You are on page 1of 7

Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 1 of 7

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 2 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

David Blockowicz, Mary Blockowicz, and Lisa


Blockowicz, individuals,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action 1:09-cv-03955

v.
Judge Holderman
Joseph David Williams and Michelle Ramey,
individuals, Magistrate Judge Cox

Respondents.

DECLARATION OF ED MAGEDSON IN SUPPORT OF


NON-PARTY XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
THIRD PARTY ENFORCEMENT OF INJUNCTION
I, Edward Magedson, declare as follows:
1. My name is Ed Magedson. I am a resident of the State of Arizona, am over
the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court or other proceeding I could and would
give the following testimony which is based upon my own personal knowledge unless
otherwise stated.
2. I am the manager of Xcentric Ventures, LLC (“Xcentric”) and the founder
and “ED”itor of the website www.RipoffReport.com which I started in 1998. The Ripoff
Report site is operated by Xcentric. Serving as a forum for speech concerning bad
business practices among other things, the Ripoff Report is the leading complaint
reporting website on the Internet and one of the most ardent supporters of free speech
anywhere.
3. In my capacity as the Editor of the Ripoff Report I have worked closely
with all levels of federal, state, and local law enforcement, including, but not limited to,
various state attorneys general, county attorneys, Homeland Security, the United States
Justice Department, United States Secret Service, FBI, FTC, SEC, US Postal inspectors,
and local police, providing them with information used to detect patterns of deceptive
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 3 of 7

business practices and to prosecute violations of consumer protection laws, among other
things.
4. The Ripoff Report is 100% free to use—it charges nothing whatsoever to
users who create reports, nothing to viewers who read reports, and nothing to anyone
wishing to respond to reports.
5. I am aware that in this case, Plaintiffs have alleged “On information and
belief, <Ripoffreport.com> often attempts to charge individuals and companies money if
they wish to respond to ‘reports’”. This allegation is totally and completely false. The
Ripoff Report has never charged any money, nor has it attempted to charge any money,
to anyone seeking to respond to reports. Since the Ripoff Report was created more than a
decade ago, responses to reports (which we call “rebuttals”) can be posted by anyone, at
any time, without any payment required. In fact, the reports identified in Plaintiffs’
Complaint each contain numerous responses. Ripoff Report charged nothing for any of
these responses.
6. As of November 2009, the Ripoff Report contains nearly 500,000 unique
reports. When expanded to include comments to reports (known as “rebuttals”) the site
contains millions of unique posts with up to 1,000 new submittals each day. Every
submission to the site is screened and reviewed by our staff of monitors who are
authorized to make minor editorial changes in order to redact certain types of content
(primarily offensive language, profanity, threats, etc., and also including certain types of
personal information such as social security numbers, bank account numbers and so
forth). Other than such redactions, our staff are not authorized to make any changes to
reports, nor do they do so.
7. After a report has been submitted to the Ripoff Report by a user, the user
cannot make any changes to the report. The system simply does not permit users to make
any changes, modifications, editions or deletions, nor has it ever allowed such changes.
8. Ripoff Report’s servers create a log which captures various information
relating to every post submitted to our site. Among other things, our logs capture the

2
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 4 of 7

date/time a posting was submitted, the author’s name, address, phone number, email
address and IP address, and the name of the Ripoff Report staff member who reviewed
the submission as well as the date/time that the posting was reviewed.
9. Once a report is published on the site, our servers automatically include at
least two date stamps within the body of the report. The first stamp carries the label
“SUBMITTED:”. As the name suggests, this stamp identifies the date at which a
particular post was originally submitted to the site. This information is automatically
appended to the report by our servers and like the text of the report itself, the date cannot
be edited or modified by the user who submitted the posting.
10. Reports also contain a second stamp which, prior to November 2009,
previously read: “MODIFIED”, so a typical report heading may have read:
“SUBMITTTED: January 1, 2008, MODIFIED: July 4, 2009”. In this instance, the word
“MODIFIED” did not refer to any changes to the text of the original report because such
changes were never permitted to be made and were never possible to make. Instead, the
word “MODIFIED” meant that a comment/response of some kind had been posted after
the original report, and thus the entire page where the report was located had been
“modified” by the addition of a comment (which is added to the bottom of the page).
11. The Ripoff Report is constantly seeking new ways to upgrade and improve
its service. As part of that process, in November 2009 we changed the way dates on
reports are tracked by removing the word “MODIFIED” (because it was confusing) and
substituting a more accurate description which now reads: “LAST POSTING”. This
change more accurately reflects the fact that just because a comment has been made
about a report does not mean that the original text of the report has been changed.
12. In this case, I am aware that there are three disputed postings which have
been assigned Report #445743, 70642 and 69190 (these are serial numbers automatically
assigned by Ripoff Report’s servers when a post is submitted to the site). According to
our server logs, Report #69190 was submitted to the site on October 15, 2003, #70642
was submitted on October 31, 2003, and #445743 was submitted on April 22, 2009.

3
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 5 of 7

13. I am aware that Plaintiffs have alleged that the two reports from 2003 were
submitted to the site and then “modified” by the author in some manner. These
allegations are not true. As I stated above, authors are never allowed to make changes to
reports and, in fact, the system simply is not equipped to permit any changes by users.
14. It appears that Plaintiffs’ claims about the reports being “modified” in 2003
ARE based on the fact that our system previously used the word “MODIFIED” in the
header of the report. As noted above, that term was always directed at the date that
additional comments were submitted beneath the original posting. It never meant that the
original post had been changed. In an effort to help reduce such confusion, our system
has been changed so that the term “MODIFIED” is now replaced by the words: “LAST
POSTING”. All three of the reports at issue here now reflect this change (as do the
~500,000 other reports on the site):

4
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 6 of 7

15. I understand that Plaintiffs allege the three postings at issue were submitted
to the site by Defendants Joseph David Williams and/or Michelle Ramey and that Ripoff
Report is active “aiding” or “acting in concert” with these individuals. These allegations
are false.
16. Prior to receiving Plaintiffs’ pleadings in this case a few days ago, I had
never heard of Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey nor had I ever heard of any of the Plaintiffs. I
am not acting in concert with either Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey nor is anyone at
Xcentric Ventures acting in concert with these people, whoever they are.
17. After I received Plaintiffs’ motion, I reviewed Ripoff Report’s server logs
for the postings at issue in order to determine the name(s) of the original author of each
posting. According to these logs, the three postings were submitted by three different
authors with three different names, different addresses, phone numbers, and email
addresses. None of the names used were either Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey and none of
the email addresses used were the same as the addresses identified by Plaintiffs as
belonging to Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey.
18. It is possible that Mr. Williams and/or Ms. Ramey used pseudonyms to post
their reports, but it is also possible that the reports were submitted by someone other than
Mr. Williams and/or Ms. Ramey.
19. I also reviewed Xcentric’s server logs in order to determine whether any
changes were made to the original postings as Plaintiffs claimed. The server logs reflect
that the postings were not changed by the original authors nor were they changed by
anyone else.
20. A limited number of Xcentric staff with administrative-level access to the
servers could potentially make changes to the text of reports. However, if such a change
was made, the servers would create a log reflecting this. According to Xcentric’s logs,
the original posts were each reviewed once by a staff member (as is our normal
procedure) and were never changed following the initial review.

5
Case 1:09-cv-03955 Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 7 of 7

21. The first time I learned of the existence of this dispute was on October 13,
2009 when I received a letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel via email demanding that I comply
with the injunction issued in this case. When I received this letter I reviewed the
Complaint which was included as an exhibit and I immediately noted that the Complaint
falsely accused Ripoff Report of demanding money in order to allow responses to reports.
22. Based on many years of experience, it is my belief that attorneys often
make false accusations against myself or the Ripoff Report in an effort to prejudice the
courts against us before we are allowed to appear and respond. I believe such conduct is
offensive and my response to Plaintiffs’ counsel reflected that genuinely-held belief. I
did not intend my response to be a “personal attack” on Plaintiff’s counsel; I merely
expressed frustration at what I perceived to be an unfair litigation tactic.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED ON: November 9, 2009.

______________________________________
Edward Magedson