Bogdan Fiedur of Adlandpro Threatens Realscam.com

[soapboxmom]

http://realscamclassactionsuit.com/

RealScamClassActionSuit.com

The site RealScam.com engages in harboring disgruntled users who then create anonymous accounts on the RealScam site and out of revenge attack members, business owners and individuals accusing them of unproven actions, exposing their full names taken from their place of business or activity. Such unproven accusations cause irreparable damage to the reputation of users who have provided their full names in public places to conduct their business or other social activities.

For example these two members who were identified as Judy Hortin and Sara Gardner Blow have been attacking members of the community they belonged to who they had disagreements with in the past. Out of revenge two other members of the community (who had no online business for several years) were accused of running scam businesses and one being a crook. Other members have been attacked and without any investigation declared as scammers or fabricated facts have been linked to them. It also appears that Sara Garner Blow had previously different account with the name (HonestMe), which now appears to be deleted or renamed.

Both (Judy Hortin and Sara Gardner Blow) have been terminated from social networking site for multiple cases of breaking of community rules (including fraudulent activity and hate letters) after which they have started their attacks on the owner and any active members they could identify. There is possibility that their actions could be qualified as cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment. The possibility of their breaking of these acts is now being investigated for the sake of filing reports with authorities against above mentioned members and site owners of RealScam sites in their respective areas.
The RealScam.com appears to be represented by Heather Dobrott.
The RealScam.com doesn't offer any protection for individuals who can be targeted by malicious users of their site and doesn't have privacy statement, which at best can be called unprofessional and deceptive.


Site RealScam encourages cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking by allowing the creation of anonymous accounts and by allowing the users to present of unproven accusations towards individuals of their targeted organization. The RealScam.com turns out to be just a harassment and bashing site with no verification of facts and indiscriminate attacks at anyone who looks like an easy target.
The main admin of the site Heather Dobrott sates that she is only doing this on volunteer bases and has no time to verify each post.

RealScam instead of contributing to fighting scam encourages cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking and perpetuates the problems which it has allegedly attempted to solve.

If you have been targeted by anonymous users from the RealScamSite.com and would like to join Class Actions Suit against RealScam.com or have any information which could help to enforce some rules in regards to this site, please send us email to following address support@realscamclassactionsuit.com



Following articles might be of interests if you have been slandered by this site or if some of the anonymous users there engaged in defamation against you.

The CDA, cyber-racketeers, the DMCA, and changes to Section 230 by Domingo Rivera
Internet Bloggers Beware: Ohio Court Lands Another Blow Against Those Engaging in Internet Defamation
Internet Defamation Law - Website owners and bloggers beware - The latest interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

If you are practicing law in following jurisdictions, Dallas, Texas, Burlington, Kansas, London, UK, and have expertise in slender, defamation, libel, hate letters, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, cyber-harssment, copyright and trademark laws and would like to represent us, please contact us here support@realscamclassactionsuit.com

Check this site for new developments as we will be updating it frequently.

http://www.patrickpretty.com/2011/11/02 ... ing-fraud/

http://www.realscam.com/f11/bogdan-fied ... ndex3.html

What a knucklehead!!

Soapboxmom

[JamesVincent]

Looks like you got yourself an admirer there Soapbox.

[wserra]

Yet another internet legal Rambo. Moreover, as seems to be the case on almost every occasion, one who should wish to avoid the sort of publicity such stupid threats bring. Imagine the negative publicity a lawsuit would bring.

I had never heard of Adlandpro before seeing it on RealScam. I just spent a few minutes looking at it. It resembles such benighted sites as TalkGold in its relentless promotion of obvious get-rich-quick ripoffs.

Pick a page on the site - "Work from Home: United States", for example, although it could be anywhere. Banner ad at top, other paid advertising down the side. I'm sure these paid commercials rotate each time the page loads, but here are some of the ones I see:

JSS - Tripler:

Earn 2%+ per Day - 60% per Month!
Basically, You Earn 2% per Day or 60% per Month! No sponsoring Requirements. Use Daily Compounding to Increase Your Earnings! Make Daily Withdrawals to Get Your Money Out! This may be one of the easiest and best ways to earn money you've ever seen!

F5M Millionnaires Club:

YOU CAN EARN UNLIMITED DEPENDABLE INCOME FOR LIFE STARTING FROM ONE TIME PAYMENT OF ONLY $5.00!
This Guide Includes A Money Making System That Everyone Is Raving About! It Is A Proven Wealth System™ That Is Not Experimental But The One That Has Been Earning Money For Thousands Of Average People And Paying Daily For Almost 20 Years Worldwide!
The F5M-Millionaires-Club Complete Guide To A Million Dollar Internet Business will show you exactly how to earn income immediately, get paid as often as daily and at the same time build an income of $5000, $10000, $25000, $50000 or more per year that will be PAID OUT to YOU for LIFE!

Your Online Profit System:

How To Make Money Online And Be Profitable Within 12 Weeks!
And then learn how to repeat the process and grow it to 4-5-6 and then a 7-Figure annual income online.

My Free Cash Machine:

WE PAY DAILY! Our Average Earnings Are $200 Every Day!

And many others.

Now, the owner of RealScam (and, of course, of Q) are immune from suit under 47 USC 230, given that the owner is not the "information content provider" for the posts in question. Mr. Fiedur, however, should consider that his situation is different from RS or Q. He charges fees to the above ripoffs to place their commercials, and thus profits from the site. Moreover, he appears to be in Canada, and I have no idea if Canadian law provides the immunity U.S. law does, even for a site owner who doesn't profit.

So, Mr. Fiedur, not only do your impotent threats show you to be the typical internet blowhard, but you really ought to be careful what you wish for.

[littleroundman]

So, Mr. Fiedur, not only do your impotent threats show you to be the typical internet blowhard, but you really ought to be careful what you wish for.

Ssshhhhh,

don't say that, he might just change his mind and back out of suing.

[Arthur Rubin]

I'm a 1L, and I don't think B has any idea what the Ohio case determined, and it has little precedential value even in Ohio. The basic rule on personal jurisdiction and libel is unclear; there are at least 3 factors:

• If you
• Direct your statements to the forum state,
• The false statements relate to the plaintiff's actions in the forum state, and
• The false statements were investigated in the forum state,

then you can be sued in the forum state.

The Calder test (aka National Enquirer) specifies that if all of (1), (2), and (3) hold, the forum is proper. In fact, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, ruled that (1) and (4) (the plaintiff's reputation in the forum state is affected), is adequate. Revell v. Lidov ruled that if none of (1), (2), and (3) hold, then the forum is improper. In the Ohio case referred to, we have (2) and (4), and in the case of posters here and at realscam.com, we might also have (3). Courts are divided as to whether anything can be done in the absence of (1), and have been for some time; and it would make a difference whether the case was in state or Federal court, as to which precedents are binding or would have more weight.

The other case mentioned is not at all "on point" in regard liability of the forum, and may also not be correctly decided; it's illegal for a landlord to ask about gender, sexual orientation (at least in California), or children, but it's not illegal for a roommate, even if also the landlord, to so ask.

Again, I'm only a 1L; if you're worried, and don't mind the effort, you should contact a lawyer licensed to practice in the probable forum. I can tell you what I would do, in more detail, in the unlikely event that he would sue me, either in the US or Canada, but I cannot legally advise you.

[wserra]

http://realscamclassactionsuit.com/
...
Such unproven accusations cause irreparable damage to the reputation of users who have provided their full names in public places to conduct their business or other social activities.
...
There is possibility that their actions could be qualified as cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment. The possibility of their breaking of these acts is now being investigated for the sake of filing reports with authorities against above mentioned members and site owners of RealScam sites in their respective areas.
...
Site RealScam encourages cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking by allowing the creation of anonymous accounts and by allowing the users to present of unproven accusations towards individuals of their targeted organization. The RealScam.com turns out to be just a harassment and bashing site with no verification of facts and indiscriminate attacks at anyone who looks like an easy target.
...
If you have been targeted by anonymous users from the RealScamSite.com and would like to join Class Actions Suit against RealScam.com
...
Following articles might be of interests if you have been slandered by this site or if some of the anonymous users there engaged in defamation against you.
...
If you are practicing law in following jurisdictions, Dallas, Texas, Burlington, Kansas, London, UK, and have expertise in slender, defamation, libel, hate letters, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, cyber-harssment, copyright and trademark laws and would like to represent us, please contact us

Ladies and gentleman, this is your stewardess speaking. We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused. This is due to periodic air pockets we encountered. There's no reason to be alarmed and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

[ArthurWankspittle]

If you are practicing law in following jurisdictions, Dallas, Texas, Burlington, Kansas, London, UK, and have expertise in slender, defamation, libel, hate letters, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, cyber-harssment, copyright and trademark laws and would like to represent us, please contact us

If you have this expertise and are in London you will be a barrister. It is a complex area of law and the risks and rewards are high. The last time I had any dealings with a barrister was about 5-6 years ago and the person was an "ordinary" barrister (if there is such a thing) and cost £400/hour. Top law firms with real expertise in something as specialised as slander and libel will be well into £xxxx/hour. Most amusing in this situation is that I'm sure every firm will require a deposit against the fees incurred in assessing the case and drafting a complaint if there is a case to answer. Even if they had a case (which I doubt very much) the conversation will go:
"Can you provide us with a deposit of £xx,xxx contingent against our fees?"
followed by:
"I sorry. In that case we can't help you."
followed by:
"Call Security/the Police."

[Judge Roy Bean]

Bogdan needs not only legal advice, but an editor/proofreader.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Bogdan needs not only legal advice, but an editor/proofreader.

Damn, forgot to add snarky comment about slender. That's as good as the "liable" that was part of the Casey Serin saga.

[wserra]

Bogdan Fiedur has added two new things to the above site:

(1) A summary of UK harassment/cyberstaking law. That's interesting, because (a) he's in Canada, and (b) most of the RealScam folks he's threatening are either in the U.S. or Australia. Planning some libel tourism, Mr. Fiedur? You should be aware that the U.S. won't honor such judgments. I don't know about Australia, but I doubt it. And, if I were you, I'd be more concerned about Canadian law. How does it view putting up an entire site, the only purpose of which is to harass certain named people?

(2) A copyright notice. Mr. Fiedur should read up on fair use. Wikipedia has a pretty good lay summary.

And he's still looking for someone who can fly the plane. Not getting a lot of interest from lawyers, eh, Mr. Fiedur?

[Doc Bunkum]

And he's still looking for someone who can fly the plane. Not getting a lot of interest from lawyers, eh, Mr. Fiedur?

Maybe Booger should retain the services of that wannabe lawyer Lenny Clements. They both seem to be mad at the same folks, so maybe Lenny could help him out.

[soapboxmom]

RealScamClassActionSuit.com

We have been notified by several sources associated with RealScam.com site and informed that if we withdraw our threat of class action suit against RealScam.com we can see more positive reaction in terms of handling our requests with removing harassing, libelous content which has been discussed with the owner. We are suspending our claim for one week starting on Nov 16, 2011. Upon this period we will reevaluate actions by the other side and make the decision in regards to restoring prior content of this page or removing the page entirely.


Realscamclassactionsuite Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A good tongue lashing from ol' mom here seems to have significantly softened Boggy's stance. Fascinating!

Soapboxmom

[wserra]

"All right, we'll call it a draw."



Now, why do you think that happened? Could it have something to do with the fact that four of the first five results of a google of "Bogdan Fiedur" are the RealScam thread, this thread, a (highly critical) Patrick Pretty article and the site of path2prosperity, a prominent Fiedur critic on RealScam? I think somebody needs reputation.com - or would, if it could do anything.

[soapboxmom]

HAHAHA!!! I give you wonderful guys and gals all the credit. I had already most rudely pointed out to Boggy just how stellar his reputation was. http://www.realscam.com/f11/bogdan-fied ... #post12480

At least he has proven quite helpful in publicizing a number of real clunkers! It looks to me like Boggy must be an honor graduate of the Tim Darnell and Jack Weinzierl Online Reputation Management program! Now, that is some fabulous advertising for that deal!

Soapboxmom

[webhick]

RealScamClassActionSuit.com

We have been notified by several sources associated with RealScam.com site and informed that if we withdraw our threat of class action suit against RealScam.com we can see more positive reaction in terms of handling our requests with removing harassing, libelous content which has been discussed with the owner. We are suspending our claim for one week starting on Nov 16, 2011. Upon this period we will reevaluate actions by the other side and make the decision in regards to restoring prior content of this page or removing the page entirely.


Realscamclassactionsuite Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A good tongue lashing from ol' mom here seems to have significantly softened Boggy's stance. Fascinating!

Soapboxmom

Softened his stance? He practically declared victory by giving the impression that you caved into his demands.

[AndyK]

Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Broadcast? Redistributed? Hello This is the Internet. Everything gets redistributed across multiple servers world-wide.

It appears that, in this case, past performance is an excellent predictor of future actions: Garbage out ==> More garbage out.

[soapboxmom]

Bogdan has completely gone over the edge. He has now lined up fake UCLA law students. No doubt his $500.00 an hour London attorney will be seeking to consult with them!!!

http://realtruthorg.webs.com/apps/blog/

Soapboxmom

[Arthur Rubin]

Bogdan has completely gone over the edge. He has now lined up fake UCLA law students.

The student may not be fake, although, considering his/her legal opinion, perhaps it would be better if he/she took up another line of work. A part-time J.D. usually takes 4 years, and a full-time J.D. candidate is allowed (at least, by ABA rules) to take at least 4 years, and possibly 5.

However, I would go on to say that, if there were some false statements (of fact) made about Bogdan on realscam, only the individual posters could be sued for defamation. There is a legal procedure (I don't know the name) for Bogdan to demand the identity of the posters from realscam. In most cases, the posters probably need to be notified so that they can object anonymously. If, as seems likely, they can demonstrate the truth of the claims, the identity need not be revealed.

To add to B's confusion, it's not entirely clear that there is any specific place the lawsuit could be filed. See Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002). The court suggests (but does not state) that the lawsuit could be filed where B's alleged "bad acts" occurred, or (does state) where the poster lives, but, if B doesn't know where the poster lives, he can't file the request for the identity of the poster there....

Or at least, that's the way I remember reading about it.

[wserra]

The student may not be fake, although, considering his/her legal opinion, perhaps it would be better if he/she took up another line of work.

Ya think? Here's what alleged UCLA law student "Jake Simmons" has to say about defamation:

Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. The law and act states the burden of proof falls on the individual making the claims and the burden of proof is very high. You do have the freedom of speech in most of these jurisdictions; however the laws in most jurisdictions supersede the freedom of speech when it comes to unwarranted harmful or hateful statements.

Every sentence nonsense. Criminal libel? "Very high" burden of proof on the speaker, and not (as in almost every civil case) on the plaintiff (and by a preponderance)? "Supersede" the First Amendment? This person isn't even an intelligent layman. If he is in fact a law student - odds: 1% - allow me to borrow from Kingsfield: "Here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer."

As for Bogdan Fiedur - er, "Jake Simmons" - on the liability of an owner of a bulletin board for others' posts:

if in fact he/she [the owner of Real Scam - WS] is not involved would mean that they are just the broadcasting medium and therefore fall under the broadcasters code if they have a legal statement on their site that they do not endorse or support the statements made by members. The FCC which covers the legislation of broadcasters and is careful to not become involved with the broadcasters First Amendment Rights unless they broadcast hate, defamation, slander or libel.

Ya think that any discussion of the liability of a U.S. bulletin board owner for defamation ought to include 47 USC 230? A course in remedial English grammar wouldn't hurt either.

"Kalina Jordan", another alleged UCLA law student, then picks up with the ungrammatical gibberish:

Even though the identity of the site, who's owner is not revealed the website owner would still have to establish that they made and took precautions. Ensure that they are in fact not covered under the same protections as a medium broadcaster as there are no services offered, the RealScam site in question is not a public service and is not protected as a Public Broadcaster it would therefore be listed as private and would also have to prove the they not knowingly allowed this, as they would require someone by proxy to manage the site.

Most of this is simply gibberish. Yet another "law student" discussing the liability of a bulletin board owner without mentioning the 900-lb gorilla, 47 USC 230. What do they teach at UCLA these days?

A few days after the mess begins, somebody with a few functioning brain cells clues Bogdan Fiedur (who had by then posted under his own name a couple of times) on to 47 USC 230, so yet another "UCLA law student" "Stevie Y" mentions it for the first time. "Stevie Y" had already posted a couple of times. One of his posts included the gem of a cite "New York Times v. Sullivan No. 39,(1964)". "No. 39"? A first-day law student knows better. He then proceeds to post the following incredibly astute observation:

Again she does not understand that you must read your Google search Law facts!

"Google search law facts"? Anyway, he writes an unintelligible jumble of a comment, including getting the holding of important sec. 230 case Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006) exactly backwards. Oh, and he calls it Barrett vs. Rosenthal, and provides no citation (not even "No. 39"), things a real legal professional wouldn't do.

Bogdan Fiedur, please keep up these comments. They're quite entertaining.

[JamesVincent]

Wes, your missing the true entertainment value of the whole thing. Not only are they calling RealScam a scam, stating that they have never actually done anything to expose a real scam, their using the same medium and doing the same thing that their accusing soapbox of. We know that on RealScam there is indeed links and reports of court cases Soapboxmom has been involved in and we know there are links to other scam sites that have also been involved in scam and fraud cases, so the first statement is a lie. But to then go forward and boldly slander someone your accusing of slandering, hell man, you cant pay for entertainment like that.