SUBMIT A COMPLAINT

Complaints.com - Anthony R Meurer Enterprise A/k/a All Surface / AnCatches the perpetrators defaming his good name

1 FL, US

Anthony R Meurer catches the perpetrators defaming his good name, Update
Update Oct 2012 The BBB has restored our rating back to A+ rated company and removed the organic page title description post below.
We have requested that Google remove the alias exhortive tactical post remaining as a organic search being served as results for the same title page key words

f37fc8ce, 2010-01-20, 05:39PM CST

The U.S attorney, s office southern district has accepted hand delivered and certified return receipt of 30 page evidentiary file regarding a smear campaign using complaint boards such as complaints.com registered in the Cayman Islands, found to be using alias names to obstruct jurisdiction for Criminal as well as civil breach liabless salacious content for defaming our company and my name.
We are aggressively seeking criminal charges for rico act, civil punitive damages, as well as immediate conjunctive relief.

BBB restored our ratng back to A+ rated company and removed their post below
Anthony R Meurer Enterprise a/k/a All Surface - Roof Repairs - 4801 ...complaintsbbb.com/2011/02/07/roof-repairs-10288.html2011-02-07. Relations Manager Anthony R Meurer Enterprise a/k/a All Surface 4801 University Dr, Davie, Fl
33328, US. Roof Repairs. To Whom it may concern, ...

Anthony R Meurer Enterprises a/k/a All Surface Restoration
37fc8ce, 2010-08-27, 04:43PM CDT

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: ComplaintsBoard.com <editor.[protected]@gmail.com>

to: principalmedia <[protected]@bellsouth.net>

Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 1:58:50 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Slander/ Performa Estopel

we have examined the above mentioned complaints. Due to several

reasons the posts have been removed.

--

Sincerely,

www.ComplaintsBoard.com

Please review our counter complaint
To whom it may concern:

I regret to inform your company that a person or persons calling themselves, as the assumed or a real entity as identified through this website as a Josephine Mary, we have found no record of any person or entity that resembles a Josephine Mary that is now defaming my personal name while including in its malicious attack a company name that we have an interest in as well.

I request that you take a review of the rule pursuant to your stated policy reference, (under member conduct) that it is unlawful to create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others as to the identity of the sender or the origin of a message, furthermore the nature of this form of disclosure is in breach of civil rule of law in accordance with distributing false and inflammatory statements without substantive proof and or reason for such disclosure. I request the IP records AND any records now generated from the alias Josephine Mary so that our in house attorney Mr. Michael Cohen will have the immediate future ability to pursue, without having to exercise that right of subpoena of all your records in web logs containing any and all information including the above named and described styled entities;

Note: copies will be forwarded to your attention certified return receipt and to Elizabeth Arden P.O. Box 61359 Sunnyvale, California 94088

& E. Scott Beattie CEO in the hope that it arrives at legal for shareholders & board of directors to pursue additional legal action if required.

NOTE: Please respond

Thank you

Registrant:

Direct Privacy ID B9E25

PO Box 12068

George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-1010

KY

[protected] "Gotcha Son of a ###"

Complaints.com CEO Matthew Smith, aka Sagacity Corperation has been duly notified to remove unwarranted liabless salacious statements about Anthony R Meurer, All Surface Restorations & Preservations Inc., of south Florida in this case for fraudulent acts by the co-conspirator Complaints.com perpetrated initially by the BBB Southeast and the Cayman Islands through a series of copy and paste SEO smear tactics. TOS, Terms of Service breached materially in three specific areas, 1. defame, abuse and harass 2. publish distribute infringing defaming unlawful material 3.use or download a copy to a person who is

not a service member.Thirty (30) pages of static real time screen shots of online evidentiary file hand delivered to the U.S.Attorneys office Florida southern district Ft Lauderdale next door to our office at 110 east Broward Blvd seeking criminal and civil criminal charges for interstate wire fraud and criminal charges for a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Domain Name: COMPLAINTS.COM

Administrative Contact:

Direct Privacy ID B9E25, Direct Privacy LTD complaints.[protected]@directnicprivacy.com

PO Box 12068

George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-1010

KY

[protected]

Technical Contact:

Direct Privacy ID B9E25, Direct Privacy LTD complaints.[protected]@directnicprivacy.com

PO Box 12068

George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-1010

KY

Complaint boards websites that are in violation of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003).

They are NOT immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites.

Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality.

As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally.

Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.

Slander is generally spoken defamation, while libel is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed.

In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality.

Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003).

However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

In Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., a federal court ruled on the application of the safe harbor of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The defendant in that case operated a matchmaking website known matchmaker.com.

As part of its service, the defendant collected profiles of singles based on an extensive questionnaire. The plaintiff sued Metrosplash because of a false profile of her which an unknown user had posted to the website.

The court ruled that by creating the extensive questionnaire, Metrosplash played an active role in developing the information that had been posted. Furthermore, the court ruled that Metrosplash was an information content provider and thus not eligible for the CDA's safe harbor provided to "interactive computer services." Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., Case No. CV 01-0018 DT (CWx) C.D. Cal. 2002) (subsequently reversed by appeals court).

While operators of blogs and services are generally immune from such liability, the more active the service is with its members, the greater the likelihood of potential liability as a publisher of defamatory materials.

Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living persons reputation.

Posting false and explicit claims regarding a person will generally be held as defamatory for purposes of liability.

However, other issues arise concerning the anonymity of the person posting the information, and if known, the jurisdiction in which they are subject.

Jurisdictional issues may arise in situations where the poster had no reason to expect that the effect of the posting would be felt in a certain jurisdiction. However, in defamation cases jurisdictional disputes are liberally ruled upon in favor of the victim. In Griffis v. Luban, the Minnesota court of appeals ruled that Alabama had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who posted defamatory messages on the Internet.

The defendant repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking the plaintiffs professional credentials.

The plaintiff initially obtained a $25, 000.00 default judgment in Alabama, which she was seeking to enforce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court ruled that the Alabama court had properly exercised jurisdiction because the effects of the messages were felt in Alabama and that the defendant should have expected that she would be sued there.

An important factor in the ruling was that she had actual knowledge of the effect of the defamatory statements on the Defendant. Therefore, the Minnesota court enforced the $25, 000.00 default judgment. Griffis v. Luban, 633 N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001).

However, there are cases where courts have refused to allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on defamatory statements. In a Pennsylvania case, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a New York defendant who had posted defamatory comments about a defendant on an offshore betting website.

The court held that since the comments were not specifically directed at Pennsylvania, the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, C.A. No. 01-2202 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

The problems with bringing defamatory actions based on internet postings largely lie in proving that the defendant actually made the posting. If that connection can be made, a much stronger case can be presented and jurisdictional issues can be tackled.

And of course, you do understand that one person can post multiple complaints cloaking themselves as different individuals and then use this as a reference to show extreme prejudice.

It is unforntunate that people will mistake opinons for the truth.

Here are some complaints from business owners and corporations

Ar

More Complaints.com - Anthony R Meurer Enterprise A/k/a All Surface Complaints & Reviews

Post your comment