Online Players, Internet Predators, Cyberpaths, Dating Site Frauds, Cyberstalkers... whatever you call them - they need to be EXPOSED! Did they take your heart? your trust? Harass you? Tell your story... Share ideas for dealing with them... ('FAIR USE LAW' APPLIES TO ALL ARTICLES)
UPDATE
AS OF JANUARY 1, 2013 - POSTING ON THIS BLOG WILL NO LONGER BE 'DAILY'. SWITCHING TO 'OCCASIONAL' POSTING.
by Michael Roberts What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a copyright law of the United States that merges two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Provisions are made therein to heighten the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 after passage by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate on October 12, 1998. Title 17 of the United States Code was amended by the DMCA to extend the reach of copyright while limiting the liability of on-line service providers for copyright infringement by their users.
The DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries. It was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000; the Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU. Use and Abuse of DMCA Take-Down Demands Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown demands can be an effective tool for the removal of unprotected, defamatory and fallacious speech from websites and from search engines for search results displayed as a result of searches on a particular subject, person or business. For the most part, search engines and Internet service providers are protected from liability for tort such as defamation and harassment as a result of another law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (if defamation is provided by a 3rd party). This can be incredibly frustrating for victims of the abuse of this safe harbor, particularly in instances where malicious and fallacious reports have been posted on websites such as RipOffReport.com, thedirty.com and CheaterVille.com. In such instances, victims can take advantage of a DMCA take-down demands to both the websites displaying the offending material and the search engines. A word of warning though; if you direct such a take-down demand to websites with low value speech and poor social responsibility records, then you are effectively “telegraphing your punches”. In such instances, stealth might be your best friend, as such, it might be tactically and strategically prudent to limit your DMCA takedown demand to the search engines only. Let’s face it, if it is not on Google it may as well not exist no matter how damaging the allegations.
The safe harbor provisions of § 230C of the CDA do not extend to copyright violations in most instances, although there are provisions for reasonable notice to be given to the offending Internet service providers. Search engines such as Google might ignore take-down demands for defamatory search results linking to defamatory website, such as Ed Magedson’s Rip Off Report, pursuant to the immunity granted to them through § 230C. However, if such a demand is made on the basis of copyright breaches, you may submit a similar take-down, but based on copyrighted material such as photos, images, quotations, or other copyrighted material owned by you, or another party willing to support you in your take-down efforts. If you elect to submit such a take-down demand, I would caution you to completely avoid the defamatory context because it may invite deeper scrutiny by the receiving party such as Google. Consequently, it may be rejected on the basis that the DMCA take-down demand is determined to be a disguise for relief from defamation, which as mentioned does not attract liability to the search engines because of § 230C.
(NOTE: If the copyright demand is for a photograph, then it must be made by the person who actually clicked the shutter! If you are actually in the photograph, then you are not the owner, unless you used a self-timer or tripod, or if you paid a third party to take the photograph in which case you can claim ownership of the photo based on “work for hire”.)
DMCA takedown demands can be directed to Google through the following web form; you are welcome to contact Rexxfield if your problems persist, but for the most part, unless the problem is catastrophic and a clear and present danger to your livelihood is evident, we suggest you try this form first. There’s no need to spend money on our services if you can achieve results by yourself unless the problem is severe:
Google DMCA Takedown Form If you do not have a copyright breach vector, you might try the same form if the offending webpage is defamatory or harassing. We have seen limited success with this form on that basis, but do not hold your breath.
Today, Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com announced that his Internet harassment whistle-blowing team has prevailed for the fourth consecutive time in Copyright legal challenges issued by Darren M. Meade who is a featured contributor for RipOffReport.com. [Case References: Kairos-Meade vs Roberts: #1013232163,#1071357104,#1145332165, #1132706080] Orange County CA.]
According to documents associated with the copyright challenge, the YouTube videos in question depict leaked videos of Darren M. Meade describing how he "punished" a renowned physician through a systematic Internet smear campaign. Roberts said that he plans on drawing on his experiences in these cases and publishing a self-help guide to combating fallacious copyright challenges issued by subjects of Internet videos who use the provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to chill free speech and whistle-blowing.
Roberts filed a lawsuit in January 2012 against both Google and RipOffReport.com, according to court documents Roberts alleged that Google has what he calls a "humiliation algorithm" which elevates negative sentiment. Roberts published his findings and hypothesis “RipOffReport.com and Google’s Humiliation Algorithm” via YouTube.com recently and it was an instant hit. Roberts said “I posted the video thinking that maybe few hundred people, over a span of several years, might find some understanding about the relentless battering their reputation receives if they are unfortunate enough to be listed on RipOffReport.com”. He said “the fact that a boring video about such a narrow subject has had almost 5,000 views in the last few months speaks volumes about the severity of the problem”
According to court documents Roberts alleged that Google has what he calls a "humiliation algorithm" which elevates negative sentiment. [Case# 30–2012–00557149 Orange County CA]. Roberts’ video exposé titled "Why RipOffReport.com & Negative Results Appear on Page 1 of Google" consistently ranks at the top of the search results for “RipOffReport.com” from more than one million possible results, according to current Google video searches.
According to court documents, Roberts’ alleged further that the favor RipOffReport.com receives from Google is likely influenced by the fact that RipOffReport.com is an affiliate partner of Google’s powerful online AdWords platform. He said “it stands to reason that both Google & RipOffReport.com enjoy financial gain at the expense of the businesses that have unverified complaints filed against them when visitors click on Google Ads displayed in any of the 1.13 Million RipOffReport.com pages currently indexed by Google.com”.
While EOPC doesn't usually do defamation cases - this is important because often cyberpaths turn around and defame their victims using the internet
by Michael Roberts of Rexxfield (Watch Michael's story on 60 Minutes) Victims of Internet smear campaigns must understand the sociopath's or narcissist's expert employment of “SPIN” in their online smear campaigns. This is singularly the best way to begin to understand the way I and many others have found ourselves so frequently gasping in their wake of carnage.
When executing their anti-social agendas, their modus operandi is to sprinkle enough truth in any given lie to add credence to their deceptions.
Alternatively, sometimes they will “kitchen sink it”, that is to say, they overdose the performance with too much information; the end result is very muddy waters in which no reasonable person can navigate. The kitchen-sink approach is often reserved as a "last stand" when the sociopath's make-believe walls begin to crumble bolstered only by charm, persuasion, sophistry and divide/conquer tactics.
If a lawsuit for Internet libel is to ensue, it is important to put the "spin" on the back burner and build your case around the clear statements of fact that can be proven to be deceptive, thus making for a stronger case. As for the spin, you will need to persuade the judge or jury that the statements were woven in a way so as to cast a false light on the facts. You would need to show that the spin would reasonably be understood to be an expression which would attack a person's integrity or moral character and/or expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule and /or deprive the person of the benefits of public confidence and social dealings and /or injure the plaintiff in the maintenance of his or her business.
Read Also: How to avoid dismissal of libel lawsuit under Anti-SLAPP legislation.
THE PRACTICAL DEFINITION OF “SPIN”:
The most common referents for spin are:
a form of deception which tries to redirect the way (or whether) one thinks about an issue and /
or;
a way of giving a positive or negative cast to a story.
Spin at its best:
Cannot be factually disproved.
Looks like it is addressing an issue directly but is not.
In early 2009, I was told by a libel victim who read these pages that he almost cried with relief because he had found others who know exactly what they are going through.
Michael Roberts and Tracey Richter were one of the first "internet marriages." It went horribly wrong. Richter is now in prison after being convicted of murder. Roberts runs Rexxfield.com while fending off smear campaigner Darren Meade, among other things. Most important - Roberts is fighting for custody of his children. From "60 MINUTES": Part 1 of 2:
Part 2 of 2:
Like a classic cyberpath, Darren Meade befriended Roberts and when Roberts started to see who Meade truly was, Meade went on the attack. Our support group members will attest - Once you are wise to them: Cyberpaths start finding anyone and everyone who has a grudge against you to join in a group 'mobbing' or group 'smear campaign'. This is also known as proxy recruitment.
In proxy recruitment - people (such as cyberpaths) will find others who dislike or are angry with their target. Befriend them, often telling others what they believe or want to hear to get close to them - even if its false information, and add them to their effort of character assassination of the target.
Robert's relationship to Darren Meade, and Meade's involving himself with Tracey Richter's case explained:
ONE:
TWO:
THREE:
Readers, meeting someone on the internet is dangerous. The relationships that have success are outnumbered by those that end in heartbreak, financial ruin, trauma, death and lives permanently shattered. - EOPC
"Telling the truth can be dangerous business" - unknown
The incessant ad hominem attacks on my character by Darren Mitchell Meade
would probably need a small book to adequately address each of the many
allegations. However, in the interests of brevity I will attempt to
reduce my response so as to retain the reader’s attention.
It is my humble request that parties interested in perceiving
the truth or falsity of either Darren Meade's assertions, or for that
matter my response, do consider the source of the allegations before
placing any value on the substance.
The following 30-second video clip was recorded by an unknown
person and distributed anonymously some time ago. Therein, Darren Meade
in his own words demonstrates the gleeful satisfaction he derives from
tormenting the targets of his Internet smear campaigns. In this case, it
was the renowned Stanford educated physician Dr. Scott Connelly:
VIDEO (30 Secs Long) (Explicit):
Meade Describes His Smear Campaign
Extortion, Distortion & Revenge
Darren M Meade Smears Rexxfield Founder Michael Roberts
3rd Party Verification. Any person may verify this for them selves for free with this form and fax: Central Abuse Registry IA DHS P.O. Box 4826 Des Moines, IA 50305
Fax to: 515-242-6884
"Michael had an arrest and conviction for domestic battery in 2000."
NOTE: The irony of these allegations will
not escape most readers. Darren is referring to an event on December 20,
2000 when I was wrongfully jailed overnight, and subsequently cleared.
Whereas, on that very same day, Darren Meade became subject to a
domestic restraining order filed by Laura J. Kelley who reported Darren
Meade's stalking and violent outbursts.
RESPONSE:True in part, lies in part. I was
arrested, not convicted. On December 20, 2000 my ex-wife Tracey
physically assaulted me after a customer went bankrupt owing my company
$26,000. She began kicking holes in the wall of the office with her
boots, I restrained her and she began stomping on my feet.
Photographs of holes kicked in wall by Tracey
After things cooled down I announced my intention to divorce. 45
minutes later I was in handcuffs and I spent the night in jail. However,
what Tracey meant for evil God meant for good, and I had the privilege
of sharing the Gospel with an elderly man who had intended to kill
himself when he was released the next day. At that time, the other 10
inmates in the shared cell stayed awake with myself and "Jim" listening
to this good news until about 5 am. Tracey begged me not to plead
innocence because she said her ex-husband would use my testimony against
her false allegations to gain an advantage in the custody battle of
their son Bert, my stepson. I agreed to plead no contest to disturbing
the peace. That way, I would not need to testify that Tracey filed a
false police report. Hindsight has 20/20, if only I had done things
differently, Bert & my kids would not have to have witnessed a
murder; Bert would not have been forced to participate in the crime
after the fact. More importantly, Dustin would probably be alive, and
who knows, maybe I would be back in Australia with my children?
"Michael is a bigamist"
Darren wrote:"Tracey's husband even married another woman while still married to Tracey" and "Michael and Tracey went on with their fragile marriage that finally ended in 2008."
Response: The marriage ended in March 2004 when I
survived Tracey's attempt to murder me. The judge issued an
interlocutory dissolution of marriage on December 3rd 2007. I married my
current wife in early 2008.
"Michael has been diagnosed with a mental illness"
These excerpts for the final decree for the marriage dissolution sums this up well:
"Tracey would, at times, give information to medical care
providers, in an attempt to have physicians find that Michael has a
mental condition. She would be involved when Michael was seeing his
family physician… At one point Dr. Brinck, a psychologist, diagnosed
Michael as being bipolar….Michael was examined by Dr. Charles E. Murphy.
In Dr. Murphy's opinion, Michael is not bipolar. Dr. Murphy's diagnosis
is post-traumatic stress syndrome and ADHD. The weight of the evidence
establishes that Michael is not bipolar."
"Michael is a criminal hacker"
RESPONSE: Darren Meade attempted to extort
from me the meager sum of $5000 in October 2011. After my refusal, he
set a deadline of October 31. He followed through with his promise. In a
coup d'état he was able to persuade a Fox News Journalist that I was a
criminal hacker, and these allegations graced the front page of
FoxNews.com on January 20, 2012.
Whereas, in the following e-mail message sent by Darren Meade to
a department of justice attorney just three months before the extortion
demands, Meade describes me as a victim of the crime syndicate of which
he now tries to persuade readers I am a connected:
RESPONSE: Below is a hyper link to the
polygraph in question and as can be seen there is no reference to
"failure"; in fact the polygraph operator determines the results to be
"inconclusive" -- this does not indicate deception but rather confusion
or anxiety. There were three questions in the polygraph, one of which
was something to the effect of "do you know the identity of the second
intruder". Whereas, although I initially strenuously defended my
ex-wife's actions in the 2001 homicide, the evidence I saw with my own
eyes planted seeds of doubt as to the veracity of her account of that
fateful night. In fact, I never really believed there was a second
intruder. The investigators told me later that that was most likely the
reason the results were ambiguous. After this revelation I volunteered
for a third polygraph which is also linked below.
(1) First Inconclusive polygraph by DCI (Coming soon, copy requested from police)
(3) Subsequent polygraph results with clarified question: "If we assume there was a second man, do you know his identity?"
"Use of hacking code via the Internet to tamper with the jury convened for ex-wife's murder trial."
RESPONSE: This allegation is simply absurd.
However, if we were to entertain the suggestion for a moment, an
objective reader should be able to just as quickly dismiss it because
Darren Meade did not raise this allegation until long after my ex-wife's
murder trial; more to the point, he did not raise this allegation until
he realized that his other character attacks were not gaining the
traction he had hoped. In fact, this gradual escalation and elevation of
flaming aspersions is his modus operandi in any distortion campaign he
runs, no matter who the target.
"Witness Protection Program."
Darren M Meade alleges that: Iowa prosecutors allowed me to stay in a witness protection program so that my ex-wife's defense attorney could not serve me with a subpoena.
RESPONSE: The fallacious nature of this
allegation is evidenced by the following facts (a) the program that was
protecting my children and me was under the California Secretary of
State,
(b) the murder was being prosecuted through the state of Iowa and
(c) Iowa officials have no say in what the California secretary of state does for its residents.
"Michael Was Founded for Child Abuse and is on Central Abuse Register."
RESPONSE: This is true; however, the findings were reversed soon thereafter. Darren Meade in keeping with his distortion tactics (watch, he will start using this term to describe me soon) is
taking a snapshot in time, but not giving the reader the benefit of
subsequent events. His propensity to do this should give readers cause
to dismiss everything he writes as deceptive.
Nevertheless, the findings were based on the testimony of
Tracey Richter and Bert Pitman. Tracey is a three times convicted felon
for and Bert is being considered for criminal prosecution for perjury
during the murder trial of his mother. This is a matter of public
record.
Tracey was also found to have forged the final the force
divorce decree between the two of us, wherein she added a clause giving
her permission to get passports for our children without my permission.
Moreover, Judge Duffy, in his (genuine) final divorce decree found as follows:
"Tracey is very deviceful; She usually has a plan or
scheme to effect a purpose. The following incidents establish crafty
schemes by Tracey:….One week after Michael filed the petition for
dissolution of marriage, Tracey filed a petition for relief from
domestic abuse….Tracey used this process in an attempt to gain advantage
over Michael on the custodial…..Tracey has made attempts to establish
that Michael has committed child abuse…In fact,. she conceded that it
was not child abuse. Later, Tracey made vigorous attempts to obtain a
founded report.
There is no founded child abuse report to support
Tracey's theory of child abuse by Michael. The court finds that Tracey
has failed to establish that Michael committed child abuse…. The Court
also finds that Tracey has failed to establish a history of domestic
abuse."
"Firearm offences"
Darren wrote: "Michael Roberts is photographed with one of many handguns
he purchased in violation of Court Orders after his conviction of
Spousal and Child Abuse. The photograph is with a sniper rifle. Police
reports allege he threatened to kill a Chicago detective with a sniper
rifle and that he (Roberts) is a very good shot. Roberts is on an audio
recording with another young man he mentors discussing having this young
man kill someone to ‘protect the inner sanctum’ or Roberts new business
enterprise with a .50 caliber hollow-point bullet which just explodes
his brain, the same as used by the rifle in the photo with Roberts
above." Response:
I have never been convicted of spousal OR child abuse. [Link: Proof]
I have never owned, held, touched or fired a 50 caliber weapon.
The photograph of the rifle to which Meade refers was
taken in the late 90s, five or six years before my ex-wife temporarily
obtained a restraining order prohibiting me from buying firearms. This
order was dismissed after it was determined the allegations were
unfounded in order to gain an advantage in the child custody issues.
The police report in question was filed by Tracey's
younger brother, Detective John B. Richter of the Chicago Police
Department. He made this report on October 29, 2011 this was the
Saturday immediately following the first week of his sister's murder
trial and by this time it had become apparent that things were not going
well.
Detective Richter, to the best of my knowledge is
currently being investigated by the Chicago Police Department internal
affairs, and the civilian oversight organization to which Internal
Affairs answers called "City of Chicago Independent Police Review Authority". [Complaint ID : OPS-9432]
Coincidentally, both Darren Meade and Detective John
Richter apparently reported that unknown persons had thrown rocks or
bricks through their windows at about the same time (I do not have
dates). Darren was in California, Richter was in Illinois.
I am not in an audio recording discussing killing someone
with a 50 caliber bullet. I was present with an individual who made the
statements, and I was the person recording the conversation and who
subsequently provided them to Darren Meade and law-enforcement because
Darren Meade was the "someone" the person was fantasizing about killing.
Coming Soon: Copy of police report containing the
allegations of Tracey Richter's brother Detective John Richter dated
October 29, 2011.
"Michael bought a house for another woman in Florida in 2004."
RESPONSE:Whereas, Tracey went to Florida
first to look at houses, she sent Michael and his stepson and son to
Florida a week or two later to look at her short list. He signed a
contract on the house they both agreed was best. While Michael was in
Florida, Tracey flew to London to be with her lover Tom Buehlmann. I had
previously discovered this relationship, I confronted Tom by telephone.
He apologized and said he had no idea she was still married and
promised that it would not continue. Tracey's relationship with Tom
began late December 2003 or very early January 2004. I did not meet the
"other woman" referred to by Darren until April 1st, 2004 after I
realized that Tracey's affair with Tom was ongoing.
"Michael stole Tracey’s identity"
RESPONSE: Tracey's team is getting good
mileage out of this allegation. In 2005 or 2006, I leased a large Dell
computer/server through "DFS" which is Dell Financial Services.
Unbeknownst to me, the lease had both my name and Tracey's name attached
to it from previous purchases while we were still together. Tracey
filed a police report for identity theft, she also filed allegations in
the civil divorce process. I contacted Dell, they removed her name, end
of story.
"Michael found shell casings at murder scene."
Darren wrote:"Michael Robert claimed to
have then cleaned the home and located shell casings within an hour of
taking possession of the home that were missed by CSI investigators."
RESPONSE: This is just one of many examples
of the incompetence of the investigators and earlier prosecutor who let
the murder go unpunished for almost 10 years.
"Michael's relationship with Dustin Wehde, Tracey's murder victim."
Darren wrote:"In his mentorship of Dustin, Michael Roberts had Dustin work on creative writing exercises that often were violent in nature."
Response: Says who Darren? Please provide
original source documentation, or a witness who has not been convicted
of either murder or perjury.
"Crime Scene Photos"
Darren wrote:"The crime scene photos were shown to me personally in 2010 by Michael Roberts." (referring to a document referencing the 'pink notebook' evidence).
Response: I challenge Darren to testify to this under the penalty of perjury.
"Life Insurance on Tracey & Michael's kids"
Darren wrote: "Tracey had a considerable life insurance policy as did the children."
Response: Tracey had taken out $100,000
insurance policies on each of the three children before the murder. She
had asked me to co-sign this one night when insurance agent was in our
home, I refused because I thought the idea was repulsive. However, I
finally consented to a $10,000 funeral policy for each of the kids under
protest because she just wouldn't leave me alone. Evidently, the
documents subsequently placed before me to sign were in the full amount
of $100K as later attested by insurance agent later.
Furthermore, in the year before the murder Tracey had stacked
my life insurance policies with at least three, possibly four policies
totaling somewhere in the range of 3 to 5 million dollars. I did not
know about this until I filed for divorce in 2004 and her first husband,
Dr. John Pitman, told me I need to go looking for them. I did, and what
I found blew me away. While Tracey was visiting her lover Tom, I
received documents in the mail from lifequote.com where she had applied
for an additional $1 million in coverage of my life only a few days
before she attempted to murder me in March 2004 by drugging and
suffocation. This was followed up by an e-mail message after I diverted
Tracey's business e-mail address to mine.
"The Real Darren Meade"by journalist Anthony Roberts (NOTE: he is NO relation & this site has apparently been hijacked from him): Visit Anthony's article
