at the time of drafting.

Contact Michael Roberts

Michael Roberts Google+

SMEAR CAMPAIGN against Justice George Fryberg, Supreme Court of Queensland

In Internet defamation on November 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm

The Supreme Court of Queensland’s Justice George Fryberg [Australia] has had flaming aspersions leveled against him through the notorious website, and republished on the sloppy, “scraped content” site, zoominfo.comKeep in mind, if Google didn’t elevate this tripe to page 1 of its search results, it may as well not exist, as not many people woul find it.

Bear in mind that Google’s shares are now worth over $1,000.00 each, this has been subsidized by the United States Congress giving Google immunity to libel people for  profit. The horrible law that allows this tribe to be found globally via Google  is ironically called, “Section 230C of the, Communications Decency Act”. This 4 minute video explains why it needs to be changed or repealed:

This 9 minute video explains how Google profits from defaming people with immunity:

It should be noted that Google can be sued in Australia and other countries for Internet defamation. But, they have deep pockets…

ABC’s Media Watch made mention of Michael Trkulja’s win against Google. Although Trkulja won his case, Google are still saying they are under US law even though they used to place Australian advertisements on websites serving Australian internet users. Just recently our boycott team caused Google to remove all its ads from another notorious website,, if the visitors to that website are from Australian IP address.

The US law defence is the subject of legal argument in a South Australian court on Dec 16, 2013 (Dr. Janice Duffy vs Google). It appears counsel for Dr. Duffy has really put Google on the spot.

More info at:

Respectfully Submitted by:

Michael Roberts

Licensed Private Investigator # 3589109

Brisbane Australia
Internet Victim’s Advocate, Forensic Analyst and Litigation Support Consultant

+1-408-916-5977 USA
+44 (0) 20 3286 3377 United Kingdom
+358 9 2316 9888 Europe
+61 (0) 73040 2223 Australia
“mrrexx777” Skype

– See more at:

Victims’ Impact Survey Defamation James McGibney CEO ViaView, Inc

In, Internet defamation on November 3, 2013 at 6:52 am

If you are a victim of extortion, defamation or any other type of civil or criminal wrongdoing related to postings on the website, then please complete this victim’s impact statement/survey. The results will be used in an attempt to persuade Google and other search engines to the index the website from the search results, as well as helping US Congressman and women to understand why section 230 C of the communications decency act needs to be changed. At the moment, that faulty law gives immunity to website operators that publish or republish defamation.

Defamation is an injury, and at the moment, for the most part, Internet defamation is an injury for which there is no relief for the victims because of this faulty law in the United States.

Wait for the online survey to load.

Can I REMOVE Libel from Search Results?

In Internet defamation on November 3, 2013 at 6:48 am
We are aware of CheaterVille charging a victim to remove a report in the past, it appears they have changed policy and only remove a report with a court order. This appears noble at first, but bear in mind that each Cheater Ville page, whether it is true or false, is woven with ads. This is how the site makes money at the expense of its victims.The following text is a direct quote from their FAQ page on Nov 02, 2013:

“Does CheaterVille make money off of removing its posts? That is, can I
pay you to take down a post about me?

No. You may not pay us to take down a post about you. We would not take down a post for any amount of money. You can offer us $1,000, $2,000, $10 ,000 or $100,000. We do not remove posts simply upon demand, request, nor as a result of threats, cajoling, or assertions of liability. We only remove posts if ordered to do so by a court order or an arbitrator.


So, how much does it cost to get a court order?

Answer: Lots! Probably at least $5,000.00 in legal fees if the law suit is uncontested, much more if it is.

Alternatives to a Court Order:

– See more at:

REMOVE Bad Boy Report Posts from Google Search Results

In BadBoyReport, Internet defamation on November 3, 2013 at 4:57 am

You may submit a request to remove ANY search result from the first page of Google, within weeks by completing the steps on this page:

Feeding the Pig?

Free BadBoyReport Removal Help at

Alternatively you can spend hundreds, or thousands of dollars each month with an online reputation management company, also called search engine optimization, to try and bury the results from page 1 of Google and other search engines. This is probably “feeding the pig”. You’ll keep on spending money suppressing the negative results, but when you stop spending the money it will eventually pop up again.

Ideally, the U.S. Congress should change section 230C of the Communications Decency Act which allows websites to republish defamation with immunity from liability such as defamation, extortion etc. The only remedy here is to force Congress to act and either repeal, or significantly amend this flawed law. You can do that by writing to your congress person if you are a US citizen.

More information on section 230 see the communications decency act and its foolish applications.

Shout Louder than your Defamers!

A third option is to simply “shout louder” than the people defaming you. Try to post one

– See more at:

BadBoyReport, Blackmail & “Cadillacer”

In BadBoyReport, Removing Search Results on November 3, 2013 at 3:01 am

You may submit a request to remove ANY search result from the first page of Google, within weeks by completing the steps on this page:

Now, about BadBoyReport.

“Cadillacer” is In all probability, not an individual.  It appears that Cadillacer is a bot (robot) that scrapes personal information from the online sources and then  reconstitutes that information with  flaming aspersions of wrongdoing against victims.  it has been suggested by some that this is part of an Internet extortion scheme.

On Nov 02, 2013, there were more than 80,000 results returned for a Google search for the exact phrase “posted by cadillacer”. this incredible number of postings is the main evidence supporting the guess that it is a robot rather than a real person. Alternatively, it could be a group of individuals in an organized “Boiler Room” operation.

Try the search yourself:

The Cadillac user name is a central element of an Internet shakedown scheme involving the website (recently changed from, presumably due to litigation with a similar website in the United States) that  suggests a $9,999.00 “donation” if a victim wishes to have the defamatory allegations deleted from the website, and  as a consequence also disappearing from Google search results. It is likely that the operators of the scheme will do a “find and replace” and  randomize the Cadillacer user name so that the scheme is not so obvious in the future. The 80,000+ results have been memorialized with the following screen shot taken on Nov 02,2013:


Who Is Cadillacer of Bad Boy Report?

Who Is Cadillacer of Bad Boy Report?

How to mitigate this defamation?

Step 1: Remove it!

Ask the team to remove BadBoyReport from the first page of Google withing weeks.

Step 2: Shout Louder

The following is an effective short term damage control provision. You can give your associates comfort in knowing that you are a victim, not a perpetrator, by publishing an Authorized Statement on page 1 of Google. If Google and the other search engines eventually remove from their respective search results, you can then delete your Authorized Statement or use it for another purpose.

Publish an Authorized Statement Here

Step 2: Report a Crime

If you are a victim of this defamation and extortion, you should report it to the FBI if you are in the USA, or to your cyber crime police in other countries. (keep in mind that only about 6% of cyber crimes are actually investigated in most countries)

Make an IC3 crime report here.