Sue Scheff: Why people are praising Google Bomb book

· Who should purchase Google Bomb?

Every person with a name and reputation which they wish to protect should purchase this book. You don’t have to be a technological titan to understand the examples provided. The take-away knowledge provides you a fighting chance to protect, and when necessary, reclaim your reputation. My adage re family online safety is: “Invest in your family’s online safety, commensurate with the value of your family.” This book’s modest price is asymmetrical to the increased value you’ll experience in your reputation safety quotient.

· Why you should purchase Google Bomb

Google Bomb is road-map clear, no missed exits, nor wrong turns, no questionable advice. It is an arrow in your quiver, so that you may defend yourself and/or prepare yourself should you have the unfortunate experience of receiving the vile ill-will of another via the social media environment in which we collectively exist – you do have a fighting chance.

· How Google Bomb touched me

Only infrequently does a book cause a reader to experience a personal visceral reaction; for me, it’s happened only once before. Google Bomb, the telling of Sue Scheff’s personal story in the recovery of her good name and reputation, is such a book, it moved me, and it will move you. Allow me to explain.

Those who know me well will have immediate understanding why a book which charts the Herculean efforts required to reclaim your good name, reputation and professional stature following the actions of a few to destroy, such resonated with me. You see, once you’ve traversed that road of false accusations, you never wish to replicate the journey again, and you’d wish it upon no one.

When it’s happening it’s surreal and unbelievable. Once the realization you aren’t dreaming hits home, you are either overwhelmed and capitulate, in effect self-declared road-kill or you take inventory of all your resources and deduce your good name and honorable reputation are the only remnants of your life worth protecting. You then take these remnants and use them to form the foundation of your reclamation efforts. Even if your first steps may feel a bit like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, persevere, what journey ever started off with every experience preordained?

I appreciated the description of the pivotal moment when Sue described the last straw, the straw which caused her to stand up and say, “Enough already.” I had complete visualization of her reaction when the miscreants who had been attacking her persona and her company, began attacking her children. I had no doubt her “mother bear” instinct to fight and protect her offspring was fully awake and it was game-on!

Unfortunately, bad things do happen to good people. You strive, perhaps seemingly altruistically to bring goodness to this world and awaken one day to find yourself surrounded by vile and unconscionable accusations. Your mindset describes the event as “stupefying,” you are now seemingly being punished for your good works. Google Bomb describes such an experience, Sue’s experience.

· What to do and how to do it

John Dozier’s insightful discussion of events, throughout the book, is clear and concise – the reader can easily understand the, “why” behind each of Sue’s actions. I found myself rereading and noting the legal and technical strategy employed as Sue’s reputation was reclaimed. I was nodding my head with great satisfaction as those wishing ill will upon Sue and her family were identified, held accountable and brought before the courts where they were ultimately held responsible and duly punished.

· Applicability for businesses and intellectual property

John’s extrapolation of his methodologies to the realm of a small, medium, or large company’s reputation and intellectual property protection is spot-on. My own book “Secrets Stolen, Fortunes Lost” was stolen within 60 days of publication from my publisher, and then shared via peer-to-peer networks (see my article Secrets Stolen, No Just the Intellectual Property which describes the experience). Plainly spoken, if you have intellectual property, “Have a strategy!” to protect it.

· Reputation Defense

Highlighting the good works of Michael Fertik’s Reputation Defender, was personally appreciated, as it reoriented my compass with respect to his firm – I’ll be re-engaging the company to learn more about their capabilities. My first encounter with Reputation Defender can only be described as “going sideways” and I have no doubt it was an anomalous event – I look forward to learning more from Michael or his staff, as Sue’s experiences described in Google Bomb, clearly show them to be effective.

· Google Bomb’s call to action

I agree with and wish to associate myself with the call-to-action contained in the book. We are all responsible for keeping our shared online community safe. When self-policing and self-control fail, then we do require meaningful laws availed to law enforcement and prosecutors. Laws having backbone and are easily understood and are flexible enough to anticipate evolution of technology are required. In essence our current situation is analogous to having a population center of millions without a “time-out” corner.

In my opinion, we need alignment of state and federal statutes which will hold accountable those engaging in cyber stalking, invasion of our privacy, personal impersonation and character defamation. In the United States, well meaning legislators are acting individually and from the optic of their constituent states – we need federal action. Furthermore, restraining orders need to have appropriate meat attached to their bones, with a need to integrate 21st century technologies – in the physical world 100 feet is measurable, in the virtual world, geographic borders are obscured – lets bring technological audit trails, access controlled environments and filtering into play.

It is no small task to fill the international voids which provide haven for both domestic and international criminal or malevolent individuals to operate with impunity, but instead of describing the difficulty, let’s get started. I’m all in! If we don’t all step up and contribute, then Sue’s story will be the first of many more to come.

· My personal thank you

In closing, I’d like Sue to know I’ve great personal empathy for the angst which she and her family experienced and I commend her for her display of personal courage and fortitude, from her decision to stand up and not take it any more, all the way through the sharing of her story so that others may learn from her experiences. For John, your work speaks for itself, nicely done sir.

Thank you Sue also for your good works both individually and through your Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE); it is clear you are one of the good people, and many families no doubt are grateful beyond their ability to articulate for the assistance you provided. Thank you John for your clear explanations of the legal strategy and steps one can take to protect oneself, you’ve empowered many.

--
Christopher Burgess
Christopher is the senior security advisor within a Fortune 100 company. He is also the co-author of Secrets Stolen, Fortunes Lost, Preventing Intellectual Property Theft and Economic Espionage in the 21st Century
http://www.secretsstolen.com/
Twitter: @burgessct
This reviewer paid for this book

Sue Scheff: Google Bomb Book -Chapter One - We're Not In Kansas Anymore

John Dozier and his team are having fun creating teasers for our upcoming best selling book of one of today's hottest topics!!!! Internet Safety, Online Image, Monsters of the Web and more!

The Untold Story of my $11M Jury Verdict for Internet Defamation - Landmark Case and growing problem in the World Wide Web. - No - we are not in Kansas anymore!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2byX1XG9qT8
Order today at http://googlebombbook.com/

Sue Scheff: Google Bomb Book Meets YouTube

My co-author, John Dozier, just posted a great introduction on YouTube in animation about our launching of Google Bomb Book in September 2009.

Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/v/6n6zCQWJ1zw&hl=en&fs=1"

Sue Scheff: A Tribute to Nikki Catsouras - Sign the Petition

When a family loses a child, I can’t even imagine the pain they endure. How they wake up the next day, how they feel, what they feel and how they go on with life. When a family loses a child in a tragic accident it seems it could only compound all the feelings of loss.

On October 31, 2006 the Catsouras family experienced the nightmare every parent fears - losing a teen in a tragic automobile accident.

The accident was the beginning of an emotional roller coaster. If you haven’t heard about this story, it is time to take a moment and help make a difference. Nikki Catsouras, after having a horrific car accident was dead on impact, the scene was described as shocking as Nikki’s head was nearly decapitated.

Can you even imagine as a parent, learning of this? Can you imagine living through this? As a parent advocate and a parent of two young adults now, I couldn’t even begin to imagine what this family has gone through.

What follows next is nothing short of evil, in my opinion. Shortly after Nikki was buried, her parents and sisters still in mourning, the Internet creeped into their lives in the most heinous way. Photo’s of Nikki’s crime scene were posted online! Yes, their daughter’s body, or what was left of it, was going viral! Where is justice? Who in God’s name would do this?

Please take a moment to read “A Tribute to Nikki Catsouras” and sign the petition to help create reasonable protection for personal privacy on the Internet.

Sue Scheff: Tormented by Cyberstalker, Ropes Partner Drafts New Legislation on Online Libel

I recently read a very interesting article on updating the CDA 1996 (Communications Decency Act) finally.

Until you become a target/victim of someones vengeance through a keypad, it is hard to describe how powerless the normal person feels. Attorney Joan Lukey is not stranger to litigation, however when she become a target of an unhappy defendant, she realizes just how legislation has not caught up with today's needs.

Read this article here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430012681

This re-iterates that my new book coming out this fall, Google Bomb, could not have better timing! When Revenge becomes E-Venge..... learn how to protect yourself both legally and in cyberspace.

Sue Scheff: Story of Internet Defamation and Prescriptive Relief!

Take Cover - Google Bomb Book is almost here!

O-kay - this is a preliminary cover - but it is getting the attention of many media outlets! - John Dozier and I are extremely excited about the launching of this book - for many reasons. Most of all, we offer sound solutions and help you to learn from my mistakes and gain from his expertise!

Having Michael Fertik write the foreword will introduce the rumbling this book will bring - as the CEO and Founder of ReputationDefender, Michael Fertik is an expert in the field of helping you manage your online profile!

Together - we do have a dream team to help you surf safely!

Pre-Order your copy today at Amazon.

Dozier Internet Law: Defamation of The Dead on NPR Monday

Dozier Internet Law's John W Dozier Jr. will be on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" Monday. Tune in to learn about defamation of the dead...and how to deal with social network profiles of the deceased...interesting and timely topics. No doubt that the complexities of living life in a connected world are growing.

Sue Scheff: ReputationDefender, CEO - Michael Fertik Specialist in Online Defamation

Lawsuit Cracks Open Online Anonymity
Shortcomings in the Law Allow Cyberdefamation Campaigns, Legal Expert Says

Read entire article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/Story?id=6960397&page=1



The Law as an Accomplice



Legal experts, however, emphasized that the law protects Web sites like Topix. Even if the comments are considered defamatory by a court of law, Topix has no legal obligation to take the content down.



Defenders of the legal landscape argue that a change could stifle open discussion and free speech. But others maintain that in stories like this, regardless of who emerges, once the veil of anonymity is lifted, it is the law itself that is a co-conspirator."The law as it currently stands is an accomplice because it creates no incentive whatsoever for Web sites to review or police themselves from content that is potentially devastating to real people and real lives," Michael Fertik, a lawyer who specializes in online defamation, told ABCNews.com.



Part of the problem, Fertik continued, is that laws that made sense at the birth of the Internet age have not matured. It takes years to redress online defamation problems under the present regime. But, in the meantime, libelous comments easily found through search engines can sideline both personal and professional lives.



Although privacy and free speech advocates worry that changes to the law could "chill" online speech, Fertik argued that "the law can easily catch up without destroying speech."But until then?



"The law provides the red dye for the scarlet letter," Fertik said. "It provides the ink for the tattoo that people create on Web sites like this."

Dozier Internet Law: Wikipedia's Death Is Greatly Exaggerated

I am always fascinated by what one of the leading Internet Lawyer, John Dozier, Blogs about. I have to share it on my Blog - hoping that more and more people will see that there will be positive changes eventually online - the wild, wild web is growing. What is fact and what is fiction? It can be hard to determine with a click of a mouse!

Source: Dozier Internet Law

Eric Goldman blogged yesterday on "why Wikipedia will fail". This the same day Wikipedia's plans to start policing its content more aggressively was widely publicized in the wake of some quack editing biographies to reflect the death of prominent politicians. The reports of their deaths were greatly exaggerated...borrowing for a moment from Mark Twain. The Dozier Internet Law blog entry on Wikipedia and Section 230 yesterday pointed out the admirable intent and the inherent risks involved. It's a good example of why the immunity provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act need to be changed.

So the response from the other side, through Eric Goldman, a law professor and one of the group of online legal warriors intent on trying to protect netizens so they can say whatever they want, when they want, where they want, seemingly without regard to how uncivil, inappropriate, defamatory and damaging the comments might be, is unfortunately not unexpected. This type of attack journalism comes with the support of a small ring of lawyers online who try to protect free speech by constantly attacking the speech of those who disagree. The irony does not escape us at Dozier Internet Law .

Wikipedia wants to edit. A more civil environment is a noble cause, to be sure. Instead of debating the issue of Section 230's application and how it prevents self policing and self regulation by those legitimately concerned about creating a more civil online society, attack journalism 101 begins.

These free speech expansionists, under the guise of "legal scholars", know that as major players in the online world begin to realize the wayward nature of online scofflaws and the need to do something about it, like amend Section 230 to empower self governance, the dialogue moves to a place they don't want to be. Sanity will eventually be restored once this path is pursued, and their constituencies will lose. In the name of free speech, they say, if you disagree with our position, we will not respond.

Except to attack the speaker...put into question the viability of a business that dares to offend their notions of how the web should be governed. Come on, can't you come up with something a bit more original? Free speechers are all for free speech, until they don't agree with it. Then they abandon the notion of a engaging robustly in the "marketplace of ideas", and go on the attack.

Dozier Internet Law: The Sky is Falling?

As usual, John Dozier, leading Internet Attorney - writes very interesting articles and Blogs. Yes, things are changing in Cyberspace -more and more people will be held accountable for their keystrokes - whether they are text messages, or IM's - get ready - a change is coming.

Source: Dozier Internet Law - by John Dozier

I keep seeing briefs from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and a lot of apparently ill-informed "professors" imploring the Judges to, in effect, agree with them in cases or the Internet will collapse. At Dozier Internet Law we even have a name for them..."chicken little briefs". So before the sky falls, let me point out that these free speechers and civil libertarian types keep submitting briefs advising of our imminent demise if they do not win. Has anyone mentioned to them that they keep losing, but the Internet is still here?

The sky is really falling? Now this mantra has been carried out into the non-lawyer public arena and people are actually repeating this jibberish. The MySpace Suicide conviction is a good case on point. The argument is that if you allow a website to dictate the terms of use of its site, and criminalize the unauthorized "outside of terms" uses, it will cause everyone to stop using the web because of fear of criminal prosecution. This power to establish terms is without precedent, the argument goes.

Therefore, the Courts should take the law passed by Congress and signed by the President and change it. Considering the roles our branches of government play this is a philosophically corrupt argument. It also makes no sense whatsover. Without precedent??? Are you kidding me? Okay, I can accept the fact that EFF, ACLU and Public Citizen have an agenda and bias and prejudice is expected. But these "law professors" should know better. Here's why:

If you break your rental car agreement and don't return it, you have violated the rental car company's "terms of use". Who reads those things? And it is grand larceny.

If you buy a software program, copy it and begin selling copies contrary to the license terms (which no one reads), then it is criminal copyright infringement.

Those are just two of what could be a long, long list. Because "unauthorized use" is a basic element that is often used to show the "mens rea" (latin for "guilty mind") in order to convict someone. So, the MySpace suicide conviction is nothing more than a continuation of the law. This is pretty elementary and is usually covered in the first year of law school. But then it hit me..."law professors" with enough time on their hands to interject themselves into pending cases all around the country probably aren't teaching first year law school classes.

People are still renting cars the last time I checked. Apparently software programs are still being used too! Is everyone worried that if they violate the "terms of use" (contracts or licenses) they'll end up in prison? No. Because decent, law-abiding people know that if they don't act in a reckless, outrageous, grossly irresponsible way they will be safe. And that belief works just fine.

Well, the verdict is in and the defendant has been convicted. I don't see any panic online. Websites are still processing Christmas orders. Dozier Internet Law clients don't seem besides themselves with fear.

I did notice, though, that Friday night the moon was really bright and large. And I thought, just maybe, the sky was falling! I can picture 1,000 years ago..."chicken little" characters running through a town creating widespread panic with doomsday declarations and imploring the masses to run for the hills..."imminent catastrophic demise is upon us-the sky is falling!", they would cry.

Sounds familiar.

Fortunately there is a very logical, rational explanation...I saw online that it was the lunar perigee. Happens every 15 or 20 years. And I then imagined a learned astronomer going into the panicked streets of long ago and telling everyone that there is no emergency, "doomsday is not upon us, so take off your boots and forget about climbing those hills, the sky is not falling, there is no catastrophe, and you can all safely return to your homes."

He turns, wipes the sweat off his brow, gives me a wink, shakes his head in disapproval of the situation, and as he is greeted by his colleague I hear him whisper..."it's just those damn professors again".

Exactly.

Dozier Internet Law: New Laws are Coming

Want to know more about the Internet and the Legal Boundaries? Leading Internet Specialist Attorney, John Dozier Jr. is one of the best in the country and represents some of the top businesses in the world.

Keep in touch with the Legal World of the Internet at John's Blog at http://johndozierjr.typepad.com/dozierinternetlaw/

John W. Dozier, Jr. began practicing law in 1981 and has the highest rating (AV) by Martindale-Hubbell (meaning he has reached the "height of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity"). Mr. Dozier is a "Legal Elite for 2008" as an Intellectual Property Lawyer through a peer selection process of the Virginia Bar Association and Virginia Business Magazine, was recognized through peer review as a "Super Lawyer" in Internet Law in the "Superlawyers" Magazine, was named as one of the top attorneys nationwide for 2008 in Intellectual Property Litigation in the Law and Politics Corporate Counsel Edition, and is peer selected as preeminent in the 2008 "Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers".

Dozier Internet Law: New Laws Are Coming from Dec. 11th, 2008

Have we now reached the point in which the web is so out of control that governmental authorities in the form of prosecutors and state Attorney General offices feel compelled to act? A federal prosecutor in LA gets a conviction of a mom for violating the terms of use of Myspace. The New Jersey AG sues JuicyCampus.com for consumer protection violations based upon misrepresentations in its terms of use. A Colorado prosecutor brings criminal charges against a poster for allegedly defamatory comments on Craigslist. What's going on here?

At Dozier Internet Law we have for a long while encouraged the self regulation and self policing of the web. History has told us that if that fails, government will get involved in one way or another. What we are seeing today is action by the executive and judicial branches of state government. Absent self policing, Congress, state legislators and even city and county governments will begin passing laws that will profoundly impact the web as we know it.

Codes of ethics for search engine optimization and affiliate marketers have been around for a while. So that industry is trying, at least. But what can web developers, web hosts, ISPs, and domain registrars do to send the message to the legislators that positive steps are being taken to provide a more safe, secure and civil Internet? Each can consider establishing strict guidelines and implementing them through their User Agreements and Acceptable Use Policies. Then, they can each aggressively enforce those rules. And there is no law prohibiting a business from deciding with whom it will do business absent discrimination being visited upon a protected class. And why not do so? In a time when Dozier Internet Law is defending lawsuits filed against webhosts, ISPs, software developers, and ESPs for the conduct of their customers, why would a legitimate business not police itself? There is no reason.

Recently we have seen high profile calls by Public Citizen for web hosts to be willing to bring their financial resources to the table to defend the misconduct of their customers. We, and other lawyers in the know, call this type of a host "bullet proof hosting" or "black hat hosting". The reputation of these hosts, to say the least, is anything but stellar. No legitimate host would want those labels. And there is no business reason to do so. Is this the type of protection a web host would freely offer up to a $7 a month customer? Of course not.So, on the one hand we have a pressing need to self regulate and self police, and efforts being made within industries and specific businesses to do so. On the other hand, there is the move afoot by the free speech and anti-business property rights groups to do everything they can to encourage misconduct. If the Public Citizen advice is followed that would be an invitation for legislation, a solicitation for more governmental intervention by the executive and judicial branches, and a recipe for disaster.

Web hosts should not only develop, implement and enforce strict guidelines aimed at returning safety, security and sanity to the online world, but undertake an industry-wide effort to establish a Code of Ethics and performance standards and good practice certifications. "Bullet proof" and "black hat" hosts need not apply because, well, you are ruining it for everyone.

Some of these free speech expansionsist public interest groups might think that high profile litigation surrounding new laws would be a good thing for fund raising. I am sure it would be. Is their advice motivated by greed? Or just a fanatical, one sided perspective nurtured by their long standing support of the scofflaws?
Here's the lesson, perhaps.

Is the message for web hosts that if you freely associate with outlaws, you find yourself thinking like them? I don't know. But it could explain Public Citizen's position

Sue Scheff: Internet Defamation Can Cost You

Back in September 2006, I was awarded over $11.3M jury verdict for damages. They were defamatory and false statements about my organization, myself and my family.I fought back, and won!

The defendant attempted to have the judgment set aside - although she was firmly denied in July 2007, she filed an appeal.

It is official - she loses again in the appellate court, and the $11.3M judgment stands firm!Free speech is still in tact, but it will not condone defamation.

Remember, think before your post - sometimes keystrokes can be costly!

Dozier Internet Law: Public Citizen Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court

A lawsuit filed by Ronald J. Riley through his lawyers at Public Citizen against Dozier Internet Law has been summarily tossed out of Federal Court in Richmond, Virginia today. Judge Henry E. Hudson, declining to even entertain oral arguments on the points, found that Riley and Public Citizen's assertions in the lawsuit don't belong in Federal Court and are nothing more than defenses to the lawsuit Dozier Internet Law had already filed in state court against Riley.

This major setback for the litigation team at Public Citizen, and Paul Levy in particular, follows by a day or so another major loss for Public Citizen in the "Jones Day" litigation in which the Federal Court refused to even consider the arguments in the brief filed by Public Citizen, Paul Levy, and others, and found for Jones Day, and against Levy's position, by rejecting motions to dismiss the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the mega-law firm over the use of its name online. Jones Day had earlier reportedly requested the Court to discard the Public Citizen brief on the grounds that Public Citizen's lawyers were biased.

Paul Levy, recently a labor lawyer relatively new to the online legal scene, has developed a reputation for publicly denouncing lawyers, judges, and anyone supporting legal interpretations with which he disagrees, and he continues to suffer legal setback after legal setback as his interpretations of the law are regularly rejected across the country by the Courts.

Earlier today, the Federal Court also reinstated the lawsuit filed by Dozier Internet Law against Ronald J. Riley by rejecting Levy's arguments and returning the case to State Court for further proceedings after Riley and Levy had removed it to Federal Court. Judge Henry Hudson declined to listen to oral arguments, and then stripped Riley and Public Citizen of Federal Jurisdiction.

The briefs and orders are available on the Pacer system. Although the issues were elementary and the deficiencies of the Riley and Public Citizen arguments obvious, the briefs are informative with respect to the interesting arguments and legal positions Levy continues to offer up to the online world.

Sue Scheff: Victorious Again Proving Internet Defamation vs Free Speech

It has been almost 2 years since I won the unprecedented $11.3M jury verdict for damages that was done to me. In these past 2 years I have been contacted by many victims of Internet Defamation and Slander. You can feel literally powerless - however also know, that with my case, the truth is always your defense.

There have been many articles written about this new rage and growing concern not only with parents of teens online, but with business owners and regular people.

I didn't ask to become a limited public figure, and many people don't ask for this - with all the media attention I can be considered this since my initial victory in September 2006.

I will continue being a voice against Internet Defamation - as well as working with my Senator and Congresswoman towards new legislation to help protect individuals and their careers.

Sue Scheff Victorious Again - $11.3M Jury Verdict Stands Firm

Back in September 2006, I was awarded over $11.3M jury verdict for damages. They were defamatory and false statements about my organization, myself and my family.

I fought back, and won! The defendant attempted to have the judgment set aside - although she was firmly denied in July 2007, she filed an appeal.

Today, it is official - she loses again in the appellate court, and the $11.3M judgment stands firm!
Free speech is still in tact, but it will not condone defamation.

Remember, think before your post - sometimes keystrokes can be costly!

Sue Scheff - When Does Free Speech Online cross over to Internet Defamation?

It seems Internet Harassment, Online Slander, Cyberbullying and other abuses in the World Wide Web is growing! I am contacted on a daily basis from victims of today's newest lethal and legal weapon to harm others - keystrokes!

You have to wonder what possesses people to feel the need to hurt others so malicously. With all of today's critical issues such as hunger, the war, homeless people etc.... We have a new group of people that simply have too much time on their hands - and take pleasure in hurting others. E-Venge seems like a good name for it.

If you think about it - it is a cowardly act. They hide out behind their computers and just strike their keypads - usually anonymously.

Read through this Blog and you will see that free speech is still in place but it will not condone defamation.

Blogging is fun, the Internet can be educational - but remember, what you post today can come back to haunt you tomorrow. And could be costly to you!

Visit my updated Podcast Website on E-Venge at http://www.suescheffpodcasts.com/

DOZIER INTERNET LAW - FIGHTING BACK! As the Internet Is Being Used as a Weapon, John Dozier Fights Back!

I recently read the complaint Dozier Internet Law vs Riley and couldn't believe how low people will stoop to harm others. It is obvious Riley has a lot of time on his hands and clearly is being held accountable legally! YES - let's work toward making these people that believe their keystrokes are anonymous wake-up! Be careful - you could be served!

The product of an investigation spanning the course of a year, the lawsuit sets forth in detail how Ronald J. Riley allegedly built false credentials through, among other tactics, claiming false affiliations with MIT and Harvard, creating executive positions by surreptitiously forming his own companies and organizations and appointing himself "President", "Executive Director", or "Senior Fellow", and misappropriating the identity of defunct organizations, including "The Alliance for American Innovation", a powerful lobbying group that had fulfilled its mission and had closed down. The suit alleges that Riley is using those credentials to generate clients for invention promotion, marketing and consulting, and targeting unsuspecting inventors and entrepreneurs.

The legal action describes Ronald J. Riley's alleged attempts to silence his online critics, and his challenges to the anonymity of bloggers and online commentators, with threats to obtain log files and IP addresses and "track down" those disclosing his fraudulent misconduct. The Complaint details how Riley allegedly used attacks against competitors and infringed on trademarks to generate clients, including the use of "anchored text" links fraudulently misdirected to Riley's websites.

The lawsuit alleges that Ronald J. Riley has "perpetrated one of the most successful business credential frauds ever committed upon the inventor and entrepreneur community."

Is the Internet Being Used as a Weapon rather than a Tool? - E-Venge - A growing problem

It seems Internet Harassment, Online Slander, Cyberbullying and other abuses in the World Wide Web is growing! I am contacted on a daily basis from victims of today's newest lethal and legal weapon to harm others - keystrokes!

You have to wonder what possesses people to feel the need to hurt others so malicously. With all of today's critical issues such as hunger, the war, homeless people etc.... We have a new group of people that simply have too much time on their hands - and take pleasure in hurting others. E-Venge seems like a good name for it.

If you think about it - it is a cowardly act. They hide out behind their computers and just strike their keypads - usually anonymously.

Read through this Blog and you will see that free speech is still in place but it will not condone defamation.

Blogging is fun, the Internet can be educational - but remember, what you post today can come back to haunt you tomorrow. And could be costly to you!

Visit my updated Podcast Website on E-Venge at http://www.suescheffpodcasts.com/

INTERNET LAW - Bullying and Cyber-Bullying Prohibited under Florida Law

Source: Internet Business Service Law

Bullying and, in particular, cyber-bullying is becoming a frequent practice among the American youth. Incidents are reaching such daunting results that state legislatures are rapidly adopting measures. For instance, Florida Legislature adopted an anti-bullying, including cyber-bullying, law on April 2008. The law is called "Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act" (Fla. Stat. section 1006.147), named after Jeffrey Johnston, a 15-year-old boy who committed suicide after being the object of bullying, including Internet bullying, for two years. This new Florida law prohibits bullying and harassment of any public K-12 student or employee, and requires public schools to adopt measures to protect students and employees from the physical and psychological effects of bullying and harassment.


The Florida Senate, quoting to a report by SafeYouth.org, stated that "bullying behavior can involve direct attacks, such as hitting, threatening or intimidating, maliciously teasing or taunting, name-calling, making sexual remarks, and stealing or damaging belongings, or more subtle, indirect attacks such as spreading rumors or encouraging others to reject or exclude someone." It also stated that bullies are four times more likely than non-bullies to be convicted of a crime by age 24, with 60% of bullies having at least one criminal conviction.

Thus, this Florida law is considered a safety measure for schools and the Florida community. Section 1006.147, titled "Bullying and Harassment Prohibited," proscribes bullying and harassment in Florida's K-12 public educational institutions; in any educational program or activity conducted by an educational institution; or through the use of data or software accessed by a computer, computer system, or computer network of a K-12 public educational institution. Hence, using the school e-mail network, even while at home, to bully or harass other students is prohibited by this Florida law. The law expressly defines "bullying" as the act of systematically or chronologically inflicting physical harm or emotional distress on a student. The law also provides examples of conducts that may result in bullying:

1. Teasing;
2. Social exclusion;
3. Threat;
4. Intimidation;
5. Stalking;
6. Physical violence;
7. Theft;
8. Sexual or racial harassment;
9. Public humiliation; or
10. Destruction of property.

Harassment is defined as any verbal, written, or physical conduct that threatens, insults, or dehumanizes public school students or employees. Written harassment includes those committed through electronic means and the use of computer software. The conduct must be sufficient to place the student or employee in reasonable fear of harm against him or his property; and sufficient to interfere with the student"s school performance, opportunities, or benefits. The Florida anti-bullying law also penalizes those who induce or coerce others to bully or harass public school students or employees. Students, parents, volunteers, or employees that promptly and in good faith report bullying acts will be exempted from civil cause of actions against them.

The Florida anti-bullying law also mandates each school district to adopt a code of conduct against bullying and harassment by December 1, 2008. This code of conduct must protect all students regardless of their status under the law but the school districts are authorized to create student categories when drafting their school policies. In any event, the code of conduct must include a general prohibition of bullying and harassment; a definition of these terms; an expected student conduct and behavior; description of the consequences of falsely and wrongfully accusing others of bullying and harassment; the procedures for reporting bullying and harassment incidents, including anonymous reports; a procedure for the prompt investigation of these acts; a procedure to determine whether the acts are within the district school system; a procedure to notify parents and criminal authorities; a procedure to refer victims to counseling; among others.

The Florida Department of Education affords an additional protection for victims of bullying and harassment by, first, monitoring district school activities, including transportation, through permanent collection of data (24 hours a day, 7 days a week); and second, enhancing the School Environmental Safety Incident Reporting System (SESIR). This program allows district schools to report bullying activities and conducts an annual database management workshop.

The Florida anti-bullying and harassment law is definitely well received and the first intent to control youth behavior, including Internet behavior. Yet, questions arise as to the consequences incurred when violating this law. It is not clear under the text of this law whether its violation merely includes school disciplinary actions or whether subsequent criminal actions will be sought. This is an important question whose answer is yet to come.

Law and sociology have been close partners for centuries; another important question is where are the parents parenting? A sociological answer to this question might take us to the genesis of most bullying and harassment problems which is essential for state legislatures and school officials.

Sue Scheff Continues to Be a Voice Against Internet Abuse

Since winning my unprecedented lawsuit in September 2006 - with a jury verdict for damages done to my family, my organization and myself - over $11M - I am contacted on a daily basis from other victims of Internet Harassment, Abuse, Slander and Defamation.

This is a growing problem with today's expanding Cyberspace and more and more businesses being rated online. It has been stated that many time that many clients, when they seen negative posts on someone or a business, will usually not take the time to find out if it is Internet Gossip or fact.

I have heard from small business owners who have filed bankruptcy, struggling professionals that had one client or former employee take revenge with the keypad, as well as potential job applicants not getting a job after a firm did an Online Search. This is becoming a serious problem and needs to be addressed.

For those that believe that free speech will condone defamation, think twice - and read about my case. This is not about free speech - this is about people intentionally and maliciously destroying others with a few keystrokes in what is being called E-Venge.

I continue to answer as many emails as I can hoping to give others the support in the fact they are not alone.