Yesterday I was granted an Injunction Against Harassment against Ed Magedson that will not go into effect till he is served.  The order says:


Defendant is not to have contact with plaintiff. Defendant is not to post comments, photos or videos regarding plaintiff, including but not limited to any Internet postings. Defendant is to remove any postings he has posted or arrange to have posted regarding the plaintiff.


In reality it’s just a piece of paper that lawyers on both sides can make a few bucks with.  The injunction in large part was the result of probable cause from exhibits that were presented to the courts. Those exhibits included a video snapshot that was created by Ed as his answer to the Putt Putt video. Ed’s theatrical version included a photograph taken from my drivers license record, a statement that he has never been able to post comments on the Putt Putt video. That I claim he takes money to remove posts. That one of the persons in the video and who was listed as a witness in a court action is discreditable. That he sent private investigators out into the community and they were able to confirm that the information in the video was inaccurate.


So let’s take a look at this. The use of my drivers license photo is in fact a violation of the Drivers License Protection Act which was presented to the judge at the injunction hearing. Ed claims he wasn’t allowed to make comments on the Putt Putt video yet if you go there in the link supplied here you’ll see that in fact Ed has posted a couple comments, I have never deleted any.


“So, why are you hiding their faces? You’re just trying to scare people. LOL

People aren’t that stupid. Ripoffreport is here FOR THE PEOPLE.

Once again, a one sided argument making an ass of your argument.”


I covered their faces for several reasons.  One so it doesn’t violate YouTube privacy policy by showing faces.  Two I didn’t want the parties in the video to be victimized.  Ahhhh but one of their faces appears in Ed’s video.


“If viewers would just look to the right here they’d see some of the great work ripoffreport does in HELPING people. I’m not out to get anyone. I don’t like people lying about me, but who does?”


Ed is here trying to get viewers to go to his videos.  I didn’t even stop him from doing that.


ED’s video is the official Ripoff Report rebuttal to the Putt Putt video.  He has at times and even recently claimed the video was rehearsed and it took three takes to get it right.  Nope…the deposition of the young woman in the video showed that wasn’t true.  How about editing?   The video has a Codec build it to it.  In this case think of it as a time date stamp.  A video is a series of still images that can be removed one or more at a time.  The problem is that it disrupts the time space continuum…sorry Trekies.  Meaning that one frame of the video might say 09:13:47 and the next 09:20:13 there is cause to be concerned there was editing.  That doesn’t exit in this case.  The video was disclosed and they didn’t bother to forensically investigate it.  They actually spent more time and money analyzing why my business was named Paladin Investigations.  I guess it’s just easier to lie about it.


Of course as witnesses their names were in the public record of the lawsuit. And as you can see in Ed’s theatrical version he has posted a photo of the witness and his name in the video painting him in my opinion in a false light.  I think it’s clear why I covered their faces.

If you pay careful attention to the video you’ll see that I never claim that Ed takes money to remove posts. The is a very important word used in the video though…”donation”.  Ed is adamant that no reports are ever deleted from Ripoff Report in spite of evidence to the contrary that you can find here.  It is in fact a claim made by one of the parties in the video whom to my knowledge had no agenda with Ed.


It should be noted that Ed in his video discusses two respected private investigators that were able to disprove the information in the video itself. Prior to the making of The Putt Putt video, the car lot had been closed for a number of years. Interviews of employees just didn’t take place. So far as the two respected private investigators, this is what I know about one of them.  He was fired from the Maricopa County Atty.’s office for accessing criminal databases for personal purposes and was a client of Jaburg & Wilk. Does that concern anyone? I also know that the man in the video called me complaining that two private investigators were down in Florida harassing him and trying to get him to change his witness testimony. What’s interesting is the man works for the prior owner of Putt Putt mentioned in the video.  Arizona does not have a right of reciprocity with Florida. Arizona private investigators cannot go into another state without permission and conduct investigations legally.


Ed’s attorneys tried to force me to remove the Putt Putt video through injunction. The judge refused. At no time did Ed or his attorney submit evidence to suggest that private investigators were able to come up with information that refutes the claims made by the witnesses in the video. At one point in time Ed even claimed that the video was rehearsed and directed by me. Ed’s attorney Maria Crimi Speth in fact deposed the young lady in the video who in fact confirmed everything in the video was factual to her knowledge. There was no rehearsal, no directing and I had never met these people prior to their video statement. What’s equally important here is that young lady used to be a client of Maria Crimi Speth.


Exhibits presented to the courts for injunction from harassment also included evidence that the video was distributed to a Romanian spammer via the website Fiverr. That video wound up on 30 different video upload sites and describes me in its title as a disgraced private investigator. Really????  I don’t feel disgraced. What’s important is that those video upload sites removed Ed’s theatrical version because it violated the terms and conditions, including YouTube.


So whats the big deal?  I know as a private investigator that the more someone tries to redirect your attention the more I need to look at what they don’t want you to see.  Why is the Putt Putt video such a bane to Ed’s existance?


During the hearing where Ed attempted to get the Putt Putt video taken down, Eds general counsel at the time David Gingras took the witness stand and told the judge that the video would cause Ripoff Report to be sued into bankruptcy because it shows the website may not be the interactive site that is claimed.  HIS OWN ATTORNEY SAID THIS!!!!!!!.  David is no longer General Counsel and I don’t know why and it may not be important. Instead of testifying about any evidence Ed claims exists to refute the video, he tells the world how to sue Ripoff Report into bankruptcy.  David used to be an attorney for Jaburg & Wilk.


What does all this mean?  Clearly the video and the other evidence submitted show this video is a big concern and Ed wants to try and discredit the person that created it, me, in addition to the witnesses.  What’s also important is the lengths Ed will go to do this by having a Romanian spammer submit his version of the truth to many websites who later took them down because of violations yet the Putt Putt video is still up.  In my opinion Ed’s video upload may not have really been an attempt to discredit me rather than an act of vengeance, intimidation and harassment prevailing themes with other witnesses.  I feel harassed.  There is no doubt I will provide evidence to the courts regarding my opinion of the real purpose of Ripoff Report, that is to create defamation and to encourage it for the purposes of selling law suits, legal services, investigations and membership to the Corporate Advocacy Program.  If this is true then their motion to dismiss based upon 47 USC 230 will not prevail and they will head for trial.  They don’t want that.


Why go through all this?  Because the truth doesn’t get told.  Witnesses are harassed.  Accomplices aren’t disclosed. The courts need to hear all this and make a fair and balanced decision based upon full and complete disclosure.  That won’t happen until someone presents the truth.


Make no mistake.  When I take the witness stand there will be nothing they have or can use that will taint the evidence that I will present.  Thank you David Gingras.



Update:  I had previously filed an application for harassment against Ed Magedson and went to the hearing Friday.  Before and during it was a circus with Adam Kunz in my opinion as the midway clown.  After all of that though I heard two things from the judge.  Defamation is not protected speech and defamation does not rise to the level of harassment so she chose not make the injunction permanent.  No doubt Magedson and his attorneys will miss the part about defamation but I don’t think a jury will when I get this before them in my civil suit.

One of Ripoff Report defamation peers is Nik Richie of The Dirty.  An interesting story is written here.

It in essence discusses the case that Richie lost with quotes here, “The plaintiffs in Jones and Hare argued that the operator of thedirty.com is the “information content provider” of its visitors’ defamatory posts because it generally encouraged defamatory posts and was therefore “responsible” for their “creation.” However, the plaintiffs did not claim that the operator solicited specific posts from specific authors”.

There is of course criticism of the ruling and it is under appeal but in my case it seems clear that the defamation from Magadson was clear and designed to destroy my credibility.  We will have to let the courts decide which is what I always wanted.  Along those lines it seems clear to me the the entire website is just a defamation delivery devise for the likes of Stick Bogart to publish what appears to be defamation about those in the auto industry only to come back and try to sell them the Verified Safe program.  I don’t really have any energy on this though others do and I think it will have to get worked out in court.  My only role in that will be to make sure the courts have all the information that was omitted in past disclosures so a fair and balanced decision can be made.  If you want to be CAP member or Verified Safe member, have at it though I suspect it won’t turn out well for you.

At the end of the day I would not want to be standing under the Ed Magedson tree when lightning strikes.


Ed has been screaming for years he does not remove complaints…ever.  It’s part of his terms of conditions of Ripoff Report.  Here you will find a spreadsheet of cell phone calls to businesses that are listed on Ripoff Report.  Among the calls are businesses that have joined one of Ripoff Reports mitigation programs and not so curiously, the original complaint is gone.

Comments are closed.