« Consumer Clinical Law Professors Comment on CFPB's Arbitration Rule | Main | D.C. Circuit holds that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's governing structure is unconstitutional »

Monday, October 10, 2016



Interesting article. I posted an honest review of an attorney named Elizabeth Lubker on Ripoff Report. You can see her responses below it. There were never any such hearing dates as she claimed, she lied to the court and to Ripoff Report to get my identifying info, I filed timely objections in court and she still served it and Ripoff Report handed everything over to her despite my pleading with them to protect my privacy. What really irks me is I am a journalist of more than 30-years and could not protect my own privacy and First Amendment rights. Ripoff Report also handed over my private correspondence to their legal dept., with RR telling me it was not "protected atty-client privelege". Huh? (I dont think anyone there actually has a law degree).

Ray Gordon

Too bad average citizens can't just get a declaratory judgment de-indexing defamation. It would be a good balance to free speech to recognize reputation as a human right.

I have my own story about how the Ripoff Report I posted about a well-known legal nonprofit was somehow removed WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, showing that RipoffReport will pull down reports about certain individuals.

The cost to the taxpayers of internet grudges is astounding: the people targeted wind up costing the healthcare system a fortune (therapy), and the taxpayers have to foot the bill for their SSDI, for which they qualify after no one will hire them. In my case, my interent haters, and those they mock as their pawns, are costing the taxpayers around $20k a year, or a total of almost a half-million by the time I reach retirement age. I wound up retired at 48 because some idiot lied about me on the internet. Ironically, when people hear about how much money came my way as a result of the lies, they don't believe them anymore.

Call it the "Google Tax" or the "Section 230 tax." One nice byproduct of this is learning who spreads gossip, who believes gossip, and who is "internet compromised" and a danger to the privacy of everyone around them. I'm sure the SJW who have fantasies of destroying people will be thrilled to hear that they're really just funneling taxpayer money into the pockets of their targets, but their goal is social justice, not malicious, right?

RIght. Thanks for all the free time and free money, haters.

Matthew Chan


As I stated in the Volokh Conspiracy, when two highly-regard legal scholars and legal minds come together to jointly write and report on a matter, one has to sit up and pay attention.

I continue to be astounded at what has been investigated and uncovered thus far. And if you find this piece compelling, Mr. Levy has just released YET ANOTHER update and analysis on top of all this on the SAME DAY!

I refer people to Mr. Levy's follow-up analysis: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/10/profile-defenders-and-richart-ruddie-the-common-link-between-two-phony-defamation-suits.html

He is drilling down into this and can see and sniff out things that most of us cannot (especially someone as untrained as I am).


wow ... this is investigative journalism !!

The comments to this entry are closed.