Michael Roberts v. Google, et al. - Complaint

8/2/2019 Michael Roberts v. Google, et al. - Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/michael-roberts-v-google-et-al-complaint 1/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Michael Roberts

#1493 PO Box 1198

Sacramento CA 95812

408-916-5977

[email protected]

Superior Court of the State of California

County of Orange – Central Justice Center

MICHAEL ROBERTS, an Individual,PLAINTIFF,

vs.

GOOGLE, INC.

andDARREN MITCHELL MEADE

andFOXNEWS NETWORK, LLC.

andPERRY CHIARAMONTE

andXCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC.

DBA RIPOFFREPORT.COMandEDWARD MAGEDSON

andJOHN B. RICHTER

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:

Complaint for:

1. Defamation

2. Civil Conspiracy

3. Tortious Interference

4. False Light

5. Business Disparagement

6. Emotional Distress

7. Injunctive Relief

8. Punitive Damages

________________________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

true and correct.

March 22, 2012

Michael Roberts

ELECTRONICALLYFILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ORANGE

CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER

Mar 27 2012ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the Court

by M. NORDMAN

JUDGE NANCY WIEBEN STOCKDEPT. CX105

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Civil Complex Center

30-2012-00557149



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 2

JURISDICTION/THE PARTIES

1) PLAINTIFF is a Californian resident and operates his businesses

www.Rexxfield.com and www.BadForPeople.org in California as a Social Forensic, Digital

Forensic and Internet Defamation Analyst.

2) GOOGLE, INC. ("GOOGLE") is an Internet Service Provider ("ISP"), and is a

California corporation that does business internationally and in all fifty states of the United States.

3) Defendant DARREN MEADE (“MEADE”) is a California resident and an

employee, agent or contractor for Defendant XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC.

4) FOXNEWS NETWORK, LLC. ("FoxNews") is a California corporation that does

business internationally and in all fifty states of the United States.

5) PERRY CHIARAMONTE (hereinafter “CHIARAMONTE “) is a New York

resident and journalist employed or contracted by PLAINTIFF FoxNews and publishes a regular

column on the website WWW.FOXNEWS.COM.

6) Defendant XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC (hereinafter "XCENTRIC"), is a limited

liability company duly organized under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its principal place of

business in the State of Arizona.

7) Upon information and belief, Defendant EDWARD MAGEDSON, also known as

ED MAGEDSON (hereinafter "MAGEDSON"), is a resident of the State of Arizona.

8) Defendant JOHN B. RICHTER (hereinafter "RICHTER"), is an Illinois Resident

and an officer with the Chicago Police Dept. he is the brother of convicted murderer TRACEY.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS

1) TRACEY ANNE RICHTER (aka Sophie Corrina Terese Boronin Von

Richterhausen Edwards) (Hereinafter called “TRACEY”) is a non-party, three-times convicted



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 3

felon serving a life prison sentence without the possibility of parole in Iowa for the 2001 execution

style murder of 20-year-old Dustin Wehde; TRACEY is PLAINTIFF’s ex-wife.

2) XCENTRIC & MAGEDSON's presumed immunity to liability for defamation

pursuant to part (c) of §230 of the Communications Decency Act ("§230") does not apply in this

action with respect to MEADE’s Submissions to the RIPOFFREPORT.COM website, because

MEADE has been acting as an agent for XCENTRIC & MAGEDSON, and because XCENTRIC

& MAGEDSON have adopted MEADE’s words as their own, and MAGEDSON has personally

slandered and libeled PLAINTIFF.

3) GOOGLE's presumed immunity to liability for defamation pursuant to part (c) of

§230 of the Communications Decency Act ("§230") does not apply in this action because

§230(c)(1)'s contextual reference to the word "information" as 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."

4) GOOGLE, as the self-appointed curator of all the World’s knowledge, has usurped

the 5th Estate; and through its pattern of actions, has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to

control public access to said information through such a narrow door.

5) Moreover, GOOGLE consistently violates the trust between itself and its user-base,

by using a law that is clearly intended to protect individuals, against its users and others for

prospective financial gain. Specifically, by invoking section 230(c) of the Communications

Decency Act, GOOGLE thereby exploits all the privileges and federal immunity conveyed therein

via §230(c)1; all the while methodically avoiding the social responsibility, respect, or self-

regulation expressly implied through §230(c)2 within the context and confines of the law as

defined by Congress.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 4

6) GOOGLE’s normal business practice upon receiving cease and desist demands

from people injured by GOOGLE publications that disinterested third parties would consider “to

be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,

whether or not such material is constitutionally protected ;” is to invoke immunity pursuant to

§230(c) and turn a blind eye to the injured party’s distress in clear contempt of the “Good

Samaritan” provisions and intent in the same section.

7) GOOGLE’s invocation of §230(c) for immunity without taking social

responsibility in these circumstances is a loophole.

8) A GOOGLE Rich Snippet construct ("GOOGLE Construct") is displayed along

with nine (9) additional1 and diverse GOOGLE Constructs on any given GOOGLE Search Results

Page ("GSRP").

9) A GOOGLE Construct is a small extract from information provided by another

information content provider .

10) Furthermore, a GOOGLE Construct as published by GOOGLE on a GSRP usually

has only two or three lines of text.

11) A GOOGLE Construct is extracted either (a) arbitrarily and/or (b) algorithmically

from information provided by another information content provider, and with few exceptions at

GOOGLE's sole discretion and control.

12) A GOOGLE Construct is reconstituted on a GSRP at GOOGLE's sole discretion

and control.

13) A single GOOGLE Construct as presented in a GSRP with the nine (9) other

aforementioned GOOGLE 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 Constructs.

1Customarily ten results are displayed per page.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 5

14) Upon information and belief, GOOGLE’s own user metrics and statistics clearly

demonstrate that GOOGLE search users (“SEEKER(S)”) rarely visit all ten (10) GOOGLE search

results on any given GSRP.

15) Therefore, SEEKERS do not obtain a full and clear context of the information

contained within the10 diverse search results on a GSRP.

16) SEEKERS draw conclusions from the context as expressed in the new information

GOOGLE search result pages; said conclusions are significantly different from those drawn from

the original source of the snippets because the snippets constitute new information.

17) GOOGLE Constructs and GOOGLE Search Result Pages constitute 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

18) 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 isconstitutionally protected."

19) Congress' intent of §230(c) is evidenced further by the reference to the "Good

Samaritan" in the title of §230(c) as follows:

"Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material" 3

20) This law has remained in a hyper-protective stage for far too long, as many courts

read §230 to grant sweeping immunity far beyond what its words and context supported.

21) The Ninth Circuit has recently noted:

“The Internet is no longer a fragile new means of communication that could easily be smothered in the cradle by overzealous enforcement of

2 As defined by §230(f)(3)3 The use of the quote punctuation for “Good Samaritan” in the heading for §230(c) was by the US Congress.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 6

laws and regulations applicable to brick-and-mortar businesses. Rather, it has become a dominant – perhaps the preeminent – means through which

commerce is conducted. And its vast reach into the lives of millions isexactly why we must be careful not to exceed the scope of the immunity provided by Congress and thus give online businesses an unfair advantage over their real-world counterparts, which must comply with

laws of general applicability.”4

22) Court efforts to read a sweeping immunity into § 230 despite its language and

purpose is nothing short of State Sponsored Cyber Terrorism and has prevented the courts from

exploring what standard of care ought to apply to ISPs and website operators.

23) GOOGLE, XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON have made millions of dollars at the

expense of defamation victims with clean hands due to the erroneous interpretation and

application of this law. PLAINTIFF prays that this action will bring about new precedent of

common sense.

24) Based on information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that GOOGLE has received

tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of requests from parties injured by the false, malicious

and defamatory GOOGLE Constructs created or developed in whole or in part by GOOGLE and

then “ provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service[s]”.

25) GOOGLE has publically admitted 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

26) GOOGLE’s Search Engine ALGORITHM is proprietary to GOOGLE.

27) GOOGLE does not publish the technical details of its ALGORITHM for public,

peer, academic or professional scrutiny, review or inspection.

28) Based on information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that GOOGLE has made

provisions in its ALGORITHM which cause the drastic elevation of what would otherwise be low

4 Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, L.L.C., 521 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 n.15 (9th Cir. 2008)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 7

ranking 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

"Humiliation Algorithm").

29) Snippet Constructs from Humiliation Algorithm search results have a tendency to

display the demeaning or derogatory Humiliation Algorithm Keywords “Humiliation Modifiers”

over snippets that contain less inflammatory keywords.

30) The conspicuous display of Humiliation Algorithm GOOGLE Constructs on page 1

of GSRP for searches related to PLAINTIFF, whether such results are factually accurate or

maliciously false, causes the SEEKER conducting such a search to hate, despise and have

contempt for PLAINTIFF because SEEKERS presume Google to be trustworthy, and that the

high-ranking derogatory results are ranked highly for good reason.

31) When these searches are for business related inquiries, GOOGLE and its GOOGLE

AdWords® advertisers enjoy prospective financial gain when the repulsed SEEKER clicks a paid

GOOGLE’s AdWords® display in order to identify alternate vendors for the provision of services

or products offered by PLAINTIFF.

32) All or most DEFENDANTS have contracted with GOOGLE through GOOGLE's

various terms of use agreements to utilize GOOGLE services.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

( Defamation)

33) PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges all allegations in Paragraphs above, and

incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation made above as if fully set forth herein.

34) For some time in the past and continuing to the present day, DEFENDANTS have

defamed PLAINTIFF by willfully including and posting false, malicious and defamatory

statements on various GOOGLE Services and non-GOOGLE Services (“Internet Venues”).

5 http://www.GOOGLE.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=99170



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 8

35) DEFENDANTS are the registrants of, and contributors to/for, or operators of

injurious GOOGLE Services and other injurious Internet Venues (“Injurious Publications”) and

have intentionally harmed PLAINTIFF’S reputation and business by operating Injurious

Publications.

36) DEFENDANTS are continually posting defamatory and false information through

Injurious Publications or by email transmissions. The information posted and included on the

Injurious Publications is calculated to inform readers that PLAINTIFF is complicit in criminal

activities including but by no means limited to Internet hacking, is unreliable, unskilled, dishonest,

a wife abuser, a child abuser, morally reprehensible and unscrupulous in his business practices and

that his previous business MILE2 was a scam operation and have cast Rexxfield in a similar vein.

All such information and the impressions created for readers are false, and were published to the

entire world on the Internet with malicious intent. PLAINTIFF, as founder of Mile2 & Rexxfield

entities is likewise injured by their inexorable association.

37) On Feb 19, 2012, MEADE under the alias JohnGaltZuckerman published

allegations on his YouTube.com channel located at youtube.com/user/JohnGaltZuckerman

declaring that PLAINTIFF is an enemy of the whistleblower and social responsibility watchdog

group "ANONYMOUS". Therein, MEADE publishes false allegations that are tantamount to

Fighting Words, clearly expressed to incite hatred or violence against PLAINTIFF by those

individuals willing to act against threats to their constitutional rights to anonymous free speech

and righteous dissent.

38) Whereas, MEADE is fully aware that PLAINTIFF wholeheartedly supports

alternative media, righteous dissent and the obligation of those with the intellectual and

technological means to protect and open the eyes of the 99% of the world's "sheeple" from those

who might secretly purpose to control the masses through information warfare (propaganda) and

fear based control.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 9

39) MEADE and MAGEDSON have both falsely accused PLAINTIFF of extortion

either verbally or in writing or both.

40) GOOGLE, FOXNEWS, MEADE, XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON have accused

PLAINTIFF of partnering with convicted felon Adam Zuckerman who is now serving a 37 month

sentence, and his team (“ZUCKERMAN CREW”).

41) Whereas, these DEFENDANTS know full well that MEADE introduced

PLAINTIFF and endorsed a partnership, but PLAINTIFF terminated the relationship only days

after it began.

42) On October 29, 2011, the day after the jury in TRACEY’s murder trial began their

deliberations, RICHTER filed a false police report in Chicago, (for whom RICHTER is a sworn

officer) alleging that PLAINTIFF called RICHTER and that PLAINTIFF made death threats to

RICHTER. RICHTER has disseminated this police report, and sworn under penalty of perjury tha

this and other false allegations therein are true which has defamed PLAINTIFF

43) PLAINTIFF alleges that a number of actual and potential investors, buyers,

customers, employers and partners, both large and small, have read postings on the Injurious

Publications. Some of these individuals have discussed the information they have read on the

Internet Venues with the PLAINTIFF and non-parties, and PLAINTIFF has been damaged by the

loss of business due to the false and defamatory statements and information on the Injurious

Publications.

44) The DEFENDANTS, and each of them, used anonymous screen names to defame

PLAINTIFF, which included responding to their other postings as if multiple parties are

communicating with each other. The purpose of this was to deceive all readers of Injurious

Publication websites as to the numbers of people defaming the PLAINTIFF and the diverse

relationships each sock puppet alias had to the PLAINTIFF to further influence readers and to

cause maximum damage to the PLAINTIFF.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 10

45) The defamatory statements were made individually by the DEFENDANTS, who

then conspired between themselves and other unnamed third parties to promote and syndicate the

material. The DEFENDANTS, and each of them are or have been, abetting each other,

encouraging each other, and adopting and repeating the false defamatory allegations of the other

DEFENDANTS as their own.

46) PLAINTIFF has experienced shame, mortification, injured feelings and mental

suffering; his prominence in the community has been seriously damaged and his professional or

business standing in the community where he does business has been seriously damaged.

47) DEFENDANTS’ actions have caused a direct harm to PLAINTIFF’S business,

trade, profession, occupation and harm to PLAINTIFF’S reputation in an amount in excess of

$10,000.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Civil Conspiracy)


incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation made above as if fully set forth herein.

49) DEFENDANTS and each of them formed an agreement and conspired to work in

concert to defame PLAINTIFF and cause him business, economic, and reputation damage by the

operation and maintenance of the Injurious Publications and through other electronic means.

50) DEFENDANTS also formed an agreement to act in concert to interfere with and

destroy PLAINTIFF’S ability to build and maintain their business, recruit partners, affiliates and

employees and increase the number of their clients.

51) The following incidents establish the crafty schemes by DEFENDANTS:

52) Defendant GOOGLE, XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON have conspired together

through a revenue sharing contract for GOOGLE AdWords displayed on RIPOFFREPORT.COM

website for humiliation search results for the PLAINTIFF's name when searched in association



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 11

with keywords related to his business activities including but by no means limited to examples

such as [ “Michael Roberts” reputation management ], for which the DEFENDANT’s Defamatory

publications are conspicuously displayed on Page 1 of GOOGLE search results and beyond.

53) Further evidence of the conspiracy between GOOGLE, XCENTRIC AND

MAGEDSON is evidenced by the duplicity of both organizations in causing derogatory postings

about Google executives on RIPOFFREPORT.COM to be redacted. XCENTRIC and

MAGEDSON, in clear breach of stated RIPOFFREPORT.COM policies intervened and amended

at least two derogatory reports about GOOGLE executives as follows:

54) On September 04, 2010, RIPOFFREPORT.COM user shuly7777 filed a report

[Report: #637674] against GOOGLE executive Will Devries with a heading as follows:

“Will Devries is a child molester pedophile Mountain View, California”

55) Thereafter,XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON caused the report to be edited as

follows:

“Will (((REDACTED))) is a child molester pedophile Mountain View, California”

56) Furthermore, XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON in an act of cow-towing ingratiation

to their paymaster GOOGLE added the following editorial adjustment:

“NOTICE:(((RIP-OFF REPORT REDACTED WORDS THAT SHOULD BE BACKED UP BY A POLICE REPORT,ONCE THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT SENDS US A COPY, WE WILL BE GLAD TO

PUT BACK THOSE WORDS. Or if the Author of the Report wants to provide their real name

and full contact info to prove that this is true, we will put back thisinformation. )))”

57) The edited post is still available at:

www.RIPOFFREPORT.COM/sex-offenders/will-devries/will-devries-will-devries-is-7c254.htm

58) On May 31, 2005 “Meredith” of Beverly Hills CA posted a report on

RIPOFFREPORT.COM (Report: #144627) that alleging that GOOGLE founder SERGY BRIN



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 12

made inappropriate advances on the alleged 16-year-old Meredith. Thereafter,XCENTRIC and

MAGEDSON caused the original report to be changed so that BRIN's name no longer appeared

and it was replaced with a fictitious name "Soney Bonoi"

http://www.RIPOFFREPORT.COM/reports/0/144/ripoff0144627.htm

59) Whereas, on June 17, 2010 PLAINTIFF emailed Xcentric and Magedson's attorney

Maria Crimi Speth on a life and death matter as follows:

Dear Maria,

Can I beg you to remove a complaint for a senior pro bono [FREE] client who I believe has become chronically depressed because of a RoR listing

posted by a convicted felon. Her husband has plenty of documentationto support the case that the claims are false; but the arbitration

issue will not help her condition. The page just needs go away. Alternativey, [sic] you could leave the page there and add a "NOINDEX NOARCHIVE" meta tag. The page will be on RoR but not Google.

This is the case we first spoke of. I have met with them personallywhen I was in NYC and I can't find the words to describe howdesperate the siuation [sic] is right now.

Sincerely,Michael Roberts

60) Although Speth's following heartless reply was in keeping with

RIPOFFREPORT.COM policies on removal, it is a clear indication of the duplicity and malicious

nature of the DEFENDANTS:

On Jun 17, 2010, at 17:30, "Maria Crimi Speth" <mailto:[email protected]>wrote:

Michael:

I have much empathy for your client's situation, but depression and suicidal tendencies are a medical problem not a social media problem.Your client needs help from a doctor.

Maria Crimi Speth, Esq.

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

61) On information and belief, MEADE is receiving payments from XCENTRIC.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 13

62) MEADE, MAGEDSON and CHIARMONTE conspired together to make it appear

that MEADE and MAGEDSON were two independent outcries against PLAINTIFF, whereas

MEADE it is in fact an agent of XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON.

63) On Oct 18, 2010 PLAINTIFF and MEADE executed a comprehensive

nondisclosure and non-circumvention agreement which included the details about PLAINTIFF’s

project named “JusticeHere.Org”.

64) JusticeHere.Org project aims to mitigate the “rock and hard place” options

available to victims of RipOffReport.com who cannot afford legal relief, and cannot afford to pay

the predatory “VIP Arbitration Program” services offered by RipOffReport.com.

65) Unbeknownst to MEADE, PLANTIFF decided on a different domain for the

project. Notwithstanding, on March 1st, 2012, MAGEDSON registered the domain name

“JusticeHere.Org”. This act evidences childish yet compelling acts of conspiracy between

MEADE, MAGEDSON and XCENTRIC in direct breach of MEADE’s NDA.

66) FOXNEWS, CHIARAMONTE an RICHTER conspired with each other to the

same PLAINTIFF, consideration for their respective cooperation came in the following forms:

67) FOXNEWS and CHIARAMONTE conspired with RICHTER who received a

slanted news story to help his family save face in light of the shame and humiliation that is

associated with the first-degree murder charges filed against his sister and non-party TRACEY.

68) Based on information and belief, in consideration for the abovementioned

journalistic favors, FOXNEWS and CHIARAMONTE received promises of future favors from

RICHTER, said favors enhance CHIARAMONTE’s network of police tipsters beyond his

established New York Police Dept. network where he attends the Night desk at the NYPD

Headquarters bureau.

69) On January 20, 2012 8:48:17 PM PST, PLAINTIFF sent a private e-mail to

CHIARAMONTE containing a unique string of text "You have kicked a tiger in the tail my friend



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 14

get ready for the teeth". This inflammatory message is not language Plintiff would normally use

and was deliberately constructed to be absent of any journalistic value, and included in this

message so that when it appeared again, it would establish what parties were involved in the Fox

Offensive. This unique e-mail was sent to CHIARAMONTE but otherwise kept secret with this

strategic purpose. Ergo, the first individual to mention the secret evidence could be tied directly to

the conspiracy.

70) On January 24, 2012 19:02:40 CST, an anonymous individual posted the following

message to PLAINTIFF’s company’s internet blog:

“Michael when you sent that message to Perry " when you pull the Tiger's tail you get theteeth", what did you mean by that!”

71) The originating Internet protocol address (“IP address”) was 12.91.4.134, which is

allocated to the Chicago Police Department.

72) Thereafter, the Petitioner in an act of social engineering initiated a private

communication to RICHTER’s public Facebook profile located at

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=768720718

73) On February 17, 2012 10:40:03 PM CST, RICHTER, after accessing his personal

Facebook account triggered an IP address tracing mechanism that PLAINTIFF embedded in the

private message. This provision communicated the IP address whence he accessed his personal

Facebook account. That IP address was the same address for the earlier anonymous message sent

to Rexxfield Internet blog originated, namely 12.91.4.134

74) RICHTER repeated this IP address triggering action several times thereafter.

75) RICHTER, MEADE, XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON conspired together by

contributing individually and as a group in publishing and adding defamatory comments on the

many RIPOFFREPORT.COM attacks against PLAINTIFF and his businesses.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 15

76) Due to DEFENDANTS’ conduct, the DEFENDANTS have damaged

PLAINTIFF’S business, and reputation in an amount exceeding $10,000. PLAINTIFF has also

suffered damages in the form of emotional distress.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)



78) Prospective clients have informed PLAINTIFF and potential vendors who have

been exposed to the defamatory and false statements made in the Humiliation Algorithm Snippet

Constructs and other Injurious Publications, and these individuals chose not to associate with

PLAINTIFF due to the defamatory and false statements made by DEFENDANTS.

79) XCENTRIC, MAGEDSON and GOOGLE’s intent was to obtain prospective

economic advantage by causing harm to PLAINTIFF in the form of the destruction of

PLAINTIFF’S business, reputation and existing and prospective commercial relationships by

publishing false statements produced by GOOGLE, in and through its Humiliation Algorithm

Snippet Constructs and causing the humiliating results to appear in close proximity to the

PLAINTIFF’S Organic Search results. Thereby diverting legitimate inquiries by potential

PLAINTIFF customers to alternative vendors utilizing the Google AdWords system which are

embedded within RipOffReport.com website which generate revenue for XCENTRIC,

MAGEDSON and GOOGLE,

80) FOXNEWS obtained and continues to obtain economic advantage through

advertising revenue derived from the FOXNEWS story and by causing PLAINTIFF economic

harm, emotional harm, and harm to his personal and business reputation.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 16

81) GOOGLE, FOXNEWS, XCENTRIC and MAGEDSON intended or had prior

knowledge that its actions would cause harm to PLAINTIFF through the destruction of

PLAINTIFF’S business reputation and personal relationships.

82) Due to DEFENDANTS’ actions, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in the amount in

excess of $10,000.

FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Light)83) PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges all allegations in Paragraphs above, and


84) GOOGLE, XCENTRIC, MAGEDSON and MEADE have published references to

the December 2000 arrest of PLAINTIFF, and alleging in some instances a subsequent conviction

for domestic assault of TRACEY, and that the arrest was for good cause.

85) Whereas, DEFENDANTS know full well that this arrest was made as a result of a

false police report made by two perjurers, namely TRACEY and her son from her first marriage

BERT PITMAN, and that there was no such conviction, and that the police report was a ruse by

TRACEY in order to gain an advantage over PLAINTIFF in child custody issues because

PLAINTIFF was considering divorce. Furthermore, DEFENDANTS had forknowledge that

findings diametrically opposite their assertions about PLAINTIFF’s charachter were published by

the Iowa District Court in PLAINTIFF’s divorce case, these findings included unambiguous

excerpts such as the following which are in the public record, and readily accessible by

DEFENDANTS:

“Tracey is very deviceful: she usually has a plan or scheme to affect the purpose. The

following incidents establish crafty schemes by Tracey….”

“One week after Michael filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, Tracey filed a petition for relief for domestic abuse, ………. No evidentiary hearing was ever held to establish that Michael committed domestic abuse assault, as asserted by Tracey. The timing of the

petition for relief from domestic abuse, filed by Tracey, and her failure to proceed to final hearing on a petition, beats the court to believe that Tracey use this process in an attempt to

gain advantage over Michael on the custodial issue.”



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 17

“There is no founded child abuse report to support Tracey’s theory of child abuse by

Michael……. The court also finds Tracey is failed to establish a history of domesticabuse.”

“Tracey claims that Michael has a mental disorder……. The weight of the evidence

establishes that Michael is not bipolar.”

86) Furthermore, DEFENDANTS had prior knowledge before publishing their

statements that law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities have subsequently stated that the

2000 arrest of PLAINTIFF was based on an unfounded report by TRACEY, and that the arrest

occurred simply because it is policy in such instances to arrest one of the two parties in the

dispute; effectively meaning that “whoever calls first wins”.

87) The DEFENDANTS, and each of them, by publishing the statements have cast

PLAINTIFF in a false light causing readers of publications to perceive that PLAINTIFF is

violent, and that the arrest was warranted and justified.

88) By publishing these half-truths DEFENDANTS and each of them cast PLAINTIFF

in a false light.

89) DEFENDANTS in their publications have made numerous references to certain

audiotapes recorded by or on behalf of PLAINTIFF of discussions with the convicted felon Adam

Zuckerman who is now serving a 37 month sentence, and his team ZUCKERMAN CREW. As an

example, FOXNEWS and CHIARMONTE, stated in the FOXNEWS that:

“In an audiotape obtained by FoxNews.com of a meeting that included Roberts, Meade and others, those present are heard discussing a public relations fear campaign that would help

them sell their services to worried parents.”

90) Whereas, the audiotape “obtained” by FOXNEWS.com was in fact provided by

PLAINTIFF to CHIARMONTE. In constructing his paragraph in the way that he did, readers of

CHIARMONTE’s article perceive PLAINTIFF in a false light and assume that PLAINTIFF is

creating or heartily agreeing with the reprehensible marketing campaign being planned in that

audiotape.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 18

91) Whereas, CHIARMONTE was fully aware that PLAINTIFF for the most part was

listening to the ZUCKERMAN CREW in their creative frenzy and there was no mistaking that

PLAINTIFF with his conspicuous Australian accent was very quiet during the meeting.

Furthermore, FOXNEWS and CHIARMONTE had first-hand knowledge that the distribution of

these recordings by PLAINTIFF to law enforcement and the media was to expose the

ZUCKERMAN CREW in the full light of day.

92) FOXNEWS and CHIARMONTE in the FOXNEWS article published the following

excerpts from this now infamous recording:

“I would love to run an underground campaign that says, ‘Google is trying to destroy your reputation,’” an executive on the call is heard saying. “I like the idea of, ‘the more popular

you are, the more dangerous it is,’ and giving people the scare tactic of, ‘the more exposure you have … the faster it is for your enemies to attack you.’”

“I think there’s a whole other campaign where we can break the parents,” the executive

continued. “Send them a picture of their kid with a gun in his mouth -- Google did it. ‘Little Johnny is going to commit Google-cide. Can you stop it?’”

93) Whereas, objective readers of the FOXNEWS article would reasonably conclude

that PLAINTIFF was being quoted in the above excerpt, when in fact the despicable suggestions

were all uttered by ZUCKERMAN CREW members, and FOXNEWS and CHIARMONTE

deliberately withheld attribution to said quotes to the rightful speakers. In doing so, PLAINTIFF

was cast in a false light.

94) FOXNEWS and CHIARMONTE, had prior knowledge that on March 14th, 2011

PLAINTIFF made contact with an FBI Special Agent and digital forensics expert with whom

PLAINTIFF had formerly been officialy engaged as an informant when PLAINTIFF identified

criminal elements suspected of using various types of hacking technologies against businesses and

individuals when he operated Mile2. FOXNEWS and CHIARMONTE knew before publishing the

FOX Article that PLAINTIFF reported the alledged hack and chose to withold this fact from the

article.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 19

95) Due to DEFENDANTS’ actions, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in the amount in excess of

$10,000.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Business Disparagement)



97) DEFENDANTS have made false and disparaging statements regarding the

business, business services, working conditions and professional ability of PLAINTIFF.

98) The statements were made with malicious intent and with only the intent to cause

damage to PLAINTIFF.

99) As a result of the DEFENDANTS’ actions in operating the defamatory web

publications, and other acts of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in an amount in

excess of $10,000.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)



101) DEFENDANTS, by their conduct, caused PLAINTIFF to suffer severe emotional

distress.

102) PLAINTIFF alleges that the DEFENDANTS’ conduct was outrageous under the

circumstances, and that DEFENDANTS knew and intended their conduct to be outrageous and

injurious.

103) PLAINTIFF further alleges that the DEFENDANTS intended to cause

PLAINTIFF’s emotional distress.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 20

104) PLAINTIFF further alleges that the DEFENDANTS acted with reckless disregard

of the probability that PLAINTIFF would suffer emotional distress, knowing the extreme damage

to reputation that result from their conduct.

105) As a result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in excess

of $10,000.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary, and Permanent Injunction)


incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation made above as if fully set forth herein.

107) As alleged therein, DEFENDANTS have engaged in unlawful acts against the

PLAINTIFF, as follows:

a) The DEFENDANTS have tortiously interfered with The PLAINTIFF's contractual

agreements with its current investors, customers, affiliates and partners and others;

b) The DEFENDANTS have tortiously interfered with The PLAINTIFF's

expectancies with its prospective investors, customers, affiliates and partners and

others;

c) The DEFENDANTS have defamed PLAINTIFF;

d) The DEFENDANTS have harassed PLAINTIFF, his friends, family, staff and

anyone offering him emotional, financial or moral support;

e) The DEFENDANTS have conspired to injure The PLAINTIFF in his trade,

business or profession.

f) The DEFENDANTS have committed unfair and deceptive trade practices in

violation of Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17500, § 17505

108) PLAINTIFF will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of temporary relief.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 21

109) PLAINTIFF has made the requisite showing of likelihood of success on the merits

of their claims herein.

110) Greater injury will be inflicted upon PLAINTIFF by the denial of temporary

injunctive relief than would be inflicted upon DEFENDANTS by the granting of such relief.

111) The issuance of temporary injunctive relief will serve the public interest, including

the public interest in protecting current and future contractual relationships, employment

opportunities, preventing defamation, and insuring the continued viability of The PLAINTIFF’s

business and related business activities.

112) PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law.

113) PLAINTIFF seeks a ninety (90) day temporary restraining order, preliminary and

permanent injunction retraining and enjoining DEFENDANTS, their agents, officers, members,

managers, employees, representatives, and co-conspirators from, among other things, engaging in

the following acts:

a) Further operation of the Injurious Publications web site and/or from creating any

other blogs or websites which disparage, defame, vilify, and/or contain false

statements concerning regarding PLAINTIFF, his investors, customers, affiliates

and partners, current, former, or prospective;

b) Further acts of defamation or publishing of false statements or information

regarding PLAINTIFF, his investors, customers, affiliates and partners;

c) Soliciting, contacting or otherwise communicating with PLAINTIFF, investors,

customers, affiliates and partners, current, former, or prospective for any reason

whatsoever, or any other persons or entities for the purpose of interfering or

continuing to interfere with PLAINTIFF's business, contractual relationships and/or

expectancies, except as it might relate to this action or for settlement purposes

d) Further interference with PLAINTIFF prospective economic advantage;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 22

e) Continuing to make false statements or take unlawful actions that otherwise

damage PLAINTIFF in their reputation, profession and/or ability to conduct their

business.

f) Any act or acts calculated to destroy or damage PLAINTIFF’S business or

reputation.

114) PLAINTIFF seeks a temporary injunction ordering DEFENDANTS to cause the

below listed non-party Search Engine Websites to remove all references to Injurious Publications

from their respective search engine indexes and search engine results as soon as practicable so as

to cause the defamatory materials to disappear from public view. Said removal will include every

syndicated or republished version of the injurious publications, in the alternative, arranging for

each syndicated website that has published or republished the injuries publications to add a notice

and hyperlink worded to PLAINTIFF satisfaction, with a hyperlink to PLAINTIFFs official

statements to the allegations. Such Search Engine organizations include but are by no means

limited to:

a) GOOGLE, Inc. of Mountain View California

b) Yahoo! Inc. of Sunnyvale California.

c) Microsoft, Inc. DBA Bing.com of Mountain View California.

d) AOL, LLC of Dulles, Virginia

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Punitive Damages)



116) DEFENDANTS' conduct was intentional and malicious, and was calculated to

cause the harm PLAINTIFF as described herein.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 23

117) DEFENDANTS have interfered with PLAINTIFF prospective economic advantage

intentionally as a means to damage or destroy PLAINTIFF’S business and reputations.

118) PLAINTIFF has suffered damage in excess of $10,000 due to DEFENDANTS’

conduct.

119) As such, PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows:

In consideration for defendant DARREN MEADE’s psychological condition and his

financial difficulties as mitigating circumstances, PLAINTIFF does not seek financial damages and

prays only injunctive relief from MEADE. Otherwise, with respect to the remaining DEFENDANTS:

1) As to the First Cause of Action: For general and special damages in excess of $10,000.

2) As to the Second Cause of Action: For general and special damages in excess of

$10,000.

3) As to the Third Cause of Action: For general and special damages in excess of $10,000.

4) As to the Fourth Cause of Action: For General and special damages in excess of $10,000

5) As to the Fifth Cause of Action: For General and special damages in excess of $10,000.

6) As to the Sixth Cause of Action: For injunctive relief in the form of prohibitions against

the following conduct:

a) A permanent injunction retraining and enjoining DEFENDANTS, their agents,

officers, members, managers, employees, representatives, and co-conspirators

from, among other things, engaging in the following acts:

i) Further operation of the Injurious Publications web site and/or from

creating any other blogs or websites which disparage, defame, vilify,

and/or contain false statements concerning regarding PLAINTIFF, his



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 24

investors, customers, affiliates and partners, current, former, or

prospective;

ii) Further acts of defamation or publishing of false statements or

information regarding PLAINTIFF, his investors, customers, affiliates and

partners;

iii) Soliciting, contacting or otherwise communicating with PLAINTIFF,

investors, customers, affiliates and partners, current, former, or

prospective for any reason whatsoever, or any other persons or entities for

the purpose of interfering or continuing to interfere with PLAINTIFF's

business, contractual relationships and/or expectancies, except as it might

relate to this action or for settlement purposes

iv) Further interference with PLAINTIFF’s prospective economic advantage;

v) Continuing to make false statements or take unlawful actions that

otherwise damage PLAINTIFF in their reputation, profession and/or

ability to conduct their business.

vi) Any act or acts calculated to destroy or damage PLAINTIFF’S business

or reputation.

b) An order that DEFENDANTS will cause the below listed Search Engine

Websites to remove all references to Injurious Publications from their respective

search engine indexes and search engine results as soon as practicable so as to

cause the defamatory materials to disappear from public view. Said removal

will include every syndicated or republished version of the injurious

publications. Such Search Engine organizations include but are by no means

limited to:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

i) www.DuckDuckGo.com

ii) GOOGLE, Inc. of Mountain View California

iii) Yahoo! Inc. of Sunnyvale California.

iv) Microsoft, Inc. DBA Bing.com of Mountain View California.

v) AOL, LLC of Dulles, Virginia

vi) All other public search engines

7) As to the Seventh Cause of Action: For punitive damages determined by the trier of fact.

8) For prejudgment interest.

9) For costs of suit.

10) For any other a further relief the Court may deem proper.

JURY DEMAND

PLAINTIFF demands a trial by jury.

Dated this 26 March 2012

PLAINTIFF

__________________________________

Michael RobertsAs Attorney Pro Per #1493 PO Box 1198Sacramento CA [email protected]

DN:

email=michael.roberts@badfo

rpeople.org

Date: 2012.03.26 17:18:44

-08'00'

Michael Roberts v. Google, et al. - Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Michael Roberts v. Google, et al. - Complaint