X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now
Ripoff Report | (((8/6/2019 - REDACTED Review - Elgin, Illinois
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1097705

Complaint Review: (((8/6/2019 - REDACTED – VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE – CONTENT))) - Elgin Illinois

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: BadCamgirl — Haarlem Other
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • (((8/6/2019 - REDACTED – VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE – CONTENT))) (((8/6/2019 - REDACTED – VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE – CONTENT))) Elgin, Illinois USA

(((8/6/2019 - REDACTED – VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE – CONTENT))) is very rude, exposes people information, causes trouble, smoke weed on cam! Elgin Illinois

*Author of original report: Factual Information

*Consumer Comment: Original Report is Unfocused, Unsubstantiated and Misleading, Designed Solely to Publish Sensitive Personal Information

*Consumer Comment: Unfocused, Problematic, Flimsy Case

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Editor’s Note:  We thank our users for considering Ripoff Report as a source for information and providing warnings to the general public.  That being said, sometimes, certain situations are brought to our attention and Ripoff Report, where resources allow, will decide to conduct a review of the situation.  Upon review of this particular matter it was discovered that the author filed this report that violated our current Terms of Service therefore we made redactions based on that violation. For more information about what constitutes a violation, please click here to view our  Terms of Service.

 

While we make NO representations about the facts and statements contained in any posting authored by third-parties, we’d like to provide you with some general standards to remember:

 

  1. Ripoff Report does not condone businesses trying to take advantage of consumers – that’s why our website was started in the first place.  At the same time, we don’t condone consumers, or other business competitors, trying to take advantage of businesses by putting up false and defamatory material in order to gain some advantage in the marketplace.
  2. Ripoff Report does not condone harassment and bullying.  Making up or embellishing stories in effort to harm another is wrong!
  3. Copying and pasting someone else’s story and trying to pass it off as your own is wrong!  Write your own accurate and true account of your own personal experience.

 

Be warned that posting false and defamatory material is legally actionable and the First Amendment freedom of speech and the right to remain anonymous does not extend to such material.

PLEASED TO SEE SUCH EFFORTS?  YOU CAN HELP RIPOFF REPORT COMBAT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES:  Ripoff Report, as resources allow, is working towards combatting Cyberharassment, Cyberstalking, Cyberbullying and/or other problems such as what is generically called “revenge posts” that can be riddled with personal commentary and/or allegations that can be serious.   Ripoff Report would love to be able to timely address each and every review request we receive, however, this takes resources.  If you think this is a worth-while endeavor, we encourage you to make a donation so that we can expand the resources that we can devote to this project.  You can make a non-tax deductible donation by clicking HERE NOW or learn a little more by visiting our “Donate to our Efforts” page.  The more resources we have, the more resources we can devote to this project and other forward thinking and positive initiatives like it.

Thank you!

~ Ripoff Report Team

NOW TO THE EDITORIALLY REDACTED POSTING(S):

(((REDACTED))), married to (((REDACTED))), residing a(((REDACTED))) is a porn cam model working on (((REDACTED))) as (((REDACTED))). (((REDACTED))) driver's license number in Illinois is XXXXXXXXX. (((REDACTED))) birthdate is (((REDACTED))) 1986

(((REDACTED))) is owned by (((REDACTED))) and is in very close ties with (((REDACTED))).

(((REDACTED))) is extremely rude and rips off people by demanding tokens, donating to her Amazon Wish List to buy her things and sues people and companies without justification!

(((REDACTED))), known as (((REDACTED))), has several videos that she sells from her porn cam chat room. (((REDACTED))) claims that her videos are copyrighted. However, she distributes her videos by email to customers and members of her chat room and does not transfer liability copyright ownership to the receiver of the video. Thereby, allowing the person that received her video the availibility to upload to various video sharing websites. She then blames the company (ie., YouTube and others) and sues them without first following the websites Terms and Conditions by filing a legal dmca notice and thus, puts no blame on the uploader.

On November 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM, (((REDACTED))) tweeted to (((REDACTED))) "...(((REDACTED))) I'll email ur 2 videos shortly!!"

By distributing her videos, without discretion, she has no idea what happens to those videos once they are sent. Many of the people getting her videos have tipped her (((REDACTED))) tokens to get the videos and they upload the videos to share with others, not the companies. Due to (((REDACTED))) actions, she has diluted any copyright claims because she does not know who has received a copy of her videos that she sent out.

Some of the videos are recordings of her performing in live free open chat room, with no privacy or disclaimer of adult content being broadcasted by (((REDACTED))). These shows are recorded and not copyrighted by the model. Live broadcasts on an open forum are subject to recording by the 1,000+ people in her adult cam chat room. This number alone makes it impossible for (((REDACTED))) to police her video content. Don't do open porn shows in free chat forum!

If (((REDACTED))) knows of her videos on various websites, the legal procedure is to first file a dmca notice to the website, then they will expeditely remove her videos. If they do not remove the videos, then (((REDACTED))) can file against the site to have the material removed. (((REDACTED))) chooses to ignore the validity and legal purpose for a dmca notice, which was made a U.S. law so that people had a means to report their material and have removed. She rather sue first and this is the reason she will lose in court cases against companies. The companies can prove that no legal dmca was filed by (((REDACTED))) and that she is a copyright troll and subject to sanctions and fees.

We have obtained videos of (((REDACTED))) smoking illegal weed, a drug oulawed by the Federal Government of the United States. She is smoking the illegal drug in a live video feed broadcast in her open free cam chat room on (((REDACTED))). It has been brought to our attention that some people will be calling her local police, giving her physical address and report illegal drug use and possession at the residence of (((REDACTED))) The video showing illegal use and a statement will be given to the Elgin Police and the Illinois State Police for investigation.

(((REDACTED))) have helped us and other website companies against false dmca claims and copyright trolls. As of November 2013, it was reported to us that (((REDACTED))) has hired such a copyright troll attorney, who in 2012 was sanctioned by a District Court. (((REDACTED))) reasonably sought sanctions against Stone, (((REDACTED))) current attorney, for such egregious behavior. The court was pretty clear and direct in slamming (((REDACTED))), noting that it "rarely has encountered a more textbook example of conduct deserving of sanctions." (((REDACTED))) appealed, but was found in contempt by the district court for failing to obey the sanctions, and ordered to pay legal fees.  Stone, once again, appealed the whole thing -- and in a new ruling, the appeals court not only details the litany of both ethical and procedural misdeeds by (((REDACTED)))(including completely failing to follow the basic process of appealing such a decision), but reaffirms the sanctions against Stone.  Basically, everything (((REDACTED))) does makes things worse.

(((REDACTED))), are you sure you want your current attorney, (((REDACTED))), helping you on these cases?

If you are a company being sued by (((REDACTED))) current attorney, (((REDACTED))), we suggest you contact (((REDACTED))) at their litigation department and contact (((REDACTED))), known as (((REDACTED))). These organizations have a disdained history with attorney (((REDACTED))) and will submit to the judges about his intentions and actions. (((REDACTED))) is one of a group of lawyers who jumped into the copyright trolling business a few years ago, figuring it was easy money to get info on people based on IP addresses, and then demand they pay up to avoid lawsuits.

Judges are aware of (((REDACTED))) and dislike his actions.

(((REDACTED))) has a wedding video of her marriage to (((REDACTED))). The video at the end claims to be copyrighted by the videographer. This rebuttals claim of ownership by (((REDACTED))).

(((REDACTED))) needs to realize that she does not own claim to copyright to her videos, also noted in a contract between her and her cam website used as a portal to broadcast. And if a video of her is online posted by someone, and not the companies, she needs to file a legal dmca notice and request information about the person that uploaded the video to the website. Companies are not held liable; read their Terms of Service. You sue companies and they have legitimately removed videos, then you are open for a counter-lawsuit and subject to sanctions, fines and fess, especially if you use an attorney as (((REDACTED))). There a re legitimate companies out there and (((REDACTED))) will help them against you, (((REDACTED)))! Be warned!

(((REDACTED))) needs to stop f******* with people and drop her false claims! She will make things a lot worse for her and this report is only the start!

Do things legally and file a dmca notice before you do something stupid!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/07/2013 02:02 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/date-redacted-violation-terms/elgin-illinois-1097705. 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author
2Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#3 Author of original report

Factual Information

AUTHOR: BadCamgirl - ()

POSTED: Thursday, December 12, 2013

You keep saying the author is a "guy" but you truly do not know the gender of the author. Being a female, I can say you started your rebuttal with false information.

I was a former friend of (((REDACTED))) but after causing troubles with some models and with myself personally, I broke off all ties with her and stopped doing shows. I know a lot about (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))), more than most in her room.

That is (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) home address. Don't be naive and try to fool the people. You are assuming people are idiots and will believe your distraction from the truth by inserting your own version of the "truth"

I know first-hand of the many lawsuits that (((REDACTED))) has filed or threatened to file against websites posting her wedding video. All she has to do is ask the websites to remove the video. It is that simple, but she rather make things complicated and potentially cause legal trouble to herself. By filing lawsuits, she is releasing her info, including residence address, in the court filings. This is how the correct information was obtained from 2 court records that are publicly accessible. Look up the state of the filing, then narrow to the county, then search her name. Her information shows up, including her home address listed on a legal court document that she must give accurately. So, you were wrong again.

Smoking of an illegal drug and distributing from her house to her "fans" in the room is not a lie. I have been with (((REDACTED))) when she packaged up the weed to send to a high tipper from her chatroom before. And you are belittling the police saying that don't take drugs seriously enough to investigate a home? They do when distibution and mailing packages across state lines is occuring. Spoke to a Lt. with the Kane County Sheriff's Office and he says differently than what you stated. Drugs is a very serious problem, which is why some states give life sentences in prison for it (and being that (((REDACTED))) packages and distributes to other states via Postal Service makes it highly warranted in the police's attention). I am a witness to her illegal activities.

(((REDACTED))) needed to leave people alone and stay in her fantasy cam world and once she stepped out to expose herself to the real World, then she deserves what happens to her in the future.

Other models and I have stopped working with (((REDACTED))) because of the ego she has and thinking she is untouchable and a supermodel. The b**** deserves this and no "guy", or "White Knight", as yourself, can say any different and protect her.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Unfocused, Problematic, Flimsy Case

AUTHOR: IvoryGallant - ()

POSTED: Thursday, December 12, 2013
I thank any and all readers for taking the time and effort to diligently read through both the original complaint and this rebuttal.  The original author of this report attempts to link a civilian name and address with the online persona of a popular adult cam model; I will not repeat either of those names.  Now, the author has provided no evidence that the civilian and model are one and the same.  There are no work applications, documents or paperwork from the cam website that shows the civilian name or government-issued ID - the listed report name could essentially be anybody.  

 

I find the attached documents particularly troubling because while they exhibit deeds and property assessments, this is not a property, land, rental or taxation dispute, and therefore they have no relevance to the original complaint.  This residential address has been redacted several times from the report's text, yet this address is clearly visible in each of the attached documents, as well as one of the complaint headers.  This address was redacted for clearly established legal reasons; therefore I implore that some wisdom would be exercised in either partially redacting or removing the offending documents entirely.

 

The title of the complaint is unfocused and peppered with grammatical errors.  The author describes the cam model as very rude, yet provides no supporting evidence. Rudeness is hardly a causal factor towards dishonesty; as a consumer, I've encountered plenty of polite, slimy double dealers.  The author claims that the model "exposes people(sic) information," yet again provides zero evidence.  The author does not establish how the model rips people off by demanding tokens - website clients freely offer payment in tokens, in exchange for or as contribution towards adult shows, acts of a fixed duration, or physical good and products, standard operating procedure for a cam website. 

 

The author contends that an illegal drug was consumed during a cam feed - I have yet to see a field test or chemical analysis of the substance, so this allegation is purely speculative.  The author maintains that his target "causes trouble" - this extremely broad and vague description may refer to the filing of lawsuits and legal motions, which in anyone's estimation is a natural and expected component of the justice system.  The report body becomes slightly more interesting when covering copyright issues; the author would have served his cause better by keeping the entire focus within the copyright realm, rather than assail readers with superfluous, unproven innuendo.

 

Online copyright issues are indeed murky, but both plaintiff and defendant appear to have scheduled their day in court.  Therefore it becomes difficult to qualify the plaintiff as creating or bolstering any semblance of a "ripoff."  The author claims that the plaintiff has not followed the correct procedure in filing legitimate DMCA requests, yet later states that they have been helped in their fight against false DMCA claims.  In other words, the author first encourages the plaintiff to file a motion that has "validity and legal purpose," but quickly insinuates that any such effort would be interpreted as a false claim regardless.  The veracity of the claim is for the courts to decide, and that appears to be in full motion.  The author maintains that his company retains proof of the DMCA request not being filed, but I have yet to see any of that proof; I only see irrelevant property assessments as attachments.

 

The author makes a number of allegations against a named copyright attorney - his cause would be better served with a separate report rather than trying to shoehorn it into the current complaint.  His evidence consists of links to purported consumer advocacy blogs - he would solidify his case by providing direct evidence of legal proceedings and/or sanctions, rather than require readers to wade through tangential links until they are bored.  Much of the copyright text seems to act as a shill for some legal firm - I cannot attest to its nature since the company name has been redacted, rightfully interpreted as a wild stab at free advertising.

 

The author notes that marijuana, or weed, is a drug outlawed by the Federal Government, yet boasts of the intent to furnish evidence to local and state police.  These are all separate jurisdictions; the author should either provide his evidence to the Feds or simply not bring it up.  Any reasonable person can surmise that the Feds have much bigger priorities than a video capture of an unidentifiable substance, without any evidence of distribution on a larger scale.  I also do not believe that local authorities will devote time and resources to an alleged act which is quickly being decriminalized across broad localities.  The declared eventual attempt to provide evidence is more than likely a bluff on the author's part, designed as a smokescreen to publish the target's address, which was promptly redacted.  

 

As stated before, it has not been established who the occupant at this residence truly is - it could be a top cam model, and it could be an 80 year old schoolteacher.  I believe that the primary purpose of this complaint is to try and link this residential address to a high profile adult performer, as retaliation for legal proceedings, an action that could bring her unwanted attention and potential harm.  If she truly is a top adult cam model, then she makes a substantial legal income and pays her fair share of local taxes.  Local police would therefore have a strong impetus to keep her interests safe. 

 

They have been notified of the threat/exposure of information and have provided assurance that eyes will be kept on the general vicinity no matter who the occupant is - this is not a bluff.  I would urge readers to not pay attention to this residential address, and bury it far into the recesses of their subconscious.  If a traveler finds him/herself in the general vicinity, I would advise that person to not slow down, not peek over fences and continue driving to his/her original destination.  Local police would be thrilled to nab a stalker/trespasser, tie him/her up in legalities, and bring that outside income into their jurisdiction, much more so than the meager windfalls of an alleged weed incident.  I hope all readers have found this rebuttal informative and enlightening, and will examine all sides of a consumer complaint before arriving at their own conclusions!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Original Report is Unfocused, Unsubstantiated and Misleading, Designed Solely to Publish Sensitive Personal Information

AUTHOR: IvoryGallant - ()

POSTED: Wednesday, December 04, 2013
I humbly thank any and all readers for taking the time and effort to diligently read through both the original complaint and this rebuttal.  The original author of this report attempts to link a civilian name and address with the online persona of a popular adult cam model.  I will not repeat either of those names since the original report ranks highly in Google searches and I do not wish it to gain more prominence.  Now, the author has provided no evidence that the civilian and model are one and the same.  There are no work applications, documents or paperwork from the cam website that shows the civilian name or government-issued ID - the listed report name could essentially be anybody.  

 

I find the attached documents particularly troubling because while they show deeds and property assessments, this is not a property, land, rental or taxation dispute, and therefore have no relevance to the original complaint.  The website editors have redacted the residential address several times from the report's text, yet this address is clearly visible in each of the attached documents, as well as one of the complaint headers.  The RoR editors redacted this address for clearly established legal reasons; therefore I implore the editors of RoR to maintain internal diligence and consistency, and either partially redact or remove the offending documents entirely.

 

The title of the complaint is unfocused and peppered with grammatical errors.  The author describes the cam model as very rude, yet provides no supporting evidence; rudeness is not a causal factor towards dishonesty; I've encountered plenty of polite, slimy double dealers as a consumer.  The author claims that the model "exposes people(sic) information," yet again provides zero evidence.  The author does not establish how the model rips people off by demanding tokens - website clients freely offer payment in tokens, in exchange for or as contribution towards adult shows, acts of a fixed duration or physical products, standard operating procedure for a cam website. 

 

The author contends that an illegal drug was consumed during a cam feed - I have yet to see a field test or chemical analysis of the substance, so this allegation is purely speculative.  The author maintains that his target "causes trouble" - this extremely broad and vague description may refer to the filing of lawsuits and legal motions, which in anyone's estimation is a natural and expected component of the justice system.  The report body becomes slightly more interesting when covering copyright issues; the author would have served his cause better by keeping the entire focus within the copyright realm, rather than assail readers with superfluous, unproven innuendo.

 

The author makes a number of allegations against a named copyright attorney - his cause would be better served with a separate RoR rather than trying to shoehorn it into the current complaint.  His evidence consists of links to purported consumer advocacy blogs - he would solidify his case by providing direct evidence of legal proceedings and/or sanctions, rather than require readers to wade through tangential links until they are bored.  Much of the copyright text seems to act as a shill for some legal firm - I cannot attest to its nature since the company name has been redacted; the RoR editors rightfully interpreted it as a wild stab at free advertising.

 

The author notes that marijuana, or weed, is a drug outlawed by the Federal Government, yet boasts of the intent to furnish evidence to local and state police.  These are all separate jurisdictions; the author should either provide his evidence to the Feds or simply not bring it up.  Any reasonable person can surmise that the Feds have much bigger priorities than a video capture of an unidentifiable substance, without any evidence of distribution on a larger scale.  I also do not believe that local authorities will devote time and resources to an alleged act which is quickly being decriminalized across broad localities.  The declared eventual attempt to provide evidence is more than likely a bluff on the author's part, designed as a smokescreen to publish the target's address, which the RoR editors promptly redacted.  

 

As stated before, it has not been established who the occupant at this residence truly is - it could be a top cam model, and it could be an 80 year old schoolteacher.  I believe that the primary purpose of this complaint is to try and link this residential address to a high profile adult performer, as retaliation for legal proceedings, an action that could bring her unwanted attention and potential harm.  If she truly is a top adult cam model, then she makes a substantial legal income and pays her fair share of local taxes.  Local police would therefore have a strong impetus to keep her interests safe.  They have been notified of the threat/exposure of information and have provided assurance that eyes will be kept on the general vicinity no matter who the occupant is - this is not a bluff.  I would urge readers to not pay attention to this residential address, and bury it far into the recesses of their subconscious.  If a traveler finds him/herself in the general vicinity, I would advise that person to not slow down, not peek over fences and continue driving to his/her original destination.  Local police would be thrilled to nab a stalker/trespasser, tie him/her up in legalities, and bring that outside income into their jurisdiction, much more so than the meager windfalls of an alleged weed incident.  I hope all readers have found this rebuttal informative and enlightening, and will examine all sides of a consumer complaint before arriving at their own conclusions!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.