Wire Transfer Ref #:8726541889 – katperrymx.fanfusion.org

Email Header Analysis

IP Address:  139.200.118.63 (139.200.118.63)
IP Address Country:  China width=”18″ height=”12″
IP Continent:  Asia
IP Address City Location:  Chengdu
IP Address Region:  Sichuan
IP Address Latitude:  30.6667,
IP Address Longtitude:  104.0667
Organization:  CHINANET Sichuan province network

Email Lookup Map (show/hide)


As you requested with your variable amount flexible recurring wire instructions, we process a wire transfer to Laird Technologies every day.

You have asked us to continue sending wires until notified.

On July 11, 2012 we processed a wire per this instruction in the amount of $6,515.93

If you want to stop sending wires, please login https://businessaccess.citibank.citigroup.com/cbusol/signon.do and make changes, or you may contact us by Secure Email.



Address lookup
canonical name fanfusion.org

aliases
addresses 176.31.234.10
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.publicinterestregistry.net with “fanfusion.org”…

Domain ID:D154444480-LROR
Domain Name:FANFUSION.ORG
Created On:11-Oct-2008 06:36:19 UTC
Last Updated On:20-Jan-2012 00:01:24 UTC
Expiration Date:11-Oct-2012 06:36:19 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR)

Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED

Registrant ID:CR37061576
Registrant Name:oranges arecool XD
Registrant Organization:orangesarecool.com
Registrant Street1:19-29 Woburn Place
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:London
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:WC1H 0AQ
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.02088167989
Registrant Email:orangesarecool@gmail.com

Admin ID:CR37061578
Admin Name:oranges arecool XD
Admin Organization:orangesarecool.com
Admin Street1:19-29 Woburn Place
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:London
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:WC1H 0AQ
Admin Country:GB
Admin Phone:+44.02088167989
Admin Email:orangesarecool@gmail.com

Tech ID:CR37061577
Tech Name:oranges arecool XD
Tech Organization:orangesarecool.com
Tech Street1:19-29 Woburn Place
Tech City:London
Tech State/Province:
Tech Postal Code:WC1H 0AQ
Tech Country:GB
Tech Phone:+44.02088167989
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:orangesarecool@gmail.com

Name Server:NS1.FANFUSION.ORG
Name Server:NS2.FANFUSION.ORG

DNSSEC:Unsigned

Network Whois record

Queried whois.ripe.net with “-B 176.31.234.10″…
Information related to ‘176.31.224.0 – 176.31.255.255’

inetnum: 176.31.224.0 – 176.31.255.255
netname: OVH
descr: OVH SAS
descr: Dedicated servers
descr: http://www.ovh.com
country: FR
admin-c: OK217-RIPE
tech-c: OTC2-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
notify: noc@ovh.net
mnt-by: OVH-MNT
changed: noc@ovh.net 20110905
source: RIPE

role: OVH Technical Contact
address: OVH SAS
address: 2 rue Kellermann
address: 59100 Roubaix
address: France
e-mail: noc@ovh.net
admin-c: OK217-RIPE
tech-c: GM84-RIPE
nic-hdl: OTC2-RIPE
notify: noc@ovh.net
abuse-mailbox: abuse@ovh.net
mnt-by: OVH-MNT
changed: noc@ovh.net 20101005
source: RIPE

person: Octave Klaba
address: OVH SAS
address: 2 rue Kellermann
address: 59100 Roubaix
address: France
phone: +33 9 74 53 13 23
e-mail: noc@ovh.net
nic-hdl: OK217-RIPE
abuse-mailbox: abuse@ovh.net
mnt-by: OVH-MNT
changed: noc@ovh.net 20101005
source: RIPE

% Information related to ‘176.31.128.0/17AS16276’

route: 176.31.128.0/17
descr: OVH ISP
descr: Paris, France
origin: AS16276
notify: noc@ovh.net
mnt-by: OVH-MNT
changed: noc@ovh.net 20110802
source: RIPE

This query was served by the RIPE Database Query Service version 1.16 (WHOIS4)

DNS records
name class type data time to live
fanfusion.org IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: fanfusion.org
14400s (04:00:00)
fanfusion.org IN A 176.31.234.10 14400s (04:00:00)
fanfusion.org IN SOA
server: ns227358.ovh.net
email: orangesarecool08@gmail.com
serial: 2011120603
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 1209600
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
fanfusion.org IN NS sdns2.ovh.net 86400s (1.00:00:00)
fanfusion.org IN NS ns227358.ovh.net 86400s (1.00:00:00)
10.234.31.176.in-addr.arpa IN PTR ns227358.ovh.net 86400s (1.00:00:00)
234.31.176.in-addr.arpa IN SOA
server: dns19.ovh.net
email: tech@ovh.net
serial: 2012070200
refresh: 43200
retry: 4320
expire: 2419200
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
234.31.176.in-addr.arpa IN RRSIG
type covered: NSEC (47)
algorithm: RSA/SHA-1 (5)
labels: 5
original ttl: 7200 (02:00:00)
signature expiration: 2012-08-11 10:00:51Z
signature inception: 2012-07-12 09:00:51Z
key tag: 23925
signer’s name: 176.in-addr.arpa
signature:
(1024 bits)

610B50EC94F97D0713807B718262EE0A
56A8C998A2C4D71CBCB3E0D0F7472C52
E33C20A133668961B04B11793475FC93
06D3B38AA93F37D56A6095C57DB8ABA5
27325B88E35BFAA574468EA3F553B774
1BE055EBE90A94BE3300F6B51323C795
BCC40394A06235BD77DEA3C2621BB42B
73786662AFF7EAB8C40B80DFA3AEDB05

7200s (02:00:00)
234.31.176.in-addr.arpa IN NSEC
next domain name: 235.31.176.in-addr.arpa
record types: NS RRSIG NSEC
7200s (02:00:00)
234.31.176.in-addr.arpa IN NS ns19.ovh.net 86400s (1.00:00:00)
234.31.176.in-addr.arpa

Complaintsboard Is Accusing ScamFound.org

Online Extortion Is On The Increase – Bogus Consumer Advocates Sites Reputation Repairs


How can the public tell what consumer site is trustworthy or to file a complaint? That’s a lingering fear online.

These guys have run out of so called big ideas and have now turned on each others. They can no longer post bogus employment ads on Monster.com or careerbuilder.com  for get rich schemes or the work at home schemes. They are now Consumer Advocates. Can you believe this?

Who Is Who? From what we know, they are all the same.

Complaintsboard.com is accusing scamfound.org of operating Consumer Online Protection. They claimed to be hosted overseas or from Lativia, Russia or Timbuktu or from some alien planet. The good thing about these fights is that they identify each other or at least put out some truthful information about each that one can build on.

According to Complaintsboard.com, Consumer Online Protection site owner is Scott Breitenstein. They shake down individuals and businesses for thousands; peddling attorneys and the court system who are often in league with them they have fun doing Extortion to others. Consumer Online Protection is a big joke. site owner, Scott Breitenstein is a pig. You say this is a not for profit website but someone is getting something out of it!!! How in the world can you get away with allowing slander!!! people who run it think they are above the law. However, there is nobody that is above the law and I will do everything in power to see that this ridiculous website is shut down!! god is watching them all.

It is apparent that this Scott Breitenstein may have exposed Complaintsboard.com operations. We know that most complaints posted on Complaintsboard.com are manufactured by paid commercial posters operating out of  India.

Read More…..

Ed Magedson  of Ripoffreport weigh in on this insanity……….

FROM RUSSIA… WITH REPUTATION FRAUD

So, you think the Cold War ended in 1991? Think again. This time it’s not the Soviet government going after the West, it’s Russian web scammers who go by the names of scaminformer.com, scamfraudripoff.com, complaintsboard.com and many, many others. Like Internet Whack-A-Mole, every time one of them gets caught, they anonymously start another website.

The Internet community is fighting back, as are courts AROUND THE WORLD, but more and more people are getting scammed every day. These criminals outright COPY AND STEAL reports directly from ripoffreport.com, and post them on their own websites.  Some of them THEN contact the owners of companies mentioned and blackmail them into paying saying they’ll take DOWN ALL REPORTS.

But they don’t. And they can’t.

So why should you care?  At a very basic level, it may appear that consumer complaints should get as much exposure as possible.  And we don’t disagree with that.  But consumers choose Ripoff Report as their forum because we have a 14-year track record of protecting the consumer.  We don’t take down posts for money, we don’t cower to bullies who threaten or file lawsuits and we do offer the Ripoff Report Arbitration program to address false statements and the Corporate Advocacy Program to help businesses improve their customer service.

The Russian imitations, on the other hand, care only about making a quick ruble. They care nothing about the real cause.  These thieves steal reports to start their own fake versions of Ripoff Report. By doing that, they undercut our power to help consumers!

We’ve already won lawsuits against them and their websites are coming down soon. BUT BEWARE there’ll be more soon under new names. As long as people keep visiting their websites, they’ll keep it going.  It’s not just a problem for us, but for the entire internet community. Google, consumer websites, law enforcement and even the media are all fighting this NEW international scourge. Always depend on the real American leading consumer advocacy service on the Internet – 14 years and still going strong!

REMEMBER: Scaminformer.com, scamfraudripoff.com, and complaintsboard.com are NOT legit. They will not and cannot help you. They can only TAKE YOUR MONEY.  On the other hand, if you’re just looking to help the Russian underground economy…

FACT—Russian criminals are stealing reports from www.RipoffReport.com and then using them to extort money from victims in the United States.

FACT—Ripoff Report has already won several lawsuits against these criminals, and more lawsuits are pending.

FACT—Many of Ripoff Report’s competitors are involved in these scams.

As one of the first and oldest consumer complaint sites, Ripoff Report has spent millions of dollars and more than a decade helping to empower consumers by giving them a highly-visible platform where they can share their stories with the world.  Since 1998, our vision has always been the same—we want to help increase customer satisfaction by allowing business owners to see exactly what their customers are saying so that problems and complaints can be addressed quickly and fairly.  In this way, our goal is to benefit both customers and business owners.

Unfortunately, in the last several years we have discovered a very disturbing trend—many competing websites have been created which appear to be dedicated to the same goals as Ripoff Report, but when you look closer the story is very different…and very disturbing.  Many of these sites are based overseas (many in Russia), and many are operated by shadowy figures with names that change from week to week.  Many of these sites are actually little more than extortion factories.

Their game works like this: 1.) they begin by stealing thousands of pages of reports and other original content from www.RipoffReport.com (they sometimes even copy our Terms of Service!); 2.) they extort money from business owner by demanding money to remove the reports.   These sites don’t care anything about helping consumers; they only care about one thing—money.

The worst violator is www.Scaminformer.com.   This site was created in January 2011, and when it first went online, the site contained literally tens of thousands of pages of content illegally copied from www.RipoffReport.com.  In fact, not only did the site steal massive amounts of content from us, they even removed our copyright ownership information (which is a violation of federal law) and they also backdated every posting by 24 hours in an attempt to make it look like the material was originally posted on their site.

Ripoff Report immediately filed a federal lawsuit against www.Scaminformer.com.  You can read a copy of our Original Complaint here.

Because www.Scaminformer.com isn’t a legitimate site, they failed to appear in court and we were awarded a $100,000 judgment against them.  Furthermore, the federal court issued an injunction requiring them to remove all of the material they had stolen, and to immediately stop copying material from www.RipoffReport.com.  You can read a copy of the Judgment and Injunction here.

Unfortunately, after the judgment and injunction was entered, rather than stopping its criminal conduct, www.Scaminformer.com did exactly what all scammers do—they simply transferred the site to a new owner—Eugene Selihov (also located in Russia) who now claims that he’s not stealing content from Ripoff Report and he has no idea how thousands and thousands of pages of new reports copied from www.RipoffReport.com have appeared on his website.

You can read our Amended Complaint against www.Scaminformer.com’s “new” owner Eugene Selihov here.

Sadly, this is not the only instance of other websites stealing content from Ripoff Report.  Another serious/repeat violator is www.ComplaintsBoard.com.  We sued that site in 2008 for stealing huge amounts of material from the Ripoff Report.  You can read our Original Complaint here.

We determined that the owner of www.ComplaintsBoard.com was actually located in eastern Europe, but they didn’t bother to show up in court.  As a result, we were awarded a $60,000 default judgment and permanent injunction.  We were later awarded an even larger amount for legal fees and collection expenses.

But once again, this didn’t stop the criminals from continuing to unlawfully copy material from our site; they simply transferred ownership to a new company so they could try to argue that our injunction doesn’t apply to them.  As such, we recently filed another lawsuit against the new owner of www.ComplaintsBoard.com, and you can read a copy this new lawsuit here.

Incredibly, these aren’t the only examples.  In 2008 we also sued yet another so-called consumer reporting website—www.PissedConsumer.com—based on their copying of thousands of pages of content from the Ripoff Report website.  You can read a copy of lawsuit against PissedConsumer here.  The owners of PissedConsumer eventually realized that it was illegal to steal material from our website, so they agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction which required them to stop this practice.  You can view a copy of the injunction here.

So, what’s the point of all this?  Simple—www.RipoffReport.com is not only one of the first and largest consumer complaint websites on the Internet, we are one of the few websites who are truly devoted to helping consumers while also assisting business owners who want to increase their sales by resolving customer complaints quickly and fairly.

Unlike many of our competitors, we are not based in Russia.   We are located in the United States, and as an American-based company, we respect and comply with all U.S. laws (you can’t say the same for our competitors).  Most importantly—we don’t take reports down for money and we don’t steal content from other sites.  Never have, never will.

REMEMBER: Ripoff Report cares about one thing—helping consumers!  Our competitors don’t care about that….they only care about TAKING MONEY from victims so they can HIDE REPORTS (reports which they probably stole from Ripoff Report in the first place).  Keep that in mind next time you’re thinking about posting a complaint on any site other than www.RipoffReport.com.

Source: http://www.edmagedson.com/from-russia-with-reputation-fraud/

WhoIs scaminformer.com – complaintsboard.com


Complaintsboard Engages in Cybersquating
and extortion

  • Complaintsboard.com is a Corrupt Bogus Consumer complaint and Scam Fighting Site Whose Operators Are Unknown
  • It is a widespread believe amongst consumer advocacy and scam fighting sites that the Operators of Complaintsboard.com and affiliated sites are the Mack Daddy  operators/owners  of  hundreds of  Canadian Pharmacy Websites in collaboration with co-conspirators from United Kingdom, India, Russia, Turkey, and Canada

Some Consumer Complaints Posted On Complaintsboard

ARE MANUFACTURE BY COMPLAINTSBOARD OPERATORS
  1. google pub ID -7643816519439245
  2. ca-pub-3499251668624688

The operators of complaintsboard.com have engaged in a massive program of STEALING/DUPLICATIING COMPETITOR’S sites. They have created sites that mirrors other scam fighting sites with the sole purpose of

  1. Content Farming
  2. Stealing hijacking Competitors Traffic
  3. Putting the competitor out of business.
  4. Posting discrediting information about competitor.
  5. Lawsuits – Ripoff Report.com

Address lookup
canonical name ripoffreport.cc
aliases http://www.ripoffreport.cc
addresses 72.52.210.60
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.nic.cc with “dom ripoffreport.cc

Domain Name: WWW.RIPOFFREPORT.CC
Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com


Name Server: NS1.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
Name Server: NS2.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
Status: CLIENT-RENEW-PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT-XFER-PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT-UPDATE-PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT-DELETE-PROHIBITED
Updated Date: 01-aug-2010
Creation Date: 18-jun-2009
Expiration Date: 18-jun-2011

Last update of whois database: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:02:37 EST
Queried whois.wildwestdomains.com with “ripoffreport.cc”…

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: RIPOFFREPORT.CC
Created on: 18-Jun-09
Expires on: 18-Jun-11
Last Updated on: 01-Aug-10

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFREPORT.CC@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFREPORT.CC@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
NS2.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
Network Whois record

Queried rwhois.liquidweb.com with “72.52.210.60”…

whois V-1.5:003eff:00 rwhois.liquidweb.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.7.4)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:NETBLK-SOURCEDNS.72.52.128.0/17
network:Auth-Area:72.52.128.0/17
network:Network-Name:SOURCEDNS-72.52.128.0
network:IP-Network:72.52.128.0/17
network:IP-Network-Block:72.52.128.0 – 72.52.171.255
network:Organization;I:SOURCEDNS
network:Org-Name:SourceDNS
network:Street-Address:4210 Creyts Rd.
network:City:Lansing
network:State:MI
network:Postal-Code:48917
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:admin@sourcedns.com
network:Created:20040212
network:Updated:20060327
network:Updated-By:admin@sourcedns.com
network:Abuse:abuse@sourcedns.com

ok
Queried whois.arin.net with “n 72.52.210.60″…

NetRange: 72.52.128.0 – 72.52.255.255
CIDR: 72.52.128.0/17
OriginAS:
NetName: LIQUIDWEB-6
NetHandle: NET-72-52-128-0-1
Parent: NET-72-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS.LIQUIDWEB.COM
NameServer: NS1.LIQUIDWEB.COM
RegDate: 2006-08-03
Updated: 2007-03-26
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-72-52-128-0-1

OrgName: Liquid Web, Inc.
OrgId: LQWB
Address: 4210 Creyts Rd.
City: Lansing
StateProv: MI
PostalCode: 48917
Country: US
RegDate: 2001-07-20
Updated: 2008-12-19
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/LQWB

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.liquidweb.com:4321

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE551-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-580-4985
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@liquidweb.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE551-ARIN

OrgTechHandle: IPADM47-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Administrator
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-580-4985
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@liquidweb.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/IPADM47-ARIN
DNS records

name class type data time to live
http://www.ripoffreport.cc IN CNAME ripoffreport.cc 14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: ripoffreport.cc
14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN SOA
server: ns1.webhosting4india.com
email: chirs.roberts.gmail.com
serial: 2010080400
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN NS ns2.webhosting4india.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN NS ns1.webhosting4india.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN A 72.52.210.60 14400s (04:00:00)
60.210.52.72.in-addr.arpa IN PTR host.webhosting4india.com 300s (00:05:00)
— end —



Address lookup
canonical name ripoffonline.com.
aliases
addresses 174.120.7.253
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom ripoffonline.com”…

Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
Name Server: NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 01-jul-2011
Creation Date: 25-aug-2010
Expiration Date: 25-aug-2012

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:10:48 UTC <<<

Queried whois.godaddy.com with “ripoffonline.com”…

Registrant:
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: Go Daddy
Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Created on: 25-Aug-10
Expires on: 25-Aug-12
Last Updated on: 01-Jul-11

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM

Network Whois record

Queried rwhois.theplanet.com with “174.120.7.253”…

%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
network:Auth-Area:174.120.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-174-120-7-0
network:IP-Network:174.120.7.224/27
network:IP-Network-Block:174.120.7.224 – 174.120.7.255
network:Organization-Name:WebsiteWelcome
network:Organization-City:Boca Raton
network:Organization-State:FL
network:Organization-Zip:33496
network:Organization-Country:USA
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Admin-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Created:20090410
network:Updated:20090422

%ok

Queried whois.arin.net with “n 174.120.7.253″…

NetRange: 174.120.0.0 – 174.123.255.255
CIDR: 174.120.0.0/14
OriginAS: AS36420, AS30315, AS13749, AS21844
NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
NetHandle: NET-174-120-0-0-1
Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2009-03-23
Updated: 2009-03-23
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-174-120-0-0-1

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
OrgId: TPCM
Address: 315 Capitol
Address: Suite 205
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77002
Country: US
RegDate: 1999-08-31
Updated: 2010-10-13
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/TPCM

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.theplanet.com:4321

OrgTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
OrgTechName: Technical Support
OrgTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
OrgTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
OrgNOCName: The Planet NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
OrgNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
RAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
RAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
RNOCName: The Planet NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
RNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

RTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
RTechName: Technical Support
RTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
RTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

DNS records
name class type data time to live
ripoffonline.com IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:174.120.7.226 a mx include:websitewelcome.com ~all 14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: ripoffonline.com
14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN SOA
server: ns1629.hostgator.com
email: dnsadmin.gator815.hostgator.com
serial: 2011050802
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1630.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1629.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN A 174.120.7.253 14400s (04:00:00)
253.7.120.174.in-addr.arpa IN PTR fd.7.78ae.static.theplanet.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)

— end —

Who Is Complaintsboard?

Houston !!! We have a problem

Complaintsboard.com and it’s affiliated sites as listed below represents a present and imminent threat to authentic consumer advocate group such as scamFRAUDalert, Artist Against419, FraudWatchers.com, Jowein, scamwarners.com and other scam fighting sites.
WE WEAR THE BADGE OF HONOR TO PROVE OUR MISSION FOCUS WORK.”
The practices of manufacturing complaints are unacceptable and just plain outright unethically. These scumbags should be stop.

Complaintsboard.com and their business partners are a threat to the global internet infrastructure base on their business practices

__________________

scamFRAUDalert have observed  some complaints posted on complaintsboard.com are manufactured i.e. posted by commercial spammers.
The Operators of Complaintsboard.com also engage in the promotion of unapproved online pharmacy websites – promoting the sale prescription drugs online without a Doctor prescription.

Address:
W 110th St., Ste. xxx
Overland Park, KS 66210-2332
United States

Phone: (913) xxx-xxxx
Fax: (913) 23x-xxxx

Be aware! To save our time and prevent our company from unnecessary expenses, in case of legal threats, all information posted about specific person or company will be moved to tens affiliated websites. As a result, the first page of Google Search Results will be filled with consumer reports about your business and related people. For more information see our Terms of Service.

  1. Complaintsboard Engages in Cybersquating
  2. Complaintsboard.com is Merareview.com
  3. Scammers Are On Complaintsboard.com
  4. ScamInformer.com
  5. Scamtracers.com
  6. Scamradar.com
  7. scamchecker.com
  8. bizclaims.com
  9. scamfound.org
  10. spamcaution.com
  11. scammotion
  12. Spaminform.com
  13. reviewstalk.com
  14. Scamchasers.com
  15. Scamadvocates.com
  16. scamfraudripoff.com
  17. ripoffonline.com
  18. ripofftalk.com

As a business owner, it pains me to see all sorts of businesses being slammed on this website called ComplaintsBoard.com . Sure, it has become a really popular avenue for consumers to vent their frustrations on businesses who have done them wrong.

But… the scary part is that vicious competitors are now using this vehicle to slander other legitimate businesses.

I have seen so many fake-sounding complaints about businesses on this website. Where is their sense of decency?

Here’s to you Complaintsboard.com :

How would you like your competitors to slander your site and post fake complaints about you?

And you, Elizabeth Arden, are you getting richer and richer everyday while these businesses are hurting? I hope that you sleep really well tonight?

Complaints Board

W 110th St Ste 400
Overland Park, KS 66210-2407
(240) 764-48637500
http://www.complaintsboard.com


United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________

No. 09-2601
___________

Susan Johnson; Robert Johnson; *
Cozy Kittens Cattery LLC, *
*
Appellants, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Elizabeth Arden, dba * – ComplaintsBoard.com; Michelle * – Reitenger; ComplaintsBoard.com, * – InMotion Hosting Inc.; Melanie *
Lowry; Kathleen Heineman, *
*
Appellees. *
___________

Submitted: February 10, 2010
Filed: August 4, 2010
___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge,1 SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Susan and Robert Johnson filed a state civil suit making multiple claims against
several defendants as a result of allegedly defamatory statements posted on an internet
discussion board. The defendants removed the case to federal court. The original

1. The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010. complaint included six defendants; however, the Johnsons located and served only InMotion Hosting, Inc. (“InMotion”), Melanie Lowry, and Kathleen Heineman.

The district court2 dismissed the claims against InMotion with prejudice,
finding that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)
and (e)(3) protects InMotion. The court dismissed the claims against Lowry and
Heineman without prejudice, finding that Lowry and Heineman had insufficient
contacts with the State of Missouri to be subjected to personal jurisdiction in Missouri.
Finally, the district court set aside a state court default judgment against Lowry under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On appeal, the Johnsons argue that the district
court erred in dismissing the claims against InMotion, Heineman, and Lowry and
erred in setting aside the default judgment against Lowry. For the reasons stated
below, we disagree and affirm.

I. Background
The Johnsons reside in Unionville, Missouri, where they own and operate the
exotic cat breeding business known as the Cozy Kitten Cattery. The Cozy Kitten
Cattery is a Missouri limited liability company formed in 2007. Its principal office and
place of business is located in Missouri, and the Johnsons are its sole members.
Around December 2004, the Johnsons obtained a registered federal trademark and
service mark for “Cozy Kitten Cattery.” The Johnsons operate their cat breeding
business under that trademark and licensed the use of that trademark and service mark
to Cozy Kitten Cattery, LLC. The Johnsons advertise their business on the internet and
have a website with the web address http://www.CozyKittens.com.

Someone posted several allegedly defamatory statements about the Cozy Kitten
Cattery on the interactive website http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com. In response, the

2. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
Johnsons and Cozy Kittens Cattery filed suit against Elizabeth Arden d/b/a
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com, Michelle Reitenger, http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com,
InMotion, Lowry, and Heineman in Putnam County, Missouri. Counts I, II and III allege that all six defendants conspired to use http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com to post false statements about the Johnsons, including statements that the Johnsons kill cats, the Johnsons “rip off” cat breeders, the Johnsons steal kittens, the Johnsons’ cats and kittens are infected, and the Johnsons are con artists.

The Johnsons assert that they requested all defendants to remove the statements but that the statements were not removed for more than 48 hours.

The Johnsons assert that they suffered lost sales of kittens and cats, lost revenue and lost goodwill and will continue to suffer damages because of the statements posted on the interactive website.

The Johnsons assert that InMotion, Lowry, and Heineman were all served with
the Summons and Petition/Complaint, although all three dispute service. The Johnsons
were unable to locate or serve defendants Elizabeth Arden d/b/a
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com, Michelle Reitenger or http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com.

Heineman, Lowry, and InMotion moved in district court to dismiss the action
based on lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. Heineman and InMotion also asserted improper venue as an additional ground for dismissal.

A. Kathleen Heineman
Heineman is a resident of the State of Colorado and has been since 1981.
Heineman is a cat breeder and also works as an accountant. In both capacities, she works out of her home in Colorado. She maintains no offices in Missouri, owns no property in Missouri and does not pay taxes in Missouri. She also alleges that she does not own any domain name registrations and does not own or operate any website.
However, the website, http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com, and the related cat breeding and selling business are licensed by the State of Colorado to Heineman, and thus for the purpose of this appeal, we will assume that Heineman owns the website in question.
The Johnsons assert that Heineman sells cats and kittens throughout the United States, including the State of Missouri, while advertising on the internet using the web address http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. The Johnsons allege that Heineman advertises and sells cats and kittens under the name “Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats.”

Heineman had a limited business relationship with the Johnsons, which ended
in March 2006. The Johnsons never employed Heineman or paid her a salary. She provided administrative assistance to the Johnsons from her home office in Colorado, including proofreading services and other miscellaneous work on an intermittent basis, such as helping them to acquire cats.

Between 2002 and 2006, the Johnsons contend that Heineman purchased about 16 cats for them from breeders throughout the United States. Heineman did not profit from the purchase of these cats. Some of these cats were shipped to Heineman in Colorado and then eventually shipped to Susan Johnson in Missouri; other cats were picked up from the sellers directly by the Johnsons or their relatives.

In 2002, Heineman twice delivered cats to the Johnsons in Missouri. During the course of their relationship, the Johnsons contend that they shipped seven cats to Heineman and charged her only for their out-of-pocket expenses.

In the course of their relationship, Heineman also purchased advertising space
from the Johnsons on http://www.CozyKittens.com for a fee of $100 per kitten advertised.
The Johnsons’ website then listed Heineman’s email address as the contact email for persons interested in those cats. These advertisements were not targeted to Missouri residents, and Heineman did not place any cats or kittens or do any other business in Missouri. Heineman advertised approximately 50 cats in this manner. Heineman asserts that she has not posted or authorized anyone else to post anything about the Johnsons on ww.ComplaintsBoard.com or on any other website.
B. InMotion Hosting, Inc. – InMotion is a California corporation and maintains its principal place of business there. InMotion, as an internet service provider (ISP), only hosted the http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com website. InMotion does not operate http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com or create any of its content. InMotion does not monitor or control the content of its customer’s websites, including
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com.

The website http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com is published worldwide on the
internet. The website is interactive, permitting and encouraging individuals to post complaints about businesses and business owners. Individuals seeking to post complaints on the website are required to register with the website and provide identifying information, such as their name and email address.

C. Melanie Lowry
Lowry resides in California and does not own any property in Missouri, does
not have any bank accounts or telephone listings in Missouri, has never paid taxes in Missouri, and has never transacted business in Missouri. Lowry asserts that she has never done business with the Johnsons, does not know them, and has only spoken to Susan Johnson one time on the telephone—a call initiated by Susan Johnson.

The Johnsons assert that Lowry’s postings on http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com
included statements that Susan and Robert Johnson had sold a breeder cat without providing the papers, offered a refund but refused to pay it, stolen money from their customers, and fed their cats Tylenol, causing them to suffer horrible deaths and pre-death injuries.

The record contains one alleged posting by Lowry on http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com. That alleged posting does not mention Missouri, and there is no other evidence in the record indicating that the focal point of this particular posting, or any of Lowry’s other postings, was Missouri.

The Johnsons filed a state court complaint against Lowry, who they assert was
properly served on July 17, 2008. Lowry did not respond or file a pleading. A
Missouri default judgment was filed against Lowry on September 22, 2008. Lowry filed a motion to set aside the judgment on November 12, 2008.

D. Procedural History
The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity of
citizenship. Heineman filed a motion to dismiss contending that she was not properly served and that the district court had improper venue and lacked personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The district court granted Heineman’s motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Johnsons then filed a motion for an order of default against InMotion, which had not yet filed any pleadings in the district court.
The district court denied the motion.

InMotion then filed its motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), contending that it
was not properly served, the district court did not have venue, the complaint failed to state a claim for relief, it had insufficient contacts with Missouri to be sued there, and Missouri was an inconvenient forum. InMotion did not raise the CDA as a defense.
The district court raised the CDA sua sponte in its order granting InMotion’s motion to dismiss.

Finally, Lowry, pro se, filed a two-page letter/motion moving to dismiss the
complaint against her, claiming that she was not properly served and that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because she had insufficient contacts with the State of Missouri. In the same motion Lowry moved to set aside the default judgment on liability pending against her.
The district court entered an order dismissing the claims against InMotion with
prejudice and dismissing the claims against Lowry and Heineman without prejudice.
The district court found that Lowry and Heineman had insufficient contacts with the State of Missouri to be subjected to personal jurisdiction there and that the CDA barred claims against InMotion. The district court also set aside the state court default judgment against Lowry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) but made no specific finding in support of that ruling.

II. Discussion

On appeal, the Johnsons argue that the district court erred in

(1) dismissing the
claims against InMotion, after finding that InMotion was immune from suit under the CDA;

(2) dismissing the claims against Heineman for lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) dismissing the claims against Lowry for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (4) abused its discretion in setting aside the default judgment against Lowry.

A. Communications Decency Act

The Johnsons first argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their
claims after concluding InMotion is immune under the CDA. The Johnsons contend that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) and (e)(3) merely provide that a provider of internet services shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information on the internet provided by another party but does not immunize a provider from suit. The Johnsons assert that Missouri law provides for joint liability where a wrong is done by concert of action and common intent and purpose. According to the Johnsons, the CDA would only bar actions against website operators deemed to be the “publisher or speaker” of defamatory material.

InMotion responds that the district court correctly found that InMotion was
immune from suit under the CDA. Additionally, InMotion asserts that it maintained no control and had no influence over the content that the Johnsons alleged was posted on http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com by unrelated third parties. Because of this, InMotion maintains, it could not have “acted in concert” or “intentionally inflicted emotional distress” in a manner that caused any damage to the Johnsons.

This case presents an issue of first impression for this court, as we have not
previously interpreted § 230(c). “Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we
review de novo.” Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524, 537 (8th Cir.
2006). The CDA states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service
shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), and expressly preempts any
state law to the contrary, id. § 230(e)(3).3 The CDA defines an “information content
provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other
interactive computer service.” Id. at § 230(f)(3).

Read together, these provisions bar plaintiffs from holding ISPs legally
responsible for information that third parties created and developed. See Fair Hous.
Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162–64
(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that CDA immunity did not apply to website that was
designed to force subscribers to divulge protected characteristics, but that CDA
immunity did apply to the “Additional Comments” section of the website where the
information was created by third parties and not required by the website ISP).
“Congress thus established a general rule that providers of interactive computer
services are liable only for speech that is properly attributable to them.” Nemet
Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009).

3
Section 230(e)(3) states:
(3) State law—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State
from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of
action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local
law that is inconsistent with this section.

-8-
“The majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad
‘federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.'” Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)). The district court, following majority circuit precedent, held that § 230(c)(1) blocks civil liability when web hosts and other ISPs refrain from filtering or censoring the information that third parties created on their sites. Green v. Am. Online, 318 F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that under the CDA the defendant ISP is not liable for failing to monitor, screen, or delete allegedly defamatory content from its site).

It is undisputed that InMotion did not originate the material that the Johnsons
deem damaging. InMotion is not a “publisher or speaker” as § 230(c)(1) uses those terms, therefore, the district court held that InMotion cannot be liable under any state-law theory to the persons harmed by the allegedly defamatory material. Five circuit courts agree. See Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 419 (1st Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of a claim brought by a public-traded company against an internet message board operator for allegedly false and defamatory postings by pseudonymous posters); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 1032–33 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that even if operator of internet services could have reasonably concluded that the information was sent for internet publication, he was immunized from liability for the defamatory speech as a “provider or user of interactive computer services” under the CDA); Green v. Am. Online, 318 F.3d at 471;m
Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. Am. Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 986 (10th Cir. 2000) (finding that defendant ISP was immune to the defamation claim under the CDA whenmit made its own editorial decisions with respect to third-party information published on its website); Zeran, 129 F.3d at 332–34 (holding that the CDA barred claims against defendant ISP that allegedly delayed in removing defamatory messages posted by unidentified third party, refused to post retractions of those messages, and failed to screen for similar postings thereafter).

-9-
District courts in this circuit have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g.,
PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinko’s, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1072 (D.S.D. 2001)
(holding that “§ 230 of the Communication[s] Decency Act errs on the side of robust communication and prevents the plaintiffs from moving forward with their claims” that a company that allowed users to access the internet via its computers could be held liable for the actions of one of those users).

The Johnsons cite Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008), for support. Craigslist held that “§ 230(c) as a whole cannot be understood as a general prohibition of civil liability for web-site operators and other online content hosts. . . .” Id. at 669. However, while the Seventh Circuit construes § 230(c)(1) to permit liability for ISPs, it limited that liability to ISPs that intentionally designed their systems to facilitate illegal acts, such as stealing music. Id. at 670 (citing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003)). Specifically, Craigslist held that an ISP could not be held liable for allowing
third parties to place ads in violation of the Fair Housing Act on its website if the ISP did not induce the third party to place discriminatory ads. Id. at 671–72.

The record contains no evidence that InMotion designed its website to be a
portal for defamatory material or do anything to induce defamatory postings. We
conclude that the CDA provides ISPs like InMotion with federal immunity against
state tort defamation actions that would make service providers liable for information originating with third-party users of the service such as the other defendants in this
case.

Therefore we decline the Johnsons’ invitation to construe § 230(c)(1) as
permitting liability against InMotion for material originating with a third party. See Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330 (stating that “§ 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits

-10-
seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content—are barred”).

Because InMotion was merely an ISP host and not an information content
provider, the Johnsons’ claims against InMotion fail as a matter of law under
§ 230(c)(1), and the district court properly dismissed the claims.

B. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Kathleen Heineman
The Johnsons next argue that the district court erred by dismissing the claims
against Heineman for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Johnsons maintain that
Heineman purposefully directed internet activities at Missouri citizens. The Johnsons also assert that the record establishes personal jurisdiction under the Missouri long arm statute.

Heineman responds that the Johnsons cannot challenge the district court’s ruling
because they waived any opposition by not filing a timely objection. In the alternative, Heineman argues that the district court correctly ruled it lacked personal jurisdiction over her. According to Heineman, the record does not reflect that she had systematic or continuous contacts with Missouri or, even if she did, that they were aimed or purposefully directed at Missouri.

First, as a threshold question, we address whether the Johnsons may challenge
the district court’s decision to grant Heineman’s motion. Heineman contends that the Johnsons have waived any challenge to the district court’s order dismissing her from the lawsuit because they failed to file a timely opposition to the motion to dismiss at the district court.

-11-
Heineman filed a motion to dismiss all counts against her, and the Johnsons did
not file a timely response. Instead, two weeks after their deadline passed, the Johnsons filed a motion for additional time. The Johnsons then filed a response to Heineman’s motion before the district court ruled on the Johnsons’ motion for additional time. An affidavit from Susan Johnson was attached with the response. The district court denied the Johnsons’ motion for additional time and struck the response from the record. The district court subsequently granted Heineman’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Johnsons did not respond in a timely manner, but nevertheless, “out of caution,” the district court stated that it considered Susan Johnson’s affidavit before ruling on Heineman’s motion to dismiss.

“It is a well-established rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be considered by this court as a basis for reversal.” Edwards v. Hurtel, 724 F.2d 689, 690 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). “The primary purpose of the rule is promptly to inform the district judge of possible errors, and thus give the judge an opportunity to reconsider the ruling and make desired changes.” Id. This rule is followed “in all but exceptional cases where the obvious result would be a plain miscarriage of justice or inconsistent with substantial justice.” Kelley v. Crunk, 713 F.2d 426, 427 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

In Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, a plaintiff filed certain exhibits without properly
authenticating the exhibits. 397 F.3d 596, 601 (8th Cir. 2005). The defendant made a motion to strike the exhibits, and the plaintiff did not oppose. Id. The district court granted the motion to strike, and on appeal the plaintiff contended that the district court erred in striking the motion. Id. We held that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, we cannot consider issues not raised in the district court.” Id.

The Johnsons distinguish Shanklin by pointing out that the district court
considered the affidavit from Susan Johnson in making a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, while the Shanklin court did not review any documents. Also, the Johnsons

-12-
did attempt to oppose the motion to dismiss, although in an untimely fashion. In
Shanklin the plaintiff did not even attempt to file an out-of-time opposition. We find merit in this argument, because the district court acknowledged that it considered some opposition to the motion—Susan Johnson’s affidavit—which the Johnsons clearly submitted for the purpose of opposing the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the trial court had an opportunity to “reconsider” the issue of whether to dismiss knowing that the Johnsons opposed dismissal. In fact, in the district court’s order, it specifically stated that “out of caution, and because the Court must construe the jurisdictional facts in the light most favorable to the Johnsons, the Court has considered the affidavit of Sue Johnson . . . . ” Therefore, we hold that the Johnsons sufficiently preserved their argument for appeal.

Grants of motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) are reviewed de novo. First Nat’l Bank of Lewisville, Ark. v. First Nat’l Bank of Clinton, Ky., 258 F.3d 727, 729 (8th Cir. 2001). “If the District Court does not hold a hearing and instead relies on pleadings and affidavits, then we must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.” Epps v. Stewart Info. Serv. Corp., 327 F.3d 642, 646–47 (8th Cir. 2003).

In Missouri, to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, “the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that (1) the cause of action arose out of an activity covered by Missouri’s long-arm statute, . . . and (2) the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy the requirements of due process.”

Berry v. Berry (In re Marriage of Berry), 155 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)m(quoting Wray v. Wray, 73 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)). “The evidentiary showing required at the prima facie stage is minimal. . . . ” Willnerd v. First Nat’l Neb., Inc., 558 F.3d 770, 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

-13-
Missouri’s long-arm statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500, confers jurisdiction to
the extent allowed by the Due Process Clause.4 State ex rel Deere and Co. v. Pinnell, 454 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo. 1970). Under this standard, “[p]ersonal jurisdiction exists only if the contacts between the defendant and the forum state are sufficient to establish that the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state.” Johnson v. Woodcock, 444 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2006). In Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co., we set forth five factors courts must consider when determining whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to confer jurisdiction. 343 F.2d 187, 197 (8th Cir. 1965). These factors include: (1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of the contacts; (3)the relationship of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of Missouri in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience or inconvenience to the
parties. Id. The first three factors are primary factors, and the remaining two factors are secondary factors. Id. The third factor distinguishes whether the jurisdiction is specific or general. Digi-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomm., Ltd., 89 F.3d 519, 523 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996). We must look at all of the factors in the aggregate and examine the totality of the circumstances in making a personal-jurisdiction determination. Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas Algodoneras, S.A., 51 F.3d 1383, 1388 (8th Cir. 1995).

4
The statutes states, in relevant part:

1. Any person . . . whether or not a citizen or resident of this state
. . . submits . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any
cause of action arising from the doing of any such acts:

(1) The transaction of any business within this state;
(2) The making of any contract within this state;
(3) The commission of a tortious act within this state. . . .

-14-
The minimum contacts necessary for due process may be the basis for either
“general” or “specific” jurisdiction. Davis v. Baylor Univ., 976 S.W.2d 5, 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). A court obtains general jurisdiction “against a defendant who has ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state, even if the injuries at issue in the lawsuit did not arise out of the defendant’s activities directed at the forum.” Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1073 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415–16 (1984)). Specific jurisdiction over a defendant is exercised when a state asserts personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that “‘has purposefully directed [its] activities at [Missouri] residents'” in a suit that “‘arises out of’ or ‘relates to’ these activities.” Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704, 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)).

a. General Jurisdiction
Heineman’s contacts with the State of Missouri—which must be found to be
“continuous and systematic” before general jurisdiction is conferred—may be
summarized as follows: She purchased cats in Missouri for delivery to the Johnsons; personally delivered cats to the Johnsons in Missouri on two separate occasions;conducted her cat breeding and sale business with the Johnsons, using the Johnsons’website—operated from the Johnsons’ location in Unionville, Missouri—for a period of about four years, which ended two years before this lawsuit was initiated; and engaged in numerous telephone conversations and email exchanges with the Johnsons during that four-year period.

Heineman is a citizen and resident of Colorado who sells cats and kittens
throughout the United States, and advertises her business on the website
http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. The Johnsons and Heineman first made contact when
Heineman purchased a cat from the Johnsons in late 2001 or early 2002. Around April 2002, they began a business relationship that lasted until March 2006. During this time, Heineman provided the Johnsons administrative assistance with their website,

-15-
http://www.CozyKittens.com. She also purchased advertising space for cats she sold from
Colorado on the Johnsons’ website, advertising approximately 50 cats thereon.
Between 2002 and 2006, Heineman purchased about 16 cats for the Johnsons from
breeders throughout the United States. These cats were generally shipped to Colorado, then eventually shipped to Missouri. Heineman never worked as an employee of the Johnsons.

Applying the Aftanase factors, see Lakin, 348 F.3d at 711, we do not find
sufficient contacts between Heineman and Missouri to support general jurisdiction.
Heineman did business almost exclusively from her Colorado home, except for
infrequent trips to Missouri to deliver cats. See Johnson, 444 F.3d at 956–57 (holding that evidence that nonresident party collaborated with a resident and had a publishing relationship with another did not establish general jurisdiction); see also Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 418 (“[W]e hold that mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident [party] in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.”).
Heineman’s contact with Missouri was neither continuous nor systematic.

With the Johnsons unable to establish that Heineman had continuous and
systematic contacts with Missouri, we turn to the question of specific jurisdiction.

b. Specific Jurisdiction
Specific jurisdiction is proper “only if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit
occurred within or had some connection to the forum state, meaning that the defendant purposely directed its activities at the forum state and the claim arose out of or relates to those activities.” Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 586 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 472).

The Johnsons’ primary support for specific jurisdiction are two sets of actions
that Heineman allegedly undertook—posting defamatory statements on

-16-
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com and using the trademark “Cozy Kittens” on the website
http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. The trademark claim will be discussed under a Lanham
Act analysis. See infra. The question for both sets of actions is whether Heineman “purposefully directed” her internet activities at the State of Missouri.

When considering the sufficiency of internet contacts under a specific
jurisdiction analysis, we have found the Zippo test instructive. Lakin, 348 F.3d at 710–11. In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., the court examined the issue of whether a website could provide sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction.
952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997). The court created a “sliding scale” to
measure the likelihood of personal jurisdiction. Id. The scale runs from active contract formation and repeated transmission of computer files to mere posting of information The http://www.ComplaintBoards.com site lands on the “mere posting” end
of the scale. Although InMotion represents http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com as an
“interactive” website, users may actually only post information. There is no interaction between users and a host computer; the site merely makes information available to other people. The website’s accessibility in Missouri alone is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

There are other ways the Johnsons can obtain specific jurisdiction, including
employing the Calder effects test. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). “To
sustain [their] argument, [the Johnsons] would have to show that [Heineman] knew
that ‘the brunt of the injury would be felt by [them] in the State in which [they] live [ ] and work[ ]’ and intentionally targeted the forum state.” Steinbuch, 518 F.3d at 586 (quoting Calder, 465 U.S. at 789–90).

The “effects” test, therefore, provides that

a defendant’s tortious acts can serve as a source of personal jurisdiction
only where the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the defendant’s acts (1) were intentional, (2) were uniquely or expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) caused harm, the brunt of which was suffered—and which the defendant knew was likely to be suffered—[in the forum state].

Lindgren v. GDT, LLC, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1132 (S.D. Iowa 2004) (internal quotations and citation omitted). We have stated that this test “allows the assertion of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants whose acts are performed for the very purpose of having their consequences felt in the forum state.” Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1390–91 (8th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Heineman’s alleged acts were not so performed.

The Johnsons allege that Heineman stated on http://www.ComplaintBoards.com that “Sue Johnson and Cozy Kittens operated from Unionville, Missouri, where they killed cats, sold infected cats and kittens, brutally killed and tortured unwanted cats andoperated a ‘kitten mill’ in Unionville, Missouri.” Although we accept this allegation as true,5 alone, it fails to show that Heineman uniquely or expressly aimed her statements at Missouri. The statements were aimed at the Johnsons; the inclusion of “Missouri” in the posting was incidental and not “performed for the very purpose of having their consequences” felt in Missouri. There is no evidence that the http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com website specifically targets Missouri, or that the content of Heineman’s alleged postings specifically targeted Missouri.

Additionally, even if the effect of Heineman’s alleged statement was felt in Missouri, we have used the Calder test merely as an additional factor to consider when evaluating a defendant’s relevant contacts with the forum state. In Dakota, we

5
There is no copy of any post from Heineman, defamatory or otherwise, in the record, although at this summary judgment stage we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Johnsons. Semple v. Federal Exp. Corp., 566 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir. 2009).

-18-
declined to grant personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of forum state effects from an intentional tort. Id. at 1391 (“In relying on Calder, we do not abandon the five-part [Aftanase] test . . . . We simply note that Calder requires the consideration of additional factors when an intentional tort is alleged.”). We therefore construe the Calder effects test narrowly, and hold that, absent additional contacts, mere effects inthe forum state are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See Hicklin Eng’g, Inc.
v. Aidco, Inc., 959 F.2d 738, 739 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). As explained, supra, there are no additional contacts between Heineman and Missouri to justify conferringpersonal jurisdiction.

Posting on the internet from Colorado an allegedly defamatory statement including the name “Missouri” in its factual assertion does not create the type of substantial connection between Heineman and Missouri necessary to confer specific personal jurisdiction.

c. Lanham Act Claims
The Johnsons also challenge the district court’s denial of jurisdiction for the
Johnsons’ Lanham Act claim. The Johnsons allege that Heineman violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.,6 by using the words “Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats” to advertise her cat breeding business on http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. As noted, Heineman denies ownership of this website, but for purposes of our review of adismissed count, we assume that Heineman owns the site in question.

Here, we do not decide the viability of the Johnsons’ Lanham Act claim on the merits, only whether the district court had jurisdiction to decide the claim.

The Lanham Act governs the use of federal trademarks. Davis v. Walt Disney Co., 430 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The Lanham Act prohibits the use of a mark in connection with goods or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services.”)

-19-
Missouri long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to Missouri courts for torts committed within Missouri. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500.

Infringing upon a trademark, as a tort, may be grounds for personal jurisdiction under Missouri’s long-arm statute. Uncle Sam’s Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Uncle Sam’s Army Navy Outfitters-Manhattan, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 919, 921 (E.D. Mo. 2000).
However, the same “minimum contacts” analysis applies to determine if the allegedly tortious act was committed within Missouri. Id. Heineman, as discussed, does not have sufficient contacts to grant general personal jurisdiction. The Johnsons argue that Heineman sells cats and kittens throughout the United States, including in the State of Missouri via advertising on http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com, thus creating specific personal jurisdiction. However, under Zippo, whether specific personal jurisdiction could be conferred on the basis of an interactive website depends not just on the nature of the website but also on evidence that individuals in the forum state accessed the website in doing business with the defendant. Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1125–26.
Although http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com may be characterized as interactive, there is no evidence in the record that Heineman engaged in any transaction or exchange of information with a Missouri resident via ww.BoutiqueKittens.com, or that a Missouri resident ever accessed the website. We decline to confer personal jurisdiction based on only the possibility that a Missouri resident had contact with Heineman through http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com.

Similarly, the Johnsons have failed to prove that http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com is uniquely or expressly aimed at Missouri; thus Calder provides no support for their Lanham Act claim. For these reasons, as well as the reasons stated supra, Part II.B.1, we hold that Heineman does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri and affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Lanham Act claims against Heineman for lack of personal jurisdiction.

-20-
Because we find there was no personal jurisdiction, we do not reach Heineman’s other issues related to service and venue.

2. Melanie Lowry
a. Personal Jurisdiction
The Johnsons also contend that the district court erred by dismissing their claims against Melanie Lowry for lack of personal jurisdiction because the web activities of Lowry were purposefully directed at the citizens of the State of Missouri.
We address this issue with an analysis similar to the one completed above for Heineman.

The only evidence in the record relating to Lowry is an affidavit she attached to her motion to dismiss. In it, Lowry claimed that she has never been to Missouri, does not own any property in Missouri, does not have any bank accounts or telephone listings in Missouri, has never paid taxes in Missouri nor insured a risk in Missouri, and has never knowingly, regularly or continuously transacted business in the State of Missouri. Her affidavit also states that she has never done business with the Johnsons, does not know them, and has only spoken to Susan Johnson one time on the telephone—a call that Johnson initiated. The evidence supporting systematic and continuous contacts between Lowry and Missouri is thus even weaker than that for Heineman. Again applying the Aftanase factors we hold that the district court did not have general jurisdiction over Lowry.

The court also did not have specific jurisdiction over Lowry. Lowry’s alleged activities related to http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com are similar to Heineman’s, except that Lowry did not include any statement related to or mentioning the State of Missouri.
No statement of any kind by Lowry was purposefully directed at Missouri. We affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Johnsons’ claims against Lowry for lack of personal jurisdiction.

-21-
b. Default Judgment
Finally, the Johnsons argue that the district court abused its discretion or erred by vacating the Missouri state court default judgment against Lowry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Johnsons specifically challenge the district court’s lack of a showing of good cause.

The district court, “for good cause shown,” “set aside” the default judgment against Lowry as part of its order granting Lowry’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, while no findings were made or specific reasons given for setting aside the judgment, it is reasonable to surmise that the district court set aside the default judgment as void because the district court found that Missouri courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Lowry.

The default judgment was filed on September 22, 2008, and Lowry filed a motion to set aside the judgment on November 12, 2008. Lowry did not reference a rule of civil procedure in her motion, but Lowry is a pro se litigant and therefore we construe her pleadings broadly. See Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 n.7 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that pro se pleadings are afforded a liberal construction). Because Lowry specifically stated that “this is my motion to set aside the default judgment” and in the same motion argued that the court did not have personal jurisdiction, we will view her motion as a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See Baldwin v. Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, 516 F.3d 734, 737 (8th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a pro se motion that did not specify a particular rule of civil procedure as a Rule 60(b)(4) motion because the motion stated that the court did not have personal jurisdiction).

“The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Rule 60(b)(4) provides in relevant part that “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment [if] . . . the judgment is void[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). “A judgment is void if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due

-22-
process.” Baldwin, 516 F.3d at 737 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
“Although we have sometimes said that relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy left to the discretion of the district court, relief from a judgment that is void under Rule 60(b)(4) is not discretionary.” United States v. Three Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars, in United States Currency, 463 F.3d 812,
813 (8th Cir. 2006). “Thus, while Rule 60(b) dispositions are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion . . . an order [granting] relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is reviewed de novo.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

This is not a case where Lowry lost on the merits, failed to appeal, and belatedly attempted to avoid the judgment with a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Cf. Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1997) (“A party may not use a Rule 60(b)(4) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal. In other words, if a party fails to appeal an adverse judgment and then files a Rule 60(b)(4) motion after the time permitted for an ordinary appeal has expired, the motion will not succeed merely because the same argument would have succeeded on appeal.”) (internal citations omitted). Rather, Lowry challenged jurisdiction from the inception of this case. The district court found that Lowry could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction in Missouri. Although we reviewed that decision on the merits in this opinion, see supra, Part II.B.2.a, for purposes of review of the district court’s decision to set aside the default judgment, we do not consider the underlying decision; we are confined to determining only whether the district court erred in granting Lowry’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See Three Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand six Hundred Dollars, in UnitedStates Currency, 463 F.3d at 814. Because the district court did not err in granting Lowry’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion when it found personal jurisdiction lacking we affirm the court’s decision to set aside Lowry’s adverse judgment.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.


Accents Of Salado
Posted: 2010-09-28 by terrawest

Quality
Complaint Rating: 100 % with 2 votes
Company information:
Nevada
United States

I had purchased 3 urns for $289.00… It was nothing like the actual picture… The picture looks like the the tops are bronzed like almost fauxed and smooth… Just beautiful was real excited to get them in…What I got was 3 pieces of ceramic that looks as if someone took them in the back alley and spray painted them and forgot to dust them off. I had to put them on top of my kitchen cabinets up far so you could not see all the imperfections and just the poor quality…I was very disappointed… Well one day I had went to the furniture show where they sell wholesale and I actually went into a show room that sells the same exact stuff and found out thats where they order alot of there stuff and all of it was junk… I was amazed this company stays in business. I give them an A plus on the website because everything looks so beautiful but they obviously photo shop those pictures… On top of that the whole sale price was 90 dollars and they sell it for 289.00 that is such a ripoff…

Anyways be careful what you buy because honestly the quality is very poor…


I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: YES
My site’s URL (web address) is: http://www.accentsofsalado.com
Description (including timeline of any changes made):

RIP OFF REPORTS and COMPLAINTS BOARD are currently attempting to extort payment from my company to remove negative reviews of my ecommerce business. Complaints Board posted a false complaint on 9-28-2010 about an invented product that I do not sell and used my unique company name along with a state location (Nevada) where my company is not located.

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/accents-of-salado-c377553.html#comment
Google picked up my company name within hours of the posting and ranked this invented complaint #6 out of 4,180 results. Google ranks Rip Off Reports and Complaints Board pages even higher than my Google Blogspot blog. Curiously I received an email this morning 9-29-2010 from a Reactive Online Reputation Management company offering to remove this complaint. The email reads:

Hello,
Good day, hope you are doing well. My name is Janette Adams and I am a Search Engine Reputation Management (SERM) consultant at BrandRevitalize, a leading reputation management company.

I am writing to inform you that your online reputation may be at risk.
While i was doing my daily research concerning your niche, i noticed that your company, together with other companies, has a listing on Ripoffreport.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/specialty-stores/accents-of-salado/accents-of-salado-poor-qualit-699f6.htm

The above negative listing may put your brand equity and customer loyalty you’ve built at risk. Who you are online is as important as who you are offline. Imagine how frustrating it is to build rapport with a potential client, only to lose the deal when they Google your company name—accentsofsalado.com. BrandRevitalize preserves your marketing investments, customer trust and revenues by eliminating potentially fraudulent use of your brand online. Our company makes sure your online reputation is free from false malicious associations and libelous accusations. We make sure CONTROL is delivered back to you, where it belongs.

In line with this, i am hoping we can schedule a time to discuss your Reactive Online Reputation Management and the amount of time needed to eliminate your negative listings in Google’s Search Engine Results Page (SERP). Are you free for a quick discussion today or tomorrow?

Kindly please let me know so we can schedule a call.
You may also visit our processes’ page for more information

http://brandrevitalize.com/our-process.php
Regards,
Janette Adams
BrandRevitalize – Protect. Repair. Reinforce.
8 Maiden Lane, Streetsville,
ONT, Canada L5M 1W8
1-877-878-4108


THIS FRAUDULENT AND LIBELOUS ACTION IS EXTORTION PURE AND SIMPLE.

I have looked at both Rip Off Report and Complaints Board HTML code. There is no reason that the web site HTML Meta Tags and lack of supporting text would propel these two sites to the top 10 Google search results within hours or even at all. My company has received repeated emails and phone calls that have attempted to extort payment for complaint removal services.

MY QUESTIONS:
1. Does Google give ranking preference to these extortionists?
2. Does Google have a special relationship with these complaint web sites?
3. Google has the ability to remove these web sites from their search results. Why has Google not done so?
4. Is there a Google contact email address?

All replies would be greatly appreciated as it is impossible to find Google contact information anywhere on the Google site. It is impossible to report abuse to Google if Google doesn’t provide Google contact information for these serious matters.


Address lookup
canonical name ripoffonline.com.
aliases
addresses 174.120.7.253
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom ripoffonline.com”…

Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
Name Server: NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 01-jul-2011
Creation Date: 25-aug-2010
Expiration Date: 25-aug-2012

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:10:48 UTC <<<
Queried whois.godaddy.com with “ripoffonline.com”…

Registrant:
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: Go Daddy
Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Created on: 25-Aug-10
Expires on: 25-Aug-12
Last Updated on: 01-Jul-11

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM

Network Whois record

Queried rwhois.theplanet.com with “174.120.7.253”…

%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
network:Auth-Area:174.120.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-174-120-7-0
network:IP-Network:174.120.7.224/27
network:IP-Network-Block:174.120.7.224 – 174.120.7.255
network:Organization-Name:WebsiteWelcome
network:Organization-City:Boca Raton
network:Organization-State:FL
network:Organization-Zip:33496
network:Organization-Country:USA
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Admin-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Created:20090410
network:Updated:20090422

ok
Queried whois.arin.net with “n 174.120.7.253″…

NetRange: 174.120.0.0 – 174.123.255.255
CIDR: 174.120.0.0/14
OriginAS: AS36420, AS30315, AS13749, AS21844
NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
NetHandle: NET-174-120-0-0-1
Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2009-03-23
Updated: 2009-03-23
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-174-120-0-0-1

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
OrgId: TPCM
Address: 315 Capitol
Address: Suite 205
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77002
Country: US
RegDate: 1999-08-31
Updated: 2010-10-13
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/TPCM

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.theplanet.com:4321

OrgTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
OrgTechName: Technical Support
OrgTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
OrgTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
OrgNOCName: The Planet NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
OrgNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
RAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
RAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
RNOCName: The Planet NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
RNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

RTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
RTechName: Technical Support
RTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
RTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

DNS records
name class type data time to live
ripoffonline.com IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:174.120.7.226 a mx include:websitewelcome.com ~all 14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: ripoffonline.com
14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN SOA
server: ns1629.hostgator.com
email: dnsadmin.gator815.hostgator.com
serial: 2011050802
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1630.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1629.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN A 174.120.7.253 14400s (04:00:00)
253.7.120.174.in-addr.arpa IN PTR fd.7.78ae.static.theplanet.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)

— end —

Sleazeball Attorney Paul Sigelman Representing Colocation America Corp and Albert Ahdoot

Attorney Richard Morse and sleazeball Paul Sigelman representing Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America Corporation, Colocation America, Inc., Colocation America, Colocation America now Collocation America or Colocation America USA a CAREER SPAMMER send scamFRAUDalert a threaten letter.

Sleazeball Attorney Paul S. Sigelman of Sigelman Law aka SIGELMAN LAW whose’s notoriety for fixing cases has handlers in the Court house to see lawsuits filed by his firm get to the right JUDGES. This sleazeball Attorney continues to file frivolous lawsuit with total disregard for the law and LIE ON APPEAL.
Paul Sigelman is a disgrace to the legal profession and should be disbar.

  1. www.colocationamerica.com
  2. www.collocationamerica.com

Dear scamFRAUDalert,

I’m tied up with an urgent family matter for the rest of the day and tomorrow, so I have neither the time nor the patience to explain this more than once.
Your DDOS attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack) which caused Colocation America, Multacom and Cogent Communications to go down for more than an hour, cost the three companies over $250K in revenue due to their lines being SHUT OFF! You are liable for this. This is in direct violation of your AUP http://colocationamerica.com/aup.htm as clearly stated in your contract. I am being provided receipts from every customer who has to be refunded. You are in breach of your 1 year contract where he owes us the remainder of it. You and scamFRAUDalert.com must immediately stand down in your postings. They must be taken down now.

You need to speak to a criminal attorney immediately to gauge your exposure, I am not your attorney and cannot so advise you. If you and your attorney wish to work out any type of accommodation with me, it can only happen with you immediately ceasing and desisting. You need to provide notice of that within the hour.

THE INDUSTRY PRACTICES is refer to as Standard Level Agreement (SLA) Mr. ALBERT ARASH AHDOOT or Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America aka Colocation America, Inc. aka Colocation America Corporation refer to SLA as Legal Agreement A clue for what you are up against.

Richard Morse
Entertainment Attorney
13935 Tahiti Way Suite 337
Marina Del Rey, CA

  1. Colocation America – Demand Letter
  2. Colocation America – Better Business Complaints Las Vegas
  3. Colocation America Threat Letter – Richard Morse
  4. Legal Document Relating to Colocation America
  5. Letter From Attorney Paul S. Sigelman – Sigelmanlaw.com
  6. Continued Harassment – DMCA Complaint
  7. Attorney Paul Sigelman Letter – PAUL S. SIGELMAN LAW FIRM
  8. Paul Sigelmam Law Firm – Colocation America – 1st Complaint
  9. Paul Sigeglman Law Firm – Colocation Ammerica – 2nd Complaint
  10. Defendant Answer~ 2nd Complaint
  11. Ruling ~ 2nd Complaint
  12. Paul Sigelman Law Firm – Colocaiton America – APPEAL BRIEFING
  13. scamFRAUDalert – Answer APPEAL BRIEF 
  14. Appellant Reply Brief ~  utterly nonsense

ROKSO-200-worst-spammers

(213) 928-6929