ED Magedson – Founder
Update June 1, 2015: INVESTIGATION UPDATE – Ben Smith Sac County Iowa Attorney; Charges against Darren Meade dropped! Sac County Attorney Ben Smith dismisses all criminal charges against Darren Meade related to his posts on Ripoff Report. | Sac County Iowa Attorney Ben Smith fails to identify false statements, fails to support his accusations with clarifications.3197 B Airport Loop Drive Nationwide United States of America
***Update June 1, 2015: INVESTIGATION UPDATE – Charges against Darren Meade dropped!!!**UPDATE January 10, 2015: Ripoff Report reveals initial findings, while Ben Smith’s minions race to have documents, articles and other evidence removed from the internet. *NOTICE: July 13, 2014: Sac County Iowa Prosecutor’s Allegations Warrant Unprecedented Action from Ripoffreport.com regarding Darren Meade Posts | ...Google-Cide Exposed By The Man Who Knew Too Much, Darren Meade. Adam Stuart Zuckerman, Michael Roberts, Paul Pirelli of Rexxfield & Matthew Cooke of RemoveYourName.com censored the Internet to silence the voice of victims world-wide by removing personal blogs and functionality of the Internet controlled by hackers disguised as Online Reputation Management and SEO companies, censorship of the Internet (googlecide) available for hire, victims lose voice on cons, First Amendment Rights Costa Mesa, Nationwide Internet
August 25, 2015. On July 13, 2014 Ripoff Report announced its investigation of this post and others. At that time, we stated that if Ripoff Report’s investigation revealed that any of the allegations made in these posts about the four witnesses identified in Sac County Prosecutor’s affidavit contained false statements of fact, the false facts would be redacted.
As part of our investigation, we reached out multiple times to the author of the posts requesting verification. The author has not cooperated multiple requests for verification.
We have now removed all statements in these posts that are about the four witnesses and that we do not have evidence to verify. We have not limited our redactions to just statements that we could confirm were false.
June 1, 2015. Sac County Attorney Ben Smith dismissed all charges against Darren Meade on May 27, 2015, with prejudice. [continued below]....
In July, 2014, Smith published a vague affidavit claiming that Meade had written false and defamatory things about witnesses in the Tracy Richter Murder trial. Smith later filed criminal charges against Meade, claiming that Meade’s writings and postings were criminal offenses, making further vague accusations that at least some of the things Meade wrote and posted were false and defamatory.
Meade’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, claiming, among other things, that Smith had no evidence to support that what Meade wrote was false or defamatory and that what Meade wrote is protected by the U.S. Constitution as free speech, and could not be a crime. Meade’s attorney also asked the Court to disqualify Prosecutor Ben Smith from the case for a conflict of interest. Meade’s attorney argued that Smith was retaliating against Meade with the power of his government office, because Meade had made harsh professional criticisms against Smith in his postings on the Ripoff Report.
When the day came for Prosecutor Ben Smith to face Meade’s defense attorney in court, and present some kind of evidence to show that Meade made false statements, Ben Smith gave up instead of fighting. Smith did not present any evidence to show that Meade did anything wrong. Smith did not identify what statements, if any, were supposedly false. Smith did not present any evidence to show that anything Meade wrote was false. Instead, on the morning of the hearing, Ben Smith filed a motion to have the Court dismiss all charges against Meade, with prejudice, so that no charges could ever be re-filed.
As explained in a previous update, Ripoff Report has asked Smith to specifically identify what statements posted on the website about trial witnesses are accused as false statements. He has consistently and repeatedly refused to do that. Now, even after accusing Meade of a crime in court filings, Smith failed to present any proof of false statements, and instead dropped the charges and dismissed the case.
Read this ruling and other rulings on our Scribd page:
----- End of Update June 1, 2015 -----
January 10, 2015 - INVESTIGATION UPDATE .. Documents, articles and other evidence removed from the internet to hinder investigation..
RipoffReport.com pledged thoroughly investigate allegations presented in a 124 page Application for a search warrant by Sac County Attorney Ben Smith (Sac County, Iowa). Smith alleged under penalty of perjury that Darren Meade authored and posted false reports on RipoffReport.com about “States witnesses.” But he did not identify what statements he claims to be false statements.
The first question that must be investigated and answered is “What are the false statements?”
Sac County Attorney Ben Smith will not tell us. That impedes Ripoff Report’s investigation.
Ripoff Report will investigate allegedly false statements based on the accusations of Sac County Attorney Ben Smith. However, Ripoff Report cannot start by assuming that every word of every report is in question. In order to make a sufficient investigation with legitimate findings, the accusations must be specific.
The first project in investigation was to read the 124 page Application for a search warrant, including County Attorney Ben Smith’s affidavit under oath, to try to determine exactly what Smith was accusing as a false statement. After reading Smith’s affidavit, it is difficult to tell exactly what he is talking about. The document rambles, and it makes accusatory statements, but it is not clear about the question most basic to the investigation:
What statement that is posted on the RipoffReport.com website is false? Smith really does not answer that question.
What report number?
What sentence or paragraph?
What is the alleged falsehood?
Ben Smith does not identify specific statements with an explanation that they are false. Smith’s affidavit makes general accusations, but avoids making specific identifications of statements that are allegedly not true.
NOTE: Other things that has also impedes our investigation. Smith and or those connected with Ben Smith have gone on a campaign to remove documents, photos, articles and court documents from various websites including Scribd. In some cases using the warrant that was obtained under false pretenses and used in ways that we think are illegal. We are investigating.
So we asked Sac County Prosecutor Ben Smith to be more specific.
We sent him this question through an Iowa attorney:
“ . . . Xcentric [RipoffReport] has been investigating your accusation that Darren Meade posted false and defamatory statements of fact on the Ripoff Report webpage. Statements found to be false will be redacted. Xcentric [RipoffReport] has asked me to reach out to you for assistance with this, by helping to identify which statements posted on the Ripoff Report you claim to be factually false.
If you will identify anyitems described above, soon, that would be a good start, and would prove to be very helpful. Xcentric [RipoffReport] understands that you may be able to identify additional posted statements at a later time. The request to immediately identify some specific statements of fact is intended to encourage you to give immediate specific input, if the goal is in fact, as you have stated and written, to provide relief to witnesses in the Richter case, if and where it is appropriate to do so.
Please identify specific statements of fact by providing the number of the report, and if appropriate the identifier of the specific update, comment, or rebuttal, as well as the exact text making the statement you claim is false and defamatory.
My client would like a specific response by the close of business, December 22, 2014. ”
(Quotes from email to Ben Smith. Note: Xcentric Ventures LLC is the company that operates the RipoffReport.com website)
County Attorney Ben Smith did not respond.
Sac County Attorney Ben Smith has also failed to make specific accusations in the criminal charges he personally filed against Darren Meade. Meade’s attorney has been forced to file a “Bill of Particulars” in court in an attempt to force CA Smith to fix the vague accusations, if he can. The Bill of Particulars does an excellent job explaining how CA Smith has been vague in the accusations he makes:
Smith makes only conclusory assertions about which “complaints” or statements he alleges were intended to harass the witness. Without specific reference to the exact “complaints” or statements Smith is alleging Meade published to harass the witnesses [. . .]
(emphasis added) Meade’s attorney points out that CA Smith’s paperwork is vague and sloppy:
[. . .] Smith attached well over a thousand pages of exhibits to the Minutes of Testimony in this action, Smith’s avalanche of almost entirely superfluous paperwork (that has almost nothing to do with Darren Meade and even less to do with anything that Darren Meade may or may not have done in Iowa) does not reveal the exact “defamatory” complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published to harass the witnesses.
(emphasis added) Ripoff Report must agree and note that, in our opinion, the writing of CA Smith’s affidavit in his Application for a search warrant is similarly vague and sloppy.
In the Bill of Particulars Meade’s attorney also explains why that kind of sloppy vagueness is a problem, and possibly a violation of Constitutional Rights from the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech and Press), the Sixth Amendment (fair trial process) and the Fourteenth Amendment (the right to due process of law). Here are some excerpts from that court document, with emphasis made on those points, as well as detailed specifics about the information that is missing from criminal charges against Meade that are directly on point with Ripoff Report’s investigation of accusations in the Application for search warrant:
COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S. Downey, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order requiring the county attorney to furnish a Bill of Particulars setting forth the specific nature of the offenses charged in the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony. As presently constituted, the State’s charges fail to adequately identify the specific acts upon which his charges are based. As grounds for this Motion, it is stated:
1. The September 2, 2014 Trial Information lodged against Meade contains ten counts of general conduct which do not provide Meade under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(6) with the necessary information to prepare an adequate defense.
2. In order for counsel to provide effective representation to Meade, and in order for Meade to adequately prepare a defense by making clear the nature and boundary of the charges against him, and in order to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, the following information is required:
[. . . ]
r. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published about Marie Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Ms. Friedman for her testimony in State v. Richter;
s. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published about Mona Wehde in a purported attempted to retaliate against Wehde for her testimony in State v. Richter;
t. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published about Michael Roberts in a purported attempted to retaliate against Roberts for his testimony in State v. Richter;
[ . . .]
v. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published about Sac County Sherriff Ken McClure in a purported attempted to retaliate against McClure for his testimony in State v. Richter;
w. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published about Iowa DCI Special Agent Trent Vileta in a purported attempted to retaliate against Vileta for his testimony in State v. Richter;
x. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published about Dr. John Pitman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Pitman for his testimony in State v. Richter;
[. . . ]
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(6) provides for a bill of particulars as follows:
When an indictment or information charges an offense in accordance with this rule, but fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable the defendant to prepare a defense, the court may, on written motion of the defendant, require the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of the defense. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made any time prior to or within ten days after arraignment unless the time be extended by the court for good cause shown.
This rule codifies the due process protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment that require the accused be advised of the crime charged with sufficient certainty to enable him to prepare his defense. See Cole v. Arkansas, 222 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896). Indeed, the purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges against him and to prevent or minimize the element of surprise at trial. United States v. Garrett, 797 F.2d 656, 665 (8th Cir. 1986). A Defendant’s motion to for a bill of particulars should be granted when the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony fail to apprise him of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable him to prepare his defense. State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa).
[. . . ]
Apparently Smith’s theory is that Meade’s investigative journalism was conducted and published with the intent to harass the states witnesses in the Richter case. Apart from the obvious problem that such journalism is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which shall be asserted separately, along with other issues, in a distinct Motion to Dismiss), Smith makes only conclusory assertions about which “complaints” or statements he alleges were intended to harass the witness. Without specific reference to the exact “complaints” or statements Smith is alleging Meade published to harass the witnesses, Meade has no ability to prepare a defense to such charges.
Although Smith attached well over a thousand pages of exhibits to the Minutes of Testimony in this action, Smith’s avalanche of almost entirely superfluous paperwork (that has almost nothing to do with Darren Meade and even less to do with anything that Darren Meade may or may not have done in Iowa) does not reveal the exact “defamatory” complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published to harass the witnesses. At a bare minimum, Smith and the State have an obligation to provide due process to Meade and inform him of the exact statements that they intend to show were meant to harass the State’s witnesses. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).
WHEREFORE, Defendant Meade moves the court to compel the State to plead the witness tampering, on-going criminal conduct and obstructing prosecution with sufficient particularity as to allow Meade to mount a constitutionally adequate defense.
(Darren Meade’s Motion to Disqualify County Attorney Smith for conflict of interest, excerpts)
It may be significant that Sac County Attorney Ben Smith did not file any dispute against Meade’s Bill of Particulars. Perhaps Smith admits, at least tacitly, that the accusations he made in his criminal charge and in the Application for a search warrant are too vague and unspecific to be investigated. On December 1, 2014, there was a court hearing on both the Bill of Particulars and Meade’s Motion to Disqualify Smith. There is one paragraph in Sac County Attorney Ben Smith’s Resistance to the Motion to Disqualify that MAY be his answer about what statements specific statements he claims are false.
Defendant’s “complaints” concerning the undersigned and the State’s witnesses are nonsensical and unworthy of belief on any level. It is not the substantive content of Defendant’s “complaints” which are damaging the State’s witnesses beyond repair, but rather the search engine optimization (SEO) techniques Defendant used to cause his “complaints” to appear at the top of the first page of Google-type search results, juxtaposed and associated with reprehensible criminal conduct.
(Sac County Attorney Ben Smith’s Resistance to Meade’s Motion to Disqualify)
First, let us admit that it is not clear what Smith is talking about. His phrase “Defendant’s ‘complaints’ concerning the undersigned [Smith] and the State’s witnesses” refers to every posting Meade made about Smith and any State’s witness in the Richter murder trial, without limitation. That is not very specific. He seems to be saying that it is NOT the substance of the postings that are the problem, but the fact that the posting appear at the top of search engine results “juxtaposed and associated” with other bad things. Is he actually be saying that Meade’s postings are not factually false, but they are damaging because of outside factors? To be fair, he does say that they are “nonsensical and unworthy of belief on any level” but it is not clear exactly what that means, and it is certainly not specific or precise.
Second, let us make an editorial comment. It is a complete abuse of government power for a prosecutor to make vague and sloppy accusations in a criminal charge. Imagine if you were charged by a prosecutor for “bank robbery” but you never robbed a bank. In order to defend yourself you would need to know specific accusations. What bank? What date? What time? What evidence suggests that you were the bank robber? If the prosecutor refused to be specific, you would stand accused and charged of a crime with no ability to defend yourself. In this case Sac County Attorney Ben Smith has accused Meade of making false statements about “States witnesses” but he will not identify which statement or which witness or what exactly was false. The Constitution forbids exactly the kind of abuse of power.
If Sac County Attorney Smith would identify specific statements that he claims are false, Ripoff Report would investigate those statements. If those statements are false, the Ripoff Report will redact them. That invitation is open. If Ben Smith is sincere, he should take advantage of that and point out what he claims to be false.
Unfortunately, at present, the most important thing to update this investigation is that the accusations Sac County Attorney Ben Smith made in the Application for Search Warrant are so vague and sloppy that they impede an investigation into whether statements made by Meade are true or false. As constituted, the accusations in the Warrant Application require Ripoff Report to mostly guess what statements Smith might really think are false. The Bill of Particular’s filed by Meade’s attorney may force Smith to shed light on this most important preliminary question. Ripoff Report will monitor the outcome of that in court, in hopes that Smith will be forced to make specific accusations.
Read more in a recent Editorial here..
More to come …
*NOTICE July 13, 2014: Ripoff Report Launches Full Investigation!!! Sac County Iowa Prosecutor’sAllegations Warrant Unprecedented Action from Ripoffreport.com regarding Darren Meade Posts.
RipoffReport.com will thoroughly investigate allegations presented in a 124 page affidavit by County Prosecutor Ben Smith of Sac County Iowa. Smith alleged under penalty of perjury that Darren Meade authored and posted false reports on RipoffReport.com about at least four specific people. If RipoffReport.com's investigation reveals that any of the allegations made in any post about those witnesses contain false statements of fact, the false facts will be redacted from the postings. "We will get to the bottom of Ben Smith's allegations and publish the evidence and conclusions," states Ripoff Report Editor and Founder Ed Magedson.
Author Darren Meade's writings (some of which are in this link list) (see email from Darren Meade) challenge the fairness and credibility of the homicide investigation, trial, murder conviction, and subsequent treatment of Iowa mother Tracy Richter at the hands of County Prosecutor Ben Smith and Michael Roberts (Rexxfield), Tracy Richter's former husband. The Previous County Prosecutor had declined to prosecute Richter, who claims to have been acting in defense of herself and her children against multiple attackers when she shot at Dustin Whede during a home invasion in December of 2001. Ed Magedson had been convinced by Meade that the shooting was morally and legally justified and that an innocent woman was imprisoned.
While County Prosecutor Smith's affidavit contains certain incorrect assertions and many material omissions, it also raises some shocking facts, sufficient to justify a full investigation by Ripoffreport into Meade's assertions and motivations.
Ripoff Report's investigation is an unprecedented action for the consumer website. Ripoff Report accepts reports from authors who certify the honesty of the content of their reports, and encourages rebuttals to provide readers with both sides of a disputed story. Generally, Ripoff Report allows the public, the courts or an independent arbitrator to judge the truth and does not do an investigation to supplement or challenge postings. Gathering evidence and passing judgment on the statements of outside authors departs from its standard practice.
County Prosecutor Smith's aggressive actions justify extraordinary measures. Smith not only states that Darren Meade's factual allegations are false, he asserts that they violate Iowa's criminal laws and that Ed Magedson knowingly conspired with Meade and others. Ed Magedson did no such thing.
County Prosecutor Smith has used the full power of his elected office in attempts to crush criticism of his prosecution and he has relied heavily on advice, information and guidance from Michael Roberts, a known liar and extortionist. Roberts was involved in a scheme to illegally hack the Ripoff Report website and Roberts attempted to sell information regarding the hack to Ripoff Report for €105,000. http://www.ripoffreport.com/lhc/common/files/MichaelRobertsRexxfieldAttemptedExtortion.pdf
As a website dedicated to providing a voice to the common person through open information and free speech rights, Ripoff Report asserts its own voice on these matters of public interest and concern, and pledges full investigation of the issues.
As progress is made with our investigation, it will be posted here as an UPDATE to this statement.
Now to the original report that was posted …
MY NAME IS DARREN MEADE, AND I AM A DEAD MAN. Or so I was told when I refused to go along with a so-called "reputation management" company's plan to use weapons-grade hacking technology to help fraudsters, quacks, and other scumbags avoid being exposed online.
Imagine: You're a successful cosmetic surgeon and a patient dies in your care. It's a terrible tragedy, but you've got to move on. Two years later, complaints about you begin to surface on the consumer advocacy websites, charges that you've never been accredited as a plastic surgeon, hold no surgical designation, and have no hospital privileges all of which are true, culminating in the State medical board finding you "incompetent," displaying "disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional" conduct in your care of five different patients, including the 32-year-old mother you left dying in your recovery room while you went out to dinner. The downward spiral accelerates when the information hits RipoffReport.com, and consequently, page 1 of Google.
What's a quack to do? If you're Behnaz Yazdanfarthe real-life Toronto physician thumb nailed above you contract with Michael Roberts and the "reputation management specialists" at Rexxfield & Think Basis who offer you a way to not just bury bad press on the search engines, but make it disappear completely. As in abracadabra. Presto.
How do I know this? We'll get to that later. The bigger question is, how is it even possible? In geek-speak, it's called a SQL injection hack. This particular variety was created to do a number of things, including the de-indexing (hiding) of specific pages from search engines.
So with the click of a button, the meddlesome Ripoff Reports Dr. Yazdanfar blamed for a 50% drop in revenue were gone. At a price tag of $18,000, the magic show didn't come cheap, but the truth was far more expensive. For consumers, it's an frontal assault on our First Amendment right to speak the truth; for companies like Rexxfield, it's a veritable gold mine. A forensic audit of RipoffReport.com confirmed thousands of individual reports were removed by SQL injection attacks. Were all of them crooks with deep pockets Dr. Yazdanfar? Perhaps not, but even the conservative math is staggering.
No matter how you slice it, there is a long line of people who will pay handsomely for their own private kill-switch on Internet free speech. Even so, every good arms dealer knows if the market isn't big enough (and it never is), you have to create new ones. Rexxfield has a plan for that, using automated technology to generate defamatory content about individuals and corporations that value their reputations the bigger the better. We're talking about a whole new strain of WMDs weapons of mass defamation. Think about it: What if allegations of pedophilia were to pop up the next time you Google your name? Or obscene stories about your wife or your daughter? When we're talking about the potential ruin of your career, your marriage, or your child's future, money is no object and these predators know it. When the time is right, you'll get an email and it'll be Rexxfield to the rescue antidote in one hand, anthrax in the other.
Which brings us back to the question, how do I know all of this? It's simple: I was in the room while the plot was being hatched. I now know and can provethat Rexxfield isn't just another reputation management company: It's a bonafide criminal enterprise financed and controlled by a convicted felon by the name of Adam Stuart Zuckerman, a thug currently awaiting sentencing for his role as mastermind-turned-snitch in a $20 million equipment leasing scam..
I was recruited as the CEO of another Zuckerman-controlled entity, Progenex, from which he embezzled the funds to acquire both a controlling interest in Rexxfield and the rights to the SQL injection code. In completely unrelated news, the hacker who wrote it Matthew Cooke was the brain behind RemoveYourName.com. That is, until he sold the domain (is that all?) to the well-meaning folks at Reputation.com. Draw your own conclusions.
When I told Zuckerman I would not be involved, I was offered a six-figure bribe and an equity stake in the venture. I chose option B, tendering my resignation. Shortly thereafter, I received an audio recording wherein Zuckerman and Rexxfield operatives describe in great detail the effects a .50 caliber bullet will have on my brain should I ever go public with this information. I suppose it's mildly amusing audio if you can ignore the fact that it's coming from someone with a history of criminal violence
Look, I know I can't expect you to take my word for all this, partly because Zuckerman and the Rexxfield gang have already made good on their first threat to destroy my reputation online. Go ahead Google my name. It's mud if you don't already know me. But unfortunately for these guys, their death threats aren't the only thing I have on tape. I have the two-hour Rexxfield strategy session where Zuckerman proposes how they can extort parents over their kids' futures. Here's a taste of that sermon. I also have over 20 additional hours of recordings all consensual that tie the entire operation together. They're now hosted offshore, beyond the reach of Zuckerman's goon attorneys, backed with detailed instructions in the event of my untimely demise.
THIS IS A CALL FOR HELP. I am literally putting my life on the line to expose not just another Internet scam, but a threat against the very fabric of our society: The right to speak the truth and be heard. I only hope someone hears me before it's too late.
The Article Above & Comments Below Are My Personal Opinion and News Analysis
All audio and images used here in are in accordance with Title 17, U.S. Code section 107.
Purpose: CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS, REPORTING.
The full Google-Cide sermon is available here. This consensual recording was made on 1-28-2011 in Costa Mesa, California. Michael Roberts following this meeting sold 60% of Rexxfield and rights to the hacking code to Adam Stuart Zuckerman and Ryan Steven Page.
The voices in order of appearance:
1st voice Adam Stuart Zuckerman (on supervised release for Operation Lease Fleece)
2nd voice Ryan Steven Page (front man for Adam Zuckerman)
3rd voice Kirk McMahan (on supervised release for Operation Lease Fleece)
4th voice Paul Portelli (Rexxfield Employee)
5th voice Michael Ross Roberts (Rexxfield CEO and Founder)
In order to end the censorship of the Internet and return the voice to victims world-wide affected by this hack explicit details including consensually recorded audio of planning sessions, emails, signed contracts and the hacking code itself is available to any verifiable reporter.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/14/2012 07:48 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Update-June-1-2015-INVESTIGATION-UPDATE-Ben-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Attorney-Charges-against-Darren-Meade-dropped-Sac-County-Attorney-Ben-Smith-dismisses-all-criminal-charges-against-Darren-Meade-related-to-his-posts-on-Ripoff-Report-Sac-County-Iowa-Attorney-Ben-Smith-fails-to-identify-false-statements-fails-to-support-his-accusations-with-clarifications/nationwide/Update-June-1-2015-INVESTIGATION-UPDATE-Charges-against-Darren-Meade-dropped-839253. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Update June 1, 2015: INVESTIGATION UPDATE – Ben Smith Sac County Iowa Attorney; Charges against Darren Meade dropped! Sac County Attorney Ben Smith dismisses all criminal charges against Darren Meade related to his posts on Ripoff Report. | Sac County Iowa Attorney Ben Smith fails to identify false statements, fails to support his accusations with clarifications.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.