Posts Tagged ‘defamation’

Carmelo Cerrelli ‘s Guidance for Managing Web Based Defamation – Carmelo Cerrelli

In Internet Defamation Victims List on August 15, 2016 at 2:17 am

Carmelo Cerrelli’s Guidance for Surviving Internet Harassment

Carmelo Cerrelli has been struggling with a malicious, unrelenting, Web libel campaign.

Carmelo Cerrelli’s accuser has targeted him to tarnish his reputation without reason, and alleged that he is guilty of nasty things that do not deserve repeating.

Yet, Carmelo Cerrelli has learned a great deal through the ordeal, & has graciously made it possible for us to share this enlightenment openly in order that other victims who are subjected to the rage of an online troll, as Carmelo Cerrelli has , could be much better equipped.


Carmelo Cerrelli 's Guidance for Surviving Internet Harassment

Carmelo Cerrelli ‘s Guidance for Surviving Internet Harassment

When you find a concocted accusation posted about you or your business, it is okay to respond with a persuasive counterclaim in a timely manner, but keep it polite. The slanders facing you are a kind of psychological combat; you may win or lose the hearts of your hoped-for patrons, depending on how you answer. NOTE: Merely publish a single answer on the actual gripe internet-site, if you don’t the complaint will likely obtain higher Search engine standings. You will demonstrate to the audience that the lack of successive responses is not proof of guilt, by kicking off your single response with something along these lines:

“I will not engage an on-going discussion on this web page, it will likely whip up further hatred from my unethical competitor (or other relevant summary). Nevertheless, I do respectfully tender this single reply for the benefit of my clienteles’ assurance”


  1. DO NOT respond to aged articles on the problem page, or you can simply increase their search engine ranking, Google is crazy about dispute, & grants more weight to ongoing topics. The best action in such cases is no action, just allow old articles drop off.
  2. Don’t be overly defensive, do not forget Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” that is a quote from the 1600s stage play Hamlet.It is used as a figure of speech, , to represent someone’s too frequent and eager attempts to persuade other people of some issue, as a result making him or herself appear defensive, and insincere.
  3. DON’T identify your defamer. Utilise 3rd person terms including “he” or “she”. If you use their name or business name, you will probably anger these people even more. Moreover, it appears cheesy and vengeful to the audience. Self-discipline = Classy.
  4. DO PUBLISH more desirable blogs & posts in relation to you and/or your corporation, there are times the only antidote for poor diatribe, is much more speech. If you do not have charge of Google’s search engine results page for your full name, someone else probably will, with or without your consent, and it will probably finish badly if she does not like you. If you do not have very much in the way of important, authoritative content about yourself, then Google will have no choice but to present the content generated by others, including those who may not like you and your family.


  1. A group of professional online reputation management specialists have generously given way their experience and tips, to a self-help website namely
  2. This very same crew maintains a no cost strategy blog site at
  3. The Facebook page is


Professional Online Reputation Repair operations are growing, owing to Google’s search algorithm, which seems to include at the very least, 1 undesirable search engine result, for many enterprises and business people.


SPAM email comes from Countless Online reputation Repair are based in developing nations, many capitalize on despondent, aggrieved people, looking for a quick fix for the devastation being a result of their online reputation problems. Carry out reference checks, verify that the specialists you engage speak your native vernacular, and offer complete transparency about who they are, and where they are located.


“I’ll sue you!” is quite often the number one reply from a person unjustly bad-mouthed by online defamation. Never the less, this type of response quite often delivers with it tremendous psychological weariness and woe. It is vital that you relax, and take into account the financial and emotional consequence prior to opening up that Pandora’s Box.

If you decide to enter a law suit against your antagonist, think about NOT looking for financial damages; as the case will be much less complicated. If your prime goal is the removal of the injurious search engine result, then you can simply look for (1) Declaratory Relief and (2) Injunctive Relief. Whereas, declaratory relief is only an acknowledgment by the Court, that a specific thing is or is not so. For example, if in your legal action you ask the court to proclaim that the online accusations made against you are misrepresentative, he or she will, subsequently, declare findings to that effect. Consequently, the court may well even order that the maligning materials be deleted from public view by the artice writer. If the artice writer protests, then in many cases every of the online search engines will most likely recognize the intention of the verdict, conclusions, and instructions, and get rid of the offending text from their search indexes. This way, even though the defamatory text endures within just the problem website, in effect, if it is not displayed in search results, it is not likely anyone will view it. As such, your intention of repairing the ongoing reputation damage will have been reached.

If your adversary finds that the injury thathe or she caused you has been deleted, then the injury of reputation could commence again, that being the case you can return to the judge and request the judge to provide additional injunctions. However hopefully, the original order will consist of language that impedes additional dissemination of substantially similar accusations.

CALLOUS: Mark Jeftovic CEO easyDNS Reviews Willful Blindness and Defamation

In Internet defamation, ISP Ethics on July 26, 2015 at 8:18 am
let_it_be_knownMark Jeftovic CEO of easyDNS appears to have taken a position that is diametrically opposite to that of the Good Samaritan. His company seems to have taken a position of Willful Blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge). This is a legal term used which describes a scenario in which a person tries to avoid civil, criminal, or in this case moral liability, for a wrongful act, by intentionally putting him or herself in a position, where he or she can claim to be unaware of facts that would render him or her culpable.
We take issue with the following excerpt from Mark Jeftovic of’s June 19, 2015 post:
Mark Jeftovic CEO of easyDNS Reviews  provides platform for defamation while turning a blind eye to the plight of victims.

CALLOUS: Mark Jeftovic CEO of easyDNS Reviews provides platform for defamation while turning a blind eye to the plight of victims.

“If litigants want to pursue specific [easyDNS] customers they will always be better served to leave the ISPs and the vendors out of it, that way they can truly sit where they belong – as impartial observers on the sidelines awaiting a legal decision one way or the other.”

.– See more at:

Whereas, notwithstanding the legal immunity provisions for Internet service providers, easyDNS IS NOT an “…impartial observers on the sidelines”. When Mark Jeftovic and continues to knowingly provide, after notification, a publication platform for defamation and harassment, it they are most certainly morally culpable. The United Nations International Bill of Human Rights, Article 12 states:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
It is this investigator’s opinion that Mark Jeftovic’s, as Internet service provider and host for allegedly defamatory material, did knowingly and actively subject Mr. Andy Lehrer to ongoing personal injury in the form of defamation, and that their inaction with respect to investigating, and terminating the services causing Mr.  Lahrer’s injuries, constitutes active conspiracy with, and furtherance of the antagonist’s word-crimes.

But, there are also kudos for Mark Jeftovic of


WikiLeaks_logoIssue is taken above because, in my opinion, the ongoing publication of the alleged defamation against Andy Lehrer does not serve the public interest. It would be remiss of me not to also point out a balancing praiseworthy decision made by Mark Jeftovic of Namely, his decision to help enable the ongoing availability of WikiLeaks after one of his competitors pulled the plug on the site. No doubt, this decision is supported by many, including myself, who see the benefits of intense scrutiny of secrets that work against humanity’s best interests, and it will also be condemned by those who have deeply held superstitions about the trustworthiness of the authorities to make decisions on our behalf.
The original Lehrer post, as captured 26 June, 2015 is below, this is republished under the fair use copyright doctrine for criticism, education etc:
Screen Shot 2015-07-26 at 10.36.47 am

Defamed on Follow These Tips

In on May 30, 2015 at 6:29 pm has a stated purpose of exposing FOREX scammers, however, it appears that there are many reputable FOREX traders and consultants who have been tarred by the same brush. If you or someone you care about has been smeared on this alleged defamation platform, you can request rapid suppression of the defamatory posts from Google search results. After all, if the page doesn’t rank high in Google, it may as well not exist.

Next Steps for Suppressing Defamation:

Simply enter your name or other search phrases that display unfavorable results in Google Search and choose your country (other countries available after submitting):

Who Owns Forex Peace Army?

Dr. Chuck Pugsley DVM victim of Internet Defamation in Adult Sex Websites Boca Raton Florida

In Internet Defamation Victims List on August 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm

Veterinarian Chuck Pugsley Victim of Webspam Sex Sites

Veterinarian Chuck Pugsley is struggling with hundreds of bogus webpage postings that include his name, in association with adult themed websites and casual dating and casual sex. This is a classic example of what Google calls “Webspam”.

These automated publications, when read make no sense. It is just garbled text thrown together by a computer to “fill” the page.



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+